Islam is a religion which has enslaved millions of its followers, who have been condemned to poor living standards, poor education and short life expectancy. Its women are treated as second class citizens. It denies freedom to its people, and hence they cannot enjoy economic and political freedom.
The teachings of Islam encourage its believers to sedition and treason as they strive for a Caliphate – this is fundamentally inconsistent with a Western democracy and its separation of state and religion.
It is the moral duty of all non-Muslims to encourage the conversion of their fellow humans to an alternative religion, or even atheism, or to a new and peaceful sect of Islam. To do this requires us to live honourable lives, to be exemplars of honesty and virtue. Muslims need to be cultivated with not only the material and intellectual life of the western world, but also the example of great virtues of enlightenment, scientific inquiry, the pursuit of knowledge, honesty and ethics. For too long the west has been portrayed as being weak and decadent. In part that is true – some of the actions of the Left have considerably undermined the intellectual and moral authority of the west. Trust underpins an economy (see for example, Bruce Schneier’s excellent book Liars and Outliers: Enabling the Trust that Society Needs to Thrive), while Islam undermines trust.
The implementation of sound economic policies in conjunction with these measures should over time bring more converts from Islam. On a large scale this will bring prosperity and better living standards to those suffering the oppression of this religion. It would also reduce the military tensions.
The enemies of the west are not the followers of Islam, most of whom do not subscribe to the worst of its intolerance and who wish to live peacefully. The enemy of the west is Islam the intolerant religion. A world without Islam – as currently conceived and frequently practiced – would be a better place for all of the world’s peoples.
The fundamental problem with Islam is its failure to recognise the separation of church and state. All other religions – even ones such as Scientology – recognise this separation. A key tenet of Islam is for a religious state. This cannot be accepted in a modern democracy.
Islam needs a Reformation – who will be Islam’s Martin Luther? A new peaceful sect must grow out of Islam which can live in harmony with western values and economics. Followers of this sect must stand up and reject the present form of Islam.
Many evils were committed in the name of the Catholic church in the post-Roman world, including the burning of heretics, violent crusades etc. For a very long period the people under the church lived in fear and terror, although we are the beneficiaries today with the magnificent Christian art and Gothic churches. But the reformation and counter-reformation gradually put this right and the church’s teaching reverted more faithfully to the New Testament and its doctrine of forgiveness rather than the Old Testament and its eye for an eye. Violence became eschewed – it would be up to God to decide whether a person would suffer eternal damnation or to live in Paradise.
Islam is in dire need of this reformation. It is not for people of this world to decide whether the Prophet has been insulted, or indeed whether he cares that he has been insulted. It is not for people of this world to threaten death to those who do not follow the doctrine of Islam. Until all under Islam eschew violence and embrace a life of trust and ethical behaviour while tolerating the way other people decide to live we will continue to have the threat of terror hanging over us all. This reformation of Islam is urgently required and must, above all, recognise that Islam has no place in State business. The ancient Romans tolerated all religions and sects (generally if not always) provided they did not threaten the Imperial regime.
Such reform would bring new freedom and opportunities to follows of Islam, with greater wellbeing, security and happiness.
Luther was a fundamentalist who raved about Jewish conspiracies. Islam’s got lots of those already.
Fisky
20 Sep 12 at 2:22 am
Wonderful piece Samuel.
Brave even
It would never be published in the MSM
JamesK
20 Sep 12 at 2:25 am
[...] is a thought provoking post from Catalaxy Files which promotes the notion of the need for a Reformation of current brand of archaic Islamic [...]
Islamic Reformation Dream « Signposts 02
20 Sep 12 at 3:59 am
Unfortunately most reformations have only come about after wars or at least periods of great upheaval. What you appeal for is aspirational but not possible because of one thing – faith. A secular world has no ground on which to fight faith. And currently, whether by accident or design, everything is stacked against some great reformation of Islam happening.
It would seem that the oppressed do not want to be liberated, in fact its the fastest growing religion. Where does this leave the rest of us apostates and infidels? I’m not sure, but I don’t think this has a happy ending.
Most people had no idea there was even a problem here until the riots in Sydney on the weekend. The MSM and the moral outrage industry have ensured that not only is there a great ignorance about the extent of the problems, but that debate about any aspect of Islam is shut down. This, of course, is feeding the concerted push by the OIC to have islamophobia declared an offence under international (UN) laws.
I could go on a lot more but will see what others have to say.
Great piece, btw …very thought provoking …
Oblique123
20 Sep 12 at 6:11 am
Fisky, Luther was a nut, that is correct. However, Samuel is not asking for a saviour, he’s asking for a trigger. Luther was a trigger for the reformation, more than a leader.
murph
20 Sep 12 at 6:28 am
It is questionable whether Islam is reformable, but we must hope so. But in the meantime, all western democracies have to stand firm and not be bluffed by the brinksmanship or weakened any further by PC.
