Never before in the history of Islam has it faced a danger such as this. For the first time, Muslims en masse are reclaiming their place in humanity and rejoining history. Islam has always relied on Muslims being unequivocally Muslim in clear contradistinction to the kafir, the unbeliever, treating the values and mores of the infidel with utter disgust and contempt. But history has played a trick on Islam and increasing numbers of Muslims find the values and mores of the infidels growing within their own hearts, gradually forcing out the Qur’an so firmly lodged there during their early childhood. This drama plays out as Islam struggling against Muslims and Muslims struggling against themselves. This short series explores aspects of that complex struggle.
Part 1: The Future
Insha-Allah, masha-Allah, alhamdulillah — if Allah wills it, Allah willed it, praise be to Allah (or more loosely, thanks be to Allah) — invocations that punctuate so many Muslim quotidian utterances, each an acknowledgement of the supremacy of the will of Allah over all things: nothing happens or fails to happen, save by the will of Allah. Failure to acknowledge this is to display arrogance, if not commit outright blasphemy. Abu Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazali, that great scourge of philosophers and rational thought, father of the Muslim mindset, will have us understand that the sun rises in the East each day because each day Allah wills it to rise in the East. The sun has never risen in the West because Allah has not yet willed it to rise in the West. That does not mean that Allah will not make the sun rise in the West tomorrow. Al-Ghazali, in effect, abolished cause and effect, without which no scientific investigation is possible.
Scientific investigation is not only dabbling in the unknown, it is also dabbling in the future. To know things differently to the way we knew them before is to change our condition from the status quo ante to the status quo post. We have, by sneaky subterfuge, trespassed on the prerogative of Allah. Muslims have good reason to be suspicious of science: a blasphemous endeavour par excellence. This does not mean that there are no Muslim scientists, but it does go some way to explaining the striking dearth of them.
More debilitating for Muslim ventures into science is Allah’s perfect and immutable holy book, the Qur’an, in some senses actually equated with Allah. To suggest fault with the Qur’an is inconceivable for a Muslim. Yet there are at the very least sixty scientific mistakes in the Qur’an. This is possibly a far greater deterrent to Muslims approaching science, since doing so puts the Muslim on a direct collision course with the Qur’an and the inevitable choice at the end of it: Allah or reality. Moreover, the very act of investigation that is the very definition of science already implies a rejection of the Qur’an, Allah’s perfect book replete with all the answers to every possible question. The abolition of cause and effect is reinforced in Shari’a, although, as we shall see later, also exploited by it:
“Allah Most High says, ‘One of My servants reaches daybreak a believer, another an unbeliever. He who says, “We have received rain by Allah’s grace,” is a believer in Me and a disbeliever in the planets. But he who says, “We have received rain by the effects of such and such a mansion of the moon,” is an unbeliever in Me and a believer in planets’ (A: if he thinks they have a causal influence independent of the will of Allah (dis: 08.7 (17)),” (Reliance of the Traveler, Book P:41.2.2)
Should the Muslim plough right ahead nonetheless, then whatever he might accomplish, he dares not claim credit for lest he blasphemes. It is not just that so few Muslims have won Nobel Prizes, it is also that to win such a prize puts the Muslim winner in a very awkward position, not only vis-à-vis the ulema and the ummah, but also vis-à-vis themselves. Success after years of hard solitary work in a laboratory will still extract an alhamdulillah (even if it’s only felt, rather than thought or uttered) from the Muslim scientist, crediting everything to Allah, despite what might be his real disdain for the Qur’an and the mentality of his fellow Muslims.
The only unequivocally halal science, unsurprisingly, is science pursued “in the way of Allah,” which is why Muslims have no problem learning nuclear physics. Jihad is so much more holy if you can throw in a nuclear bomb or two. The same single-minded motivation that lies behind a science intern stealing discarded centrifuges from a Western installation lies behind a group of eager trainees learning to fly passenger jets, learning how water purification works, and learning to hack the Internet. It is all aimed at the same objective of going directly from the present to the Afterlife, without any need to trespass on the future, the domain of Allah.
