Merriam Webster defines “religion” as “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.” Islam certainly qualifies as a religion by that definition. Religions profess to connect human beings to the divine. Islam professes to do that. At the same time, however, it is also a political system that is authoritarian, supremacist, discriminatory, expansionist, violent, and aggressive. Asma Uddin must be aware of that fact but ignores it entirely, instead giving the impression that Sharia is simply religious law, and opposition to Sharia is simply motivated by religious bigotry and “Islamophobia.”
In reality, Islamic law’s political aspects contradict Constitutional principles and American freedoms in numerous particulars, including its denial of the freedom of speech, the institutionalized discrimination against women, non-Muslims, and other groups, its death penalty for apostasy from Islam and for homosexual activity, and more. At a certain point there is going to have to be a national discussion about whether religious freedom grants Muslims the right to break other laws, or whether the aspects of Sharia that contradict American law are unwelcome in the United States. Asma Uddin and the Washington Post are trying to foreclose upon that discussion by muddling the issue.
Islam has always been political. Its political aspect has always been considered intrinsic to its nature. On this, the historical record is clear. See The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS: it shows definitively, from primary source material, that everywhere Islam has gone, it has gone as a political entity, and waged war against other political entities. Asma Uddin and the Washington Post are relying upon your ignorance of Islamic law and Islamic history to manipulate you into thinking that Sharia is benign and completely compatible with the United States’ character as a free society, even though every society where Sharia has ever been implemented has not been free.
“The baffling argument that has become mainstream under Trump: ‘Islam is not a religion,’” by Asma Uddin, Washington Post, March 19, 2019:
Anxiety and fear were palpable among American Muslims last week after the mass slaughter in two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand: Would a violent attacker enter their mosque, too? But even in their moment of vulnerability, one lawmaker insisted Muslims were the “real cause of bloodshed.” Fraser Anning, a senator in Australia, said the core problem was Islam.
“The entire religion of Islam is simply the violent ideology of a 6th-century despot masquerading as a religious leader. … The truth is that Islam is not like any other faith. … It is the religious equivalent of fascism,” he said. “And just because the followers of this savage belief were not the killers in this instance does not make them blameless.”
For many Americans, Anning’s statement may seem like an outlier — an extreme right-wing sentiment that does not reflect mainstream politics. But it taps into something strategic and concerted, the idea that “Islam is not a religion.” Islam, this idea suggests, is instead a dangerous political ideology, and therefore Muslims have no right to respect, dignity or First Amendment protection for religious liberty.
The argument has been circulating for some time, but it has gained ground in recent years, at least partly because the voices making the argument have a prominent platform in the Trump administration. Former national security adviser Michael Flynn said “Islam is a political ideology” that “hides behind the notion of it being a religion.” Former White House aide Sebastian Gorka and former White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon have also questioned Islam’s status as a religion. Frank Fleitz, who in 2018 was named chief of staff for President Trump’s National Security Council, has said in the past that American Muslims are susceptible to a “radical worldview that wants to destroy modern society, create a global caliphate and impose sharia law on everyone on Earth.”…
Frank Anderson says
A conspiracy is an agreement of 2 or more (NO upper limit) people, to use illegal means for a legal purpose OR LEGAL means for an illegal purpose, and any overt act by ANY of its participants in furtherance. Conspiracies are not protected under the law of the United States. As many as 1,000,000,000 people have been murdered by participants in a conspiracy over 1400 years, and rising daily.
jule says
Interesting and true way to describe how it is.
Frank Anderson says
jule, I have been pondering this issue, whether islam is a “Constitutionally Protected Religion” as long as I have been reading and commenting here. It can be a “religion” but in my opinion lose its protection by the US Constitution if it either has illegal goals (murder, slavery, conquest, looting, . . . .) or uses illegal means (violence, intimidation, . . . ) for a lawful goal, the practice of a “personal” faith. Islam fails both ways.
Anyone who wishes to examine my analysis can start very easily by searching “conspiracy”. I have been forced several times in my legal practice to develop arguments that were successful in previously undecided issues. I believe that this argument could be successful without any changes in existing law, only clear presentation in an honest court required. I will be happy to answer questions or provide cases that explain my reasoning.
Please consult a currently licensed attorney practicing in your jurisdiction for any legal advice.
Screeminmeeme says
A few years ago I found this article about the subject of Constitutional protection of all religions and believe the arguments are sound.
“In an article titled, ‘Were the Founding Fathers Tolerant of Islam?’, Dr. Dave Miller explains one important qualification the Founders placed on religious tolerance was that religious freedom did NOT extend to any action that would bring physical harm to self or other citizens. Miller goes on to show that our Founders would not have favored integrating Islam into our schools, government, and other civil institutions.
OUR FOUNDERS UNDERSTOOD RELIGIOUS FREEDOM CAN NEVER SUPERSEDE FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM ( LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS). .
Put simply, fundamental rights cannot be taken away by any ‘religion’.
The Constitution, therefore, can only offer protection to religions that are accordant with the fundamental rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) the Constitution was set up to protect. Otherwise, the Constitution could actually offer protection to a religion that sets itself up to destroy the Constitution. That would be self-defeating. It’s absurd to think that our founders would frame our Constitution, in all its genius, in such a self-defeating way. The Constitution cannot be self-defeating (i.e. if the Constitution was self-defeating, we would have no objective and legitimate point of reference to protect our Civil Rights).
If any so called “religion” does not respect the fundamental rights outlined in our Constitution then that religion does not get the protection of that Constitution. In other words, the religion has delegitimized itself from the Constitution and any rights that come from it. ”
http://www.p315.org/did-our-founding-fathers-view-all-religions-the-same.html
Frank Anderson says
S., we remember what we hear first, last and most often. Too many people here seem to think that because islam is a “religion” it is immune from not only the law, but also critical inquiry. I disagree, which is why I frequently remind us about the difference between a legal contract, (an agreement between 2 or more “persons” for a lawful purpose) and a conspiracy, (unlawful purpose or unlawful means to a lawful purpose). Islam is a conspiracy to conquer the world, to enslave all it does not kill and to steal everything which is accessible.
Fretting and bickering over “What to do; What to do; What to do?” reminds me of the many times I would go to my beloved uncle’s home to find family members being totally indecisive as to what should be done in the face of obvious congestive heart failure. They were waiting for him to tell them to call the ambulance, which he never did. So I walked in and said “Okay Grump, let’s take a ride!” We went to the hospital, got him drained and brought him home until the next round. All this needless wasteful crawling through meaningless debate postpones decisions and commitments and gives more time to the enemies who intend to take everything we have and hold dear. Thank you for your note.