I fear that PC has already sapped the will to be firm in response to the outrageous demands of a sub group whose stated aim is the overthrow of all non-islamic nation states.
This is evidenced by the sorry history of just individuals or single publications being left to wave the flag of freedom in the face of dire threats. Every modern nation state should stand firm and together as a group in resisting the menace and making it plain that it will not be accommodated.
It should be made plain to the fomenters of strife that immigration will no longer be non-discriminatory, and that this will only be reconsidered after a suitably extended period of good behaviour and reformation. This latest worldwide outburst shows thatbthey are not assimilable at present.
Blogstrop
20 Sep 12 at 6:34 am
As long as the Koran is believed to be the literal word of God, ie Mohammed sat down and transcribed what God told him, then there can be no reformation. If you genuinely believed you had Gods own words to guide you could you do no other?
This why the sanctity of the prophet is upheld and defended do strongly. If it were believed that he was just a normal man who liked young girls and probably made it all up, or at best was divinely inspired then Islam would fall apart fairly quickly.
How to do this? Unfortunately I don’t think there is a peaceful way. Islam has traditionally spread by the sword, it will probably take the sword to kill it, or at least to change it into a benign force.
Star by destroying the Saudi Leadership, destroy the madrassas and raze the holy places. Do it quickly, it would be bloody and horrible but the short term damage will be far less than the long term if nothing is done.
If nothing is done, large parts of Africa will never improve, most of Central Asia will be basket cases and the Moslems in the West will never stop trying to destroy it from within. The goal is the Ummah, God through Mohammed wants the Ummah and until it is achieved there can be no rest.
sfw
20 Sep 12 at 6:37 am
Later, when I’m more awake and able to compose a response on a real computer…
P.S. I disagree with much of the post.
Rabz
20 Sep 12 at 6:43 am
The Christian reformation was driven not from a contempt of violence, but from a contempt of corruption. Martin Luther’s 95 theses were mostly about the sale of indulgences. No-one became a Protestant because they thought the Catholics were too violent or too strict. Indeed, the Puritan complaint was that Catholics were not strict enough.
If the Christian reformation is the model, the debate with the Muslim world needs to focus on the corruption in its own ranks. The leaders who cry “blame America” are diverting attention away from their own theft. The zakat which never ends up where it is supposed to, but not a word is said.
2dogs
20 Sep 12 at 6:56 am
2dogs, Islam needs a reformation, a counter-reformation, and an enlightenment with critical textual analysis of the Qu’ran, in that order. It has a lot of catching up to do.
Quentin George
20 Sep 12 at 7:00 am
Good luck with those, Quentin.
In the meantime, I guess Samuel can expect a fatwa in his inbox.
nilk
20 Sep 12 at 7:57 am
Here’s an interesting comment out of Canada
NoFixedAddress
20 Sep 12 at 8:07 am
I’ve found out a lot more about Islam in the last 11 years than I have ever wanted to, but I don’t know if it has a “New Testament” equivalent.
From what you read in the media, it is all “Old Testament”.
Eddystone
20 Sep 12 at 8:11 am
Islam needs a leading institution to bring allow enough critical to bring the dogma out of the dark ages.
Token
20 Sep 12 at 8:12 am
By their fruits yea shall know them
Entropy
20 Sep 12 at 8:35 am
The forces of liberalism are what is needed.
It took a millenia before normal god-fearing Christians got over the ‘sin’ of usury – even though it was widely practiced throughout the time. All sorts of theologians tied themselves in knots trying to work out ways to fit the payment and receipt of interest into the framework of the bible.
Islam still has a ban on usury.
There is a very long way to go. Democracy? Universal Suffrage? These things all seem a way off.
Ultimately the forces of those under the aegis of a religion have to want to be free, and have to work out a way of interpreting their religion to uphold that freedom. It’s a magna carta you need, more than a reformation. A framework where the productive members of society decide to punt the self-selected rulers to the sidelines and leave them a ceremonial role.
brc
20 Sep 12 at 8:43 am
The Koran and the teachings of Mohammed are immutable and for all time. Therefore any suggestion of reformation is never going to happen. We are stuck with a 7th century primitive mindset which has been empowered by an accident of geology – oil. We need to protect ourselves by not allowing Islamic immigration.
honeybadger
20 Sep 12 at 8:43 am
Rabz,
There is much to disagree with.
Luther propelled a mostly peaceful Europe into centuries of desperate sectarian violence.
“Many evils were committed in the name of the Catholic church in the post-Roman world, including the burning of heretics, violent crusades etc. For a very long period the people under the church lived in fear and terror …”
(a) the church prevented more burnings of heretics and witches than it ever committed – many more.
