Foreword: almost exactly two years ago I wrote a column entitled “Deconstructing Islamophobia“. Yesterday, I posted an article about immigration which, alas, generated a few truly idiotic comments about “The Muslims they… bla bla bla” which I initially planned to reply to, but which I simply deleted in utter disgust. Here I need to clarify, I was not disgusted by anybody’s dislike (or even hatred) for Islam or Muslims, not at all, I was disgusted by the utter stupidity of the “arguments” invoked. So I decided that before writing my next column about issues of immigration, I would repost my “Deconstructing Islamophobia” as a reply to all those who believe that ignorant hatred is a form of piety. On a more personal note, I am particularly ashamed when I see some (not all, thank God!) of my fellow Orthodox Christians parrot exactly the lines which the National-Zionists want to inject into our collective minds. These are the type of folks which can’t even understand the truisms I listed yesterday, including these two truly basic ones:
- Being FROM a Christian/Muslim country and actually BEING Christian/Muslim are two totally different propositions and the former does not in any way imply the latter.
- To be considered as an adherent of religion X requires, at the minimum, a) being aware of its main teachings and b) living your daily life in according to at least the main precepts of this religion.
So, especially for (some of) my fellow Orthodox Christians, I will add this: how would you like it if some Muslim, Buddhist or Judaic blamed the Orthodox Church for the Papacy’s Inquisition or Crusades, or blamed Orthodoxy for the actions of Cromwell in Ireland? And if you began protesting the ludicrous nature of such accusations, your accuser would reply “the Christians they… bla bla bla“! You would be pretty disgusted, wouldn’t you? So you want the non-Orthodox to understand how different our faith is from the Papacy or Cromwell’s Puritanism and their innumerable crimes, yet you steadfastly refuse to even admit that the Muslim world is at least as diverse as the Christian one, and has been so during its entire history!
But hey – Who needs education and knowledge when hatred and bigotry are seen as acceptable, even pious, substitutes, right?!
Well, I want to you know that I am personally ashamed of this bigotry masquerading a piety and while in the current prevailing political doxa most people will side with you, I shall never, no matter what labels (crypto-Muslim being the kindest I saw) you place upon me. And please remember that: I reject your theses not because I defend Islam or Muslim, but because you are ignorant bigots.
With that out of the way, I invite the rest of my readers to (re-)discover my two year old analysis.
Introduction: a short survey of the cuckoo’s nest
My initial idea was to begin with a definition of “Islamophobia” but after looking around for various definitions, I decided to use my own, very primitive definition. I will define Islamophobia as the belief that Islam (the religion) and/or Muslims (the adherents to this religion) represent some kind of more or less coherent whole which is a threat to the West. These are two distinct arguments rolled up into one: the first part claims that Islam (the religion) represents some kind of threat to the West while the second part claims that the people who embrace Islam (Muslims) also represent some kind of threat to the West. Furthermore, this argument makes two crucial assumptions:
- there is such thing out there as a (conceptually sufficient) unitary Islam
- there are such people with (conceptually sufficient) common characteristics due to their adherence to Islam
Next, let’s summarize the “evidence” typically presented in support of this thesis:
- The god of Islam is not the same god as the God of Christianity
- The Muslim world was created by the sword
- The Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, was an evil person
- Islam is incompatible with western democracy and represents a threat to what are referred to as “values” in the modern day West
- Muslims have treated Christians horribly in many different historical instances
- Muslims often turn to terrorism and commit atrocities
- Islam is socially regressive and seeks to impose medieval values on a modern world
There are more such as these, but these, I believe, are the main ones.
What is crucial here is to point out that this evidence relies both on theological arguments (#1 #4 #7), and historical arguments (#2 #3 #5 #6).
Finally, there is a most interesting phenomenon which, for the time being, we shall note, but only discuss later: the legacy corporate Ziomedia on one hand denounces Islamophobia as a form of “racism” but yet, at the same time, the very same circles which denounce Islamophobia are also the ones which oppose all manifestations of real traditional Islam. This strongly suggests that the study of this apparent paradox can, if carefully analyzed, yield some most interesting results, but more about that later.
Of course, all of the above is sort of a “bird’s eye” view of Islamophobia in the West. Once we go down to the average Joe Sixpack level, all of the above is fused into one “forceful” slogan as this one:
This kind of crude fearmongering is targeted at the folks who don’t realize that the USA is not “America” and who, therefore, probably don’t have the foggiest notion of what Sharia law is or how it is adjudicated by Islamic courts.
[I have lived in the USA for a total of 22 years and have observed something very interesting: there is a unique mix of ignorance and fear which, in the USA, is perceived as “patriotic”. A good example of this kind of “patriotism through ignorance” is in the famous song “Where Were You When the World Stopped Turning” by Alan Jackson which includes the following words: “I watch CNN but I’m not sure I can tell you the difference in Iraq and Iran, but I know Jesus and I talk to God“. Truth be told, the same song also asked in reference to 9/11 “Did you burst out with pride for the red, white and blue?“. Why exactly the massacre of 9/11 should elicit patriotic pride is explained as follows “And the heroes who died just doin’ what they do?“. Thus when the “United American Committee” declares that Sharia law is a threat to “America” the folks raised in this culture of fear and patriotism immediately “get it”. David Rovics hilariously described this mindset in his song “Evening News” where he says: “Evil men are plotting, to blow up Washington, DC, ’cause they don’t like freedom and democracy, they’re fans of the Dark Ages, they are all around, they’re marching from the desert sands, and coming to your town“. I have had the fortune of visiting all the continents of our planet (except Oceania) and I can vouch that this blend of fear+patriotic fervor is something uniquely, well, not “American” but “USAnian”.]
Having quickly surveyed the Islamophobic mental scenery, we can now turn to a logical analysis of the so-called arguments of the Islamophobes.
Deconstructing the phobia’s assumptions: a unitary Islam
Let’s take the arguments one by one beginning with the argument of a unitary Islam.
Most of us are at least vaguely aware that there are different Islamic movements/schools/traditions in different countries. We have heard of Shias and Sunni, some have also heard about Alawites or Sufism. Some will even go so far as remembering that Muslim countries can be at war with each other, and that some Muslims (the Takfiris) only dream about killing as many other Muslims (who, obviously, don’t share the exact same beliefs) and that, in fact, movements like al-Qaeda, ISIS, etc have murdered other Muslims in huge numbers. So the empirical evidence strongly suggest that this notion of a Muslim or Islamic unity is factually simply wrong.
Furthermore, we need to ask the obvious question: what *is* Islam?
