Islam: A Religion Custom Made For Men

Islam: A Religion Custom Made For Men

By Amil Imani

Muslims, by belief and practice, are the most blatant violators of human rights. We hardly need to detail here Muslims’ systemic cruel treatment of the unbelievers, women of all persuasions, and any and all minorities across the board. To Muslims, human rights have a different meaning, and its protective provisions are reserved strictly for Muslims — primarily for Muslim men. Just a couple of examples should suffice for now.
Oppression of women, for one, is so systemic in Islam that to this day women are, at best, second-class citizens under Islamic law. Saudi Arabia, the custodian of Islamdom, denies women the right to drive, vote or hold elective office — the most basic rights of citizens in democratic societies. Arabs and Muslims are masters of double-acts. They do all things in private, yet the public display of morality, decorum, and even piety is something you wear as you would your Keffiyeh even under the sizzling sun.
In model Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, for instance, women do not dare complain about their Allah-decreed chattel status. If they protest in the least, they are beaten by their husbands. And if they dare to demonstrate in public for equal family rights with men, they get severe beatings by the police and are hauled to jails for additional indignities and violence.

One may wonder then why is it that millions of Muslim women meekly submit to their subservient rank and thank Allah for it. These women are virtually imprinted by their parents and the clergy from birth to adopt the gender inequality as well as the entire pathological Islamic ethos.

Islam can be a “forgiving” religion, specifically for the male. If you neglect to say your prayers or you simply don’t want to, you can hire someone, preferably an imam or a mullah, to pray on your behalf. Going to the Hajj is too onerous and takes you away from the pleasures and comforts of your life? You can deputize someone else to go in your stead. You have a few drinks of the forbidden brew and it is time to say your prayer? Simply rinse your mouth and go ahead with praying. But, always remember the will of Allah and serve him. Do your duties to vanquish the unbelievers, promote the rule of the Sharia, and make the earth Allah’s.

In Islamic societies, freedom of expression, worship, and assembly are taken away. Women are indeed treated as chattel. Young girls are subjected to barbaric genital mutilation to make them sex slaves and birth channels without the ability to enjoy intercourse. Minors are executed, adulterers are stoned to death, thieves have their limbs amputated, and much, much more. Isn’t that everyone’s idea of paradise?

Women, by the very nature of their second-class status expressly stipulated in the Quran, are occasionally allowed a token high position in government, while non-Muslim minority citizens are virtually barred from securing any positions at all.
“Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the others and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you take no further action against them. Allah is high, supreme.” Quran 4.34

This misogynist religion of Allah is custom-made for the savage male. A faithful follower of Allah is allowed to have as many as four permanent wives — and replace any of them at any time he wants — as well as an unlimited number of one night or one-hour-stand that he can afford to rent. But, woe unto a woman if she even has a single love affair with another man. Nothing less than death by stoning is her just punishment.

