Gaza is precisely what the Western left says it hates: a racist, sexist, homophobic, militaristic, anti-Democratic, kleptocratic, dogmatically religious police state of science fictional inequity and oppression. And they love it more than anything in the world. ১১ Abe Greenwald Executive Editor of Commentary Magazine
As I understand Islamic theology there is an allowed repudiation mechanism. Granted my understanding is limited but I continue to try and learn. Nearly 2 billion adherents of the umma is a substantial number of people worldwide who are believers. My concern is with the institutionalized Jew hatred. This is so crazy to me that I struggle daily to understand why. Really I feel so comfortable with Arabs and Arab culture. I see so many similarities between us. I am now old and my hopes for a world where we could all live in peace is nearly over. So why not repudiate the obviously crazy doctrines? Where does preaching hatred ever bring peace? No answers come and I continue to plant Gharqard trees.
I suspect you may be referring to "naskh", or abrogation. The problem is that, this is very specific, in relation to the post-Medina verses in the Qur'an superseding the Mecca verses. That's how they get around the multitude of contradictions.
When Mohammed lived in Mecca, he was just a merchant with no power, so his teachings were benign and peaceful. However, after Medina, he had an army and became a warlord. Then, his teachings became the evil monstrosities we see today.
Muslims believe that all kuffar, or non-Muslims, will go to Hell. They believe that Allah laid out the path of the righteous life in the sharia. Those who accept Islam and follow its rules have a chance at gaining Paradise when they die, at the pleasure of Allah. Men who die while waging jihad are the only ones guaranteed Paradise. Women if their husbands are pleased with them when they die.
Muhammed imitated Judaism in aspects like facing Jerusalem when they prayed, later Mecca. And in fasting. He invited Jews to accept Islam, but they declined, which made him hate them and kill them. His dying wish was that no Jews be left alive in the hijaz, or anywhere else.
From a Muslim standpoint, killing in jihad is justified because it may frighten surviving kuffar into submitting to Islam and having a chance at saving their souls.
The moslems are either in the mosque where they tell the truth or in the house of war (every where else) where the requirement is to lie to the infidel. Thou shalt not lie is the judaeo Christian directive. Taqiyya is the moslem directive.
How could it be reformed from within? It follows Allah’s dictates as recorded as literally accurate in the Qur’an and the hadith. His word is law and cannot be changed. So how could anyone change it?
I had an Iranian friend for many years. When we talked about ISIS in August 2014, she said that the Muslim world should be cordoned off, no one from outside goes in, no one from inside comes out. At that time I was shocked and said it could never be done. Now I think it could and should be.
You're wrong. The other option is scriptural and moral evolution, as happened in Judaism. There are number of places in Torah which prescribe death by stoning for offenses. Yet you cannot name a single instance of a halakhic court ruling someone be stoned to death for violating one of the 613 mitzvot. It's because modern Jews over the centuries evolved from the harsh conditions of desert tribal life in which such harsh punishments were common, to a different view of appropriate punishments.
Nothing says Islamic scholars cannot do the same.
Whether it is likely that they will do so or not is an entirely different question.
Christopher, this is the difference between Islam and Judaism: The injunctions you refer to in Leviticus and Deuteronomy for example, were always meant to be temporal, not eternal. This was known even at the time, and if you speak to any scholar, they can explain why.
Islam, on the other hand, isn’t temporal, but meant to be eternal. It is in the texts! So, you’re on the losing side of a theological argument. As I explain in my piece, the sole purpose of Muslims is to follow the example of Muhammad for eternity.
No, I am not on the “losing side” of anything here. I tried to offer you a kind, calming correction.
I have “spoken to many scholars,” thank you and I don’t need your patronizing tone.
There is no difference to the person having a rock thrown at her head whether the impulse motivating the rock thrower is “temporal” or “eternal.” I have no idea what you mean by those purported distinctions as you use them.
Both rock-throwers believe God told them to kill the guilty. Both victims of stoning are equally dead.
And your attempt at logical jujitsu does not explain why Jewish scholars eschewed deliberately prescribed stoning through theological reasoning while many Muslim scholars have not.
You wrote a nice piece, but I am going to take my four years of Islamic History at the University of Chicago and 30+ years working in Shari’ah finance in Muslim countries over your essay.
You say you’ve spoken to scholars, but demonstrate a remarkable degree of ignorance. Let me try and explain:
Even at the times of the first Jewish tribes, it was understood that the laws prescribed in Deuteronomy or Leviticus were only meant to be applied within a very specific time and place, and were never meant to be applied perpetually.
This is childishly simple.
Islam’s laws, on the other hand, were meant to be applied in perpetuity.
And no, there will never be any reformation in Islam.
The problem is that most people think the Christian reformation was about changing anything - it wasn’t! Luther saw how far the Roman Catholic Church had strayed away from the scriptures, and demanded a return to the bible, instead of the bastardisation he saw.
That’s the last thing we want in Islam. But because they believe the Quran was literally narrated to Mohammed by Allah via Gabriel, they consider them infallible.
So, no, you don’t know what you’re talking about and you mentioning your degree couldn’t have impressed me less.
That’s why you’ll never find Jews anywhere in the world advocating for stoning adulterers, for example.
It's been at least several millennia since a Jew executed another Jew based on Torah law. It's been at most a day or two since a Muslim executed a Muslim or non-Muslim based on Koran law.
But within Islam it is logical and morally justifiable. Eternal life in Paradise is worth more than this life and infinitely more valuable. Allah has given explicit instructions on how to live life as he has designed it to be lived. All kuffar will go to Hell when they die, as they have not followed the sharia nor submitted to Islam. So killing them in jihad as horribly as possible shocks the survivors and may cause many of them to submit to Islam and, at the will of Allah, attain Paradise. Causes them to respect Islam’s strength. This is the word of Allah, as written in the Qur’an in a book which has sat on a table in Paradise for all eternity. What Muslim scholar could or would challenge the word of Allah or risk being killed as an apostate if he did? Islam has no concept of human rights, certainly not kuffar rights.
