Thread: Islam: Religion or political ideology?

Islam: Religion or political ideology?


By Ali Sina

In an article titled “Islam: Religion or political ideology?” the author Robert Spengler of Asia Times wrote:

“Ali Sina is wrong: Islamic expansionism arises from religious motives, that is, a holy rage against the encroachment of death upon traditional society. In the form of Islam, the West confronts a challenge quite different from communism.”

In his essay Mr. Spengler argued “Islam is both a religion and a political ideology. Religion is what makes Islamic political ideology so dangerous.”

I suppose our differences is just is semantics. What do we mean by religion? Religion is one of those terms that to each has a different meaning. Paul Connelly says:

“A number of modern scholars of religion have commented on the difficulty of defining what religion is. Over the centuries, influential thinkers have offered their own definitions, with greater or lesser degrees of assurance, but virtually all of these definitions have been found wanting by the majority of scholars. In some cases the definitions are too narrow, defining religion in terms of the speaker's religious beliefs or those of his or her culture and tending to exclude the religious beliefs of other cultures. In other cases the definitions are so vague and inclusive that they do not sufficiently delimit religion from other areas of human thought such as psychology, law, economics, physics, etc”

Connelly offers an "inclusive enough" definition of religion to not leave out any of the beliefs and practices that seem religious to most intelligent people. He says:

“Religion originates in an attempt to represent and order beliefs, feelings, imaginings and actions that arise in response to direct experience of the sacred and the spiritual. As this attempt expands in its formulation and elaboration, it becomes a process that creates meaning for itself on a sustaining basis, in terms of both its originating experiences and its own continuing responses.”

If we take this broad and "inclusive enough" definition of religion then hardy any belief that tends to reshape some aspects of human behavior can be excluded.

Take the example of People’s Temple , the cult created by Jim Jones whose members willingly fed a poison-laced drink to their children, administered it to their infants, and drank it themselves. Their bodies were found lying together, arm in arm; over 900 perished.

A tape recorded as the final ritual was being enacted reveals that the believers, with only few exceptions, voluntarily drank the poison and fed it to their children.

Jim Jones was an atheist. He was advocating social justice, communism and socialism. He did not believe in a god or afterlife. He was THE sacred and THE cause.

Jeanne Mills, who spent six years as a high-ranking member before becoming one of the few who left the People's Temple wrote:

"There was an unwritten but perfectly understood law in the church that was very important: No one is to criticize Father (Jones), wife, or his children " (Mills, 1979). Deborah Blakey, another long-time member who managed to defect, testified: “Any disagreement with [Jim Jones’s] dictates came to be regarded as "treason."” [Blakey, June 15, 1978.] www.cultbuster.faithweb.com/jimjones.htm

Could we possibly consider People’s Temple as a religion? Spengler writes:

“All religion, Franz Rosenzweig argued, respond to man's anxiety in the face of death (against which philosophy is like a child stuffing his fingers in his ears and shouting, "I can't hear you!").

People’s Temple , fall into this definition. Jim Jones warned his followers of an imminent nuclear disaster and took them to the jungles of Guyana , promising them that after the end of civilization they would be the only ones who would survive. If the belief in afterlife is irrelevant to categorize a doctrine as a religion, then People’s Temple was a religion by all means.

Spengler agrees that even communism can be thought of as a religion where History or dialectic materialism takes the place of God and acts as the inevitable destiny of the society. Nonetheless, he sates that History is no god, and cannot be equated to an omnipresent omniscient god that takes the form of a being.

Therefore it is all the question of definition. Spengler himself acknowledges that we require a working definition of religion before making further sense of the issue.

Is Judaism a religion? Based on Connelly’s inclusive definition of religion sated above and on Spengler’s and Rosenzweig’s idea of religion that vests any doctrine that “responds to man's anxiety in the face of death” with the authority of religion, yes it is. Judaism is a religion for the “Jew is confident in his portion of immortality because he believes the Jews to be an eternal people”. By that token Islam is also a religion for it has the belief in an afterlife, punishment and rewards.

