The Sharia Catechism
Posted by Roland Shirk on March 18, 2011 6:08 PM
I must admit that when I first began studying Islam and its political manifestations, I found myself puzzled and put off by the sheer foreignness and apparent complexity of the issues—in much the same way that patriotic Americans who supported the free market and a free society felt when confronted (during the 1930s) with the growth and influence of the global Communist movement. Did one really need to learn German—and the science of economics—in order to read Karl Marx, then Russian to master the subtleties of Leninist and Trotskyite theory?
If you wanted to be an academic you certainly did, but the average American who became an informed opponent of Communism was loath to dedicate so much of his time and energy to the intimate study of worldviews he knew—on the face of it—were incompatible with all his deepest values and the best interests of his country. What is more, he felt he could judge a tree by its fruits—the nature of which was clearly apparent to any honest observer (but not to [1] dupes) from reports by escapees from Soviet Russia. Does one really need to master the thousands of pages of bad economics and clunky, reductionist philosophy penned by Marx and his minions to know that an economic system based on obliterating property rights and forcing men to abandon their inherent self-seeking was doomed to famines and tyranny?
Surely it helped that men like Ludwig von Mises provided devastating analyses of the flaws in Marxist theory—such as Mises' [2] classic essay on how any form of socialism destroys the price system, that elegantly efficient method of matching human work with human wants, and can only hope to replace it by reshaping civilization on the model of a termite colony. But a simple knowledge of history and human nature would have pointed the same conclusion.
Even monasteries populated by men who have voluntarily renounced property, progeny, and freedom of action—by embracing the Evangelical Counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience—have frequently failed in their mission. The reason the world came to have so many Benedictine orders—the Cluniacs, the Trappists, the Cistercians—is that the original ideal was so hard to live, that monasteries quickly became corrupt, and had to give way to new “reform†branches that promised (this time!) to really live up to St. Benedict's Rule. Much the same story unfolded among the Franciscans and even the Carmelites. If voluntary recruits to self-selected communities upheld by contemplative prayer cannot reliably hold to such anti-instinctual standards of behavior, what conceivable earthly power could enforce them on the mass of men? Only an all-encompassing tyranny more comprehensive than any the world had yet seen. A simple reading of The Communist Manifesto would have revealed its final program: godless monasticism, enforced at the point of a bayonet. The real essence of socialism was exposed by a wistful socialist, George Orwell, whose depiction in 1984 of the ideology he called “[3] Oligarchical Collectivism†unveiled the ideology in its essence: “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.†His Ingsoc Party indeed favors an infernal, secular parody of monasticism, opposing on principle prosperity, eros, and liberty. Intelligent observers of Soviet policies could—and many did—draw such conclusions.
Likewise, honest readers of the Qur'an and other authoritative Muslim texts can draw certain conclusions, which all the evasions and obfuscations of pseudo-moderate Muslims (remember [4] Eurocommunism? Anyone? It was all the rage in respectable liberal circles while I was in college in the 80s.) cannot obscure. Let me lay out my own no-nonsense take on the question, in a form I'll call the Sharia Catechism:
What does Islam teach? Islam teaches that it is the final revelation from God, and the only legitimate world religion. All other faiths, or secular world views, are either idol-worship, blasphemous parodies of Islam, or degenerate perversions of it.
When was Islam founded? Islam was founded when Abraham made his covenant with God. The Jews who claimed that this covenant constituted Judaism are lying (as is their wont), and relying on faked scriptures that their scheming ancestors crafted to suit their own ethnic aggrandizement.
Where are the original scriptures recounting the history of Abraham, Moses, and other early Muslims? These original scriptures no longer exist. They were destroyed and replaced by the crafty Jews.
Who was Jesus? Jesus (Isa) was a Muslim prophet who came as the Messiah to recall the faithless Jews to their Muslim faith. The true accounts of his life and message were altered beyond recognition by the scheming Christians—who also spread the lie that he was crucified, and rose from the dead.
Where are these original Gospels? These original Gospels were destroyed by the early Christians (who were also, we must remember, Jews), shortly after they were written—in order to cover up their clear predictions of the coming of Muhammad.