The only answer is just to renounce Islam, discreetly for those living in Muslim countries. It will happen, but I don’t know how soon.
Another answer is for some Muslims to say, "Humans are imperfect. Even if the Word of God was transmitted to humans, it was delivered through imperfect human intermediaries and those hearing that Word are also imperfect, so even if Muhammed (PBUH) was absolutely perfect, those of us hearing what he prophesied are not. Therefore, we must use our G-d-given logical reasoning faculties and place the Revelation in historical context. After that Revelation, we have things like satellites and encounters with dozens of other cultures and those cultures believe different things, but they seem to raise good children, so perhaps we can show some fucking humility and take a step back to view some more savage passages of our holy scriptures as being more metaphorical or allegorical in nature. Because surely G-d doesn't want me to be a good person by strangling Kfir and Ariel Bibas - two very little boys who have no way of defending themselves. And if it turns out that my G-d does indeed want me to strangle two little boys to death in front of their screaming mother, then maybe we got a revelation from a fucking demon instead of G-d."
It is THAT failure to act like vaguely civilized people instead of psychotic, sociopathic mass murderers that is the problem.
Well Christopher, I'll take Bernard Lewis over you. And he agrees that followers of Islam admit and some follow, that whatever was allowable in the time of Mohammad is allowable today. Sorry but I dont know what you learned at the university of Chicago, but if it didn't include this they failed you.
One more asshole who does not share his name when spouting off. Two followers, no posts, snarky comments = ignorable dipshit. I don't give a fuck if you'll "take Bernard over [me]," whatever you think you mean by that. I've read all of Lewis. Go fuck yourself. Muting you.
After 9/11 I read Nostradamus, the book of revelations And the Quran.
When I read the Quran I realized that if I believed this book to be from God I would have to follow Bin Laden, Isis, Hamas and any so called "extremist" who simply is using the Quran as a guide to live by. When people day islam is a peaceful religion I ask if they've read the Quran and they say no, ahich days jt all.
Why people choose to defend Islam is an open question. However, everyone should be able to answer exactly what Islam is and understand why it does not deserve protected status from the host populations it seeks to annihilate. I speak here of the doctrine—people can believe whatever they want, of course. But granting charitable status, permitting Islamic finance, halal marketing, sharia councils, and much more is nothing short of begging to become an Islamic state.
Your readers might be interested in this article, and hopefully share it with their elected representatives. The UK is out of time and Canada is not far behind.
Before you respond like a petulant adolescent, speak to a theologian. I suggest William Lane Craig or John Lennox on the subject. Might stop you from making you from making a fool of yourself next time?
It’s alright, I don’t want ignoramuses to follow me anyway. Someone who doesn’t even know what secularism means; separation of church and state. Christianity makes it crystal clear - evidenced from the writings of Acquinas to today - that it’s to be separate from the laws of man. But then again, you admit that you are too committed to your ignorance to want to learn about it from those who know what they’re talking about, so I’m not surprised. Bye 👋
Hi! Well you need to dig in a tad more honey! You seem like a parrot repeating what X and Y have said! Evolution does exist ok! Have a look a the Talmud and you’ll understand! Look at Stalinism and other political secular systems and if you are endowed with some brains you’l get it ! Give time to time and let the moslim come to the conclusion that they’ll will at some point have to adjust …mind you that it’s already the case. Didn’t it take the western civilization ages to become what it is …today 😁
Tell me how many women should be enslaved in the meantime? How many little children blown up in Ariana Grande concerts, or stabbed in Taylor Swift dance classes? How many cartoonist beheaded? How many young girls raped and enslaved? How much paedophilia in Afghanistan and Iraq, where they’ve lowered the age of marriage for girls to 9 (aligned with Mohammed marrying Alisha when she was 6, and raping her when she was 9 and he 54).
How many countries staying in the Bronze Age, while the rest of the world develops and innovates?
For someone so smug, you clearly haven’t thought about the consequences of your position one bit.
The tell me about anaphora is absolutely ridiculous !! Look around you and be intellectually honest for one second hopefully you’ll see the light! You are lecturing me about innovation and development and human rights and bla bla bla as if no children are being decapitated elsewhere based on religion you know what I mean …everybody has been witnessing the horrors taking place in the Middle East, Ukraine, Russia, Democratic Republic of Congo to mention a few ….Let’s do some history have you ever read about the Crusaders and the horrors they have committed ? Read about Godfrey of Bouillon and I’m sure you’ll sleep a little smarter !!!
Sorry for my English because I’m French
Ah by the way, the French invented the concept of Laïcité 😅 Should Read about it too … you know being intellectually honest means calling out all crimes and human rights abuses, without limiting them to one group of people and cherry pick what to denounce. This is called being intellectually dishonest. But I must admit, some Muslims have committed atrocities, and some capitalists have committed genocide and are even supporting another one today overtly based on religious precepts !
Christianity makes it clear it’s to be separate from the laws of man so how then can it be a secular religion when the entire basis of the religion is that it is based on the supernatural.
Acts 5:29 - Peter calls the apostles to choose God over the laws of man
Daniel 3:18 - S.M.A refuse to worship the Babylonian gods above God
Jesus frequently admonished the Pharisees exactly for treating the religious as secular Matthew 23:23
Not going to go back and forth with the insults but I’d encourage you to have some humility. There was no need for this to escalate past a civil disagreement.
No one is denying that Christianity is a religion and contains lots of supernatural stuff. What does that have to do with secularism? You seem to think secularism is synonymous with atheism or naturalism. It’s not. Secularism is the separation of church and state. The founding fathers of America were most very religious, but they established the separation in the constitution.
Im not debating secularism, no do I disagree with the definition. I also do not think it is synonymous with atheism (?!)
In the essay you claim Christianity is a secular religion, an idea backed by theologians correct?
I disagree. I don’t think it can be classified as such because I think the classification has more to do with Christians and their application of Christianity than it does the text or doctrines.