By that definition all cults can be called religion. Seventy four followers of the Order of the Solar Temple committed mass suicide and shot their children in the head because they believed their fiery ritual murder-suicides will take them to a new world on the star "Sirius." The suicides were not intended to end the life but to perpetuate it and immortalize it in another plane. The founders of the cult, Luc and Joseph, in a letter delivered after their deaths, wrote that they were "leaving this earth to find a new dimension of truth and absolution, far from the hypocrisies of this world."

We have similar statements made by Muhammad, the founder of Islam. He wrote:

"Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance from their Lord. They rejoice in the Bounty provided by Allah...the (Martyrs) glory in the fact that on them is no fear, nor have they (cause to) grieve. They rejoice in the Grace and the Bounty from Allah, and in the fact that Allah suffereth not the reward of the Faithful to be lost (in the least)." (Q.3:169)

Whether the belief of immortality is in an imaginary heaven or in an imaginary star is immaterial. The point is the same; death is glorified for a promise of a better existence. Therefore if Islam is a religion so is the Order of Solar Temple. If the requisite of a religion is to have a body of sacred beliefs then People’s Temple is also a religion. Jim Jones was a sacred being for his followers and his cause was sacred.

Examples abound. We can talk of the Japanese Shoko Asahara and his cult Aum Supreme Truth. The leader of this cult ordered his followers to release Sarin gas in the subways of Tokyo that resulted in the death of a dozen of people and hundreds of others were injured. Furthermore this cult is suspected of a series of slayings and kidnappings of anti-cult activists and of preparing to overthrow the Japanese government -- all in the name of "good karma."

According to Shoko Ashahara "poa" killing relieved victims from everyday life and the inevitable accumulation of bad karma. Thus what we call cold-blooded murder was regarded "as a beautiful 'poa,' and wise people would see that both the killer and the person killed would benefit”

Compare that to Muhammad’s raids and killing sprees in the name of monotheism. Assassinations, murders, looting, rapes and even genocide were considered to be acts of piety if done in the name of Allah and for the promotion of his cause. What to us is terrorism, to a Muslim is Jihad and a pillar of Islam.

So if we are to take the “inclusive” definition of religion proposed by Spengler, then all the cults must also be accepted as religions.

I have no problem with that definition. And perhaps that is the more accurate definition of religion. In that case I fully agree with Spengler that Islam and Judaism are religions too. But he must also agree that with that definition all cults also qualify to be called religions.

When I said Islam is not a religion, I had a less philosophical, a more popular notion of religion in mind. The popular understanding of religion is that it is a set of codes of conduct to elevate the individual’s spirituality, to uplift his soul and make him a better human being. In practice, perhaps few, if any of the present religions qualify for this definition. When religions are firmly believed then they become instruments of mind control and not of liberation. In practice religion is often used to justify cruelty and violence. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), philosopher and mathematician wrote: “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”

History can witness that what Pascal says is the reality. That is what religions do in practical terms. However, in theory religion is meant to teach people goodly manners, honesty, compassion, forbearance, tolerance, love and unity. It is to this theoretical definition of religion that I was hinting when I said Islam is not a religion.

Which religions fall into that definition? Buddhism, Zoroastrianism and to some extent Hinduism and Christianity! Why Islam and Judaism are not religions is because these doctrines were created not as end to themselves but as tools to achieve a temporal and a political goal. They are not doctrines created to teach man spirituality, or make him enlightened. The spiritual message in Judaism and Islam are secondary. They are used as baits to lure the believer and give him the feeling of sacred and otherworldliness. The promise of a reward whether in the form of resurrection or afterlife, is essential to muzzle people and goad them to do things that normally they would not do. Judaism and Islam were created to advance political objectives -- religion was the pretext.

