Latest Entry: American Pravda and New York's Sixth Crime Family     Latest Comments: Talk Back Here

« Idiot Alert: Jimmy Carter says America hasn't improved much over past 3 decades | Main | Awesome new NRCC ads »

October 25, 2010

Re: Decoupling the Muslim Church from the Muslim State

Topics: Political News and commentaries

Islam logo.pngIn his article titled "Islam's Invasion Ideology," Martel Sobieskey argues that the core literature and bloody track record of Islam proves it to be an "invasion ideology," and as such should not qualify for religion status in the U.S. As we noted in our preface to his article, while Hyscience does not necessarily agree with his premise (nor do we necessarily disagree), nonetheless his argument does put the spotlight of truth on a point Islamists themselves have made - Islam is indeed an invasive "religion" with the goal of establishing Islamic law (sharia) not only in the U.S. but also throughout the West. Meanwhile, as Muslims continue to deny that Islam is a violent religion, the entire Western world witnesses how it is being used to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children, most of them Muslims.

Not to worry, Rich Swier walks us through fairyland with a proposed solution - simply have Islam reform itself, and separate the Muslim Church from the Muslim state:

What must happen, both from within and without Islam, is to separate the Muslim Church from the Muslim state.

Then and only then can political Islam be held up to the light of day for what it is - a military/political/judicial/financial/social system that has failed its converts. Taking Sharia out of Islam will allow Muslims to pray in peace and stand up to the political Islam that is taking them all down the road to perdition. (emphasis added)

A seminal report was published recently titled, Sharia: The Threat To America. This report for the first time encapsulates the fundamental idea of Sharia Law. It defines the global enemy - the Muslim Brotherhood. It defines political Islam as Sharia and those who proselytize it.

It is time to stop stripping our lexicon of words like terrorist, jihad, radical Islamists and Muslim extremists. It is time to understand the differences between political Islam, the nation states that support and export it, the armies it is sending against those who oppose it and the failed ideology behind it. Unless and until we analyze, question and speak out against the Muslim state we can never have a coherent strategy to defeat it.

Separate the Muslim Church from the Muslim state sounds like a great idea, except for the fact that if such a thing could magically occur, there would no longer be an Islam. While Swier aptly points out the threat of Islam and its sharia to America, separating religion from the state is simply not an option for Muslims - the two are inseparable.

From Islaam.com (emphasis added):

The basic belief in Islam is that the Qur'an is one hundred percent the word of Allah, and the Sunna was also as a result of the guidance of Allah to the Prophet sallallahu allayhe wasalam. Islam cannot be separated from the state because it guides us through every detail of running the state and our lives. Muslims have no choice but to reject secularism for it excludes the law of Allah.
Seems pretty straight forward - it's the Muslim way or the highway. On the other hand, Islam "tolerates" other points of view:
[...] The non-Muslims in Muslim states will either be secularists themselves, in favour of abandoning the laws of Islam in the state, or will be devoted followers of their own religion, who wish that the state follow the rules of that religion. So in either case, a compromise cannot be made in accordance with the Islamic point of view. What needs to be pointed out is that under the law of Islam, other religions are not prohibited. At the same time, people are provided with doctrines for legislation and running of state that will protect people of all faiths living in the state.
In other words, Islam kindly allows other faiths and points of view to exist so long as they receive permission (those doctrines of legislation) to exist and follows the sharia law.
Secularists in the West will agree with this, then they will point out that under Islamic law, people are not all equal. No non-Muslim, for example, could become the president. Well, in response to that fact, in turn, secularism is no different. No Muslim could become president in a secular regime, for in order to pledge loyalty to the constitution, a Muslim would have to abandon part of his belief and embrace the belief of secularism -- which is practically another religion. For Muslims, the word 'religion' does not only refer to a collection of beliefs and rituals, it refers to a way of life which includes all values, behaviours, and details of living.
For sake of keeping our train of though here, I'll resist commenting on the Muslim president issue.

Moving on:

Secularism cannot be a solution for countries with a Muslim majority or even a sizeable minority, for it requires people to replace their God-given beliefs with an entirely different set of man-made beliefs. Separation of religion and state is not an option for Muslims because is requires us to abandon Allah's decree for that of a man.
Like I said earlier, it's the Muslim way or the highway. Which seems to take us away from Swier's suggestion and bring us full circle back to Martel Sobieskey's point - and a solution requiring almost as much magic as Swier's

Posted by Richard at October 25, 2010 1:58 PM



Articles Related to Political News and commentaries: