Islam has managed two neat tricks in the West. It has convinced the hard left that it is an ally in its plan to destroy the "imperialist west". But more importantly, it has convinced the liberal west that to tell the truth about Islam is a hate crime and any criticism at all is bigoted. Unless we overcome the latter we are doomed.
That is SHARIAH in action. And complying with those two tricks is to obey Shariah. I outline that process in detail in my book. It’s too much for a substack post. Islam is a political movement.
I am glad I read it, but it is tough reading. I wrote a Substack post to answer a Quora question about this. People talk about European Colonialism, but not Arab Islamic conquest. I agree with you, that individual Muslims are not a threat to you. It is the group swept up by the ideology. As Jews, we know what a mob looks like.
The Christmas analogy illustrates this well. Not every person who puts up a tree in December can recite the Apostles' Creed. Not every person who fasts during Ramadan has read the Quran , and in fact, for many cultural Muslims raised in non-Arabic speaking households, encountering the Quran in their own language for the first time is precisely what causes them to walk away from the faith. Quietly, of course. Because open apostasy under orthodox Islamic law carries a death sentence.
There is a meaningful and documented difference between the orthodox Muslim who understands and applies Islamic doctrine, and the cultural Muslim who was born into the tradition the way millions of Americans were born into Christianity, inheriting the identity without the theology. These are not two versions of Islam. Islam is Islam. But they are two very different relationships to it, and collapsing that distinction does not make the analysis sharper. It makes it less accurate.
The orthodox believer who follows Sharia in its fullest application , including its treatment of non-believers, apostates, and women, is, by Islamic standards, a good Muslim. By the standards of western civilization, that same person presents a genuine and serious problem.
The cultural Muslim who has never studied the doctrine, does not practice it, and would be classified as an apostate by the orthodox, and, by Islamic standards, they are a bad Muslim. By the standards of western civilization, that person is a normal person. Often a person who, given accurate information about what the tradition actually teaches, wants nothing to do with it. And they often leave Islam upon learning what it teaches.
The question worth asking is: which of those two populations does a policy of total exclusion and collective condemnation actually reach? OR the orthodox believer already has no interest in assimilation and is not moved by western opinion. The cultural Muslim, the one most likely to integrate, most likely to educate their children differently, most likely to become an ally in identifying genuine radicalization, this is the one we lose when the message is, that there is no distinction worth making.
I am not interested in protecting Islam from criticism. My writing makes that clear enough. I am interested in accuracy, because accuracy is what separates analysis from reaction. Those who bandwagon on hatred of a group, any group, without the precision to distinguish between its members and its doctrine, become a mirror image of the thing they oppose , certain of their conclusions before the evidence is examined, and hostile to anyone who asks them to look more carefully.
That is not a position I will share. But I will always prefer to argue the case than to dismiss the person making it.
You fail to address a third group. On that is acknowledged and addressed directly within the Quran. This faithful non Jihadist Muslims, that adhere to Quran reaching but are not Jihadist in their beliefs otherwise. Mohammed teaches that that group may still obtain heaven, although at a lower level of rewards, if and only if they cooperate to support their Jihadist brothers in other non violent ways, in any variety of manners. These Muslims are free to espouse non violence and even condemn it openly while supporting it quietly. The issue becomes sorting these from the “cultural Muslims” you reference as your second group. Not understanding and accepting this reality illustrated within the Quran itself, will lead to unintentional problems and miscalculations.
You are absolutely correct to bring this up Michael. And id like to thank you for doing so. Your point about the group who funds the Jihaddist being assured salvation with lesser rewards is something that i overlooked due to its diminished level of security for salvation. This 3rd group will be tried in the divine court, the same as the others, with their good deeds weighed against their bad just like regular Muslim. No matter what extra weight their funding of Jihad will afford them, salvation is earned in Islam. Hiring a hit man while claiming to be a pacifist, is seen as a less noble form of serving Allah, then chopping necks in person. You are correct to bring up this oversight on my part.
