“No religion can be considered in abstraction from its followers, or even from its various types of followers.” — Alfred North Whitehead, from Adventures in Ideas (1933)
Publilius Syrus wrote long ago that “there are some remedies worse than the disease.” We could say as much about most of the Western world’s erroneous ideas about the religion of Islam. Chief among them is the notion that Islam is good and the terrorism committed by Muslims is tangential from Islam – a transmogrification of Islam proper. The remedy for this terrorism, the theory goes, is to “deradicalize” those Muslims who have taken the plunge into the dark waters of Islamic terrorism, or better yet, prevent those Muslims considering taking this plunge by sheltering them from the dangers of “radicalization.” The consequences of these imprudent and sciolistic estimations is now catching up to the Western world, a world that at one time believed our freedoms and our unhindered way of life immune from the egregious cultures and violent sectarianism to which Islam is innately connected in other, far away reaches of the planet.
Edmund Burke warned: “Well is it known that ambition can creep as well as soar.” And those who have not really taken the religion of Islam seriously, who have assumed that its adherents and its tenets are probably quite similar to those of the other major religions, have done so at the expense of our future and the well-being of the Western world. The insouciant and the foolhardy pluralist (and this would include journalists and academia and clergy) among us believe that the hegemony that Islam strove violently and ruthlessly to achieve in the not-so-ancient past cannot possibly be the end and the means that the “moderate Muslim” envisions and employs today for the future of Islam. The most glaring failure of our modern experts (aside from making innumerable observations about terrorists and terrorism without offering even one real antidote) is that their premise has always been, and remains, that Islam is good and, as the logical extension of this premise, terrorism and the terrorist are anomalies tangential from Islam proper. The creeping obtrusion of jihadist ideologies (and their political/religious supporters) into the Western political narrative will continue in congruence with the propagandistic existence of such contradictory assumptions.
In a 2015 article in Commentary, Joshua Muravchik, after presenting the results of numerous polls regarding Muslim attitudes towards terrorists and terrorism, concludes: “While the predominant view among the world’s Muslims, insofar as we can learn from these polls, rejects terrorism, a significant minority does not. If, on the whole, say, 20 percent of Muslims, a conservative estimate of the average of these numbers, support terror ‘often’ or ‘sometimes,’ that amounts to 300 million people; and if, say, another 15 percent support it ‘rarely,’ then the total base of support for at least occasional terror acts comes to 500 million. There is little comfort to be found in such figures.” Such figures prove without a doubt that terrorism within the Muslim world and terrorism committed by Muslims in the Western world can no longer be viewed as incidental or anomalous, but the norm. Such figures also do little to exculpate Islam from the common but oft-slandered and suppressed opinion that this religion is a root source of anti-Jewish hatred and terrorism, and the primary inspiration for jihadist ideologies.
Edmund Burke also wrote: “Nothing is so fatal to religion as indifference.” It could also be said (although it would be a deviation from Burke’s intended meaning) that nothing is so fatal to Western democracy as indifference to Islam and the terrorism that inevitably manifests itself in a minority of Muslims that numbers in the hundreds of millions. I’ve written long ago that you cannot judge a religion’s efficacy, whether good or bad, by its exceptional personalities, but only by the behavior of those masses who are conglutinated by its tenets. In this sense and from this perspective, Islam is not merely insalubrious for mankind, but even worse, and because of this same insalubrious nature, it is a grand deception that has hoodwinked the Western world in such a way that we
bend over backward in abject humility just to accommodate this intolerant religion “in abstraction from its followers, or even from its various types of followers.”
FYI says
Look at the vile angry faces of these followers of allah.
But do they LOVE God and do they LOVE their fellow human beings?
No.Of course not.They blindly worship the koranic allah instead.
Probably because in the islamic belief system the concept of a God of Love doesn’t exist.
There are no Two Chief commandments to be found in islam or in the koran or found in the hadiths( or to be seen anywhere in the life of muhammed).So that means the original truth about God has been hidden/dismissed by the author of the koran.
So we have allah with his hate and his intolerance and his followers exhibiting the same characteristics.
The fact that these essential aspects of God (revealed in the Biblical revelation given to both the Jews and the Christians)are missing in allah’s koran(the islamic misrepresentation of the original truth about God)tells you all you really need to know about allah:allah is NOT God.
Carolyne says
I am always amused when I see a picture of supposedly grown-up men with their mouths open screaming their love of Allah. Given the lack of hygiene in Muslim countries, one wonders if they don’t fear flies getting in their mouths. On the other hand, given their perverted tastes in other areas, maybe they like flies.
RALPH DEGROOT says
Islam is not a religion, it’s an ideology. An ideology that is evidenced to be incompadible with human life. And like the ideology of Nazism, should banned. It’s the only option for the West to survive!
Scurvydog says
OK, the way I see it is like this. The world many of us grew up with in the 20th century is gone. On the surface, we have some of the same institutions and architecture, but social structures, forces, and populations are rapidly changing and setting up the difficult conflicts we are experiencing today – with much more to come.
There are three main forces at work in this: (1) globalists (both of the neo-liberal “economic” variety, who benefit from importing cheap labour, driving down wages, and moving jobs to “low cost” jurisdictions to improve their bottom lines; and elite “progressives,” who benefit from conducting employment, research, social service, legal, public relations, and advocacy work for migrants, along with helping divide the existing population politically); (2) islamists, who seek to spread their barbaric worldview, laws, practices, and populations worldwide (ironically, the dissemination of their wahhabi views is funded largely from oil money paid for by Western consumers to our so-called “allies”); and (3) traditionalists/nationalists, largely emerging from the more traditional cultural populations and ethnic stock of nations, many of whom are reproducing well below replacement level, aging rapidly, and feeling both “left behind” and threatened by all of this rapid social change and industrial decline (notably active in the U.S. election, Brexit, and several European elections).
The first two groups more often have coinciding interests against the third, and frequently (though not always) cooperate in effect, if not in intent in a hegemonic relationship. It’s not necessarily a “conspiracy” (which is hard to prove), but a coincidence of interests that often benefit both groups in various ways. The danger is that their disproportionate influence over our institutions is seemingly growing faster than the relatively limited protests and influence of the third group, which I’m sure the others hope will simply die off and hand them the field by default.
Add to this the fact that islam is an worldview that morally elevates obedience and submission and you can get a sense of the legitimating ideology that may eventually be employed (along with some twisted variant of multiculturalism) to justify the emerging state of affairs, with small elite groups benefiting handsomely while everyone else’s toil, deprivation, and submission gets justified by faith.
This is potentially the social architecture of the future. The seminal question: fear or fight it? Well, I know where I stand and I won’t go quietly…
Jeanette says
We should be plastering everywhere the terms “Islam is as Islam Does” and “kaffirophobia.”
The liberals and Muslims have handcuffed us with “Islamophobia” – let’s return the attack.
Jeanette says
If a bunch of modern-day Druids decided to start practicing mutilations and human sacrifices, it absolutely would not be tolerated.
And, if would be called what it is, not described in the least damaging terms that could be found.
It is the fault of the globalist elites who have inflicted the Muslims on the West that Muslims are not treated exactly as any other mutilating, murdering cult would be treated.
Until we cut out the source cancer, we won’t be able to rid ourselves of the rest of the cancer – Muslims.
Carolyne says
The ex- Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, was inducted into the Druid religion. I don’t think he kills people, though, but he has said that “Sharia in the UK is inevitable.”
Politicianphobia says
“ISLAM CAME TO ESTABLISH ONLY ONE RELATIONSHIP WHICH BINDS MEN TOGETHER IN THE SIGHT OF GOD, AND IF THIS RELATIONSHIP IS FIRMLY ESTABLISHED, THEN ALL OTHER RELATIONSHIPS BASED ON BLOOD OR OTHER CONSIDERATIONS BECOME ELIMINATED. There is only one place on earth which can be called the home of Islam, and it is the place where the Islamic state is established and Shari’ah is the authority and God’s limits are observed, and where all the Muslims administer the affairs of the state with mutual consultation. The rest of the world is the home of hostility (Dar-ul-Harb). A Muslim can only have two possible relations with Dar-ul-Harb: peace with contractual agreement, or WAR. A country with which there is a treaty will not be considered the home of Islam. Those who believed, and migrated, and strove with wealth and their persons in the cause of God, and those who gave them refuge and helped them, are the protectors of each other.” (8:72)
Politicianphobia says
“ISLAM CANNOT ACCEPT ANY MIXING WITH JAHILIYYAH , either in it’s concept or in the modes of living which are derived from this concept. Either Islam will remain, or jahiliyyah. ISLAM CANNOT ACCEPT OR AGREE TO A SITUATION WHICH IS HALF-ISLAM AND HALF-JIHILIYYAH. In this respect is very clear. It says that the truth is one and cannot be devided; if it is not the truth, then it must be falsehood. The mixing and co-existence of the truth and falsehood is impossible. Command belongs to God. or otherwise to jahiliyyah. God’s Shari’ah will prevail or else people’s desires. THE FOREMOST DUTY OF ISLAM in this world is to depose jahiliyyah from the leadership of man, and to take the leadership into its own hands and ENFORCE the particular way of life which is its permanent feature. The purpose of this rightly guided leadership is the good and success of mankind.
Politicianphobia says
“Islam does not sanction the rule of selfish desires. It has come to abolish all such concepts, laws, and customs and traditions, and to replace them with a new concept of human life, to create a new world on the foundation of submission to the Creator.”