In 1949, sociologist Jules Monnerot described Communism as 20th century Islam. To which I add: Islam is the Communism of the 21st century. Like Communism, it is totalitarian with tentacles reaching into every aspect of the lives of those it subjugates. And like Communism, it is internationalist in its aspiration and projected reach.
My second sentence is more clever than accurate. It is not as if Islam has displaced Communism in the 21st century. They are both up and running as serious existential threats to the West and its values. They are of course each antithetical to the other despite their similarities, which include being totalitarian, internationalist, and anti-liberty. The main difference is that Islam is theist, Communism atheist. Their competition, however, does not rule out collusion and collaboration which gives rise to a noxious fusion form, Islamo-communism. In the USA, Islamo-commie fusion is promoted by the Democratic Socialists of America, an outfit that has infiltrated and now controls the once-respectable Democrat Party. Its old guard, one of whom is the Jewish (!) Charles Schumer of New York, has abdicated. The main advocate of the DSA-driven fusion is is Abdul El-Sayed of Michigan who is running for seat in the U. S. Senate.
Some say that Islam is a political ideology masquerading as a religion. I don’t go that far. I say it is a religion. If so, it is not a religion disguised as something else. It is the worst of the great religions. Its holy book, the Koran, Schopenhauer described as “The saddest and poorest form of theism.” At the present time, among the great religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), Islam is the sole religious source of terrorism.
Nor is Islam a Christian heresy. If it is a religion, then it is not a heresy. There is a distinction between a religion and each and all of its heresies. Think of all the Christian heresies: Sabellianism, Marcionism, Patripassionism, Applinarianism, Nestorianism, Donatism, Arianism, and so on. Do you want to say that each is a religion unto itself? I hope not. Islam is a religion unto itself.
I view Islam as a hybrid ideology in which religion and political ideology are inextricably combined. It make no provision for mosque-state separation parallel to our church-state separation. Malcolm Pollack quotes Edward Feser on this point. As making no such provision, full-strength Sharia-based Islam ought not be tolerated in the West, and not just because of its vicious hostility to Christianity and other genuine religions of peace.
But wait a minute! Doesn’t the very first of the amendments to our constitution guarantee the right to the “free exercise of religion”? “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .” That is what Amendment I in the Bill of Rights says, but like anything in any document, it is subject to interpretation. This is a large topic, of course, but to me it is blindingly evident that the Founders could not have wanted to protect any religious ideology whose core principles are antithetical to the founding principles of our great republic. The Founders we not suicidally empathetic or toxically tolerant.
Is a reformed Islam possible, one that is respectful of American values and principles? The moderate Muslim Zuhdi Jasser thinks so, but he is in a tiny minority. Maybe someday Islam will join the civilized world. Until then a moratorium on Muslim immigration is a wise course.
The trouble with the Muslim world is that they never had anything like our Enlightenment.
. . . I figure that I ought to take the time to clear up one particularly stupid talking point that I’ve also seen brought up: the fact that the Iranians say “Death to America” being interpreted as evidence of ruthless savagery or genocidal intent. This requires you to interpret the phrase in a thuddingly literal manner, despite the fact that the Iranians don’t use it that way, and the regime’s officials have repeatedly clarified that that isn’t what it means.
Yes, if you translate “Marg bar Âmrikâ” literally, that’s what it means, but repeated usage has made it clear that it’s intended to be interpreted as opposition to American empire and policy towards Muslim countries. It’s why official Iranian government documents translate it as “Down with America” instead, because that’s more in line with the spirit of what the phrase actually means.