Richard says
Just a fine tuning note. Islam is an open and undisputed agenda to control the world that entails conspiracy actions along with overt actions.
Frank Anderson says
Richard, many people including most of the members of my adopted family are afraid to make decisions, even when life is on the line RIGHT NOW. I understand, always subject to correction, that it takes very little excess water to cause congestive heart failure in a man with 3 leaking valves and 80 plus years age. How many people bent on destroying our society does it take to cause congestive heart failure of our society; and how many people will sit around wringing their hands in debate and indecision while the patient dies? Thank you for your note.
Richard says
Between 4-10%?
Frank Anderson says
Richard, if untreated, as present in many places today, I suspect the lower number is better.
My understanding, from more than 40 years ago, as little as 2 or 3 pounds of additional water weight in a 200 pound man was enough to cause him problems. He was my Father by Choice #2, only in sequence, but equal in rank with all others. He taught me much that I still follow. He is missed.
Time for more people to stop wasting time sitting on fences of ignorance and indecision.
gravenimage says
Good exchange above.
Frank Anderson says
Honored GI, This kind of thought, analysis and conversation is what happens when thinking people participate.
gravenimage says
Very much agree, Frank.
Renate says
According to John Guandolo, even in Muslim school books, Muslims teach their children that Islam is a “complete way of life”, not a religion. I’m with John Guandolo.
mortimer says
Agree … Islam is a DEEN … a system of GOVERNANCE that regulates a ‘complete way of life’.
DIN or DEEN is closest in meaning to the English equivalent ‘GOVERNANCE’.
Islam is a GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM that regulates every aspect of life. Din or deen is an Arabic word often mistranslated as “creed” or “religion”. “Din” is a word that features heavily in Islam. Both mainstream and reformist Muslim writers take the word ‘deen’ to mean an all-encompassing WAY OF LIFE carried out under the auspices of Allah’s purpose as expressed in the Qur’an and hadiths. As one ‘progressive’ Muslim writer puts it, far from being a private aspect of life discretely carried out in the mosque, “Islam is Dīn, a complete way of life”.
The term Dīn gained popularity in Arabia and the Greater Middle East after the advent of Islam. The term has Semitic cognates including the Hebrew “dīn” (דין), Aramaic dīnā (דִּינָא), Amharic dañä (ዳኘ) and Ugaritic dyn. It may be the root of the common Semitic word Madīnah (city), and of Midian, a geographical place and a people mentioned in the Bible and in the Qur’an. ME-DIN-A is literally ‘the place of governance’ as the capital of the empire of Arabia.
jule says
I agree but To a Muslim, Allah is all powerful, all seeing and told Mo exactly how they should behave/exist in every situation and 100 years later or so Warlords wrote every word in the Qur’an & Hadiths. To Them, it is Religion with dire consequences for eternity if disobeyed -even in the secret of ones mind, but a title of Hero if ‘pleasing to Allah’. Non BELIEVERS are enemy. Non Believers are satan. Its a trap, a straight jacket which few escape. Qur’an is a Warlords Manual for Conquest & total Control.
elee says
Applause for your knowledge and willingness to share. Sayyeed Qutub amplified your point in Milestones, stating in essence: Islam is no mere belief. As long as everyone in the world lives like a 7th-century Arab, veils and silences their women, pays jizya and kills apostates, Islam doesn’t care whether anyone actually believes in their deity. It’s a din or a deen, however you transliterate, it’s alife and a way of life, not a “mere” theology.
mateenelass says
Mortimer,
Would you point us to your source for the definition of “deen” as “governance”? I have consulted both Lane’s Lexicon and the Encyclopedia of Islam (1913 edition), and neither of them lists even as a minor meaning the idea of governance. EI 1913 is clearest in its distillation of the background for “deen,” which, it claims, had three separate meanings from three different sources: 1) Aramaic-Hebrew loanword meaning “judgment;” 2) a genuine Arabic term meaning “custom/usage”; 3) a distinct Persian word meaning “religion.”
The Encyclopedia goes on to offer a summary definition of “deen” in its theological sense: “a divine institution which guides rational beings, by their choosing it, to salvation here and hereafter, and which covers both articles of belief and actions….It thus means ‘religion’ in the broadest sense and is so vague that it was felt necessary to define its difference3 from ‘milla’ (religious community), ‘madhhab’ (school of canon law) and ‘shari’a’ (system of divine law.).”
I offer this only to help further discussion on these important topics.
gravenimage says
Interesting.
Here is an Islamic scholar, and some of his translations of “Deen” are “system” or “legal system”–as well as “religion”–which seem to be pretty close to “governance”
“What is the the True Definition of ‘Deen’ from a Qur’an’s Perspective?”
http://www.quransmessage.com/pdfs/What%20is%20Deen.pdf
Hope this is useful.
Michael Copeland says
“Sharia is the law of the land.”
“The basis of the political and legal system is the Sharia of Allah.”
“The duty of muslim citizens is to be loyal to Islamic State.”
From “What Islam is all about”, textbook for 12-yr-olds in U.S. Islamic schools
John Guandolo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8SmNgwI8U4 at 3.40
eduardo odraude says
The chief characteristic of immigration policy should be that, without mentioning any particular religion, the policy institutes a moratorium on immigration from any nation that does not protect freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The policy could make exceptions for dissidents, oppressed minorities (if they respect freedom of religion and speech), and perhaps for scientists. The immigration policy described would drastically cut immigration from Islamic nations, but would also reduce immigration from China and perhaps even from Europe, and would impose new pressures globally to provide stronger protections for free speech and freedom of religion. Since the proposed immigration policy would not mention any particular religion, it would not provoke huge First Amendment controversies and thus might not be politically impossible.
gravenimage says
Washington Post hits “baffling argument” that “Islam is not a religion”
……………………
Islam is a religion–but it is also a brutal and oppressive “complete way of life” to be imposed on everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim alike–by violence if necessary.
PRCS says
As I believe RS put it (paraphrasing): the subjugation of all mankind under the hegemony of Islamic law, under which everyone would be a Muslim, a dhimmi, or a slave.
gravenimage says
Grimly true.
mortimer says
Agree with GI. Islam is a religion, but it is also a POLITICAL SYSTEM to govern ALL of society.
