Will The Real Islam Please Stand Up?

My argument was simply what common sense and empirical realities tell us: Islam regulates every realm of its believers’ lives and negates individualism. Consequently Islam is mutually exclusive with free will and, therefore, with a pluralistic and liberal society. This is precisely why it has not, and cannot, join the modern world.

Most of my Muslim critics respond by emphasizing one boring, repetitive and pathetic theme: that the Islam I am criticizing (the one that exists) is not the real Islam. The real Islam, I am told, will give freedom and be very modern. It’s just that this real Islam is nowhere to be seen yet.

Here we have the traditional and dishonest excuse of tyranny lovers: that the worldly incarnations of their ideas should never be blamed on the ideas themselves. This asininity has always been the favorite ploy of socialists. Whenever you confront a Leftist about the genocide that the socialist idea has spawned (i.e. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc.), the response is always that the true socialism hasn’t been tried yet. That’s because, the Leftist explains, the reality of the Marxisms that liquidated 100 million lives in the 20^th century have nothing to do with the ideas that gave them birth.

But we didn’t need the socialist mass murders of the 20^th century to confirm that the socialist idea is, in and of itself, a prescription for genocide. You simply can’t have a society that forbids private property and political dissent and not have state terror.

It’s the same with Islam. You can’t have a religion that mandates the thwarting of free will and then not have state totalitarianism, social neuroses, and cultural impotence.

The Muslims with whom I debate always assert that the real Islam can join the modern world, but in the same breath they condemn everything about the modern world and boast how Islam is not a part of it. Therefore, even though they deny that a place like Iran is the real Islam, the real Islam they describe always ends up sounding like a carbon copy of the existing Islam that they try to separate themselves from.

The typical Muslim tells me that I am wrong about Islam because it does allow free will. So then I inquire whether, in the real Islam, a woman will have the free choice to drink alcohol, go dirty dancing at a bar, pick up a guy and take him home. This always crystallizes the issue quite quickly. The Muslim usually gets very upset and responds, with much anger, about how this behavior is very wrong, how decadent the West is, and how Islam simply does not allow such immorality. He then articulates his moral indignation about my opposition to "eliminating" moral depravity.

Whenever someone starts talking about "eliminating" the universal tragedies, ills, and evils in our human condition, and begins to imply that the "solutions" to them lie in state governments or religious theocracies, I get shivers of dread up my spine. Because that’s when I know that pure and unadulterated evil is itching to take on living form.

I don’t necessarily support the lifestyle of the hypothetical woman that I raise in my question. I understand the social ills that her potential lifestyle engenders in our liberal society. But I am much more frightened of the attempt of an external authority to prevent that woman from exercising her own moral and social choices. Anyone who understands anything about the notion and reality of original sin, and is aware of the nightmares that the experiments with social utopia have spawned, knows that the attempt to annihilate human ills by force always spawns much greater and darker demons.

Thus, the typical Muslim who chastises me about our Western society’s problems (i.e. unwanted teenage pregnancies) always scares me, because the assumption on which his chastisement is made implies that something can be done about it – without a negative trade-off. But the human condition teaches us that the capacity for evil exists in all realms, and that while unwanted teenage pregnancies are obviously a tragic reflection of the moral decay of our liberal democratic society, the "remedy" to eliminate this problem is laden with much more precarious danger.

What I am saying is that if we want to have a society where young teenage girls are dissuaded from having reckless sex and getting pregnant, we must try to do so by fighting for the increase of moral values in our society. And I believe in fighting for those values.

But the state and religious institutions must stay out of this realm in the context of enforcing laws that will negate free will and punish transgressors. The choices that young women make, and that all humans make, about their own private ethical and social behavior must ultimately be made by them.

Muslims disagree with this. And no wonder that when they boast about how the real Islam will rectify a problem like pre-marital sex, the images of burqas, female genital mutilation, public stonings and beheadings, forced marriages, and honor killings pass through my mind.

The problem here, therefore, is that Islam is inherently oppressive and violent. Yes, I know about all of those verses here and there in the Koran that talk about peace and love. Very heart warming indeed.

