Critique of Pure Islam


WHEN SOMEONE says that some of the passages of the Quran are violent, and that Islam itself is political, what do you call that? It's an important question. Strangely enough, I've heard it called "racist," which seems very odd. Islam is not a race.

I've also heard it called "Islamophobia," which is also strange, because it is not a phobia.

It is religious criticism. But it's more than that, because Islam is not merely a religion. Islam is also a political system with political goals. So instead of racism or Islamophobia, we could call it religious or political criticism.

But if you call it that, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it. In a free society, it is a perfectly legitimate activity to criticize religious doctrines and political systems. It's perfectly all right, for example, to point out that the Catholic church frowns upon birth control, or that communism and free enterprise are incompatible.

So when someone explains the political ideology contained in the Quran, it is a completely legitimate activity, and anyone who calls it racism or Islamophobia either doesn't understand what they're saying, or, more likely, they are trying to censor the person. That kind of censorship is out of line in a free society.

The fact that exponents of pure Islam will not tolerate criticism of Islam is one of the main criticisms of Islam. The fact that the Quran itself is adamant about disallowing any criticism of the Quran (and calls for a death sentence for doing so) is one of the most legitimate things to criticize about the Quran.

If someone doesn't hire a Muslim simply because the applicant is a Muslim, that is discrimination, and that's a different issue. If someone beats up a Muslim because he's a Muslim, that is a hate crime and is illegal, immoral, and should be punished.

But criticism of Islamic doctrine? It can and should be done.

Where it gets tricky is immigration laws. There has to be some selection. If you have a Muslim applying for immigration, what do you do? The person himself may not be in favor of following the violent instructions in the Quran, but how do we know? Because he is a Muslim, and because the Quran contains political goals and ideas, he is more likely to be subversive and ascribe to doctrines that we would consider treasonous than the average applicant.

What do we do about that? If anybody has some answers, let's hear it (in comments). This is, I believe, one of the most important issues that arises out of the study of the Quran and the Sunnah.

One possibility, of course, is to stop Muslim immigration.

It is also possible to give an immigration applicant a lie-detector test and ask about their intentions within our country. In the U.S. they have to learn a little about the country and swear an oath of alleigance, but under taqiyya, a Muslim with the intention of helping to overthrow the government would be allowed by Islamic doctrine to swear the oath without intending to keep it, so that requirement is not enough.

Another possibility is to allow Muslims in, but really crack down on preaching jihad within the country. Most countries have laws against sedition or treason, but so far as I know, no country has enforced those laws against Muslims preaching in mosques. But once the precedent was set, it would be a straightforward matter. (Read more about the relationship between sedition and Sharia here.)

Are there better ideas? Let's compile them here in the comments for easy reading by voters and politicians. We need a solution. It would be foolish for democratic countries to keep importing people who want to overthrow their government. Not all Muslims do, of course. But pure Islam, straight from the Quran and the Sunnah, is very clear about the obligation to wage jihad and establish universal Sharia law. That means overthrowing democratic governments.

The longer we ignore this issue, the bigger the problem will be when we finally tackle it.

The immigration issue is open for discussion. But the freedom to openly discuss and criticize Islamic doctrine is not an issue at all. We have the right to freely discuss it. Period.


Anonymous 3:50 PM  

I agree with you, 100%—and the fact that we see ourselves as an enlightened society would seem to suggest that even radical Muslims with murder in their heart should be admitted to the United States. Never. Foreigners do not have a “constitutional right” to come to the United States, even if the Constitution might suggest to us that every decision of our government ought to be based on fairness and a system of justice. In my view, the solution to “immigration” is simple. Rather than wholesaling immigration, to the extent of allowing more than a million people into our country every year (not including the illegal aliens, of course), we should revert to annual quotas, by country. All quotas should be “really low.” Whether or not a person is allowed to immigrate to the United States should depend entirely upon two things: a thorough understanding of his or her background, and such personal and professional attributes as to make a positive contribution to the United States of America and its people. Failing either of these — REjected.