In the Islamic Republic of Iran and under the Islamic Sharia that became the unofficial law of the land, a religiously sanctioned ceremony immediately filled the void. Many mosques provided the service of Seeghe — temporary marriages.  Women interested or forced by circumstances beyond their control to seek this type of ‘marriage’ would register with a local Mullah. Men seeking a temporary wife would contact the Mullah and specify what kind of woman they desired and for how long. Depending on the marketability of the candidate woman, a fee is levied on the man and the Mullah pronounces them husband and wife for a stipulated duration. Once the patron satisfies his urges, the same Mullah simply annuls the marriage. Voila!  No problems. The pair parts company and the Mullah, a replacement for the former pimp or madam, pockets his fee.
Thanks to Western technology, the Seeghe business has also joined the 21st century world. In some of the bigger cities and Tehran, a man can pick up a woman and call in for a Seeghe authorization which is granted over the phone and the fee is charged to the patron’s credit card.  Islam is a custom-made religion for men.  Well, as long as men rule and the rule serves them, the horrific plight of women plays out.  It is a great deal for men.
What is incredible is the gall and audacity of Muslims in demanding that Western and other democracies legalize Sharia in their societies. Due to large populations of Muslims, mostly recent arrivals, in countries such as Canada, Great Britain, and Sweden, these countries are experiencing the insistent demands by Muslims to have Sharia rule their Islamic communities. This is just the beginning and it may seem relatively harmless to the simpletons in our midst. Yet, once Sharia is recognized to any extent, it will reach out to rule not only on matters that concern Muslims, but also those that may involve a Muslim and non-Muslim. Under Sharia, a Muslim man married to a non-Muslim woman is able to divorce the woman at will, automatically have custody of the children, and literally toss the wife out of “his” home with practically no compensation.
“Death to the Islamic Republic, Stop stoning women, Death to the Criminal Mullahs and Democracy for Iran,” are the banners read almost routinely in most European countries by the Iranian expatriate sympathizers condemning the Islamic Republic’s brutality against women. They demand equal rights and treatments for the largest oppressed minority in the world.
As the world turns, we become convinced that the Islamic system is custom-made for men, by men and for the pleasure of men. And the men in power, the clergy, the prime beneficiaries of the system, do not intend to voluntarily relinquish their privileged status.
There is a hope that Muslims themselves may leave this Bedouin slaveholder religion. Yet, the hope is slim. Islam has a stranglehold on its slaves and will neither let them go, nor do the Muslims seem to have the insight or the will to leave it in large numbers. But hope, as slim as it is, keeps me sounding the alarm before the fire of Islam engulfs us all.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/islam_a_religion_custom_made_f.html at January 02, 2011 – 11:09:52 AM CST

Advertisements

‘Is it Fair to Say Islam is Setting the Rules?’

‘Is it Fair to Say Islam is Setting the Rules?’

Andrew Bostom

Lars Vilks, Lars Hedegaard, and Rabbi Jon Hausman were interviewed yesterday (Monday, 10/5/2010) by Helen Glover of WHJJ 920 AM, Providence, about the sorry state of free speech in the West as we capitulate to Islamic intimidation over the Medieval dictates of Sharia-based “blasphemy” law.

Rabbi Hausman’s matter-of-fact description of the security measures that Mr. Vilk’s brief visit to the Boston area entailed, are particularly chilling.

Lars Vilks is the Swedish artist whose Muhammad sketch triggered both Al-Qaeda death fatwas and a thwarted assassination plan by American convert to Islam, “Jihad Jane”. Lars Hedegaard is a Danish journalist and writer who founded the Danish Free Press Society.

Link to the interviews, here:

The Islamintern Meets in Chicago Tonight

The Islamintern Meets in Chicago Tonight

Andrew G. Bostom

At 7 PM Central Time this evening (9/28/10) in Chicago, the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu of Turkey will deliver a keynote speech opening a conference at the American Islamic College, entitled, “The Role of the OIC and The scope for its relations with American Muslims.” Bat Ye’or’s recent American Thinker essay highlighted the OIC’s agenda — consistent with the historical jihad imperative — global Islamization, or in modern parlance, totalitarian hegemony.
A 1954 Diogenes — lamp in hand, in broad daylight, searching for an honest assessment of Islamic totalitarianism — would have been uncharacteristically rewarded had he read Bernard Lewis’ essay, “Communism and Islam.” [International Affairs,Vol. 30, No. 1(Jan., 1954), pp. 1-12] Currently, however, in his twilight years, Professor Lewis’ apologetics on Islam (discussed here, here, and here) are but a simulacrum of the uncompromised views he recorded over 56 years ago. Alas, Professor Lewis’ “transition” is profoundly disappointing, and would only confirm the classical cynicism of a Diogenes, circa 2010.
But as the “Islamintern”/OIC holds forth in Chicago this week. We must share and preserve for posterity these timeless, intellectually honest insights on the totalitarian nature of Islam Professor Lewis published in his prime, during January, 1954:
I turn now from the accidental to the essential factors, to those deriving from the very nature of Islamic society, tradition, and thought. The first of these is the authoritarianism, perhaps we may even say the totalitarianism, of the Islamic political tradition…. Many attempts have been made to show that Islam and democracy are identical-attempts usually based on a misunderstanding of Islam or democracy or both. This sort of argument expresses a need of the up- rooted Muslim intellectual who is no longer satisfied with or capable of understanding traditional Islamic values, and who tries to justify, or rather, re-state, his inherited faith in terms of the fashionable ideology of the day. It is an example of the romantic and apologetic presentation of Islam that is a recognized phase in the reaction of Muslim thought to the impact of the West…. In point of fact, except for the early caliphate, when the anarchic individualism of tribal Arabia was still effective, the political history of Islam is one of almost unrelieved autocracy…[I]t was authoritarian, often arbitrary, sometimes tyrannical. There are no parliaments or representative assemblies of any kind, no councils or communes, no chambers of nobility or estates, no municipalities in the history of Islam; nothing but the sovereign power, to which the subject owed complete and unwavering obedience as a religious duty imposed by the Holy Law. In the great days of classical Islam this duty was only owed to the lawfully appointed caliph, as God’s vicegerent on earth and head of the theocratic community, and then only for as long as he upheld the law; but with the decline of the caliphate and the growth of military dictatorship, Muslim jurists and theologians accommodated their teachings to the changed situation and extended the religious duty of obedience to any effective authority, however impious, however barbarous. For the last thousand years, the political thinking of Islam has been dominated by such maxims as “tyranny is better than anarchy” and “whose power is established, obedience to him is incumbent.”
…Quite obviously, the Ulama of Islam are very different from the Communist Party. Nevertheless, on closer examination, we find certain uncomfortable resemblances. Both groups profess a totalitarian doctrine, with complete and final answers to all questions on heaven and earth; the answers are different in every respect, alike only in their finality and completeness, and in the contrast they offer with the eternal questioning of Western man. Both groups offer to their members and followers the agreeable sensation of belonging to a community of believers, who are always right, as against an outer world of unbelievers, who are always wrong. Both offer an exhilarating feeling of mission, of purpose, of being engaged in a collective adventure to accelerate the historically inevitable victory of the true faith over the infidel evil-doers. The traditional Islamic division of the world into the House of Islam and the House of War, two necessarily opposed groups, of which- the first has the collective obligation of perpetual struggle against the second, also has obvious parallels in the Communist view of world affairs. There again, the content of belief is utterly different, but the aggressive fanaticism of the believer is the same. The humorist who summed up the Communist creed as “There is no God and Karl Marx is his Prophet!” was laying his finger on a real affinity. The call to a Communist Jihad, a Holy War for the faith-a new faith, but against the self-same Western Christian enemy-might well strike a responsive note.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/09/the_islamintern_meets_in_chica.html at September 28, 2010 – 07:00:17 PM CDT

America: Silenced and Dumb By ABIGAIL R. ESMAN

America: Silenced and Dumb

By ABIGAIL R. ESMAN

This time, I’ve had it.

While “outrage” has been pretty much the key word this summer, my own reached its upper limits with the news that cartoonist Molly Norris had been forced into hiding by a fatwa threatening her life for an idea: to establish “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day,” on which the world would sketch images of the Prophet Mohammed in defiance of efforts by Muslims to censor such images, and, in some cases, to murder those who created them. Norris’s suggestion came in response to a decision by executives at Comedy Central to censor the satirical show, “South Park,” which aired an episode that joked about showing Mohammed dressed in a bear suit.

Funny, right?

