But They Promised

According to Daniel Pipes, England’s Islamic community had promised, under a Covenant of Security, that as long as the UK provided safe haven for Muslims, Islamists would only plan jihadist strikes for other locations. Some British writers actually believed having Islamists in England made the British safer. Islamic clerics explained that the UK would not be considered the Realm of War (Dar al-Harb) as long as they could continue to preach their jihadist ideology. Apparently, someone didn’t get the memo.

One of the interesting features of Islam is how killing is discussed as a matter of technical detail. Standard Islamic apologetics exempt Christian and Jews from genocide by virtue of a common heritage which makes them “people of the book.” However, it is seldom mentioned that all others must be killed. Unrepentant atheists, polytheists, and others must be conquered and killed – no exceptions allowed. For example, Serge Trifkovic describes the slaughter of Hindus and the virtual elimination of Buddhism in the land of its founding, India. Zoroastrianism was also wiped out in the land of its origin: Persia.

What makes Islam so frightening is the instability of its criteria of death. Debates on who can or cannot be killed seem like judgment calls depending on arbitrary considerations. For example, in recent times some Saudi Wahhabists have said that Christians are polytheists because of the belief in the Trinity. Wahhabist have always held that Sufis and Shiites cannot be protected as Muslims in good standing. And America has been described as a secular nation no longer protected as a “people of the book.” In other cases, Muslim leaders who encourage the devout to kill the infidels abroad often face those very jihadists on return. Mohammad, himself, embodied this instability as he continually redefined the rules to rationalize his duplicity, slaughter, and conquests.

Nevertheless, people continue to refer to technical exemptions as if they were solid grounds to trust the Islamic religion. Imagine, for example, if someone casually told you that you won’t be killed because of your hair color or race. Would you feel safe with such a person? You’d certainly wonder if you’ll be next year’s target. If someone says they would only kill in certain locations, would you be relieved? One looks for a solid tradition based on solid reasoning embodied in universal principles. Islam has no such universal principles.

Islam is a supremacist ideology created to justify conquest and rule over others. It lacks a disposition of universality which can be developed and extended to create a solid foundation for a just civilization. Recently, Ali Sina, an ex-Muslim who runs the website Faith Freedom, argues that Islam is lacking in a very important manner; he notes that Islam is perhaps the only religion without a Golden Rule. Universality is the very essence of an ethical principle – indeed the essence of conceptual knowledge as such. Islam’s failure in this regard cannot be compensated by its Byzantine rules and counter rules. In Islam there is just no core principle whose soundness and compelling nature provides a solid ethical foundation.