But the problem is that Islam forbids the separation of Church and State (Surah 2:193), as well as the right of dissent (Surah 4:59). And that is what Sharia Law, the religious law of Islam, holds in place. It makes no distinction between spiritual and temporal life. In other words, it covers not only ritual, but every aspect of life. In so doing, it makes sure to dish out severe punishments for any transgression of the rules.

It is obvious, therefore, that the very notion of Islam allowing democracy is simply ludicrous. If this occurred, then a majority of people might just decide that women don’t need to wear veils and that starting an official opposition party to the established Islamic structure is a good idea.

Thus, it becomes obvious why my recent column upset many Muslims. By the tone and substance of their responses, it is easily discernable that they long for all of us to be in the real Islam. That way, they wouldn't have to read what I wrote, because I wouldn’t be allowed to publish what I think.

When my Muslim critics rail against me, I always can’t help from observing that the only reason they can e-mail me and write letters to the editor is because they are protected from the despotism of their own religion by the blessings of living in a free society. If Islam took over where they live, these individuals would not be able to engage in their free expression without fearing that, if their words were construed as saying something un-Islamic, they would suffer severe harm to their physical health.

Paradoxically, therefore, the only hope there is for Islam, if there is any hope at all, exists in the Western Muslims who are protected from the laws of their own religion. That’s because the only place where Muslims can work to reform Islam without a threat of having their heads chopped off is in the societies that infidels built.

But the most important question remains: can a reformed Islam even remain Islamic?

The point is that the real Islam is not, and will never be, a place of freedom and peace. If it will be, it will not be Islam, because it will have to reject its Sharia Law, its religious police, and its own Prophet - whose main accomplishments and messages were rooted in violence and military conquest.

And when I make the statement: "will the real Islam please stand up" I am obviously being facetious.

Islam is a state and a religion. Based simply on the lack of seperation that exists it is incompatible with western values.

The west, in large part, has moved strongly and purposely away from theocratic ideals. The 'values' touted by much of the christian right are, quite often, at odds with christianity.

The values that place the west at odds with Islam are those secular statutes that so vexed (and vex) the church in the past. They are the recognition of inherent 'rights' that hold the individual on high and exalt community only as an expression of the will of free individuals.

What Islam is truely sacred is another fundametalist but diametrically opposed religion. You see, Jamie. Some islamic thugs thought that by burning a train in Gujarat carrying Hindu pilgrims and that too in a secular country like India, they could get away and all they would get was the usual finger-pointing blame by main stream politicians.

You see, Jamie. Even though India is progressing overall in education, illitracy is still rampant in many parts. So what happened after the train burning accident were actions of Hindu but equally fanatical Hindu idol worshippers. These islamic thugs never factored in an equally fanatical opposites which caused much more damage to them.

In a sense, fanatical but a diff religion was a great equalizer. What Islam is scarred off is an equally fanatical religion of the opposite and if you throw a mixture of illiteracy then you end up with Gujarat.

Jamie, that's a great piece - and its logic truly irrefutable. I would add, only, that next time you try to research the rights of women in Islam, ask the "libertarian"-muslim you are talking to if his sister would be available for a night out for partying, drinking and dirty dancing - then you would really see the meaning of personal freedom in islam!

Incidentally, when African Americans complain for their great-great-grandfather being a slave in pre-civil-war Ameica, I just smile and remember that white christians were legally slaves up till the beginning of the 20th century in Turkey (the leader of islam for four hundred years and the contributor of the crescent in the flag of all those muslim nuts around us.)

According to the Koran, Muslims have a religious duty to live according to a set of rules and laws imposed by the Sharia, above all other laws. To become a US citizen, an immigrant must take the Oath of Citizenship. This obligates them to support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America. Muslims should not be allowed to become US citizens, because they cannot truthfully take the Oath of Citizenship. Since lying to infedels is allowed for Muslims, they can lie to obtain US citizenship.