(b) those ‘violent crusades’ were defensive rear-guard battles against Muslim invasions. Losing battles as we know.
(c) ‘Lived in fear and terror’ – I think those who lived through the wars of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation envied the relative peace prior to Luther.
This post lazily regurgitates the discredited anti-Christian, anti-Catholic bigots history of Europe.
Robert Blair
20 Sep 12 at 8:48 am
Samuel,
Having reread the post it is indeed largely correct, although there are some parts of it that I do not agree with. I’ll attempt to address and elaborate on those below.
I don’t agree that it is a religion. It’s an imperialistic socio-political idiotology with some aspects of other religions tacked onto it.
This vile death cult couldn’t exist without its braindead ahherents. There’s the whole concept of taqqiya to take into account – a lardarse dullardian level of lying and sheer unmitigated bullshit, that all followers of the death cult are expected to practice. There is no such thing as moderate islam. Again, the erdogan quote is instructive here.
A world without the vile death cult and lobotomised leftism would be a paradise.
There will never be a Martin Luther for the vile death cult. As we keep being so condescendingly told by lobotomised leftists, the death cult’s “billions” of braindead adherents are a diverse bunch (diversity – yay!). Then you have the minor problem of the shite/sunny schism, a divide that appears impossible to breach. There will still be apostates, courageous people who renounce the brainwashing, but they almost invariably end up abandoning the death cult, for very obvious reasons. They will also continue to be marked for death and pursued unrelentingly.
Correct, but one the central tenets (probably the most central tenet) of the death cult is that all infidels must either converted, killed or enslaved. None of these options are in any way acceptable. I would fight to the death if necessary, to avoid those fates. I mean that.
O.K. Now for some more elaboration. The only way to remove the pernicious influence of the death cult is for the West to say enough and adopt a very particular strategy. A strategy of the decapitation of the death cult as a viable socio-political idiotology. That is, an idiotology that would no longer be able to be adhered to, as its key earthly “icons” would no longer exist. I’m not going to specify what the particular strategy is, as the more clued in commenters here would recognise it.
Needless to say there would be many deaths, but it would not be a genocide. The decapitation must then be followed by a process of global de-moronification, for those who persist in adherence to the death cult. As the death cult exists solely for the benefit of men, it would be the men who would be directly targeted by the strategic process of de-moronification. However, unlike de-nayzeefication, the process would likely take decades.
The wellspring of all recent death cult radicalism have been those two cesspits, saudi and iran. Both rogue states have used their ill gotten gains from oil revenues to pursue this radical agenda. The saudis have pursued a global agenda of radicalisation (particularly of those death cultists in the West), while the iranians have been shoring up their immediate sphere of influence.
These two states must be the most directly targeted. It is an absolute disaster that the West didn’t try and wean itself off oil after WW2. Both of those cesspits would have been rendered penniless and irrelevant had this obvious course of action taken place.
However, I don’t have a particularly sanguine view about the future of the West – I have a largely Steynian view of our likely fate. As someone descended from a long line of Crusaders, this galls me no end.
Apologies for the length of this comment – more on this topic in time.
Rabz
20 Sep 12 at 8:52 am
Any chance of a non halal Vegemite for non believers, Kraft?
Respecting as you will my desire to avoid supporting Muslim religious dietary law.
Alfonso
20 Sep 12 at 8:56 am
The fundamental problem with Islam is its failure to recognise the separation of church and state….
Islam needs a Reformation
The Church recognized, and scrupulously so, the separation of church and state before the Reformation. Moreover, the Reformation did more to put into question this separation than anything before or since. See the Treaty of Westphalia which allowed states to have their own national confessions and national churches. What we already have, for instance, in Iran. Yes, more of this, please.
And do you really want a sola scriptura tradition to emerge in Islam. Really, the Koran as the most single and only authoritative guide? We already have that. It’s a disaster. I thought you would have wanted a milieu that would involve the re-emergence of Islamic philosophers like Al-Farabi, Al-Ghazali, Avicenna, Averroes, etc. People who are in fact far more similar to Aquinas and the Scholastic tradition – you know, those damned medievals – than to Luther or Calvin, and yet we have these gimcrack ideas about the Reformation and Enlightenment trotted out endlessly. Yes, that’s right, what we desperately need is for Islam to “get medieval’ again.
But the reformation and counter-reformation gradually put this right and the church’s teaching reverted more faithfully to the New Testament and its doctrine of forgiveness rather than the Old Testament and its eye for an eye.
Honestly, what the f@#k is going on here? Seriously, can people stop only reading the works of 19th C Protestant polemicists.
dover_beach
20 Sep 12 at 9:05 am
Islam is an ALLEGED religion.