Will Jesus come again at the end of the world? Yes, Jesus will come again to destroy Christianity, kill all the pigs in the world, and end dhimmitude—by forcing all Christians either to convert to Islam or be killed (like the pigs).
What is the proper treatment of non-Muslims? When Muslims are weak, they should practice tolerance of unbelievers, and ask for similar tolerance. As they grow in numbers, they must harden their attitudes as Muhammad hardened his once he commanded an army in Medina. Muslims should spread their faith by conquest; by preaching; and by emigrating to non-Muslim countries and demanding tolerance—then once they are strong enough, they should impose the true faith on the government where they can. Polytheists should then be allowed to convert or else be killed; monotheist infidels such as Jews and Christians should be offered a third option: Utter, willing subjection to Muslims, with their obedience binding on pain of death. These non-believers must pay a special, heavy tax and keep quiet about their religion, not trying to spread it.
So if Jews accept their proper role as dhimmis, they are in theory welcome in Muslim societies? Yes and no. In theory, yes. In practice, no. The atrocity of Zionist control of the Muslim holy city of Jerusalem is so great that no Jews should remain in Muslim countries. They are simply too crafty and dangerous.
Is sharia law an intrinsic part of Islam? Yes, it is as basic to Muslims as the Torah is to Jews and the sacraments are to Orthodox and Catholics. It is how Muslims live out their faith in the world.
Must Muslims seek to impose sharia? Only where it seems likely they will succeed. Until then, they should deceive the unbelievers, as Islamic ethics allow.
What about Muslims who oppose sharia and religious discrimination? They are [5] bad Muslims, and they will burn in hell with all the Christians, Jews, and idol-worshippers. But we should not say this openly until we are strong enough throughout the West. Until then, it benefits us to highlight such people, and claim that they are representative.
What about those who oppose Islam? They are enemies of God who deserve death in this life and eternal punishment in the next. However, if it helps us fight them more effectively, we can call them “racists,†“xenophobes,†and “Islamophobe.â€
What is an Islamophobe? An Islamophobe is someone who opposes sharia, and is unwilling either to convert or beg for the protection of dhimmitude.
Whom should we call an Islamophobe? Anyone who gets in our way.
If you wanted to be an academic you certainly did, but the average American who became an informed opponent of Communism was loath to dedicate so much of his time and energy to the intimate study of worldviews he knew—on the face of it—were incompatible with all his deepest values and the best interests of his country. What is more, he felt he could judge a tree by its fruits—the nature of which was clearly apparent to any honest observer (but not to [1] dupes) from reports by escapees from Soviet Russia. Does one really need to master the thousands of pages of bad economics and clunky, reductionist philosophy penned by Marx and his minions to know that an economic system based on obliterating property rights and forcing men to abandon their inherent self-seeking was doomed to famines and tyranny?
Surely it helped that men like Ludwig von Mises provided devastating analyses of the flaws in Marxist theory—such as Mises' [2] classic essay on how any form of socialism destroys the price system, that elegantly efficient method of matching human work with human wants, and can only hope to replace it by reshaping civilization on the model of a termite colony. But a simple knowledge of history and human nature would have pointed the same conclusion.
Even monasteries populated by men who have voluntarily renounced property, progeny, and freedom of action—by embracing the Evangelical Counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience—have frequently failed in their mission. The reason the world came to have so many Benedictine orders—the Cluniacs, the Trappists, the Cistercians—is that the original ideal was so hard to live, that monasteries quickly became corrupt, and had to give way to new “reform†branches that promised (this time!) to really live up to St. Benedict's Rule. Much the same story unfolded among the Franciscans and even the Carmelites. If voluntary recruits to self-selected communities upheld by contemplative prayer cannot reliably hold to such anti-instinctual standards of behavior, what conceivable earthly power could enforce them on the mass of men? Only an all-encompassing tyranny more comprehensive than any the world had yet seen. A simple reading of The Communist Manifesto would have revealed its final program: godless monasticism, enforced at the point of a bayonet. The real essence of socialism was exposed by a wistful socialist, George Orwell, whose depiction in 1984 of the ideology he called “[3] Oligarchical Collectivism†unveiled the ideology in its essence: “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.†His Ingsoc Party indeed favors an infernal, secular parody of monasticism, opposing on principle prosperity, eros, and liberty. Intelligent observers of Soviet policies could—and many did—draw such conclusions.