Oath of Citizenship I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

"Now kill all the boys [innocent kids]. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. (From the NIV Bible, Numbers 31:17)"

The story of the Mighty Samson: "Self sacrifice" and giving your life away intentionally and taking as many enemy lives with you as possible for the sake of GOD Almighty and your people exists in the Bible. Let us look at the story of the Mighty Samson in the Bible: Then he pushed with all his might, and down came the temple on the rulers and all the people in it. Thus he killed many more when he died than while he lived. (From the NIV Bible, Judges 16:26-30)" So to all of those hypocrites from Jewish and Christian Rabies and Ministers who call the Palestinian Suicide Martyrs as "Homicide Bombers", how are the Palestinians today different from what Samson did before?

I don't blame the regular Jews and Christians because they don't know much about their Bible. But I do have a great deal of problem with the hypocrites and the Pedophiles of the Churches who know everything about their porn-full bible, the book of women's breasts and vaginas taste like wine, and brothers and sisters sleeping with each others because they clearly have double standards. They are clearly contradicting themselves and their porn-filled bible.

In this time it is our duty to foment a period of uncertainty which will bore through the hearts, suffer the minds, crumble the souls, and stigmatize the memories of all humanity, endure history to extinguish the infestation of an ethnicity (Arabs) and its derivatives along with its singular threat, the virus of its emetic linguistic (Arabic) and the mental disease of its religion (Islam).

By 'ETHNICITY' I speak of vermin (Arabs: Egyptians, Saudis, Iraqis, Syrians). By 'DERIVATIVES' I speak of their lineage and kin (Moroccans, Turks, Iranians, Afganistanis, Pakistanis, ALL MUSLIM NATIONS). This ETHNICITY and its DERIVATIVES are vermin much like sewer rats and breed similarly.

In most muslim nations, single females may have as few as 6 litters per year, averaging 6 to 14 each. By 13 years of age, the young are encouraged because of the mental disease (Islam) to carry on reproduction. Since there has been no controll, the infestation of this ethnicity and its derivatives has rapidly increased.

Worldwide, the ethnicity of Arabs are the most destructive pests known to man. They are a known source of numerous social ills afflicting humans.

This vermin are a serious hazard to humanity. Aside from contaminating western culture, their spread will turn backward humanity's course to that of a global society living without freedom, in fear and persecution. Reducing their numbers through social restrictions must be enforced. They must be segragated and expelled from Western nations. Futhermore, their burrows of breeding grounds (Islamic nations) should be reduced. For maximim effect the source and nests of these breeding grounds should be targeted, Mecca and Medina.

Muslims' emetic (vomit inducing) call to prayer (the Athaan) should be banned from every country. This muslim call to prayer performed 5 times a day is noise pollution. It is also a dangerous form of controlling the mind and brainwashing the vermin and general population.

Furthermore, the spread of the mental disease caused by the religion of ISLAM must be stopped by banning the Koran (muslim holy book). This must be done in conjuction with banning the emetic language (Arabic). Systematically forcing the muslim nations (especially the Arab ones) to become secular is paramount, but banning Arabic and introducing an easy substitute or secondary language which can be assimilated is essential. Methodically reducing their numbers using any means is a necessary solution.

1) I'm just an old-fashioned East Coast Republican i.e. I believe the Pharisaic Torah, and the so-called Born-Again "Book of Revelation" should NOT constitute the cornerstone of American polity- thanks, but NO thanks- our founding fathers gave us a great constitution, and that's good enough for me!

2) There are many substantiated hard facts PROVING that the Bushcheney dictatorship (Saint John Ashcroft the Baptist and Herr Chief Politzei Robert Mueller are literally shattering our civil rights before our very eyes!) is linked to the Saudi Islamic fundamentalist regime- Taleban godfather King Fahd Al-Saud repeatedly subsidized young W's Arbusto Corp. and Cheney's Halliburton Oil Services, and generously paid flying school tuition fees for Osama's operatives!...

"Taleban" literally means "students" in Arabic: the term originally referred to Afghan and Pakistani activists schooled in Saudi "institutes of higher learning".

In ALL their speeches (and Al-Jazeera cum CNN video clips!), Mullah Omar and Osama Ben Laden systematically refer to "Wahabism", an extremely radical form of Islamic Fundamentalism that calls for the extermination of "pagan idols worshippers" i.e. Christians, Buddhists and Hindus (hence the tragic events of 911, and Saudi-funded and Paki-trained terrorist infiltrations in Indian-controlled Kashmere).