Sid Vicious
20 Sep 12 at 9:10 am
Lutherism is still the state religion in Norway and Denmark.
The Church of England is still the state religion in England and was in UK (Anglicanism) until a century ago.
Antidisestablishmentarianism is still a political movement in Britain.
(I always wanted to use that word in a sentence).
manalive
20 Sep 12 at 9:19 am
>Antidisestablishmentarianism
OT but in my primary school classes I had this annoying kid who, when playing ‘hangman’ with the class, used to use this word for everyone else to guess the letters.
He would get up, in front of class, and write all these ‘_ _ _ _ _ ‘ across the board, thinking he was smart. I would just call out ‘antidisestablishmentarianism’ as soon as I could, without even checking how many letters. And I was always right, because it was the only big word he knew. Annoying twat he was.
brc
20 Sep 12 at 9:26 am
It’s full of Martin Luthers.
That’s the problem.
C.L.
20 Sep 12 at 10:00 am
Did he live in the back of a VW after his mother got (mythically) kicked off the farm after his father died in a car crash (after drinking himself to death), up near the Sunshine Coast?
Mick Gold Coast QLD
20 Sep 12 at 10:00 am
Unfortunately most reformations have only come about after wars or at least periods of great upheaval. What you appeal for is aspirational but not possible because of one thing – faith. There are few grounds on which to fight militant faith. And currently, whether by accident or design, everything is stacked against some great reform of Islam happening.
It would seem that the oppressed do not wish to be liberated. In fact Islam is the fastest growing ‘religion’ on the planet. Where does this leave the rest of us apostates and infidels? I’m not sure, but I don’t think this will have a happy ending.
Most people are blissfully ignorant of the intentions of Islam and had no idea of the problems here until the riots in Sydney over the weekend. The MSM and the moral outrage industry have ensured that not only is there a great ignorance about the extent of the problems, but that debate about any aspect of Islam is quickly shut down. This, of course, is feeding the concerted push by the OIC to have islamophobia declared an offence under international (UN) laws.
I could go on more about this, but have probably reached the word limit….
Great piece btw… very thought provoking…
Oblique
20 Sep 12 at 10:06 am
I strongly disagree with the theme of Samuel J’s post. I do so based on the five + I years spent in Saudi Arabia and the seven months I spent in Egypt.
I came away convinced Islam is a vicious, murderous and misogynistic ideology. Nothing I have seen in the subsequent 17 years has changed my view.
The fundamental problem with Islam is not the non separation of church and state. The problem is that Muslims believe the Koran is the immutable and unchallengeable word of God,while the Hadiths (the sayings of Mohammed) are seen as the utterings of the “most perfect” man to have lived.
You cannot reform this ideology, as this would require the reformer to insist God was wrong, and the reformed to accept this – a deadly approach for both parties.
Because of its rigid belief in the Koran, Islam is fated to remain locked in the 7th century. It is where we would be if our laws and traditions were the same today as those that existed in 7th century Britain.
If this were the case, I am confident we would be as backward as the 56 nations that make up the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Every one of those nations is from the third world. It is not possible to believe this stems from colonialism or is a coincidence, or is just bad luck. The common denominator is Islam. To put it bluntly, it is an ideology that is a condom on the penis of progress.
Furthermore, if you accept you can’t reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into, how can you hope to reason with someone who is compulsorily re-indoctrinated five times each day every day of their lives? But, let’s say reason succeeds from time to time. Who benefits when the penalty for this change of view is death?
There is a constant drumbeat about moderate Muslims but, one must ask – where are they? I have yet to see or hear of these moderates protesting publicly about local or overseas Muslim terrorists, murderers and thugs.
In my opinion, we don’t see this because the “moderates” are sitting on the fence waiting to see who ends up with the whip hand. Alternatively, the “moderates” are too frightened to display their moderate side, lest they be attacked by those who are simply obeying the Koran and observing the Hadith. Either way the future for us is black.
Our ignorant politicians from both sides let the Muslim genie out of the bottle and it will not go back inside.
There is just one country that has a Muslim minority and does not have trouble with them. That country is Singapore, and it does not have trouble with Muslims because would be rioters know very well they will get a caning and gaol time.
We need to adopt the same pragmatic approach. We also need to operate on the basis that Muslims joined us – we didn’t join them. That means no segregated pools, no special catering at local council functions etc and no exemptions from our laws or traditions.
Will it happen? I doubt it, but I have no doubt about the future of my grandchildren if it does not.
HRT
20 Sep 12 at 10:13 am
I think Ishrad Manji is fearless.
.
