Critique of Pure Islam

CitizenWarrior.com ^ | 11-23-11 | Citizen Warrior

[bayouranger]

WHEN SOMEONE says that some of the passages of the Quran are violent, and that Islam itself is political, what do you call that? It's an important question. Strangely enough, I've heard it called "racist," which seems very odd. Islam is not a race.

I've also heard it called "Islamophobia," which is also strange, because it is not a phobia.

It is religious criticism. But it's more than that, because Islam is not merely a religion. Islam is also a political system with political goals. So instead of racism or Islamophobia, we could call it religious or political criticism.

But if you call it that, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it. In a free society, it is a perfectly legitimate activity to criticize religious doctrines and political systems. It's perfectly all right, for example, to point out that the Catholic church frowns upon birth control, or that communism and free enterprise are incompatible.

So when someone explains the political ideology contained in the Quran, it is a completely legitimate activity, and anyone who calls it racism or Islamophobia either doesn't understand what they're saying, or, more likely, they are trying to censor the person. That kind of censorship is out of line in a free society.

The fact that exponents of pure Islam will not tolerate criticism of Islam is one of the main criticisms of Islam. The fact that the Quran itself is adamant about disallowing any criticism of the Quran (and calls for a death sentence for doing so) is one of the most legitimate things to criticize about the Quran.

[bayouranger]

If someone doesn't hire a Muslim simply because the applicant is a Muslim, that is discrimination, and that's a different issue. If someone beats up a Muslim because he's a Muslim, that is a hate crime and is illegal, immoral, and should be punished.

But criticism of Islamic doctrine? It can and should be done.

Where it gets tricky is immigration laws. There has to be some selection. If you have a Muslim applying for immigration, what do you do? The person himself may not be in favor of following the violent instructions in the Quran, but how do we know? Because he is a Muslim, and because the Quran contains political goals and ideas, he is more likely to be subversive and ascribe to doctrines that we would consider treasonous than the average applicant.

What do we do about that? If anybody has some answers, let's hear it (in comments). This is, I believe, one of the most important issues that arises out of the study of the Quran and the Sunnah.

One possibility, of course, is to stop Muslim immigration.

It is also possible to give an immigration applicant a lie-detector test and ask about their intentions within our country. In the U.S. they have to learn a little about the country and swear an oath of alleigance, but under taqiyya, a Muslim with the intention of helping to overthrow the government would be allowed by Islamic doctrine to swear the oath without intending to keep it, so that requirement is not enough.

Another possibility is to allow Muslims in, but really crack down on preaching jihad within the country. Most countries have laws against sedition or treason, but so far as I know, no country has enforced those laws against Muslims preaching in mosques. But once the precedent was set, it would be a straightforward matter. (Read more about the relationship between sedition and Sharia here.)

Are there better ideas? Let's compile them here in the comments for easy reading by voters and politicians. We need a solution. It would be foolish for democratic countries to keep importing people who want to overthrow their government. Not all Muslims do, of course. But pure Islam, straight from the Quran and the Sunnah, is very clear about the obligation to wage jihad and establish universal Sharia law. That means overthrowing democratic governments.

The longer we ignore this issue, the bigger the problem will be when we finally tackle it.

The immigration issue is open for discussion. But the freedom to openly discuss and criticize Islamic doctrine is not an issue at all. We have the right to freely discuss it. Period.

[Vigilanteman]

Somalia is the poster boy for an Islamic society: Population density of Colorado, 2000 miles of sub-tropical coastline, moderate rainfall in most of the country and such a sh*thole that they have to export people to the rest of the world and prey on vessels passing in the shipping lanes nearby.

[RoosterRedux]

Speaking of doctrine...it is helpful in understanding the Koran to remember the concept of abrogation ("al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh"). Later verses abrogate earlier ones. Hence, the peaceful Mecca verses are authoritatively nullified by the violent Medina and other post Mecca verses.

Source: Islamreview.com

[rfreedom4u]

If someone beats up a Muslim because he’s a Muslim, that is a hate crime

Beating someone up is a CRIME. Some crimes are committed out of hate. Hate is a THOUGHT and in my opinion should not be prosecuted. If someone hates any group that is their right. If they take it further and act out violently that is a crime. Prosecuting “hate crimes” is an attempt to control peoples’ thoughts through legislation. Let the haters have their free speech. That way we know who to keep an eye on.

[Howie66]

If I were King, the very first thing that I would do would to EXPEL every member of Islam that has infiltrated our country or converted to Islam in the past 50 years.

No exceptions.

Islam is a political doctrine that masquerades as a religion and as such is a fraud from the beginning.

Islam must be defeated, no matter what.

[AustinBill]

The issue isn't Islam, it's Sharia. Criticizing Islam as a faith runs afoul of the First Amendment. Sharia is a different matter. There is no place for an alternative secular law in the United States or other Western countries. The failure to make this critical distinction is at the root of the schizophrenic post-9/11 policies adopted by the US.

Mormon history provides an apt analogy. You can believe whatever you wish and worship however you will, but you cannot attempt to establish an alternative political/legal system under the guise of religion, which is why Mormonism was forced to renounce polygamy and related secular trappings. Islam should be held to the same standard: as a faith you're free to believe and worship as you will, but there is only one universal law in the public square and it admits no exception. Those who wish to live under a different secular law are free to leave.

[Venturer]

When I hear people criticising Muslims for their death threats and their bombings and their raising their children to be martyrs, I call it the Truth.

[FatherofFive]

The issue isn't Islam, it's Sharia. Criticizing Islam as a faith runs afoul of the First Amendment

It is not an either-or thing. It is both-and. Islam is evil. Sharia law puts evil into practice.