Problem is "Wahabi" clergy is to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia what the Anglican hierarchy was to the UK 300 years ago: the sole spiritual/ideological backbone of the regime.

Problem is Bush and Cheney call Saudi thugs (who force American women serving in the Gulf to wear a veil) "America's ally in the war against terror"... What would you say if your county's chief law enforcement officer enrolled local mobsters as assistant-sheriffs?

For those interested in this issue, I strongly recommend reading the following article published recently in "Now Magazine":

"A former top FBI counterterrorism official who was killed in the World Trade Center attack had complained bitterly about how U.S. oil politics had shut down FBI investigations. The former official, John O'Neill, resigned in protest as head of the FBI's national security division in August and was hired as chief of security at the twin towers. "All the answers, everything needed to dismantle Osama bin Laden's organization, can be found in Saudi Arabia," said O'Neill."

Many young boys from age(4-8) are kidnapped from Pakistan, Bangladesh and yes, India and sold to wealthy arabs in the middle east who use the boys to be "camel jockeys".

It is repulsive to say the least, when these kids on the camels are screaming with pain and you see the spectators(arab men) laughing and clapping their hands.

***Similarly, during muharram(mouring of ali) the shias hit their body with metal chain so that it bleeds. Ok, that is one thing. How about this. If you click to islamexposed.com you will see pictures of young boys being held by "happy mothers" whose forehead is about to be "slit" open with knives for this ritual. the boys survive, but have large bandages to stop the bleeding.

I read many of the comments that say "ditto Jaime, Islam is violent, you go boy." Please, give me a break here! America is the most violent society on earth. A woman is beaten every 30 seconds in America, millions of unborn babies are legally murdered each year, America committed genocide against the Native Americans and still mistreats the few that are left and breaks every treaty to this day, stole enslaved murdered and brutalized millions of black Africans, murdered thousands of civilians in Japan with H-bombs, we test drugs and chemicals on our own American army troops, our cities are unsafe. Look at the major symbol of Christianity, a cross - a murder weapon. Christians drink Jesus' blood and eat his flesh in ceremonies. I know it is symbolic - but it is violent symbolism none the less.

Who in the hell do you think invented all these violent weapons of mass destruction? America did! That's who. Now we want to cry like little brats when other groups want and will use the same weapons. Don't get me wrong I love America, its my home but I am not sticking my head in the sand and saying "We are so peaceful and others, Islam in particular, are so violent." We are more violent than any people on earth. Just look at our TV, movies, games, sports. We love violence.

To defeat terrorism we have to use our God given ability to be violent. Hey look folks, Islam can not be defeated or destroyed. I know, I am a muslim. Not the crazy kind either. Violence in Islam does not come from Quranic teaching. The violence comes from hadiths. Hadiths (or so-called holy stories) are lies that Arab rulers made up 200 to 300 years after Muhammad died. If "true muslims" follows the Quran ALONE for guidance terrorism would be impossible to commit. Yes, self defense is allowed but not fighting just because you do no like somebody. Last thing I have to say is America has the right to defend itsself and I as an American muslim would not hesitate to slay Osama bin Laden and his gang even if they use muslim as a label.

I strongly believe that theory and ideology drives practice and process. Having said that, there is not point is saying that "real Islam" is good when there are parts of Koran that proclaim discrimination against, and violence on non-Muslims. How can one expect a follower of Islam not to consider these teachings? To me Islam is a very reactionary movement with no concept of spirituality. Unfortunately, there is no solution to this problem. We will have to learn to deal with this in long run. Not giveing opportunity to another Jihadist to strike us.

I must take issue with Dr. Glazov's recent article, which I can only assume intentionally distorts a critical issue in order to generate controversy/readership. I refuse to believe that Dr. Glasov is too stupid to recognize his oversights.