Rebecca Bynum claimed Islam is an ambiguous PLATYPUS of RELIGIONS in her book: ““Allah Is Dead: Why Islam is Not a Religion”
She shows that Islam is like a platypus which is dualistic: a platypus is both a mammal and a bird at the same time, having DNA from both sides.
Islam is both highly political and inseparable from the supremacist religious cult of Mohammed and Allah.
gravenimage says
I take your point, Mortimer, and agree with it.
Just a small point–a platypus is not a mammal and a bird–it is monotreme–an egg-laying mammal related to the echidna. And the “duck bill” is not actually related to the bill of a duck. Even though it lacks true nipples, the platypus does give milk, and so is a true mammal.
Indiana Tom says
Washington Post hits “baffling argument” that “Islam is not a religion”
Not as most people in the West would know it.
“The entire religion of Islam is simply the violent ideology of a 6th-century despot masquerading as a religious leader. … The truth is that Islam is not like any other faith. … It is the religious equivalent of fascism,” he said. “And just because the followers of this savage belief were not the killers in this instance does not make them blameless.”
He got that right.
I suppose old pre-Christian religions in Northern Europe could get a little violent, but the old Norse and Saxon religions, Anglo-Saxon Common Law, and the laws of the Atheling look really great compared to ISIS regions. The Vikings were usually more reasonable and sensible than the press they got and the Frisians were just downright great businessmen.
gravenimage says
Asma Uddin regularly whitewashes Islam, including Jihad terror.
Here is one of her Taqiyya-filled pieces:
“Open religious discourse can prevent a future Fort Hood”
https://www.tikkun.org/tikkundaily/author/asmauddin/
This was published by Tikkun–a cluelessly liberal Jewish magazine.
Anjuli Pandavar says
“Religions profess to connect human beings to the divine. Islam professes to do that. At the same time, however, it is also a political system that is authoritarian, supremacist, discriminatory, expansionist, violent, and aggressive.”
—
So it is. Just to add to this, the reason it cannot be a private matter, a personal choice, is because it has an umma, a super-tribe, to which each and every Muslim automatically belongs. The choice is already made for you. It is also why there *cannot* be a separation of mosque and state, no matter how many Muslims want it.
How long have we heard the refrain that freedom of speech cannot be absolute, whereas, in fact, it is freedom of religion that cannot be absolute. That case has been more than amply made by Islam itself.
abad says
I also want to throw this out there, after reading your post:
Islam is probably the only religion known to the human race where existential anxiety is non-existent among its followers.
mortimer says
Abad … you may want to consider the following by THE NUMBER ONE Muslim after Mohammed.
Caliph Abu Bakr said, “By Allah! I would not rest assured and feel safe from the DECEPTION OF ALLAH (la amanu limakr Allah), even if I had one foot in paradise.” (from “Successors of the Messenger” by Khalid Muhammad Khalid, translated by Muhammad Mahdi al-Sharif [Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah, Beirut Lebanon, 2005], Book One: Abu Bakr Has Come, p. 99
“But they (the Jews) schemed/connived/used deceit (Wa-makaroo), and Allah schemed/connived/used deceit, for Allah is the best of deceivers.” (wa-makara Allahu wa-Allahu khayru al-makireena)! K.3:54; cf. 8:30
Dennis Pasek says
There are at least a dozen passages in the Koran where it makes statements to the effect that “Allah is the best deceiver”.
The claim that “Islam is probably the only religion known to the human race where existential anxiety is non-existent among its followers.” is specious at best and looks more like an attempt at Taqiyya. It’s pretty transparent to viewers of this forum.
gravenimage says
There is actually a lot a anxiety among pious Muslims–fear of the “torments of the grave”, and terror over not being able to get into paradise, since only Jihad terrorists can be sure of not being sent to the the Islamic hell.
Hudson says
Classify it what you will, it’s still Satanic and disgusting.
CRUSADER says
AMEN to that.
+++++++++++
Georg says
Great piece. There will be a confrontation of some sort as they are not compatible. Better to have it be rhetorical and occur soon.
Rufolino says
Of course there is also the possibility that the USA will do what the UK is already doing in response to Islam’s ambitions: prostrate itself.
Wellington says
I’d include the Queen and Royal Family in the prostration you mentioned, Rufolino.
thebigW says
Heck, at least this WaPo article gives readers two healthy doses of quotes from Fraser Anning right at the top!
(notice this lying Muslima, Asma Uddin, ain’t wearin’ a hijab. )
Dennis Pasek says
Lack of hijab in this case is a huge red flag signalling Taqiyya in progress.
thebigW says
far as I’m concerned, there ain’t no reliable way of tellin’ if it ain’t taqiyya in ANY case, not just this case
abad says
Islam is a religion, to be sure, but what makes it unique is that it does not recognize politics or daily manners or method of thinking, or anything in between as separate spheres. IOW Islam permeates everything in a believer’s life which creates a special unity among believers.
Learned that in college.
CRUSADER says
ORDER FROM CHAOS
What is the future of political Islam? Experts discuss
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/05/04/what-is-the-future-of-political-islam-experts-discuss/
—————————— (VIDEO link of discussion)
The Arab Spring and the ensuing rise in the prominence of Islamist parties in the Middle East forced scholars and policymakers to reexamine their understanding of political Islam and its role in politics. On April 24, the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings hosted a discussion on the future of political Islam. The event featured Senior Fellow Shadi Hamid and Georgetown Berkeley Center Senior Fellow Jocelyne Cesari. Brookings Nonresident Senior Fellow Peter Mandaville served as the moderator.
Drawing on her newly released book “What is Political Islam?,” Cesari argued that to understand the role of Islam in politics requires recognizing that Islam is part of political culture. In the Muslim world, states were created before nations, she said, so to create a sense of community, secular leaders formed a connection between Islamic belonging and national belonging. Cesari called this “hegemonic Islam” because there is a shared sense by secularists and Islamists that they are all citizens and members of the community. Today’s wave of political parties with Islamic agendas is to be expected, in Cesari’s view, because this aligns with the initial idea that Islamic belonging and nation-state belonging go hand in hand. What is surprising, she noted, is that Islamist parties are asking for an Islamic state and believe that the current state—despite its ties to Islamic traditions—is not “Islamic enough.”
Cesari presented statistics on political violence that showed that Muslim-majority states have the highest rates of such events.
