Is Islam Worse Than Other Religions?
Some nitwit left a comment on my "Another Muslim Girl Decomposing" blog item the other day:
I don't think Islam is any worse than any other religions. I just don't think much of any of them either. I think being a member of one should generally count as a strike against your right to vote. I get very worried about my countries, the UK if you were wondering, attitude to Islam as we've got really good at ignoring every other religion in sight. But for some reason we take them seriously, even their woefully inept mass murderers. Ho hum.
Raymond Ibrahim, editor and translator of The Al Qaeda Reader, responds at Front Page:
In the Muslim community, the holy war [i.e. jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force... The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense... They are merely required to establish their religion among their own people. That is why the Israeilites after Moses and Joshua remained unconcerned with royal authority [e.g. a “caliphate”]. Their only concern was to establish their religion [not spread it to the nations]… But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations (The Muqudimmah, vol. 1 pg. 473, emphasis added).
Even when juxtaposed to their Old Testament counterparts, the sword-verses are distinctive for using language that transcends time and space, inciting believers to attack and slay non-believers today no less than yesterday. Yahweh commanded the Hebrews to kill Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites—all specific peoples rooted to a specific time and place. At no time did Yahweh give an open-ended command for the Hebrews, and by extension their descendants the Jews, to fight and kill gentiles. On the other hand, though Islam’s original enemies were, like Judaism’s, historical (e.g. Christian Byzantines and pagan Persians), the Koran rarely singles them out by their proper names. Instead, Muslims were (and are) commanded to fight the people of the book—“until they pay tribute with willing submission and feel themselves utterly subdued” (9:29) and to “slay the pagans wherever you find them” (9:5). The two conjunctions “until” and “wherever” demonstrate the perpetual nature of these commandments: there are still “people of the book” who have yet to be “utterly subdued” (especially in the Americas, Europe, and Israel) and “pagans” to be slain “wherever” one looks (especially Asia and sub-Saharan Africa).
Aside from the divine words of the Koran, Muhammad’s pattern of behavior—his “Sunna” or “example”—is an extremely important source of legislation in Islam. Muslims are exhorted to emulate Muhammad in all walks of life: “You have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern [of conduct]” (33:21). And Muhammad’s pattern of conduct vis-à-vis non-Muslims is quite explicit. Sarcastically arguing against the concept of “moderate” Islam, terrorist Osama bin Laden, who enjoys half the Arab-Islamic world’s support per a recent al-Jazeera poll, portrays the prophet’s Sunna thus:
“Moderation” is demonstrated by our prophet who did not remain more than three months in Medina without raiding or sending a raiding party into the lands of the infidels to beat down their strongholds and seize their possessions, their lives, and their women” (from The Al-Qaeda Reader).In fact, based on both the Koran and Muhammad’s Sunna, pillaging and plundering infidels, enslaving their children, and placing their women in concubinage is well founded (e.g. 4:24, 4:92, 8:69, 24:33, 33:50, etc.).
While law-centric and legalistic, Judaism has no such equivalent to the Sunna; the words and deeds of the patriarchs, though recorded in the Old Testament, never went on to be part of Jewish law. Neither Abraham’s “white-lies,” nor Jacob’s perfidy, nor Moses’ short-fuse, nor David’s adultery, nor Solomon’s philandering ever went on to instruct Jews or Christians. They were merely understood to be historical actions perpetrated by fallible men who were often punished by God for their less than ideal behavior.
As for Christianity, much of the Old Testament law was abrogated by Jesus. “Eye for an eye” gave way to “turn the other cheek.” Totally loving God and one’s neighbor became supreme law (Matt 22:38-40). Furthermore, Jesus’ “Sunna”—as in “What would Jesus do?”—is characterized by passivity and altruism.
My remarks in response to the commenter above:
Is your head out from your cheeks now?(I still can't get over "Ho hum" from your comment above.) You'd better wish for more people like me, sounding the alarm about the reality of Islam, and fewer people like you, yawning all the way to your conversion to Islam or eventual death, as the Muslim population explodes in Britain.
As for "ignoring every other religion in sight," you've perhaps had Jews recently tell you you weren't allowed to drive from Friday after sunset until sundown on Saturday? It's not the other religions who want to convert, subjugate or kill you...or hadn't you noticed?
I like you for being touchy about this.
