If you have been reading my posts on Islam/Mohammedanism you may be aware I have been working out a stand concerning the religion founded by Mohammed (e.g. Here and Here).
The decision is between banning Mohammedanism in America or considering Mohammedanism a religion protected by Free of Religion and Free Speech ala the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
There are three points that need to be examined pertaining to Islam:
A few other points could well be addressed pertaining to Islam however without an understanding of these three points the later is irrelevant or relevant depending on the conclusions of those points.
The first point about the Law and the establishment of religion is one of my pet peeves because Leftists over the last sixty years or so have extrapolated ex nihilo that this means a wall of separation exists between the government (Federal, State and Local) and religion.
This extrapolation has zero to do with the Constitution or with those attributed to reasoning out the meaning of the Constitution in the Federalist Papers. Rather it comes from a letter (A LETTER!) to the Danbury Baptists in which President Jefferson trying to calm the fears of Baptists about the traditional concept of Christian nations establishing a State Church.
Baptists had never been privy in any nation as a State Church. In those days part of taxation was to support the State Church. Many of the Thirteen Colonies and then the Thirteen States of the United States of America initially had State Churches on the State level.
Saying all this, the majority of America’s ruling elite from the Revolutionary War days considered the rule of law and morality based on Christian principles. My conclusion (though admittedly an opinion) is that the First Amendment did not prohibit religion from being involved in the State; rather it prohibited the State from being involved in religion. The religions of the day were the varieties of Christianity in the new USA with a smattering of Judaism. The Courts of the day would not even consider extrapolating ex nihilo a law prohibiting the involvement of religion in the government apparatus.
The second point is that Congress shall make NO laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. This opened the door for religions other than Christianity to practice freely in principle; however you have to be aware the populace in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s would look with prejudice upon a non-Christian religion such as Islam/Mohammedanism. Nonetheless the letter of the law in the Constitution is very concrete. The specific word “religion” was used rather something such as the “religion of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Although Christianity would have been considered the faith of America in post Revolutionary War days, an extrapolation of diverse religious worship is free to occur.
An uncorrupt Court would have to rule to prevent public or private harassment of non-Christian religions in America because Congress can make NO law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
There are over a billion people who consider Mohammedanism a religion. At this point one has to realize my quandary about banning Mohammedanism. I’ll back to this thought in a moment.
The third point is that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or the press. This takes care of America’s atheists who choose to live by a philosophy, philosophical principle or merely not care about the existence of religion/deity one way or the other. It is the freedom of conscience without fear of retribution.
Even today ideologies such as Communism or Nazism are allowed freedom of expression in America as long as the expression does not lead to breaking the law via murder, assault, theft, incitement to riot disturbing the public welfare and so on.
Thus today fringe Leftist and fringe Rightist groups test how close they can get to the line of the rule of law without crossing it. Prosecution followed Communists in what was known as the McCarthy Era and today White Supremacists are prosecuted for arms violations and the breaking of other citizens’ civil rights.
It is the THIRD POINT I believe that Mohammedanism crosses the line.
Mohammedanism as a religion simply has too many tenets in their revered books or traditions that cross the line of the rule of law according to the American Constitution. Mohammedanism is a warrior religion that its revered books call to establish the ideological-religion globally first by peace. If peace does not work then war is forced on unbelievers of Mohammedanism until there is Mohammedan conversion or submission to second class citizenship forced to not do anything anti-Islamic or death in a heinous way.
So even though there is a theological nature of otherworldliness to Mohammedanism, the political nature of Mohammedanism in practice in this world tends toward an ideology of political world domination. This world domination mentality has the ferocity inspired by Adolf Hitler’s Nazis on the German population of a superior race. In the same way the German Nazis sought to exterminate human beings (not just Jews) considered as subhuman as not worthy of life. Those outside the Nazi vision of the Germanic Aryan nation not deemed subhuman would be second class citizens serving the Nazi German State.
The Mohammedan ideology of the days of Mohammed in which one can label as radical Islam today is really a Reformation movement on the scale that Protestantism was a movement to reform the Catholic Church to a return of the perception of the Early Church and Patristic Church.
Ali Sina has an awesome essay that points out that “reform” is a movement to go back to the way it was rather than a transformation to another a better way of thinking. The appellation of “Progressive” Churches is a case in point. Progressive Churches are not reforming Christianity; rather they are inserting Leftist humanism to eliminate what is perceived as archaic and of no value in today’s society.
Ali Sina thus stipulates Mohammedanism is not able to be reformed. If there is any reformation occurring in Mohammedanism it is the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, Wahhabi and Shi’ite aims to bring Mohammedanism back to a closer vision of the Prophet Mohammed.