Now, contrary to the hallucinations of some especially dull individuals, I am not a Muslim. So what follows is my own, possibly mistaken, understanding of what “core Islam” is. It is the acceptance of the following formula “There is no god but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God” or “lā ʾilāha ʾillā llāh muḥammadun rasūlu llā“. Note that “Allah” is not a name, it is the word “God” and “rasul” can be translated as “prophet”. There are also the so-called Five Pillars of Islam:
- The Shahada or profession of faith “There is no god but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God“
- The Salat or a specific set of daily prayers
- The Zakat or alms giving
- The Sawm or fasting
- The Hadjj or pilgrimage to Mecca
That’s it! A person who fully embraces these five pillars is considered a Muslim. Or at least, so it would appear. The reality is, of course, much more complex. For the time being, I will just note that in this “core Islam” there is absolutely nothing, nothing at all, which could serve as evidence for any of the Islamophobic theories. Yes, yes, I know, I can already hear the Islamophobes’ objections: you are ignoring all the bad stuff in the Quran, you are ignoring all the bad stuff about spreading Islam by the sword, you are ignoring all the bad things Muhammad did in his life, you are ignoring the many local traditions and all the normative examples of the tradition (Sunnah and it’s Hadiths). Yeah, except you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say:
- Islam is inherently evil/dangerous AND
- use local/idiosyncratic beliefs and actions to prove your point!
If Islam by itself is dangerous, then it has to be dangerous everywhere it shows up, irrespective of the region, people, time in history or anything else.
If we say that sometimes Islam is dangerous and sometimes it is not, then what we need to look into is not the core elements of the Islamic faith, but instead we need to identify those circumstances in which Islam was not a threat to anybody and those circumstances when Islam was a threat to others.
Furthermore, if your argument is really based on the thesis that Islam is evil always and everywhere, then to prove it wrong all I need to do is find one, just ONE, example where Muslims and non-Muslims have lived in peace together for some period of time.
[Sidebar: while I was working on my Master’s Degree in Strategic Studies I had the fortune of having the possibility to take a couple of courses outside my field of specialization and I decided to take the most “exotic” course I could find in SAIS‘ curriculum and I chose a course on Sharia law. This was an excellent decision which I never regretted. Not only was the course fascinating, I had the chance of writing a term paper on the topic “The comparative status of Orthodox Christians in history under Muslim and Latin rule“. My first, and extremely predictable, finding was that treatment of Orthodox Christians by Muslim rulers ranged from absolutely horrible and even genocidal to very peaceful and kind. Considering the long time period considered (14 centuries) and the immense geographical realm covered (our entire planet from Morocco to Indonesia and from Russia to South Africa), this is hardly surprising. The core beliefs of Islam might be simple, but humans are immensely complicated beings who always end up either adding a local tradition or, at least, defending one specific interpretation of Islam. My second finding was much more shocking: on average the status of Orthodox Christians under the Papacy was much worse than under Muslim rule. Again, I am not comparing the status of Orthodox Serbs under Ottoman rule with the status of Orthodox Christians in modern Italy. These are extreme examples. But I do claim that there is sort of a conceptual linear regression which strongly suggests to us that there is a predictive (linear) model which can be used to make predictions and that the most obvious lesson of history is that the absolute worst thing which can happen to Orthodox Christians is to fall under their so-called “Christian brothers” of the West. A few exceptions here and there do not significantly affect this model. I encourage everybody to take the time to really study the different types of Muslim rulers in history, if only to appreciate how much diversity you will find].
Deconstructing the phobia’s assumptions: the “Muslim god” vs the “Christian God”
This is just about the silliest anti-Muslim argument I have ever heard and it come from folks inhabiting the far left side of a Bell Curve. It goes something like this:
We, Christians, have our true God as God, whereas the Muslims have Allah, which is not the God of the Christians. Thus, we worship different gods.
Of course, the existence of various gods or one, single, God does not depend on who believes in Him or who worships Him. If we can agree on the notion that God is He Who created all of Creation, and if we agree that both Christians (all denominations) and Muslims (all schools) believe that they are worshiping that God then, since there is only one real/existing God, we do worship the same God simply because there are not “other” gods.
I wonder what those who say that “Muslims worship another god” think when they read the following words of Saint Paul to the Athenian pagans: “For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To The Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you” (Acts 17:23). What Saint Paul told them is that they ignorantly worship a god whom, in spite of that ignorant worship, Saint Paul declared to them. I submit that “ignorant worship” is not an insult, but a diagnosis of heterodoxy, and that such an “ignorant worship” can nonetheless be sincere.
The issue is not WHOM we worship, but HOW we worship (in terms of both praxis and doxa).
And yes, here the differences between Christians and Muslims are huge indeed.
In my 2013 article “Russia and Islam, part eight: working together, a basic “how-to”” I discussed the immense importance of these differences and how we ought to deal with them. I wrote:
The highest most sacred dogmatic formulation of Christianity is the so-called “Credo” or “Symbol of Faith” (full text here; more info here). Literally every letter down to the smallest ‘i‘ of this text is, from the Christian point of view, the most sacred and perfect dogmatic formulation, backed by the full authority of the two Ecumenical Councils which proclaimed it and all the subsequent Councils which upheld it. In simple terms – the Symbol of Faith is absolutely non-negotiable, non-re-definable, non-re-interpretable, you cannot take anything away from it, and you cannot add anything to it. You can either accept it as is, in toto, or reject it.
The fact is that Muslims would have many problems with this text, but one part in particular is absolutely unacceptable to any Muslim:
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made
This part clearly and unambiguously affirms that Jesus-Christ was not only the Son of God but actually God Himself. This is expressed by the English formulation “of one essence with the Father” (ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί in Greek with the key term homousios meaning “consubstantial”). This is *THE* core belief of Christianity: that Jesus was the the anthropos, the God-Man or God incarnate. This belief is categorically unacceptable to Islam which says that Christ was a prophet and by essence a ‘normal’ human being.
For Islam, the very definition of what it is to be a Muslim is found in the so-called “Shahada” or testimony/witness. This is the famous statement by which a Muslim attests and proclaims that “There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God”. One can often also hear this phrased as “There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is His prophet”.
Now without even going into the issue of whether Christians can agree or not that “Allah” is the appropriate name for God (some do, some don’t – this is really irrelevant here), it’s the second part which is crucial here: Christianity does not recognize Muhammad as a prophet at all. In fact, technically speaking, Christianity would most likely classify Muhammad as a heretic (if only because of his rejection of the “Symbol of Faith”). Saint John of Damascus even called him a ‘false prophet’. Simply put: there is no way a Christian can accept the “Shahada” without giving up his Christianity just as there is no way for a Muslim to accept the “Symbol of Faith” without giving up his Islam.
