I continue to be amazed by the readiness of liberals to accept and defend Islam. Many liberals are more accepting of Islam than they are of Christianity. They cringe when Islamic terrorists are so identified. They prefer that such terrorists be identified only as “terrorists,” and that their religion not be mentioned in any way. Why are liberals and liberal organizations, such as the ACLU, so quick to protect and defend Muslims? This question becomes even more intriguing when one factors in the typical antipathy that liberals generally have towards religion. What sense does it make for liberals to praise Islamic ideology and institutions, while denouncing those of Christianity?
I suggest three possibilities: Either most liberals are uninformed as to the true nature of Islam, including its doctrines and global intentions. Or, some liberals have sinister motivations, and they wish to work with Muslims for the purpose of collapsing the U.S. infrastructure and replacing it with some form of centralized control. Or, they, like others, are simply too afraid to speak out in opposition to Islamic ideology.
Possibility # 1—Uninformed / Misinformed: Perhaps, like other people, most liberals are simply uneducated about the actual goals and intentions of Muslims and Islamic ideology. They have never read the Quran nor examined Islamic doctrines, so they are unaware of its dangers. If this is the case, then liberals do not understand just how intensely Islamic philosophy differs from theirs. I realize that there are different types of “liberals,” but the traditional “liberal” is one who believes in the maximum degree of personal liberty. He wishes to be free from the moral and legal restraints of government and society. How then, can a genuine liberal tolerate Islam? The philosophies of liberalism and Islamism are diametrically opposed to each other. Consider the following areas:
Though other areas could be cited, these are some of the major areas of difference between liberals and Muslims. Their ideologies and philosophies are utterly incompatible with each other. The acceptance of Islam by liberals defies reason and logic.
Possibility #2—Common Goals: As I mentioned above, there are different types of liberals. Under possibility #1 I dealt primarily with the classic liberal. While all liberals take liberties with established laws, some liberals go farther than others. Some go so far as to reject the U.S. Constitution. This type of liberalism actually leans more toward socialism. Ironically, the label [“liberalism”], which suggests the advancement of personal liberties, actually ends up advancing them the least! Such liberals eventually call for the end of free-market capitalism, and they desire the establishment of some form of economic central planning to be set up in its place. Their ultimate goal is a transition from a democratic form of government to a democratic socialism, and some even want full-blown communism.
Islamic jihadists and ideologues also desire that the US government be replaced, albeit not with the same type of government, and not for the same purpose as desired by the socialist liberal. Both wish to collapse the present US infrastructure, but the Islamist has a different purpose. He desires the establishment of a worldwide caliphate. For this goal to be accomplished, each nation must come under Islamic and Sharia law. “Sharia” is Arabic for “the way” or “path,” and describes the civil law aspect of Islam. The Quran says, “The true religion with Allah is Islam,” and “Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers” (3:20, 86). The Muslim wishes to change the United States into an Islamic utopia. The socialist liberal wishes to change it into a socialist utopia. What they both have in common is the dissolution American-styled democracy.
Some liberals may think that they can work with Muslims in order to achieve their common goal [collapse of the US infrastructure], then, at the last moment, they would hope to seize control of power before the Muslims do. While history does show that such alliances can sometimes be successful, anyone who has studied the history of Islam can tell you that it is often the Islamists who capitalize on such political arrangements. Socialist liberals may presume themselves to be in control, but it is far more likely that that the Islamists would have the upper hand in such a scenario. Unlike the liberal, the Muslim is motivated by more than just an ideology; his is a religious ideology. Regardless of what others may think of his religion, the Muslim is religiously motivated to fulfill his religious objectives. It is typically the case that no matter the type of religion, the true religionist is more dedicated to his cause. He is conscience-bound to accomplish his task. He does not surrender easily, especially the religionist who is convinced that being slain in battle is the surest path to eternal reward (Quran 3:159, 196; 4:75).
Some liberals may think that they have formed some sort of symbiotic relationship with Islamists. If so, they need to reevaluate their situation. If it is symbiotic, then the Muslims are the host, and the liberals are the easily removed parasites. Liberals, and particularly atheists, are just as much infidels to Muslims as are Christians and Jews. In the event of any collusion between liberals and Muslims, I suspect that the Muslims are the ones who are using the liberals, and not the other way around.
Possibility #3—Cowardice: It is possible that some liberals and liberal organizations defend Islam because they wish to gain its favor. They have seen what happens to people who question or challenge Islam, and they do not wish to be subjected to the same kind of treatment. Those who challenge the tenets of Islam are often attacked verbally, and sometimes even physically. Sadly, the critics of Islam now have two enemies: Muslims, and the proponents of political correctness. Some may wish to believe Islam to be “just another religion,” but this is naïve and wishful thinking. According to the very teaching of the Quran, Islam cannot perpetually coexist with other religions. At some point it will stifle or eliminate all spiritual and ideological opposition, and Islam will stand alone as the only [openly] practicable religion.
ConclusionIslam, with its system of Sharia law and theocratic approach to governance, is contrary to the basic philosophies of both liberals and conservatives. Liberals and conservatives may not agree with each other, but they can at least debate their differences in an open and honorable fashion. Islamic societies do not permit such dialogue. There is no “freedom of religion” in Islamic States. This proves that Islam is more than just a religion—Technically, Islam is a religious ideology. Sharia law is antithetical to the U.S. Constitution. Liberals and all other Non-Muslims need to awake to the true nature and goals of Islamic ideology. It poses a serious threat to all free societies, and it doesn’t care whether those societies are composed of liberals or conservatives. It seeks to defeat them both.
Comments are closed.