That most Christian’s choose a chipotle version of Christianity shouldn’t detract from the fact that it is a religion that holds God/Jesus central not good deeds, morality, history or rituals.
Yes those are all a part of Christianity but quite literally salvation for Christians comes through faith in Jesus and heeding his teachings, so how can it be a secular religion when it’s ethos is the supernatural?
Also, just because Christian theologians say that Christianity is “secular” doesn’t mean that it is. Muslim theologians would contest many of the points you make in this post. Does that mean we should “trust their expertise” on Islam over yours?
First of all, find me a Muslim theologian who disputes what I write, and we can have the argument then.
Secondly, I wouldn’t discard the works of people whose entire life is devoted to studying the subject, just because it’s inconvenient to you.
Thirdly, do you know what the Martin Luther reformation was all about? The 95 thesis? It was all about how the Catholic Church had strayed away from the teachings of the Bible.
Jesus makes it abundantly clear - in Mark and John 18:36, for example - that his enterprise is about the personal relationship between the fallen man and god, not of temporal laws from the state. Honestly, just read the New Testament once.
I think now you’re the one who’s petulant lol, I was raised Christian and know the New Testament very well. If you can’t keep your tone respectful then I’m just going to stop engaging with you because ironically you’re displaying the same intolerance to respectfully posited opposing viewpoints that you decry in your post.
I’m not discarding any of the theologians you mentioned, but you can’t just say their names and not re-articulate their arguments and expect that to stand for evidence.
In the Old Testament, the Messiah is called the “King of Israel” (Psalm 2:2–7). There are all kinds of prophecies and epithets Jesus is given relating to kingship.
The book of Revelation literally has a period of 1000 years where Jesus and those who choose to follow him rule over and judge the Earth.
I objected to your point about Christianity being secular not because I’m not familiar with the essence of the religion, but precisely because I am.
I’m sorry, but where was I petulant or disrespectful? It’s late here, so if that’s how I came across, I assure you it wasn’t intended. But your casual dismissal of the greatest living theologians (I can go back to Acquinas, if we want to bring the dead into it too) is not very conducive. I mean, you wouldn’t do that if the matter was health related and I pointed you to the leading doctors? Or evolution related and I presented you with the best biologists. But the moment it comes to theology, everyone thinks they know things they clearly don’t.
Now, the points you raise. Yes, the OT refers to the Messiah as king numerous times, but that’s clearly not meant as earthly king, but a divine one (as then personified in the example of Jesus).
The Apostle Paul explicitly affirms the legitimacy of secular governments and urges Christians to obey them: “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” (Romans 13:1)
Unlike Old Testament Judaism, which had a detailed legal code (613 commandments), Jesus introduced an internalised morality based on love and conscience:
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment…” (Matthew 5:21-22)
And particularly unlike Judaism, which was linked to Israel as a chosen nation, Christianity is explicitly universal: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28)
So, the case that Christianity - THEOLOGICALLY SPEAKING - is definitely secular, as it makes no demands on earthly politics or governance, is clear.
What Constantine did, for example, has no foundation in the teachings of Christ, whereas what ISIS did was perfectly consistent with the teachings of Muhammad and the Qur’an.
Thank you, it’s a pleasure exchanging ideas with you!
That’s my mistake then, apologies. I assumed your comment about “reading the New Testament once” was meant to be a kind of pithy mic drop. Pleasure engaging with you as well!
I don’t know if I’m missing something, but you seem to be misunderstanding what the word secular means. The Oxford dictionary defines it as “denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.” It is synonymous with the word “nonreligious”. By that definition, saying that any religion (maybe most especially Christianity) is secular is literally an oxymoron.
No, secularism isn’t atheism. Secularism is literally the separation of church and state. It’s mad that this is even a question. America is a secular country. UK isn’t - as the King is head of Church of England.
Here’s the definition (copied and pasted):
Definitions from Oxford Languages
adjective
1.
not connected with religious or spiritual matters.
"secular buildings"
2.
CHRISTIAN CHURCH
(of clergy) not subject to or bound by religious rule; not belonging to or living in a monastic or other order
I’m a bit confused by your reply? I don’t think referring to America or the UK really help your point at all. You just confirmed that your working definition of secularism is “not connected with religious or spiritual matters”. So how can an ORGANIZED RELIGION be disconnected from religious or spiritual matters?
Correct, not connected! As in Church is not connected to the State - which is consistent with Jesus’ teachings. I don’t understand your point about “organised” - can you elaborate? I can organise a football match, does it mean that it’s connected to the state?
Have you read the US constitution? It was written by devout Christians, who maintained that there must be a separation between church and state, meaning that they were (unlike the UK) secularists.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” is a line from the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
What a ridiculous comment. Let me be clearer for the slow class. If you go back to the source documents of the Christian faith you find explicit or tacit support for the separation of church and state. Thus Christians, to be good Christians, do not need to overthrow the secular state. In fact, if they try to do this in the name of Christ without some other compelling reason like major injustice they may be contradicting the teachings of Jesus and St Paul. This does not mean their faith can’t inform their contribution to a secular society. Islam from the Quran onwards does not have a separation of mosque and state. In fact, Muslims are only good Muslims if they work toward a full Islamic state. See The West and Rest by philosopher Roger Scruton who lays this out clearly after exhaustive research.
Address the point of substance. Christianity at its root is conducive to secularism. Islam is not. That is such a profound issue whose our workings we see every day that quibbling about expression is worth neither your time nor mine. If he’s right how to address it? If he’s wrong, show us how. Meanwhile as Christianity fades in the West and religious phenomena like wokeness rise up the question whether a non-religious society is really possible increasingly becomes doubtful.
“as it makes no claims on political power over people (governments, taxations, “earthly” laws etc). “ but this is not what a secular religion is.
You’re conflating secularism and secular religion while arguing I don’t know what I’m talking about. There is no definition of secular religion that would include Christianity, I’ve looked it up and all definitions of the term support what I’ve said.