The implication is that Mohammedanism would have progressive thinking added to it to bring it back to a religion that is otherworldly seeking inner peace in this life and the life to come. For this to happen a progressive Mohammedanism would have to deny Mohammed’s revelation from Allah pertaining to convert or die, sex slavery, honor killing and intolerance of everything non-Islamic.
Part of Sina’s point is to not trust Mohammedans that claim to be reform minded. Sina does not specifically point to a website called Muslims Against Sharia but implies that one should not trust Muslims who say they wish to reform Islam. The link for Muslims Against Sharia does not have its name in it, rather the link is http://www.reformislam.org/.
Sina implies there is a religion that is a progressive version of Mohammedanism. That religion is known as Bahá’í.
I have come around to the conclusion that if Mohammedanism wishes to evolve into a true religion of peace (Note as a Christian I did not say the true religion) then Muslims would embrace Baha’ism which is an actual root from Mohammedanism.
So now I am pretty much in the “Ban Islam” crowd even though it is not completely etched into stone in my thoughts. It is entirely reasonable to view Mohammedanism as a Theo-Political cult with the emphasis on political ideology. The inherent political ideology of Islam definitely crosses the line of American Constitutionalism and the rule of law to protect citizens from harm.
Thus to ban Islam could be viewed as terminating an ideology which would harm the Constitution of the United States of America.
The decision is between banning Mohammedanism in America or considering Mohammedanism a religion protected by Free of Religion and Free Speech ala the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
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. (Cornell University Law School)
There are three points that need to be examined pertaining to Islam:
- 1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
2. (Congress shall make no law) prohibiting the free exercise thereof (i.e. religion).
3. (Congress shall make no law) abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
A few other points could well be addressed pertaining to Islam however without an understanding of these three points the later is irrelevant or relevant depending on the conclusions of those points.
The first point about the Law and the establishment of religion is one of my pet peeves because Leftists over the last sixty years or so have extrapolated ex nihilo that this means a wall of separation exists between the government (Federal, State and Local) and religion.
This extrapolation has zero to do with the Constitution or with those attributed to reasoning out the meaning of the Constitution in the Federalist Papers. Rather it comes from a letter (A LETTER!) to the Danbury Baptists in which President Jefferson trying to calm the fears of Baptists about the traditional concept of Christian nations establishing a State Church.
Baptists had never been privy in any nation as a State Church. In those days part of taxation was to support the State Church. Many of the Thirteen Colonies and then the Thirteen States of the United States of America initially had State Churches on the State level.
Saying all this, the majority of America’s ruling elite from the Revolutionary War days considered the rule of law and morality based on Christian principles. My conclusion (though admittedly an opinion) is that the First Amendment did not prohibit religion from being involved in the State; rather it prohibited the State from being involved in religion. The religions of the day were the varieties of Christianity in the new USA with a smattering of Judaism. The Courts of the day would not even consider extrapolating ex nihilo a law prohibiting the involvement of religion in the government apparatus.
The second point is that Congress shall make NO laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. This opened the door for religions other than Christianity to practice freely in principle; however you have to be aware the populace in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s would look with prejudice upon a non-Christian religion such as Islam/Mohammedanism. Nonetheless the letter of the law in the Constitution is very concrete. The specific word “religion” was used rather something such as the “religion of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Although Christianity would have been considered the faith of America in post Revolutionary War days, an extrapolation of diverse religious worship is free to occur.
An uncorrupt Court would have to rule to prevent public or private harassment of non-Christian religions in America because Congress can make NO law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
There are over a billion people who consider Mohammedanism a religion. At this point one has to realize my quandary about banning Mohammedanism. I’ll back to this thought in a moment.
The third point is that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or the press. This takes care of America’s atheists who choose to live by a philosophy, philosophical principle or merely not care about the existence of religion/deity one way or the other. It is the freedom of conscience without fear of retribution.
Even today ideologies such as Communism or Nazism are allowed freedom of expression in America as long as the expression does not lead to breaking the law via murder, assault, theft, incitement to riot disturbing the public welfare and so on.
Thus today fringe Leftist and fringe Rightist groups test how close they can get to the line of the rule of law without crossing it. Prosecution followed Communists in what was known as the McCarthy Era and today White Supremacists are prosecuted for arms violations and the breaking of other citizens’ civil rights.
It is the THIRD POINT I believe that Mohammedanism crosses the line.
Mohammedanism as a religion simply has too many tenets in their revered books or traditions that cross the line of the rule of law according to the American Constitution. Mohammedanism is a warrior religion that its revered books call to establish the ideological-religion globally first by peace. If peace does not work then war is forced on unbelievers of Mohammedanism until there is Mohammedan conversion or submission to second class citizenship forced to not do anything anti-Islamic or death in a heinous way.
So even though there is a theological nature of otherworldliness to Mohammedanism, the political nature of Mohammedanism in practice in this world tends toward an ideology of political world domination. This world domination mentality has the ferocity inspired by Adolf Hitler’s Nazis on the German population of a superior race. In the same way the German Nazis sought to exterminate human beings (not just Jews) considered as subhuman as not worthy of life. Those outside the Nazi vision of the Germanic Aryan nation not deemed subhuman would be second class citizens serving the Nazi German State.
The Mohammedan ideology of the days of Mohammed in which one can label as radical Islam today is really a Reformation movement on the scale that Protestantism was a movement to reform the Catholic Church to a return of the perception of the Early Church and Patristic Church.
Ali Sina has an awesome essay that points out that “reform” is a movement to go back to the way it was rather than a transformation to another a better way of thinking. The appellation of “Progressive” Churches is a case in point. Progressive Churches are not reforming Christianity; rather they are inserting Leftist humanism to eliminate what is perceived as archaic and of no value in today’s society.
Ali Sina thus stipulates Mohammedanism is not able to be reformed. If there is any reformation occurring in Mohammedanism it is the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, Wahhabi and Shi’ite aims to bring Mohammedanism back to a closer vision of the Prophet Mohammed.
The implication is that Mohammedanism would have progressive thinking added to it to bring it back to a religion that is otherworldly seeking inner peace in this life and the life to come. For this to happen a progressive Mohammedanism would have to deny Mohammed’s revelation from Allah pertaining to convert or die, sex slavery, honor killing and intolerance of everything non-Islamic.
Part of Sina’s point is to not trust Mohammedans that claim to be reform minded. Sina does not specifically point to a website called Muslims Against Sharia but implies that one should not trust Muslims who say they wish to reform Islam. The link for Muslims Against Sharia does not have its name in it, rather the link is http://www.reformislam.org/.
Sina implies there is a religion that is a progressive version of Mohammedanism. That religion is known as Bahá’í.
The Bahá'í's believe in an essential unity of the great religions of the world. However, this does not mean they believe the various religious creeds and doctrines are identical. Rather, they view all religions as having sprung from the same spiritual source. The social and outer forms of different religions vary due to the circumstances at the time that they were founded. Other differences in doctrine and belief can be attributed to later accretions, after the death of the founder.
…
Bahá'í beliefs promoted major social changes when they were first circulated in the 19th century: they supported gender and race equality; world government; freedom of expression and assembly; world peace; religious tolerance, and religious cooperation. In many ways, they were a century or more ahead of many other faiths. Their followers are heavily involved in promoting these concepts today. Also, unlike many other religions, Bahá'ís view scientific inquiry as essential to expand human knowledge and to deepen their members' faith. They feel that science needs to be guided by spiritual principles so that its applications are beneficial to all humanity. (Excerpted from Bahá'í Faith: Beliefs and Practices)
I have come around to the conclusion that if Mohammedanism wishes to evolve into a true religion of peace (Note as a Christian I did not say the true religion) then Muslims would embrace Baha’ism which is an actual root from Mohammedanism.
So now I am pretty much in the “Ban Islam” crowd even though it is not completely etched into stone in my thoughts. It is entirely reasonable to view Mohammedanism as a Theo-Political cult with the emphasis on political ideology. The inherent political ideology of Islam definitely crosses the line of American Constitutionalism and the rule of law to protect citizens from harm.
Thus to ban Islam could be viewed as terminating an ideology which would harm the Constitution of the United States of America.
Posts
25 comments:
Ali Sina makes some excellent points. Unfortunately his projecting and lying, i.e., Muslims who do not believe in Islamic supremacism consider themselves bad Muslims, undermines his valid arguments.
Actually Muslims Against Sharia I think that "Muslims who do not believe in Islamic supremacism consider themselves bad Muslims" is the crux of his essay.
To be a good Muslim you have to believe in the infallibility of the Quran. If the Quran is infallible then a good Muslim is violent against the kafir until there is conversion or death.
A truly changed Islam is best exampled by the Baha'i faith which is inclusive of Mohammed's good words while believing in religious tolerance and non-violence.
""Muslims who do not believe in Islamic supremacism consider themselves bad Muslims" is the crux of his essay."
That's the whole point. I never believed in Islamic supremacism and I always considered myself a good Muslim.
"To be a good Muslim you have to believe in the infallibility of the Quran."
Since the Koran contradicts itself you have to be a dumbass to belive in its infallibility.
