Sharia States: Totalitarian to the Core
In less than two weeks, American voters must decide whether to reelect or to boot the current White House occupant. Dr. Andrew Bostom’s monumental new work, Sharia Versus Freedom: The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism, could not have come at a more fateful hour. This brilliant scholarship, while designed as an overarching analysis, also conveniently provides a kind of detailed 2012 Electoral Guide for the Perplexed. [i]
Among recent perplexities that demand voters’ consideration:
- For weeks after the murderous 9/11, 11th anniversary attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, U.S. President Barack Obama, rather than its jihadi perpetrators, blamed a crude and laughable internet parody aimed at the founder of Islam for inciting their actions. Incredibly, to a global audience during his September 24 UN address, Obama six times reinforced that lie.
- Now Obama plans to authorize Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to announce a temporary nuclear crisis “solution.” Iran will swap a temporary halt in partial uranium enrichment for U.S. sanctions cuts, including some on Iran’s Central Bank, before the March arrival of Nowruz, the pre-Islamic Persian New Year. [ii] The U.S. Treasury Dept. long ago designated Iran’s Central Bank for supporting terrorism. The massive inflation caused by sanctions has increasingly harmed Iranian nuclear ambitions. Obama’s blatant ploy to win reelection loosens the noose.
- Obama banned terms that help define the current Islamic war on the West — “jihad,” “sharia,” “radical Islam,” “Islamic terrorism” and the like — and effectively outlawed study of Islamic doctrine at U.S. official and security agencies. During World War II and the Cold War, the U.S. did not provide Nazi sensitivity training or ban reading books on or by Karl Marx.
- In June 2009, at the world’s leading Islamic university, Cairo’s Al Azhar, President Barack Obama praised Islam and blamed the West for virtually all the world’s problems.
- Within two years, Obama repudiated longtime U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak and embraced both Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and Libyan rebels shortly afterward discovered to include al-Qaeda elements. The resultant Arab Spring has benefitted only the Muslim Brotherhood totalitarian types.
- The Obama embrace of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood evidently extends to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Hamas fundraising arm in the U.S. In March 2010, the Obama Department of Justice dropped indictments against CAIR and its co-founder Omar Ahmad, among others, despite massive evidence of the kind that in November 2008 convicted the Holy Land Foundation and its officers on 108 terror financing and fraud charges.
Andrew Bostom’s latest book exposes the logic that possibly motivated these and many similar perplexities in an engrossing and encyclopedic catalog of ideology and history of the naked totalitarianism of Islamic religious and political doctrines. The introduction alone establishes the diametric opposite embodied in Islamic law (sharia) to free Western social structure. It prohibits political freedoms as well as freedoms of conscience, faith, and expression (both oral and written). In Islamdom, one expresses personal views at great risk. As applied throughout its history and expressed in internal jurisprudence, the creed Mohammed founded has suppressed and oppressed all with whom it interacted — especially non-Muslims.
Indeed, jihadism and Islamic canon are intrinsically totalitarian. Neither concerns or governs only “believers.” Islamophilic obfuscation notwithstanding, many sharia attributes make the ostensibly “religious” legal code intractable, even now. By Muslim belief, according to seminal scholar Joseph Schacht (d. 1969), the “clear path to be followed” establishes divine, global Islamic order and is therefore:
not to be penetrated by the intelligence … i.e., man has to accept it without criticism. … It comprises without restriction, as an infallible doctrine of duties the whole of the religious, political, social, domestic and private life of those who profess Islam, and the activities of the tolerated members of other faiths so far as they may not be detrimental to Islam. [emphasis added]
In short, sharia statutes also govern the unique Islamic institution of jihad war, and relationships of Muslims to non-Muslims. The code requires Muslims to mount regular jihad attacks on unvanquished non-Muslims and to permanently, deliberately humiliate these “inferior” jihad survivors. Incorporation into Islamic polity subjects non-Muslims to sharia (pp. 110-112) and with it, statutes covering inheritance, requirements and prohibitions and draconian hadd penalties. These include death (by stoning) for adultery, apostasy, and highway robbery (whose victim was murdered); loss of hands and feet for simple robbery; loss of right hand for simple theft; 100 lashes for “fornication”; and 80 lashes for wine drinking. Tracing to individual Quran passages (including 45:18, 42:13, 42:21, and 5:48) and other Islamic sacred texts, primarily hadith (Mohammed’s reputed sayings and deeds), sharia is ultimately understood by Muslims as “the totality of Allah’s commandments relating to the activities of man,” Schacht notes. It embodies “the most characteristic phenomenon of Islamic thought [and] nucleus of Islam itself.”
These facts are not an expression of hatred for Muslims. “I have nothing against the people,” said Geert Wilders in a March 2009 interview Bostom later cited — in this respect, undoubtedly speaking for all anti-jihad scholars and writers:
I don’t hate Muslims. But Islam is a totalitarian ideology. It rules every aspect of life — economics, family law, whatever. It has religious symbols, it has a God, it has a book — but it’s not a religion. It can be compared with totalitarian ideologies like Communism or fascism. [In] no country where Islam is dominant [do] you have a real democracy, a real separation between church and state. Islam is totally contrary to our values.
Bostom shows in myriad ways how Islam cements “religion” to Mohammed’s crushing totalitarian 7th century creed. For openers, while the Arabic word “hurriyya” translates to “freedom,” it refers to “freedom as perfect slavery to Allah,” as prescribed by highly dogmatic sharia laws engineered by the same dictatorial chief (Mohammed said, by divine instructions delivered via the angel Gabriel). It means something diametrically opposite to the same word in English — study of which is now off limits for U.S. military and security officials.






The biggest failure of western democracies, particularly in the U.S., has been their willful blindness towards Islam, all in the name of multicultural, PC inclusion/delusion.
In fact, Muslim Brotherhood Mafia operatives count on said delusions, to aid them in their infiltration/penetration. In effect, if there ever was an example of a civilization’s implosion from within, this is it.
Bostom, and several others, has led the way, but it is doubtful that many are absorbing the lessons needed for collective survival.
In any case, this is another one – out of many others – to add to the mix -
http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/07/25/the-muslim-mafia-aka-the-brotherhood-their-overarching-plan-what-it-means-for-americas-future-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
To stay alive, one must be willing to learn.
It is about time that someone told the truth about the curse of islam.
What i cannot figure our is why liberals hate Christianity so much when it truly is a religion of love as well as peace & yet love Islam which is a way of life that is violent, dishonest, cruel, intolerant, has caused incredible suffering through the ages and treats women like pigs. You’d think that they would think it through, but then again they ARE liberals!
The left’s attack on Christianity is a natural condition of collectivism. The democratic Ideaology is anything but democratic. In order to succeed it is neccessary to hijack basic human rights from those who: “..hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” People who believe that their rights are bestowed by God are far more likely to engage in armed rebellion whenever those rights are threatened. By eliminating God from the equation Basic human rights cease to be rights and become instead a consequence of political whim to be expanded or eliminated as suits the state.
The left’s hatred of Christianity comes from not that far afield. Given my recent exchange with a totalitarian bible-banger in a subject not yet a week old, I can attest that the zealots of Christianity are an irritating lot. But what they fail to realize is that Christianity has room for the devout as well as the “casual observer” while asking (not demanding) that you consider walking in the path of Christ.
I included in my statement to the zealot how I was rabidly solicited by fellow military members to become “saved”, a routine I found very annoying and unwelcome. But from their standpoint, how could I possibly be angry with them for their “trying to help”. I wasn’t into drugs, drinking, carousing, etc. and perhaps they felt that was the mark of a true “candidate”. However, I found them rather narrow-minded, insular, clique-ish and aloof as well as arrogant.
No thanks. Their brand of Christianity didn’t match any of the catechism I had as a youngster in church.
Expanding on that theme, many of the left-wing moonbats were raised in some fairly strict homes, from a religious standpoint and during their hippie rebellion days found that pot and other drugs and screwing around were more fun than going to church socials and square dancing. Sadly, that’s still pretty much the way things are and though I don’t criticize it for being so, the removal of rock and roll music, some adult beverages and such is not chartered anywhere in any bible I ever read.
So though I understand on at least one level why the left hates Christianity, it doesn’t explain to me why they would categorically deny it to others, or why embracing islam is somehow “better”. or is it that they see all religions as the same or is it more they support islamists because it pisses off the conservatives so much, which is what I think the real driving mechanism must be.
You make some good points. A leftist would set their own face on fire if they thought it would piss off a conservative and/or a Christian, particularly an annoying zealot. Their own self absorption is their ultimate curse and a roadmap for their demise.
Oikophobia.
When confronted with stories about Islamist atrocities, liberals usually revert to the tired old tactic of talking about what the Christians did during the Crusades, and then concluding that both religions are violent. So it seems to me that it is not helpful to talk about atrocities perpetrated by the followers of Mohammed 1000 years ago, except from a historical perspective. We need to concentrate on what they are doing now. An excellent example would be Malala Yousufzai, the Pakistani girl shot in the head by the Taliban for supporting education for girls. Or maybe Neda Agha-Soltan, the young woman killed in 2009 by the Iranian military.
18 USC 2385 makes it a crime to advocate the overthrow of our government. It seems to me that this statute would be a good place to start moving against those who are trying to bring back the Caliphate. They are using their religious freedom as a weapon. Let’s use the Constitution as a better weapon.
