Monday, December 31, 2007

The Dangers of Christianity

Algeria is worried about the impact that Christian evangelism is having within the country. Whole families are — gasp! — becoming Christian. An Islamic political party is determined to put a stop to this menace.

According to AKI:

Algeria: Islamic MPs ask for action against Christian missionaries

Lawmakers from the Algerian Islamic political party of al-Nahda have asked the government to intervene to slow down “the activities of Christian missionaries in the country”.

Algerian MP Muhammad Hudeibi was quoted as saying this in the local el-Khabar newspaper.

“We want the government to cut down this type of activity because the expansion of evangelisation in Algeria has become an important problem and is not marginal as some think it is,” said Hudeibi.

For some years, the local media in Algeria have reported on the activities of a number of missionaries, particularly those from evangelical and Protestant churches, who have succeeded in converting entire Algerian families to Christianity, particularly those who come from the eastern area of Kabilia.
- - - - - - - - -
“We condemn the government’s silence with regard to this phenomenon,” said the Algerian MP.

“We are collecting the signatures of other lawmakers in order to begin a discussion in parliament on this problem,” he said.

“All 11 parliamentarians of al-Nahda have been mobilised, but we are convinced that others will also help us.”

The Islamic party also asked the Algerian ulema or Islamic scholars and imams to give their opinion on the issue of Christian evangelism.


Hat tip: insubria.

31 comments:

Zenster said...

At some point the West will need to break Islam on the wheel of reciprocity. Lack of religious freedom in Muslim majority countries is a fundamental deal-breaker and needs to be used as a reason for excluding Islam in Western nations. This absence of reciprocity is one of several significant issues that should be used to strip Islam of religious protections and thrust it into the category of political ideologies where it properly belongs.

Even more telling is how Muslim clerics are so frightened of their flocks converting to Christianity. In the marketplace of competing ideas only the best should prevail. If your own is not doing a thriving trade then that is a surefire indicator of some deficiency in your intellectual or spiritual stock. While to many of us—Islam's crippling insecurity represents a failure that is both prominent and patently obvious—Muslims are far less likely to arrive at any such realization. Even more conspicuous should be Islam's insistence upon violent compulsion to convert and its capital punishment of apostasy. Such traits are irredeemable faults in any belief structure. It is precisely the lack of autoscopic or introspective thought that makes Islam—as it is currently practiced—so utterly repellent. Perhaps even sadder is the way that so many supposedly liberal thinkers refuse to recognize how deeply flawed Islam is by its intransigence regarding any competition. Such brittleness and stridency should always set off warning klaxons in any rational mind.

Ethelred said...

Amen to Zenster.

Ali Sina has said that Islam is very strong but exceedingly brittle. His battle plan is to relentlessly challenge Muslims to refute his claims of Muhammad's perfidy and to laugh at them when they cannot or when they say things like, "My faith is even stronger after coming to your site."

Sina is actually optimistic about Islam's fall and destruction with the caveat that the West must understand that it can never compromise with evil, but rather must makes its own demands and stand up to its bullying.

Islam's structure and behavior point directly to its empty, hateful soul. If it wants to exist in the West, it must reform, but that reform must come from the lands of Islam.

Islam must be repressed and hounded as the totalitarian political ideology it is, and not allowed to spread its tentacles under the guise of religion.

To those who say it cannot be done, just remember how Islam was viewed a mere 5 or 10 years ago, as opposed to now.

Everyone's efforts in learning about Islam and spreading that knowledge will ultimately prevail.

But Islam is but the enemy without. Political Correctness, Multiculturalism and the Morality of Self-Sacrifice must be resisted and attacked as the enemy within.

To all a Happy New Year.

Henrik said...

I've heard rumours - states won't acknowledge, of course - that the regimes of Iran and Turkey are suffering conversions to Christianity by the hundreds of thousands.

It is becoming a real problem for them.

My wish for the New Year:

Christianity getting the chance to missionarize - and using it!

Comparing Islam and Christianity on its merits - not on force or fear - settles the issue. One is superiour, the other is a mockery.

Happy New Year!

Alexis said...

As long as Islam maintains an indigenous character, I would oppose any suppression of Islam in western countries. It is important, though, that the religion must be locally controlled.