Richard E. Friedman in his well researched and well documented book “Who Wrote the Bible?” explains how Judaism was invented in the seventh century BC by four priests that he calls “J," "P," "E," and "D" for the purpose of bringing together the divided nations of the Jews under one faith. During that time the tribe of Judea was living apart from the rest of the Israelites. They had a separate holy book and even worshiped a different god. In the Old Testament there are references to two gods, Jehovah and El. These two deities were not different names of the same deity. They were two distinct deities. Jews were not monotheists prior to that. This is clear from Psalm 82 where it says that the Lord Jehovah assembled all the gods and judged them and rebuked them for being inept gods.

The above Psalm disparages other gods but it does not deny their existence. Furthermore there are numerous verses that prohibit the Jews bowing down and worshipping the gods of other people. In numerous places it also makes it clear that the god of the Jews is a jealous god. (Ex: 20:5 Ex. 34:14, Deut. 4:24) Now how can one be jealous of an inexistent being? It is clear that those who wrote the Bible were sure that each nation had its own god, and of course the god of the Jews was superior.

The stories of the Pentateuch are repeated in two different versions. There are so many inconsistencies in these five books attributed to Moses that one has no other choice but to agree that these books are the amalgamation of two separate religious traditions with different gods and different holy books.

Friedman argues that the reason for the merging of the two distinct beliefs and their gods was to foster the sentiment of national unity among the Jews. Therefore the religion of Judaism was created as a catalyst to bind the two separate nations together by giving them a common belief.

The Jewish Rabies used religion as a tool of national unity. Muhammad used the same as a tool of domination. Muhammad was a megalomaniac narcissist with the reveries of grandiosity. He created Islam to dominate people and make them do what he desired. Religion, God, monotheism, prayers and other rituals were instruments that he employed in order to grab their attention and impose on them his will. These were just excuses to keep the people busy and hooked.

Narcissists do not promote themselves directly. This would make them repulsive. They instead manipulate people and promise them heaven and earth. They give them "a cause" and present themselves as the personification of that cause. The cause becomes the most important thing and it can't exist without them. Hence indirectly they become the center of the universe and the most important person.

In People’s Temple , social justice was the pretext and Jones was the personification of his cause. Jeanne Mills writes:

“There was never a question of who was right, because Jim was always right. When our large household met to discuss family problems, we didn’t ask for opinions. Instead, we put the question to the children, "What would Jim do?" It took the difficulty out of life. There was a type of "manifest destiny" which said the Cause was right and would succeed. Jim was right and those who agreed with him were right. If you disagreed with Jim, you were wrong. It was as simple as that. [Mills, 1979.]

Hitler, who also created a cult of personality around himself was not openly glorifying his person but rather the cause of Aryanism and superiority of Germany .

Muhammad did not ask his followers to worship him. He claimed to be just a messenger of a god that only he could see. Once that belief was established, then he demanded obedience by adroitly calling his followers to obey “Allah and his messenger” and since this imaginary Allah was Muhammad's own alter ego, the obedience was to Muhammad alone.

The causes are to hide the hidden agendas of the cult leaders. Dr. Sam Vaknin a psychologist and an expert in narcissism writes:

"Narcissists use anything they can lay their hands on in the pursuit of narcissistic supply. If God, creed, church, faith, institutionalized religion can provide them with narcissistic supply, they will become devout. They will abandon religion if it can't."

With this understanding, is it still correct to call Islam a religion? Islam was an instrument of domination, a way to fool the gullible to wage war for Muhammad, kill and be ready to get killed to advance Muhammad's designs and satisfy his ambitions. That is why Islam was invented. After Muhammad his religion was used for the same very purpose. It bounded the followers together; it inspired them to sacrifice themselves, commit unthinkable atrocities and fulfill Muhammad’s dreams of conquest.

The religious aspect of Islam was created later by Muslim philosophers. A theology was invented, mystical and esoteric interpretation were given to banal and asinine sayings of Muhammad. The religion was molded gradually by the followers and the passage of time gave it the seal of antiquitatem and credibility.

