Islam, in my view, is akin to a steel fist in a velvet glove. Indeed, many Muslims would see that as a compliment. They argue that it is the 'perfect' system that should govern all societies in perpetuity and that this necessarily requires both softness and strength.
But here we must recognise its fundamental character. It is not so much a religious system as a *political* system. It is a political system clothed in the language of a religion.
This is the mistake most 'liberal' people seem to make; they hear the word religion and think of the weak and insipid effeminate vicars of the church of England, for example. They think Islam is just another variation on that. It isn't.
We need to stop pretending it's JUST another religion. It is a religion, but that's not all it is.
Absolutely. Makes me think of Christopher Hitchens, who understood the totalitarian character of Islamism far earlier and more clearly than most. Too many people still have no idea what they’re dealing with.
Originally, Islam was just another Abrahamic faith, as are Christianity and Judaism. (Read the Koran sometime and see for yourself.) But with the advent of Sharia law, it became a political faith, not unlike Shinto in a way, in that it was the ancestor-worshipping faith of the senior leadership. It has only grown in political influence since. Why the "progressives" embrace Islam as the "religion of peace" is simple: they are one more bunch of identifiable "victims" to be lionized and protected for more virtue-signaling.
Was it an Abraham religion, and not a political faith, when Muhammad waged wars of conquest and revenge? I suppose you can compare that to certain episodes in the Old Testament, but, we call that old for a reason.
I'm not sure we disagree on the barrier of Islam, or at least Islamism, today. We're squabbling over details regarding its origins, which I guess is my fault, for thinking it's worth squabbling over - but it's not worth dividing us.
It's not hard to find. It was political from the beginning (a war of conquest):
“Muhammad led numerous military campaigns, including major battles like Badr, Uhud, and the Conquest of Mecca, engaging in warfare for self-defense, territorial security, and to counter threats from hostile tribes, resulting in the unification of most of Arabia under Islam through both conflict and diplomacy, often followed by pardons for conquered enemies, though specific punitive actions occurred against tribes like the Banu Qurayza and Banu Nadir for perceived betrayals.”
“Muhammad’s decision to execute opponents or whole groups following military engagements was typically prompted by perceived treachery, violations of treaties, or the need to secure his community against existential threats. These actions were consistent with the harsh tribal customs and laws of 7th-century Arabia.”
“For Jews and Christians, Muhammad generally did not mandate conversion but instead offered Dhimmi status (protected status).
Jizya Tax: This was a mandatory per capita tax levied on able-bodied non-Muslim men. In exchange for this payment, they were granted protection by the Muslim state, the right to practice their religion, and exemption from military service.
Consequences of Refusal: If a tribe or community refused both conversion and the payment of Jizya, Muhammad typically declared war against them. Failure to pay once agreed upon could lead to imprisonment, property seizure, or loss of protected status.
Subordination: Some interpretations of Quran 9:29 suggest the Jizya was to be paid in a state of "humiliation" or "subjection," which later jurists sometimes manifested as specific legal and social restrictions, such as wearing distinctive clothing.
2. Polytheists and Idolaters
The treatment of Arabian polytheists (Mushrikun) was more severe, particularly after the conquest of Mecca.
Conversion or Death: Traditional accounts of the "Sword Verse" (Quran 9:5) state that polytheists who had violated treaties were given a four-month period of grace, after which they were to be killed unless they converted to Islam.
Expulsion: Muhammad eventually ordered that two religions could not coexist in the Arabian Peninsula, leading to the gradual expulsion of those who refused to embrace Islam.”
Islamism is an ideology. We should oppose it, like we opposed communism. Islam itself, I suspect, cannot be separated from Islamism. Certainly, we should be smart enough to realize that freedom of religion can only be extended to religions that themselves tolerate freedom of religion.
Excellent. Reminds me of the C.S. Lewis line: “Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience”.
Excellent piece. The progressive west has no idea Islam imposed second class dhimmi status on non Muslims for most of its history, ran the trans Saharan slave trade for even longer, and continues to practice gender apartheid. Massive blind spot.
But ultimately, I believe progressives understand that jihadism is terrifying, and that like a predator in the wild they won’t look it in the eye for fear of provoking it.
Good question. They seem to think their job is to manage dissent rather than deal with the problems that cause it. They have no idea how angry people are.
The left’s illogical egotistical elites are attempting to lead us to a point of “compassionate suicide”. I hope articles like this and others wake the zombie like left that just follow along.
Islamism is a totalitarian tenet. Not just meaning that it’s oppressive to its believers (and non believers), it is certainly that. But it’s totalitarian since it is a religion that is made to govern every facet of life. From justice, to economics, to social life, and politics. This totalitarianism is incompatible with liberalism.
‘…not all belief systems are compatible with freedom of speech, equality before the law’
For instance the progressive ideology of our ruling elites. Despite its lame platitudes, it is manifestly a belief system which rejects both these values.
The Progressive faith is a seemingly secular ideology that nevertheless rests on two pillars of Christianity: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28) and "Love your neighbor as yourself." (Luke 10:27) aka the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
Except in their version the end of the first quote is changed to: "for ye are all one in the global corporate state, as owned and operated by a managerial class of progressive aristocrats," and the second gets updated to "Love your neighbor as yourself, even if they just arrived this morning from a distant country and you share nothing except contributions to GDP".
This rigid universalist eglitarianism is the sacred faith that bonds the entire Western ruling class, it is as mandatory for them to signal this belief as it was in prior centuries to be a "good Christian" and always sit up front at Church. Ruling classes always seek some sort of moral/divine imprimatur and this is our version.
Their belief system insists that noticing that people from some cultures are incompatible with Western liberalism is blasphemous and Hitlerish, and they will go to their deaths believing that with enough remedial re-education and therapy by a team of sociologists any jihadist can be transformed into a placid, tolerant liberal—and they will blame the failure of this project on conservatives and their irredeemable bigotry.
When a ruling class overdoses on ideology (which is really a retreat from reality into a haze of comforting delusions and moral justifications), there is usually only one way they're deposed: some cataclysm imposes a punishing reunion with reality and they get swept away in the rubble they've created. This will happen with us too, and once again it will be Jews that take the brunt of the violence. Their role in the Christian world is eternal scapegoat, depository of all our fears and hatred, and they are resuming this once again, even in our supposedly secular time.
"Beyond the crudest moral shorthand – Hitler bad, tolerance good – their grasp of history, philosophy and our cultural inheritance is alarmingly shallow."
Thanks for reading. Good-faith comments are always welcome.
A brief note of credit: this essay was inspired in part by an excellent comment from @cleverpseudonym2 on my previous post. A link to that discussion here: https://www.gadflynotes.com/p/8-lies-about-islamist-violence/comments
It is depressingly appropriate for our uniquely stupid age that the ultimate taboo is pointing out the identity of the murderous maniacs in our midst.
Exactly - you’ve captured it in a nutshell. Thanks.
Islam, in my view, is akin to a steel fist in a velvet glove. Indeed, many Muslims would see that as a compliment. They argue that it is the 'perfect' system that should govern all societies in perpetuity and that this necessarily requires both softness and strength.
But here we must recognise its fundamental character. It is not so much a religious system as a *political* system. It is a political system clothed in the language of a religion.
This is the mistake most 'liberal' people seem to make; they hear the word religion and think of the weak and insipid effeminate vicars of the church of England, for example. They think Islam is just another variation on that. It isn't.
We need to stop pretending it's JUST another religion. It is a religion, but that's not all it is.
Absolutely. Makes me think of Christopher Hitchens, who understood the totalitarian character of Islamism far earlier and more clearly than most. Too many people still have no idea what they’re dealing with.
Originally, Islam was just another Abrahamic faith, as are Christianity and Judaism. (Read the Koran sometime and see for yourself.) But with the advent of Sharia law, it became a political faith, not unlike Shinto in a way, in that it was the ancestor-worshipping faith of the senior leadership. It has only grown in political influence since. Why the "progressives" embrace Islam as the "religion of peace" is simple: they are one more bunch of identifiable "victims" to be lionized and protected for more virtue-signaling.
Was it an Abraham religion, and not a political faith, when Muhammad waged wars of conquest and revenge? I suppose you can compare that to certain episodes in the Old Testament, but, we call that old for a reason.
As I understand it, Sharia came a century after Mohammad passed.
I'm not sure we disagree on the barrier of Islam, or at least Islamism, today. We're squabbling over details regarding its origins, which I guess is my fault, for thinking it's worth squabbling over - but it's not worth dividing us.
Maybe that was codification of already expressed intent?
Sure; go back twelve centuries and show that intent.
We'll wait.
It's not hard to find. It was political from the beginning (a war of conquest):
“Muhammad led numerous military campaigns, including major battles like Badr, Uhud, and the Conquest of Mecca, engaging in warfare for self-defense, territorial security, and to counter threats from hostile tribes, resulting in the unification of most of Arabia under Islam through both conflict and diplomacy, often followed by pardons for conquered enemies, though specific punitive actions occurred against tribes like the Banu Qurayza and Banu Nadir for perceived betrayals.”
“Muhammad’s decision to execute opponents or whole groups following military engagements was typically prompted by perceived treachery, violations of treaties, or the need to secure his community against existential threats. These actions were consistent with the harsh tribal customs and laws of 7th-century Arabia.”
“For Jews and Christians, Muhammad generally did not mandate conversion but instead offered Dhimmi status (protected status).
Jizya Tax: This was a mandatory per capita tax levied on able-bodied non-Muslim men. In exchange for this payment, they were granted protection by the Muslim state, the right to practice their religion, and exemption from military service.
Consequences of Refusal: If a tribe or community refused both conversion and the payment of Jizya, Muhammad typically declared war against them. Failure to pay once agreed upon could lead to imprisonment, property seizure, or loss of protected status.
Subordination: Some interpretations of Quran 9:29 suggest the Jizya was to be paid in a state of "humiliation" or "subjection," which later jurists sometimes manifested as specific legal and social restrictions, such as wearing distinctive clothing.