20 Sep 12 at 10:17 am
DB – I agree about getting back to the medieval philosophers who wrote within the Islamic tradition. Western Churchmen and Churchwomen could assist here, with dialogue. The current Islamic retreat to medievalism and veils etc is an attempt to assert a tradition; Islam needs to intellectualise this by reference to its own ‘greats’. The words of competent religous thinkers of the Islamic past, if widely promulgated, could change Islam to the peaceful, reflective and god-fearing path that many normal Muslims, as ordinary human beings, would like to live by. We thus should suport all efforts to de-politicise Islam and to bring about a secular polity. Kamal Attaturk did a good job; perhaps after this latest retreat into a desert death cult following 9/11 shows itself to be a complete dead end (pun intended), Islam may be able reprise his methods and example.
I don’t think we can just say to billions – your beliefs stink. We can assist in the remoulding of these beliefs. I think the concept of a ‘Reformation/Counter Reformation’ now carries more baggage than using the terms themselves is worth if we use them as historical referents (I was waiting for DB and CL to come in here). Thus I put forward a Western reverence for the works of past Islamic scholars, and encouragement of a contemporary revisionary approach, as the way to proceed. We could call it The Great Islamic Scholarly Revival. A new Islamic narrative for the 21st Century; a religion not a threat to conquer.
It may need to be accompanied by some tough policies in the West though against the worst elements of the repressive death cult. I would not be blinkered about that.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
20 Sep 12 at 10:34 am
Big mistake referencing Martin Luther, Samuel. That’s like showing a red rag to a bull with CL. I changed my mind about the Luthster recently after some of the stuff presented here in earlier threads and then reading up about him. He seemed like a bit of a douchebag.
JC
20 Sep 12 at 10:34 am
Islam is a surveilance society, it lacks (to an extreme extent) any seperation between the public and private behaviour of its citizens.
Ive seen open season declared on individuals in detention centres in Australia based on “you are not a good Muslim”..
I dont know how you get around that. It used to be manditory to attend church once a week (at least), everyone got to see who failed to turn up.
Now make that 5 times a day instead.
The biggest problem for the moralists is cities though. Just sheer numbers makes policing devoutness a lot more trouble.
thefrollickingmole
20 Sep 12 at 10:35 am
As long as the
Koranbible is believed to be the literal word of God, ieMohammedMoses and the prophets sat down and transcribed what God told him, then there can be no reformation. If you genuinely believed you had Gods own words to guide you could you do no other?FIFY
SteveC
20 Sep 12 at 10:39 am
Excellent post HRT. Could almost have been written by Robert Spencer. Polls in Britain have revealed large numbers of so called moderate Muslims show great sympathy for the views and actions of their noisy and vicious brothers whilst they would not themselves take part In such actions. So when push comes to shove we know where their allegiance lies. As I’ve pointed out previously it’s only the accident of geology, oil, which has empowered them otherwise they and their primitive views would not be registering on our radar.
Honey badger
20 Sep 12 at 10:41 am
Stop showing your ignorance stevec on all things Christian. This is a good thread with intelligent and insightful comments, until you arrived.
Gab
20 Sep 12 at 10:42 am
One way to tie mohamedans in knots is to ask them a series of questions, and see if they like the answer-
Q. Who decides the outcome of battles?
A. A good mohamedan must believe that Allah allocates the roles of winner and loser.
Q. Who will Allah favour?
A. A good mohamedan believes that Allah will always favour the community of believers.
Q. Is Allah set in his ways?
A. Allah’s will is not chained- He can change or abrogate earlier commandments as he wills!
Q. Since Israel has won all its’ battles against mohamedans, does Allah now favour Israel?
A. aahh, I’ll get back to you on that.
Q. Since the Jewish state was allowed to take over Jerusalem, and move its’ capital there, do you accept that this is Allah’s will?
A. Can I get back to you on that?
Q. Doesn’t Islam mean submission to the will of Allah?
A. Of course it does!
Q. Then why don’t you accept His will when Israel is the winner of all the battles?
A. I’m giving Allah a chance to give the right answer, and then I’ll obey him!
No good muslim would ever give the last answer, of course, but they seem to be trying to imply it, when questioning gets to these levels.
Nuke Gray
20 Sep 12 at 10:47 am
Steve C, the problem with your attempt at equivalence is that the Church, Catholic or Orthodox, has never regarded the Bible as the literal word of God; as a text that did not invite or require, in this or that instance, interpretation, whether figurative, metaphorical, etc. In fact, the Reformers made fun of this precisely That literalism only emerges with the sola scriptura tradition, initiated by Luther, and really only reaches the heights of stupidity in modern-day fundamentalism.
dover_beach
20 Sep 12 at 10:49 am
I think Islam has already had its Martin Luther, Ayatollah Khomeini. What Islam needs is a Sunni John Lennon and a Shia Germaine Greer to ‘guide’ them into the 8th century. But what they really deserve are Islamic versions of Karl Marx and Michel Foucault.
Jannie
20 Sep 12 at 10:50 am
We call those people “fundamentalists”. Even Jesus spoke in parables.
.
20 Sep 12 at 10:52 am
In fact, before the 16/17th C, I very much doubt that Islamic scholars were literalists themselves.
dover_beach
20 Sep 12 at 10:54 am
Good comparison.
C.L.
20 Sep 12 at 11:01 am
Question for you defenders of the bible:
Did god actually talk to moses from the burning bush?
Did god actually talk to Isaiah?
Did god actually talk to Samuel?
My point is simple. If you claim the problem with Mohammed is that he claims God actually spoke to him, then many of the books of the old testamant have the same problem. And don’t try to tell me Catholics don’t believe the old testamant. EVERY mass includes readings from the old testament. Baptists are crazy about the old testament. I have personal experience of both.
Personally I don’t believe god has ever spoken to anyone, because I don’t belive in god. But the criticism of one religion because it claims god spoke to their prophet is illogical when exactly the same criticism can be levelled at any bible based religion.
Note I didn’t bring this point up, and nor did Samuel. It’s a red herring.
SteveC
20 Sep 12 at 11:29 am
I don’t recall anyone saying that’s their problem with Mohammed.
Straw man fail.
C.L.
20 Sep 12 at 11:31 am
Oh hell no, Jannie. Pick someone else as an exemplar. There are plenty of non-lunatic women who can speak out about all forms of anti-human discrimination against women, plus against the sexual and emotional abuse of women just for being female. Greer is a self-serving cariciture of a female, unable even early on to really come to grips with women’s situation in this complex world. She is a hopeless cultural analyst too and economically perfectly illiterate. She’d set things backward fast and cause more trouble than it was ever worth.
Alfonso
20 Sep 12 at 11:36 am
When I say ‘she’, I mean of course, some Muslim spokeswoman just like her.
And HELP HELP HELP. I didn’t notice, but in my reply box I HAVE FOR SOME REASON JUST TURNED INTO ALFONSO. Quick and unwanted sex change there – and Alfonso, rest assured I have deleted your email address without noting it, and I hope anyone who gets to be me (poor you) will do the same.
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
20 Sep 12 at 11:40 am
Alfonso, you are right about Greer. Thats why I personally wish the likes of her on the religion of peace.
Jannie
20 Sep 12 at 11:43 am
The problem is that Mohammed claimed he wrote down the word of God verbatim. That makes him a perfect man to be imitated and the Koran a book that is perfect, therefore the Koran is unchangeable and must be followed.
This is the problem, how do you reform a religion based on the true and literal word of God? To reform would mean that God is wrong and that the believer has greater knowledge than God. Seeing that Islam means submission to God, I can’t see anyone seriously challenging the view that the Koran is Gods word.
Islam will never change unless it is forced upon it, probably in a very violent and bloody manner.
sfw
20 Sep 12 at 11:43 am
SteveC, try and get over it.
I am going to try and tell you that Catholics dont believe the old testament.
Here goes: “Catholics dont believe the old testament.”
There.
Jannie
20 Sep 12 at 11:47 am
Lizzie, err… Alfonso, one of you anyway.
Jannie
20 Sep 12 at 12:44 pm
test
Gab
20 Sep 12 at 3:23 pm
CL, check the posts of sfw and HRT above.
Gab
20 Sep 12 at 3:37 pm
Heard of the New Testament, SteveC?
The Old was replaced by it. It became History, of a sort.
Jesus (you have heard of him?) changed everything.
blogstrop
21 Sep 12 at 5:53 am
SteveC, Catholics believe in the living pope, rather than any sacred text. They have a doctrine of papal infallibility; note that infallibility is not afforded to any text.
This importance to this discussion is that while violence features in both medieval Christianity and Islam, that mechanism is different. The New Testament is non-violent, so the medieval church leaders had to keep it locked up in order to justify violence. The Koran justifies violence explicitly, so Islamic leaders can openly present it as the word of God if there’s any killing they want done.
All the reformation did was expose corruption in the church, with no protest against violence in itself – it was just at violent. But when the corruption, and the violent revolt against the corruption, eventually cleared, the non-violent New Testament could eventually shine through.
No such luck with Islam though. You can expose people as corrupt, but you can’t do that with books.
2dogs
21 Sep 12 at 5:54 am
This is a meme which periodically makes its rounds, but is of not much validity.
Islam is already, and has been since Mo kicked it, structured more like the protestant churches than the Catholic one. It doesn’t have the hierarchy, structures and idiocies which Luther railed against.
Luther didn’t tams christianity, he stirred the pot and excited more violence for centuries to come.