The critical difference is that the actions of the jihadists are rooted in the fundamental teachings of Islam and they will cite you chapter and verse to support them. There is no way to reprimand a jihadist using the tenets of his religion.
On the other hand, the actions of the Crusaders (which, BTW, were initially aimed at saving the Holy Land from Muslim invaders), especially any atrocities, cannot be defended by the teachings of Christianity. Jesus has some rather pointed things to say about how to act towards your enemies (with proper recognition of the doctrine of roles and vocations). If a person claims to kill in the name of Christ, or commits some atrocity, it is fairly easy to find a number of reasons why he is wrong.
The confusion about (to be kind) or surrender to (to be less so) Islam among some American-based Christian denominations shows just how far the rot has spread. As a traditional Epscopalian, with a strong attachment to the Anglican tradition, I am continually horrified by the concept of “interfaith understanding” in my church being carried to the extreme is now faces: The blurring of the lines between Christianity and Islam (“we’re all monotheists! We all worship one God!”). Although I have been fighting this locally, as a Vestryman in my own parish, I am increasing discouraged as I see this spread to the level of dioceses and even the national church. This review has invigorated me to renew my resistance. As H.L. Menken said (I’m probably mis-quoting): “There are times when a man must spit on his hands, raise the black flag and go a-pirating.” It’s just about time to call for a new Crusade.
‘interfaith understanding’ is a Baha’i concept. The Baha’i Faith promotes the idea of Unity in Diversity (multiculturalism). The Baha’i Faith is the root of the problem. Besides that, the Baha’i Faith is a Progressive Religion. It is based on the idea that mohammad has been ‘trumped’ by a new prophet, Baha’u'allah. Baha’u'allah claimed to be the second coming of Isa (muslim jesus). Thus Baha’i are messianic muslims.
I wonder what those “churchmen” who call for such “understanding” actually believe. The two religions are mutually exclusive. Islam has some rather harsh things to say against the doctrine of the Trinity, one of the fundamental teachings of Christianity. Also, whereas Jesus plainly says that “all who believe and are baptized shall be saved”, the only way that any Muslim can know for certain that he will enter Paradise – even though he follow the 5 Pillars his entire life – is to die in Jihad. This, by the way, explains why so many young Muslims are so eager to sign up to be suicide bombers!
Leyendo los comentarios,no me sorprende que EEUU sea el pueblo mas odiado del planeta.Ignorancia, prepotencia y violencia es lo que os define
What really disturbs me lately is the active, and constant push on TV to read, learn and live by the koran. The tv commercial here in california is disguised as something ‘so beautiful’ and educational and, as the ad says ‘changes you to want to learn the koran’.
It’s sick, really – not sure who pushes it though.
Leyendo tu comentario no me extraña que los guanches estuviesen en la edad de piedra alla por el siglo XV. T ademas de atraso mental eres un cobarde que comenta en castalleno para eviatar lma rplica. Y no solo eso sino que eress despreciable: miilones de mujeres victimùas de violaciones conygales, millones de ninya
millones de ninyas abusadas a partir de los nueve anyos para que un hijo de la fgran p.. pueda darselas de avanzado”. Sino fuera porque poquisimos saben quien es son los gua,nches serian el pueblo mas desprecuado del planeta.
Read the Koran – with Robert Spencer’s Infidel’s Guide to the Koran (as well as his more recent book, Did Mohammed Exist?
I recently read that a public school 5th grade teacher in Virginia insisted on saying her Mohammedan prayers in front of the class and punished her pupils for not being Islamic. The parents of one of the pupils whose hand was cut by the teacher complained to the school board – which replied that there was no prohibition to using Arabic in the schools! What about the prohibition against religion in the classroom, the separation of church and state? The teacher should have been at least disciplined, if not fired.
The pro-Mohammedanism in government especially, comes from President Barack Obama, who may well be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. He defended Huma Abedin, close aide to the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose family are members of the Muslim Brotherhood and who herself has written for them. See Andrew McCarthy on this.
“It prohibits political freedoms as well as freedoms of conscience, faith, and expression (both oral and written). In Islamdom, one expresses personal views at great risk.” Except for the hint “Islamdom” I would have thought you were talking about modern liberalism.
That’s a reason for why the latter embraces the former. Progressives (I refuse to call them “Liberals”) refuse to believe that anyone could take any religion seriously. They thus figure that Muslims are really Progressives in disguise. Also, since the practices of the two are so similar, and Progressives have no qualms about having to follow the 5 Pillars of Islam so long as they don’t have to really believe in Allah or change how they live (you’d be surprised at what the Muslim Arabs get away with outside of the mosque – see “The Arab Mind” by Raphael Patai) they figure that they might as well get credit for being religious.