Well, not to religious Muslims, who, unable to distinguish fact from fiction or truth from allegory, view parodies of their holiest figure as an assault on Islam itself.  We’ve encountered that kind of ignorant hate before, of course – most famously in the case of the so-called “Danish cartoons,” created by cartoonist Kurt Westergaard for Denmark’s news daily, the Jyllands Posten. In that case, not only was Westergaard targeted for assassination, but Danish and other Scandinavian embassies across the Middle East were torched, and violent demonstrations left numerous people dead.

But Norris didn’t even draw a cartoon of the Prophet.  Rather, she sketched a number of commonplace objects – -a teacup, a spool of thread, a domino – with the caption, “Will the real likeness of the prophet Mohammed please stand up?”

Funny, right?

Apparently not – at least, not to some people, whose idea of “funny” is what happens when American civilians die. (Cut to images of Palestinians and of Moroccan immigrants in the Netherlands dancing in the streets on 9/11.)

The Yemen-based cleric Anwar al-Awlaki is one Muslim unamused by Norris’s idea.  Writing in the English language magazine Inspire, an online publication produced by al Qaeda, he declared: “A soul that is so debased, as to enjoy the ridicule of the messenger of Allah, the mercy to mankind; a soul that is so ungrateful toward its lord that it defames the Prophet of the religion Allah has chosen for his creation does not deserve life, does not deserve to breathe the air.”

Not funny.

Apparently, the FBI doesn’t think so, either; and here is where my outrage boiled over.  Cautioning Norris to take al-Awlaki’s threat seriously, they have now advised her to change her identity, move far from her home in Seattle (where she, until now, worked for the Seattle Weekly), and start over – essentially entering into a witness protection program – only without the accompanying protection.

Let me repeat: The U.S. government is suggesting that Ms. Norris change her name, strip away her past, possibly even change her appearance, because she has been targeted by Muslim extremists who are not amused by her work or her ideas.  Rather than protect her, rather than defend her, rather than stand up for her Constitutional and democratic rights, declaring their intention to route al-Awlaki out and bring him (and others who are threatening her life) to justice, the American government, as it were, is itself in essence allying with him by taking away her freedom and her life .

And here’s the kicker: it’s likely not that hard to find Al-Awlaki – who has been linked to the Fort Hood massacre, the so-called “Christmas bomber,”  and the attempted bombing of Times Square.  Anwar Al-Awlaki, born in Las Cruces, New-Mexico, is a citizen of the United States.

And yet, unlike the British, who for years protected and defended Salman Rushdie from the edicts of Ayatollah Khomeini and others, the USA has thrown up its hands, leaving her to her own devices, the victim of the same sick Islamic ideology that permits women to be stoned to death for the crime of having loved.

And so it becomes clear: If we are not involved in a physical war against Islam, we certainly are engaged in an ideological one.  And as a woman with a secular, democratic ideal runs, now, for her life, the knights in armor assigned to save her stand aside.

This is how we protect our values? This is what has become, now, of America?  That even the suggestion “Draw Mohammed” can cost a woman’s life and the Federal Bureau of Investigation will do nothing? That even the voicing of a threat has America putting down its arms?

We have spent untold billions of dollars in Afghanistan and Iraq at the cost of more than  5,000 US lives.

And all the Islamic militants had to do to conquer us was speak.

Such is the power of the word: and America now sits silenced, silent, dumb.

The Left-Fascist Axis. Again

The Left-Fascist Axis. Again

By James Lewis

We are seeing another Left-fascist axis in our time, recapitulating Stalin’s (and worldwide communism’s) embrace of Hitler’s Germany. The Gaza flotilla crisis was set up by the radical Left (Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Jodie Evans and other Obama buds), in collusion with Hamas, which is about as fascist as they get. If you doubt it, watch Hamas TV on the MEMRI website. They are the worst. They teach toddlers about the glories of dying for Allah.  Even Fatah thinks Hamas is a throwback to the Dark Ages.