He is equating the entire religion of Islam with radical Islamist states, which is akin to equating a radical Christian sect, the Mormons, for example, to Christianity. Obviously it is true that a Mormon woman cannot drink alcohol or have premarital sex with moral justification any more than an Islamic woman can. Of course I see the major difference--there is no officially Mormon nation with a military or police force to enforce its rules. The primary reason for this is that the Church has compromised the enforcement of its belief system with the advantages to be gained from incorporation into existing nations.

Instead of saying "Islam is not compatible with Western values," why not take off the self-imposed blinders and clarify your point (which far more people can agree with, b/c it's more justifiable) by saying that radical Islamic States are not compatible with Western values? Islam is not inherently an oppressive, bigoted religion any more than Christianity is. And a Christian State is just as incompatible with Western values as is an Islamic one.

Jamie Glazov, I am truly impressed with your courage in openly condemning the evils of Islam, and in not caving in to the "religion of peace" propaganda that even conservatives spout. You are a bold and independent thinker, as I am discovering by reading other columns of yours as well.

I don't need to tell you to keep up the good work, because I can see by your moral passion that you will. Columns like yours give me hope in a world that sometimes seems on the brink of barbarism.

The follow-up to "why islam can't join the modern world" outdoes its prequel. Great job! You better hire a few bodyguards however. These are bad days to be a non-muslim in a country with a significant muslim minority.

After all, any person of any race/culture/tribe/ethnicity converting to Islam starts displaying the same old traits - fighting with other countries over stupid matters. Case in point - Kashmir (India), Chechnya (Russia), some African muslim countries, Palestine (Israel), etc. Thanks for outlining what millions others are afraid of... All (most) non-muslims tacitly or otherwise fully support you.

And to the person who claimed that there's various levels of muslims - remember, it also says in the Quran that you can't be a partial muslim and also a true one. You must follow all rules in the book or leave it. The moderate people you mention are NOT following the REAL Islam as Mohammed envisioned for the world. Taliban/Pakistan is an example of true Islam.

Again, kudos... this is THE best article I've read on the topic and I agree with 101% of it. Will have to forward it to every friend I got. Anyone who wants to take issue with me can mail me at anand_thaker@hotmail.com

Being a victim of Islamic fundamentalism, my community (Kashmiri Pandits) has suffered the most at the hands of these zealots. I believe it is our moral duty to expose Islam to this ignorant otherwise civilized world. We have created a bunch of websites on Kashmir, like

I would now like to turn your attention to the bold and revealing articles written about Islam by Mr. Anwar Shaikh that have been put at the following URL (titled appropriately):

Wonderful,my heartiest congratulations to you on the article.Hope u will keep on writing such articles to expose these bloody sons of Allah.

Muslims told us Islam means peace, in reality Islam means submission to Allah if necessary by coercion. Muslims told us Quran forbids killing of innocents, in reality Quran is full of verses which encourage violence against infidels. Muslims told us their population in US is 8 million, but a survey showed their number is less than 3 million. Muslims told us Israel commited massacre at Jenin, but it was found to be false. Islamic world is full of hoaxes and lies. Their religion thrives on lies. Muhammad himself lied and cheated his wives to sexually exploit Egyptian slave girl Maria.

Real Islam

Dear Jamie, What ever you said in your article is true. Muslims should look themselves in mirrors before blaming you or any one who speaks truths. Here is some thing about real Islam:

2) Most brutal religion on earth, allows people to be put to death by stoning and cuts hands and legs of thieves still practiced in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan

3) Promises Sex after death with 72 virgins (only for males, but if a female dies will she get 72 virgin males???) I guess no Muslim can answer my questions.

4) Has two faces when in minority every Muslim will talk about atrocities, human rights etc etc, But once Islam is in majority, they will start killing non-Muslims in systematic way by using torture, abduction and rape of non-Muslim women and forced conversions.

5) Every Muslim has a dream of making the world Islamic by high birth rates and immigration to western countries.

Answer to Third Rail Christian

The harsh punishments of Mosaic law that Third Rail Christian cites represent a logical conclusion of theocracy. Historically, treason - aiding and abetting active attempts to bring about the physical destruction of a government and/or its military - has almost always been regarded as a capital crime. Sedition - "incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority" (as worded by Merriam-Webster) - was treated with nearly equal severity in ancient times.

