Every single Muslim is responsible. Part 1

"Nothing will ever be able to take back this moment of triumph. This moment of humiliation on behalf of the Zionist entity. Nothing. Ever!"

Every single Muslim is responsible. Part 1
Every German took responsibility. Muslims are nowhere near this point.

Special Series on Apostasy: There's no better time than Ramadan

Part 2, Part 3

In the aftermath of the madness that had just befallen his nation, Thomas Mann, in a 30 December 1945 radio broadcast, reflected on the revenge various victim nations were exacting upon the Germans:

Those whose world lost all colour a long time ago, when they became aware what mountains of hatred towered over Germany; those who long ago during sleepless nights pictured how terrible would be the revenge on Germany for the inhuman deeds of the Nazis, cannot help but view with wretchedness all that is being done to Germans by the Russians, Poles or Czechs as nothing other than a mechanical and inevitable reaction to the crimes that the [German] people as a whole have committed, in which, unfortunately, individual justice, or the guilt or innocence of the individual, can play no part. (My emphasis, my translation)

Later commentators, decades removed from the events, accused Mann of “Falling back on hatred, revenge and collective guilt without making the necessary differentiations,” presumably between the individuals involved. I would say that Thomas Mann had grappled with the same concern as his later critics, and much more agonisingly because it was personal, given that his proximity to the events was immediate in every respect.

Of course, this brings the Simchat Torah massacre and the urgency with which Western critics of Israel instantly set about “the necessary differentiations” between the spearhead perpetrators of the massacre, Hamas, and the purported “innocent Palestinians” whose “innocence” is all but impossible to differentiate. Many, especially in Israel, take a position similar to that of Mann: “the guilt or innocence of the individual, can play no part.” I share Mann’s position, which I think is stronger than Israeli critics of the “innocent Palestinians” thesis appreciate, or than Mann’s critics can allow themselves to acknowledge.

It is not just that there are no innocent Palestinians, there are no innocent Muslims. Every Muslim, regardless of whether, on the one hand, they joined in the slaughter, rushed in for their share of the spoils, abused the people taken captive, rejoiced in the streets around the world and all over social media, or on the other, they were conflicted about what they saw their coreligionists do, none of this would have happened were it not for the existence of the religion they all adhere to. In response to the 7 October massacre in Israel, one famous British Muslim woman swooned:

Nothing will ever be able to take back this moment of triumph. This moment of humiliation on behalf of the Zionist entity. Nothing. Ever!

There is no human sacrifice in Mexico because the religion of the Aztecs no longer exists. The Mexicans, the people, no longer practise that catastrophic religion. 44,908 people were murdered since 9/11 for the simple reason that Islam exists, Muslims, the people, still practise that catastrophic religion. It is estimated that something of the order of 240 million people have been murdered by Muslims since the inception of Islam 1400 years ago, all of it prior to the invention of weapons of mass destruction. Unlike Muslims, who pine for the restoration of their barbaric caliphate, no Mexican pines for the restoration of the blood-soaked Aztec Empire. My point here is that if there are a billion Muslims in the world today, then for as long as they remain Muslim, every single one of them bears one-billionth responsibility for every killing, every rape, every torture, every mutilation motivated by the religion they keep alive by continuing to belong to it.

Thomas Mann does not go far enough to be directly applicable to Muslims, because the lesson of the Nazis does not go far enough to be applicable to Muslims, who make it possible to find redeeming features even in Nazis. For example, a Nazi who did not participate in the killings would never have said to non-Nazis, “those killers are not real Nazis. What they do is not Nazism. Nazism is peaceful.” People who do this kind of thing are found in Islam. They are the worst of Muslims, for they can no longer bear Islam, yet feel compelled to defend it, even if they have to lie to themselves, let alone to others. Thomas Mann again:

There are not two Germanies: a good one and a bad one, but only one whose best turned into evil through devilish cunning. Wicked Germany is merely good Germany gone astray, good Germany in misfortune, in guilt and ruin. For that reason it is quite impossible for one born there simply to renounce the wicked guilt of Germany and to declare, “I am the good, the noble, the just Germany in the white robe. I leave it to you to exterminate the wicked one.

Islam itself proves the absurdity of the slogan, “Radical Islam is the problem, moderate Islam the solution.” In Islamic terms, here is nothing “radical” about attacking a peaceful neighbouring country, killing all males in sight, raping all the women and taking them into slavery along with their children, seizing all cattle and treasure and laying waste to what remains. The reason for the 150-year interruption in this practise is not the civilisation of Muslims, but the Western colonial takeover of Shari’a-ruled lands together with the inherent untenability of a caliphate.

The religious obligation is on the community as a whole to carry out attacks on foreign lands and commit jihad murders, not each member of it. As long as a few do it, all have performed their religious duty. So “radical Islam” plans the massacres, “moderate Islam” gathers intelligence, feeds the prospective mass-murderers, drives them to their victims, and keeps the whole thing under wraps from nosey infidels. The bomb goes off, fifty people are killed, the jihad murderer is blown to bits and everyone dances in the streets. This is far more pernicious than “a Germany ...whose best turned into evil through devilish cunning.” In Islam, the best preserve evil through devilish cunning, including slaughtering anyone foolish enough to flirt with “moderate Islam”. So much for “radical Islam is the problem, moderate Islam the solution.”