Secularism:, a worldview or political principle that separates religion from other realms of human existence, often putting greater emphasis on nonreligious aspects of human life or, more specifically, separating religion from the political realm. A precise definition of secularism is difficult to formulate, even for scholars. The Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor, for example, has observed that “it is not entirely clear what is meant by secularism. There are indeed quite different formulae that go under the name.” Its definition is complicated by two sometimes overlapping meanings of secularism in different contexts and by the related terms secular and secularization. Scholars have a general approach to this knotty family of terms. The secular refers to the realm of human affairs outside religion, particularly as a modern way of living in and understanding a supposedly modern world that values individual subjectivity and scientific rationalization. Secularization has to do with a historical process in which religious belief and practice decline. Secularism refers generally to a philosophical worldview that shows indifference toward or rejects religion as a primary basis for understanding and ethics, encapsulating but not identical to atheism. In political contexts, secularism comes in many forms but broadly consists of a modern secular nation-state’s official policies on its relation to and oversight of religion.
History of the secular and secularism
The word secular is derived from the Latin term saeculum, meaning “a generation,” “a human lifetime,” “an era of time,” or “a century.” In its original Christian sense, the word indicated the finite temporal world of mundane daily or political affairs as opposed to Christian religious time and practices filled with the sense of eternity and laden with spiritual significance. The first edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica (1768–71) defined secular as “something that is temporal; in which sense, the word stands opposed to ecclesiastical.” The English thinker and writer George Holyoake in 1851 was the first to use the term secularism to refer to a particular nonreligious civic and ethical philosophy that he intended to lack the negative ethical connotation that atheism carried at the time.
Secular religion:a paradoxical term that refers to belief systems, ideologies, or communities that function like religions but lack supernatural or theistic elements. These can provide meaning, moral frameworks, rituals, and a sense of belonging similar to traditional religions. Examples include:
• Civic Religion – Patriotism, nationalism, and political ideologies (e.g., communism, liberal democracy) can take on religious-like reverence, complete with sacred symbols, texts, and rituals.
• Humanism – A philosophy centered on human reason, ethics, and social justice without reliance on the divine.
• Sports Fandom – Intense devotion to teams, rituals, and collective experiences that mirror religious practices.
I neither have the time nor the interest to read an essay that is primarily sourced from ChatGPT (you should at least have the sense to remove the formatting when you copy and paste).
This is the problem with debating with unintelligent people online; they don’t know anything, but are so adamant they’re right, and they go online to look for sources that confirm their predisposed biases. One of the clearest signs of someone losing a debate is when they start deferring to semantics.
It’s tedious, it’s petulant and it’s a waste of time.
The only reason I used ChatGPT is because the only other common mention of the definition is Wikipedia, you talk about deflecting yet the proof is right there, you don’t know what you’re talking about and you’re relying on “experts” without citation because your knowledge of the subject is weak.
I also used the encyclopedia Brittanica but of course you can’t poo poo that so you pick on GPT like some gotcha.
This is the problem with engaging with ignorant people like you: you source Wikipedia or ChatGPT, to find confirmatory arguments for your predisposed opinions.
You know literally nothing about the topic, as evidenced by your laughable commentary, and you just copy and paste what you think sounds right (even when it debunks your own argument), despite not even reading it.
Unfortunately for you, I have neither the time nor the crayons to teach you. Sorry.
I'm one of those "what, me worry?" Americans with respect to everything but Islam.
What I mean by that is this: American can withstand anything. But one thing:
Islamic immigration into America. Once they get control of one or two states, by which I mean gain enough traction demographically to elect governors and senators, the country is f'd.
Pretty damned much. Islam needs to go through its own Reformation if this constant threat of sociopathic murderers is to be mitigated.
There are numerous passages in Torah and Tanakh about violent punishments. Over time, the rabbinic scholars have interpreted those calls to violence - for example, stoning someone to death for uttering the name of G-d - into avenues of Justice which still maintain a social punishment or a social censure, but which do NOT mean literal stoning to death.
So long as any Islamic scholar still says, "Yup! Kill that asshole if he does not bend his knee to Islam," the evil will persist. Christ, these maniacs kill more Muslims every day than Jews or Christians, although they do their best with the latter groups.
The girls in Iran getting beaten by "the religious police" are Muslims - that does not stop these evil scum from physically assaulting a young woman "because" she is showing an inch of hair or ankle.
Another question: Why Are Western Liberals So Obsessed with defending islam? Why do they always desperately search for any possible argument to justify islam and convince others and themselves that islam is not a worse culture than others? why do you they stubbornly refuse to admit that islam is worse?
Anyway, thank you for this piece, it'is great. I only have a criticism: as fa as I know, muslims migrate to muslim countries, a lot.
This is why Trump - who after Jan 6th should have been dead politically - won in 2024. All of us moderate-centrist-independent types woke up one day and realized the Left was insane. For me - a two time Obama voter - the process was gradual until October 7th; about a week after the scales from my eyes were completely burned away.
Gaza is precisely what the Western left says it hates: a racist, sexist, homophobic, militaristic, anti-Democratic, kleptocratic, dogmatically religious police state of science fictional inequity and oppression. And they love it more than anything in the world. ১১ Abe Greenwald Executive Editor of Commentary Magazine
As I understand Islamic theology there is an allowed repudiation mechanism. Granted my understanding is limited but I continue to try and learn. Nearly 2 billion adherents of the umma is a substantial number of people worldwide who are believers. My concern is with the institutionalized Jew hatred. This is so crazy to me that I struggle daily to understand why. Really I feel so comfortable with Arabs and Arab culture. I see so many similarities between us. I am now old and my hopes for a world where we could all live in peace is nearly over. So why not repudiate the obviously crazy doctrines? Where does preaching hatred ever bring peace? No answers come and I continue to plant Gharqard trees.
I suspect you may be referring to "naskh", or abrogation. The problem is that, this is very specific, in relation to the post-Medina verses in the Qur'an superseding the Mecca verses. That's how they get around the multitude of contradictions.