The future can be nothing more than the exclusive prerogative of Allah, and to ensure that this prerogative is not encroached upon, predictions tend to detach from feasibility, probability, possibility and even reality, as these place conditions on the will of Allah and on one’s acknowledgement of that will. To declare with certainty that a bridge will stay up just because an engineer has designed it to stay up, is to presume the engineer more powerful than Allah, in whose power it is to will the bridge to collapse regardless of everything.
Muslim threats or predictions are often characterised by bombast or absurd exaggeration, especially when needing to assuage an indignity, an insecurity, a fear, or a humiliation. Within the Muslim fatalistic thought system, there is a logic to such unrealistic threats and predictions. For Allah, everything is possible, and what to a non-Muslim appears like a Muslim’s taking leave of reality is to the Muslim a sincere invocation of the very real power of Allah to will absolutely anything at any time. The more absurd the prediction, the more flattering of Allah the predictor.
The arbitrariness of what lies between the present and the Afterlife is strongest amongst Arab Muslims and weakest amongst Muslims geographically and culturally furthest from them, with varying degrees of acknowledging the future as something not subject to physical laws and human agency, and at it’s furthest, insha-Allah being little more than an utterance of habit, akin to “bless you!” after someone sneezes. The closer to the Muslim heartlands, the more imbued with real petition insha-Allah becomes, so much so that one risks giving offence by planning or predicting without acknowledging that Allah might have other ideas. But of course, Muslims have human passions and urges like everyone else (much as they might deny it) and insha-Allah is also the fail-safe get-out clause from any undertaking, no matter how solemnly made. In fact, the solemnity itself is not indicated in the earnestness with which the undertaking is acquiesced in, but with which “insha-Allah” is uttered and repeated, hand-on-heart, pained expression, bobbing head and all the rest of it. If the future is whimsical, arbitrary and unpredictable, Muslims will ensure that it stays that way, regardless of whether they’re dealing with Muslims or infidels.
An American contractor, after having operated in Iraq for some time, observed:
“I never had cause to think about what a powerful concept “Agreement” is until I came to Iraq. Whether some friends agree to meet at a restaurant for lunch, or a supplier agrees to provide ten truckloads of materials to a job-site on a specific day, or lease papers are signed on a house, an Agreement gives all parties the incredible power to predict the future,” (emph. orig.)
And that is where the problem lies. An agreement directly contradicts the will of Allah. It is an arrogance and a presumption that taunts the Almighty. It not only implies collusion against Allah, it also arrogantly and blasphemously assumes that the will of Allah can be the subject of agreement between mortals. Avoiding such arrogance and such presumption is paramount to the Muslim, who will scupper an “agreement” so as not to fall foul of such trespass. Lying, understating or exaggerating, whether to avoid losing face, to avoid being cheated, or, indeed, to cheat, serves only to compound the problem of trespassing on Allah’s prerogative. But the matter is only this clear-cut and straightforward between Muslim and Muslim.
Lying, understating and exaggerating assume a whole new scale and significance in “collaboration” between Muslim and non-Muslim. There can be no win-win, as the non-Muslim might expect on a firm handshake, because it would mean an outcome that delivers equal benefit to Muslim and infidel. This is not only offensive to the Muslim, but militates against a central tenet of Shari’a that a Muslim must always benefit at the expense of a non-Muslim. So even as you’re signing that fantastic deal with all pomp and ceremony, the Muslim will already be working on how he wins and you, the infidel, lose, and here “insha-Allah” plays the added role of duping the naive infidel into believing he’s dealing with someone of godly ethics (well, he might be, but it’s a god that prides itself on its ability to deceive, besides, “The life of this world is only the enjoyment of deception,” (Qur’an 3:185)). The outcome of a “deal” with a Muslim is usually catastrophic and costly for the non-Muslim, whether an individual or a country. When dealing with infidels, not encroaching on Allah’s room for manoeuvre acquires a special attribute unique to the interaction between Muslims and infidels, in which Jihad never ceases.