I appreciate your writing, and look forward to your posts. Thanks for the reply and future posts. They are helpful in the illumination of truth in a complex and confusing world.
The West keeps getting conned by brochure Islam while jurisprudential Islam marches through the door. The interfaith dinner says peace, tolerance, and coexistence. The legal tradition says expansion, subordination, apostasy punishment, and rule over the unbeliever. That is not a misunderstanding. That is the bait-and-switch. Cultural Muslims who assimilate into America are not the issue. Political Islam is the issue. Sharia is the issue. CAIR-style lawfare is the issue. Imported blasphemy rules are the issue. America has one Constitution, one civil law, and one sovereign people. Worship privately. Assimilate publicly. But do not bring conquest theology into American government.
This approach is so important. Lies are said in English (and local languages) to influence the media and useless idiots. While in their own words, the truth is found. Thank you A.C. Rosenthal.
A.C., I agree with the central argument of your article, and honestly I think one of the strongest pieces of evidence is simply looking at the real-world outcomes across so many Muslim-majority countries themselves.
The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. Out of the dozens of Muslim-majority countries that exist today, only a relatively small handful could honestly be described as places with something close to full equality, broad secular freedoms, open criticism of religion, equal treatment across religions, and genuinely Western-style liberal democratic norms.
That does not mean every Muslim is dangerous or that all Muslims think alike — obviously they do not. But it does mean the larger civilizational and theological questions you raise cannot simply be dismissed with slogans or accusations of “Islamophobia.” The patterns are real, the historical record is real, and many people are increasingly noticing the same things you are describing.
And I also agree with one of your deepest points: Western societies often refuse to discuss these issues honestly because they are afraid of social, political, and media consequences. But avoiding difficult realities does not make those realities disappear.
Whether people agree with every conclusion or not, your article forces people to confront questions that far too many institutions prefer to avoid.
Is it not time to find the constitutional lawyers from Christian, Jewish Hindu atheist streams to make the case you laid out so clearly to SCOTUS that Islam is indeed a political system only thinly veiled as a “ religion” that seeks to replace American Constitutional Law with Sharia? and therefore it is incompatible with America ? and must not be afforded constitutional protections?
that islam is the only exception at this time in the history of our country
and that such a case must be made to protect our country ???
There is ample evidence
They’re imans and politicians say it clearly themselves
the offense must come from the private sector-our government won’t do it
We may lose the case but we must try
We will definitely lose America as we know her if we continue to do nothing
and argue about islamophobia
There is no phobia when the fear is rational and based on reality and fact
Islam originated as the largest imperialistic invasion in human history—a political, military, and religious movement that left its indigenous home on the Arabian Peninsula in the mid-7th century CE to conquer India, Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East.
Prior to the rise of Islam, Arabs lived as nomadic tribes where family and kinship were of supreme importance. The first Muslim, Muhammad, consolidated power through military force and synthesized elements of Judaism and Christianity into the new faith. Muhammad acted with violence against those who did not acknowledge him as the prophet of God, offering other tribes three choices: expulsion, forced conversion, or death.
Following Muhammad’s death, Islam initially persisted in only three towns. Abu Bakr, Muhammad’s successor, launched the brutal Ridda Wars to massacre Arab tribes that refused to continue the faith, a period documented extensively by Islamic historians. War was declared on all who abandoned the religion, and entire communities were wiped out; apostasy was met with the sword. Sustained by violence since its inception, Islam has also been defined by the 14-century-old blood feud between Shia and Sunni sects over the prophet’s true successor.
Excellent analysis. What is the implication? Political Islam is incompatible with western culture. And the practice of literal Islam by a minority is sufficient to dominate the host culture with the simple passage of time. The process is proven time and again, before our eyes in Europe and Canada, and only a few years behind in the US....
