Humanity has consistently formed religions and developed faith in deities since the dawn of recorded history, transcending cultural and societal barriers. This universal phenomenon suggests that all human societies share an inherent, profound need to connect with something greater than themselves and to imbue their often-chaotic lives with meaning. Moreover, religion and faith have historically played a pivotal role in unifying communities and establishing foundational norms that distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable behavior.
Contemporary religious institutions do not strictly adhere to the definition of religion as the relationship between humanity and the divine (God, the Supreme Being). Examining the proportion of religious content within a “religion” is pertinent. For example, a religion that devotes the vast majority of its teachings to the divine and a minuscule part to other, secular aspects closely aligns with “true” religion. Conversely, suppose a religion barely focuses on the divine and primarily addresses other aspects of human life. In that case, it is more accurately described as a pseudo-religion—a social movement with a marginally attached transcendental component that serves a ceremonial, symbolic, or deceptive function.
Any examination of contemporary religions must account for their evident survivorship bias: the religions we recognize today have undergone three distinct phases of development. They first formalize the religion, then commercialize spirituality, and finally institutionalize it. (That is why, by the way, those who study and comprehend modern institutionalized religion either become disillusioned or, in most cases, use religion as their lucrative business.) Organized religion differs from non-institutionalized ones, much like the mafia contrasts with a lone pickpocket. It is possible to identify a religion that has not yet passed through commercialization or institutionalization but is on the verge of decline. Absent these three phases, religion cannot sustain itself.
The victors would likely have shaped the religions we witness today if they had written history. Those who did not were derided as cults, declared heretics, lost competitiveness, and ultimately vanished. Religions with a long history of partnering with states have compromised their relationship with God. Some religions that joined forces with a state eventually got bastardized by the state by imposing state-sanctioned religious rituals. Others bastardized the state by decreeing religious laws and doctrines on all citizens.
Regrettably, the marriages of all institutionalized religions to various states have irreparably damaged them. The longer a religion cohabits with a government, the less religious the population tends to become, particularly if the government proclaims it the state religion. Recall what happened to Jupiter and Zeus and their courts, even if they were part of a governing syndicate in Ancient Greece and Rome for centuries.
It is not uncommon for a particular religion to evolve over the years, transforming its foundational concept of a spiritual relationship with God(s) into a more secular one. That qualifies religion to become part of a governing coalition. Restructuring along these lines enables religion to institutionalize and penetrate government circles. The synergy between political and metaphysical powers advances both but simultaneously stifles human development, as in the Holy Roman Empire.
Note that the enduring conflict between science and faith materializes exclusively when religion becomes a de jure or de facto state religion, and “truth” is enforced doctrine. Truly independent (from the state) religions are exponentially more flexible and open to scientific inquiry and to spiritual adaptation than state-sponsored ones.
In this context, people must differentiate between religions that primarily focus on worshipping God and those that allocate significant attention to venerating other entities, such as the state. Historically, no surviving institutional religion has focused solely on admiring God; many state churches have excessively bowed to the state. Notably, Islam is distinguished by its doctrinal emphasis on obedience to both the omnipotent state and the almighty Allah, with a discernible inclination toward the state.
On the spiritual side, Islam represents an attempt to paganize God by incorporating the minor Moon deity of desert dwellers into the cohort of prominent Supreme Beings. Islam is irrational in its cruelty, but it applies solely to its theological component. The state-affiliated component is well thought out and competently organized. The theological elements of Islam have numerous inconsistencies, but the same could be said about other religions. In contrast, the Islamic structure devoted to the state is a rational, albeit cynical, embodiment of a quest to dominate the world.
Subsequently, some critics argue that the Muslims’ major book, the Quran, was initially nothing more than the Guard Duty Field Manual tailored for desert operations. Obviously, it is not a “manual” in the sense of a modern military handbook. However, the Quran and other foundational Islamic texts, such as Hadith, spend considerably more time with Muhammad, the warlord (about 5/6 of all texts) than with Allah (about 1/6 of all texts). In the Quran, religious motives are present but play a secondary role (compared to the Bible, which dwells significantly more on God than on human beings).
With a high degree of probability, the Founding Fathers were against the “establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” in precisely the manner below. First, the First Amendment prohibits the installation of a religion. Second, a religion must be a religion, not something that masquerades as one or uses religious rituals as a smokescreen for an invasive, parasitic ideology.
It has commonly been assumed that Islamic tradition revolves not around God but the phallus (the minarets are well-known embodiments of that ancient phallic culture, but current Islam’s ritual practices rarely reflect a sexualized cosmology). That is why institutionalized Islam often lionizes sexual insanity. For many commoners, Islam is associated with an army of phallo-imitators, at least toward kafirs (“unbelievers”). Instead, Islam must be viewed as an army of Führer-imitators. Modern institutionalized Islam expertly intertwines politics, theology, and phallic culture.
Islam is an aggressive, imperialistic ideology sloppily dressed up in religious garb. Therefore, the First Amendment only covers its minor, spiritual component.
Nevertheless, for those who insist that modern Islam has several degrees of separation between secular and religious tenets, the proper answer would be “Drink up the sea, Xanthus.” Greek philosopher and fabulist Aesop, a slave, served Xanthus, his master, who was also a philosopher, in the 6th century BC. On one occasion, Xanthus, in a state of intoxication, wagered in the presence of his students and friends on consuming the sea. The terms of the bet stipulated that failure would result in the loss of his estate, possessions, his wife, and his wealth. Regretting his vow the following morning, Xanthus sought counsel from Aesop. Aesop provided a strategic solution, advising Xanthus to clarify that he meant to drink the sea alone, excluding the rivers and streams that flow into it. He would proceed once the crowd separated the seawater from the freshwater.
The separation between secular and theological tenets of Islam is akin to the distinction between seawater and freshwater. The word “Islam” itself means “submission.” Therefore, according to the official Washington, DC, lexicon, if Islam is well-established in America, officials would refer to it as the “Department of Submission Affairs,” or DSA. Pun intended.
[Originally published in Jihad Watch]
Islam is a sect driven by fascism. Fascism is not a product of Alessandro and Benito Mussolini, it was incorporated in islam 1300 years before.