Likewise, honest readers of the Qur'an and other authoritative Muslim texts can draw certain conclusions, which all the evasions and obfuscations of pseudo-moderate Muslims (remember [4] Eurocommunism? Anyone? It was all the rage in respectable liberal circles while I was in college in the 80s.) cannot obscure. Let me lay out my own no-nonsense take on the question, in a form I'll call the Sharia Catechism:
What does Islam teach? Islam teaches that it is the final revelation from God, and the only legitimate world religion. All other faiths, or secular world views, are either idol-worship, blasphemous parodies of Islam, or degenerate perversions of it.
When was Islam founded? Islam was founded when Abraham made his covenant with God. The Jews who claimed that this covenant constituted Judaism are lying (as is their wont), and relying on faked scriptures that their scheming ancestors crafted to suit their own ethnic aggrandizement.
Where are the original scriptures recounting the history of Abraham, Moses, and other early Muslims? These original scriptures no longer exist. They were destroyed and replaced by the crafty Jews.
Who was Jesus? Jesus (Isa) was a Muslim prophet who came as the Messiah to recall the faithless Jews to their Muslim faith. The true accounts of his life and message were altered beyond recognition by the scheming Christians—who also spread the lie that he was crucified, and rose from the dead.
Where are these original Gospels? These original Gospels were destroyed by the early Christians (who were also, we must remember, Jews), shortly after they were written—in order to cover up their clear predictions of the coming of Muhammad.
Will Jesus come again at the end of the world? Yes, Jesus will come again to destroy Christianity, kill all the pigs in the world, and end dhimmitude—by forcing all Christians either to convert to Islam or be killed (like the pigs).
What is the proper treatment of non-Muslims? When Muslims are weak, they should practice tolerance of unbelievers, and ask for similar tolerance. As they grow in numbers, they must harden their attitudes as Muhammad hardened his once he commanded an army in Medina. Muslims should spread their faith by conquest; by preaching; and by emigrating to non-Muslim countries and demanding tolerance—then once they are strong enough, they should impose the true faith on the government where they can. Polytheists should then be allowed to convert or else be killed; monotheist infidels such as Jews and Christians should be offered a third option: Utter, willing subjection to Muslims, with their obedience binding on pain of death. These non-believers must pay a special, heavy tax and keep quiet about their religion, not trying to spread it.
So if Jews accept their proper role as dhimmis, they are in theory welcome in Muslim societies? Yes and no. In theory, yes. In practice, no. The atrocity of Zionist control of the Muslim holy city of Jerusalem is so great that no Jews should remain in Muslim countries. They are simply too crafty and dangerous.
Is sharia law an intrinsic part of Islam? Yes, it is as basic to Muslims as the Torah is to Jews and the sacraments are to Orthodox and Catholics. It is how Muslims live out their faith in the world.
Must Muslims seek to impose sharia? Only where it seems likely they will succeed. Until then, they should deceive the unbelievers, as Islamic ethics allow.
What about Muslims who oppose sharia and religious discrimination? They are [5] bad Muslims, and they will burn in hell with all the Christians, Jews, and idol-worshippers. But we should not say this openly until we are strong enough throughout the West. Until then, it benefits us to highlight such people, and claim that they are representative.
What about those who oppose Islam? They are enemies of God who deserve death in this life and eternal punishment in the next. However, if it helps us fight them more effectively, we can call them “racists,†“xenophobes,†and “Islamophobe.â€
What is an Islamophobe? An Islamophobe is someone who opposes sharia, and is unwilling either to convert or beg for the protection of dhimmitude.
Whom should we call an Islamophobe? Anyone who gets in our way.
Article printed from Jihad Watch: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/03/the-sharia-catechism.html
URLs in this post:
[1] http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/12/old-dupes-and-new.html
[2] http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf
[3] http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/go-goldstein.html
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocommunism
[5] http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/12/kreeftspencer-debate-transcript-is-the-only-good-muslim-a-bad-muslim.html
Click here to print.