The Muslim’s ambivalent relationship with the future makes even him vulnerable to Shari’a manipulation:
“There is no disagreement among scholars that it is permissible for a single Muslim to attack battle lines of unbelievers headlong and fight them even if he knows he will be killed. But if one knows it will not hurt them at all, such as if a blind man were to hurl himself against them, then it is unlawful. [In other words, it is haram for a Muslim to act towards non-Muslims in a ways that do not harm the non-Muslims, AP] Likewise, if someone who is alone sees a corrupt person with a bottle of wine beside him and a sword in his hand, and he knows that the person will chop his neck if he censures him for drinking, it is not permissible for him to do so, as it would not entail any religious advantage worth giving one’s life for. Such censure is only praiseworthy when one is able to eliminate the wrong and one’s action will produce some benefit [for Islam, AP],” (Reliance of the Traveller, Book Q:2.4.4).
Not every Muslim is in a rush to take up Allah on his fantastic offer of getting directly from the present to the Afterlife, bypassing the future. The Qur’an has many passages of bribing, threatening, and cajoling Muslims to act in the cause of Allah, i.e., commit jihad. Muslims learn of a bargain that Allah has already struck with them, a ‘deal of the aeon,’ one might say.
“Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah?” (Qur’an, 9:111).
So thoroughly is the future abolished that to the jihad fighter who fails to get slain in the act of slaying, Allah promises to bring the Afterlife into the present.
“Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, ‘The person who participates in (jihad) in Allah’s cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr),’” (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2:35).
The fine print of this “reward, or booty”, in short, is: rob all you can, rape all you can. Such are the divine rewards for upholding Islam’s highest virtue: getting killed while killing for Allah. Plunder is a pre-feudal form of economy that parasitised on agriculture and trading. This is the divine ideal projected straight from the past into the Afterlife and, should the jihadi survive, from the Afterlife back into the present. The Paradise of Qur’an 9:111 is amply detailed in Qur’an 78:31-34 and elsewhere. “Verily for the Righteous there will be a fulfilment of (the heart´s) desires; Gardens enclosed and vineyards, and voluptuous women of equal age; and a full cup (of wine).” The Qur’an expends no fewer than fifteen verses, scattered throughout, to assure the jihadi that these “voluptuous women” meet his exacting barbarian standards, as does the rest of the package:
“Beautified for men is the love of things they covet; women, children, much of gold and silver (wealth), branded beautiful horses, cattle and well-tilled land. This is the pleasure of the present world’s life; but Allah has the excellent return (Paradise with flowing rivers, etc.) with Him” (3:14).
To the unfortunate slayer who doesn’t quite manage to get slain, Allah offers the consolation prize of all the wealth he can plunder plus as many sex slaves as he can seize. A barbarian’s kind of god offers a barbarian’s kind of Paradise. Nothing that might have arisen between the time of Muhammad’s Paradise on earth and Muhammad’s Paradise in the Afterlife is of any consequence. In other words, between Muhammad’s life and the Afterlife, there is no life. These are the Muslim’s only relevant points of reference, his only standards of value. While the Afterlife is patiently awaited, the present can at best but attain to the past, in which lived the perfect human being with his generation of the best of Muslims.
Muslims have the Qur’an, infidels have the future, and the rest, as they say, is history. At time of writing, we are celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the Moon Landing. When President John F. Kennedy made the audacious undertaking of “landing a man on the Moon by the end of this decade and returning him safely to the Earth” on 25 May 1961, without once assuming success to depend on the will of some god, it was one of the most brazen and spectacular attempts to control the future, and it paid off. It paid off as did agriculture pay off, our ancestors’ precedent for all the Kennedys to come. Agriculture is no less audacious a confidence that the future can be controlled, than was the Apollo Program, and arguably more so.