For example, I would have no objection to a local group of Muslims electing their own imam, collecting funds from among themselves, and buying an old warehouse to use as their mosque. However, that is very different from a foreign government or foundation funding a gigantic mosque, its maintenance, the imam’s education, the imam’s salary, and textbooks. This funding always comes with strings attached.

There is a clear difference between an indigenous mosque and an institution funded and controlled by Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, or even Turkey.

In the United States, there are many Lutheran churches. Yet, imagine if Germany’s Nazi Party had funded dozens of “Lutheran Churches” with the buildings, maintenance, renovation, minister training, minister’s salaries, and children’s textbooks all paid for by a charity founded by Adolf Hitler. Also imagine if these “churches” were in fact indoctrination centers for Nazism and state-sponsored subversion. Americans would have been rightly concerned. Likewise, if Czarist Russia had sponsored Russian Orthodox churches within the United States that doubled as centers for the promotion of Russian imperialism over North America, there would have been reason for concern.

There is a clear difference between freedom of religious expression and the abuse of religious freedom by a totalitarian regime through foreign-sponsored religion.

Any religion that is sponsored by a foreign state is no more of a matter of individual freedom than accepting a large donation from a foreign ambassador. So, it is not an abridgement of freedom of religious expression to restrict the ability of foreign powers to control local churches or mosques, particularly when the foreign power does not allow free exercise of religious expression within its own territory.

This basic principle of sovereignty must not be specific to Islam, but must be universally applicable so future totalitarianisms cannot also use this loophole in enlightenment philosophy against freedom-loving people.

Dr.D said...

Excellent comments above. If muzlims can be reached intellectually, there really is hope. If they can be brought to see the vast differences between Izlam on the one hand and Christianity on the other, we may yet win them over without the need for warfare.

Merry Christmass on this, the 7th day of Christmass!!

Ethelred said...

Alexis,

What is an "indigenous" Islam in the West?

The point here is that Islam is not "merely" a religion but a political ideology. It is Arab imperialism hidden under the garb of religion.

I advocate suppressing the ideology by educating the population that Islam not just a religion of hate (a message that the Muslims are spreading well by themselves) but a political ideology of totalitarianism.

It is this ideology that must be exposed. Ali Sina has discussed the logical absurdities surrounding the acceptance of Islam as "true." Disregarding the official Latin names:

1) Islam is true because it is old.
2) Islam is true because many people believe it is true.
3) Islam is true because it is a religion.

All of these claims are false. If we can get people past "all religion is by definition good" then we can move to Islam is not just a religion but a political ideology and finally Islam is a political ideology masquerading as a religion.

As we move in this direction Muslims will get more and more uncomfortable and maybe just leave for their Sharia paradise.

Croat555 said...

Proper field to fight islam is field of free market of ideas. Our real problem and handicap is political correctness. What should be our greatest strength proves to be our greatest weakness. But it is not yet too late. And if we do not succeed to fight Islam there, but end up fighting it with guns, chances are our victory will be Pyrrhic.

Discussion has to be started, on all levels. Islam has to be openly and freely analyzed and criticized. That is an enviroment that it can not survive in.

Ethelred said...

croat555,

Exactly! Which is why the greater enemy is the internal one, and the one which Islam is actively using.

I used to be quite dismayed by Islam's successes int he US as reported by such sites as JihadWatch.

However, I now see signs of a reversal - one such being Michael Savage's CAIR lawsuit.

Zenster said...

Alexis: There is a clear difference between an indigenous mosque and an institution funded and controlled by Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, or even Turkey.

There is? How can you tell? Please answer the question. The mere existence of taqiyya renders any such notion impossible. Whilst one might hope that a non-Saudi or non-extremist funded mosque might serve as home to the legendary Moderate Muslim™, there is absolutely no such indication that this is true. What would prevent any radicals from using that same mosque as a meeting place to hatch yet another 9-11 style atrocity? Answer: NOTHING.

Islam—ostensibly moderate or otherwise—has demonstrated an abject refusal to self-police. Had they not, Western cell blocks would be stuffed to overflowing with compromised jihadis. Such is not the case and rational minds must assume taqiyya to be in effect. I'll risk repeating an oft-mentioned fact: Taqiyya totally compromises Islam. No sane person can entertain the full concept of taqiyya without subsequently dismissing all possibility of honest exchange with Muslims. There is no way on earth to determine when a Muslim is—or is not—practicing taqiyya. Advances in fMRI (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) may soon change this fact but there remains no sure way of knowing and giving Islam any benefit of the doubt is a fool's errand at best.

gideon's sword said...