In the Gaza flotilla, the Turks who yelled out “Khaibar! Khaibar!” as they were trying to kill Israeli soldiers, were members of the Turkish branch of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood. They yelled out “Khaibar!” because that massacre of Jews was Mohammed’s own Auschwitz. That doesn’t leave any doubt about who they are. Martyrdom is just a means to an end, and that end is “Khaibar.” The media always forget to tell us that part.
Words matter, which is why the Left is always making up new words for themselves, to disguise who they really are.  The Left isn’t  Communist any more, they are “progressive” — which leaves the rest of us  back in 1776. “Progressives” always know which way to find “progress,” and it always comes down to stomping on the rest of us. Because if you’re not “progressive” you must be an enemy of  “progress.”  
The radical Left  hasn’t changed one smidgen since Stalin. The Left still believes in global totalitarianism. Stalin is dead, but Stalinism is on the march. Listen to the stomping of their boots.
The Left is a throwback to all the ancient utopian cults, the Mayans, Genghis Khan and the Yellow Emperor of China, Idi Amin Dada and Robert Mugabe. It’s the ancient Egyptian priesthood, which was also a cult run by a totalitarian clique. In ancient Egypt you had to die to get to utopia, but the psychology is always the same.  Utopian cults always appeal to suckers. They are a very nasty part of the human condition. But there’s nothing new there, and they are certainly not “progressive.” They are a throwback.
Obama doesn’t look like a normal American because he is a High Priest. Harry Truman wouldn’t recognize him, but King Tut would. Obama has all the arrogance and ignorance of a Pharaoh.
So here are two ways to simplify the daily media circus. First, the media are the cult of the Left, trying to twist your mind. The “Left” equals global totalitarianism, which is Stalinism, which is Leninism, which is radical feminism, which is the hateful racism of the Reverend Wright and Louis Farrakhan.  Same story, different labels. Keep it simple.
Whatever mask they try on, radical leftists are internationalists — meaning that they are against America as a sovereign nation. That’s Obama’s real beef against us, and it’s why he will never enforce our borders. Sure, leftists are all “patriots” in their own minds, because they worship the prairie flowers and the pretty mountains.  And they all despise MacDonald’s hamburgers and eat arugula, because at bottom they are the most amazing snobs.  America is just one little piece of Planet Gaia, where everybody will live in peace and harmony because Obama or Algore will rule us with an iron fist. It’s all for our own good.
So, the Left hasn’t changed since ancient times. That’s why Harvard has a “speech code,” courtesy of the likes of Elena Kagan and the PC Commissars. People can’t be trusted to say what’s on their minds.  They might hurt somebody’s feelings. Speech codes are ancient ways to control people.  All the prehistoric little Hitlers had speech taboos.
The second useful word is “fascist.” Academics spend their lives trying to define that word. But if  you believe in killing people until they surrender to your totalitarian hokum; if you want to enslave women, kids, Jews, Christians, nonconformist Muslims (like the Bahai’is), gays, Africans in the Sudan, Marxists (yes), Trotskyites, liberals, and anybody who thinks the US Constitution is a good idea, you’re a fascist. Simple, reasonable definition.
So we are seeing the Hitler-Stalin Pact, Take 2. The motivation is identical. These people  hate the modern world, just like the Nazis and Lenin did.  Hitler wanted to go back to the Nordic gods. His utopia was in a fantasy past. Lenin placed his utopia in the distant future. If you’re a coercive utopian you have to dream of  a long-ago  past or a misty future, as long as it’s impossible to see what it’s really like.
Today the Saudis want to go back to Mohammed in the 7th century, and the Twelvers in Iran want to go back to the Hidden Mahdi in the 11th century. They all want to make utopia by force and terror. 
The Left-fascists are intolerant of individualism, liberty, free speech and electoral legitimacy, which is why they always try to sabotage constitutional government. Kagan on the Supreme Court. Obama as Pharaoh in the Oval. Why bow down to the King of Saudi and the Emperor of Japan? They are both medieval reactionaries. Obama bowed down to them, but he was really giving the high sign to America. That’s Obama’s schtick.
We are seeing a re-run of the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1938. That Left-Fascist alliance fell apart when Hitler flipped and decided to send tanks into Poland and Russia instead.
It is what Freud called a “repetition compulsion.” It happens over and over again, because these people don’t live in reality. That’s why they are dangerous. They can never figure out what went wrong last time, so they keep trying it again.  They live in egomaniacal fantasies, and real people keep getting in their way. Off with their heads!
The last time a Left-Fascist Axis rose to power it led to World War Two and the Cold War. Maybe the only way to win is to make them fight each other. That’s how we came out of it before.
I don’t know how decent people will prevail this time. I think we will, because we have done so over the centuries. But we are in another Long War with some real bad hot spots. The enemy today is both the Left and the fascists.
Read the news and you’ll see it every day.
They’re baaaaack!