Crid at January 24, 2008 1:20 AM
If I is lam from your witty barbs & take cover in a cave full of terrorists am I converting to islam? No, just exercising the 'ol "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." The problem with this strategy is of course well known. As soon as the enemy of your enemy is finished with your foe, it will turn on you. This leads to a life on the lam... not to be confused with conversion to Islam.
But seriously folks...Is that a WMD in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?
William at January 24, 2008 2:42 AM
the doctrine of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is what led us to support so many of these islamist fucktards in the first place. You may remember this group called the USSR?
Well, in our efforts to stop them from gaining the upper hand, we gave it instead to the oil ticks in the middle east.
brian at January 24, 2008 4:33 AM
This debate has some elements of the maori-moriori story, except the West today is like the moriori of old, who think their kindness and love will prevail. Not always the case.
doombuggy at January 24, 2008 5:24 AM
Instead, Muslims were (and are) commanded to fight the people of the book—“until they pay tribute with willing submission and feel themselves utterly subdued” (9:29) and to “slay the pagans wherever you find them” (9:5). The two conjunctions “until” and “wherever” demonstrate the perpetual nature of these commandments: there are still “people of the book” who have yet to be “utterly subdued” (especially in the Americas, Europe, and Israel) and “pagans” to be slain “wherever” one looks (especially Asia and sub-Saharan Africa).
This is the one passage that needs to be published in huge letters, on one full page, in every newspaper in every free country in the world, RIGHT NOW. Because if this passage doesn't get people thinking, and ACTING, then we are so fucked it isn't funny anymore. These fucktards aren't going to quit until we (the enemy) are all dead or under their thumb. Why are other governments and countries (the UK for example) not getting this?? Me, I'd rather die than succumb to their particular brand of bullshit. And I'll be happy to die fighting it.
Flynne at January 24, 2008 6:10 AM
We should thank the serious thinking UK'er for so effectively illustrating why it's no longer called Great Britain
Curly Smith at January 24, 2008 6:17 AM
Just want to point out again Sylvia Poggioli's series on NPR this week. Today discusses the role of women in radical Islam in Britain.
Over at Salon, in the letters, at least one person complained that Poggioli is just some sort of Western Suckup that just loves George Bush. Totally bizarre how people are unable to listen or read for themselves, examine the evidence, and decide for themselves.
jerry at January 24, 2008 6:32 AM
"You may remember this group called the USSR?" Wow it's great finally not being the enemy.
"And I'll be happy to die fighting it." The question is how do we fight them. While I'm not really opposed to flattening the entier area from the air I don't think that will actually help. How does one fight this threat?
I'm hesitant to say Islam as a whole is a threat but the radical/fundy islam is right now the most dangerous religion. It also appears that radical islam if not the majority of islam is getting close to it.
vlad at January 24, 2008 6:54 AM
I think Christianity had a time like this and obviously just a read of the OT shows that Judaism did. The big difference -- and it's huge -- is that these two, while I'm none too fond of either, have evolved past the Dark Ages. The Christian today that would be in favor of starting a Crusade would be considered crazy. That could change but it's doubtful. I don't see the few fringe groups like the Minutemen who would go that far gaining enough numbers to be of more threat than killing the odd abortionist.
Islam, however, is killing and vowing to increase its killing. Honor killings are more common than the Susan Smiths (was that her name) who kill their babies to send them off to Jesus before they're old enough to sin. Another basic difference that has been mentioned time and time again, mainstream Christians are as appalled and saddened by the Susan Smiths and angry at the shooters of abortion doctors even if they themself are pro-life. So called, mainstream Muslims, however, are eerily, very eerily silent, as their fellows carry out honor killings and jihad. Whether its in fear or in secret sympathy for the jihadist makes no difference. Either way, their silence should sound very loudly in our ears as warning bell.
Donna at January 24, 2008 6:57 AM
Donna -
That's because the Smiths and the Rudolphs are batshit fucking loco, but the Mohammed Atta's are completely sane.
The uncomfortable truth here is that Christian and Jewish history has been intentionally misrepresented to make them appear far more violent than they ever were, and Islamic history has been intentionally misrepresented to make it look far more benign than it is.
Whether the apologists for Islam like it or not, Osama bin Laden is the mainstream of muslim thought.
brian at January 24, 2008 7:29 AM
Donna,
I think Christianity had a time like this and obviously just a read of the OT shows that Judaism did
What? When? What did they do that compares to this scourge?
rusty wilson at January 24, 2008 7:46 AM
Sorry. Amy I guess I didn't come across exactly how I meant to.