When Mohammed lived in Mecca, he was just a merchant with no power, so his teachings were benign and peaceful. However, after Medina, he had an army and became a warlord. Then, his teachings became the evil monstrosities we see today.
Thank you and yes that is what I refer to. I am still at the beginning of trying to understand.
Muslims believe that all kuffar, or non-Muslims, will go to Hell. They believe that Allah laid out the path of the righteous life in the sharia. Those who accept Islam and follow its rules have a chance at gaining Paradise when they die, at the pleasure of Allah. Men who die while waging jihad are the only ones guaranteed Paradise. Women if their husbands are pleased with them when they die.
Muhammed imitated Judaism in aspects like facing Jerusalem when they prayed, later Mecca. And in fasting. He invited Jews to accept Islam, but they declined, which made him hate them and kill them. His dying wish was that no Jews be left alive in the hijaz, or anywhere else.
From a Muslim standpoint, killing in jihad is justified because it may frighten surviving kuffar into submitting to Islam and having a chance at saving their souls.
That would be the "Religion of Peace" all right.
Excellent piece. Thank you for writing and posting here!
The moslems are either in the mosque where they tell the truth or in the house of war (every where else) where the requirement is to lie to the infidel. Thou shalt not lie is the judaeo Christian directive. Taqiyya is the moslem directive.
How could it be reformed from within? It follows Allah’s dictates as recorded as literally accurate in the Qur’an and the hadith. His word is law and cannot be changed. So how could anyone change it?
It can't. The only option is to destroy the jihadists, and make Islam as unappealing and unattractive as Nazism is today.
I had an Iranian friend for many years. When we talked about ISIS in August 2014, she said that the Muslim world should be cordoned off, no one from outside goes in, no one from inside comes out. At that time I was shocked and said it could never be done. Now I think it could and should be.
You're wrong. The other option is scriptural and moral evolution, as happened in Judaism. There are number of places in Torah which prescribe death by stoning for offenses. Yet you cannot name a single instance of a halakhic court ruling someone be stoned to death for violating one of the 613 mitzvot. It's because modern Jews over the centuries evolved from the harsh conditions of desert tribal life in which such harsh punishments were common, to a different view of appropriate punishments.
Nothing says Islamic scholars cannot do the same.
Whether it is likely that they will do so or not is an entirely different question.
Christopher, this is the difference between Islam and Judaism: The injunctions you refer to in Leviticus and Deuteronomy for example, were always meant to be temporal, not eternal. This was known even at the time, and if you speak to any scholar, they can explain why.
Islam, on the other hand, isn’t temporal, but meant to be eternal. It is in the texts! So, you’re on the losing side of a theological argument. As I explain in my piece, the sole purpose of Muslims is to follow the example of Muhammad for eternity.
No, I am not on the “losing side” of anything here. I tried to offer you a kind, calming correction.
I have “spoken to many scholars,” thank you and I don’t need your patronizing tone.
There is no difference to the person having a rock thrown at her head whether the impulse motivating the rock thrower is “temporal” or “eternal.” I have no idea what you mean by those purported distinctions as you use them.
Both rock-throwers believe God told them to kill the guilty. Both victims of stoning are equally dead.
And your attempt at logical jujitsu does not explain why Jewish scholars eschewed deliberately prescribed stoning through theological reasoning while many Muslim scholars have not.
You wrote a nice piece, but I am going to take my four years of Islamic History at the University of Chicago and 30+ years working in Shari’ah finance in Muslim countries over your essay.
You say you’ve spoken to scholars, but demonstrate a remarkable degree of ignorance. Let me try and explain:
Even at the times of the first Jewish tribes, it was understood that the laws prescribed in Deuteronomy or Leviticus were only meant to be applied within a very specific time and place, and were never meant to be applied perpetually.
This is childishly simple.
Islam’s laws, on the other hand, were meant to be applied in perpetuity.
And no, there will never be any reformation in Islam.
The problem is that most people think the Christian reformation was about changing anything - it wasn’t! Luther saw how far the Roman Catholic Church had strayed away from the scriptures, and demanded a return to the bible, instead of the bastardisation he saw.
That’s the last thing we want in Islam. But because they believe the Quran was literally narrated to Mohammed by Allah via Gabriel, they consider them infallible.
So, no, you don’t know what you’re talking about and you mentioning your degree couldn’t have impressed me less.
That’s why you’ll never find Jews anywhere in the world advocating for stoning adulterers, for example.
A simple, fuck you would have sufficed.
Fuck you, too.
Muting you now. One more waste of time I have no time for.
It's been at least several millennia since a Jew executed another Jew based on Torah law. It's been at most a day or two since a Muslim executed a Muslim or non-Muslim based on Koran law.
But within Islam it is logical and morally justifiable. Eternal life in Paradise is worth more than this life and infinitely more valuable. Allah has given explicit instructions on how to live life as he has designed it to be lived. All kuffar will go to Hell when they die, as they have not followed the sharia nor submitted to Islam. So killing them in jihad as horribly as possible shocks the survivors and may cause many of them to submit to Islam and, at the will of Allah, attain Paradise. Causes them to respect Islam’s strength. This is the word of Allah, as written in the Qur’an in a book which has sat on a table in Paradise for all eternity. What Muslim scholar could or would challenge the word of Allah or risk being killed as an apostate if he did? Islam has no concept of human rights, certainly not kuffar rights.
The only answer is just to renounce Islam, discreetly for those living in Muslim countries. It will happen, but I don’t know how soon.
That is one answer.
Another answer is for some Muslims to say, "Humans are imperfect. Even if the Word of God was transmitted to humans, it was delivered through imperfect human intermediaries and those hearing that Word are also imperfect, so even if Muhammed (PBUH) was absolutely perfect, those of us hearing what he prophesied are not. Therefore, we must use our G-d-given logical reasoning faculties and place the Revelation in historical context. After that Revelation, we have things like satellites and encounters with dozens of other cultures and those cultures believe different things, but they seem to raise good children, so perhaps we can show some fucking humility and take a step back to view some more savage passages of our holy scriptures as being more metaphorical or allegorical in nature. Because surely G-d doesn't want me to be a good person by strangling Kfir and Ariel Bibas - two very little boys who have no way of defending themselves. And if it turns out that my G-d does indeed want me to strangle two little boys to death in front of their screaming mother, then maybe we got a revelation from a fucking demon instead of G-d."