Harry Potter and Sharia Law?

Harry Potter and Sharia Law?

Joshua Jamison

There is no place for Sharia Law in western democracies. Muslims who practice it need to find another place to live. Rape, torture and murder are no more than cowardice criminal acts and must be prevented at all cost. Her own father and brother recently threatened Afshan Azad, an actress in the hit series Harry Potter. Asian News has more:

Afshan Azad who played Padma Patel in Harry Potter
The father and brother of an actress who starred in the Harry Potter films have been charged with threatening to kill her.

Afshan Azad, 22, has appeared in four of the movies as Padma Patil, a classmate of the young wizard.

She was allegedly attacked at her home in Longsight, Manchester, on May 21 this year.

Now her father Abdul Azad, 54, and brother, Ashraf Azad, 28, both of Beresford Road, Longsight, have appeared in court.

Abdul is accused of threatening to kill his daughter and Ashraf of threatening to kill and assault occasioning actual bodily harm against his sister.

Both men appeared at Manchester magistrates court and the case was adjourned until later this month for committal proceedings to crown court.

Josh Jamison lives in Boston, Massachusetts and writes for The Raw Deal

Losing Their Religion

Losing Their Religion

Posted By William Kilpatrick On June 14, 2010 @ 12:35 am In FrontPage | 21 Comments

Although many won’t admit it, we are in the midst of an ideological war with Islam. And since the advantage goes to the side that fully realizes they are at war, the West is losing. The propaganda war is going in favor of Islam precisely because the West doesn’t realize it is supposed to be fighting one. The ability of Islam to rally much of the world behind its hatred of Israel is a telling indication of who is winning the war of ideas. As for war aims, it’s not clear that there are any. Even those who see the danger clearly rarely talk in terms of victory; they talk mainly in terms of resisting cultural jihad. You know you’re in trouble when your ideological opponent is a primitive seventh-century belief system, and yet the best that your top strategists hope for is to put up a good resistance.

As the Dracula-like return of Communist ideology demonstrates, an ideological war needs to be fought to complete and total victory. The enemy ideology should be so thoroughly discredited that no one—not even its former staunchest defenders, not even the most doctrinaire college professor—will want to be associated with it. In regard to Islam, then, our aim should go beyond simply resisting jihad; it should be the defeat of Islam as an idea. But, aside from inflicting crushing military defeats on Islamic powers, how do you accomplish that?

One answer is that you do all you can to force Muslims to question their faith in Islam. As Mark Steyn observes, “there’s no market for a faith that has no faith in itself.” He was speaking, of course, of the more mushy versions of Western Christianity—the post-Christian Christians who seem anxious to dialogue themselves into dhimmitude. But there’s no reason the concept can’t be applied to Islam. Surely the average intelligent Muslim has occasional doubts about the founding revelations. And just as surely he keeps them to himself, not only because he fears his fellow Muslims, but also because the rest of the world seems to be going along with the pretense that he belongs to a great religion. It may be time for the rest of the world to drop the pretense.