The Qur’an mentions the Afterlife no fewer than 116 times. In consequence, according to one summary:
“The faith of a Muslim is tested by belief in the hereafter. One cannot be genuinely Muslim until one believes in the unseen and still to be experienced next life. …It is the true life that every soul should try to reach safely. …This earthly life is too short and worthless, and it is no more than a passage to real life in the hereafter,” (Rafik Berjak in The Qur’an: An Encyclopedia, edited by Oliver Leaman).
To a greater of lesser degree, Muslims have an ambiguous relationship with the future and difficulty with concepts involving the future, such as hypothesising. At one end are those who would do nothing to change their condition on the grounds that the future is entirely in the hands of Allah, while at the other end, Muslims plan their careers, invest money, raise children, go on trips and even speculate, all in full expectation of influencing the future. A Muslim, Farouk El-Baz, even worked on the Apollo Program (and offered, presumably in jest, to send a copy of the Qur’an along to the Moon). Yet “insha-Allah” is always there, even if only inwardly as a faint echo of a distant impulse. Increasingly, especially outside of Islamic communities and societies, Muslims have little choice but to engage with the future, but it is an engagement often lacking any clear distinction between wish and reality. The Islamic Republic of Iran, for example, boasts a sixty-year old, cobbled-together scrapyard airforce of forty jets, yet is unshakably convinced of certain victory against the US and Israeli air forces combined. A Muslim’s relationship with the future is just one of several battles he still has to fight with himself.
CRUSADER says
Must be difficult to be a Muslim.
Having to justify belief in a false faith.
Beauty contestant of Iraqi descent calling out Ilhan Omar’s credentials as a Muslim:
https://saraacarter.com/former-miss-iraq-ilhan-omar-does-not-represent-me-as-a-muslim/
Folks just take Muslims on face value, if they can see their faces, that is!
Most people have a vague notion of what Islam is,
without verifying their viewpoint!
What’s a real Muslim anyway?
Isn’t ISIS closer to practicing the fuller extent of Islam?
Aren’t most Muslims only and merely Moslem by name, since the Queer’an is so darned confusing and contradictory and so full of nonesense which can’t get applied well to the contemporary world unless a follower is a bloodthirsty gangster…or automaton…. Islam is too difficult to believe in, but most Muslims are just following cultural norms by rote !
It really could be on the demise if it weren’t for the Islamists upholding it and forcing dictates through infiltrations and influences.
Jay Smith lifts the veil over falsehoods of Islam:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fMJRsd8SrhU
TruthWFree says
“Isn’t ISIS closer to practicing the fuller extent of Islam?”…..Yes, doing exactly what Muhammad did in his day. Read Robert Spencer’s “The Truth About Muhammad”.
Daniel Triplett says
Right. ISIS are perfect Muslims. They’re doing precisely what their Koran and Sunnah tells them to do.
CRUSADER says
Considering that the Queer’an was written as a manual for bad behavior and booty raids, it would follow that ISIS follows Islam to the letter, and most other Muslims are only skimming the pages, cherry picking as they go along their blind way seeking virtue…. ever coming to terms that Islam is really a River of Blood!
Daniel Triplett says
Agreed.
But “cherry picking” and reform is forbidden — blasphemy and hypocrisy, punishable by death. Allah’s word is sacrosanct and Eternally immutable. Emulation of Muhammad, “the perfect man,” is mandatory.
It’s an “All in” deal: You either believe it all, or you believe none of it. Nothing less than all in is allowed.
David says
Are muslim daily prayers recited in Arabic? Do muslims know the manning?
eduardo odraude says
Yes they are recited in Arabic. Only about one-fifth of Muslims actually understand Arabic. And even they do not entirely understand what they are praying from the Qur’an, because the Qur’an is in an archaic Arabic rather different from that spoken today.