It does not matter how the “good Muslim” is distinguished from the “bad Muslim”: whether Muslim/Islam from “fundamentalist Muslim/fundamentalist Islam”, or from “Islamist/Islamism”, or “radical Muslim/radical Islam”, “extremist Muslim/extremist Islam”, “jihadi/jihadism”—these obscurantist contrivances run aground on their own meaninglessness pretty quickly, each having to make way for a freshly-charged replacement. And here credit has to be given to the Muslims who try to play it both ways, the “good Muslims”. They know there is no such thing as “Islamist/Islamism”, etc., but they do not invent such terms, it merely suits them to acquiesce in them.

Non-Muslims invent these terms to avoid facing up to the possibility that they might have to think unpalatable thoughts about their “good Muslim” friends, and, God forbid, actually having to deal with the problem of Islam. Even many Western ex-Muslims adopt these terms. Only the Muslims true to Islam reject such contamination of their faith with kafir ideas and do so with contempt. They restore the intrinsic unity of Muslims and Islam on the basis of Islam, rather than on the basis of moralist sentimentality and cowardice. These are the Muslims who kill deviant Muslims by the thousands, and it is not a matter of interpretation, but of how Islam works.

The charge of collective punishment implies that one is dealing here with the isolated criminal actions of autonomous individuals, each case to be tried in a court of law with legal representation, etc., essentially applying the laws of peace. But this is a fallacy, because Muslims are permanently at war, even if they happen not to be fighting at that moment, or for the last two centuries. It was bizarre and incongruous when Prime Minister Netanyahu gravely declared on 7 October that Israel is at war. What have Muslims been doing since they first encountered Jews, Arabs since the retreat of the Ottomans, and Palestinians since their inception? It has been nothing but war against Jews. When Muslims start fighting with infidels, then all Muslims start fighting with all infidels. To talk of collective punishment in such a context could not be more inappropriate.

No matter how horrible its prescriptions, a religion (or a set of ideas, if you prefer) is harmless without people to act on those prescriptions, to animate them, so to speak. Anyone can dream up Islam, even more horrible than it is now, but it remains just so many horrible ideas until someone decides to implement them. Muslims as people are responsible for there being Islam in the world. For that reason, every single Muslim is responsible. An individual Muslim might not have had any role in this or that particular massacre, and might even denounce such deeds, but simply by being Muslim, with or without qualifiers, he or she gives Islam its existence and the mass-murder, mass-rapes and mass-abductions continue. This is why apostasy from Islam is not a choice, but a moral obligation on everyone unfortunate enough to have been born to Muslim parents.

If your mind has been messed with from the youngest age, then you are not only a perpetrator, but also a victim. Yet, this is the 21st century. All means exist to repair the damage of childhood indoctrination. Muslims can recover from Islam. It is within the power of every Muslim on earth to reduce the reality of Islam by one-billionth. That is all that is needed, and history changes completely.

The Aztec pyramids may today be enjoyed by all for the engineering and aesthetic accomplishments that they are, just as the Ka’aba may one day be enjoyed for the Arabian pagan accomplishment it once was. Let future students of history write doctoral dissertations comparing Muslims to Aztecs, and future historians theorise over how a death cult could have enthralled so many for so long. In the meantime, Muslim crowds in Indonesia will jostle to record for later enjoyment the public caning of a young women for being too near to an unrelated male.

Part 2/...

Picture credits:

Unknown author - Imperial War Museum http://vads.ahds.ac.uk/x-large.php?uid=28304, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=24259659


On 18 March 2024 at 14:24, Ben Dor A. wrote:

Dear Anjuli Pandavar

Great piece on Islam, the religion of "peace".

Since you are already into this topic and preparing new parts to the essay, below are a few articles that I compiled on Islamophobia, another tool that Muslims use in their war of words against the infidels:







What makes an American teenager convert to Islam and murder a child?



Islam is here to stay


"What’s the federal government doing in response to a massive surge in antisemitism on American streets and college campuses since the Oct. 7 atrocities on Israel by Hamas terrorists?
It’s getting serious about stopping Islamophobia.

The announcement that President Joe Biden has assigned Vice President Kamala Harris to work on developing “the first-ever U.S. national strategy to counter Islamophobia” can be dismissed as nothing more than a political gesture. It’s clearly intended to counter the bitter criticism he has received from his party’s left-wing intersectional base that is deeply upset about the president’s support for Israel."


Best Regards

On 25 March 2024 at 19:36, Anand Rajadhyaksha wrote:

Would Muslims tolerate the existence of Jews at all, even if they were nowhere in Palestine or any Arab land, because they believe that their Day of Akhira would not arrive till all Jews were eliminted and Islamic rule established all over the world (Not ratified by the Qu'ran, but they believe what they find profitble to them)?

On 1 April 2024 at 08:25, Anjuli Pandavar wrote:

The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

The genocide hadith, Sahih Muslim 6985, to which you refer is not geographically restricted, it pertains to "the end of the world." It very specifically means every single individual Jew: "hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me". Therefor, every single Jew wherever he or she might be on earth. As for not being ratified by the Qur'an, the Qur'an commands the Muslim to obey "Allah and his messenger", always "Allah and his messenger". Therefore the Qur'an equates the hadith to itself. I hope you can see that Allah is simply the deification of Muhammad.