So why bother?
Would it not make much more sense to accept that there are fundamental and irreconcilable differences between Christianity and Islam and simply give up all that useless quest for points of theological agreement? Who cares if we agree on the secondary if we categorically disagree on the primary? I am all in favor of Christians studying Islam and for Muslims studying Christianity (in fact, I urge them both to do so!), and I think that it is important that the faithful of these religions talk to each other and explain their points of view as long as this is not presented as some kind of quest for a common theological stance. Differences should be studied and explained, not obfuscated, minimized or overlooked.
Bottom line is this: it is PRECISELY because Islam and Christianity are completely incompatible theologically (and even mutually exclusive!) that there is no natural enmity between these two religions unless, of course, some Christian or Muslim decides that he has to use force to promote this religion. And let’s be honest, taken as a whole Christianity’s record on forced conversions and assorted atrocities is at least as bad as Islam’s, or even worse. Of course, if we remove the Papacy from the overall Christian record, things looks better. If then we also remove the kind of imperialism Reformed countries engaged in, it looks even better. But even Orthodox rulers have, on occasion, resorted to forceful conversions and mass murder of others.
And here, just as in Islam, we notice that Christians also did not always spread their faith by love and compassion, especially once Christian rulers came to power in powerful empires or nations.
Deconstructing the phobia’s assumptions: Islam was spread by the sword
In reality the “Islam spread by the sword” is a total canard, at least when we hear it from folks who defend “democracy” but who stubbornly refuse to concede that 1) most democracies came to power by means of violent revolutions and that 2) just a look at a newspaper today (at least a non-western newspaper) will tell you that democracy is STILL spread by the sword. As for the USA as country, it was built on by far the biggest bloodbath in history. If anything, Sharia law and Islam could teach a great deal to the country which:
- spends more on aggression than the rest of the world combined
- has the highest percentage of people incarcerated (and most of these for non-violent crimes)
- whose entire economy is based on the military-industrial complex
- and who is engaged in more simultaneous wars of choice than any other country in history
So “Sharia Law Threatens America” is a lie. And this is the truth:
Was Islam really spread by the sword?
Maybe. But anybody making that claim better make darn sure that his/her religion, country or ideology has a much better record. If not, then this is pure hypocrisy!
Finally, I will also note that Christ said “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence” (John 18:36). In contrast, the Prophet of Islam established the first Islamic state in Medina. So when we compare Muhammad’s actions to Christ, a better comparison should be with the various Christian rulers (including Byzantine ones) and we will soon find out that the Christian Roman Empire also used the sword on many occasions.
Deconstructing the phobia’s assumptions: the Prophet of Islam was a bad man
You must have all sorts of stories about how the Prophet Muhammad did things we would disapprove of. I won’t list them here simply because the list of grievances is a little different in each case. I actually researched some of these accusations (about marrying young girls, or sentencing people to death for example) and in each case, there is a very solid Muslim defense of these incidents which is almost always ignored and which provides a crucial context to, at least, the better understanding of the incident discussed.
Since I am not a historian or a biographer of the Prophet Muhammad I don’t have any personal opinion on these accusations other than stating the obvious: I am not a Muslim and I don’t have to decide whether Muhammad was a sinful man or a infallible person (that is a purely theological argument). I will simply say that this ad hominem is only relevant to the degree that some Muslims would consider each action of their prophet as normative and not historical. Furthermore, even if they would consider each action of their prophet as normative, we need to recall here that we are dealing with a prophet, not a God-Man, and that therefore the comparison ought not to be made with Christ, whom Christians believe to be 100% sinless, but with a Christian prophet, say Moses, whom no real Christian will ever declare sinless or infallible. As for the Quran, let’s not compare it to just the New Testament but to all the books of the Bible taken together, including those who were eventually re-interpreted by the new religion of (some) Jews after the fall of Jerusalem: rabbinical/Phariseic Talmudism which found plenty of passages in its (deliberately falsified) “Masoretic” text of the Old Testament “Tanakh” (please see here if you don’t know what falsification I am referring to).
Finally, NO religious text worth anything is self-explanatory or “explains itself” by means of comparing passages. This is also why all major religions have a large corpus of texts which explain, interpret, expand upon and otherwise give the (deceptively simple looking) text its real, profound, meaning. Furthermore, most major religions also have a rich oral tradition which also sheds light on written religious documents. Whatever may be the case, simply declaring that “Islam is a threat” because we don’t approve of the actions of the founder of Islam is simply silly. The next accusation is much more material:
Deconstructing the phobia’s assumptions:Islam is incompatible with democracy
That is by far the most interesting argument and one which many Muslims would agree with! Of course, it all depends on what you mean by “democracy”. Let me immediately concede that if by “democracy” you mean this:
Then, indeed, Islam is incompatible with modern western democracy. But so is (real) Christianity!
So the so-called “West” has to decide what its core values are. If Conchita Wurst is an embodiment of “democracy” then Islam and Christianity are both equally incompatible with it. Orthodox Christianity, for sure, has not caved in to the homo-lobby in the same way most western Christian denominations have.
But if by “democracy” we don’t mean “gay pride” parades but rather true pluralism, true people-power, and the real sovereignty of the people, then what I call “core Islam” is not threat to democracy at all. None. However, there is also no doubt about two truisms:
- Some Muslim states are profoundly reactionary and freedom crushing
- Traditional Islam is incompatible with many modern “western values”
Still, it is also very easy to counter these truism with the following replies
- Some Muslim states are pluralistic, progressive and defend the oppressed (Muslim or not)
- Traditional Christianity is incompatible with modern “western values”
Again, Iran is, in my opinion, the perfect illustration of a pluralistic (truly diverse!), progressive and freedom defending Muslim state. I simply don’t have the time and place to go into a detailed discussion of the polity of Iran (I might have to do that in a future article), and for the time being I will point you to the hyper-pro-Zionist Wikipedia article (which nobody will suspect of being pro-Muslim or pro-Iranian) about the “Politics of Iran” which will show you two things: Iran is an “Islamic Republic” meaning that it is a republic, yes, but one which has Islam as its supreme law. There is absolutely nothing inherently less democratic about a Islamic republic which has a religion as its supreme law than a atheistic/secular republic which has a constitution as its supreme law. In fact, some countries don’t even have a constitution (the UK and Israel come to mind). As for the Iranian polity, it has a very interesting system of checks and balances which a lot of countries would do well to emulate (Russia for starters).
As for modern “western values”, they are completely incompatible with Christianity (the real, original, unadulterated thing) even if they are very compatible with modern western (pseudo-) Christian denominations.
So, now the question becomes: is there something profoundly incompatible between the real, traditional, Islam and the real, traditional, Christianity? I am not talking about purely theological differences here, but social and political consequences which flow from theological differences. Two immediately come to my mind (but there are more, of course):
- The death penalty, especially for apostasy
- Specific customs (dress code, ban on alcohol, separation of genders in various settings, etc.)
The first one, this is really a non-issue because while traditional, Patristic, Christianity has a general, shall we say, “inclination” against the death penalty, this has not always been the case in all Orthodox countries. So while we can say that by and large Orthodox Christians are typically not supporters of the death penalty, this is not a theological imperative or any kind of dogma. In fact, modern Russia has implemented a moratorium on the death penalty (to join the Council of Europe – hardly a moral or ethical reason) but most of the Russian population favor its re-introduction. Note that Muslims in Russia are apparently living their lives in freedom and overall happiness and when they voice grievances (often legitimate ones), they don’t have “reintroduce the death penalty” as a top priority demand.
The simple truth is that each country has to decide for itself whether it was the use the death penalty or not. Once a majority of voters have made that decision, members of each religion will have to accept that decision as a fact of law which can be criticized, but not one which can be overturned by any minority.
As for religious tribunals, they can be easily converted by the local legislature into a “mediation firm” which can settle conflicts, but only if both sides agree to recognize it’s authority. So if two Muslims want their dispute to be settled by an Islamic Court, the latter can simply act as a mediator as long as its decision does not violate any local or national laws. Hardly something non-Muslims (who could always refuse to recognize the Islamic Court) need to consider a “threat” to their rights or lifestyles.
As for the social customs, here it is really a no-brainer: apply Islamic rules to those who chose to be Muslims and let the other people live their lives as they chose to. You know, “live and let live”. Besides, in terms of dress code and gender differentiation, traditional Islam and traditional Christianity are very close.
Check out this typical Russian doll, and look at what she is wearing: this was the traditional Russian dress for women for centuries and this is still what Orthodox women (at least those who still follow ancient Christian customs) wear in Church.
Furthermore, if you go into a Latin parish in southern Europe or Latin America, you will often find women covering their heads, not only in church, but also during the day. The simple truth is that these clothes are not only modest and beautiful, they are also very comfortable and practical.
The thing which Islamophobes always miss is that they take examples of laws and rules passed by some Muslim states and assume that this is how all Muslim states will always act. But this is simply false. Let’s take the example of Hezbollah (that name means “party of God”, by the way) in Lebanon which has clearly stated on many occasions that it has no intention of transforming Lebanon into a Shia-only state. Not only did Hezbollah say that many times, but they acted on it and they always have had a policy of collaboration with truly patriotic Christians (of any denomination). Even in today’s resistance (moqawama) there are Christians who are not members of Hezbollah as a party (and why would they when this is clearly and officially a Muslim party and not a Christian one?!), but they are part of the military resistance.
[Sidebar: by the way, the first female suicide bomber in Lebanon was not a Muslim. She was a 18 year old from an Orthodox family who joined Syrian Social Nationalist Party and blew herself up in her car on an Israeli checkpoint (inside Lebanon, thus a legitimate target under international law!), killing two Israeli invaders and injuring another twelve. Her name was Sana’a Mehaidli]
Recent events in Syria were also very telling: when the AngloZionist Empire unleashed its aggression against Syria and the “good terrorists” of al-Qaeda/al-Nusra/ISIS/etc. embarked in a wholesale program of massacres and atrocities, everybody ran for their lives, including all the non-Takfiri Muslims. Then, when the plans of the Axis of Kindness (USA, KSA, Israel) were foiled by the combined actions of Russia, Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, something interesting happened: the Latin Christians left, whereas the Orthodox Christians stayed (source). Keep in mind that Syria is *not* an Islamic state, yet the prospects of a Muslim majority was frightening enough for the Latins to flee even though the Orthodox felt comfortable staying. What do these Orthodox Christians know?
Could it be that elite traditionalist Shia soldiers represent no threat to Orthodox Christians?
Deconstructing the phobia’s assumptions: Islam generates terrorism
In fact, there is some truth to that too. But I would re-phrase it as: the AngloZionists in their hatred for anything Russian, including Soviet Russian, identified a rather small and previously obscure branch of Islam in Saudi Arabia which they decided to unleash against the Soviet forces in Afghanistan. From the first day, these Takfiris were federated by the USA and financed by the House of Saud. The latter, in its fear of being overthrown by the Takfiris, decided to appease them by internationally supporting their terrorism (that is all Takfiris have to offer, their leaders are not respected scholars, to put it mildly). Since that time, the Takfiris have been the “boots on the ground” used by the West against all its enemies: Serbia, Russia first, but then also secular (Syria) or anti-Takfiri Muslim states (Iran).
So it is not “Islam” which generates terrorism: it is western (AngloZionist) imperialism.
The US and Israel are, by a wide margin, the biggest sponsors of terrorism (just as the West was always by far the biggest source of imperialism in history) and while they want to blame “Islam” for most terrorist attacks, the truth is that behind every such “Muslim” attack we find a western “deep state” agents acting, from the GIA in Algeria, to al-Qaeda in Iraq to al-Nusra in Syria to, most crucially, 9/11 in New York. These were all events created and executed by semi-literate Takfiri patsies who were run by agents of the western deep states.
As far as I know, all modern terrorist groups are, in reality, “operated by remote control” by state actors who alone can provide the training, know-how, finances, logistical support, etc needed by the terrorists.
And here is an interesting fact: the two countries which have done the most to crush Takfiri terrorism are Russia and Iran. But the collective West is still categorically refusing to work with these countries to crush the terrorism these western states claim to be fighting.
So, do you really believe that the West is fighting terrorism?
If yes, I got a few bridges to sell all over the planet.
Conclusion: cui bono? the so-called “liberals”
There are many more demonstratively false assumptions which are made by the AngloZionist propaganda machine. I have only listed a few. Now we can look to the apparent paradox in which we see the western “liberals” both denouncing Islamophobia and, at the same time, repeating all the worst cliches about Islam. In this category, Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton are the most egregious examples of this hypocrisy because while pretending to be friends of Muslims, they got more Muslims killed than anybody else. For western liberals, Islam is a perfect pretext to, on one hand, cater to minorities (ethnic or religious) while pretending to be extremely tolerant of others. Western liberals use Islam in the West, as a way to force the locals to give up their traditions and values. You could say that western liberals “love” Islam just like they “love” LGBTQIAPK+ “pride” parades: simply and only as a tool to crush the (still resisting) majority of the people in the West who have not been terminally brainwashed by the AngloZionist legacy corporate propaganda machine.