And finally, Luther sought to take Christianity back to its roots, to prune away the sophistications and growths which had come to overlay the original message. Well, Islam had that reform three hundred years ago in the person of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab who founded modern day Salafism, or Wahhabism, which is the official Saudi Arabian sect.
If you want to know what an Islamic reformation looks like, Saudi Arabia is the exemplar.
Spare us from any more Islamic Martin Luthers.
Chris Harper
21 Sep 12 at 7:35 am
I’d suggest people actually read what Martin Luther wrote about his reasons and motivations. (He wasn’t Gillard after all saying one thing and doing another.)
That others used him to their own advantage or opportunity is another matter (or hardly surprising). It seems to me that historians are more concerned about the politics, and that’s fine, but in a sense it detracts from what Luther was on about. Luther’s arguments were based on the Scriptures. He was pointing out the fundamental difference between a life based on faith, in contrast to religious legalism and compulsion. The Scriptures supported him. That can’t be done with the Koran as Muslims are actually living in accord with it. All they have is legalism, and the constant implicit comparisons amongst themselves, resulting in increasing zealotry.
Can the same dynamic happen Christianity? Sure, so long as the Gospel is ignored and it’s reduced to just a bunch of religious practices. Muslims however, are ignoring nothing in the Koran.
As a historical footnote, the invention of the printing press and the translation of Scriptures into people’s common languages greatly assisted in enabling the spread of Luther’s ideas, and the (non Latin) Bible. An important additional benefit was a massive increase in literacy within Europe and a consequent thirst for knowledge generally.
Keith
21 Sep 12 at 8:25 am
HRT and Rabz, good posts.
Islam is indeed a cult; an eschatological cult; in saying this however, the difference between a religion and a cult needs to be clear.
A religion is a theological interpretation of life which fits the individual needs of its exponents; the individual chooses the religion and its principles which enable the individual to deal with the variables of life which lie outside their religion.
A cult does not recognise any outside to its dictates; the individual does not choose the cult but vice versa and the only relevance of the individual is as a carrier of the meme.
A true religion does not kill apostates but a cult does because the organism, the cult, is weakened when a part of it leaves.
The only acceptable way of leaving Islam is through martyrdom [shahada]; martyrdom in islam is different from martyrdom in a religion where the act of death is persisting with your belief despite threats up to and including death to desist; in islam martyrdom is an active concept intrinsically connected with jihad and the expansion of the meme.
Seen in this light islam is the greatest threat to humankind, IF you interpret humankind in terms of the Western, individual rights based democratic form.
That the left do not oppose islam can only be a product of their stupidity because the first ones lined up against a wall and beheaded when islam achieves its apotheosis and controls a country are the left.
As an addendum to the above a refreshingly honest article at the abc about islam, the riots and their purpose and fit within islam. The author, a muslim university lecturer, says this:
In dismissing moderate muslims the author then says:
‘
Welcome to the Australian outpost of planet islam.
cohenite
21 Sep 12 at 8:56 am
Now that comments are working again, here’s something I prepares earlier…
Bingo. She is the closest Islam has to it’s own Martin Luther – in fact she makes the same point, loudly and clearly, that Samuel does. But because she’s female and a lesbian the nutjobs within that faith don’t take her very seriously.
You’d think the left would love a female, black, lesbian Muslim, but because she’s expressed admiration for Israel’s human rights record compared to the Muslim middle eastern countries, they hate her as well. It’s very revealing of their hierarchy of grievances – hating Israel and the Jews tops any support for minority or gay rights…
But I digress – I agree strongly with most of Samuel’s post and Manji’s book ‘the trouble with Islam’. But I disagree with this:
It’s not our moral duty at all. It’s for the Muslims to sort their own mess out. We complain (rightly) about radical Muslim nutjobs trying to convert us, so we shouldn’t try to convert them either.
What we can do is to strongly support brave people like Manji who are trying hard to create ‘a new and peaceful sect of Islam.’, to get tougher on enforcing existing laws, and to drop all PC notions of ‘accommodating their cultural’ requirements or whatever.
papachango
21 Sep 12 at 9:31 am
Wot Keith said.
Islam, especially Salafism, is already acting in accordance with the texts, without the superstructure which a hierarchical Church built on those foundations.
Islam, in the main, is already fundamentalist, there is little left to reform.
Chris Harper
21 Sep 12 at 10:07 am
HRT, you’re a bit slow – it only took me six months in Saudi to realise Islam was just a Thugocracy that could never be reasoned with, or accommodated. It reminded me mostly of Nazi Germany, with citizens too frightened, or ignorant of the real world to protest.
Winston SMITH
21 Sep 12 at 10:16 am
bwahaha
“the one who changes his religion, what are we going to do? kill him… kill”
A word to rioting muslims:
IrvingB
23 Sep 12 at 1:55 pm
Jannie, 2dogs and blogstrop. You may want to check what the catholic church teaches re the old testament. The new testament DOES NOT replace the old testament.