Yes I am enraged by the story of the girl and what happened to her. I despise anyone who thinks they should be allowed to force their petty minded ideas down peoples throats. And I'm not particularly happy about the way our (in the UK) politicians and public officials keep kowtowing to the Muslim lobby.
I'm also enraged by the Intelligent Design mob and the fact that most of your Presidential Candidates seem to think God talks to them.
As for the Jews telling me when I can drive, nope. never happened. I've occasionally had people try to tell me I'm going to hell because I don't go to church. But even that's not very frequent.
In the UK we don't get so worked up about religion, well we didn't until a few years ago.
Oh and I hope you don't mind if I keep reading your wonderful blog, I'm a great believer that if you don't hear all points of view you can't work out when you are wrong.
It's one reason I don't trust politicians, they never admit when they are wrong. Worrying that.
Simon (The nitwit).
Simon Proctor at January 24, 2008 7:55 AM
Oh and don't get me started about Cardinal Nazi now Pope Benedict and his wonderful policies regard kiddie fiddler priests.
That's a really good way to make me angry.
Organised religion in general, I'm not a big fan.
Simon Proctor at January 24, 2008 8:14 AM
How do feel about disorganized religion?
Crid at January 24, 2008 8:26 AM
If they don't think they have a divine right to tell me or anyone else what to do then I'm peachy.
Simon Proctor at January 24, 2008 8:33 AM
One of the intellectual consequences of multiculturalism is the inability to make practical distinctions. Are there Christians and Jews and Atheists, etc. who commit terrible crimes? Sure. In any group, one can expect a certain level of criminal behavior. There's the difference: all of those groups recognize these aberrant acts as crimes.
Islam is a totalitarian ideology that justifies organized violence to attain social, political, and religious objectives. It's explicit intent is the subjugation, by violent jihad if necessary, of the world.
Paradoxically, western multiculturalists have an irritating tendency to apply Western categories to everything. Islam is not a Reformed western religion. It doesn't recognize the separation of religion and state, or religion and military. It's a medieval ideology. It wants to conquer. It already has.
Jeff at January 24, 2008 9:04 AM
See I'm not a multicuturalist (is that a word?) I guess I'm more a libertarian (except I'm not we have them, not enough guns I guess). I dislike anyone who feels they have a right to tell other people what to do. In varying amounts.
I have no problems with people wanting to listen to whatever voice in the sky they want to. As long as they don't make their children do it. Or me. Or expect us to act differently because of their crazy ideas.
Frankly I find the fundamentalist Christians (don't you love the way they've already got mental in the name?) just as terrifying with their anti-science, I ain't not monkey,the worlds going to end any day now bullshit.
And I find the way the other Christians aren't denouncing them all the time cowardly.
And then there's Israel....
Simon Proctor at January 24, 2008 9:24 AM
BTW someone referred to me as a serious thinker. This may be where the confusion lies.
I'm not serious, I attempt to make people think with humour.
This is one of the few things that's kept me slitting my wrists due to the overwhelming crushing stupidity of existence.
Simon Proctor at January 24, 2008 9:55 AM
As for the Jews telling me when I can drive, nope. never happened.
Simon, that was her point. It's called sarcasm.
Curly Smith at January 24, 2008 9:58 AM
(Simon goes back and re-reads the post).
Ooops. Yep you're right. Well I am a nitwit.
Or a programmer, which is similar but better paid.
On the other hand I did spend most of my formative years being told what to do be religious types. The Catholic church is really, really into that one.
It's why I left.
Simon Proctor at January 24, 2008 10:11 AM
Amy writes:
"As for 'ignoring every other religion in sight,' you've perhaps had Jews recently tell you you weren't allowed to drive from Friday after sunset until sundown on Saturday?"
Well, yes. Sort of, anyway. Ultra-Orthodox in Brooklyn have been getting really touchy about people, especially women, riding bicycles through their neighborhoods in Brooklyn, New York, on the Sabbath, in cycling clothes (it's a popular route to Coney Island from Manhattan), and they've been trying to get it banned. They haven't had any success, of course, but it's been tried. They've tried to get certain streets and thoroughfares closed to bicycle traffic on the Sabbath.
L. McKenna at January 24, 2008 10:29 AM
It's why I left.
Again, Simon, you missed the point of Amy's post. You were allowed to leave the Catholic Church. Sure, your family and friends might pray for you (the horror!) but you were allowed to leave. If you leave the Muslim faith you become an apostate and observing Muslims have a duty to kill you. Your family wouldn't pray for you (the horror!), they would hunt you down and kill you.
