When Is a Religion not a Religion?
Hillary Clinton has managed to stay out of the limelight these last four years. Her image and approval rating had been pretty high. The media and most of the public have assumed she has been doing a good job. It is not clear why, as it is difficult to state what she has accomplished. It is just a mantra that is regurgitated. The too-clever-by-half people even accorded to her extra political gamesmanship and skill for not being overly linked with any of the more controversial Obama proposals. Many believed she could be a serious candidate for president in 2016.
The woman who warned about the 3 a.m. call in her critique of Obama in 2008 has succumbed to a complete intellectual breakdown, oddly enough at about 3 a.m. At least she actually seems to feel a certain moral responsibility for what is happening in the Middle East, even as she insanely deflects blame to a publicly released opinion video by a single U.S. citizen. As if tens of millions of people did not at least empathize with his views. Her facial expressions reveal shock and cognitive dissonance; she appears truly dazed and confused.
Obama, on the other hand, can hardly take the effort to fake concern. Nor does he have enough knowledge to even fake having knowledge about what is going on. On the other hand, he seems genuinely excited about his road show and money-raising activities. This has always been what turns him on. Great practice for his post-presidency (I predict he becomes the first ex-president billionaire). The man who would be king, but cannot even submit budgets, clearly has no calling for governance or learning the details about who wants to destroy the U.S. Even his ever-repeated and absurd self-promotion over the Osama bin laden killing has all the appearance of a bad Wizard of Oz production. That picture of him sitting in the back of the room, intently watching as if it had been a post-production review of the Last House on Main Street 8, makes him look like a director’s assistant who received a last-second invitation. That is the best picture they have of him “leading” the charge? I assume it must be.
Back to now. With the exception of Kirsten Powers, I cannot think of one media liberal who does not see how utterly delusional the administration’s response to these riots has been. This may be going out on a limb, but my guess is this had been in the planning for a long time. I wonder what other Muslim deaths movie man was responsible for in the last week? How about the 92 people killed in 13 separate bombings in Iraq on the conviction in absentia of former VP Tarique Hashemi; or the 12 people killed in a car bombing in a public market in Pakistan near the Afghan border; or the assassination attempt on 9/11 of the Yemeni foreign minister which killed about 12; or, on his second day in office, the suicide bombers’ killing of 12 while failing to assassinate Somalia’s new president; or perhaps the suicide bombers’ attempt to blow up a police station in Istanbul?
Besides an incomprehensible lack of normal human common sense, the core of this administration’s failure is one of semantical confusion, particularly in the use of the term “religion” to describe various movements within the Middle East. When is a religion not a religion? When it is a political movement?
Wow, right on!
One of the biggest hoaxes in history has been the invention of Islam as a religion.
In fact, the incoherence of its texts belies any semblance of human ‘teachings’, unless how to best kill the infidel qualifies.
Moreover, the history of Islam has been about little more than conquering and subjugation. Hell, Islam means submission! Moreover, they have been colonialists of the highest magnitude, a sin which Barack HUSSEIN Obama, and his fellow travelers, hammers the west continually over. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
The fact of the matter is that by designing a complete political doctrine, under the guise of religion, its early disciples, aided with later adherents, have been able to gain its protection under western norms.
They are far from stupid.
In fact, by turning western ‘weaknesses’ to their advantage, their leaders bespeak an incredible cunning and guile.
http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/08/18/what-the-west-in-general-and-its-leaders-in-particular-know-about-islam-can-fill-less-than-a-thimble-morsis-muslim-mafia-crucifies-christians-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
At the end of this death dance, either Islam will cease to exist, or the west will.
A clash of civilizations on a global scale.
No political civilization can prosper when its religion is undermined. Look at Rome. In 300 years Christ’s teachings sent the Roman gods packing and the whole thing fell apart until Constantine adopted the new religion. In the east this kept it going until 1453. Just as the West was rebirthing. But then Luther and Henry VIII took the Nations and their National religions their own bloody way and the Roman Church splintered, though the Christian competition, the new found gold and the scramble for new lands kept the Christian expanse going up to the present. Now where exhausted and oil is funding the rebirth of Islam, which for the Christian competitive imperialistic period since Lepanto and the Gates of Vienna, have been fairly penned in by the western explorations. Iran can get a bomb and some missles, but without a real airforce of navy, what are the mullahs going to do? All we need is the will and a real leader. Letting our enemies secretly pick our pretend “leaders” is not really the answer. But I have not spoken to anyone who sees Romney as the answer either. Washington/Lincoln with his Greene/Grant/Patton has not yet appeared, Nor Pitt/Churchill with his Marlborough/Wellington. But the conclusion is that as soon as we let out religion go, it really does not matter what the barbarians do. They always do what they do. We will then be the masters of our own suicide, as all the great lost apostacy civilizations were before.
