European Intellectual exposes Islam and calls to counter this Threat

Submitted by Stephen J. Hulbert (India), Dec 2, 2006 at 22:58

ISLAM IS THREAT TO ALL :

Everyone in the United States, the UK and Europe is faced by the threat of Islam - a religion that, even in its "moderate" form, engenders a perverse religious and political affiliation to despotic regimes such at those in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria.

Non-Muslims, of all peaceful faiths, need to take protective measures against the rising tide of hatred that is Islam. I believe, however, that we can use democracy itself against Islam.

Democratic principles such as "equality" are currently assumed to apply to all. This is obviously laudable - and we have so far encountered no reason to change this - but our meeting with Islam is different. Why should moral principles, such as equality, be extended to those that both reject such principles (in their religion and state) and openly use it to subvert democracy itself with the aim of (eventually) replacing it with Islamic law?

It is morally reprehensible that loyalty to Islam undermines and replaces loyalty to democracy. Likewise, loyalty to our own democracy (patriotism) is replaced by loyalty to Muslim leaders and states (and sworn enemies of our nation) - foreign powers that are hostile to democracy and intend to overthrow it.

American citizens are tacitly assumed to have accepted American principles of freedom, equality and justice for all; yet Muslims reject these democratic principles. Instead, Muslims declare loyalty not only to Allah, but to the entire Muslim brotherhood of which they become part. This is a conflict of interests.

Islamic religious literature and exegesis makes it a duty of all Muslims to undertake jihad ("struggle" for Allah) by increasing the influence of Islam. Yet, even if the actions that Muslims take are in themselves peaceful (e.g. protesting publicly) any gain for Islam is a loss of equality, liberty and freedom – the very principles that democracy was intended to defend. We saw this when Muslims rose up against the "evil" Danish cartoons – an event which sponsored mass hysteria amongst liberal governments in Europe in an attempt to prevent being accused of "Islamaphobia". They succeeded only by silencing everyday citizens and undermining freedom of speech and action. Situations like this will increase because democracy and Islam are mutually contradictory – a loss for one is a gain for the other.

In non-Muslim countries, Muslim actions are always ultimately aimed at regime change – for us, the removal of democracy. The Islamic goal of a global caliphate under Islamic law is an outcome which I find unacceptable. Where I come from, attempting to replace the democratically elected government by subversion is called "treason".

I believe, therefore, that Islam itself should be challenged LEGALLY: Not just in the United States, but also in the United Kingdom, Europe and elsewhere.

Our aim should be to:

1) Challenge the legitimacy of Islam as a religion (especially since it is not actually a religion at all, but an all-embracing social, political and religious system). Our aim should be a total ban on Islam in all democratic nations. As far as I am aware, Islam is a "religion" that is unique on two counts: 1) it aims to overthrow all other religions and 2) it continues to actively pursue holy war. We must ban Islam and only review such a ban only once it has been re-interpreted as a peaceful religion that utterly rejects the subjugation of others.

2) Challenging Islam's legality within democracy. Accepting Islam results in the rejection of fundamental human rights and the basis of democracy itself (equality, freedom of speech, justice for all, etc.) This opens Islam to legal claims: it is undemocratic and may well be "treason". Islam as a system that is institutionally subversive to democracy. That is, someone accepting Islam is deliberately accepting a religious and political doctrine whose political aim is the overthrow of democratic rule (and that's a conflict of interests on a massive scale).

It is clear that becoming a Muslim involves embracing all other Muslims and a corresponding weakening, or utter rejection, of democratic principles (which have – until now – been assumed to be self-evident). It is also clear that even moderate Muslims have a greater affiliation to their "Muslim brothers" in despotic regimes like Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia than they do to the democracies they live in. And, since the principle political aim of the Islam is a worldwide caliphate, Islam is somewhere between a massive conflict of interests and high treason. This issue needs attention and aggressive legally action.

Muslims take democracy to be a form of "weakness" which they can exploit by demanding equality, liberty, freedom of religion and a host of other benefits. They pervert freedom by securing advantages for their own religion in bad faith. Yet "equality" is never reciprocated by Muslim countries which never allow Christian churches, Jewish synagogues or Buddhist temples to be built in Muslim lands; neither do they allow freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality for women or anything else they "expect" from our liberal democracies. Muslim demands for "equality", then, are blatant bigotry – they expect from us what they would never give in return.

People will, of course, argue that Islam is obviously a religion. In my opinion, however, any "religion" that routinely uses places of prayer to deliver vociferous political messages is no longer a religion but something quite different. Islam is a ideology that demands political action using "religious" directives so there is no logical or moral reason why we cannot interpret Islam as a political movement. From this perspective, we can clearly see that Islam is the political enactment of inequality, bias towards women, anti-Semitism and a blatant disregard for basic human dignity and morality under the banner of religious politics. And such a system – like Nazism - has no place in a democracy.

We must pursue Islamic intolerance in courts in the United States, the United Kingdom and in Europe. I also believe Islam breaches the UN charter on human rights (by allowing Sharia law to continue) and it may also, for its despotic principles, be in breach of international law.

We need to bring Islam to book by ensuring that international organizations, such as the UN, take action against countries that condone terrorism in public or appease the torrent of hate and threats coming across on Arab media. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran encourage terrorist actions, condone violence and deliberately avoid taking measures to prevent their removal. This should have consequences.

For this reason, I believe that victims of terrorism and Islamic hate (e.g. death threats for speaking out against Islam, violent attack, etc.) should sue the United Nations, and other international organizations with responsibility for our security, for liable and negligence in the face of such an obvious threat.

Finally, we should pursue direct action against the offending Muslim countries themselves. We need to create a list of companies from which we import goods – then take direct political action to pressurize our politicians to boycott them for "sponsoring terror".

We must all start exerting political pressure on those that are failing us, but, above all, we must confront Islam with our most powerful weapon – democracy and the rule of law.

Stephen J. Hulbert

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".