Therefore the answer to the conundrum whether Islam is a religion or not depends on how we define religion. If Islam is a religion, so is Nazism, communism, Satanism, Heaven’s Gate, People’s Temple, Branch Davidian and all other cults. They all should be considered as religions too. But if we think of religion as a philosophy of life created to educate, to bring forth the human potentials, to stimulate his spirituality and make him enlightened, then Islam fails that litmus test and should not be regarded as a religion.

Islam is politics in the garb of religion. I wholeheartedly agree with Spengler when he says “Religion is what makes Islamic political ideology so dangerous.”

What makes Islam dangerous is not because it is a religion but because it is not. Islam is a thief in police uniform. The agenda of Islam is entirely political but its methodology is religious. It is this disguise and duplicity that makes it unpredictable and dangerous.

Neither religion nor politics are dangerous. Both politics and religion have their place in our world. Each fulfils a specific role and satisfies a certain need. But when we have a political movement with seventh century mentality, that aims to conquer the world and presents itself in the garb of religion and demands religious status; we are dealing with an imposter and there lies the danger. The danger is that while Islam claims to be a religion, its followers do not shy away from political assassinations, subversive activities, terrorism, sabotage, espionage and other ballistic acts that have little to do with religion and spirituality and are purely political in nature.

Islam has one goal and that is to overthrow the present governments and establish the Khalifat. Let there be no mistake as to what Islam is about. Let us listen to the words coming out of the mouth of the horse or in this case the horse is Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s Spokesperson:

"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future...But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."

Whether it is through education or through violence and Jihad, the aim is clearly stated. Islam is not created to make people enlightened, spiritual, loving, caring and decent people. Islam is not a religion of personal growth. Islam is a tool to mobilize the masses and to ultimately score political victories, subvert the governments and establish the Islamic domination.

Whether we want to call Islam a religion or not is a question of semantics. How we define religion is up to us. We can define it so inclusive that Islam also could be qualified as a religion. However, under no circumstances we should neglect that Islam is first and foremost a political movement. Its aim is not purely spiritual but very political.

Once Islam is recognized as politics then it would be up to the politicians to oppose it. Disguised as a religion, it not only fools its followers, encouraging them to sacrifice their wealth and their lives for its political agenda, it also remains immune from being opposed by other political parties. It actually procures the assistance of the rival political parties while surreptitiously it advances its own political goals undermining the stability of all other parties and the host government.

Judaism is also a political movement. One cannot really separate Judaism from Zionism. The religion is created to preserve the integrity of the Judaic nation. This however, does not present any danger to anyone else. We all have our nations and we are all protective of them. For the Jews nationalism has a religion overtone. But nationalism per se is not a dangerous sentiment. What is dangerous is imperialism. Imperialism is dangerous because it tries to extend the authority of one group or nation on others by establishing economic and political hegemony over other nations.

Judaism is purely nationalistic, but it is not imperialistic. On the contrary Islam is not nationalistic but purely imperialistic. Unlike what Spengler says Islamic expansionism is not just “a holy rage against the encroachment of death upon traditional society.” Yes, he is right, to a certain degree. Muslims feel threatened by the western civilization, by science, by secularization, by democracy, by equal rights for women and by enlightenment. Probably to that fear you could attribute the Islamic revolt of the 1979 in Iran. But today’s Islamic terrorism is inspired by Islamic imperialistic fervor. What is it that Muslims want to protect in America or in Europe? They are doing Jihad here, not to protect Islam but to expand it.

Our problem is that we fail to listen. All we have to do is to listen to what the Muslims say. Let us listen this time to the words coming out of the mouth of the other horse, Osama Bin Laden. In his letter addressed to America he wrote:

“As for… what are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?
The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.”

The message is very clear. Muslims are waging a Jihad to take over the world. They can preserve their traditional society and live in the caves if they like. No one is forcing them to educate and modernize. But that is not what they want. They want to impose their traditional society on our society. They want to dominate and take over the world and religion is just a convenient tool in their quest.


http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina40811.htm