This, today, from our guest contributor:

The "Why" Factor and the Reason Why We, nor Most Muslims Will Never Know "Why."

Every school child and journalist learns that a news story should tell the requisite "who, what, and where," and when possible, the "how." "Why" is sometimes included or added later, for motive often can not be established unless investigators care to make an effort to understand. Why events happen in the present are based on why they happened in the past. In many cases historians have done a poor job in explaining the why of events because they could find out. In many cases, personal bias prevented them
from caring to know the "why" of events. Journalists and teachers that now inform the public and school children fail their clients in the same manner.

Troubling comparisons between the spread of Islam and Christianity are circulating in the press. In an attempt to equate the spread of Islam and Sharia through violence and intimidation, journalists and teachers are comparing, rather than contrasting, the history of the spread of two. Even in lands with a Christian history, journalists and teachers perpetuate the idea that Christianity was spread in the name of Christ "according to His message." Nothing could be farther from the truth. They tell the "who, what, and how," but fail to mention the "why."

A bad job has been done by our collective educational and religious systems. Secular and religious curriculae have done us a great disservice by de-emphasizing history and ignoring the "why" factor.

Journalists are telling the "who,what, and how" based on observation. They are using faulty history and faulty social science to explain "why" these events are happening, using biased and incorrect information provided in their own educational experiences.

Islam was founded on and with violence by a brigand that wholeheartedly approved of and mandated the use of violence as the OBLIGATION of Muslims to spread Islam using any means possible. Islam is based on his life, his words, and his followers are inspired by his violent and perverse life, making them the justification for war and the taking of people, goods and lands as booty in the name of and for the sake of Allah.

Christianity is based on the life and words of Jesus Christ who avoided violence and exhorted His followers to do the same. Early Christians spread the word, not through violence nor deception, nor intimidation. At the point that war-like peoples adopted Christianity and did use the spread of the faith as a justification for war. This behavior, is not consistent with the message and example of Christ in the name of and for the sake of God.

Concept: Those that spread Christianity using violence and the sword can not use Christ and His message as justification because the content of message and the example of the messenger, Jesus of Nazareth do not support his message, behavior, and example.

Those that have and continue to spread the message of Mohammed using violence and the sword are justified in doing so because the content of message and the example of the messenger, Mohammed, do support his message, behavior, and example.

Fitzgerald at JihadWatch, "suggests that the French, and Europe in general, study a bit of history, before they decide how to deal with a panoply of issues, including the Muslim presence in Western Europe and Turkey's entry into the EU.

There is no "war of civilizations" today -- just as there was not in 770 A.D., or 840 A.D., or 1453 A.D. For that phrase hides the real truth: the world is not a group of distinct interests -- the Christian and post-Christian West, divided into Catholic and Protestant, the Orthodox, Sinic, and Hindu civilizations (all noted by Huntington). No, it is simply the ancient war of Islam against all non-Muslims. If that war has here and there died down, even for centuries, it is only because the forces of Islam lacked an enemy they could defeat. It was not for want of trying -- for a thousand years Muslim raiders went up and down the coasts of Europe, and in Africa, for a thousand years, seized black African pagans for enslavement. Its conquest of India was a Muslim Jihad...

It was not that Jihad somehow went away. It is just that we, the non-Muslims, failed to recognize what was going on. We failed, and many fail still, to see the ideological roots of Muslim behavior -- a behavior that is remarkably similar in time and space in its treatment of non-Muslims. It would be surprising were it otherwise, for the texts, Qur'an and hadith and sira, have remained the same, in time and space. What would surprise would be if Infidels were treated differently, say, in conquered India from the
way they were treated in conquered Persia, or Mesopotamia. Everywhere, the choices: immediate death, immediate conversion, or dhimmitude were the only possibilities. And if today the Muslim populations in Western Europe and North America pay lip service to pluralism, it is only in order to take advantage of that pluralism until such time as they feel strong enough to pull off the mask, and deal with Infidels as their belief-system tells them to believe with Infidels. Those who, like Gilles Kepel, appear to believe
that some other development, some "new Euro-Islam," will emerge, should be asked to explain just how. Why was there never an emergence of a "new Islam" over 1400 years, in all of the varied lands that Islam conquered -- even in Indonesia? Initially there, because the Islamic conquest was not military but was achieved through Muslim missionaries and traders (also missionaries,
as all Muslims must be), it seemed that in the East Indies, something softer, more syncretistic, might emerge. But we see quite the reverse happening: the more established Islam has become, the fiercer it is with non-Muslims. It was only the Dutch rulers who, for a time, and with the advice of such canny officials as the Orientalist Snouck Hurgronje, who managed to tame or constrain Islam -- a taming, a constraining, that left with the Dutch, and the effects of their rule have by now worn off. Look at all the Christians killed in East Timor, in the Moluccas, in Ambon.

History has taught us many lessons. Our educational systems have failed us. Our religious leaders have failed us. Our journalists and politicians have failed us. They have twisted or omitted facts and concepts in an attempt to mold our thinking.

History has also taught shown us that an ignorant and purposely biased population is easier to manipulate and to manage than one that is informed and taught think and reason. In the West, political and Church leaders, often one in the same, used this
policy to control millions. Western secular leaders haven't lost the use of this population-control tool that, frankly, is in use in all corners of the world.

With an enormous population of the ignorant and illiterate to work with, the leaders of the Muslim world are true masters of the "mind mold." Illiterate, even in their own languages, the majority of Muslims must take information at face value and explanation provided by imam and newscaster. Unable to read and write, they can never investigate to determine the veracity of what they are told. Instructed that such investigation is evil and un-Islamic, inviting the fires of hell for thinking outside the box. Non-Muslims and many Muslims living in the West have no such excuse. Most of us can read and write...and think for ourselves. They can never know why.

Our literacy is not serving us. Unfortunately we are being fed twisted and biased information by our schools, our leaders and journalists, some which is also patently false. This is an outrage. Are we being groomed to become literate, but ignorant masses, no different than the illiterate and ignorant of the earth?

©Eleanor