The Islamic religious books are terrorist handbooks. Islam is evil and needs to be eradicated. The Koran:

Sura (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution of Muslims is worse than slaughter of non-believers...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."

Sura (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."

Sura (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"

Sura (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

Sura (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Sura (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah"

Sura (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."

Sura (9:14) - "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace..."

Sura (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Sura (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

Sura (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."

Sura (47:4) - "So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make them prisoners,"

Sura (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way"

Sura (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end

From the Hadith:

Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’”

Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, "Kill any Jew who falls under your power."

Ibn Ishaq: 327 - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

Ibn Ishaq: 992 - "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah."

The Koran and hadiths are replete with examples of Muhammad's barbaric behavior. Robert Spencer does a good job here explaining Islam - Blogging the Qur’an Start at the bottom.

[patriot08]

_______________

Jihad per TV ‘realism series’- ‘All American Muslims’
TLC Sunday, 9 PM CST

‘It is an attempt to manipulate Americans into ignoring the threat of jihad and to bully them into thinking that being concerned about the jihad threat would somehow victimize these nice people in this show.

The problem people have with Islam is its teachings of violence against and the subjugation of unbelievers. It is with the supremacist ideology and the fervent believers in those noxious doctrines of warfare and subjugation. Yhe ultimate danger posed by a program presenting the “normal” side of life for American Muslims is that it isn’t accurate.

The danger is in the deception and obfuscation of the truth which results in the intellectual disarming of the American people.’

Pam Geller
_______________________

Email TLC.

Protest

Boycott

Get up a petition.

They will destroy what we’ve done to alert America to the danger of Islam

This atrosity MUST be stopped!

.

[jmacusa]

Were there ever any moderate Nazis? Check out the history of the alliance between Hitlers Germany and Islam. If someone identified themselves as a Nazi, would they be given entrance into the country? Islam and Saracens(muslims) have no place in Western society, none at all. Islam is a violent, intolerant political system masquerading as a religion whose aim is the absolute domination of the world under Islam and Sharia law through war.

[jmacusa]

The Constitution and The Bill of Rights are not a suicide pact. Morons haven’t smashed planes into building, not that I’ve ever noticed. Sharia Law is to Islam what ‘’Mien Kampf’’was to Nazism.

[slowhandluke]

Criticizing Islam as a faith runs afoul of the First Amendment.

I think you need to refine your argument. 'Criticizing' anything is specifically what the First Amendment allows.

The first amendment does say we can't make it an 'established' religion, but legislating that things required in Islam are illegal doesn't seem to fit that clause. We get to stop folks from advocating the lynching of someone who burns the Koran, even though it is a religious rule following from the text of the Koran.

[anglian]

The Tragedy of Being Moderate

William Haynes

I used to know a man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World
WarTwo. They owned a number of large industries and estates. I asked him
howmany German people were true Nazis, and the answer he gave has stuck
with meand guided my attitude toward fanaticism ever since.

“Very few people were true Nazis “he said,” but many enjoyed the
return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those whojust thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat
backand let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we
hadlost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost
everything Iended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my
factories.”

We are told again and again by “experts” and “talking heads” that
Islam isthe religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want
to live in peace.

Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50
shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter
Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over
the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb,
behead, murder, or honor kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after
mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of
rape victims and homosexuals. The hard quantifiable fact is that the
“peaceful majority” is the “silent majority” and it is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia comprised Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet
the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million
people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China ‘S huge population was
peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70
million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War 2 was not a
warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across
South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of
12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.
And, who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be
said that the majority of Rwandans were “peace loving”?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:

Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.
Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awake one day and findthat the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs
Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many
others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was
too late.

[llandres]

Yes, it’s propaganda. I really pray that folks like Geller, Gabriel, Spencer, Emerson, Horowitz, etc. are protesting and circulating petitions as well. The public is misled enough without this harmful, politically correct tv series.

[Interesting Times]

Criticizing Islam as a faith runs afoul of the First Amendment.

Absolutely false.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment does not encode any sort of limit on criticizing religion. On the contrary, it defends the right of citizens to speak freely on any topic, without being silenced by their government.

[llandres]

Eloquently said!

[anglian]

John Quincy Adams (July 11, 1767 – February 23, 1848) The sixth President of the United States

The Koran demands perpetual war against all who deny Mahomet as the prophet of God - John Quincy Adams

Only by force can Muhammad's false doctrines be dispelled and his power annihilated - John Quincy Adams

Muhammad's doctrine was violence and lust: to exalt the brutal over the spritual - John Quincy Adams

While the merciless dogmas of Muhammad remain there can never be peace upon earth - John Quincy Adams

Treachery and violence are taught as principles of Mohamet's religion - John Quincy Adams

Open proclamation of hatred is the foundation of a Mahometen's discourse - John Quincy Adams

The sword of extermination is instinct with the spirit of the Koran - John Quincy Adams

[anglian]

The First Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791.

[AustinBill]

Fair enough, let me rephrase: Attempting to make Islam illegal runs afoul of the First Amendment (as is advocated by many here). The point is that it is Sharia that is the problem, not how some choose to worship. If you want to bring legal machinery to bear, the target needs to be Sharia, not Islam, for it to be both effective and consistent with the Constitution.

[jmacusa]

There is no ‘’peaceful minority’’ in any totalitarian system. And ‘’moderate Islam’’? If the bloody religion were so peaceful, why the need for ‘’moderation’’? Wouldn’t that make the argument it isn’t peaceful? Islam is an ideology no different than Nazism and as such must be stamped out. The survival of humanity is at stake here.