The definition of "enemies foreign and domestic" is much broader under a theocracy than under a secular state. Both must address threats from foreign governments and military insurgents. Both also must deal with persons who actively encourage citizens to disobey their governments. A secular state exists to preserve harmony (as the state perceives it) between citizens. A theocracy exists for that purpose AND to preserve harmony (as the state perceives it) between humanity and the divine. The latter therefore has a lengthier legal definition of treason ans sedition than the former.

Biblical Christianity does not call for theocracy. It teaches that theocratic Israel was created a) to graphically demonstrate that humans are incapable of attaining righteousness through their own works, and b) to lay a foundation for the arrival of the Messiah. The first-century church never sought to build a public-sector religion; "Christian theocracy" was a heresy of later times.

Jews, although disagreeing largely if not completely over why God founded the original Jewish state, have not been too eager to reinstate the theocracy. Why, I am not certain; the impossible geneological task of identifying qualified candidates for Levite priesthood would certainly be a deterrent. Jews did play a significant role in creating the "modern world;" this happened while their faith was a private-sector concern.

Islam differs from Judaism in key aspects. Mohammed's actions were not "notarized" by publicly-displayed divine miracles; his authority as a prophet therefore has no basis. He jailed and punished dissidents; Mosaic law (prior to Pharisaical additions) did not criminalize expressed disagreements with either the Law of the state. (Only apostate kings such as Manasseh purged dissidents - all of whom were prophets.) Islam has various "do not do this unto someone unless that someone is an infidel" laws, while the Judaic code of ethics does not. And Muslims have lived under theocracy for a lot longer than Jews (or Christians, for that matter). The contrasts between Islamic theocracies and Western democracies should reveal which political system turns out the higher standard of living.

Islam: A Threat Within America

Go to http://www.icsfl.org/ then to the lectures online and click on "Kosova what can we learn." This is an Islamic site in Pompano Beach, FL... USA!!!

I don't know if anyone has seen this link that Jamie gave over at sierratimes.com (he may have given it somewhere here as well) but I just got done listening and I am chilled to the bone! While Islamic leaders preaching hate towards America while living in America isn't new, to listen to this audio file where the lecturer is saying that the war in Kosovo was all an American ploy to eventually take advantage of Muslims makes me want to vomit.

The denial that this religion is perpetually in and its inability to take responsibility for its own shortcomings continually threatens America's existence. While we put our sons and daughters in harms way to protect them, this fool enflames his audience with words of mistrust and paranoia toward those who would save him and protect his right to free speech, liberty and prosperity.

I don't know about any of you, but I don't want my children growing up in a world where the Koran is shoved down their throat, where my son is filled with enough hate to take the lives of innocents or where my daughter is allowed to be rapped and beaten all in the name of the great prophet Mohammed and his warped, twisted god, Allah.

Somehow, Islam must be stopped before it destroys us from without and within. I blame our media for not bringing these kinds of incidents to light. Why doesn't Dan Rather show an undercover video of Muslim leaders preaching anti-American rhetoric in an American mosque? Unfortunately neither he, nor anyone else it seems, has the balls. Without public awareness we will continue to live with the misconception that Islam is peaceful while it creeps up behind us and strangles us to death using our own rope!

Abu Abu... not
Los Angeles
5/28/02

And that's precisely why...

Great article. And you reveal precisely why we hear so very little condemnation of bin Laden by the so-called Muslim moderates. I just wish the INS would read your pieces, becausing it's appalling that we're still importing a people who hate everything about the West. Ibraham Hooper, who was born in America and adopted Islam, wants to see the USA become an Islamic state. The Islamic world may eventually need to be quarantined and allowed to rot in its own juices, but I still say that Radio Free Islam might help to foment revolt in those countries.

Islam is a violent political movement.

Kudos, Mr. Glazov on an excellent article. I am always amazed at the prevaricators who passionately attack any criticism of Islam as a "misinterpretation" of Islamic law. It appears to me that your interpretation is correct, and as real as the stump left where a hand used to be, or as real as the beating a female rape victim receives for her "crime". What bothers me is that the same first ammendment that is being used to expunge any reference to a Christian God of tolerance and love from our public life, is being used to shield and protect this vicious psycopathology of Islam. Keep up your fine scholarship.