authoress 6:50 PM  

The US is essentially a membership club, the belonging to which should be based on clear ideological commitments. The national identity of the US is nothing but a moral profile outlining American values. That’s all there is to it. If you don’t like freedom, then why do you come to the US? If you don’t value self-realization, then what are you doing here? Islam, the burqa/headscarf and the subjugation they imply, of women to men, of every creed and religion to theirs, flies in the face of the American tradition of freedom and equal moral entitlement of genders. It is an uncompromising culture of freedom that is supposed to make Americans “American”. A lot of Americans themselves skimp on the “all men created equal” statement here and there but at least pay it due lip service. Now if someone so visibly refuses to partake in that culture, then what is supposed to make them “American”? They clearly do not belong in the country.

Until the day comes when national boarders are obsolete and anyone can freely go/live anywhere, the US will have to discriminate between peoples of the world with respect to their admissibility into the country. Because America is not an ethnic nation-state, it would be racist to select on the basis of ethnicity (the Diversity Visa Lottery is preposterous, I know). All that remains then is ideology, and to a lesser degree, skills. Being American should not be a matter of arbitrary background circumstance, though it’s sadly becoming more and more fashionable for disaffected youths born in the country to view it as such, but rather a conscious choice affirming one’s embrace of a free life and the moral entitlements and responsibilities stemming from such a life. A similar argument goes for Canada, Australia, and New Zealand too, although these countries’ values are perhaps less explicitly outlined than in the case of the US constitution.

Check out my blog at

I want to join the infidel blogger alliance, but I don't see a contact form. Could you maybe introduce me?


Anonymous 5:41 PM  

If you don’t like freedom, then why do you come to the US? This is one often heard argument, but anyone who studies the strategy of the Islamofascists quickly finds that they are using our freedom against us, to subvert our society and to bring us into the Islamic fold. Yes, Islam is indeed parasitic, it sucks the blood of the host and moves on to the next once the infected body collapses. Islam is worse than AIDS. We need to get rid of the mosques, madrassah's and aggressively deport all those who wish us harm.

Always On Watch 6:23 PM  

In a free society, it is a perfectly legitimate activity to criticize religious doctrines and political systems.

Does any Islamic nation have a free society? No. Allowing the freedom to criticize Islam could lead to the downfall of the governments of those nations because religion and governance are inextricably melded.

The West learned the importance of separating state and church. That period of history during which that separation happened was full of turmoil.

Islam has yet to begin that separation to any significant degree. Furthermore, I'm not sure that the separation can be effected.

Yet we continue to allow thousands of Muslims to come into Western nation. With the hope that they'll come to understand the importance of the freedoms we cherish? It's not happening--the assimilation we're hoping for. They attack our freedoms, namely that of speech and of press, because they find Western outspokenness and criticism as Islamophobic.

It really is a clash of civilizations.

Pastorius 7:20 AM  

It seems to me we have a whole world full of people who would like to live in the United States. Why even take a chance on Muslims.

Islam's foundational set of doctrines is called Sharia. Sharia is the constitution of Saudi Arabia and it is the law code of several other Islamic nations.

Therefore, the preaching of Sharia is the sedition.

Why would we want to invite people into our country whose foundational doctrine is sedition against our country?

Anonymous 12:47 PM  

I like to remind people how racist Islam is in both theory and practice, and cite that as a reason why they should oppose it. The Hadith are loaded with white racism, and of course Islam is basically a vehicle for Arab Imperialism.

Just remind people that in addition to all the white/Arab racism which is inherent in Islam, that Arabs used to be white, as white as Greeks or Sicilians, before they decided that raping black African women and making little Prince Bandars was their pasttime for 1300 years until the Brits put a stop to it, and that now Mohammedan slavery is mostly confined to the Arabian interior, UAE, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Sudan, and southern Egypt.

It's also helpful to remind people that convicts of every race - be it Native American, Aborigine, or Inuit - have become Mohammedans.

Surind 4:00 AM  


Islamic Heaven - Lots of Sex & Virgins?

SAmom 7:24 PM  

Nonie Darwish has some great suggestions on immigration in the latter part of her book Cruel and Usual Punishment.

Citizen Warrior 3:29 PM  

The 20th century racial classification by American anthropologist Carleton S. Coon, divided humanity into five races:

Caucasoid race
Congoid race
Capoid race
Mongoloid race
Australoid race

This is the way Thomas Henry Huxley divided up the races:

1: Bushmen
2: Negroes
3: Negritoes
4: Melanochroi
5: Australoids
6: Xanthochroi
7: Polynesians
8: Mongoloids A
8: Mongoloids B
8: Mongoloids C
9: Esquimaux

The above is from Wikipedia.

Below is from

Over time, many different racial classifications have been created, numbering anywhere between 6 and several hundred. Below are a few of these.

* Khoid (Hottentot) race
* Sanid (Bushmen) race
* Central Congoid race (Geographic center and origin in the Congo river basin)
* Bambutid race (African Pygmies)
* Aethiopid race (Ethiopia, Somalia)
* Mediterranid race (from Mediterranean areas)
* Dinaric race (predominant in western Balkans [Dinaric Mountains] and northern Italy)
* Alpine race
* Ladogan race (named after Lake Ladoga; indigenous to Russia; includes Lappish subrace of arctic Europe)
* Nordish or Northern European race
* Armenid race (Armenia, Syria, Lebanon and northern Iraq)
* Turanid race (Kazakhstan, Hungary and Turkey)
* Irano-Afghan race (Iran and Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey)
* Indic or Nordindid race (Pakistan and northern India)
* Dravidic race (India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka)
* Veddoid race (remnant Australoid population in central and southern India) Melanesian race (New Guinea, Papua, Solomon Islands)
* Australian-Tasmanian race (Australian Aborigines)
* Northeast Asian or Northern Mogoloid race (China, Manchuria, Korea and Japan)
* Southeast Asian or Southern Mongoloid race (China, Indochina, Thailand, Myanmar [Burma], Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines)
* Micronesian-Polynesian race
* Ainuid race (remnants of aboriginal population in northern Japan)
* Tungid race (Mongolia and Siberia, Eskimos)
* Amerindian race (American Indians)

To describe the teachings of Islam or the behavior of Muslims cannot, in any reasonable way, be construed as "racism."

Citizen Warrior 9:44 PM  

Another possible approach to the issue of racism is to say something like this:

"I know there are people who are racist who might be against Islam, but these are two seperate issues. I am not a racist, but I think non-Muslims should learn more about Islam. If you talked to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somalian woman, or Wafa Sultan, a Syrian woman, or Nonie Darwish, an Egyptian woman, they would tell you the same thing, and you could not call them racist. They are simply telling you about the teachings of Islam."

And then recommend one of these books, or loan them your copy, or in some way try to persuade or convince them to read one of these ladies' books. Or send them an interview or speech from YouTube by one of these extraordinary women.

Anonymous 9:02 PM  

Dear Citizen Warrior,
Thank you for another great article.
The solution to Muslim immigration is in establishing an illegality of the Quaran, Sunna and Hadith (The Texts). It is not a difficult legal task to find The Texts being a hate speach or being seditious material, hence, illegal to reproduce, preach and distribute.
There is an apparent lack of will on the part of the Establishement and Judiciary to do so. I guess, it is all about the West being dependent on oil. Western politicians and Judiciary would never dare to make the Texts illegal, however obvious it was out of fear of oil embargo. The Open Standard is part of the solution.

Truthiocity 8:40 AM  

I agree that something has to change and soon.

I know from direct experience that islmaic children in NY are instructed to say "happy holidays" instead of "merry christmas" (apparenly they aren't instructed to say it nicely either).

From my own personal experiences and observations over the last year average muslims I've been in daily contact with for years are shifting in a more "orthodox" direction and are being more open about it. Someone somewhere is amping up the rhetoric they are exposed to.

But what to change?

Lie detector tests are not an option for a few reasons. The KGB figured out how to outfox them decades ago. So honest government employees would fail while the moles would slide right thru the tests. (that would be an interesting point to think about when using such a test though)

A temporary moratorium on immigration would be far more humane than internment camps that were used in WWII. But restricting it by country is unfair to christians, apostates, muslims who want to escape sharia etc.