To the extent islam is a religion, it should be held up to ridicule. To the extent islam is a political construct, it should be shunned.
A creed need not be a political movement to fail of being a religion. It could be disqualified for several reasons. However, the creed’s willingness to use force to attain its aims is certainly one of them…as is the endorsement of slavery, the promotion of one people above all others, the ratification of conversion by the sword, and a lot of just plain ugly doctrines.
It ain’t just the Islamists. Islam has never been a religion. But it takes both insight and courage to say so openly.
Francis – I couldn’t agree more. While not original with me, I have continued to point out that Islam is not a religion, it is a totalitarian political ideology masked in the guise of a religion. (Naziism was a little like that, hence the swatiska.) When will the rest of us in the West wake up to that fact and treat Islam’s adherants as political fifth columnists who are here as the advance wave Muslim fanatics. (Please note what is happening in Eurabia.)
Have you noticed that the symbol of the Democrat Party is now a Holy “O”.
A holy “O” with red stripes.
A holy “O” with a red crowd silhouette.
A holy “O” with a capital D inside.
Holy “O” = Obama.
Islam……a CULT organized in the 7th century by a sexual PERVERT! Muhammad with 12 marriages, sex with children, slaves and concubines, rapes, warfare, conquests, and unmerciful butcheries.
Islam is a caustic blend of paganism and twisted Bible stories. Muhammad it’s lone prophet, who made no prophecies, and conceived his cult to satiate his lust for power, sex and money.
To put it simply, the madman was a terrorist.
A religion can also be politicized or a political system become a religion, as Nazism and Communism both were; the state or the state’s leader become the deity, not just the dictator. That’s what makes them so hard to fight on an ideological level. People are so indoctrinated and most often also terrorized they won’t or can’t question and fall into the otherwise obvious insanity of these systems, going along with whatever the regime dictates. People CAN come out of that, and have done out of all those named, but it’s not easy; and it’s always dangerous; because they turn on their own even. In such systems ALL must think/feel/speak in complete lockstep. But we even see that among some of the Christian sects as well. It’s the intertwining of religion and politics that is so difficult and dangerous to deal with, which is one of the reasons our Founding Fathers did separate the 2, and not sanction a “state” religion, or allow any one religion to dominate over the others. They had seen what that resulted in, back in Europe, and sought to avoid it here! Unfortunately, the current interpretation is not separation OF Church and State but separation of Church FROM State, blocking any appearance of Godliness from public venues; something that would have greatly distressed the Godly men who founded this nation!
Great article. Nobody seems to be making the distinction between religion and a group’s use of religion as an ideology camouflaging an imperialist intent. The Nazi party used the romanticized view of nature that intellectuals and youth had developed in the early 1920s to attract intellectuals and youth to the Nazi party. Similarly, various jihadi groups use Islam to attract potential followers to their parties. Unless we make the distinction between religion and ideology that you suggest, we will never be able to figure out how to fight jihadis on the intellectual and emotional planes.
I wish the article were correct. I’m afraid the difference between a Christian and Muslim is that the Christian was lucky enough to be born to a religion of god and the Muslim has the misfortune to be born into a satanic cult. I have Saint Augustine, and the Jihadis have the dead sheik Osama.
The Catholic Church teaches that a believer is safe to follow the words of the church in certain matters in which it is deemed infallible. Infallible because God is not going to let us down.
Well. Something certainly let the Muzzies down.
A true Christian follows Christ, and G-d does not need anyone to murder for him. Islam is a false religion following a 7th century mad man murdering in the name of the god of the Kaabba.
You aren’t trapped by what you’re born into, though it is a great blessing to be raised in the Faith.
You need to check your own facts. If born a Muslim in the eyes of Islam you are ALWAYS a muslim. If you recant or convert to another fate, you become an apostate muslim. The penalty for that is death. Your opinion doesn’t matter, It;s written in the Koran, look it up.