It is THAT failure to act like vaguely civilized people instead of psychotic, sociopathic mass murderers that is the problem.
If the quran is the final, eternal unchanging word of god, that rather seems to limit the options for islam evolving in any direction.
Your studies were wasted. Your understanding of islam is laughably deficient and your kind corrections are not desired.
Well Christopher, I'll take Bernard Lewis over you. And he agrees that followers of Islam admit and some follow, that whatever was allowable in the time of Mohammad is allowable today. Sorry but I dont know what you learned at the university of Chicago, but if it didn't include this they failed you.
One more asshole who does not share his name when spouting off. Two followers, no posts, snarky comments = ignorable dipshit. I don't give a fuck if you'll "take Bernard over [me]," whatever you think you mean by that. I've read all of Lewis. Go fuck yourself. Muting you.
After 9/11 I read Nostradamus, the book of revelations And the Quran.
When I read the Quran I realized that if I believed this book to be from God I would have to follow Bin Laden, Isis, Hamas and any so called "extremist" who simply is using the Quran as a guide to live by. When people day islam is a peaceful religion I ask if they've read the Quran and they say no, ahich days jt all.
Wow, I can’t believe Mehdi Hasan was lying to me all this time!
I always appreciate your pieces for their clarity and insight. Thank you very much.
Means a lot, Ari! Thank you! 💚
Why people choose to defend Islam is an open question. However, everyone should be able to answer exactly what Islam is and understand why it does not deserve protected status from the host populations it seeks to annihilate. I speak here of the doctrine—people can believe whatever they want, of course. But granting charitable status, permitting Islamic finance, halal marketing, sharia councils, and much more is nothing short of begging to become an Islamic state.
Your readers might be interested in this article, and hopefully share it with their elected representatives. The UK is out of time and Canada is not far behind.
Why Islam is NOT a Religion: https://perspectivesonislam.substack.com/p/islam-is-not-a-religion
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/16GLedrCTe/?mibextid=wwXIfr
🤣🤣🤣 THE GOAT!!!
Brilliant explanation of the underlying philosophical conflict in Islam.
“Unlike Christianity, which is inherently a secular religion” huh? Lol
Before you respond like a petulant adolescent, speak to a theologian. I suggest William Lane Craig or John Lennox on the subject. Might stop you from making you from making a fool of yourself next time?
Lol don’t really care what they say. The very definition of the word means it can’t be secular, notwithstanding the failings of its practitioners.
If you found the response petulant your skin must be onion peel thin. I’ll do myself the favor of taking my subscription back ✌🏿.
It’s alright, I don’t want ignoramuses to follow me anyway. Someone who doesn’t even know what secularism means; separation of church and state. Christianity makes it crystal clear - evidenced from the writings of Acquinas to today - that it’s to be separate from the laws of man. But then again, you admit that you are too committed to your ignorance to want to learn about it from those who know what they’re talking about, so I’m not surprised. Bye 👋
Hi! Well you need to dig in a tad more honey! You seem like a parrot repeating what X and Y have said! Evolution does exist ok! Have a look a the Talmud and you’ll understand! Look at Stalinism and other political secular systems and if you are endowed with some brains you’l get it ! Give time to time and let the moslim come to the conclusion that they’ll will at some point have to adjust …mind you that it’s already the case. Didn’t it take the western civilization ages to become what it is …today 😁
Tell me how many women should be enslaved in the meantime? How many little children blown up in Ariana Grande concerts, or stabbed in Taylor Swift dance classes? How many cartoonist beheaded? How many young girls raped and enslaved? How much paedophilia in Afghanistan and Iraq, where they’ve lowered the age of marriage for girls to 9 (aligned with Mohammed marrying Alisha when she was 6, and raping her when she was 9 and he 54).
How many countries staying in the Bronze Age, while the rest of the world develops and innovates?
For someone so smug, you clearly haven’t thought about the consequences of your position one bit.
The tell me about anaphora is absolutely ridiculous !! Look around you and be intellectually honest for one second hopefully you’ll see the light! You are lecturing me about innovation and development and human rights and bla bla bla as if no children are being decapitated elsewhere based on religion you know what I mean …everybody has been witnessing the horrors taking place in the Middle East, Ukraine, Russia, Democratic Republic of Congo to mention a few ….Let’s do some history have you ever read about the Crusaders and the horrors they have committed ? Read about Godfrey of Bouillon and I’m sure you’ll sleep a little smarter !!!
Sorry for my English because I’m French
Ah by the way, the French invented the concept of Laïcité 😅 Should Read about it too … you know being intellectually honest means calling out all crimes and human rights abuses, without limiting them to one group of people and cherry pick what to denounce. This is called being intellectually dishonest. But I must admit, some Muslims have committed atrocities, and some capitalists have committed genocide and are even supporting another one today overtly based on religious precepts !
Selective outrage is hypocrisy !
Christianity makes it clear it’s to be separate from the laws of man so how then can it be a secular religion when the entire basis of the religion is that it is based on the supernatural.
Acts 5:29 - Peter calls the apostles to choose God over the laws of man
Daniel 3:18 - S.M.A refuse to worship the Babylonian gods above God
Jesus frequently admonished the Pharisees exactly for treating the religious as secular Matthew 23:23
Not going to go back and forth with the insults but I’d encourage you to have some humility. There was no need for this to escalate past a civil disagreement.
No one is denying that Christianity is a religion and contains lots of supernatural stuff. What does that have to do with secularism? You seem to think secularism is synonymous with atheism or naturalism. It’s not. Secularism is the separation of church and state. The founding fathers of America were most very religious, but they established the separation in the constitution.