If one of your opponents’ core beliefs is that you need to be subjugated, why wouldn’t you want to foster doubts in his mind? Jihadists commit jihad because they correctly perceive that their religion calls them to it. As long as they are kept secure in the illusion that their faith is unassailable, they will continue the jihad by whatever means seem most expedient. They won’t question their faith—and neither will the majority of Muslims—unless they get used to the fact that it can be questioned and criticized.

One man who has done a lot to shake up the faith of Muslims is Fr. Zakaria Botros, a Coptic priest who hosts a weekly Arabic language TV program watched by millions of Muslims around the world. Among other things, the engaging Fr. Botros forces his Muslim audience to confront unflattering facts about their prophet. He also talks to them about the Christian faith—something that most Muslims know very little about, beyond some simple caricatures. Apparently he is very successful at what he does. According to reports he is responsible for mass conversions to Christianity.

Does such questioning of Muhammad’s character provoke anger among Muslims? Well, yes, it does. The elderly Fr. Botros has been labeled Islam’s “Public Enemy #1,” and a reported $60 million bounty has been put on his head. But, according to a recent piece by Raymond Ibrahim, “the outrage appears to be subsiding.” Ibrahim contends that Life TV (the satellite station that carries Fr. Botros’ program) “has conditioned its Muslim viewers to accept that exposure and criticism of their prophet is here to stay.” The first time a Muslim hears the moral flaws of the Prophet exposed, he may well be angry at the exposure. But how about the third time? The tenth time? The twentieth time? What initially provokes anger might eventually provoke doubts about Muhammad’s claims.

There are those who think that such efforts are doomed to failure—that Islam is too deeply rooted in the Muslim world. But deeply held beliefs are not always as deeply rooted as they seem. Thirty-five years ago it would have been non-controversial to say that the Catholic faith was deeply rooted in Ireland, but if you said it today you would be going out on a limb. More to the point, Islam itself was less “deeply rooted” 60 years ago in the Middle East than it is now. Consider this recollection by Ali A. Allawi, a former Iraqi cabinet minister:

I was born into a mildly observant family in Iraq. At that time, the 1950’s, secularism was ascendant among the political, cultural, and intellectual elites of the Middle East. It appeared to be only a matter of time before Islam would lose whatever hold it still had on the Muslim world. Even that term—“Muslim world”—was unusual, as Muslims were more likely to identify themselves by their national, ethnic, or ideological affinities than by their religion.

Deeply rooted? Perhaps you’ve seen that sequence of photos of the University of Cairo graduating classes for the English Department. The women of the Class of 1959 look like college students anywhere in the Western world circa 1959. They wear Western style skirts and dresses and no head covering. Ditto for the class of 1978. It could be the class of ’78 at the University of Chicago. But by 1994 half the women are wearing hijabs. By 2004 almost all the women are wearing hijabs and ankle-length clothing. So, sometime in the 1990’s educated Muslims apparently began to take their faith more seriously. They appear to take it very seriously now. But how “deeply rooted” is twenty years?

Given that the penalty for leaving Islam—or even criticizing it—can be death, we may be mistaking deeply rooted fear for deeply rooted faith. Moreover, the fact that Islam prescribes such harsh penalties for doubters suggests that the faith itself is not intrinsically convincing. As the Ayatollah Khomeini once said, “People cannot be made obedient except with the sword.” Any religion that needs so many external incentives—swords behind you, and virgins in your future—cries out to be questioned. Unfortunately, instead of exploiting its theological weaknesses the West insists on chivalrously shielding Islam from the kind of scrutiny that the West reserves for its own institutions and traditions. And with good reason. Because it’s generally understood, though rarely said, that Muhammad’s claims would not meet the tests of critical reason and historical evidence that we apply to the Judeo-Christian revelation. The much revered sufi theologian al-Ghazali wrote, “The dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or his Prophet…” You can see why. Curiosity didn’t kill Christianity, but curiosity would almost certainly kill the Caliphate—or, in our times, the hope for a resurrected Caliphate. Obliged not to mention the Prophet? Given the threat Islam poses to the world and to Muslims themselves, it’s beginning to look as though the obligation runs the other way. The world needs to take a much closer look at the Prophet and his claims. The Prophet is Islam’s main prop. If he is discredited, Islam is discredited. Hence, the mighty efforts by the OIC to make it a crime to blaspheme a prophet.