Barak “Jimmmmah” Obama is an apostate muslim. That is a fact. What Mr. Obama thinks about that doesn’t matter. Islam does NOT recognise ‘Human rights’ or ‘free will’.
Look it up.
Oderint dum metuant.
My point was that being born a Muslim does not prevent you from choosing to become a Christian, even if the price be martyrdom. Conversely, being baptized as an infant does not prevent you from becoming an apostate.
Agreed.
Of course totalitarian structures, including islam, crumble when truth is allowed as a defense.
I believe you’d be very surprised to realize how like Christians can be to Muslims, when challenged about the behaviors of their forebears, both in this nation and abroad as well. Do you recall the treatment of the Native American nations? Or a bit further back, the treatment of the so-called “witches” both here and in Europe? Or perhaps the very Crusades themselves? Christians aren’t all that innocent either. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, the Buddhists may be the ONLY large group of a religion that hasn’t STARTED a war of any sort OVER religion; which is not to say they haven’t started or participated IN wars, they have. Every other large religious group I know of has been guilty of starting wars over their religion and of terrible atrocities in such wars toward their enemies. The Muslims are NOT innocent, but neither are they the only ones guilty. So stick to the point and don’t pretend your church is so lily-white: history shows it’s NOT!
Things will be so much better when Romney and Ryan are running the show. Those Muslims will cower before their might! Vote R&R 2012!
“Cower before their might?” No thank you, leftist troll.
No, we do not want “Muslims,” in the broadest colloquial sense of the word, cowering. We want “Islamofascist Militants” cowering; and that’s probably 10% of “Muslims” worldwide, and a far smaller percentage stateside.
And frankly, I don’t think “cowering Islamofascists” will happen under Romney and Ryan. I just think they’ll be celebrating less than they currently do under Obama.
As to the thesis that Islam is a totalitarian political movement instead of a religion; well, yes, it is; or at least it was, as first conceived by Muhammad. If one trusts all the official Muslim storyline about the man, then he was tribal Arabia’s version of Shaka Zulu; a warlord who patched together bits of garbled Christianity, garbled Judaism, and garbled Arabian demonology into a crowd-pleasing meme customized to justify conquest.
But we have to admit that one’s Muslim neighbors throughout most of the U.S. are law-abiding citizens despite the best efforts of the Saudis who bankroll extremist imams. They don’t much want to conquer, to feel their foot on the neck of the infidel. They are the kind of Muslims whom Mohammed would have beheaded for being bad Muslims, but their watered-down occidentalized faith, by borrowing neighborliness from Christianity, has turned into a genuine religion.
So that is half the difficulty: On occasion, what goes by the name of Islam is a religion, even if it isn’t authentic Islam.
The other half is that being wild-eyed and power-mad looks an awful lot like being passionately religious and devotedly pious, if you do it right. As a consequence a lot of Muslims don’t mind folks with totalitarian Islamofascist sympathies taking the lead role in mosques. From their point-of-view, why shouldn’t they let the members of their community who’re most interested in religion become the religious leaders in their community?
In short, the same “good neighbors” who don’t want to oppress others and who’d never take the initiative to impose dhimmitude on people of other faiths are equally lackadaisical about preventing the militarization of their religions community. They aren’t fired-up enough to prevent the wild-eyed and power-mad folk from becoming leaders in the Muslim community. And should that community ever become politically ascendant and be in a position to impose dhimmitude on others, the “good neighbor” types will not rise up to oppose that evil.
So, while the “good neighbor” Muslims really are “practicing a religion” instead of fomenting a totalitarian political movement (that is to say, instead of practicing authentic Islam), the fact is that they are no help in resisting that totalitarian political movement, and will just as readily go along with it, should it happen to look like “the strong horse,” as they do with law-abiding citizenship, so long as lawful, rights-respecting democratic republicanism is the “strong horse.”
“No, we do not want “Muslims,” in the broadest colloquial sense of the word, cowering.”
Speak for yourself. I would rather have them dead but will settle for cowering.
You liberals fail to understand that America and Islam are like 2 scorpions in a bottle. One will live, one will die. Genocide is ugly but better Islam then America.
The liberal delusion that Muslims can be reasoned with is both dangeroud and treason.