SteveC
23 Sep 12 at 4:38 pm
Steve C
Kimberly, your sex doll, must be pleased as hell the cat is back, hey?
JC
23 Sep 12 at 4:50 pm
I’m so glad someone follows my posts.
SteveC
23 Sep 12 at 4:52 pm
Luther’s arguments were based on the Scriptures….The Scriptures supported him.
Were they? really? They unequivocally supported him? On Justification by faith alone? On Apostolic Succession? What did he think of the Epistle of James perchance?
BTW, what is this rubbish juxtaposition of the Old and New Testaments about?
dover_beach
23 Sep 12 at 5:01 pm
I seriously doubt stevec can answer you, Dover.
Gab
23 Sep 12 at 5:21 pm
Even the fundamentalist Christians don’t generally go around saying that there should be a theocracy. After all, the Bible states:
so stating that Jesus accepts the separation of Church and State. Is there a similar section in the Koran?
Samuel J
23 Sep 12 at 5:30 pm
samuel J, Vatican City is the last surviving territory of the former Papal States.
More than a few churches still accept the status of state religion or established church. C of E!
Mitt is having a few troubles because of the larger unwillingness of most Americans to accept genuinely secular candidates for president.
In Australia, if you know the religion of politicians, you are just a sad political junkie.
Religious tests for public office passed in to history in the 19th century as a lost hold-out against the age of the enlightenment.
Jim Rose
23 Sep 12 at 5:58 pm
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_democracy which is not easy to read.
there only a few majority muslim democracies. on the other hand and the oil rich states aside, there are few majority muslim countries that relatively developed countries excepting malaysia.
Jim Rose
23 Sep 12 at 6:07 pm
I guess if you mean their democracies allow non-muslim political parties than only Indonesia and Turkey qualify.
Meanwhile the msm seems happy with the majority of muslims are nice people bullshit, so everything will be back to normal until the proportion of mulsims tips over the 5% mark [which at the rate gillard is importing them as boatpeople, will be sometime after xmas] then the shit will really hit the fan.
cohenite
23 Sep 12 at 6:41 pm
samuel J, Vatican City is the last surviving territory of the former Papal States.
The former was created in the 20th C. The latter recognized a difference between the temporal and ecclesiastical powers of the Papacy.
Mitt is having a few troubles because of the larger unwillingness of most Americans to accept genuinely secular candidates for president.
Somethings wrong with the above. Did you mean “willingness”? If so, does that mean that current politics imposes a general religious test that works against religious candidates?
Religious tests for public office
These only appeared in the 16th/ 17th C, Jim, and thus were thoroughly modern inventions.
dover_beach
23 Sep 12 at 6:47 pm
The ismaili sect are Shiite muslims led by the Aga Khan who have continuously reformed themselves. Initially very bloody but now respected professionals in most of the countries they live in and not a hint of jihad, oppression of women or terrorism
Peter
23 Sep 12 at 7:11 pm
The assasins. This branch of the cult you just want to live next door have this methodology:
Sounds as though they’ll fit in to a secular democratic framework just fine.
cohenite
23 Sep 12 at 7:39 pm
The trouble is that Islam’s Martin Luther has come and gone. His name was Osama Bin Laden.
Islam doesn’t need another Martin Luther. It needs a Second Coming. Mohammed 2.0 if you like. Someone to right all the doctrinal wrongs that make the religion so backward and intolerant, and set it on a less destructive course.
Oh come on
24 Sep 12 at 4:47 am
SteveC – thanks for that link, which has some substance as opposed to normal troll “red herrings”. Despite the continuing usage of and reference to the Old Testament, you have to come back to reality. We are discussing christianity and islam. There would be no christianity without Christ and the New Testament. The old is jewish history.
This may come as a shock to you, but islam seeks to overturn the status of Christ, recasting him as a muslim prophet whom the jews killed ( handy libel for their purposes) and the jews reject him as the messiah.
Cutting to the chase, what we are concerned about now, is not how many burning bushes or horses flitting from one city to another through the sky stack up as scriptural anecdotes, or who misheard God and may be a lying stenographer.
The facts on the ground today are that Christians are part of a genuine religion while moslems are the victims of a political control regime. Unfortunately, your status as a non- believer and leftist apologist, foolishly aligned with that malignant force, puts you at the bottom of the list as an instructor in equivalencies.
Blogstrop
24 Sep 12 at 6:56 am
Whig History will never disappear!
Greetings from India, where the local muslims had a big noisy march this morning about some film. Lots of new mosques here, Saudi charity? Growing growing…
one old bruce
24 Sep 12 at 8:44 pm