PEW SOCIAL RELIGIOUS HOSTILITY IN 2014:
Countries With Very High Levels of Political Violence:
Afghanistan Egypt Indonesia
Iraq Pakistan Somalia
Sudan Syria Sri Lanka
Bangladesh Nigeria Yemen
Lebanon Palestine
Countries With High Levels of Political Violence:
Algeria Azerbaijan Iran
Malaysia Maldives Saudi Arabia
Bahrain Jordan Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan Libya Tunisia
Turkey Guinea Kosovo
Mali
Countries With Moderate Levels of Political Violence:
Brunei Kazakhstan Morocco
Tajikistan Uzbekistan Chad
United Arab Emirates Comoros Burkina Faso
Maritania Niger Senegal
Sierra Leone
Countries With Low Levels of Political Violence:
Oman Qatar Turkmenistan
Western Sahara Djibouti Albania
The Gambia
Source: Conflict Barometer, Political Violence in 2014
CRUSADER says
Applying her conception of hegemonic Islam to the dataset, Cesari argued that the state-religion relationship is key to explaining a tendency towards political violence and social hostility.
Islam is not the problem, she contended—rather, the incorporation of religion into politics is the cause for instability.
Cesari acknowledged the difficulty of channeling these conclusions into concrete policies, but argued that policymakers need to abandon the idea that Islam needs reform. The political Islam that she discussed is in fact the outcome of reform and modernization, she explained. What is needed instead is a more informed understanding of Islam. Additionally, she stressed the need to recognize that Muslim democracies are possible without having to compromise on key elements like free and fair elections, separation of power, rule of law, and human and civil rights. On the other hand, Cesari urged the audience not to write off states that do not fully adhere to these standards—even developed democracies sometimes struggle to respect their citizens’ rights.
Hamid, drawing on his most recent book “Rethinking Political Islam” (co-edited with William McCants), among other books he has written on the subject, sought to put to rest the notion that religion and politics are separate entities. In his experiences researching and engaging with members of Islamist movements in the Middle East, Hamid discovered that it is nearly impossible to separate religion and politics, as they are not seen as discrete categories in the region.
Hamid agreed with Cesari that Islamism is a modern movement; Islamism could not have existed in the past because opposing political beliefs did not exist then. It was only when a secular movement emerged, which threatened the position of Islam in the political sphere, did Islamism as a distinct movement arise. Hamid noted that believing in an Islam-oriented political sphere would not necessarily define one as an Islamist. Instead, being an Islamist requires a conscious effort to orient oneself around Islamist ideas.
In terms of where Islamism stands today, Hamid said that the nation-state and Western scholars “corrupted” Islamism when they pressured Islamist groups to integrate into the electoral process and embrace the idea of a nation-state. Islamist groups then shifted their goals, as their targets became gaining votes and the highest possible elected positions. (Cesari disagreed with Hamid on this point about “corruption”: In her opinion, the nation-state simply changed Islamism in that it forced clerics and Islamist leaders to operate within a specific framework.) Hamid said that Islamist groups need to now reconsider whether or not it is in their best interest to continue utilizing a state-centric approach. Young Islamists and conservative Islamists—or as Hamid called them, “neo-Islamists”—are now starting to engage on this front and this new trend is something that needs close examining.
CRUSADER says
LOOKING AHEAD
Mandaville asked: What main factors should we focus on in order to properly understand current developments around political Islam and Islamism?
Cesari proposed:
Distinguishing between Islamism and political Islam because, as her book shows, all forms of religious nationalism found in Muslim-majority countries are political Islam, and
Distinguishing between social movements and political parties. Though Islamism as a political statement may not succeed, as a social movement that dictates behavior and social interactions, it will not disappear, she said.
Hamid answered that like the title of his book, “Islamic Exceptionalism,” Islam is exceptional in how it relates to law, politics, and governance, and as a result, is resistant to secularization. Islam was never intended to operate in tandem with the nation-state, he argued. He went further than Cesari and suggested that all Islam is political, even in secular states. Therefore, it is more appropriate to use the terms Islamism or Islamist to describe what is often meant by the phrase “political Islam.” In this regard, Islamism is a specific belief that “Islam and Islamic law should play a central role in public life” and “Islamists are those who orient themselves around the political project of making Islam central in public and political life.”
Finally, Mandaville asked Cesari and Hamid to comment on the future of Islamist movements and parties in the next five to 10 years. Cesari posited that while secular Muslim-majority states today are far from being democratic, the legitimate involvement of Islamist parties could actually push states towards incorporating some elements of democracy. She also stressed a need to analyze the influence of transnational movements, which can impact local debates.
Hamid said that his major takeaway from the events that have occurred since the Arab Spring is that extreme repression against Islamists is effective (e.g. in Egypt). For Islamists, that means simply waiting until there is an opening in the system. Hamid lamented that, once again, a conversation on what happens when Islamists participate in and win elections has been postponed. This conversation needs to take place, as it is only a matter of time before policymakers and scholars once again have to grapple with Islamist involvement in the electoral space.
Related Books:
“Islamic Exceptionalism”
By Shadi Hamid 2016
“Rethinking Political Islam”
By Shadi Hamid and William McCants 2017
thebigW says
“Islam is not the problem, she contended—rather, the incorporation of religion into politics is the cause for instability.”
Cesari sounds like a bonehead with a degree and a think tank, a dime a dozen in Washington. How does she explain the Tablighi Jamaat, trans-national, seem to be “pure” and devotional, but are spreading jihad around the world–
https://www.meforum.org/686/tablighi-jamaat-jihads-stealthy-legions
And what about all the jihad networks around the world trying to topple Muslim regimes?
This bonehead analyst Cesari just don’t get that the freaking HEART of Islam is imperialist expansion, one Muslim at a time, through family units, tribes, in groups of Ikhwan, and all together as the Umma. Sounds like she’s tryin’ to fit the giant monster of Islam with all its hairy tarantula legs and griffon wings and squid tentacles and scorpion stingers into her little Western box of Poli Sci. Whatever’s left in her test tube after she’s lopped off all the gangly parts sure ain’t the ISLAM that’s threatening us.
Wellington says
Writing as an American and an American who is “enthralled” with freedom and a knowledge that a handful of other polities throughout history have prized liberty, for instance ancient Athens and the Dutch Republic, and certainly England, what freedom-loving people, WHO ARE ALSO KNOWLEDGEABLE, know full well about Islam by now is that it is the one major religion which is also a hideous totalitarian ideology.
And thus freedom is once against tested to its maximum by a freedom-destroying belief system respecting just what are the limits freedom can allow without freedom being lost. It has always been this way with liberty, to wit, that liberty is most taxed by belief systems and people who will use liberty to destroy liberty.