But quizing people about christianity would just cause prosepective immigrants to learn how to answer the questions.

The answer is to increase the monitoring of mosques by law enforcement officers who understand the languages used.

They also should find ways to covertly monitor the classes for both children and adults in mosques. As well as any adult study group.

People who attend mosques should be educated about how to spot radical rhetoric and about the danger it poses to their children. Instead of just looking for terrorism related behavior. They should be encouraged to report such rhetoric to the authorities using the argument that it will protect their children from harm and their families from shame.

If someone attempts or succefully commits a terrorist related act, the mosque he attends should be raided and its principles arrested and investigated. Furthermore the connections must be investigated (I sure hope they do that already).

Lopping off the heads of the Hydra does nothing if you ignore the heart. Perhaps there are similarites in relationships in the various mosques terrorists in America attend. Perhaps they are all run by the same organization. I sure hope the authorities do this already.

Anonymous 10:58 AM  

Combating sharia in the USA has to be done by undercover policing. Similar to the way gangs and mobs are broken up. The Muslim community should be investigated by undercover agents who challenge the wearing of the veil, blasphemy and apostasy. Laws need to be passed that specifically address these issues so the federal government has the power to bring the full power of the government to bear in defending individual rights.

WeMustResist 10:00 PM  

Very good and valid remarks in defence of freedom and civilisation. Thanks! I suggest 2 things in immigration: (a) After we have a halal "Islamic narrativel" (ie a recognised time sequence of hadiths and revelations, showing Mohammed's story and the founding of his religion) we only admit immigrants/refugees who have read and passed exams in that "Islamic narrative" - no matter which country they come from. This increases the chances of Moslems and dhimmis finding out that what the imam said is wrong - Mohammed made it up because he was a criminal. It does not make it certain, but over time the religion will shrink, starting with the best people who can think for themselves and gradually spreading.
(b) All immigrants/refugees must swear, upon threat of deportation, to obey certain rules - and the list of rules is all the things in Sharia which are barbaric and intolerable in a civilised nation. The novel thing in this suggestion is the threat of deportation.

Anonymous 7:20 AM  

I don't disagree with anything you said. I do differ with your observation that Pure Islam has anything to do with Sharia. I defy anyone to find Sharia mentioned in the Quran. Sharia came into the world some 600 years after the Quran, conceived by a bunch of Mullas to control the populace in the Caliphate of the time. As a white american veteran who is also a conservative on 99% of the issues I am also technically a muslim. I converted to Islam in 1993 in Indonesia. I don't practice anymore but I always remember what I lived in Indonesia for 10 years. For 10 years I never heard the word Jihad, I never heard nor saw the anti-christian rhetoric, I never knew nor did anyone ever teach me that the last Surah was the most important. I spent many many days with my friends both Christian and Muslim discussing the merits of both. In every town or city there were Mosques and Churches sprinkled everywhere and nobody cared. I am with you in the concern about the fanatics and how to seperate them from others (if that is even possible nowdays). I look back on my own experiences and have a tremendous amount of trouble reconcilling what I learned, what I lived, what I saw with what is happening in the world. It is both puzzeling and alarming. How do we as a free society welcome the freedom to worship as you desire and still maintain our society. I certainly don't have the answers but without a doubt the point you have made about critical discussion is a start. And, it was never a problem in my learnings about Islam. And as a technical muslim who spent years learning as much as I could about islam they can take Sharia and bury it. Never read it, never will and it has nothing to do with the Islam I learned.

Citizen Warrior 5:55 PM  

Someone emailed this comment:

The first step would be to BAN all visible religious signs from the education system, meaning no more hijabs in the schools and colleges.

I have a muslim Algerian niece who was totally normal until her last year of college. She had friends and was a happy girl. Her last six months of college changed her. She was targeted by hijabed girls who befriended her and indoctrinated her. One morning, to the horror of her parents who had fled from Algeria because of religious demands such as hijab, she got up and put on a hijab that these girls had given her. From that point on, all communication broke down in the family. She hates us, she hates the West, a lot of hate...