Conclusion: cui bono? the so-called “conservatives”
Western conservatism is dead. It died killed by two main causes: the abject failure of National-Socialism (which was an Anglo plan to defeat the USSR) and by its total lack of steadfastness of the western conservatives who abandoned pretty much any and all principles they were supposed to stand for. Before the 1990s, the conservative movements of the West were close to fizzling out into nothingness, but then the Neocons (for their own, separate, reasons) began pushing the “Islamic threat” canard and most conservatives jumped on it in the hope of using it to regain some relevance. Some of these conservatives even jumped on the “Christian revival in Russia” theory (which is not quite a canard, but which is also nothing like what the Alt-Righters imagine it to be) to try to revive their own, long dead, version of “Christianity”. These are desperate attempts to find a source of power and relevance outside a conservative movement which is basically dead. Sadly, what took the place of the real conservative movement in the West is the abomination known as “National Zionism” (which I discussed here) and whose ideological cornerstone is a rabid, hysterical, Islamophobia.
Conclusion: cui bono? the US deep state
That one is easy and obvious: the US deep state needs the “Islamic threat” canard for two reasons: to unleash against its enemies and to terrify the people of the USA so that they accept the wholesale destruction of previously sacred civil rights. This is so obvious that there is nothing to add here. I will only add that I am convinced that the US deep state is also supporting both the Alt-Right phenomenon and the various “stings” against so-called “domestic terrorists” (only only Muslims, by the way). What the Neocons and their deep-state need above all is chaos and crises which they used to shape the US political landscape.
Finally, the real conclusion: rate the source! always rate the source…
Whom did we identify as the prime sources of Islamophobia? The liberals who want to seize power on behalf of a coalition of minorities, conservatives who have long ditched truly conservative values and deep state agents who want to terrify US Americans and kill the enemies of the AngloZionist Empire.
I submit to you that these folks are most definitely not your friends. In fact, they are your real enemy and, unlike various terrorists abroad who are thousands of miles away from the USA, these real enemies are not only here, they are already in power and rule over you! And they are using Islam just like a matador uses a red cape: to distract you from the real threat: National Zionism. This is true in the US as it is true in the EU.
Most westerners are now conditioned to react with fear and horror when they hear “Allahu Akbar”. This is very predictable since most of what is shown in the western media is Takfiris screaming “Allahu Akbar” before cutting the throats of their victims (or rejoicing at the suffering/death of “infidels”).
Yet in the Donbass, the local Orthodox Christians knew that wherever that slogan (which simply means “God is greater” or “God is the greatest”) was heard the Ukronazis are on the run. And now we see Russia sending mostly Muslim units to Syria to protect not only Muslims, but everybody who needs protection.
Having a sizable Muslim minority in Russia, far from being any kind of threat, as turned to be a huge advantage for Russia in her competition against the AngloZionist Empire.
There are, by the way, also Chechens fighting on the other side in this conflict: the very same Takfiris who were crushed and expelled from Chechnia by the joint efforts of the Chechen people and the Russian armed forces. So, again, we have Muslims on both sides, the Takfiris now happily united with the Nazis and the traditionalist Muslims of Kadyrov protecting the people of Novorussia.
That is one, amongst many more, nuances which the Islamophobic propaganda always carefully chooses to ignore.
Good article. Where is the Sharia law when you need it at that San Sicko image. Americans are funny when they make up these silly billboard nonsense.
The neocon world the neoliberal world loves to use religion (“Islamophobia”), lack thereof , gender, sexual preference, skin color or social status as tool to distract people at the middle and the bottom of the food chain from working out who their true adversaries.
The Christian right, the harder edges of the neoliberal neo con spectrum will use anything to undo a social security system, reduce the legitimacy of government-backed welfare and social security provision by re-focusing attention.
If low and middle-income families of whatever persuasion are enmeshed in debt and fear from the cradle to the grave, their members are more likely scap about among themselves.
You have to give it to the neoliberals and neocons they are good at their game?
Meanwhile back in the real world they continue their assault on working conditions which are eroded ; wage stagnation kicks in thanks to the monetary policies of finance-led neo-liberalism, the family must somehow cohere as an entity, as often as not through the mountains of debt they now have to accrue to cover the cost of mortgages, childcare, education for their children, and privatised health insurance.
It is easy to generate an enemy when you are desperate!
Andrei, are you sure you didn’t major in comparative religion? Great article! Thank you.
Thank you. Brilliant overview of a subject that is frequently distorted for mischievous purposes.
Saker, thank you for lenghty explanation. I know much less about Islam then you. So I do not have a reason to enter any big debate with above thoughts.And living in Slovenia, my own experience with (not that numerous) Moslem immigrants is good. Bosnians simply do not have proclivity to forming dangerous gangs of youths that plague some European cities. I have however always noticed certain difference between them and Albanians; although in my county generally not violent, Albanians are much more ethnocentric, rarely associating outside their group. Women are much less integrated in wider society with Albanians, etc.
So there are always more factors in how groups interact: nationality, religion, economic status…If I understand correctly, this is to be one of articles in immigration series.
Issue is complicated, but I have to admit to some extent I understand those that fear immigration. It is not a question of better or worse culture, of course. But influx of large numbers of culturally much different people does strongly change way everybody lives in that country. For instance, there is something biological, almost evolutionary, in apprehension locals feel about large bands of young foreign men, who change sexual balance in society (historically, usually they came as warriors and conquerors).
Overall, I think there is something called “right of first possesor of a country”. If people who today form majority in Germany or Slovenia refuse enormous changes of population composition through mass immigration, they have right to do so (apart from refugee law). Solely as they were here first and do not want to change “face” of a country. If that is doable, is another question. Fact is, culturally homogenous countries are less complicated and work better. I am talking mostly about preventing abnormally large streams of “refugees” in very short time like one from few years ago. It is simply too much for locals to accept that.
And whatever the reason (even if religion per se is not) tensions often run high between immigrants from Moslem countries and (only formal) Christians/atheists/cynics/whatever from Europe.
Among the five pillars of Islam, you mentioned “Zakat” and translated it as alms giving. It is actually a wealth tax assessed on wealth beyond a fixed minimum at 2.5% per lunar year. Paying zakaat is mandatory for those who meet the criteria of having the basic minimum wealth. The local amir would send Zakat collectors to assess your wealth and collect Zakat. Thus zakaat in reality was collected not just paid. With fall of the Islamic caliphate or Dawla or Sultanate or Emirate this tax is now paid by muslims to needy people on their own. This has caused confusion with zakaat being labelled Alms giving.