I mean come on, this isn’t hard.
Im not debating secularism, no do I disagree with the definition. I also do not think it is synonymous with atheism (?!)
In the essay you claim Christianity is a secular religion, an idea backed by theologians correct?
I disagree. I don’t think it can be classified as such because I think the classification has more to do with Christians and their application of Christianity than it does the text or doctrines.
That most Christian’s choose a chipotle version of Christianity shouldn’t detract from the fact that it is a religion that holds God/Jesus central not good deeds, morality, history or rituals.
Yes those are all a part of Christianity but quite literally salvation for Christians comes through faith in Jesus and heeding his teachings, so how can it be a secular religion when it’s ethos is the supernatural?
Well I've just subscribed, so do the math
Also, just because Christian theologians say that Christianity is “secular” doesn’t mean that it is. Muslim theologians would contest many of the points you make in this post. Does that mean we should “trust their expertise” on Islam over yours?
First of all, find me a Muslim theologian who disputes what I write, and we can have the argument then.
Secondly, I wouldn’t discard the works of people whose entire life is devoted to studying the subject, just because it’s inconvenient to you.
Thirdly, do you know what the Martin Luther reformation was all about? The 95 thesis? It was all about how the Catholic Church had strayed away from the teachings of the Bible.
Jesus makes it abundantly clear - in Mark and John 18:36, for example - that his enterprise is about the personal relationship between the fallen man and god, not of temporal laws from the state. Honestly, just read the New Testament once.
I think now you’re the one who’s petulant lol, I was raised Christian and know the New Testament very well. If you can’t keep your tone respectful then I’m just going to stop engaging with you because ironically you’re displaying the same intolerance to respectfully posited opposing viewpoints that you decry in your post.
I’m not discarding any of the theologians you mentioned, but you can’t just say their names and not re-articulate their arguments and expect that to stand for evidence.
In the Old Testament, the Messiah is called the “King of Israel” (Psalm 2:2–7). There are all kinds of prophecies and epithets Jesus is given relating to kingship.
The book of Revelation literally has a period of 1000 years where Jesus and those who choose to follow him rule over and judge the Earth.
I objected to your point about Christianity being secular not because I’m not familiar with the essence of the religion, but precisely because I am.
I’m sorry, but where was I petulant or disrespectful? It’s late here, so if that’s how I came across, I assure you it wasn’t intended. But your casual dismissal of the greatest living theologians (I can go back to Acquinas, if we want to bring the dead into it too) is not very conducive. I mean, you wouldn’t do that if the matter was health related and I pointed you to the leading doctors? Or evolution related and I presented you with the best biologists. But the moment it comes to theology, everyone thinks they know things they clearly don’t.
Now, the points you raise. Yes, the OT refers to the Messiah as king numerous times, but that’s clearly not meant as earthly king, but a divine one (as then personified in the example of Jesus).
The Apostle Paul explicitly affirms the legitimacy of secular governments and urges Christians to obey them: “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” (Romans 13:1)
Unlike Old Testament Judaism, which had a detailed legal code (613 commandments), Jesus introduced an internalised morality based on love and conscience:
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment…” (Matthew 5:21-22)
And particularly unlike Judaism, which was linked to Israel as a chosen nation, Christianity is explicitly universal: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28)
So, the case that Christianity - THEOLOGICALLY SPEAKING - is definitely secular, as it makes no demands on earthly politics or governance, is clear.
What Constantine did, for example, has no foundation in the teachings of Christ, whereas what ISIS did was perfectly consistent with the teachings of Muhammad and the Qur’an.
Thank you, it’s a pleasure exchanging ideas with you!
That’s my mistake then, apologies. I assumed your comment about “reading the New Testament once” was meant to be a kind of pithy mic drop. Pleasure engaging with you as well!
Ok essay but good grief what a thin-skinned petulant and nasty author.
I don’t know if I’m missing something, but you seem to be misunderstanding what the word secular means. The Oxford dictionary defines it as “denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.” It is synonymous with the word “nonreligious”. By that definition, saying that any religion (maybe most especially Christianity) is secular is literally an oxymoron.
No, secularism isn’t atheism. Secularism is literally the separation of church and state. It’s mad that this is even a question. America is a secular country. UK isn’t - as the King is head of Church of England.
Here’s the definition (copied and pasted):
Definitions from Oxford Languages
adjective
1.
not connected with religious or spiritual matters.
"secular buildings"
2.
CHRISTIAN CHURCH
(of clergy) not subject to or bound by religious rule; not belonging to or living in a monastic or other order
I’m a bit confused by your reply? I don’t think referring to America or the UK really help your point at all. You just confirmed that your working definition of secularism is “not connected with religious or spiritual matters”. So how can an ORGANIZED RELIGION be disconnected from religious or spiritual matters?
Correct, not connected! As in Church is not connected to the State - which is consistent with Jesus’ teachings. I don’t understand your point about “organised” - can you elaborate? I can organise a football match, does it mean that it’s connected to the state?
Have you read the US constitution? It was written by devout Christians, who maintained that there must be a separation between church and state, meaning that they were (unlike the UK) secularists.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” is a line from the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The establishment clause is not the same as separation of C and state; just a quibble. Not necessarily discounting your thesis.....
Are you really that brittle? LMFAO typical Zionist crybully.
What a ridiculous comment. Let me be clearer for the slow class. If you go back to the source documents of the Christian faith you find explicit or tacit support for the separation of church and state. Thus Christians, to be good Christians, do not need to overthrow the secular state. In fact, if they try to do this in the name of Christ without some other compelling reason like major injustice they may be contradicting the teachings of Jesus and St Paul. This does not mean their faith can’t inform their contribution to a secular society. Islam from the Quran onwards does not have a separation of mosque and state. In fact, Muslims are only good Muslims if they work toward a full Islamic state. See The West and Rest by philosopher Roger Scruton who lays this out clearly after exhaustive research.