TWANLOC: Those Who Are No Longer Our Countrymen
Those who would demand Americans follow a specific point of view; who would deny other Americans the right to call themselves such because they do not conform; who would parade themselves as “patriots” while assaulting the basic freddoms of others – well, they’re still Americans, like it or not, but they clearly don’t know what that means.
Yes we do know what it means; TWANLOC: Those Who Are No Longer Our Countrymen.
The current divide in America is worse then in 1860.
Every hunting season 40 million hunters head for the woods to shoot Bambi. Hunting season starts this year the weekend after the election. One hopes Bambi still tops the list.
The left worries about the black vote, the Hispanic vote, the Jewish vote, etc. etc.
They need to worry about the Remington vote.
Rule 308; No mercy asked, none given.
There are a few speaking out; and trying to resist that within their mosques; but they’re too few and the voices of the more militants drown them out most of the time.
Dang straight!
Absolutly right! Instead of digging ancient holy books for some inhuman or not politically correct text let`s understand that the modern even the religious human is the product of the politicized society that organize the believers to it`s rulers` benefites.Let us fight the Islamists, Jihadists and their accomplices.
Most religions start as political tools. Look at the Roman pantheon, the Maya, the old dynasty Egyptians, and at today’s Islam among others. Of all religions, the Christians and the Buddhists seem to be the only ones not specifically designed for political purposes. I’m not familiar enough with Hinduism to make any judgement there (A definite lapse on my part). Judaism is truly unique. Of course there are variations, such as communism where the state in effect becomes the religion. Religion is a powerful political tool, on a par with nationalism. I suspect it all boils down to the basic human instinct of tribalism, the wanting to belong to a group that is greater in size than the family. My greatest problem with Islam is that its adherents want to impose it on me. I don’t care in any way for the way Islam treats people; Sharia is a totalitarian system. I very much prefer the remarkably advanced system here in the US, where ideas compete in a free environment. In fact, I’m willing to die to preserve that system.
Islam is just heretical Christianity and geography combined into a noxious re-packaging.
John of Damascus, one of the Fathers of the Church, pointed out that Arianism repackaged is Islam.
As for geography, given the climate and geography of the Arabian Peninsula, tribalism is the first of the dragon’s teeth to come from that place.
Why would you broadcast the fact you are too stupid to distinguish between love thy neighbor as thyself and kill the infidels wherever you find them ?
Ad Hominem! That means you lose! When you are reduced to calling names, it means you have no valid argument. David just owned you. Posterized as they say in the more depressed parts of town. The place where they voted for the Obomination last time and won’t this time. Where they know a long legged mack daddy when they see one.
David, you could not be more wrong. But since you are incapable of cogent thought, let’s address your mental and emotional shortcomings in a more “popular” format with a spirit of condescension and fun. Have you measured your wife, daughters, and female friends for their burkas yet? Are you, your sons, and your male acquaintances fully prepared to make that “ultimate sacrifice” against America and Islam’s other “Satan’s” (greater or lesser) so as to inherit those 99 virgins? Best get ready David—because your comments show you already have become traitor to God and the Republic.
TO THE TUNE OF “LOOK FOR THE UNION LABEL”
Beware of, creeping Shari’a,
We see our liberties fraying away,
Remember, somewhere, an Imam’s speaking,
Shari’a, creeping–throughout our land,
INTO OUR HOUSE*.
Jihades work hard, without complaining,
They think those virgins are coming this way!
So always look for, Shari’a creeping,
They claim we’ll be Islamic U.S.A.
* Michelle Obama claims: “This is really what the White House is all about. It’s the “People’s House.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/abou…
THE FACTS SAY OTHERWISE:
* Most secretive White House in history.
* MAJOR INTELLIGENCE LEAKS COME FROM HIGHEST LEVELS
* Fake documents issues to obscure Obama’s true origins and past
* Off-site meetings held to avoid “transparency” requirements.
* Private e-mails from senior officials compromise rules
* Foreign monies flood into White House from…..?
Don’t get sniffy, christian.
David was spot on correct.
Also, ALL religions began as politics.
The stories are crushed and smoothed by time.
I realize you’re terrified to examine their function because you know nothing of heaven,
but please accept that Islam is corrupted Arab Judeochristianity.
Corrupted. False. A political composite.
The Deceiver’s work, no?
Speaking of “cogent thought” you don’t have the slightest clue as to what David was speaking to. If you did, you would understand it was not the slightest bit pro-Islam.
ON the positive, that post might get you featured on an “Epic Fail” episode.
Among the doctrines taught by the Qur’an is amputation of the hands and feet of theives and other criminals. A case recently occurred in Mali:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/mali-islamists-cut-suspected-thief-hand-article-1.1134073
When is a religion not a religion? When it is a political movement?
Well, here in the US, yes. The mud people can do as they wish. Meanwhile, a great big elephant at home goes unnoticed. Church:state separation belongs on the front burner as a domestic issue, not tucked away as an afterthought of no importance to our atheist/secularist elites.
What basis is there for believing that the majority of Muslims in the US oppose the idea of Sharia? To the contrary, if your core beliefs include a Sharia state operating under Sharia law and you support your local imam and his mosque in any tangible way, by definition imimical to the values upon which our civilization is built, then you have crossed the line a majority of Americans still profess to hold important, even paramount.
Separation of church and state wasn’t tossed in by the Founders as an inconvenient afterthought. And the first amendment is not and was never intended to be a suicide pact. So…it’s way past time to muzzle our domestic muslims and reconsider the bien-pensant aversion to invoking the laws against sedition. Important, too, to send a message to bag-carriers everywhere. Flushing out and disgracing the hapless Pentagon MFs who participated in the Ft Hood whitewash would be a good starting point.
Those who are surprised at Romney’s inability to go near any of this had plenty of warning — it just isn’t in him. At best he’s a stepping stone to national recovery, important only as the Not Obama, but that’s all.
We still got to get him in the WH, though; all the alternatives are worse. Lots and lots of work ahead.
“Those who are surprised at Romney’s inability to go near any of this had plenty of warning — it just isn’t in him. At best he’s a stepping stone to national recovery, important only as the Not Obama, but that’s all.
We still got to get him in the WH, though; all the alternatives are worse. Lots and lots of work ahead.”
You said it.
What a great piece. Can you get it to Romney? That is, get it past the clueless and weak-kneed RINO pinheads who surround him?
Why are you people so thick with deception? This is so easy to understand from Matthew 7 “Very wide is the road that leads to destruction and may are on this road narrow is the gate that leads to life and few are on this road
This is why even the atheist ( atheism is indeed a religion) can be chosen as a saint and so all the religions have saints – this is what Jesus meant here
Matthew 25:31-46
New International Version (NIV)
The Sheep and the Goats
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
It doesn’t take a genius as to why that 6th century insanity started in Arabia. Stupidity always takes the path of least resistance.
It’s Sharia LAW not Sharia religion. Islam is 100% anti-freedom and must be resisted. People are free to believe in a false prophet and a fake god if they want to but keep the rest of us out of it.
Interesting aside about Obama likely to be the first billionaire ex-president. Could well be right, but a one termer? Do they have enough cache to do that?
I would love to ask Hillary or the Prez this question: How do you negotiate with people who send their children out to become suicide bombers? Is there any way to reach common ground with such a belief? Or the Taliban who saw people’s heads off with a rusty knife, or cut the noses off of women? These people would have to be 1000% more humane in order to be considered sociopaths.
Michael,
I think you have displayed the greatest cogency on this issue.
My understanding is that islam, from its founding, was never a religion as the west understood the term. The problem is that shariah is inseperable from any fundamental expression of islam, which is to say, it leaves no room for tolerance of non-muslims except at the lowest rung. Most of this board is aware of the term, “dhimmi.”
To the extent that any belief system may CALL itself a religion in this country is problematic, but we have risen to the occasion in the past. And if, in fact, our deliberations lead us through some tortured process to accept islam as a religion, we will have the dubious distinction of being the first generation of Americans, post 1789, to lay out the argument for extinguishing its practice in this country. Islam is at war with everything that is “the other.” Just because it is pungent, does not make it a rose.
I am hopeful that the future administration is scouring all the writings of the Founders which reference affirmatively what religion IS, so that this generation of Americans can assert what religion IS NOT.
Excellent article; we no longer have a caricature of a bad president or a bad administration. Given its example the makers of the old National Lampoon movies wouldn’t have to go to the trouble of making it up. “National Lampoon’s America’s Worst Administration” is a reality show.