Alms giving (charity) on the other hand would be an appropriate translation for what is called “Sadaqa”. It is a highly recommended practice but is not included among the five pillars and is not obligatory. It is according to one’s own choice. Even a smile is a charity or Sadaqa.
Another point I would like to point out is that all Muslims have to necessarily believe in all prophets being innocent and pure or “Masoom”. This is part of the Islamic creed. Thus you necessarily find immense reverence and love for all prophets in Islam. Any doubt on this matter would be enough to throw one out of the pale of Islam.
Peace brother Ahmad,
Agreed your explanation about zakat and sadaka. About all the prophets of Islam(submission to one God) muslims (sumbmitters to One God) are not allowed to make any distinction among God the holy entity’s messengers. As it mentioned in the following verse of the Quran and other 2 verses as I remember:
Translated byMuhsin Khan
“The Messenger (Muhammad SAW) believes in what has been sent down to him from his Lord, and (so do) the believers. Each one believes in Allah, His Angels, His Books, and His Messengers. They say, “We make no distinction between one another of His Messengers” – and they say, “We hear, and we obey. (We seek) Your Forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the return (of all).”
And Peace & thank you brother Saker for presenting this rational thoughts of your’s. Always much to learn from your articles.
God bless us all.
The sign SHARIA LAW THREATENS AMERICA is — even by Pindo standards — amazingly stupid. If anything could be said to be highly committed to the downfall of the US and has proven itself in terms of resources and focused determination, then it’s Open Society Foundation we are speaking of. As I see it, this mindrot is actually a good thing. George Soros is Jewish, and is above suspicion in the US except in the eyes of its White Nationalists. These latter are an excellent case in point of the moribund Western conservatism which Saker referred to above, The US is ideologically stuck in the 1990s when Islamophobia was all the rage; Europe very much included. It will probably find out Islam wasn’t the enemy, but then it’s “game over” already.
Excellent post. Islamic phobia in US has definitely been hyped by the Neo-cons to whip up support for all the wars of aggression in the ME for the last 20 years .
Being an avid reader of yours, Andrei, I owe you not only for enjoyment of reading, but also for some very important insights. Helping me leave my (thankfully short) Islamophobic days behind me is definitely one of them.
I find this article one of the most important ones you have every written. Thank you and all the best!
Just to let everyone know, Chechen Russian Muslims , From the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation, Mr. Kadyrov’s men (a division) saved the day in the Donbass back in 2014.
They quickly organized the disorganized peoples militias that were getting hammered by the Ukrainian Special Units, Azov Battalions and Regular Army. Ukrainian Secret Services were terrorizing the population of the Donbass breakaway regions.
The Chechen Muslims after much fighting, the battle culminated at Donbass Airport, a shiny newly built airport where the very experienced Muslims cornered the Ukrainian Military and Azov Battalion.
The Ukrainians stood no chance. It was a bloodbath, and resulted in a rout. Azov were wiped out.
2015, the Ukrainian military decided to test the situation and launched an attack on an area around a small town called Debaltsevo and the too the Chechens fought and died with, and far away from home, their Slavic brethren defending themselves from a murderous horde of Army and Neo Nazi’s and the particularly nasty Azov men. That too was a slaughter and a rout for the Ukies. This battle is now known as the Debaltsevo Cauldron. Highly accurate mortar fire from the very experienced Muslim fighters decimated the Ukrainian columns.
One can rest assured that they are in place, in high numbers now, along the Ukrainian border ready for orders. They are at Putins orders. And these guys are masters of warfare.
These Muslim men are in place, ready to fight and die for Russia’s honor.
Chechen Muslims were among the very first to enter Berlin in 1945.
To bored muslim
Agree 100% regarding Chechens.These guys are born fighters, therefore no surprise at the West’s attempt to corrupt them and turn them against Russia there in 90s, in what is known as Chechen war. Dudaev was Soviet Army General, a moslem Chechen, married to a Russian, presumably of orthodox faith and yet, got corrupted and brainwashed by western sponsors to “declare independence from Russia”. We all know what in reality that war was all about, but case in point, that is how easily it happens with the weak-minded! It was one of the first “colour revolutions” in post Soviet space, plus a violent one. And Chechnia was chosen for that very reason – the born figthers! Kadurov is following in his father’s footsteps, being absolutely and firmly a Russian patriot. Him being a moslem means just that – of moslem faith. Chechnia has been part of Russia for centures and he fully understands that significance. Dudaev, unfortunately, didn’t.
Thank you Saker for your wonderful article.
And thank you Katerina for adding important info to my comment. Much obliged.
Chechnya has not been part of russia for centuries. The conquest of chechnya by the russian empire is recent and brought miseries and death to the chechens, wherein lies the roots for chechen animosity towards russia.
During the russian-chechen wars, both ahmed and ramadan fought against the russians. Only reason ahmed gave in to russia is because russia bombarded grozny to a pile of rubles and chechens lost the war. Chechen opposition to russian annexation doesn’t consist of just the pro-western takfiris, many chechens legitimately don’t want to be in russia. And this is not due to chechens being muslim and russians being orthodox. If religion was the case, the muslim tatar regions would also have separated from russian federation.
Many ordinary chechens dont like kadirov. And I am not accusing him based upon the western propaganda like gay concentration camps in chechnya. He is a bully and his sons acts like princes. He speaks and acts like a megalomaniac, just watch his interviews and behavior. If those who oppose his antics don’t disappear, they appear on chechen televisions to apologize to qadirov himself and he forgives them, making a big show of his benevolence. He is obsessed with fighting and makes young kids fight bloody battles, which has also been opposed by many russians. If donbass wants to separate from ukraine, chechens also want to separate from russia. There struggle is no less legitimate.
Both russia and china use the takfiri boogieman against muslims who try to revive islamic teachings and group them with terrorists. Muslims who try to revive islamic teachings and give up the traditions of their ancestors which contradicts with the shariah are seen as working for the terrorist groups and labelled as terrorists. Same happened in turkistan, where muslims were trying to revive islamic teaching and were quickly grouped with the idiots who joined ISIS and went to fight in the levant. The han chinese came down upon the muslims, in the guise of preserving the local traditions and to prevent the uyghurs, who has become modernized, from reverting back to orthodox islam. But since the western propaganda machinery churns out propaganda of uyghur genocide, the muslim uyghurs who are truly being repressed from following islam are also seen as terrorists by those who oppose the west. Same happens in chechnya, where the muslims opposing qadirov clan and wanting an independent chechnya are seen as terrorists. All that accusations that russia and china make about the west, their own actions are no less different.