2. Polytheists and Idolaters
The treatment of Arabian polytheists (Mushrikun) was more severe, particularly after the conquest of Mecca.
Conversion or Death: Traditional accounts of the "Sword Verse" (Quran 9:5) state that polytheists who had violated treaties were given a four-month period of grace, after which they were to be killed unless they converted to Islam.
Expulsion: Muhammad eventually ordered that two religions could not coexist in the Arabian Peninsula, leading to the gradual expulsion of those who refused to embrace Islam.”
Islamism is an ideology. We should oppose it, like we opposed communism. Islam itself, I suspect, cannot be separated from Islamism. Certainly, we should be smart enough to realize that freedom of religion can only be extended to religions that themselves tolerate freedom of religion.
'Virtue is more to be feared than vice, because it's excesses are not subject to the regulation of conscience' - Adam Smith
Excellent. Reminds me of the C.S. Lewis line: “Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience”.
Excellent piece. The progressive west has no idea Islam imposed second class dhimmi status on non Muslims for most of its history, ran the trans Saharan slave trade for even longer, and continues to practice gender apartheid. Massive blind spot.
But ultimately, I believe progressives understand that jihadism is terrifying, and that like a predator in the wild they won’t look it in the eye for fear of provoking it.
Great comment, thanks.
Isn’t Islamophobia an appropriate reaction to a violent threat from uneducated and ideological terrorists?
Babylon Bee, the satirical news website, ran the headline the other day:
"Groundbreaking New Study Finds Islamophobia May Be Partially Caused By Muslims Killing People All The Time".
🤣🤣🤣
My question is, "Do they really believe they can control this? Or are they just totally deluded?"
Good question. They seem to think their job is to manage dissent rather than deal with the problems that cause it. They have no idea how angry people are.
"Heresy! Blasphemy! Quick, villagers! Torches! Pitchforks! Destroy the truth-speaking monster in our midst!"
I can hear the virtue-signaling "progressives" screaming now...and good on you. Have a blessed holiday season.
Thank you – much appreciated. Wishing you a peaceful holiday season too.
The left’s illogical egotistical elites are attempting to lead us to a point of “compassionate suicide”. I hope articles like this and others wake the zombie like left that just follow along.
Crisp, concise, crucial to internalize. Thank you.
Islamism is a totalitarian tenet. Not just meaning that it’s oppressive to its believers (and non believers), it is certainly that. But it’s totalitarian since it is a religion that is made to govern every facet of life. From justice, to economics, to social life, and politics. This totalitarianism is incompatible with liberalism.
‘…not all belief systems are compatible with freedom of speech, equality before the law’
For instance the progressive ideology of our ruling elites. Despite its lame platitudes, it is manifestly a belief system which rejects both these values.
Great piece Frederick. And Merry Christmas.
Thanks! Merry Christmas to you too, LSO.
You articulate the problem so well. Every post is one I wait for.
Delighted to hear this. Really appreciate it. Thanks.
The Progressive faith is a seemingly secular ideology that nevertheless rests on two pillars of Christianity: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28) and "Love your neighbor as yourself." (Luke 10:27) aka the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
Except in their version the end of the first quote is changed to: "for ye are all one in the global corporate state, as owned and operated by a managerial class of progressive aristocrats," and the second gets updated to "Love your neighbor as yourself, even if they just arrived this morning from a distant country and you share nothing except contributions to GDP".
This rigid universalist eglitarianism is the sacred faith that bonds the entire Western ruling class, it is as mandatory for them to signal this belief as it was in prior centuries to be a "good Christian" and always sit up front at Church. Ruling classes always seek some sort of moral/divine imprimatur and this is our version.
Their belief system insists that noticing that people from some cultures are incompatible with Western liberalism is blasphemous and Hitlerish, and they will go to their deaths believing that with enough remedial re-education and therapy by a team of sociologists any jihadist can be transformed into a placid, tolerant liberal—and they will blame the failure of this project on conservatives and their irredeemable bigotry.
When a ruling class overdoses on ideology (which is really a retreat from reality into a haze of comforting delusions and moral justifications), there is usually only one way they're deposed: some cataclysm imposes a punishing reunion with reality and they get swept away in the rubble they've created. This will happen with us too, and once again it will be Jews that take the brunt of the violence. Their role in the Christian world is eternal scapegoat, depository of all our fears and hatred, and they are resuming this once again, even in our supposedly secular time.
Always appreciate your comments - they consistently add depth and clarity to the argument. Thank you.
"Beyond the crudest moral shorthand – Hitler bad, tolerance good – their grasp of history, philosophy and our cultural inheritance is alarmingly shallow."
Let's all remember that Hitler was a progressive.
I get the reference to the Japanese soldier. And, yes, I will stay in this fight as long as it takes.
I am tolerant of anyone and any organization that recognizes my right to have nothing to do with them.
One of my main approaches to life is to do all I can to make sure that anyone who forces themselves on me regrets it.
I admire Ralph from Lord of the Flies.
Government falls over backwards to invite and coddle illegals.
In return government get Muslim vote.
In second return Muslims get Home secretary.