The problem with Islam

Andrew McCarthy writes compellingly about the problems — the big problems — we in America should have with the proposed Ground Zero mosque.  What I like is his pithy summary of the reason Islam is different from all other religions, and this is primarily because, while it calls itself a religion, it isn’t really.  Instead, it’s a complex governmental system and world domination system that simply points to God as its ultimate authority:

Dawa, whether done from the rubble of the World Trade Center or elsewhere, is the missionary work by which Islam is spread. As explained in my recent book, The Grand Jihad, dawa is proselytism, but not involving only spiritual elements — for Islam is not merely a religion, and spiritual elements are just a small part of its doctrine. In truth, Islam is a comprehensive political, social, and economic system with its own authoritarian legal framework, sharia, which aspires to govern all aspects of life.

This framework rejects core tenets of American constitutional republicanism: for example, individual liberty, freedom of conscience, freedom to govern ourselves irrespective of any theocratic code, equality of men and women, equality of Muslims and non-Muslims, and economic liberty, including the uses of private property (in Islam, owners hold property only as a custodians for the umma, the universal Muslim nation, and are beholden to the Islamic state regarding its use). Sharia prohibits the preaching of creeds other than Islam, the renunciation of Islam, any actions that divide the umma, and homosexuality. Its penalties are draconian, including savagely executed death sentences for apostates, homosexuals, and adulterers.

Read the rest here, please.

Americans who push back against Muslim demands on public life are not religious bigots.  Instead, they show their understanding that, in a pluralist society, an ordinary religion imposes its strictures on its own followers, not on everyone else in town.  Islam is no ordinary religion and we are wrong to treat it as such.  Its practitioners should, of course, be allowed to engage in their own religious practices peacefully and without government imposed conditions.  We, however, must guard vigilantly against any attempts Muslims makes to change the lifestyle of non-Muslims within that same community.

You don’t like pork?  Fine, but then don’t get a job at the meat counter of a super market — and then demand that the super market stop carrying meat or that the market assign you to a different job for which you never applied.  You don’t like alcohol?  Fine, but then don’t get a job as a taxi driver and then refuse to carry people who have alcohol?  These demands, and the hundreds (thousands?) like it that we routinely read about from Europe and, increasingly, America, are not about religious freedom.  They are about a religious minority trying to shape the dominant culture into a brutal, limiting sharia mold.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. excathedra says

    Islam is an expansionist theocracy. Not by accident but inherently. McCarthy is exactly right. It’s required beliefs are few and simple. It has very little of what Christians call “theology”. What it does have in massive amounts is legal codes that determine external behaviors in all areas of human life.
    I continue to believe that the ostrich-like attitude toward it in the West is because it has been able to code itself as as race rather than a religion. And fear of being accused of racism totally paralyzes Western liberals and more than a few conservatives.

  2. Indigo Red says

    The problem with Islam is Islam. Our problem is, like my sister, we cannot believe that the change under Islam is any different than a change in governing party.

  3. SADIE says

    The serpents that they are have always spoken with a forked tongue.
     
     
    Indigo Red
     
    Perhaps a week in Saudi might be a cure for your sister ;
     
     

  4. g6loq says

    Groan …
    The problem is not as much Islam as it is the enablers inside the gates.
    Question now very much is: “should we share a country with enablers”.
    We can’t afford to have them around given this existential crisis.
    Nothing new folks. It’s happened before. Enablers undermining us from within. All these nuanced Dr. Zhivago types.
    This, written in August of 1941:

    Who goes Nazi?

    http://harpers.org/archive/1941/08/0020122
    Enablers must go!
     

  5. 11B40 says

    Greetings:
     

    I’ve become convinced that our strategy must include actions to diminish worldwide the impact of Islam, (not Islamism, not radical Islam, not any other post-modern construct), and if not to destroy it then to drive it into unequivocal disrepute.

    The way forward is to confront Islam, the ideology, directly and often. I’ve read about an Egyptian Coptic priest, Zacarias Botros, if I remember his name correctly, who broadcasts radio programs that elucidate and discuss some of Mohammed’s sexual proclivities such as having sex with his 9-year-old “wife” and sucking on the tongues of children. While understanding the “jihad” part of Islamic doctrine is useful, I think that exposing the depravity, murders, thievery, lying, and slavery throughout the muslim scriptures is a better way to erode the thin veneer of religion and reveal the supremacist, political ideology that is the core of Islam. I believe that is why the muslims put so much effort into precluding, and/or punishing criticism of Islam or Mohammed.

    What they want most to protect is what must be attacked.

  6. SADIE says

    g6loq
    Thank you for the link. The author Dorothy Thompson was quite a woman.  You called it spot on with ‘enablers’.
     
     
    We can begin with this ABC enabling headline: American-bred Terrorists causing alarm ….
     
    http://abcnews.go.com/WN/suspected-american-terrorists-islamic-ties-causing-concern-law/story?id=11230885&page=3
     
    Note the absence of two words: Islam and Muslim
     
    and this comment, I lifted from the comment section:
     
    The correct headline here is NOT “American-bred Terrorists Causing Alarm”.The correct headline is “Muslims born in America are becoming Terrorists”These are not Methodists nor are they Conservative Christians nor are the Orthodox Jews.The common denominator here is they all claim to be faithful Muslims.ABC, you need to stop hiding the truth – people of all faiths are being murdered by these Muslim fanatics – ABC is an accomplice both before and after the fact to such murders, because ABC is protecting those who promote such murder.