“russia had shown itself to me only through the muzzle of a tank. That’s all I had seen of her” – buvaisar saitiev (3 times olympic gold champion)
I agree heartily with Canadian Professor Gad Saad: 1. Most individual Muslims are good people, and 2. Massive Islamic immigration is not compatible with Western culture.
And of course, Western interference in Islamic countries is 100% wrong.
Please define “Western culture” :-)
Hello Saker. I am humbled by your command of the subject and your capacity to articulate this very difficult and complex matter.
Thank you for helping us all to remain sane in an otherwise insane Anglo-zionist world. Please keep up the good work.
“Deconstructing the phobia’s assumptions: Islam is incompatible with democracy”
Sorry that I couldn’t resist pointing out a flawed assumption in this piece which meticulously deconstructs the Zionist-Capitalist design of creating illogical and irrational animosity towards Islam among non-Islamic population.
Greece, where the concept of “democracy” was first constructed, never included the slave population as citizens. The so-called democratic rights were provided to elites-aristocrats i.e. patricians, keeping plebs outside of such ‘novel’ idea. One can certainly point out that, after 1848 CE revolutions in Europe, voting rights were granted to the plebs also – yes, only after ensuring that the patricians will continue to own WEALTH and POWER across the world even if “democracy” is established!
Great article on Islam!! ,
And the Fake west and real genuine history of Christianity.
Thanks for taking the time to dispel the Western whole sale “Islamophobic Hybrid-warfare” against Muslim world by non other then The Die-hard Enemies of Islam and Islamic Ummah – the western (AngloZionist) imperialism.
Saker/Andrei said: “…the truth is that behind every such “Muslim” attack we find a western “deep state” agents acting, from the GIA in Algeria, to al-Qaeda in Iraq to al-Nusra in Syria to, most crucially, 9/11 in New York.”
The evidence supports this, but the situation concerning takfiris & the entire phenomenon of Salafi Jihadism is far more complex than serving as mere tools & proxies of the US & the wider west. Take an issue concerning ISIS for example – all over the internet, during the course of the Syrian war, one could read comments & assertions of the CIA having created ISIS. Quite often, these assertions were not supported with an account of the history of ISIS & their origins – the fact that the Islamic State of Iraq & al-Sham (ISIS) grew out of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI). ISI made up one of a score of major Sunni insurgent groups in post-2003 occupied Iraq, & credited itself with being one of the most effective insurgent forces fighting against the US occupation in Iraq. The US took advantage of increasing hostility between ISI & other insurgent groups, primarily the Islamic Army of Iraq (IAI), to co-opt the latter & use them in the so-called “Awakening” or Sahwa around 2007-08, when the US declared the surge. By 2010, the US believed it had largely neutralised the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) with much of its leadership either assassinated or imprisoned at Camp Bucca – the then caliph, Abu Umar al-Baghdadi (Hamid Dawud Mohamed Khalil al-Zawi) was replaced (after being killed by US military drone) by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (Ibrahim al-Badri) & the new phase of ISIS soon begins with the war in Syria & the declaration of a caliphate. So how is it, that an insurgent group that ostensibly fought against the US gets depicted as a creation & tool of the CIA? It is probable, that around 2010-2011 ISI – later ISIS, were co-opted by the US, & then used as a proxy force against Syria & Iraq. In fact, one can even gain some insight into how this works by reading the partially declassified interrogation documents of the person believed to be the current head or caliph of ISIS, Amir Said al-Mawla, in addition to the interrogation documents of Qais al-Kazali formerly of Jeish al-Mahdi (Mahdi Army) led by Moqtada al-Sadr, where it is even more apparent than in al-Mawla’s interrogation that the US is trying to co-opt them & get them to work for US interests in Iraq. Presumably, this is why the US has not declassified any of its documentation on any other ISIS leaders they had in custody, including Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi himself. For some reason they are keeping this quiet & we can make an educated guess as to why. The leadership of the Islamic Army of Iraq (IAI) for example, accused the leaders of ISIS of being suspect because they had all spent years in US prisons – but the IAI itself was co-opted by the US, so their accusation & claim was hardly credible, they fought on the side of the US in the Sahwa, or Awakening, against ISI between 2007-2010, approximately. Also revealing in this regard is something Vladimir Putin said, if memory serves me, at the UN, when he warned the US against trying to use Jihadist terrorists as proxies, Putin stated very clearly, I am paraphrasing, but he said: they (terrorists) are more intelligent than you are, you think you will use them to your ends but in the end it is they that will use you to fulfil their objectives. This is quite a bombshell, why? Because Putin has excellent intelligence, & one can be absolutely certain that he fully understood the relationship between Salafi jihadists/Takfiri terrorists on the ground in Iraq & Syria, & the governments/intel agencies of the west, especially the US. Putin was revealing to us that the Salafi jihadists/Takfiri terrorists are NOT under the control of the west. And this is consistent with the history, because ISIS started out as a combo of Salafi jihadists/Takfiri terrorists fresh from training camps in Afghanistan in 2002, migrating to Iraq & linking up with members of the officer corps of Iraq’s then Bathist army under Saddam Hussein, in particular personnel from military intelligence who were taken in by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (Ahmad Fadeel al-Nazal al-Khalayleh). It is a very complex story.
Seeds of Divergence
Islam gushed forth as an epic, now a heroic history is written with the sword, and in this religious context sword assumes a sacred function. The taking of life of does not have the same meaning as in profane history (particularly as perceived in current western civilisation and its earlier origins in Greco-Roman civilisational context in despite of Christianity)
Combat is an ordeal as it was in the climate of the Bible. The genesis of a religion amounts to the creation of a moral and spiritual type that is apparently new; and even de-Facto new in certain contingent respect.
In the case of Islam, this type consists of an equilibrium – paradoxical from the Christian point of view – between the qualities of the contemplative and the combative, and then between holy poverty and sanctified sexuality.
The Arab and the man Arabised by Islam – Has so to speak, Four Poles. (For orientation of his spirit to reconcile with the temporal world)
The Desert; The Sword; woman and Religion.
For the contemplative these become inward, the Desert, the sword and woman becoming so many states or functions of the Soul. God is not only the most powerful Lord; the more profoundly His power is understood, the more he reveals himself as imminent Love.
On the most general and priori (outward) level;
The sword represents Death – death dealt out and Death courted – so its perfume is always present. Woman represents an analogous reciprocity; She is love received and Love given, and thus she incarnates all the generous virtues, She compensates for the perfume of Death with that of life.