Hate be be pedantic, but ‘Every place that is now Muslim was once overwhelmingly Christian. Not most places, but every place.’ - this just seems incorrect. Most places, perhaps, but certainly not EVERY place. Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia - were Hindu and/or Buddhist, in pre Islamic times. Iran was Zoroastrian (with some Christian, Jewish, Buddhism et. al)
Thank you for clarifying this Francis. There are exceptions to every rule. And when you are talking about the Volume of Muslims, by population, you may be correct to say that “most Muslims” do not, today, come from Previously christian nations. BUT if you were to count the number of Majority Muslim countries. The majority of the countries by number of countries… then the expression rings true. But your point by population number is well made.
An astute and unapologetic analysis of key differences between Islam and other religions.
Western readers driven by pre-Edward Said Orientalism à la Lawrence of Arabia, will reject the article's content out of hand, but then again, few of them would even be interested in the site as it conflicts with their prejudices.
Most readers fall in the category of the "already convinced." It is the middle category, the unsure, the uninformed, the vulnerable to ideologically driven misinformation and disinformation who need to be its audience.
The arguments can be strengthened by referring to the relevant Surahs or even quoting them in full, as most tend to be short verses. These can be placed in text or as footnotes.
Example of an in text citation: "So let me say it plainly: Islam is the only major religion on earth that tries to govern people who never chose it, i.e. the dhimis. Surah 9:29 'Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, nor comply with what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth from among those who were given the Scripture, until they pay the tax, willingly submitting, fully humbled.' ” (Full citation optional)
Happy to provide all the supporting Surah references upon request. Also, I would urge you in the strongest terms to circulate this article among other Jewish and non-Jewish sites.
Presented as a researched critique with implications for the West's Enlightenment values, civilization as a whole, and social cohesion in particular, the print and electronic scholarly outlets are the ones most likely to accept the submission. Most mainstream sites will treat it as "Islamophobic" and therefore radioactive.
Lastly, the statement "[Islam] is the only major religion with a death penalty built into its classical jurisprudence for those who leave it" does not accurately reflect theological history. There is another religion whose treatment of dissenters, nonbelievers, and apostates was equally violent. The source lies in the triumphalist view each had about their religions. The difference between the two is that while one continues to promote this doctrine - and act on it - the impulse has largely gone dormant in the other because now it lacks the political power to enforce its will. Nevertheless, there are still purists among them who long for the good old days.
Thank you for the time and effort you put into a thoughtful response.
Let me begin with a true story. One day, when I was in my early twenties, two young men knocked on my door. The first words out of their mouths was “Do you believe in the bible?” What ensued was a lively if inconclusive discussion that lasted about an hour.
Running into one of them several days later, I asked him what he thought of what I had said. He replied “We take it as proof of faith that we ignore anything that does not agree with our beliefs.”
Belief is taking something to be so when there is no evidence that it is so and often even when there is evidence that it is not so.
If, like those ardent missionaries, your position is the same, to dismiss whatever disagrees with your beliefs, how does that not forbid any meaningful exploration of the bible?
That said, please know I have already prepared bible-based responses to the points you raise. It would be a pleasure to share them with you, if you like, here or anywhere but social media like X, tik tok, and the like, that suits you.
Nevertheless I agree 100% with the main thesis of this article: "Understanding Islam from its own authoritative sources, not from its most marketable presentations, is not optional. It is not 'Islamophobia.' It is literacy. It is the minimum requirement for thinking clearly about the world you are living in."
I'll go a bit further and offer another quotation I've heard more than once: radical Islam is a snake in the grass; all the other Muslims are the grass." Of course for now on, I will say "orthodox Islam" instead of "radical Islam."
I agree and understand that there are cultural Muslims and orthodox Muslims. As a jew that is not difficult to absorb.
But then, I would disagree with the paragraph referring to the average Muslim: "The silence is not complicity in the sense of secret agreement. It is structural. The tradition cannot condemn what the tradition authorizes without dismantling the authority of the tradition."
