Letters by a modern St. Ferdinand III about cults

The below is an excerpt with comments on an excellent article about the Left's new obsession and fantasy construct – the 'Islam is Peace' cult. Uninformed, malicious, deceitful, irrational, and certainly anti-American and anti-Western, this 'post 9-11' Leftist obsession fits in perfectly with previous psycho-somatically ill compulsions in the support of Communism and Nazism. Islam militates against Jewish, Christian, female and non-Muslim rights and general free-will. There is no system of natural law rights within Islam. These are just facts. The submission cult also demands a limiation on free speech as evidenced by its vicious and intemperate reaction by Muslims and their Leftist friends, any time Islam is questioned or investigated. Limiting free speech is the hallmark of intolerance. Rights and freedom are supposedly the cornerstone of modern socialism or liberalism. Yet for various reasons stretching from the psychological to the cultural; modern Leftism seems obsessed with defending Islam at all costs. Obtusely it certainly does not invest in the same 'tolerance' towards conservatives, republicans, market economics, Jews, or Christians. What a malcontented and distorted hypocrisy!

It is unlikely that Leftists know that much about Islam. Few if any have read anything to do with Islam including its imperialist history, the Koran, the Hadiths and the Sira or biography of its founder who went insane at age 40 [according to the Koran]. As Anderson so rightly and obvious points out:

Islam is a total system for the supervision and governance of human affairs. It comprises religion, politics, jurisprudence, military affairs, economics, culture, domestic relations, and every other aspect of life. It is the answer to all questions, albeit from the perspective of a seventh-century revelation. Its fundamental tenets may not be altered, since it is taken to originate by Divine command.

....Seemingly endless debate concerns itself with identifying and defining the moderate Muslim. There is no consensus on the set of beliefs and practices that would be required.

So what is a 'moderate' Muslim?

I here propose an operational definition: A moderate Muslim, in America, is one who declares first political loyalty to the Constitution and the laws which emanate from it.

...A moderate Muslim neither supports nor encourages the undermining or replacement of the Constitution. A moderate Muslim actively opposes attempts to spread Islam by violence, intimidation, or coercion.

A good defintion. But the problem is obviously this: Islam is universal. It trumps nationalism and patriotism. Your allegiance is to the unknowable thing called Al-Allah – a male moon deity of the Meccan cult who shares nothing in common with the anthropomorphic representations of God in J-C culture:

The core of Sharia is that only Allah is sovereign and that all law is Divinely mandated. No human agency may make or alter it. It requires unequal protection of the law. For example, Muslim men enjoy privileges not granted to women and non-Muslims.

While there are several schools of Islamic law and myriad interpretations, all cleave to the foundational belief that men may not make laws, that Allah's law must favor Muslims, and that there is an affirmative duty to advance the dominion of Islam, and thus Sharia, by all available means, violent or non-violent, as tactics may require. Reciprocity is not a part of the picture. Islam demands rights that it refuses to others.

And if you dare criticise the moon cult or the cult of Submission?

....One such demand is that Islam not be insulted, by which is meant that it may not be criticized. Free speech is thus forbidden in this area, and a violent response to such speech is condoned.

Right. The cult of Leftism seems to believe that free speech cannot be used to inquire or ask questions about a theology in which violence, killing, war, blood, and intolerance are daily manifestations around the world. This seems rather bizarre and highlights in fact a mentally ill view of the world.

It is thus beyond rational dispute that the Constitution and Sharia cannot coexist within the same polity. No artful hand-waving, dissimulation, or obfuscation can disguise this essential incompatibility. No twisted logic can square this circle. No pretense of similarity between them can diminish this truth. They cannot be applied in the same legal system without mortal conflict.

Some scholars have noted that Sharia is a vast compendium of commentary on all manner of legal affairs that has developed over the last 1,400 years. It follows, in their view, that Sharia need not be incompatible with the Constitution or other legal systems, since no one can say for sure just what Sharia requires.

Sharia Law is anathema to the Western legal and juridical/moral experiment. There is nothing whatsoever, in shared commonality between the pre-modern barbarity called Sharia and our modern notions of justice and due process:

....The Constitution is based on a deep foundation of Enlightenment thought, buttressed by English common law, Greco-Roman philosophy, and Judeo-Christian ethics. But the Constitution is an entirely practical document. It instructs on the proper limits and powers of government. It is silent on the great questions of theology. It does not define the totality of human experience.

Islamic law could not be more different. It presupposes the identity of religion and state as well as the submission of the individual to this unified and Divinely inspired collective. Saudi Arabia and Iran declare it to be the foundation of their jurisprudence. ....

Although metaphysicians continue to weave fabrics of moonbeams, pointing out the beauty, scope, justice, and mercy contained in Sharia, it nevertheless remains true that real countries base their real law on what they insist is Sharia, and that some things that actually happen because of it are lethal to democracy and the Constitution. When a woman is stoned to death on a specious charge of adultery, it is Sharia, as defined by the ruler, that provides the moral sanction for the sentence.

We should not wait for our political 'superiors' to recognize the threat that Sharia and Islamic theology pose to our society. They are numb and dumb. People doing their own analysis, independent even of the craven Christian churches which seize every opportunity to pronounce their love for Islam, are the only recourse we will have to change our political landscape and reorient our society, our immigration systems, and our culture back towards what made North American great.

American political leadership has been slow to recognize the fusion of a murky theology with a totalitarian political perspective. We have no quarrel with the former, but we cannot ignore the latter in the name of religious tolerance. We support freedom of religion, but the religion must respect our laws.

....We cannot avoid recognizing this incompatibility. However discomforting it may be, we must face the fact, sooner rather than later, that Muslims in America must choose between Sharia and liberty.

Indeed Mr. Anderson. If moderate Islam does exist where is their outcry against the 'extremist' elements of their political theology? Where are these marching moderate Muslims in the streets of North American cities proclaiming their nationalism and devotion to the Canadian and American Constitutions and their virulent denuniciation of Muslim racism and extremism? No where to be found. One can conclude from this that moderate Islam is a chimera; or at the very best it is weak, disunified and probably a minority grouping within the greater political theology called Submission. That at least would be the prudent and intelligent supposition until facts and reality force us to change our opinions. Which is why Leftists will cling to the opposite conclusions.