The profoundest of the sword is that there is no Nobility without renunciation of life, and this why in sincere Sufis are always initiated with a Wow; — in so far as it relates to the historical incident (During the time of Blessed prophet Mohammed Peace be upon him) known as (Bayt ar-Ridwan) which includes the promise to fight until the point of Death, Bodily in the case of warriors and Martyr (Saheed) and spiritually in the case of dervishes or the Poor ( Faqir) .
The symbiosis of love and death within the framework and in the face of the Absolute consists all that is essential in Arab nobility. So much so that we should not hesitate that here lies the very substance of the essential muslim soul.
Abridged and re-worded for easy reading from the “Essential works of Frithjof Schuon (Esa Nuruddin).
He has been described as “ In depth and breadth, a paragon of our time, we know of no living thinker who begins to Rival him……Houston Smith / TS Eliot
Excellent analysis! I’ve had quite a bit of personal experience with Islam and Muslims, since my wife’s from the Caucasus and her mother’s side of the family are Muslims (but she was baptised and raised as an Orthodox Christian). I’ve traveled to and around the Northern Caucasus on numerous occasions, and I’m currently in Turkey. Islamophobia is a total ghost of a concept that has no serious foundation in reality, speaking from personal experience. I’ve never been threatened or even made to feel 2nd class in any way, by Muslims. My wife says that fights do happen in the Caucasus (people there are known for their pride and hot tempers), but these occur on national/family/personal lines, not on religious differences. The very largest majority of people in areas with mixed Muslim/ Orthodox Christian populations just agree to disagree (God will figure it out in the end) and to live and let live, and life goes on.
Excellent article which has scholarly attempted to debunk the Phobia.
The appropriate meaning of Islam – Submit your will acquire peace or Submission (Surrender) your will to Almighty God The Creator who created everything what we could see and unable see, to acquire peace (Salam).
Muslim – The person who surrendered his / her will to the Almighty lord, The ever living and owns everything above and below the earth.
Islam is not a 1400 years old religion and it’s the religion Almighty God bestow on 1st human Prophet Adam (Peace Be Upon Him). Then Prophet Abraham (PBUH) and the Prophets from his descendants such as Moses (PBUH), Jesus (PBUH) and Last Prophet Mohamed (PBUH) in the line of prophethood. Holy Quran only states 25 names of Prophets but total no of Prophets God Almighty sent )from Adam (PBUH) to Mohamed (PBUH)) 124,000 to guide the Humanity.
“Islam is not a 1400 years old religion and it’s the religion Almighty God bestow on 1st human Prophet….”
If this is so then it is possible to be Islamic but not Muslim.
An interesting possibility.
If I have to relate a comparison, one need to call himself / herself an employee of a Company or organization, he/she only could claim after signing a employment contact which sets out clear dos and donts. If one need to call Muslim, then one need to obey the commandment of Almighty God (Islam).
So, according to the example you have given, it is possible to be Islamic but not Muslim in the same way that you can bake a cake by working for a bakery or by doing it yourself.
If so, the Muslim is just one “brand” of Islam.
I wonder, what are the other “brands”?
Does God still send Prophets down to Earth to enlighten and help humanity. Or did he have enough of it since no one listens to them anyway. And of course all Prophets are men.
If Islam means essentially peace then those who spread It by non peaceful means were not followers of Islam and what they spread and were teaching was not Islam.
If the message of Christ was to Love your neighbor as yourself them those you enforced Christ on others were not following Christ’s.teachings. According to me if we would really understand and follow the teaching of the various Messengers send by the Supreme there would be no fundamental difference between all the various religions. The outer manifestations of the Message will of course be coloured according to regions with their existing environmental conditions and mentalities and peculiarities. But these are not the essentials but side issues and should not make any misunderstanding of various Faiths or proclamations that the one is more Holy then the other. but humans say mine is better and truer then the other. Nothing much seems to have changed since Adam and Eve.
to bernie: you gave the best summary of the faults of our human species at least in the last five thousand or even more years. The fallacy of our species “I am better than you and therefore I can do what I want…with you, with your country, with your people, influence and subdue everything which comprises your cultural aspects etc. etc…..” should be acknowledged as it comprises religions, slavery, supremacy, wars etc. However, I see no sign that this happens even yet when we all are at the brink of a disaster which could cost us our lives …. I mean our species Human sapiens sapiens in general.
We live in a world where everything has been manipulated by what we, today, neutrally designate by the “Deep state”. This is not a phenomenon that just appeared in our lifetime. If you take the easy example of the Bahai faith, that is well documented to be a fabrication of English Freemasonry, the political core of the Deep State, you may be tempted to wonder about the “integrity” of other religions. As far as Islam is concerned, the book “Hagarism, the making of the Islamic world”, by Patricia Crone provides interesting clues that helps you to understand the difference between “halal” and “kosher”.
Islam is unitary in the sense that all its ‘movements/schools/traditions’ unanimously and on principle reject the FACT that Jesus Christ is God, reject his salvific death and Resurrection and therefore the necessity of the Church, of its mysteries and hierarchy.
Muslims arent our enemies, it’s their filthy cousins who murdered Christ and do all they can to destroy Christianity.
We Christians in America, I believe in God and His Son, are fools for not seeing who the real enemy is.
So many have fallen for the lie jews are precious and if we bless isreal God will bless us. Look around you, is that wbat you call blessings from God???
Western culture now is nothing but filth.
I say God bless Russia for sta ding up for righteousness. If you’re the praying type pray God guides and blesses Russia and China in bringing the filthy ones to their knees. Yeah, even if we little common folk must suffer at least it’s better than continuing living in this filthy no good evel society burdened with daily.
God bless all God fearing peoples.
Dear Saker, thank you for this offering. It has helped me. I think of who God is, theologically and economically. According to Orthodoxy, His being Creator is an aspect of His energies, and so according to what God does, He is Creator, but also according to Orthodoxy, who He is, His Being beyond Being is Trinity- God the Father the Source, of the Son who is eternally begotten, and the Spirit who proceeds from the Father, a communion of three Persons in the One God. So, applying this to the disagreement with Islam, we Orthodox agree with Islam that God is creator, but we insist that is Economic , and so in this respect is like the God of Islam, but according to God’s Essence, His Theology- He is Trinity and not the monad of Islam. According to the ‘essence’ of God, they are not the same. Well, a lot flows out of that- God in Trinity gives an adequate basis for unity in diversity, and for human liberty. Whereas, a solitary God, as in Islam , if He is love, is the supreme narcissist as a solitary, and that bodes ill for us.
Second thought is as I encounter the Orthodox calendar of Saints day after day, I find an unending succession of Orthodox martyrs, who, having expressed faith in Christ, summarily lost their heads, and it is hard to find in this martyric succession a cause of optimism for essential Islam.