"A truly changed Islam is best exampled by the Baha'i faith"
That's one of the ways to go, but not the only one.
Muslims Against Sharia;
The Quran, Hadith, Sunna and etc are all propagators of Islamic Supremacism.
There are a lot of dumbasses that believe in the infallibility of the Quran.
I am interested in the other ways that are viable ways to change Islam and it not be the Muslim purists such as Ikhwan, Salafists or Wahhabis.
"The Quran, Hadith, Sunna and etc are all propagators of Islamic Supremacism."
That's why the parts that propagate Islamic supremacism must be discarded or, at least, marked as outdated.
"There are a lot of dumbasses that believe in the infallibility of the Quran."
Unfortunately, that's true.
However, aforementioned facts do not change the fact that Ali Sina makes things up.
To Muslims Against Sharia:
RE: Ali Sina
Really!? I understand no one has succeeded in discrediting Ali Sina to collect the reward for doing so. Is that right or have I missed something (which is possible)?
Ali Sina claims that Muslims who do not believe in Islamic supremacism consider themselves bad Muslims. That's an easily verifiable lie. On the right margin of our blog, we have a list of prominent moderate Muslims. I guarantee you that none of them consider him/herself a bad Muslim.
To Muslims Against Sharia
RE Moderate Muslims
I think you miss Ali Sina's point about a bad Muslim. The point is a good Muslim would follow tenets of Mohammed via the Quran, traditions and the biography which leads to the formation of Sharia Law.
I am gratified that moderate Muslims that consider themselves good Muslims, especially if they do not consider themselves dedicated to the infallibility of the Quran.
Sina's perception is simply a good Muslim follows the Quran, if the Muslim does not follow the Quran etcetera then that is counter to Quranic thinking; ergo that would be a bad Muslim.
This is so even if one's personality actually follows what the normal people call good and understanding what is evil.
"I think you miss Ali Sina's point about a bad Muslim."
I don't. I get it exactly. However the fact that Ali Sina makes up "evidence" to support that point only undermines it.
To Muslims Against Sharia
RE Ali Sina's Evidence
How can quoting the Quran, Hadith, Sunna, Sira and Sharia Law be making up evidence?
The evidence is the point and provides a rock solid case for Ali Sina.
Try to get your ADD under control, would you? Nobody is contesting Ali Sina's quotes from the Koran, etc. However, his claims that Muslims who do not believe in Islamic supremacy consider themselves bad Muslims are full of shit. He may consider us bad Muslims, but we do not agree with his opinion. However, he portrays his fallacious opinion as a fact, which undermines his position.
To Muslims Against Sharia
RE ADD
Have mercy on your angry soul dude. Ali Sina is saying a Muslim is a bad Muslim who do not follow their holy writings. He is not saying a Muslim who does not believe in Islamic Supremacism is a bad Muslim. Further Ali Sina implies if a Muslim does follow his/her holy writings then that person is a Muslim Supremacist.
Do you get it insulting one?
"Ali Sina is saying a Muslim is a bad Muslim who do not follow their holy writings."
Not exactly, and that's the whole point.
He has the right to state that as his personal opinion. However, he claims that Muslims who do not follow (everything in) the Koran tell him that they consider themselves bad Muslims. And that is a LIE. How hard is that to understand?
Besides, he must not understand the Koran. Since the Koran contains contradictions, it is not possible to follow all of its teachings; by following some you inadvertently violate others.
To Muslims Against Sharia
RE Understanding the QuranAli Sina probably understands more of the Quran than you think. Indeed the Quran has many contradictions; however according to Islamic theology some of those contradictions are not contradicting due to the principle of abrogation.
Abrogation is a dualistic concept relating to Quranic suras written in Mecca and those suras written primarily in Medina. The Mecca suras are relatively peaceful. The Medina suras mysteriously change to the kill the infidel wherever you find them. The Median suras abrogate the Mecca suras.
Then there is the Quranic difficulty of chronology. The typical Muslim is clueless as to which sura is Meccan or Medinan for the Quran is not written chronologically. Rather the Quran is written according to size from longest to shortest.
Thus abrogation and duality explains contradictions and the violent nature of Theo-Political Islam.
The doctrine of abrogation is a bunch of crap, because it denies the infallibility of God.
It's quite possible that Ali Sina understands the Koran better than me, but my original point still stands: making facts up to support your argument does nothing but destroys it.
To Muslims Against Sharia
RE Abrogation is a bunch of crapThe doctrine of “Abrogation” is subscribed to by the majority of mullahs and imams. Thus the dominant theologians of Mohammedanism manipulate the ulema with theological tools such as “Abrogation.” So I have to agree with you that “Abrogation” is a bunch of crap for it is used to deceive the ulema and the fakir alike.