IF someone is a cultural Muslim, what does it matter if they dismantle the authority of the tradition? No practicing jews stone people to death for working on Shabbat, advocate the owning of slaves, or marrying women off to their rapists. And yet, they continue to observe much of the tradition. Over the centuries we have eliminated those items that are absolutely not acceptable for modern thinkers. And we're still going strong.
Therefore, I see no reason why there could not a Muslim Reformation, official or unofficial. I don't care what the structure is, people are free to think and believe what they will.
This is multi faceted and interweaves orthodoxy, pillars of the faith and law in ways difficult to articulate. (i go over how it functions in real life in my book.) But let me try with an example. To criticize child marriage would be to criticize Muhammad, the Quran, and Allah. Because they all agree and sanction it. And by what standard of right and wrong could that criticism be done? Who has a higher standard then Allah? IN FACT, that means that anyone who objects to child marriage, is in their heart, saying that they personally have a higher standard of right and wrong in their heart then Allah! blasphemy! THAT IS WHY, no Imams CAN criticize the behavior of terrorists or child brides. BECAUSE they would be blasted for blasphemy. Placing their own convictions above Allah’s and Muhammad's. Because the Quran, Allah, and Muhammad all approve and endorse the practice. In this way reforming Islam would require the impossible. Elevating a human standard above their God’s. Accepting that their God got it wrong. Criticizing their prophet AND CONDEMNING those who follow in Muhammad’s footsteps. Do you see how the issues stack up one on the other. Shariah cannot be separated from Islam. They are the same. One is the form that the other takes.
Yes, I do understand what you're saying and it makes perfect sense. Still, it is true that people have chosen to override certain "rules". I cannot speak for Christianity but in Judaism, "according to Orthodoxy, the source of the Torah is believed to be divine revelation from God to Moses at Mount Sinai . . . both the Written Torah and the Oral Torah . . . these teachings have been faithfully transmitted through generations." Modern scholarship, however, postulates that the Torah has multiple authors and that its composition took place over centuries. Again, there are many "rules" that are no longer followed, and rules that have been superseded, even by the Orthodox. So . . . it's possible to adopt reforms. Could the resistance in Islam be a result of its relative "youth", or because its orthodoxy is in fact more radical, more immovable than in other religions?
Islam has a problem that Christianity and Judaism do not have. let me illustrate. To reform Islam is to put Allah on trial by a human standard. For example: To change child marriage laws would be to criticize Muhammad, the Quran, and Allah. Because they all agree and sanction child marriage. And by what standard could that criticism be done? Who has a higher standard then Allah? IN FACT, that means that anyone who objects to child marriage, is in their heart, saying that they personally have a higher standard of right and wrong in their heart then Allah laid out! THAT IS WHY, no Imams CAN criticize the behavior of terrorists or taking child brides. BECAUSE they would be blasted for blasphemy. Placing their own convictions above Allah’s and Muhammad's.
Brilliant commentary. Thank you, A.C. Rosenthal. I agree that what we need is the clarity fuller knowledge and analysis such as this affords. It is the only way to understand. It is the only way to find truth. We're left with a highly significant and sobering truth about Islam and how Muslim people are affected by its very structure. Accordingly, we must make our own clear decisions on how to respond to that.
Islam has managed two neat tricks in the West. It has convinced the hard left that it is an ally in its plan to destroy the "imperialist west". But more importantly, it has convinced the liberal west that to tell the truth about Islam is a hate crime and any criticism at all is bigoted. Unless we overcome the latter we are doomed.
That is SHARIAH in action. And complying with those two tricks is to obey Shariah. I outline that process in detail in my book. It’s too much for a substack post. Islam is a political movement.
Excellent article. Very thoughtful thorough, and easy to read for the lay person. Thank you.
I am glad I read it, but it is tough reading. I wrote a Substack post to answer a Quora question about this. People talk about European Colonialism, but not Arab Islamic conquest. I agree with you, that individual Muslims are not a threat to you. It is the group swept up by the ideology. As Jews, we know what a mob looks like.