Thus it is rather difficult to say what the average Muslim really knows about Islam. Some of the greatest Islam critics (like David Wood) say many Muslims, when he quotes nasty hadiths or Qur’an verses in English, do not believe him until he shows them the actual citation so they can read it for themselves. He has managed to lead a significant number of Muslims to apostasy.
Emilie Green says
An aggressive Islam in the West is a horse of a different color. Muslims can’t quickly do the swarming & suffocating the host that they’re used to doing; there are growing numbers who know their tactics and their core texts exposing them and their history. Were it not for the MSM and really stupid and gutless politicians who refuse/ignore the truth, Islam wouldn’t have any chance at all.
CRUSADER says
Qur’an translations….
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=3&verse=7
Verse (3:7) – English Translation
Word by Word
Quran Dictionary
__
Welcome to the Quranic Arabic Corpus, an annotated linguistic resource for the Holy Quran. This page shows seven parallel translations in English for the seventh verse of chapter 3 (sūrat āl ʿim’rān). Click on the Arabic text to below to see word by word details of the verse’s morphology.
Chapter (3) sūrat āl ʿim’rān (The Family of Imrān)
Sahih International:
It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise – they are the foundation of the Book – and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah. But those firm in knowledge say, “We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord.” And no one will be reminded except those of understanding.
Pickthall:
He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations – they are the substance of the Book – and others (which are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed.
Yusuf Ali:
He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: “We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:” and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.
Shakir:
He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are allegorical; then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. but none knows its interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding.
Muhammad Sarwar:
It is God who has revealed the Book to you in which some verses are clear statements (which accept no interpretation) and these are the fundamental ideas of the Book, while other verses may have several possibilities. Those whose hearts are perverse, follow the unclear statements in pursuit of their own mischievous goals by interpreting them in a way that will suit their own purpose. No one knows its true interpretations except God and those who have a firm grounding in knowledge say, “We believe in it. All its verses are from our Lord.” No one can grasp this fact except the people of reason.
Mohsin Khan:
It is He Who has sent down to you (Muhammad SAW) the Book (this Quran). In it are Verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundations of the Book [and those are the Verses of Al-Ahkam (commandments, etc.), Al-Fara’id (obligatory duties) and Al-Hudud (legal laws for the punishment of thieves, adulterers, etc.)]; and others not entirely clear. So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation (from the truth) they follow that which is not entirely clear thereof, seeking Al-Fitnah (polytheism and trials, etc.), and seeking for its hidden meanings, but none knows its hidden meanings save Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: “We believe in it; the whole of it (clear and unclear Verses) are from our Lord.” And none receive admonition except men of understanding. (Tafsir At-Tabari).
Arberry:
It is He who sent down upon thee the Book, wherein are verses clear that are the Essence of the Book, and others ambiguous. As for those in whose hearts is swerving, they follow the ambiguous part, desiring dissension, and desiring its interpretation; and none knows its interpretation, save only God. And those firmly rooted in knowledge say, ‘We believe in it; all is from our Lord’; yet none remembers, but men possessed of minds.
=======================
AH HA !!!
THE INFALLIBLE QUEER’AN !
Angemon says
Most of them being Nobel Peace Prize. Then Literature. Only a quarter or so of the total is in scientific fields.
Angemon says
Also:
Here’s hoping Mr. Pandavar is right…
Anjuli Pandavar says
Angemon,
Of the small number of things that need to happen arrest civilisation’s headlong plunge into Islamic barbarism, by far the most important, in my opinion, is the haemorrhaging of Muslims from Islam. Observers in the West tend to see this only as Muslims leaving Islam only as their exercising their “freedom of religion” in the face of a religion that wants them dead for doing so. Essentially, Islam’s reaction to apostasy is only understood as an extreme reaction to a simple, private, inconsequential act. But where Islam is integral to social control and rulers have long had an “understanding” with the clergy, viz., in the Islamic world (often mischaracterised as “Muslim-majority countries”), apostasy is a revolutionary act. And the scale of apostasy in the Islamic world has become so large as to give apostates to confidence to go public — the bravest among them with their real names and faces publicly known. We do this not from bravado, to taunt the authorities or to give offence, but to say to our brothers and sisters still locked in Islam: “you can do it too,” and “you are not alone”.