“Muhammad declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion against all the rest of mankind.” -John Quincy Adams
“When its adherents will not rest until Sharia rules humanity.”
Humanity does deserve Sharia if it can be intimidated so easily by a few crazed rioters. In life, we deserve what we get, no more, no less.
Let’s develop our own energy resources and get the hell out of the Middle East. Let the Israelis do what they do best, fight, without interference from the shamefully useless Uncle Sam.
There can be no peace between islamists (mooslim or otherwise) and the United States. We can welcome all who would come here and WILLFULLY ASSIMILATE into OUR culture. However, those that come here and attempt to FORCE their ways upon us should be dealt with swiftly and permanently; if that takes physical force to accomplish, so be it. The world has changed before our very eyes – we must be willing to defend ourselves from threats abroad, and from threats here at home. God bless America.
The useful word “funamentalism” describe the fact of historical reforms of the most religions and the real or declared return of some of them to their “roots”.Fundamentalism is of course-the politicaly motivated movement in the Muslim world with the nazi sponsors at it`s beginning.But I see that Islam that is still weak in America gets some help from the “main stream Churches”.
Mr. Rulle and esteemed commenters:
I need some clarification. I am in a heated debate about this article on FB with a former colleague (in Univ. English dept.). Our differing readings of the argument hinge on the following line:
“These are all political movements driven by a philosophy or religion called Islam in which church and state are not separated.”
I argue that the “in which church and state are not separated” refers back to “political movements” whereas she is reading it as referring to Islam itself. This reading is leading her to view the article as arguing that “Islam could never exist in a civil society that valued the separation of church and state because there is something fundamentally incompatible between Islam and the ideal of church and state”, which therefore misrepresents the article (in my opinion) as a critique of Islam itself– that’s a debate for another time, please
My summary of the argument is this: “He’s specifically criticizing the administration’s semantic problem “in the use of the term “religion” to describe various movements within the Middle East.” The rhetorical question of when is a religion not a religion isn’t used to say that Islam isn’t a religion. Instead he’s saying that “religion” as used to describe Islamist movements isn’t the right word. His argument is that those aren’t religious movements but political ones, even if they are informed by a particular religion/philosophy.”
So, who is right?
Hi Early Modern Man. I responded in comment 24, which is awaiting moderation. Short answer, I think I agree with you. Rest of answer is in my comment. Thanks for responding.
“Islam could never exist in a civil society that valued the separation of church and state because there is something fundamentally incompatible between Islam and the ideal of church and state”, which therefore misrepresents the article (in my opinion) as a critique of Islam itself– that’s a debate for another time, please
In respect to your friend/colleague’s take, it is islam which is forcing the issue, an issue which is not about what islam calls itself or how it is described by us. The issue is much more straight forward if we don’t allow ourselves (as can be the habit of academics) to follow or be bound by a false narrative.
Islam, whether it is a religion or a political/lawmaking force–it is both, actually, currently heavy on the latter–is at odds with the west. It is up to us to describe it as the anti-west, anti-tolerant, totalitarian ideology that it is. Naziism was a sorely incomplete ideology. So was Italian fascism. Yet they could be described as anathema to freedom. We did not wait for them to describe themselves, we dealt with them because they SHOWED themselves as they were in FACT.
It has been almost 50 years since I had to deconstruct a sentence. Your example really sucks as written English. I would guess it was written by someone who’s native language isn’t English.
“These are all political movements driven by a philosophy or religion called Islam in which church and state are not separated.”
Here is software for deconstructing. I haven’t tried it;
http://ezinearticles.com/?Correct-English-Sentence-Software—Easily-Write-Like-a-Pro!&id=1490137
Here is my version;
“Islam is a theocracy.” A theocracy is a government form where religion is the government and the government is the religion.
Technically incorrect but close enough. ‘Islam is a theocracy’ actually says the same thing as the subject sentence. Of course, the little buggers would have to look up theocracy, which might be beyond them.
“I say we pull out and nuke ‘em from orbit. It’s the only way to make sure.”
- FO Ripley.
Early Modern Man
My intent was to describe what you did perceive. I claim no expertise on the many different aspects of how Islam may be expressed, only that when expressed as a political movement, it no longer should be treated as a religion. I did reference Mustafa Ataturk in my essay, who created the modern Turkey after the decline and fall of the Ottoman empire. I did so to show that at least according to him, Islam and Politics not only could be separated but should be separated in a very similar way as it is in the US. I assume, but do not know, that there must be many Muslims who, at the very least, can agree with this. The problem today apears to be that if there are religious Islamic people who see the world as Ataturk did, they are either not able to get the attention of the e media, or there are not just not that many of them to begin with. Groups like CAIR, for example, are careful of what not to say, yet their primary message seems to be they are persecuted. For you historians of the Italian Mafia, they remind me of Joe Columbo.
Michael- Thanks for your feedback! Glad to see I am still an astute reader despite being and ABD PhD drop out!
One note of correction: it’s Early Modern MOM– as in I used to be a scholar of the English Renaissance, and now I’m a full-time mom instead.
Enjoyed your essay greatly!
Interesting I saw Man instead of Mom! Sorry about that. Thanks for your comments as they are much appreciated.
Obama sounds like the old Soviet apologist: both sides are the same, and things would be worse if they were replace.
Your all to smart by half. Better be ready to defend yourself because “IT” is commin! there will be blood, I choose theirs. not mine!
When I saw the title of the article, I thought of Judaism. When I read Deuteronomy, I see a priesthood delineating every aspect of a people’s life, through a book “found in the Temple”. A “God” who commands slaughter and rape of the other is a god made in the image and likeness of a people. Some of the commentaries of the Talmud take hatred of the other to a new level. Islam clearly shows it’s Judaic roots, in it’s exhortations to conquest. An apostate Muslim once explained to me that Mohammed changed his religion on the fly. He said one can follow the progression from a religion to a political system, if you reorder the passages to that order in which they were written. My best friend in the late 1960′s was a secular Jew, and his was one of the most loving families I have ever encountered. His semi-religious parents’ view on the Old Testament stories is that they were written in a different age. They were more concerned with ethical living today (and probably restraining my ill influence on their son!).
Unfortunately, when I look about myself, I see all too many still living in that past age, such as those who espouse Christianity, but “fear” an angry god who seems to be Moloch in disguise.
There are as many varieties of Islam as of Judaism and Christianity. I had an Afghan ex-pat friend whose version of Islam was almost secular – like a Catholic who goes to Church on Sunday to take care of God for a week. Israel, founded by European secular Zionists, now makes the claim of a deed for the land from the god of Moses. No matter the cult, it seems God always ends up being a reflection of the people who profess Him, or make use of Him.
A religion is not a religion when it urges or offers indulgence for the unrestrained passions of those who espouse it. A religion is not a religion when it is a culture of political control. When an Israeli Rabbi calls the non-Jew a donkey, only fit to be a slave, he is harnessing the basest instincts of his followers. The best way to combat medieval Islam is to allow it’s host nations to enter the modern world. Unfortunately, we choose to install tyrants like the Sauds, and promote the radical forms of Islam to keep the Middle East destabilized and safe for Western exploitation.
It was not Muslims who ran the Cheka, and nailed Christian priests to the doors of their churches, but rather atheists whose culture was a godless version of Judaism in which the hatred of the other was unleashed with demonic fury. The jihadis we installed in Libya are now being exported to Syria. These people behave like the Bolsheviks, with no atrocity too obscene. What happens if a Mahdi arises from amongst them, to unite Sunni and Shia in an orgy of violence to make Cast Lead look like a high school production? Like in the mythical days of David, people kill best in the name of their god.
There are religions, and then there is the political ideology called
Islam, the definition of which is “submission”. Its one and only goal
in the world is to spread Sharia Law, which lays down a detailed set of
rules for society and the life of every person. It wants to dictate every
aspect of life. Islam is not compatible with freedom, liberty and democracy.
Islam only strives for its totalitarian ideology of Sharia, very similar
to communism.
All Muslims subscribe and submit to the Islamic Laws of Sharia.
We shall never submit.
When is a religion not a religion? When it turns Heaven into brothel, by rewarding suicidal psychopaths 72 virgins (gender not specified)in the next world.
Hillary is shocked, dazed and confused, because she drank the kool-aid and actually believed that Obama knew what he was doing. She actually thought this community organizer could lower the seas.
Remember, Dar al-Islam does not mean house of peace like they would have you believe. The word islam means submission, so Dar al-Islam is literally, house of submission. To islam, there is either a house of war or a house of submission. If you do not submit to their god, you will be at war. Period.