With Islam, which surely will use freedom in order to destroy freedom, free societies, which are almost without exception Western societies since only the West pioneered true freedom (N.B., free non-Western societies like South Korea and Japan are free only BECAUSE of Western Civilization), are tested to their maximum regarding just how much of Islam can be allowed without eradicating liberty. After all, beyond a certain point, tolerance of intolerance will lead to the ending of tolerance. And Islam has massive intolerance written all over it.
So, thanks for this you giant parasite, Islam. Here at least you serve a purpose, i.e., testing the limits freedom can endure, and let all who cherish freedom understand full well, with complete cognizance, that Islam is a parasite of freedom and no ally of it.
I would close here by noting that those Muslims who sincerely do think Islam can be reconciled with liberty, provide your proof. I’ve seen none so far, including none from EVERY major school of Islamic theology to this day, be it Sunni or Shiite.
gravenimage says
+1
CRUSADER says
Have you read “Allah, Liberty, and Love” by Irshad (raisins d’être) Manji?
Wellington says
No, CRUSADER, but I can’t imagine it is anything but a mixture of delusion and mush.
CRUSADER says
Wellington ~
So….you DID read it, or at least got the book review on it.
thebigW says
there ain’t no need to read anything by any Muzzie, that could tell us anything we don’t know about Islam already. If Earshot Mangy is tryin’ to tell us Islam and freedom can exist together, if that honestly is her message, then I KNOW it ain’t worth readin’
Wellington says
Neither, CRUSADER, just an educated guess and your confirming my guess makes me feel all kind of proud, warm and fuzzy inside (this will last about two minutes).
mortimer says
Agree with Wellinton. If Islam promoted freedom and human rights, then Muslims EXTREMISTS would be EXTREMELY LIBERTARIAN. They are extremely AUTHORITARIAN. Ergo, Islam is not compatible with a philosophy that promotes personal freedom.
CRUSADER says
Logical.
🙂
Live long and prosper, Mortimer.
Jeremiah says
Pillars of Wisdom.
First. Islam was created by Mohammad, who married Aisha when she was six. How can we expect any good to come out of that?
Second. Islam is practiced by people who are not permitted to read the Koran in their own language. How can we argue with that?
Third. Islam is inspired by greed. They know about 72 virgins and they know that, when their sons or daughters die in jihad (the killing of children and women shopping in markets), then the parents obtain tickets to heaven.
Fourth. The economy of Islam is driven by extortion rather than work. Muslims were pirates for more than 1,000 years. When we “questioned” that source of income, Islam died on the vine. The Ottoman Empire pulled the plug in 1922 but oil from Shell resuscitated them. Without the gift of oil, Muslims have no significant source of income. With oil, in 1967, Islam had enough money to “buy” the United Nations.
Fifth. While the people are ignorant (because they are not permitted to read the Koran), the leaders practice deceit. They say that the Koran teaches something that it does not. They also manage to convince Muslims that what just happened, did not even happen.
Sixth. Islam, knowing that it will not succeed in direct conflict, have invaded, infiltrated and indoctrinated every nation in the world with the open intent of killing us all.
Seventh. The lie is so obvious that we will never believe it. We did not believe Hitler until we saw the bodies in graves.
Islam calls these pillars Taqiyya. The study of deceit is crucial to an understanding of Islam.
Christianity is a search for truth.
The Constitution of America is based on Christian morality and a constant search for the truth. Everything that our Constitution stand for is opposed by Islam. . . . EVERYTHING!
CRUSADER says
It’s precisely the Political aspect of Islam which needs defining, delineating, designated and destroyed.
Enough with the focus of Islam being a religion, concede that part, it’s the political ideology which is so divisive and incompatible with the rest of civilization.
gravenimage says
Agreed, CRUSADER.
Terry Gain says
Islam’s status as a religion immunizes it from scrutiny. It is likely a fatal mistake to concede that it is a religion.
Wellington says
I grant you, Terry, that being a religion MAY aid in shielding the belief system in question from scrutiny but simply being a religion does not, ipso facto, shield it from scrutiny. Think Scientology. Satanism. And most certainly Islam. I mean there are plenty of people, including yours truly, who think Islam is a religion but it hasn’t stopped them from scrutinizing it—and even condemning it.
Following your logic, since Hinduism and Buddhism are religions, ipso facto, they are immunized from scrutiny. Really want to go there? Reconsider.
somehistory says
Wellington
By TG’s logic, Christianity is not a religion because so very many people have put it under a microscope, and subjected it to scrutiny. Every book, every chapter, every verse, even every letter of the Bible have been closely examined by believers and non.
For someone to accept Christianity and become a believer, we are told to examine the Scriptures and prove to ourselves whether or not these things are true.
“Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine,” Paul wrote.
Christianity holds up to scrutiny. islam does not.
CRUSADER says
Indeed.
Good on Wellington and on SomeHistory.
Certainly the very fact of scrutinizing Christianity allows the Faith to grow more deeply and more fully. Christianity depends and welcomes scrutiny.
“Case For Christ” is benefited by a good bit of investigation of evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67uj2qvQi_k
+++
somehistory says
CRUSADER
thank you.
elee says
Good conversation, folks. That’s how it’s supposed to work, we examine ideas together, identify and eliminate issues, weigh them and reason together .
There is a current notion that calling anything a “religion” means the government can’t regulate anything done while invoking it. That’s not so. A century and a half ago the Supreme Court ruled that it could prohibit polygamy, even if Joseph Smith and Moses believed that their g-d(s) said it was okay.
Sometime some appellate court will be faced with a case in which the act(s) committed is or are so flagrantly indefensible that the only thing a zealous defense team can come up with is the fact that Islamic scripture says Muslims get to kill, maim, enslave, &c &c, the class of which the victim is a member (Jews, apostates, homosexuals, kafirs, …..), and hence the government can’t punish the perpetrator. Eventually there will have to be a written opinion, which I hope will make it very explicit that one can’t invoke religion as a “king’s x” to avoid being held accountable for antisocial acts.