The Prophet’s integrity is not the only thing in doubt. Theologically speaking, Islam is a house of cards. The whole faith rests on the belief that Muhammad actually received a revelation from God. But where’s the proof? Were there any witnesses to this revelation other than Muhammad? Why should we take his word for it? Why were there so many revelations of convenience that worked directly to Muhammad’s personal advantage? Are there really dozens of renewable virgins awaiting young warriors in paradise, or was this revelation simply a clever recruitment tool manufactured by Muhammad to provide an incentive for following him? And why is the Koran, despite its flashes of poetic brilliance, put together like a soviet-era automobile? As an exercise in composition the Koran would not pass muster in most freshmen writing courses. Why can’t God write as well as the average college student?

Ordinarily it’s not a good idea to go around questioning other people’s firmly held beliefs. But these are not ordinary times, and Islam is no ordinary religion. As any number of observes have noted, it’s partly a religion and partly a supremacist political ideology—although no one seems to be able to say exactly what percent is political ideology and what percent is religion. Is it 50/50 or 60/40 or 80/20? Is it legitimate to criticize the political part of it, but not the religious part? How do you tell where the politics leaves off and the religion begins? Or are they so bound together that they can’t be separated?

If you remember “Joe Palooka,” the old comic strip series about a decent but not-too-bright heavyweight boxer, you might remember that one of Joe’s craftier opponents once tattooed his rather expansive stomach with the word “Mother” inscribed within a large heart. His midsection was his weak spot, of course, but he knew he could count on Joe to avoid hitting him there, Joe being too much of a gentleman to do otherwise. In On the Waterfront, Marlon Brando’s character refers to the place where failed fighters go as “palookaville.” Currently, our whole culture is in danger of ending up in “palookaville” because there are large areas of Islam we decline to examine out of a sense of delicacy that would be excessive in a Victorian matron. Islamic strategists are counting on polite Westerners not to hit them in their soft spot.

Islamic strategists invoke the supremacist principles of the Koran in order to stir up aggression against the Muslim world, yet any criticism of Islam is met with cries of, “No fair! You are blaspheming a prophet and his religion.” So far, the shame-on-you-for-criticizing-a-religion strategy has worked very effectively. Fortunately, a few, like Fr. Botros, aren’t buying into the ruse. He has enough respect for Muslims as individuals to realize that their religion should not be put beyond discussion. Many Muslims, especially Muslim women, suffer a profound sense of desperation: the feeling of being trapped in a 1400-year-old nightmare, with no way out. It’s difficult to see any convincing argument for propping up the system that oppresses them. On the contrary, it seems almost a duty to undermine that system—political and religious—and call it into question at every turn.

In past ideological struggles we wisely sought ideological victory—the discrediting of the belief system that inspired our enemies. Because the driving force behind Islamic aggression is Islamic theology, it makes no sense to treat Islamic theology like a protected species. Rather, we should hope that Muslims lose faith in Islam just as Nazis lost faith in Nazism and Eastern-bloc Communists lost faith in communism.

Of course, it would be all the better if, like Fr. Botros, we had something to offer them in its place. Winston Churchill once said that Greer Garson, for her role in Mrs. Miniver, was worth six divisions in the war against Hitler. It seems safe to say that Fr. Botros, for his role in instilling doubts about Islam and giving Muslims something solid in its place, is worth at least a couple of Departments of Homeland Security.

William Kilpatrick’s articles have appeared in FrontPage Magazine, First Things, Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register, Jihad Watch, World, and Investor’s Business Daily.