As might be expected, it would be very hard to uncover actual figures for apostasy from Islam *in the Muslim world* were it is *not* a simple matter of freedom of religion; where it is *not* simply a battle of ideas; but where it is a rescue mission. There quite a good analysis here: https://newrepublic.com/article/121559/rise-arab-atheists It doesn’t cover Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc., but of all the Muslim world, the Arab world is the most vulnerable to apostasy. It is not for no reason that Arab states are taking actions against apostates that they’ve never taken before, and that the “scholars” now find it necessary to hold international conferences where they lament together and try come to terms with what’s going on. The erosion of the control of Islam over Muslims is very real. This cannot be discerned by the rate of apostasy in Western countries, where, indeed, apostasy is a matter of freedom of religion. It must be looked at in the Muslim world, where apostasy is a revolutionary act.
Thank you for the formal address, which is neither expected nor necessary. But since you offer, “Ms” or “Dr” would be accurate. It is important that Muslim readers of JW know that what they are reading the words of *a woman*, which my name makes clear. A female apostate is an even more cursed creature than a male apostate. They run greater risks and have an even longer emotional distance to travel to get to the point of leaving Islam. Readers thinking that I am male blunts what I’m trying to do, which is maximise my support to those who’ve seen the fraud that Islam has perpetrated on them and are fighting hard against society, family and themselves to break free from Islam. This is hard for any Muslim, but especially hard for women.
Anjuli Pandavar says
Sorry for all the typos!
Angemon says
“But since you offer, “Ms” or “Dr” would be accurate. It is important that Muslim readers of JW know that what they are reading the words of *a woman*, which my name makes clear. ”
Not with my woeful ignorance of non-Western names XD
I agree with your assertion regarding the importance of muslims leaving islam. I believe that, in the long term, a willing, genuine disallowance and abandonment of the religion by muslims is preferable to whatever forceful measures the Western world can produce to keep the more pious muslims in check.
eduardo odraude says
Dr. Pandavar, thank you for your enlightening and courageous perspective in your articles and comments. So great to hear that something like a revolution is bubbling up in the Arab world because of the spread of apostasy. This website sometimes is just a drumbeat of bad and depressing news. I get demoralized. So it was great to read your 4:36 pm comment. I look forward to hearing more from you about the positive, such as articles describing the revolution against Islam happening in the Arab world via apostasy.
JM says
Dr Pandavar, you are an individual of great learning, and with integrity and courage. You are fighting to expose the lies perpetrated by Islam. I wish you every success in helping to rid the world of this scourge created by Mohammed which darkens the mind of its followers and threatens everyone else.
gravenimage says
And of those few Nobel Prizes in the hard sciences, not one went to an orthodox Muslim–they were all minority-sect Muslims like the Ahmadi or virtual apostates.
Anjuli Pandavar says
Quite so. Thank you for pointing that out, Angemon.
David says
Most of the Nobel Prizes won by muslims are ‘Peace’ Prizes? That has to be strange. I suppose because it is the so called ‘religion of peace’.
CRUSADER says
Pluralism and Post-Modernism have a difficult time with Absolute Claims.
Religious Pluralism: Do all Religions Lead to the Same Goal?
Ravi Zacharias Ministries counters thoughts by Karl Popper
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eRfOb3WL4cA
gravenimage says
The Muslim’s Inner Struggles
…………………
Imagine having your vicious bs questioned? Oh, the humanity! sarc/off
Chand says
These struggles represent the basic struggle between religion/superstition and modernity/science. Christianity and Judaism has generally transcended their past baggage and embraced science. Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism (plus Shinto, etc) are still struggling but will surely do so as it is impossible to stop the juggernaut of scientific and technological progress.