  7. Danny Lemieux says

    Hmmm, SADIE, let me guess, then: Presbyterians?
     
    gloq6 – fantastic article by Dorothy Thompson…I was relating her descriptions to all these people I know today and they fit! Who does this remind you of?
    He has been treated to forms of education which have released him from inhibitions. His body is vigorous. His mind is childish. His soul has been almost completely neglected.
    This article is such a total validation of what we Bookworm groupies have been discussing over years and years, now.

  8. Charles Martel says

    One thing all of us can start doing is to pointedly say “Muslim terrorists” or “Islamic terrorists” whenever talking to anybody about the topic. If you are challenged for using the term, ask what the objection is? If the response is that using those words paints with too broad a brush, ask how Islam is not the inspiration for the terrorists’ acts. Refer to the Quran and the Hadiths abundant testimony of Allah/Mohammed’s relentless calls for holy war against the unconverted/reverted.

    Keep pounding the meme. If the MSM start calling us racists (Muslims are not a race), they will have walked right into our trap: When we use the Quran to prove our points about jihad and Islam itself, they will not be able to answer coherently.

  9. says

    g6loq…thanks for the link! Dorothy Thompson was one of a kind.
    Peter Drucker, the seminal writer on management and society, lived in Germany until 1933 and knew many men who became Nazis or fellow-travelers. In his book “Adventures of a Bystander,” he profiles Reinhold Hensch, who became an SS officer, and Paul Schaeffer, who became editor of a major newspaper. Hensch was motivated by his desire for status: “Now I have a party membership card with a very low number and *I am going to be somebody*.” Schaeffer, on the other hand, thought he could influence the regime toward moderation, but became its tool and eventually its victim. He also describes a famous professor, a biochemist, who was willing to accept the takeover of his university’s leadership by a thuggish Nazi commissar as long as research funding continued to flow.
    Drucker objected to Hannah Arendt’s “banality of evil” construct:
    “Evil works through the Hensches and the Schaeffers precisely because evil is monstrous and men are trivial…Man becomes the instrument of evil when, like the Hensches, he thinks to harness evil to his ambitions; and he becomes the instrument of evil when, like the Schaeffers, he joins with evil to prevent worse…I have often wondered which of these two did, in the end, more harm–the Monster or the Lamb; and which is worse, Hensch’s sin of the lust for power or Schaeffer’s hubris and sin of pride? But maybe the greatest sin is neither of these two ancient ones; the greatest sin may be the new twentieth-century sin of indifference, the sin of the distinguished biochemist who neither kills nor lies but refuses to bear witness when, in the words of the old gospel hymn, “They crucify my Lord.”
     

  10. SADIE says


    David Foster
    comment:
     
    Nicely put.  It may be that the Monster and the Lamb are equal co defendants.
     
    I don’t believe indifference is the ward of the 20th century. It just has a new dictate, political correctness, which has spread as quickly as the mosques across Europe and the Americas.
     
     
     
    Charles Martel
    Comment:
     
    Absolutely, keep it hyphenated at all costs [Muslim-terrorists or Islamic-terrorists]. I have yet to hear of Amish-terrorists.
     

  11. SADIE says

    Charles Martel To whet your appetite, the following from WaPo
     
     
    snip


    Yes, we need the Cordoba House complex to set an example for the rest of America and for the world, and so the fear and hate mongers don’t win. It is necessary to show the world that Americans are neither trembling in their boots nor willing to compromise the dignity and rights of American Muslims because of the actions of few dubious “Muslims” around the world. http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/07/america_already_is_an_islamic_society.html

    Maybe once my eyes stop bleeding, I can respond with words that are suitable for print, but I wouldn’t count on it.

  12. Danny Lemieux says

    David Foster, thank you for the links to your review of Haffner’s memoirs…I read both with a sense of dread. We’ve all been here before.
     
    I understand the logic that history cannot repeat itself because, like the water in a river, it only passes once. However, I think the point of Ecclesiastes’ “there is nothing new under the sun” was that human nature remains unchangeable and therefore the actions and reactions of human dynamics in the context of good and evil are the same.
     
    In your first essay, the sentence “Who was there now to tame the beasts?” jumped out at me, as we contemplate the entrenchment of a “new” aristocracy of fascist progressives.
     
    In your second essay, the sentence “There were, however, other cases–cases in which the newcomer (i.e., the SS plant) did not back down…stating that here the paragraph of the law must yield precedence; he would instruct his co-judges that the meaning was more important than the letter of the law” and I thought of Elena Kagan and the fascist-progressive’s “living constitution”.
     
    Soon, our nation and communities will hit the financial wall, causing huge turmoil not unlike what happened to Germany in the 1920s. We must be prepared.

Leave a Reply