Straw man. You’re asserting that the definition of “secular” is “doesn’t attempt to overthrow the secular state”.
The author screwed up in an otherwise good essay and when challenged he threw a hissy fit rather than showing any grace. Why defend him?
Address the point of substance. Christianity at its root is conducive to secularism. Islam is not. That is such a profound issue whose our workings we see every day that quibbling about expression is worth neither your time nor mine. If he’s right how to address it? If he’s wrong, show us how. Meanwhile as Christianity fades in the West and religious phenomena like wokeness rise up the question whether a non-religious society is really possible increasingly becomes doubtful.
“as it makes no claims on political power over people (governments, taxations, “earthly” laws etc). “ but this is not what a secular religion is.
You’re conflating secularism and secular religion while arguing I don’t know what I’m talking about. There is no definition of secular religion that would include Christianity, I’ve looked it up and all definitions of the term support what I’ve said.
Secularism:, a worldview or political principle that separates religion from other realms of human existence, often putting greater emphasis on nonreligious aspects of human life or, more specifically, separating religion from the political realm. A precise definition of secularism is difficult to formulate, even for scholars. The Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor, for example, has observed that “it is not entirely clear what is meant by secularism. There are indeed quite different formulae that go under the name.” Its definition is complicated by two sometimes overlapping meanings of secularism in different contexts and by the related terms secular and secularization. Scholars have a general approach to this knotty family of terms. The secular refers to the realm of human affairs outside religion, particularly as a modern way of living in and understanding a supposedly modern world that values individual subjectivity and scientific rationalization. Secularization has to do with a historical process in which religious belief and practice decline. Secularism refers generally to a philosophical worldview that shows indifference toward or rejects religion as a primary basis for understanding and ethics, encapsulating but not identical to atheism. In political contexts, secularism comes in many forms but broadly consists of a modern secular nation-state’s official policies on its relation to and oversight of religion.
History of the secular and secularism
The word secular is derived from the Latin term saeculum, meaning “a generation,” “a human lifetime,” “an era of time,” or “a century.” In its original Christian sense, the word indicated the finite temporal world of mundane daily or political affairs as opposed to Christian religious time and practices filled with the sense of eternity and laden with spiritual significance. The first edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica (1768–71) defined secular as “something that is temporal; in which sense, the word stands opposed to ecclesiastical.” The English thinker and writer George Holyoake in 1851 was the first to use the term secularism to refer to a particular nonreligious civic and ethical philosophy that he intended to lack the negative ethical connotation that atheism carried at the time.
Secular religion:a paradoxical term that refers to belief systems, ideologies, or communities that function like religions but lack supernatural or theistic elements. These can provide meaning, moral frameworks, rituals, and a sense of belonging similar to traditional religions. Examples include:
• Civic Religion – Patriotism, nationalism, and political ideologies (e.g., communism, liberal democracy) can take on religious-like reverence, complete with sacred symbols, texts, and rituals.
• Humanism – A philosophy centered on human reason, ethics, and social justice without reliance on the divine.
• Sports Fandom – Intense devotion to teams, rituals, and collective experiences that mirror religious practices.
I neither have the time nor the interest to read an essay that is primarily sourced from ChatGPT (you should at least have the sense to remove the formatting when you copy and paste).
This is the problem with debating with unintelligent people online; they don’t know anything, but are so adamant they’re right, and they go online to look for sources that confirm their predisposed biases. One of the clearest signs of someone losing a debate is when they start deferring to semantics.
It’s tedious, it’s petulant and it’s a waste of time.
The only reason I used ChatGPT is because the only other common mention of the definition is Wikipedia, you talk about deflecting yet the proof is right there, you don’t know what you’re talking about and you’re relying on “experts” without citation because your knowledge of the subject is weak.
I also used the encyclopedia Brittanica but of course you can’t poo poo that so you pick on GPT like some gotcha.
You can call it whatever you want,
This is the problem with engaging with ignorant people like you: you source Wikipedia or ChatGPT, to find confirmatory arguments for your predisposed opinions.
You know literally nothing about the topic, as evidenced by your laughable commentary, and you just copy and paste what you think sounds right (even when it debunks your own argument), despite not even reading it.
Unfortunately for you, I have neither the time nor the crayons to teach you. Sorry.
I'm one of those "what, me worry?" Americans with respect to everything but Islam.
What I mean by that is this: American can withstand anything. But one thing:
Islamic immigration into America. Once they get control of one or two states, by which I mean gain enough traction demographically to elect governors and senators, the country is f'd.
They already had enough votes to swing a swing state this time around.
No they didn't.
Michigan? The candidates definitely acted like they had the votes to swing Michigan.
Pretty damned much. Islam needs to go through its own Reformation if this constant threat of sociopathic murderers is to be mitigated.
There are numerous passages in Torah and Tanakh about violent punishments. Over time, the rabbinic scholars have interpreted those calls to violence - for example, stoning someone to death for uttering the name of G-d - into avenues of Justice which still maintain a social punishment or a social censure, but which do NOT mean literal stoning to death.
So long as any Islamic scholar still says, "Yup! Kill that asshole if he does not bend his knee to Islam," the evil will persist. Christ, these maniacs kill more Muslims every day than Jews or Christians, although they do their best with the latter groups.
The girls in Iran getting beaten by "the religious police" are Muslims - that does not stop these evil scum from physically assaulting a young woman "because" she is showing an inch of hair or ankle.
Another question: Why Are Western Liberals So Obsessed with defending islam? Why do they always desperately search for any possible argument to justify islam and convince others and themselves that islam is not a worse culture than others? why do you they stubbornly refuse to admit that islam is worse?
Anyway, thank you for this piece, it'is great. I only have a criticism: as fa as I know, muslims migrate to muslim countries, a lot.
This is why Trump - who after Jan 6th should have been dead politically - won in 2024. All of us moderate-centrist-independent types woke up one day and realized the Left was insane. For me - a two time Obama voter - the process was gradual until October 7th; about a week after the scales from my eyes were completely burned away.