Think of it this way: you can’t call Hitler a prophet and go about killing people with impunity because Hitler said so. Not a controversial result, right? Now substitute Mohammed into the previous sentence and suddenly a lot of judicial courage will be required. It may take a long time to get such an indefensible case to an appellate bench, what with plea bargaining and procedural nuances and insanity defenses and all…….but I’m pretty sure what the eventual result will be.
gravenimage says
Good exchange.
thebigW says
It’s cuz Muslims are considered ethnic people that shields them. why the heck dya think ya get accused of “racism” nearly every freaking time ya SCRUTINIZE Islam too much?
gravenimage says
Yes–this is also a factor.
mortimer says
Crusader wrote: “the Political aspect of Islam which needs defining, delineating”
Yes, get a manual of SHARIA LAW. The system is delineated, defined and codified in Sharia.
CRUSADER says
“defining, delineating”
— meant that the powers that be need to study up on it, in order to make the separation possible in our governance (our ‘din’) here in the West.
Tom says
Islam is both a religion and a political system, which is totally confusion to understand for the average westerner because for centuries the west has separated religion and politics.
That said, religion has influenced the fundamental nature of western society, but in ways that have not become all encompassing and life controlling.
Whereas Islam has always been THE controlling factor for Muslims’ lives and dictates exactly how they must act in every aspect of their lives and in their culture, with extreme penalties for those who choose to question or contravene the Sharia.
The enigma that is Islam is a supremecist ideology that demands expansionism by any means and political control over anywhere that Islam exists, to the detriment of the indigenous religions and political systems.
That is why Islam is so dangerous.
thebigW says
Leftards got no problem putting religion and politics together in their heads when they’re gettin’ all paranoid about Christians doin’ it, but suddenly can’t do it when the topic is Muslims who actually ARE doin’ it. the reason for this double standard is they’re thinking of Muslims as ethnic people (and Christians as “white”) which AUTOMATICALLY exempts Muslims from any suspicion since to be suspicious would be “racist”
CRUSADER says
Political Islam (Not Islamism) Explained
by Bill Warner (parts 1 and 2)
The Rubin Report
Jihadism takes many forms…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czBiWm3ljv0
thebigW says
I hope Bill Warner explained there that Islam is already political and there don’t exist no Islam that ain’t political (but somehow I doubt it)
CogitoErgoSum says
People need to keep in mind Quran 9:29 when they say that Islam is just a religion. When Islam’s god demanded that Muslims subdue, subjugate and impose the Jizya upon (or kill) all those who are not Muslim (infidels) Islam became not only a religion but a system of government as well. I see nothing in the Quran concerning an expiration date for the demand to implement the Jizya system either. It is a request that is ongoing to the day when Isa (the Muslim version of Jesus) returns to put an end to the Jizya by killing everyone who does not accept Islam as his/her only religion. Yes, Islam is a form of government as well as a religion. I don’t see why there is any doubt about that. Muslims in the past had no doubt about it. They may have been lax at times about implementing it but the demand is in the Quran — and the Quran is unchangeable by men — and so, therefore, is the demand.
jewdog says
The fact that Islam is BOTH a religion and a political system is obviously too much to grasp for the simpletons at WaPo. Hey morons, why don’t you just chalk it up to racism like you do everything else and go back to sleep.
Rufolino says
Very well said, Jewdog, and funny !
gravenimage says
+1
CogitoErgoSum says
If encouraging discrimination against people because of their religion is racist, you can’t get any more racist than what the the Quran demands that Muslims do to people of other religions.
Yohanan says
Spencer raises many questions in his excellent post. “At a certain point there is going to have to be a national discussion about whether religious freedom grants Muslims the right to break other laws, or whether the aspects of Sharia that contradict American law are unwelcome in the United States.”
Apropos the political characterization of Islam, Snopes brings history of the true statements by Winston Churchill about the “dreadful curses of Mohammedanism” in his 1899 first edition of his book The River Wars.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/churchill-on-islam/
Gray says
May I refer readers to the book by Rebecca Bynum (Editor of the New English Review) entitled ‘Why Islam is not a Religion.’?
KWJ says
Islam is an ideology because it’s a whole system and worldview that affects many societal aspects, politics and laws, and religion (rites). It is not compatible with the Constitution if you believe Allah’s laws are above all others. Sharia law is incompatible with many state laws. I don’t get arrested for adultery or fornication, you have to be 18 to get married, polygamy is illegal, we can gamble and drink alcohol. We mix genders in public schools, restaurants, pools, busses, etc. We wear what we want, listen to the music we want to, we have a wide variety of entertainment, we allow homosexuals to walk down the street holding hands if they want to. We have divorce procedures in my state that are not like divorces under sharia law as well as custody of children. We don’t have tons of fatwas to follow…really, there are so many picayune rules in Islam for the devout Muslim. Since they have religious jurists they rule on things based on the Qur’an and Hadiths and determine, say, women shouldn’t ride bicycles or work out in a gym or no dog ownership. (Iran bans pet dogs.) It affects holidays or jack there of and the dates-it is not 2019 in Islam. It affects business and lending-no interest allowed. Punishment is strict.
Of course some countries don’t follow all of sharia but the Muslim Brotherhood that has infiltrated our country is strict. There’s good reason why Moro’s in Egypt was ousted-they would have changed Egypt’s culture.
All the millennials following the Leftists and yelling racist or Islamophobic would not like living under sharia law; it’s the antithesis of self-determination and fun.
It’s more ideology than religion and it has affected Islamic countries more negatively than positive. That doesn’t matter to them. It doesn’t matter to them that 80% or so of the world is non-Muslim. They want to take what they have not built because Islam’s ego or self-esteem is based on domination over all else not logic and reason.
*The US has treaty rules-Islam’s are different.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
Merriam Webster defines “religion” as “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.” ==UNQUOTE==
What a childishly crummy definition! That’s like defining a carrot as “a plant that has carrot-like properties”. General principle: When defining the term X, don’t use a form of the term X in the definition.
thebigW says
well, ya gotta do the dictionary dance and look up words in the definition, like “religious” –
” relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity ”
Islam’s not only got one ultimate deity Muzzies acknowledge (Allah), it’s got a second ultimate deity Muzzies pretend they don’t to acknowledge (Mohammed)
somehistory says
When it comes to “worship.” a human can have anything or anyone as the object of their devotion.
The Bible says a man cut down a tree, used a portion of the wood to cook his food, and carved another portion of the wood into an idol, to which he then prayed.
Another verse from the Bible says, “Their god is their belly.”
Some people worship famous actors or actresses, dressing the same, swooning at the sight of the person, following their every move and word, imitating that one. This is a form of worship.