Islam needs a Martin Luther(reformer) and Jesus(Truth) too!

Nearly all the really bloodthirsty stuff in the Bible is in the Old Testament, something conveniently ignored by apologists for the bloodthirsty and otherwise retrograde aspects of Islam. Not always smoothly, the West has managed to progress with Christian religion and an overall tolerance of other religions.

So the proof of the pudding is in the eating: Christian religious nuts are a small minority, and Christianity is hardly ever blamed for social or political problems in the West, while Islamic radicals are such a large minority, perhaps even a majority of Moslems in some nations, that, ipso facto, Islam is a problem just by the way it is practised by its followers.

A nice piece. In one respect it does not go far enough, in another, it goes too far.

I have pointed out in various forums that Islam was constructed in deliberate opposition to Christianity just at the point when the Church was working out (as a result of the Christological controversies which only us Eastern Orthodox really seem to understand anymore) the modern notion of person. The conception of person which all of Christendom, including its secularist post-Enlightenment Western decay, accepts, and on which modern democracy (as opposed to the Athenian all land-owning men are created equal version) depends is explicitly rejected by Islam.

The Islamic dicta "Allah has no image" and "Allah has no son" set Islam in direct opposition to the "high anthropology" of Christendom, which sees each human being as created in God's image, and worthy of God sending His Son on a rescue mission in which He passed through death to destroy death. Islam is thus also in direct opposition to the diminished version of Christian anthropology (I use the word in the theological sense) held by the American Founders, "All men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights..."

Plainly Christianity is not necessary to a functioning modern democracy: Hindu India, and (once humbled by American military might) Shinto/Buddhist Japan do very well. However, Hinduism, Shinto and Buddhism are merely non-Christian religions, not, like Islam anti-Christian religions.

On the other hand, the author argues that Islam "negates free-will" because it has a strict moral code. This is a silly position. He might also note that although Islam lowered the status of women in the Christian lands it conquered, it did (despite having a rapist for a "prophet") represent an improvement in the status of women over what was found among the heathen Arabs which it initially attracted. (Let us be just in our criticism of our enemies.)

Nearly all the really bloodthirsty stuff in the Bible is in the Old Testament, something conveniently ignored by apologists for the bloodthirsty and otherwise retrograde aspects of Islam.

Exactly, the point of the OT is to show that mankind cannot achieve salvation, paradise on earth or any other such thing by his own means. It will soon fall to heresy or ruthless oppression.

What happens when you seek honesty to avoid hypocrisy-tyranny...

"Similar to Calvin, Luther believed that God had ordained both church and state as separate, but legitimate, spheres. Luther thought of these two basic institutions as each wielding its own sword: the church, the sword of church discipline; the state, the sword of civil force. As long as each tended its respective business, all would work well. Luther's construction, however, does not resolve many of the modern issues stemming from entanglement and confusion between the spheres. Luther... did not believe---that the church had a right to impose its belief on unbelievers or the state. He is purported to have quipped that he would rather have a "competent turk rule than an incompetent Christian."

More nonsense. Secular liberalism always is a shock when religious people first encounter it. That's true of Muslims, or Christians, Jews or Hindus. At the heart of every religion there is the idea or at least the possibility of theocracy. This is stronger in Islam than in Christianity, but past generations of Christians would still be appalled by Glazov's ideas. Once secularism and individualism establish themselves they become accepted as obvious and even dogmatic, but prior to that they are an outrage to the moral sense and religious conscience.

We do legislate personal morality, as drug laws, civil rights laws, and the Sunday closing laws, dry counties, age of consent statutes, anti-smoking regulations, and sodomy laws found in some jurisdictions indicate. To be sure, we try to have reasons that are more easily defended against libertarian arguments, but our parents and grandparents weren't so scrupulous about evading libertarian censure. A recognition that legislated morality is part of our heritage too would have made for a more balanced article. Our ancestors had more in common with Muslims than we would like to think, and we ourselves confronted with some new abomination would be likely to ban it first and ask questions later.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.