When I hear people say that "Islam must reform" I shake my head in disbelief. "Reform" simply means to "form again". There was a Christian Reformation because the Church(and I am not attacking Catholicism) had become corrupt. Instead of spreading the Gospel, they were selling indulgences. Islam can't be reformed because it has never strayed from it's violent founding. It took nearly three centuries of horrific persecution for Christianity to become the official religion of the Roman Empire. It took less than a century for Islam to spread from southern France all the way to Indonesia! Islam must be defeated, for our sakes and the sake of Muslims themselves! They are under spiritual bondage. Being to taught that God loves you if you kill others for His Kingdom. Stoning and beating women. Killing your daughter to preserve "honor". Zenster is spot on!

Zonka said...

Gideon's Sword,

Of course Islam can be reformed, reformation doesn't necessarily mean "form again" using the original mould. However, reformation can only come from the muslims themselves, and whether such a movement will gain enough followers and support to be viable and change the theological teachings of Islam into a religion that can live peacefully with others, is doubtful, but not impossible. And I wouldn't put money on such a reform taking place, without the current mainstream Islam being totally discredited in the eyes of Muslims.

Zenster said...

Time for the bad news, folks. Islam has reformed. Over the last 50 years or so it has become even more puritanical and a lot more violent. This is a result of influences like Qtub, the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafists and the Saudi Wahabbists.

The likelihood of Islam mutating into a tolerant and peacefully coexisting entity are essentially nil. Just as it seeks to spread itself by force, so must it be forced to repent its terrorist and misogynist ways. Sadly, jihad and shari'a law are fundamental cornerstones of Islam and wrenching them out of Muslim hands (or minds), is just about impossible.

Note how in tsunami stricken Aceh province you did not hear Muslims bewailing the disaster as punishment for their terrorist atrocities. No, what you heard was people bemoaning their plight for not being pious enough. In this exact same fashion, any assault upon Islam—be it legal, military or public—will only be seen as a test of faith and not any sort of well-deserved criticism.

Islam epitomizes the adversary mentality. Its xenophobia and hostility to all competing mindsets requires it followers to maintain an almost mindless lack of critical self-analysis. Ijtihad or "the door of free inquiry" was shut in 855CE. Since that time Islam has gone essentially unmodified. Such independent examination of the Koran and sunna represents one of the only avenues towards the mutation of Islam into a peacefully coexisting ideology. You could not get me to bet a plug nickel on any such thing happening, ever.

Islam will have to be broken through force of arms, most likely involving the catastrophic destruction of several Muslim majority nations through conventional or nuclear war. Little or nothing points towards any other way of thwarting Islam's obsession with establishing a global caliphate. The West will be required to meet and exceed Islam's level of violence in order to sufficiently impress upon Muslims just how precarious their situation is. However distasteful this may seem to Western minds, the alternative involves half of this world's population perishing at the hands of Muslim fanatics. This Global Cultural Genocide would be accompanied by mass destruction of the most significant architectural monuments, libraries, artistic masterpieces and other timeless legacies of Western civilization. I, for one, will not go quietly into that Islamic night.

Dr.D said...

Zenster is dead on the money when he says it is going to take the military defeat of Izlam to stop this jihad stuff. This is an extremely difficult idea to sell in the West right now, but there is no other way. Izlam understands no language except force, and they must be stopped. We delude ourselves in thinking that we can reason with them or bargain with them it; it is foolishness to try to do so. Sooner or later we will have to clash arms with them and we better not do it half way or we will lose.

Alexis said...

I'll go out on a limb and say it. Every religion older than 350 years old at least started out as a political ideology. I'd go so far as to say that political ideology historically derives from theology. Judaism and Christianity have historically been no less political than Islam. That said, modern secularism does derive from Christianity.

Imagine if some Satanic organization sought to construct a grotto in Oslo. There would be a difference between a bunch of ordinary Norwegians constructing a grotto and the same group receiving a huge subsidy from North Korea, with Satanic priests also functioning as commissars. Moreover, if the grotto became a center of planning for firebombing Lutheran churches, the grotto should be held legally liable.

If one seeks to legally restrict mosques, it would be useful to create criteria that do not specifically label Islam. These criteria would also apply to Scientology, Mormonism, Shinto, the Mafia, the Triads, and any other religion. What if Islam is defeated only to have some other monstrous religion take its place and use exactly the same methods against us? Would it be any improvement if Middle Easterners gave up Islam only to embrace Aztec-style worship of a Hummingbird God?

One can tell the difference between an indigenous mosque and a foreign implant by following the money, following the education of the clergy, and following the origin of the textbooks. Although one should not underestimate the difficulty of keeping out foreign money given how petroleum tyrannies are becoming increasingly adept at money laundering, blocking foreign finance is the most effective means of keeping out foreign influence. It is also easier to argue because these restrictions would not be specific to Islam.

Imagine if the Chinese Communist Party suddenly called itself a religion. Then, imagine if it constructed massive “Communist Temples” throughout Europe and North America to export “proletarian mysticism”. Laws designed to keep out Saudi and Iranian influence would also act as a legal fortification against such Chinese subterfuge. Let’s put it this way. If Christians aren’t allowed to proselytize in Pakistan, why should a Pakistani religious foundation be allowed to construct a megamosque in the heart of London?

I think it is dishonest to claim that Islam isn’t a religion. It is a religion. Some religions are evil. It is a pretense of modern times to presume that a religion cannot be evil. Religious freedom means that people have the liberty to choose evil, while citizenship means that people have a civic obligation to not act upon their evil impulses and beliefs. I call for watchful toleration, not approval, and certainly not celebration of the exotic.

Croat555 said...

Alexis, you got it wrong. Christianity did not start as political ideology. Big organizations all develop self-sustaining instincts. That is given, it is law of physics. But it says nothing about underlying theology. Considering theology, Christianity is a religion with real substance and Islam is an insane sect. Not religion, sect.

It is wrong to assume that it can reform. Well, maybe it can, but Koran can not. So all reform can only be temporal, as Koran will always serve as weight that will bend things into its 7th century position of balance. Without oil that is Afghanistan, with oil that is Saudi Arabia. What is not there is getting there.

Zonka said...

Croat555,

It is equally wrong to assume that Islam cannot reform, take a look at Islam against Sharia which is such a reform project. Everything is possible, the question is naturally: How many muslims will follow such a reform course and how many will stay with a more traditional interpretation?

However, unless the traditional is defeated or discredited it remains very unlikely that any type of reform will happen, at the moment the traditional/fundamentalist interpretation is the winning team, and everybody wants to be on the winning team... So in order to get muslims onto another tract, the winning team must become the loosing team. And remain in that position for a very long time...

Croat555 said...

zonka,

For Muslims, Koran is literally word of God, perfect in its every aspect. They pride themselves for it, and in their ignorance they mock Christianity for imperfection of their scripture. Can Koran reform? By definition, it is not possible. So the question here is - what is real Islam? Wahhabism or Sufism, Talibans or moderates? I'm talking about Koran's Islam, Mohammad's Islam. My answer is - Wahhabism and alike, Talibans and alike, that is real Islam and they are real Muslims. They are the ones who follow word of Allah.

It follows that reformed Islam can be only as good as it is in discord with Real Islam. It can be said - greater the distance from Real Islam, better the Islam. Moderates, they are heretics.

Conclusion is simple. Reformation? Keep the bathwater and throw the baby? Keep the baby and throw the bathwater? It was possible with Christianity, but with Islam, there is no baby. There is only bathwater. All of it should be thrown away.

Zonka said...

Croat555,

I know that is the currently prevailing doctrine within Islam, however like the bible the quran is pieced together from many sources, and went through several editions up to the 11-12th century, until it ended up in the form that we know today. This was necessary because the quran only survived as oral story-telling for the first couple of centuries. This is not something that the Islamic scolars want to discuss openly, as the dogma is that the Quran is the word of Allah and the quran is and was unchangeable from the beginning.

But simple history shows us that it isn't so, the quran went through an editorial process, first through the act of oral story-telling and then through the act of selecting what should go into the quran and what shouldn't.

But you're right as long as muslims believe the Quran to be the verbatim words of Allah as spoken through Gabriel to Mohammed, then there is little chance of reform.

But as with all religions and ideologies it doesn't matter so much what the scriptures say, but what the believers believe in. And when there is a discrepancy between the two, then what the majority of the believers believe, wins out.

As an example few Christians that I know believe that the Genesis is a litteral description of how the world was created, but rather a metaphysical explanation of the process in terms that the nomadic people of the time could understand and relate to (A side note: Isaac Asimov had a hillarious story about this in the very short story: “How it Really Happened” - a chat between Moses and Aaron).

Zenster said...

Zonka: It is equally wrong to assume that Islam cannot reform, take a look at Islam against Sharia which is such a reform project. Everything is possible, the question is naturally: How many muslims will follow such a reform course and how many will stay with a more traditional interpretation?

As Croat555 rightfully notes, reform of the Koran simply is not possible. Given this, it follows that those who seek any reformation will be branded as apostates or blasphemers and sentenced to death by devout Muslims.

However, unless the traditional is defeated or discredited it remains very unlikely that any type of reform will happen, at the moment the traditional/fundamentalist interpretation is the winning team, and everybody wants to be on the winning team... So in order to get muslims onto another tract, the winning team must become the loosing team. And remain in that position for a very long time...

Please elaborate on exactly how you propose to defeat or discredit the prevailing form of Islam.

The clock is swiftly ticking down on Western civilization. Just fifty short years ago this would not be so but the advent of nuclear weapons and their proliferation into Islamic hands has changed all that. Even only a few terrorist nuclear attacks upon major Western cities could set back the global economy by DECADES. That one single prospect makes it imperative for Islam to be crippled and dismantled for all time. There are no other options. We simply DO NOT have the luxury of waiting around for Islam to magically modify itself. Especially so when there is absolutely no indication that anything of the sort is even possible. Yes, there are some moderate Muslims out there but their numbers are so very few as to be wholly negligible. They are not only heretics but represent such an infintesimal minority that they have ZERO ability to deflect Islam from its military collision course with Western civilization. Pretending that things are otherwise is flat-out suicidal.

In light of this, the endless dithering by Western diplomats borders on criminal conduct. They literally are fiddling while Rome burns. Worst of all is how any further delay only increases the likelihood of a Muslim holocaust as Islam backs the West into its nuclear corner of last resort. The butcher's bill only continues to grow while our political elite delude themselves into thinking there can be any negotiation with people whose goals are entirely non-negotiable. Exactly what practices will Islam give up in exchange for its survival? Jihad? The absolute cornerstone of all Islamic existence? Shari'a law? The all-pervading regulatory code by which the entire Muslim world lives? Without abandonment of jihad and shari'a law, Islam remains wholly inimical to Western civilization. Not just adversarial but fatally toxic. There is no acceptable residue of Islam that can be allowed to exist without it poisoning free societies. This is why the military defeat of Islam remains our only option.

Alexis is totally wrong to grant Islam religious status. The Koran mandates theocratic rule by Islam and any rulership such as shari'a law is political rule. Everywhere that Muslims become a majority, political Islam is installed. The only reason Islam is practiced as a religion in the West is because we would crush it like an insect if it openly declared its intention to subvert our constitutional laws. Instead, Islam covertly seeks to overthrow constitutional law and in their haste to install a multicultural agenda our political elite willfully ignores this inconvenient fact. Islam parades under the false flag of religion and takes every advantage of Western respect for spirituality. It weaponizes every single honorable trait of Western culture and turns it against us with joyous abandon. Islam is the world's most intolerant creed and we are idiots to tolerate the intolerable.

Ethelred said...

In thinking about the future of Islam in the West, I used to be extremely pessimistic, but now can see some light.

Just within the last few years, by the efforts of people like Robert Spencer (among others of course), the image of Islam as a "religion of peace" which was gleefully propagated by Muslims is sneered at by many, many people, not all of whom are deeply knowledgeable.

I mean to say that Islam used to get a free pass as an 'Abrahamic religion' whereas now it is being challenged left and right by the "people" if not the elites.

We must not talk about reform. Or, rather, any kind of reform needs to happen when Islam has been pushed out of the West and is forced back into Muslim lands.

The Islam we see now, is the Islam that terrorized the world up until the late 17th century, when it was pushed back and actually conquered by a resurgent West. Since then, the West has become "civilized" after two disastrous wars, and cannot or will not remember the Islam from 300 or 400 years ago.

The West must stop educating Muslims in our universities. We must stop giving them advanced medical treatment. Things like that. Make them become self-sufficient. Drastically lower the use of oil and make them drink it.

Only by inflicting pain on the Islamic world will it change its behavior (note: I did not say reform). The pain can be long term (like economically) or short term (like militarily).

The short term pain should NOT be like Iraq. They bomb London or Madrid or New York, we give Damascus 24 hours to evacuate and then flatten it. Muslims only understand power - this is a strategy. A bully will stop only when the victim fights back.

Zenster said...

Ethelred: The short term pain should NOT be like Iraq. They bomb London or Madrid or New York, we give Damascus 24 hours to evacuate and then flatten it.

Absolutely. The West needs to implement a policy of massively disproportionate retaliation. Muslims must be made to live in abject fear of every single new terrorist atrocity. The repercussions of each new terrorist attack should be so dire that Muslims storm their mosques and slit the throats of all jihadis. Progress will come when Muslims are stacking up dead radicals behind their mosques like so much cord wood. Muslims must be made to feel our pain. Iraq represents nothing of the sort and Islam laughs at our feeble attempts to thwart jihadism when it is a task that only Muslims themselves can perform.

Islam and any Muslims who want to practice it must be returned to the MME (Muslim Middle East). At the very least, the West must confine Islam to the MME and put a halt to all further military buildup in that region. Any development of nuclear weapons or WMDs should be bombed out of existence and anyone trying to exit the containment area should be shot on sight. The slightest encroachment across existing MME borders by Muslims should be met with carpet bombing and all importation of food halted until terrorist attacks in the West come to an end.

Contrary to popular perception, Islam is incredibly fragile. MME countries would starve to death were it not for foreign exports of grain to the region. They build no cars and invent practically nothing of importance. The entire combined industrial exports of the MME is around five billion dollars, a figure matched by the Finnish telecom company, Nokia.

It is only squeamishness on the part of the more civilized West and a wholly misplaced sense of compassion for some ruthless killers that prevents us from crushing our sworn enemies. That must change if we wish to survive.

Ethelred said...

As to how to deal with Iran, see this article from Commentary Magazine

Iran imports gasoline and food, among other things. We could bring it to its knees in a month, if we had the will.

Again, a bully will only stop when his nose is broken.

Alexis said...

What is a religion? Was Aztec polytheiem a religion? Was People's Temple a religion? Was Japanese Military Shinto a religion? To all such questions, I say yes.

Yet, when I use the term "religion", I suspect I am treading in territory much like telling a Catholic or Lutheran that fish is meat. When I refer to fish meat as meat, I am not attempting to deprive Catholics of fish on Fridays during Lent. Likewise, when I use the word religion, I am not attempting to grant Islam political recognition as a religion deserving of state subsidy or special privileges. I am stating that one should not assume that reprehensible theology is not theology, or that reprehensible ritual is not ritual.

Zenster, I find it rather amusing when you talk about the subversive nature of Islam, for you are basically paraphrasing the words of Aliya Izetbegovic in his Islamic Manifesto. He was a hero to Islamists all over the world, yet the reportage of Christiane Amanpour led many westerners to think that Sarajevo was some kind of besieged bastion of multicultural peace. Could you possibly be suggesting that Serbs and Croats actually had something real to fear, and that such fear wasn't some fanatical "Christoslavism" as portrayed by Michael Sells? Oh my.

Although I espouse watchful toleration, I would like to stress the watchful nature of this toleration. For example, although Michael Sells is a Muslim enemy of the Wahhabi branch of Islam, he should be regarded as a professor who uses his tenure and his academic reputation as an expert about Islam to promote an activist agenda that is clearly Islamist in character. I would oppose stripping Michael Sells of his American citizenship based upon his adherence to Islam; not only would it be morally wrong and against our principles of religious freedom, but it would do more harm than good. That said, if his activities ever become unequivocally treasonous, our laws ought to be enforced.

Ethelred said...

Alexis,

What does "unequivocally treasonous" mean?

Islam, the current Islam, IS a political ideology wrapped in a religion. It is designed by the horrific genius Muhammad to resist any attempts to change it.

Islam, as it is currently conceived, as it is presented in the Koran, the Hadith and Sunnah is diametrically opposed to every Western value we hold dear, including "freedom of religion."

At one point, polygamy was made illegal - in secular law. Mormons had a choice: change the religion or risk being put in jail. They changed. Thus, we in the US decided to LEGALLY define as important aspect of Mormonism to be illegal.

I see no reason that the same thing cannot be done with Islam. The only question is which specifics to start with. My impulse would be to comb the Islamic canon and get a list of writings that speak to conquering and ruling, subjugating and enslaving non-believers. MAKE THESE LINES ILLEGAL TO PRINT, SAY OR SPEAK ABOUT. Then watch what happens.

The Koran on the Muslims Against Sharia site does not have Sura 9 (for instance). Unfortunately, they do not seem to address Muhammad, his actions and his designation as "The Perfect Man."

Even if an Islam were created, under severe pressure, which got rid of every "intolerant" verse or saying anywhere in the vast Islamic literature, I STILL would not want it, because Islamic preaches complete predestination.

Zenster said...

Alexis: Could you possibly be suggesting that Serbs and Croats actually had something real to fear, and that such fear wasn't some fanatical "Christoslavism" as portrayed by Michael Sells?

From reading Sells' article it would seem that "Christoslavism" is an expectable form of religious reverse-bigotry in response to Islam's refusal to allow any conversion away from it. These sort of semantic gymnastics are par for the course in most religions and I see no reason why the Balkans would be any exception. Then again, the simple fact that Sells is a Wahabbist makes all of his writing suspect.

I would oppose stripping Michael Sells of his American citizenship based upon his adherence to Islam; not only would it be morally wrong and against our principles of religious freedom, but it would do more harm than good. That said, if his activities ever become unequivocally treasonous, our laws ought to be enforced.

Your own flexible definition notwithstanding, Islam is already "unequivocally treasonous". It exhorts Muslims everywhere to perform violent jihad with the explicit aim of replacing all other forms of government with Islamic theocracy. It doesn't get much clearer or more treasonous than that. Additionally, Islam specifically views democracy as total blasphemy. The mere idea of manmade laws superceding those ordained by Allah gives Muslim clerics a case of the vapors.

Islam is fundamentally incompatible with the entire outside world. We Infidels are not obliged to excuse this fatal shortcoming as a mere idiosyncrasy of someone else's beliefs. Instead, it represents an aggressively hostile mindset that must not be countenanced. This is why it is so important to strip Islam of any religious protections. It should be made a legal definition that any recognized religion must actively support peaceful coexistence with other faiths. Not just pay lip service to such a requirement but clearly mandate it within their own clerical framework and voluntarily work to eliminate any doctrinal passages that contradict such a goal.

I think it's pretty safe to say that Islam would not receive such a demand with anything remotely resembling good grace. As a triumphalist ideology, its ascendancy is an accepted fact among Muslims. Nothing epitomizes this better than their obsession with a global caliphate. While other religions also seek to become global in nature, none of them sanction the use of force in doing so. Islam does and specifically prescribes it repeatedly throughout the Koran. This is unacceptable to any civilized society and constitutes reasonable grounds for the banning of Islam in non-Muslim majority countries.

Croat555 said...

zonka,

I would like to find out more about this editing of Koran, and would appreciate some pointers if you have any. In any case, what could have happened almost 1000 years ago is not that important. I've seen that Islamic conditioning makes Muslims capable of ignoring anything. Blue becomes green, white becomes black... elephants can fly. Anything is prone to change if rightness of Islam (or perfection of Koran, same thing) is at stake.

You said:

But as with all religions and ideologies it doesn't matter so much what the scriptures say, but what the believers believe in. And when there is a discrepancy between the two, then what the majority of the believers believe, wins out.

This is wrong. It is often case that Western mind misunderstand Islam in this way. You judge it as if it was something akin to Christianity, but the reality is that it can hardly be more different. For that matter, it could have came from another planet. In Islam Koran as word of God is of paramount importance - there is no direct relationship between a person and God as in Christianity - instead there is Koran - perfect manual delivered directly from God. THAT is essence of Islam, that is Islam. Manual, quite literally. That is why there is no conversion in Christian sense, but shahada suffices. Maybe you have seen that Palestinian video where they interviewed brainwashed 3 year old girl, and at the end proclaimed that she was true believer? Why is it so, it is so because it is written so in Koran. Nothing there to understand, just accept it and follow it. Ever wondered why Mohammad called Christians "People of the Book?" He wanted to be accepted by Christians as last and most important prophet, but was rather limited and unable to grasp Christian perspective. In contrast to Christianity, instead of Holy Ghost you have Koran. They have replaced live link with truth with - a book. If you think about it, it explains a whole lot.

There is nothing to reform in Islam. In short - FUBAR.

Alexis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alexis said...

One clarification:

Michael Sells is vehemently anti-Wahhabi; he promotes a Sufi-based interpretation of Islam and bitterly opposes the House of Saud. He is based at Haverford College's Religious Studies Department, and he has documented how Wahhabis have attacked other forms of Islam.

He is hardly a "moderate Muslim", though. He has a convert's zeal, and he interprets "human rights" through an Islamist lens. When Serbs kill people he cares about, he calls for bombing Serbs and regards it as immoral to disagree with his demands for action. Yet when Islamists kill people I care about, he calls for intercultural understanding and opposes violence against Muslim tyrants because it supposedly makes the entire situation worse. Like Christiane Amanpour, he selectively expresses moral outrage to suit a Muslim agenda.

Zenster said...

Alexis: Michael Sells is a Muslim enemy of the Wahhabi branch of Islam

I hope that you can see how ambiguous your above statement was. I also fail to see the pertinence of your point about selective reporting with respect to the overall issue of Muslims converting away from Islam or the lack of reciprocity in Islamic nations.

Croat555: You judge it as if it was something akin to Christianity, but the reality is that it can hardly be more different. For that matter, it could have came from another planet. In Islam Koran as word of God is of paramount importance - there is no direct relationship between a person and God as in Christianity - instead there is Koran - perfect manual delivered directly from God. THAT is essence of Islam, that is Islam.

This is an important point for Western minds to consider. There really is no way to map Islam onto Christian templates. Although supposedly Abrahamic in origin, Islam is more an attempt to supercede Judaism and Christianity than any sort of parallel belief structure. More than anything, Islam was a tool to protect and further Mohammed's personal empire with little intention of it being a deep spiritual guide.

Alexis said...

I also fail to see the pertinence of your point about selective reporting with respect to the overall issue of Muslims converting away from Islam or the lack of reciprocity in Islamic nations.

Muslim intolerance is real. Muslim imperialism is real. The horrors carried by Islam are real. There are those who would like you to think they are all in your head.

One of the key achievements of Bat Ye’or is to demolish the myth of a golden age of Muslim tolerance. Michael Sells’ selective reporting has everything to do with promoting dhimmitude, for extolling the virtues of Ottoman-style “interfaith tolerance” is a means to use political correctness to enforce the submission of non-Muslims to Islamic standards. Those who believe selective reporting and react to selective outrage will be deceived into not noticing lack of reciprocity in Islamic nations; they will constantly see atrocities by non-Muslims against Muslims, never quite realizing there is an ambient violence contained within Islamic society and the inherent discrimination based on centuries of Islamic custom.

Western secularism has a very different standard of “toleration” – freedom. This is the freedom to change one’s religion as often as one changes one’s socks – not a freedom embraced even by other monotheistic religions until modern times. I see a key difference between allowing freedom for citizens to choose any religion they want and allowing avenues of control emanating from a totalitarian state. As long as selective reporting is not noticed, the pressures of those who seek to abridge the inherent freedom of apostasy will be ignored throughout the mainstream media. And as much as we may complain about the bias of the mainstream media, wouldn’t we like the mainstream media to see the world as we do?

Tito said...

Zenster,

I'm nitpicking here, but in reference to our internal disintegration to "multiculturism" & "political correctness", your use of "CE" is abhorrant.

A.D. is the proper suffic (or prefix for all you Latin lovers). You have fallen prey to the secularists who want to redefine Western Civilization as an uber-multicural-paradise.

In Jesus, Mary, & Joseph,

Tito