The Christmas analogy illustrates this well. Not every person who puts up a tree in December can recite the Apostles' Creed. Not every person who fasts during Ramadan has read the Quran , and in fact, for many cultural Muslims raised in non-Arabic speaking households, encountering the Quran in their own language for the first time is precisely what causes them to walk away from the faith. Quietly, of course. Because open apostasy under orthodox Islamic law carries a death sentence.
There is a meaningful and documented difference between the orthodox Muslim who understands and applies Islamic doctrine, and the cultural Muslim who was born into the tradition the way millions of Americans were born into Christianity, inheriting the identity without the theology. These are not two versions of Islam. Islam is Islam. But they are two very different relationships to it, and collapsing that distinction does not make the analysis sharper. It makes it less accurate.
The orthodox believer who follows Sharia in its fullest application , including its treatment of non-believers, apostates, and women, is, by Islamic standards, a good Muslim. By the standards of western civilization, that same person presents a genuine and serious problem.
The cultural Muslim who has never studied the doctrine, does not practice it, and would be classified as an apostate by the orthodox, and, by Islamic standards, they are a bad Muslim. By the standards of western civilization, that person is a normal person. Often a person who, given accurate information about what the tradition actually teaches, wants nothing to do with it. And they often leave Islam upon learning what it teaches.
The question worth asking is: which of those two populations does a policy of total exclusion and collective condemnation actually reach? OR the orthodox believer already has no interest in assimilation and is not moved by western opinion. The cultural Muslim, the one most likely to integrate, most likely to educate their children differently, most likely to become an ally in identifying genuine radicalization, this is the one we lose when the message is, that there is no distinction worth making.
I am not interested in protecting Islam from criticism. My writing makes that clear enough. I am interested in accuracy, because accuracy is what separates analysis from reaction. Those who bandwagon on hatred of a group, any group, without the precision to distinguish between its members and its doctrine, become a mirror image of the thing they oppose , certain of their conclusions before the evidence is examined, and hostile to anyone who asks them to look more carefully.
That is not a position I will share. But I will always prefer to argue the case than to dismiss the person making it.
You fail to address a third group. On that is acknowledged and addressed directly within the Quran. This faithful non Jihadist Muslims, that adhere to Quran reaching but are not Jihadist in their beliefs otherwise. Mohammed teaches that that group may still obtain heaven, although at a lower level of rewards, if and only if they cooperate to support their Jihadist brothers in other non violent ways, in any variety of manners. These Muslims are free to espouse non violence and even condemn it openly while supporting it quietly. The issue becomes sorting these from the “cultural Muslims” you reference as your second group. Not understanding and accepting this reality illustrated within the Quran itself, will lead to unintentional problems and miscalculations.
You are absolutely correct to bring this up Michael. And id like to thank you for doing so. Your point about the group who funds the Jihaddist being assured salvation with lesser rewards is something that i overlooked due to its diminished level of security for salvation. This 3rd group will be tried in the divine court, the same as the others, with their good deeds weighed against their bad just like regular Muslim. No matter what extra weight their funding of Jihad will afford them, salvation is earned in Islam. Hiring a hit man while claiming to be a pacifist, is seen as a less noble form of serving Allah, then chopping necks in person. You are correct to bring up this oversight on my part.
I appreciate your writing, and look forward to your posts. Thanks for the reply and future posts. They are helpful in the illumination of truth in a complex and confusing world.
Jihad is more than Violence
Another reason there http://are.no good Muslims
https://substack.com/@smashingoverton/note/c-289443048?r=75f5mt
Islam is an Evil Ideology
Any who Choose to follow it are Evil
The only good Muslims are Dead or Ex
https://substack.com/@smashingoverton/note/c-289443048?r=75f5mt
The West keeps getting conned by brochure Islam while jurisprudential Islam marches through the door. The interfaith dinner says peace, tolerance, and coexistence. The legal tradition says expansion, subordination, apostasy punishment, and rule over the unbeliever. That is not a misunderstanding. That is the bait-and-switch. Cultural Muslims who assimilate into America are not the issue. Political Islam is the issue. Sharia is the issue. CAIR-style lawfare is the issue. Imported blasphemy rules are the issue. America has one Constitution, one civil law, and one sovereign people. Worship privately. Assimilate publicly. But do not bring conquest theology into American government.
Well stated!
This approach is so important. Lies are said in English (and local languages) to influence the media and useless idiots. While in their own words, the truth is found. Thank you A.C. Rosenthal.
The author's reference of "14 centuries" is further explained in Bill Warner's video "Why We Are Afraid, A 1400 Year Secret" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y&list=PLNjHlVXLqZFf0JicXyj81lWmvO_8fYHaX&index=8&t=107s)
I, too, have taken the same approach in my book "Revolutions: In their Own Words" (www.amzn.to/3T17NyZ), my forthcoming book, and my articles, like "Why negotiate with liars?" (https://www.jns.org/opinion/david-s-levine/why-negotiate-with-liars).
More must be written exposing this anti-Judaeo-Christian approach of Islam.
A.C., I agree with the central argument of your article, and honestly I think one of the strongest pieces of evidence is simply looking at the real-world outcomes across so many Muslim-majority countries themselves.
The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. Out of the dozens of Muslim-majority countries that exist today, only a relatively small handful could honestly be described as places with something close to full equality, broad secular freedoms, open criticism of religion, equal treatment across religions, and genuinely Western-style liberal democratic norms.
That does not mean every Muslim is dangerous or that all Muslims think alike — obviously they do not. But it does mean the larger civilizational and theological questions you raise cannot simply be dismissed with slogans or accusations of “Islamophobia.” The patterns are real, the historical record is real, and many people are increasingly noticing the same things you are describing.
And I also agree with one of your deepest points: Western societies often refuse to discuss these issues honestly because they are afraid of social, political, and media consequences. But avoiding difficult realities does not make those realities disappear.
Whether people agree with every conclusion or not, your article forces people to confront questions that far too many institutions prefer to avoid.
Is it not time to find the constitutional lawyers from Christian, Jewish Hindu atheist streams to make the case you laid out so clearly to SCOTUS that Islam is indeed a political system only thinly veiled as a “ religion” that seeks to replace American Constitutional Law with Sharia? and therefore it is incompatible with America ? and must not be afforded constitutional protections?
that islam is the only exception at this time in the history of our country
and that such a case must be made to protect our country ???
There is ample evidence
They’re imans and politicians say it clearly themselves
the offense must come from the private sector-our government won’t do it
We may lose the case but we must try
We will definitely lose America as we know her if we continue to do nothing
and argue about islamophobia
There is no phobia when the fear is rational and based on reality and fact
I look forward to the author’s thoughts on this ?
What other options do we have ?
Thank you for this comprehensive summary. It is the explanation I have heard to date
Islam originated as the largest imperialistic invasion in human history—a political, military, and religious movement that left its indigenous home on the Arabian Peninsula in the mid-7th century CE to conquer India, Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East.
Prior to the rise of Islam, Arabs lived as nomadic tribes where family and kinship were of supreme importance. The first Muslim, Muhammad, consolidated power through military force and synthesized elements of Judaism and Christianity into the new faith. Muhammad acted with violence against those who did not acknowledge him as the prophet of God, offering other tribes three choices: expulsion, forced conversion, or death.
Following Muhammad’s death, Islam initially persisted in only three towns. Abu Bakr, Muhammad’s successor, launched the brutal Ridda Wars to massacre Arab tribes that refused to continue the faith, a period documented extensively by Islamic historians. War was declared on all who abandoned the religion, and entire communities were wiped out; apostasy was met with the sword. Sustained by violence since its inception, Islam has also been defined by the 14-century-old blood feud between Shia and Sunni sects over the prophet’s true successor.
Excellent analysis. What is the implication? Political Islam is incompatible with western culture. And the practice of literal Islam by a minority is sufficient to dominate the host culture with the simple passage of time. The process is proven time and again, before our eyes in Europe and Canada, and only a few years behind in the US....