Her remark about Jews and driving was meant to drive home (pun intended) the point that you have to obey Muslim Law whether you're a Muslim or not, lest they kill you for "offending" them. Recall the Mohammed Cartoons?
Curly Smith at January 24, 2008 10:32 AM
There's parts of Glasgow, where I reside and which was recently ineptly attacked by the keystone jihadists, where being a Catholic can get you killed. And others where NOT being a Catholic can get you killed.
Lovely place.
I understand Amy's point, but I don't think we should single out Islam over any other brainwashing cult. On the bright side the Islamic terrorist seem to think blowing themselves up is a great idea.
The last lot of terrorists we had in the UK were a bit more competent.
Simon Proctor at January 24, 2008 10:50 AM
Oh, absolutely! And your links to relevant reportage make for fascinating reading! In other news, there are parts of Des Moines, Iowa, where speaking in a New York accent can get you shot, skinned, and ground up into hog food.
Boys and girls, see how easy it is to conflate possibility with reality? Now, it's time for dancing class, so everyone pair off, and I'll teach you the very popular moral equivalence shuffle!
Splashman at January 24, 2008 12:06 PM
> I don't think we should
> single out Islam over any
> other brainwashing cult.
Here are the reasons you're wrong, numbered only for bookkeeping, not as a measure of their importance.
1. Saying that makes you look lazy, like a schoolboy complaining that his head can only hold so much information, so he'd rather not be bothered with that whole "arithmetic" thing. Islam is powerful in corners of the globe that are destined from trouble anyway: The Middle East, Indonesia, Nigeria, etc. It behooves us to know who's who and what's what.
2. It suggests that you might have a plan to banish the religious impulse from the human heart entirely. It's not likely that you do, and though we'd love to know about whatever you've got going, we have zero faith that you'd be successful.
3. It's therefore important to distinguish the deadly ones from the annoying ones. Amy didn't used to bother doing that, and nowadays she sorts 'em out very aggressively. That's good.
4. The reasons for making the distinction are perfectly clear in the lives the devotees of the faiths lead. A prayerful woman in Rome can be a businesswoman or politician of tremendous achievement... This isn't the case for a devout Muslin gal in Riyadh.
Furthermore:
> On the bright side the
> Islamic terrorist seem to
> think blowing themselves
> up is a great idea
I see where you're going with that, but the devaluation of individual lives --beginning with their own-- doesn't portend a whole lot of civilized development from that sector of humanity.
Crid at January 24, 2008 12:26 PM
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/
Glasgow's local paper, I used to work for them at one point and pointed out to my co-workers how the front page regularly mentioned a stabbing.
At that point I lived 45 miles away.
Whilst there are large parts of Glasgow that are wonderful, we have Orange marches and a Catholic and Protestant football (soccer) team who have regular matches after which gangs of drunken yobs wander the streets looking for a fight.
They have no bloody clue about the history of what they are fighting for they just do it. Meanwhile there are loads of Muslims and many of them are probably mistreating their children who want to go out and party.
It's at the same time a grim and dismal city and also a vibrant place to be. It's bloody depressing and the religion doesn't make any of it better.
Simon Proctor at January 24, 2008 12:29 PM
Ok.
I'd like to apologise to everyone for not getting my point across. I shall try one last time.
I dislike hatred and fear and the use of them to control people. I don't like many of pretty much every religion and the regimes that use them to control their people.
I fervently hope that the people who killed the girl mentioned in the original post are caught and sent away for a very long time. I wish my government took a stronger line against such acts then they do.
Instead they attempt to bring in laws making it illegal to criticise religion (incitement to religious hatred) they may have managed it. I've not been keeping track been more worried about their insane ID card scheme.
I do get very very pissed off about the who 'Islamic Terror Threat' crap that's bandied about all the time. These guys really aren't very good at it and the security services are. Yes 9/11 was terrible and lots of people died but the right way to deal with it is to treat the perpetrators as criminals, hunt them down and make them stand trial.
Not declare war on insubstantial things and tear up the fundamental cornerstones of your civilisation.
This may come as a shock but I really love what America stands for. I think the Constitution and the concept of a rule of law equal and just is the most brilliant thing mankind has every thought up.
Seriously.
Which is why I hate to see what it's become.