Islam will, in the future, will become irrelevant in the day to day needs of humans and remain as a cultural and historical relic with some social rituals, as has Christianity and Judaism.
Chand says
But political Islam, Global Jihad and the Islamo-fascist problem is another story. It is a hijacking of the scriptures for domination.
Angemon says
Nope. Muhammad was a political leader in addition to a self-proclaimed prophet. The year zero in the islamic calendar is not the year muhammad was born or had his first “revelation”, it’s the year he went to Medina and became a political leader.
Islam is as much of a political system as it is a religion, and pretending otherwise won’t make the problem magically go away…
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Intelligent observation, very telling. But technically the Holy Prophet Mohammed went to Yathrib, and the city’s name was changed to Medina after he worked his magic as a political leader.
gravenimage says
The dishonest Chand wrote:
But political Islam, Global Jihad and the Islamo-fascist problem is another story. It is a hijacking of the scriptures for domination.
……………….
What claptrap. Jihad and Islamic supremacy have been key elements of Islam from the very beginning–the Qur’an and Hadith are full of these precepts and diktats, and the “Prophet” Muhammed himself was a war-lord and conqueror.
eduardo odraude says
Chand, you have been gaslighted, or perhaps you are trying to gaslight us. Political Islam certainly is not a hijacking of Islam. Muhammad, the prime exemplar for Muslims, became the political and spiritual ruler of an expansionist totalitarian theocracy. Islam is all about global totalitarian domination, unlike Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, or Christianity.
gravenimage says
Chand is a longtime white-washer of Islam.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
This is an important essay, a very fine piece addressing an urgent subject. Compared to other life belief systems — other religions, Socialism/Communism and the rest — Islam has two advantages that makes it seem that Global Sharia is inevitable sooner or later: direct open relentless aggression against other systems (like Socialism/Communism) and it’s been around for 1,400 yrs (not as long a Judaism or even Christianity, but long enough).
Islam is a seemingly sure recipe for world disaster. Let us hope that the Islam ideological system, an unstoppable self-perpetuating Rube Goldberg machine pieced together by the Holy Prophet Mohammed 14 centuries ago, stops itself by interaction with the other life belief systems.
David says
Let’s face Re-Allah-ty: Islam collapses under scrutiny. Science 2+2=4. Islam 2+2=3 because Allah says so! Take you pick
Lilith Wept says
It behooves all of us in the West to learn as much as possible about Islam…..and what moslems believe about Islam , how they feel about Islam.
Because it’s irrelevant what we believe about Islam.
We can talk until doomsday about how violent Islam is, how tribal or how repressive and intolerant it is.
We can talk about now Mohammed divided the world into moslems verses kafir , how hatred and violence toward on moslems , resulting in an unending ( Jihad) war against anyone who is not Moslem.
We can discuss how Muhammed was or was not a pedophile for marrying a 6 year old…..and so on with all the abhorrent things inherent to Islam.
But intimately what matters to us and to Western Civilization is what moslems believe.
What will decide if Western Civilization survives this onslaught of Islam is if we understand what moslems believe about Islam and what they do as a result of that belief.
We need to be able to openly criticize and have discussions about, and acknowledge that Islam is violent, Islam is intolerant, and Islam has the goal,of dominating the world and subjugating everyone, forcing submission to Islam.
And stop appeasing Islam and moslems.. We need to stop treating Islam as if it’s just another religion, and start admitting that Islam is not like any other religious ideology that we have allowed in our countries….and it is a dangerous ideology.
We give special treatment to Moslem ( that is given to no other religious adherent) and made Islam into the undeclared “state religion” in the West.
I firmly believe that as long as we treat Islam as just another religion, forbid free speech about Islam and allow it and it’s adherants a free pass to do whatever they want as long as its “religious” and giving special treatment to moslems and Islam, then we will be taken over by Islam.