Hate be be pedantic, but ‘Every place that is now Muslim was once overwhelmingly Christian. Not most places, but every place.’ - this just seems incorrect. Most places, perhaps, but certainly not EVERY place. Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia - were Hindu and/or Buddhist, in pre Islamic times. Iran was Zoroastrian (with some Christian, Jewish, Buddhism et. al)
Thank you for clarifying this Francis. There are exceptions to every rule. And when you are talking about the Volume of Muslims, by population, you may be correct to say that “most Muslims” do not, today, come from Previously christian nations. BUT if you were to count the number of Majority Muslim countries. The majority of the countries by number of countries… then the expression rings true. But your point by population number is well made.
Two questions: given what you say, how can a country such as the UAE or Bahrain, etc join the Abraham Accords and trade and cooperate with Israel?
Second, apart from learning about Islam, and your essay is quite instructive, what are we to do about this?
The UAE and Bahrain act as modern nation states not in the name of Islam. Its as simple as that.
An astute and unapologetic analysis of key differences between Islam and other religions.
Western readers driven by pre-Edward Said Orientalism à la Lawrence of Arabia, will reject the article's content out of hand, but then again, few of them would even be interested in the site as it conflicts with their prejudices.
Most readers fall in the category of the "already convinced." It is the middle category, the unsure, the uninformed, the vulnerable to ideologically driven misinformation and disinformation who need to be its audience.
The arguments can be strengthened by referring to the relevant Surahs or even quoting them in full, as most tend to be short verses. These can be placed in text or as footnotes.
Example of an in text citation: "So let me say it plainly: Islam is the only major religion on earth that tries to govern people who never chose it, i.e. the dhimis. Surah 9:29 'Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, nor comply with what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth from among those who were given the Scripture, until they pay the tax, willingly submitting, fully humbled.' ” (Full citation optional)
Happy to provide all the supporting Surah references upon request. Also, I would urge you in the strongest terms to circulate this article among other Jewish and non-Jewish sites.
Presented as a researched critique with implications for the West's Enlightenment values, civilization as a whole, and social cohesion in particular, the print and electronic scholarly outlets are the ones most likely to accept the submission. Most mainstream sites will treat it as "Islamophobic" and therefore radioactive.
Lastly, the statement "[Islam] is the only major religion with a death penalty built into its classical jurisprudence for those who leave it" does not accurately reflect theological history. There is another religion whose treatment of dissenters, nonbelievers, and apostates was equally violent. The source lies in the triumphalist view each had about their religions. The difference between the two is that while one continues to promote this doctrine - and act on it - the impulse has largely gone dormant in the other because now it lacks the political power to enforce its will. Nevertheless, there are still purists among them who long for the good old days.
Thank you for the time and effort you put into a thoughtful response.
Let me begin with a true story. One day, when I was in my early twenties, two young men knocked on my door. The first words out of their mouths was “Do you believe in the bible?” What ensued was a lively if inconclusive discussion that lasted about an hour.
Running into one of them several days later, I asked him what he thought of what I had said. He replied “We take it as proof of faith that we ignore anything that does not agree with our beliefs.”
Belief is taking something to be so when there is no evidence that it is so and often even when there is evidence that it is not so.
If, like those ardent missionaries, your position is the same, to dismiss whatever disagrees with your beliefs, how does that not forbid any meaningful exploration of the bible?
That said, please know I have already prepared bible-based responses to the points you raise. It would be a pleasure to share them with you, if you like, here or anywhere but social media like X, tik tok, and the like, that suits you.
Keep well.
Regards,
Puck
Nevertheless I agree 100% with the main thesis of this article: "Understanding Islam from its own authoritative sources, not from its most marketable presentations, is not optional. It is not 'Islamophobia.' It is literacy. It is the minimum requirement for thinking clearly about the world you are living in."