Simon Proctor at January 24, 2008 12:47 PM
Simon, you've successfully made your point many times. I simply don't agree with it, as it is rooted deep in secular humanism, a philosophy which requires a quantity and quality of faith I don't possess.
And perhaps you haven't noticed, but your I-love-America-so -much-that-I-hate-it sentiment, however heartfelt it may be, is quite the popular camouflage of fashionable anti-Americans these days. You might want to get a new line.
Splashman at January 24, 2008 1:25 PM
> quite the popular camouflage
Yeah. It's clucking. The world, the entire world, is full of people who have strong opinions about what America is supposed to be like, but [A] never paid a dime of taxes to live here, and quite often live in safety in their own countries because in the shelter of of American muscle and [B] can't seem to get it together in their own homelands anyway.
Also, I think it's juvenile to say "There are problems with Catholics, too!" Catholics don't seek to rule entire countries as do many Muslims. Any Christian impulse to rule the entirety of life in its host nations has been beaten out of the practice of the faith over the centuries (Vatican City notwithstanding). It's Islam's turn.
> the right way to deal with
> it is to treat the perpetrators
> as criminals, hunt them down
> and make them stand trial.
Jeez, who knew? Stand trial before who, and under what authority? I bet you think the United Nations should be a part of it.
It's funny how when people imagine what American justice should be like (and let's all agree, 9/11 was an assault on America), they imagine a bloodlessly logical, mechanized and impersonal dispensation of justice unlike anything the world has ever seen. But as noted above, they expect international opinion to be a big part of it... Even though these international participants may have made no contribution to the American miracle.
I hate that.
Crid at January 24, 2008 1:55 PM
And --
Some of us are kinda amused by Britain, but aren't that impressed with "what it's become," either.
"Seriously."
Crid at January 24, 2008 1:56 PM
Simon, we're not actually fighting a "War on Terror"; rather, we're engaged in a war to stop the militant expansion of Islamic Fundamentalism. The "WOT" is simply a moniker to avoid offending the people who are trying to kill us because they find our way of life offensive. If that makes sense call the State Department, you've got a future as a diplomat.
It's not enough to catch the perps, we have to stop those who finance, supply and train the terrorists. We have to teach the thug leaders, as many times as necessary, that very serious consequences will follow if they, or their surrogates, engage in acts of terrorism against us. The object lesson from Afghanistan and Iraq is "whatever the outcome, the ruling hierarchy won't be in power after the conflict". The thug leaders don't care about their people, their country or their religion. They care about maintaining and expanding their power. If Moammar Ghadafi can figure it out, why can't you?
Iran has been at war with the West since the late 1970's so it doesn't matter if you want a war or not. Nor does it matter if you believe that a global conflagration will reveal the "Hidden Imam" who will lead the "righteous" into a final victorious apocalyptic battle against the "evil ones". It's enough that some believe and will follow leaders who, whether they actually believe or not, can enflame the followers to commit acts of wanton destruction. Remember, MAD doesn't work if one side values life and the other is actively seeking death and destruction.
Curly Smith at January 24, 2008 2:11 PM
Simon - First off, we can't really prosecute the perpetrators of 9/11. They're a little too dead for that. And treating international Islamist terrorism as a criminal matter is what allowed 9/11 to happen. The "perpetrators" of the USS Cole bombing were caught, tried, and released. In Yemen, which is where the attack happened. Should we have kidnapped them to stand trial here?
Second - you may dislike hate and war, but you would do well to consider the words of a dead socialist: "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."
brian at January 24, 2008 3:53 PM
All you guys talk about is fear. What happens when you choose to believe in something. Well you better take off that Jewish star and if you are from NY and living in Iowa then keep your month shut full of pork. As for Christianity, give them peace-it's just grape juice they are offering you. But I know that the issue is the scare of Islam. Well I am not lazy, but I am going to bed.
Jen at January 24, 2008 7:57 PM
Here is a devout American Muslim who could use a bit of support in his effort to (for want of a better word) combat the fundamentalist Muslims. His is a lonely voice, and a courageous one. I admire him greatly. Read the mission statement on his website.
http://www.aifdemocracy.org/about/principles.php
He gets it.
Maggie45 at January 24, 2008 11:17 PM
What happens when you choose to believe in something.
Uh, Jen, we don't have a countrywide mandate that Jews are lesser people, have lesser rights, and must pay a tax to live in peace in our country.
Amy Alkon at January 25, 2008 12:44 AM
Leave a comment