The filthy thief of the desert, a mass murderer by trade and a raper of children, convinced his henchman that he was a messenger from God, much like David Koresh, and Jim Jones did to their followers. The thief, rapist and murderer, was so convincing, people still believe him to this day and actually “worship” him as a messenger, a prophet. The main reason being: a threat of death hangs over every moslim to force him/her to stay in islam. Without that threat, there would be many, many who would leave it.
This “religion” or “form of worship,” that is called islam is different from other religions in many ways and one of those is that the thief, rapist, murderer, commanded his followers to force everyone they met to join them in worship of satan the devil…or die by the sword. He concocted a bunch of rules…named as “laws” but entirely lawless as they go against all of our Creator’s Divine Laws. He demanded that his followers keep these rules and enforce them on everyone else.
In most political systems, groups of humans get together and make up the laws for their country. A dictatorship is different in that one person makes up all of the laws or rules and forces everyone in his country to obey or suffer. The thief, rapist, murderer in the desert was a “dictator” and pretended to be a “prophet.”
Therefore, his followers constitute a “religion and a dictatorship”…”religion and politics.” That was the only way that the thief, rapist, mass murderer could hold his power over the people. And those who become the “leaders” of the dictatorship use the sword to force obedience to a dead thief, rapist, mass murderer.
Aussie Infidel says
Islam is a religion because it involves belief in the supernatural together with related practices and rituals. But Islam is more political than religious. More than half of the Quran is devoted to how Muslims should treat non-Muslims and women (including sex-slaves) etc; which is why Islam is often referred to as a political ideology masquerading as a religion.
Robert is right that Islam contradicts the principles in the US Constitution, and opposes freedom of speech – and all the other freedoms westerners take for granted. Despite that, Hillary Clinton, when she was Secretary of State, signed on to tthe OIC’s resolution 16/18 at the UNHRC effectively silencing any criticism of Islam.
https://counterjihad.com/ongoing-affront-freedom-un-resolution-1618-assault-free-speech .
A Congressional inquiry into Islam is long overdue. Former President George W Bush believed that Islam was a ‘religion of peace’, and most other political leaders since then have reiterated this ignorant nonsense. Most ordinary citizens don’t understand because they have been continually lied to by Muslims and their apologists alike. The truth will only come out when a national inquiry is held.
Despite its violent political ethos, Islam is accorded protection under the US First Amendment – and section 116 of the Australian Constitution. If our politicians believe that we can continue to shelter a criminal ideology, whose tenets command Muslims to murder us – simply because we are kafirs or ‘unbelievers’ – they are living in a fool’s paradise.
The Islamic jihad has been going on for 1,400 years and has resulted in some 270 million deaths – more than those caused by Nazism, Fascism, and Communism combined; and it will continue until it has subjugated us all, and we are living under Sharia Law. Islam should be banned, not because of its religious tenets, but because its violent political tenets are a threat to our citizens and our national security.
Bring on the inquiry and leave no stone unturned.
Michael Copeland says
“The muslim community possesses no power except to acknowledge and obey.”
Dr. Salah al Sawy
Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America
Max says
She says that opposition to Sharia is simply motivated by religious bigotry and “Islamophobia.”
Sharia law requires 1) Daughters to be genitally mutilated, 2) Wives to obey the husband’s orders without a single argument, 3) Daughters to be forced to marry a man that could easily be three times their age and have never met before, and 4) To hate anybody that is not a Muslim, as instructed by the Quran.
If you are considered an Islamophobic because you refuse to agree with the rules stated above, then yes, I am Islamophobic and proud of being one.
gravenimage says
It also includes such horrors as amputations, crucifixion, beheadings, and stoning to death.
Mr. Maxwell S. J. Fenton says
How does Islam connect one to the divine?
Muhammad claimed to be related to his god Allah, he claimed to have spoken with Abraham, Moses, Jesus and the Almighty, they even had a dispute about how many prayers should be offered!!!
This psychotic drivel is the only way Islam barges in to the spiritual realms, by somehow including the iconic figures of Judeo-Christian thought.
You’ve got to rely on Muhammad, only he had the relationship and one has to submit to every teaching he espoused over two decades, even when they contradicted and opposed previous teachings and contain confused and obviously erroneous narratives from previous revelations.
No one gets to know this strange pagan deity, you just submit to its messengers message, by doing what Muhammad commands those acts will save you on judgement day and are the only way to paradise, to fight, persecute and slaughter for his sake.
So Islam doesn’t offer a relationship to God, only to a poem written by a warlord that if you follow literally will apparently bring happiness eventually.
That’s too much to ask, too risky to believe, why can’t one relate to the divine as an individual, with all one’s heart, mind soul and strength?
Why would I prefer to trust a mortal, a very disturbed and perverted one at that?
If Muhammadans could have access to other teachings they’d discover what a charlatan Muhammad was.
No wonder they want it protected from analysis or critical thought with the death penalty.
It all falls away, it’s a sham.
Demsci says
Well said, good post.
ever since 9/11 I was one of those who perceived Islam as a threat. For democracy especially. Also to me it is only logical that Islam is treated as all the other religion, ideology, thinking system in the democratic battleground of ideas. Quite frankly I think Islam is holding mankind back by indoctrinating its children, all its propaganda and all its censorship.
To my enormous frustration there also seems to be this huge RED/GREEN alliance, both in opposition to Western capitalism. Even if sometimes unintentional and out from a tolerant heart.
So for me, who has many friendly meetings with Muslims and Leftists, the goal I like the most is “debunking Islam” and lessening the Green/ Red Alliance.
To the point where it becomes possible to say to a Muslim; I am very sorry, but I don’t like Islam, I think it has a very fallible manmade message and is obsolete. But I do respect you as a human being.
And that leftists will concede more and more that in order to like Muslims it is not necessary to defend/ whitewash Islam also. After all, especially atheist leftists clearly do not really hold high views of the religion of Islam if they are pressured on this.
They merely seem to want to defend “poor hated/ insulted Muslims” against haters/ anti Jihadists. But they themselves already implicitly say that Islam is very unclear, contradicting and ambiguous when they tell people like us that: “The Islam does not exist”. I read that as: “a clear, single-interpretational, authorized and upheld Islam” DOES NOT EXIST. I think Leftists and Muslims alike should be reminded that this is what Leftists think about Islam.
Jay Smith and others already dissects official Islamic history, ex Muslims tear the fabric of Islam apart on internet. And instead of just fearing and hating Muslims, more and more ordinary Westerners gain enough knowledge of Islam to juist debunk and despise it or at least so many of its texts.
thebigW says
“To the point where it becomes possible to say to a Muslim; I am very sorry, but I don’t like Islam, I think it has a very fallible manmade message and is obsolete. But I do respect you as a human being.”