I'll go a bit further and offer another quotation I've heard more than once: radical Islam is a snake in the grass; all the other Muslims are the grass." Of course for now on, I will say "orthodox Islam" instead of "radical Islam."
I agree and understand that there are cultural Muslims and orthodox Muslims. As a jew that is not difficult to absorb.
But then, I would disagree with the paragraph referring to the average Muslim: "The silence is not complicity in the sense of secret agreement. It is structural. The tradition cannot condemn what the tradition authorizes without dismantling the authority of the tradition."
IF someone is a cultural Muslim, what does it matter if they dismantle the authority of the tradition? No practicing jews stone people to death for working on Shabbat, advocate the owning of slaves, or marrying women off to their rapists. And yet, they continue to observe much of the tradition. Over the centuries we have eliminated those items that are absolutely not acceptable for modern thinkers. And we're still going strong.
Therefore, I see no reason why there could not a Muslim Reformation, official or unofficial. I don't care what the structure is, people are free to think and believe what they will.
This is multi faceted and interweaves orthodoxy, pillars of the faith and law in ways difficult to articulate. (i go over how it functions in real life in my book.) But let me try with an example. To criticize child marriage would be to criticize Muhammad, the Quran, and Allah. Because they all agree and sanction it. And by what standard of right and wrong could that criticism be done? Who has a higher standard then Allah? IN FACT, that means that anyone who objects to child marriage, is in their heart, saying that they personally have a higher standard of right and wrong in their heart then Allah! blasphemy! THAT IS WHY, no Imams CAN criticize the behavior of terrorists or child brides. BECAUSE they would be blasted for blasphemy. Placing their own convictions above Allah’s and Muhammad's. Because the Quran, Allah, and Muhammad all approve and endorse the practice. In this way reforming Islam would require the impossible. Elevating a human standard above their God’s. Accepting that their God got it wrong. Criticizing their prophet AND CONDEMNING those who follow in Muhammad’s footsteps. Do you see how the issues stack up one on the other. Shariah cannot be separated from Islam. They are the same. One is the form that the other takes.
Let me clarify that I understand your point completely. I just can’t help wondering why Orthodox Jews are able to ignore certain precepts in Torah.
Yes, I do understand what you're saying and it makes perfect sense. Still, it is true that people have chosen to override certain "rules". I cannot speak for Christianity but in Judaism, "according to Orthodoxy, the source of the Torah is believed to be divine revelation from God to Moses at Mount Sinai . . . both the Written Torah and the Oral Torah . . . these teachings have been faithfully transmitted through generations." Modern scholarship, however, postulates that the Torah has multiple authors and that its composition took place over centuries. Again, there are many "rules" that are no longer followed, and rules that have been superseded, even by the Orthodox. So . . . it's possible to adopt reforms. Could the resistance in Islam be a result of its relative "youth", or because its orthodoxy is in fact more radical, more immovable than in other religions?
Islam has a problem that Christianity and Judaism do not have. let me illustrate. To reform Islam is to put Allah on trial by a human standard. For example: To change child marriage laws would be to criticize Muhammad, the Quran, and Allah. Because they all agree and sanction child marriage. And by what standard could that criticism be done? Who has a higher standard then Allah? IN FACT, that means that anyone who objects to child marriage, is in their heart, saying that they personally have a higher standard of right and wrong in their heart then Allah laid out! THAT IS WHY, no Imams CAN criticize the behavior of terrorists or taking child brides. BECAUSE they would be blasted for blasphemy. Placing their own convictions above Allah’s and Muhammad's.
Truly fascinating and an excellent read thank you for opening my eyes to so much that I did not see. I am thankful for the work you have done.
Brilliant commentary. Thank you, A.C. Rosenthal. I agree that what we need is the clarity fuller knowledge and analysis such as this affords. It is the only way to understand. It is the only way to find truth. We're left with a highly significant and sobering truth about Islam and how Muslim people are affected by its very structure. Accordingly, we must make our own clear decisions on how to respond to that.