Now, if future muslim immigrant families know beforehand that their girls will not be allowed to wear hijabs in schools and colleges, this might be just enough to keep the extremist radicals away.

Citizen Warrior 5:58 PM  

Someone emailed this comment:

Thanks, Citizen.

This morning on the BBC was the usual waffle about the cost of benefits to the UK economy, and particularly the paying out of benefits to families with four or more children, where the parent(s) had never sought work. It was argued, in effect, that they were paid for having child after child which the state had then to keep.

I noted that not once in the item was any mention of the elephant in the room - those particularly egregious benefit cheats, Muslims, who are allowed to come into the UK, have too many children, don't work, (or do and claim every state subsidy under the sun) and of those who see it as their way of getting jeziya tax from us.

Muslim immigration must be stopped in Europe but I doubt that the dhimmi UK government, so bent out of shape from appeasement, will do anything to stop it themselves. There will have to be some sort of crisis before they are shocked awake.

Recently I heard Anjem (Motormouth) Choudary in "debate" with Robert Spencer. Choudary was, for once, lost for words when Spencer asked him why, if Western civilisation is so hateful to Muslims, they leave their Muslim countries in droves to settle in the West. Spencer said that we never hear of masses of Muslims emigrating to Muslim countries, and why didn't that happen?

Deleted 6:24 PM  

I see no legal or ethical problem with barring immigration from muslim majority countries with no exception made based on religion. This would mean that we would not allow coptic christians to immigrate either. We've always had official or unofficial quotas based on nationality and we claim that these standards are based on our diplomatic relations with the country, not the would be immigrants race or religion.

We ought to just not allow anyone from muslim majority countries to come to the west. In the end, this would be a great boon for the Muslim world because the Bahai, Christians and whoever else would be forced to stay there and reform it. Only they can be the voice of reason there.

Ben 7:57 PM  

In our system, banning Islamic texts is not possible, nor is it desiriable.

Without the Qur'an, hadith, Sunnah, tafsir & Shari'ah, we could not learn and discuss the evil doctrines & practices of Islam.

Believers: ain't welcome here because they war on us.

Hypocrites: are not welcome here because they can, at any random moment, revert to believers.

Expulsion & exclusion are required.

Hijabs, turbans & Burqas: Would you cut of a rattle snake's rattles? Would you paint a skunk black? Then why disguise a Muslim? Never molest landmarks or warning signes!!!

Free speech: forget it. Unless we act, decisively and soon, its history. December 12-14 Hitlery meets with the OIC to decide how to implement HRC Resolution 16/18.

The General Assembly's version of that resolution passed the Third Cmte. by acclamation and will be adopted in December.

Citizen Warrior 10:07 PM  

Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, a former member of the International Institute of Islamic Thought, a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood front, recalls being at a group meeting in the early 1990s where they came up with the idea to use “Islamophobia” as a political weapon. Of the use of the word, Muhammad later said, “This loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.”


Furor Teutonicus 5:19 AM  

XX It is also possible to give an immigration applicant a lie-detector test and ask about their intentions within our country. XX

Na. Come ON!

Even the FBI only give a lie detector a 50/50 rating, at BEST.

AG Hammer 11:56 AM  

The simplest solution is to limit muslim immigration. Treason and Sedition have become nothing more than a means to shutting down critisisim of the government. Once applied to Muslims it becomes to easy to apply to any and all other "groups" deemed to be critical of government. The biggest issue seems to be a lack of understanding of Islam, in part because of the way schools teach about Islam and because the way our governmental agencies treat Islamic dialectic.

Article Spotlight

One of the most unusual articles on is Pleasantville and Islamic Supremacism.

It illustrates the Islamic Supremacist vision by showing the similarity between what happened in the movie, Pleasantville, and what devout fundamentalist Muslims are trying to create in Islamic states like Syria, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia (and ultimately everywhere in the world).

Click here to read the article.


All writing on is copyright © 2001-2099, all rights reserved.

  © Free Blogger Templates Columnus by 2008

Back to TOP