If a Muzzie seems okay with that, it’s because he/she knows that in the future your descendants will be on your knees submitting, either to Islam by sayin’ the shahada, or to the sword through their necks. And that Muzzie should feel smugly content that’s gonna happen, as long as we keep thinkin’ we have to get along with Muslims, rather than force them to go back to their lands.
Demsci says
Erdogan also said that “Islam is Islam, there is no moderate or radical Islam”. Yet that IS what the leftist intelligentsia tell the world. They do this to frustrate the counterjihadists, but in the process they DO implicitly declare Islam multi-interpreted, thus multi-interpretable, so vague, unclear.
This is really also the result of the fiction that the sacred texts are divine in part. Because this means that not 1 iota of sacred texts may be changed and is not changed/ updated in a 1000 years.
even to a leftist intellectual this must look as a huge weakness of a manmade text. And they sure as hell don;’t consider Islam divine, not really.
But Muslims do and they value above all else the concept of divine infallibility and thus they can’t admit that the sacred texts contain errors or unclear etc.
Would it ever be possible to put a wedge between Muslims and leftists on the grounds of the difference of opinion about the sacred texts being divine/ perfect and them being manmade and vague, obsolete etc?
somehistory says
Mr. Maxwell S. J. Fenton
I agree with you, and agree that you stated the truth very well indeed.
islamic text says
Islam was never religion as Arab and Turkish invader never claimed it.
Please download
http://www.islamic-laws.com/download/Islaamic_Sharia_Law_sunni.pdf
Dennis Durkop posted the link of the full English translation of the Arabic Islamic sharia on Facebook
Many Muslims hate this link considering it a fake translation by Jews, but is fully supported by the 57 Islamic member states of the world’s largest devout criminal gang the United Nations Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), that passed into international law to protect their religious right, that only Muslim men are human beings, while Muslim females, children and unbelievers are lowly dirty animals with no rigths! See:
http://www.islamic-laws.com/download/Islaamic_Sharia_Law_sunni.pdf
Many Muslims will runaway from all arguments about the Quran when confronted with the OIC’s official Islamic sharia that shows the full oppressive barbarism of their pagan death rape cult! Most do not know it even exists; as they are so brainwashed by their brainwashed clerics! Great to have their own law to rub their faces in what is in black and white!
Here is another link by someone else about early biography of mohd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Ishaq
windrush48 says
” At a certain point there is going to have to be a national discussion about whether religious freedom grants Muslims the right to break other laws, or whether the aspects of Sharia that contradict American law are unwelcome in the United States. ”
Quite simply, if the followers of islam and sharia are “allowed” to break American Law and act in opposition to the Constitution, and other Organic Law, then it becomes a “State sanctioned ‘religion’ ” which is expressly forbidden BY LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION.
The Constitution, and the other Organic Laws, are THE HIGHEST LAW OF THE LAND – PERIOD. Breaching The Law (not ‘legislation’) and the Constitution is no less than TREASON since doing so “makes war” upon the Constitution and this Republic. Remember, the Constitution, and the rest of the Organic Laws, are the ONLY AUTHORITY FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE REPUBLIC and attempting to overthrow those LAWS is, in fact, attempting to overthrow the Republic AND IS AN ACT OF WAR.
SuchindranathAiyerS says
Is Islam a “Religion: or a “Nation”? It is a Nation (primarily a war waging political entity) united by a religion created for this purpose, to establish the Sharia on the rubble of ALL civilization
patriotliz says
Well DUH!
That author is “Islamophobic” and guilty of “hateful conduct” if she posted “The entire religion of Islam is simply the violent ideology of a 6th-century despot masquerading as a religious leader. …” on Twitter.
somehistory says
Max
+100
I have learned enough of the evil teachings that I don’t fear it, but despise it as my God must (Proverbs 6)
Richard says
There are two primary definitions for religion; substantive and functionalist. Substantive addresses the worship of supernatural gods or God. Functionalist addresses a comprehensive belief system of values, morals and behaviors that guides ones life. This functionalist form is often referred to as a worldview.
Christianity, Islam, Secular Humanism, Marxism are all examples of religions based on the functionalist definition. They all address politics, law, economics, history, sociology, science, philosophy, theology, etc. and they all provide answers (ie truth claims) to life’s ultimate questions.
In my opinion, worldview is the better topic to use when discussing religions as it creates a level playing field and provides for an apples to apples comparison say between Marxism and Christianity as the culture wars in America heat up.
UNCLE VLADDI says
Allah is described as “Unknown and Unknowable” so it’s really Moe’s interpretation one has to obey.
And he used his ‘Allah’ as an excuse for all of his own criminal desires and actions, such that if he got away with something, then clearly Allah approved and endorsed it, but if not, then not. This might-made-right approach to religion cancels itself out; when one’s “god” is really only “Everything,” then it’s also by implication specifically “Nothing.” (Existentialism IS Nihilism). So all that’s left of islam’s “allah” is a shallow strawman red–herring alibi distraction to excuse one’s own criminal desires and actions, to wit:
“God told us to commit these crimes!”
(CAPSICE?)!
😉
mneidoff says
“The entire religion of Islam is simply the violent ideology of a 6th-century despot masquerading as a religious leader. … The truth is that Islam is not like any other faith. … It is the religious equivalent of fascism,” he said. “And just because the followers of this savage belief were not the killers in this instance does not make them blameless.”
I do not see anything wrong with this argument. The believers, often passive, but are in concert with the honor and prestige given to those who do jihad by the sword. So passivity and honor and esteem do make the believers all in it together. The are others who are blameless but that because they are either muslims i the name only or practicing according the orthodox theology, which in itself is punishable by death fro distorting the word of Allah.
mneidoff says
sorry, messed up = or practicing in name only. or NOT practicing according to orthodox theology, the word of the Koran and hadith. To change the word of Allah is punishable by death
Debi Brand says
Spencer stated, “Asma Uddin and the Washington Post are relying upon your ignorance of Islamic law and Islamic history to manipulate you into thinking that Sharia is benign and completely compatible with the United States’ character ….”
Indeed, they “are relying upon your ignorance Islamic law and Islamic history.”
“Sharia is benign and completely compatible with the United States’ character” only if and when the character of the United States is in compliance with the Sharai of “Allah’s Messenger.”
Because: