Monday, September 28, 2009

What Makes Islam Different

Kent Ekeroth, the international secretary of the Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna), recently wrote an important essay rebutting his critics on the issue of his “Islamophobia”. Our Swedish correspondent Henrik W. has kindly translated the article for Gates of Vienna.

The translator includes this introduction:

Kent Ekeroth, Party Secretary of the officially immigration-sceptical Sweden Democrats, recently had a exchange with critics, namely Ann-Louise Trulsson and Helen Törnkvist, who had accused him of various Islamophobic stances while trying to downplay the differences between Islam and other religions. In this article, Kent Ekeroth takes on their criticism and gives his view of what makes Islam a unique challenge to Western secular civilization.

The translated article from Newsmill:

Trying to equate Islam and other religions is wrong
by Kent Ekeroth


Kent Ekeroth of SDTörnkvist tries to find excuses for Islam by claiming that it is a religion and that “it is a private issue for each and every person”. Trulsson excuses Islam by trying to establish an equivalence between it and Christianity in the spirit of relativism. Neither of them seems to understand what this issue is about.

Törnkvist does not understand what multiculturalism is about. She seems to be labouring under the impression that multiculture happens whenever someone drinks coffee. The “Kebab argument” seems to be her strongest card, which is telling.

The interesting thing is that she writes about religion being “a private issue of each and every person”. That may be true, but it does not save her argument. A religion is a whole series of opinions, and opinions can, and often should, be criticised. It does not suffice to refer to a “God” to gain protection from criticism or denunciation. Had she bothered to read my first article, she would have definitely discovered that I’ve already covered these issues. Surely not even Törnkvist can deny that religious opinions, like political opinions, can cause the exact same acts in reality. It does not matter if the marching orders come from Allah or from some politician — it’s wrong no matter whether the command is handed down from God or from a human being.

If you realise this simple fact, you also realise that no protection may be extended just because something is a religion. A society, a political organization, or an individual has the same right to fight a religious ideology as we all have to fight political ideologies.

In another article concerning the same issue, Trulsson writes that all religions are equally good or bad — a relativist position. In her article she asks how SD can stand behind a “secular society where religion is a private issue” since that norm is unique in “a global perspective” where religion is a “collective issue for the majority of Earth’s population”. This might come as news for Trulsson, but we don’t care about what “a majority of the Earth’s population” thinks is the rightful place of religion in society. The Western model with secularism and religion as a private matter is clearly superior when you consider how far the West has come compared to the majority of Earth’s population. What Trulsson says is that most people in the world do not approve of secularism, which is, indirectly, to support this majority when used as an argument. Thus, she supports collectivism and abandons Western secularism.
- - - - - - - - -
Trulsson then tries to equate Christianity and Islam, always a symptom of the apologist for Islam. Should this succeed, the public understanding of the nature of Islam might well be delayed since people might imagine that Islam will bring the sort of society that Christianity has. But there are clear differences between Islam and other religions.

Trulsson dwells on the errors and atrocities of Christianity, but does not even mention that the Muslim world was practicing slavery long before the Transatlantic (Western) slave trade started, and that Muslim slave trade was much longer-lived — indeed, it is not an entirely closed chapter even today. The Muslim slave trade affected more people than the Transatlantic ever did, and to this day the Muslim world has not dealt with this part of its history — nor with any other Muslim atrocity. In fact, it was Christians who were the driving force behind the abolition of the slave trade — no such movement ever existed under Islam. Furthermore, slavery was practiced by Mohammed himself — and he is considered by Muslims to have been a man with no faults. It is hard to imagine a bigger difference when comparing to Christianity’s founder Jesus, and thus between the two religions.

Apartheid is found and practiced today in the Muslim world by giving non-Muslims dhimmi status in Muslim societies. Both the Koran and the Hadith support this, which again is a huge difference as compared to Christianity. Dhimmi status, a form of apartheid, is directly supported by Muslim ideology. Apartheid, however, finds no support in Christianity, no matter what Trulsson tries to insinuate.

In addition, she seems unaware of the fact that “the colonial expansion”, by which she means the Crusades, was a war of defence against Islam after 400 years of Muslim expansion and aggression, including in Europe. This expansion is a central part of Muslim doctrine, whereby Mohammed spread Islam by the sword and had critics and prisoners of war murdered. His successors, the first Caliphs, militarily conquered lands spreading from Spain in the West to India in the East. Holy War has an entirely different role in Islam than it has in Christianity, and to this day Jihad — war of conquest in the name of Allah — is preached by Muslim theologians and imams all over the world.

When Trulsson writes that “the Church was wrong and theology had to be changed” she misses a central difference between Islam and Christianity. The founding documents of the two religions are different insofar that the Bible was written by people while the Koran is considered by Muslims to be Allah’s own word. The laws of the Koran are immutable; they cannot be changed. The same applies to Sharia, for which new interpretations are forbidden about all issues where consensus, called “Ijma”, is considered to have been established. Once a issue has been settled, when “Ijma” is established, it may not be opened for debate again. It is writ in stone and has to be followed by the faithful. “Ijtihad”, or a personal, autonomous interpretation of Islamic law may not be practiced where “Ijma” has been established. Unfortunately, Sharia covers rules of war, and the rules concerning Holy War — Jihad — are set; they are subject to “Ijma” in all the Muslim law schools and require all Muslims to practice wars of conquest to force non-Muslims to live under Sharia. This, too, is taught today, for instance by Al-Azhar in Cairo, the Sunni Islamic equivalent of the papacy, which still publishes texts that teach the classical Jihad doctrine.

To try to equate Islam and Christianity, like Trulsson does, is to showcase ignorance about Islam. When violence was committed in the name of Christianity, it was contradicted by the teachings of Christ. But wars of conquest to spread Islam, dhimmi status, and other travesties have direct support in Islamic dogma and were all practiced by Mohammed himself. Since Islamic violence springs from the Koran, Mohammed’s Sunnas and the Islamic law schools, the Muslim religion cannot be reformed in any meaningful way. This is why challenging Islam as any other expansive political ideology is justified — because Islam contains all this, along with many other things. Islam is both a religion and a political ideology and has to be challenged on those terms.

— Kent Ekeroth

17 comments:

mace said...

It took thirty years before the West realized the threat posed to our civilization by Communism,despite the evidence.There were the usual apologists,supporters,fellow travellers and useful idiots,who could not, or would not, face the truth.Islam has the advantage of being regarded as a "religion" by the ignorant,so it's going to be a long, long struggle.
I wonder whether the cultural relativists have painted themselves into a corner and are just to arrogant to admit their mistake.

Robin Shadowes said...

We have Vänsterpartiet (The Left Party) who as late as after the fall of communism changed it's name from Vänsterpartiet Kommunisterna to Vänsterpartiet by simply removing the word communist from the party name. This was just ca 20 ago. The current leader Lars Ohly even called himself a communist up until just a few years ago. Nobody in my country believe in his renounciation really. He's still a commie at heart and he might well be one of the ministers in Mona Muslims government after the election next fall. That these scum is allied with islam is indeed bothersome.

Zenster said...

The Muslim slave trade affected more people than the Transatlantic ever did, and to this day the Muslim world has not dealt with this part of its history — nor with any other Muslim atrocity.

I'm inclined to think that the author might also include Islam's modern day atrocities like 9-11, Bali, Beslan, Madrid, Bali II, London, Sudan ...

Ekeroth has quite eloquently delineated the profound differences that distinguish Christianity as a more benevolent agent of change and reveal Islam for what it is, a toilet clogging mass of pseudo-spiritual excrement.

ANTI-ISLAMIST said...

NO HOPE FOR SWEDEN?

I have just read 97 comments to this well-argued and well-balanced original Ekeroth essay on the Swedish NewsMill-site .

Roughly I would estimate that 20% of the comments are pro and almost the rest are more or less contra.This result, I think, rather well reflects the real situation in the regular Swedish community: igorants, halalhippies, apologets and islamophils make up a majority of 75-90%.

Below four very typical comments:
- - - - -
#45 Informationsministern [Minister of Information] sais:
After several years in Muslim environments in different parts of the world, including Sweden, you get scared almost out of you wits to read this essay by a deeply ignorant and prejudiced wordsmith. Which planet does this guy come from?
It is time to call (sd) [Swedendemocrats] for what they really are: a neo-fascist party with tunnel vision.
- - - - -
to be continued!

ANTI-ISLAMIST said...

.
- - - - -
#48 Klerken ["the Clerical"] sais:
What is uncomfortable with all these new self-proclaimed religious experts with a focus on Islam is that they in all seriousness seem to imply that the Qur'an and selected Hadiths can be used as a Muslim manual, as if people who happen to be born where Islam is the dominant religion, only are some kind of religious zombies that know the holy scriptures by heart. Or at least, just like the supposed experts, have picked the best plumbs from the Islamic scriptures.

The Muslim is like this, the Muslim is like that -- it is also referred to any koranic quotation -- you could laugh at the crazyness, if it was not true that the worst fools are about to enter parliament and a lot of them probably already are sitting there - the idiocy is spreading also over the once relatively venerable conservative daily paper's editorials which seem to have completely abandoned even minimal requirements of decency and quality regarding the editorial writers.

I wonder if any Chinese, African, etc. would find out to read the Bible in the belief that it was a manual for understanding the Americans?

It is a strange phenomenon this western muslim knowledge, as an algerian chap expressed it on a political forum:

”I spent the first 30 years of my life in Algeria, one of the so-called Muslim countries, and I know almost nothing about the Qu’ran compared to many mainstream Australians, despite the fact that my parents are Muslims and Islamic education was a compulsory subject for us in primary school. These Australians I am talking about think that if a Muslim scratches his bottom, that’s because the Qu’ran urges him to do so; if he doesn’t scratch his bottom that’s because the Qu’ran forbids him to do so. They can’t admit to themselves that a Muslim might scratch his bottom because it’s itchy and refrain from scratching it when it doesn’t bother him. They would tell me Muslims are this or that, they do this or do that, they believe this or believe that, they like this or dislike that and when I ask them where the hell they got such ideas, they would recite me a verse from the Qu’ran or a Hadith.

My parents are Muslims but they are illiterate and they don’t understand a word of Arabic. Far from being exceptions, they are part of the rule among Muslims. For these people, Islam is about believing in God and being a good person: kind, compassionate, honest, etc.”

- - - - -
#50 Abrahamas sais:
Fortunately, the hatred of Muslims were slight in the 1100's Europe. Otherwise we might still have to suffer with Roman numerals instead of the nifty Arabic numeric system.
One of the most useful digits in the Arabic numerical system is zero. It can with advantage be used to describe the brethren Ekeroth and their fellow partisans.
- - - - -
#51 Peter Ingelstad sais:
....
For the vast majority of "Muslims" Islam is an ethnic marker, as to the rest they have approximately the same view of life as Westerners. By excessive racial [SIC] agitation we will pursue this very large group into the arms of Islamism, whereby we obtain a self-fulfilling prophecy of the worst kind. However, neither Kent Ekeroth nor the hopelessly stupid general public, who is as loud as he is and who he apparently so successfully appeals to -- which will be in vain, because precisely the same flock of sheep will march to the polls woting for Reinfeldt in 2010.
- - - - - - - - - -
Excellent and up-to-date information about Islam, Islamism and the common Muslims
can also be found here and here.

S said...

Those same swedes who are defending muslims would be horrified if you asked them to defend the christian church from before the reformation. And yet, that is exactly the state of islam today and will always be the way islam is going to be. Most of the followers of christianity were illiterate then also and tried to lead a good life. It was the leaders who controlled the state based on their perspective. This is the situation that europeans are inviting into their countries. A none reformed religion. Why don't they wait until there is an islamic reformation before they let the islamic leaders in? Not that there will ever be one.
They really don't get the threat.

thll said...

The Swedish liberals' "Kebab argument" has its counterpart in Britain, the "curry argument" - you know the one: 'Without the mass immigration of third world Muslims we wouldn't now be enjoying their culinary delights' (sic). The liberals are running out of ideas and are becoming increasingly absurd as they struggle to justify the chaos they've brought to the West. What next, the Muslim call to prayer as the equivalent of Mozart?

Robin Shadowes said...

Islam will never reform, not even in a million years. Their dogma has been cut in stone. Either we accept that and become mahoundians ourselves or we kick them back to their desert mudholes where they belong. The problem is that we have to get rid of our own traitors first before we can do that. And the time is fast running out for that option.

ANTI-ISLAMIST said...

.
Referring to:
#50 Abrahamas said:
Fortunately, the hatred of Muslims were slight in the 1100's Europe. Otherwise we might still have to suffer with Roman numerals instead of the nifty Arabic numeric system

above!
- - -
A Brief History of Zero and Indian Numerals
From the desk of Fjordman at the Brussels Journal, today Tue, 2009-09-29 05:19
I heard the claim from one European reader that “The Arab world invented the zero, and it’s been downhill ever since.” This is false, but unfortunately not an uncommon mistake. Our numeral system dates back to India during the post-Roman era, but it came to Europe via the medieval Middle East which is why these numbers are called “Arabic” numbers in many European languages. Yet even Muslims admit that they imported these numerals from India. Calling them “Arabic” numerals is this therefore deeply misleading. “Hindu-Arabic” number system could be accepted, but the preferred term should be “Indian numerals.”
continue reading

philipramage said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Baron Bodissey said...

philipramage --

Please read the rules before posting again. You are welcome to make the same points, but this time in a reasonable manner, without using attacks and insults aimed at other commenters.

It can be done. It just takes patience and focus.

mace said...

Re the comments that ANTI-ISLAMIST posted.

As a "mainstream" Australian,I couldn't care less what's written in the Qu'ran,or what the average Moslem understands about Islam.I'm only interested in how people behave and the cultural practices of some Moslems are criminal by Western standards.Examining and comparing sacred texts is a pointless exercise.
I don't accept the morally bankrupt argument "Don't offend Moslems or they will be even more trouble" Those PC "anti-racists" who use this argument don't realise that it's inherently racist.

Félicie said...

Robin Shadowes, the amazing thing is that there are so many people today who ARE NOT EMBARASSED to confess that they are communists. This boggles the mind! Imagine a public figure mentioning in a blase tone or even with approval that he is a nazi. Unthinkable! And yet people are not embarrased to say that they are communists or left wing. We haven't done enough to expose this ideology.

Robin Shadowes said...

We even have another idiot, Jan Myrdal, son of the society builders Gunnar and Alva who rose to national fame in the 30's. This guy is a serious fan of Pol Pot. POL POT!! Not Paul Potts. He's not the slightest ashamed of that even now closing in to 80. Our cultural establishment loves to cuddle with nutballs like him.

mace said...

Robin Shadowes,

I'm surprised that anybody in the West still admits to being a communist.The problem is that so many of these deluded individuals on the Left think that the Islamists are useful allies in the "struggle against imperialism",whatever that is.

Robin Shadowes said...

The irony is that the will end up killing each other. But considering that the mahoundians outnumber them it is they who will end up on the chopping block. Which makes one wonder who is really the the stupidest of them. I wonder how they actually reasoned when they decided importing mahoundians en masse was a good idea, aside from the common denominator of hating both the west and jews. Even if the upside was a lot of new voters, did it never occur to them that these people where the most savage in history? Or didn't it occur to them that muslims has the strategy of outbreeding their hosts in the end?

Félicie said...

People who believe in utopias are usually very bad judges of human nature. The two go together. What were they thinking? They weren't and aren't thinking. They are blinded by their hatred and resentment of Western culture. I've known a lot of very leftist people, and one thing I've noticed about them. They are not Christ-like figures that love humanity. On the contrary, they are the most hateful, bitter, and resentful people you'll ever meet.