If Ali Sina exposes Mohammedanism with facts that make him line up and stand tall in his writing concerning a definition of a good Muslim (a follower of the Quran, Hadith, Sunna, Sira and Sharia Law) and a definition of a bad Muslim is one that rejects part or all those revered Mohammedan writings. This would be irrespective of the feelings of a Muslim.
As usual, you're missing the point. I have no problem with Ali Sina considering Muslims who do not follow everything in the Koran bad Muslims. That is his opinion and he is entitled to it. The problem is that he claims that those Muslims consider THEMSELVES bad Muslims. That claim is FALSE.
To Muslims Against Sharia
RE Missing the PointActually I am not missing the point. I don't agree with that Ali Sina "claims that those Muslims consider THEMSELVES bad Muslims."
From what I have read Ali Sina is implying that a Muslim that does not follow every letter of Mohammedan revered writings is considered by Islam to be a Bad Muslim regardless if that Muslim feels good or bad about his conscience in practicing personal Islam.
That is the point.
And BTW: Do you ever sleep? :-)
Ali Sina claims that Muslims who do not believe in Islamic supremacism tell him that they do not consider themselves good Muslims. He implies that any Muslim who does not believe in Islamic supremacy considers him/herself a bad Muslim. That is patently false.
To paraphrase Jesse Ventura, I got no time to sleep :)
PS
Not surprisingly, the ‘moderates’ also confess of being hypocites. They will tell you they believe in Islam but they are not good Muslims.
Muslims Against ShariaAha! The context of the sentence you provide from Ali Sina's essay, "The Illusion of Reforming Islam" is followed by a sentence that proves my point:
"In the back of their minds however, they plan to become ‘good’ Muslims once they have done all the ’sins’ and enojyed life enough."Then there is this sentence: "The problem with Islam is with its sacred book and not just with its followers."
Sina is saying a bad Muslim does not follow the letter of their sacred books. A good Muslim follows the letter of their sacred books. Thus the Salafists, Ikhwan, Wahhabis and Twelver Shi'ites are closer to being good Muslims than the good people who are bad people.
Then way latter in the essay Ali Sina says about reformers such as "Muslims Against Sharia":
"What today’s so called Islamic reformers are proposing is not reformation but transformation of Islam. Unlike the above mentioned reformers, these new reformer wannabes (I can see why you are insulted with words like this) do not want to go to the origin of Islam, but rather they want to eschew part of the Quran and the entire Sharia and invent an entirely different religion, still calling it Islam."
Is this not the desire of Muslims Against Sharia?
Ali Sina does not believe it is possible and so he believes the Baha'i faith is the Islamic reform.
Now I agree that Baha'i has all the tools to look like a reformed Islam; nonetheless I would love to see a movement among Muslims to eschew all that is evil in Islam to keep all that is good. I too do not think it is possible; however I do not discount the effort either.
It would take more than a group sane people who want to be Muslims while transforming the ideology espoused by Islam. It would take a charismatic messiah-like figure that Muslims believed was in contact with Allah as the early Muslims believe Mohammed was in contact with Allah.
If you could find that guy, Muslims Against Sharia would be credible and believable.
I sense Ali Sina is harsh toward the idea because he is not only an ex-Muslim apostate, but I believe he also an atheist. That would preclude any belief any an Islamic transformation.
I can say I am with Ali Sina but he does not need to project his own feelings of harshness on the Muslims that believe Sharia is lunacy.
So did I bridge the gap?
:-)
No, you didn't. I have a problem with one thing and one thing only. Ali Sina is LYING when he claims "Not surprisingly, the ‘moderates’ also confess of being hypocites. They will tell you they believe in Islam but they are not good Muslims." His opinion on the subject does not matter. He does not present it as HIS opinion. He presents it as the opinion of moderate Muslims.
To Muslims Against Sharia
Well my friend we have gone around and around about our interpretation Ali Sina's intent. Obviously I will not change you opinion and so far you have not produced anything to change my opinion.
And so at this point I have to pose the supposition that we are going to have to agree to disagree.
I agree with Ali Sina and I enjoy the Muslims Against Sharia website concerning the anti-Jihad messages it produces.
I don't see any reason to further this line of debate when there will be no resolution. Yet please, you are absolutely welcome to come here and produce other points of view.
"And so at this point I have to pose the supposition that we are going to have to agree to disagree."
Not like we have any other choice.
If Muslims Against Sharia won't budge and I won't budge, then yes there is little choice.
:-)
Post a Comment