Islam is … fill in the blank.

From Wikipedia

The murder of Samuel Paty, a French middle-school teacher, took place on 16 October 2020 in Conflans-Sainte-Honorine, a suburb of Paris. Paty was killed and beheaded in an act of Islamist terrorism.

The perpetrator, Abdoullakh Abouyedovich Anzorov, an 18-year-old Muslim Russian-born refugee of Chechen descent, killed and beheaded Paty with a knife. Anzorov was shot and killed by police minutes later. His motive for the murder was that Paty had, in a class on freedom of expression, shown his students Charlie Hebdo cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad,[1][2][3] including one cartoon which depicted Muhammad naked

I am wondering at what point does civil society say enough is enough and seriously consider banning a religion?


45 thoughts on “Islam is … fill in the blank.

  1. Banning religion wouldn’t work. They would get more violent. To kill someone because of a cartoon is to act in ignorance and only education that encourages tolerance has a chance of effecting change

    Liked by 4 people

    1. It seems that, when one considers the underlying (long term) goal of Islam and its followers is the establishment of Sharia law, tolerance has been stretched so thin as to be transparent.
      It’s all very well to foreswear violence and claim this is not Islam, yet the Qu’ran supports the type of violence being perpetrated.

      I acknowledge that a great many will condemn the violence but have you heard a Muslim condemn the text?
      I haven’t.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Yet according to some Islamic scholars, the Quran does not promote such violence.

        Islamic Scholar Dr Zeenat Shaukat Ali, Mumbai-based, argued that killing people for blasphemy or apostasy is not permissible in Islam. The Qur’an never mentioned such punishments. The Qur’an has stood for peace and justice in a non-violent way. It will be very fruitful if scholars and ulema scrutinised and sifted through Hadith literature which has been pending over the years. The confirmation of a Hadith has to be in consonance with the verses of the Qur’an, she said.

        “Respectfully, the Paris beheading is a wake-up call to the ulema and leaders of the Muslim world. It is time for both the clergy and the parents to instruct children that such acts of violence are not only detested and abhorred by Islam but are in total contradiction to Islam’s reverence for peace, explicit recognition of tolerance, compassion, social equality, high moral order and spiritual depth, Ali added.

        Whom to believe?


        1. Find the the video with Douglas Murray on IQ2.

          Listen to or read what deconverts have to say .
          The death penalty is the mandated punishment for apostasy.

          Shaukat Ali is misinformed, doesn’t know his religion very well, or he’s lying.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. FYI, some of my comments are written tongue-in-cheek, Ark.

            In this case my intent was to convey the following thought:

            “Funny how the One True(tm) Word of Allah/God/Jehovah can be interpreted in so many contradictory ways.”

            Liked by 1 person

          1. And then there’s the Islamic doctrine of abrogation… meaning, (generally speaking but taking into account the haddith and Surah), where earlier verses are superseded by later verses. When one hears verses about peace and tolerance quoted from the Koran, these are true but written earlier historically than later ones. Mohamed gained a few hundred followers while preaching peace and tolerance for over a decade but exponentially more every year when waging war. These are the later verses. When later verses about violence and intolerance and intentional bigotry are in conflict with earlier ones about kumba ya like from this linked article, the later trumps the earlier. Every Muslim knows this. This is why many Muslim scholars will argue Islam is a religion of peace (especially the Talking Heads dealing with Western press) and every goes along with the charade against then infidel and kafir but the actual real world practice of implementing Islam is very, very bloody and intolerant and bigoted and full of misogyny and pedophilia… a real gem of a moral code.

            We shall know them by the fruits of their labor (Matthew?). There’s a reason why we don’t have much in the way of an Islamic contribution for the past 400 years to science and literature and technology and knowledge of any kind and why we have to go back to when Arab and Egyptian and sub Asian countries (that are now Islamic but earlier) when the Islamic influence was minimal where these places produced anything worth knowing, like in the math and astronomy our school kids are taught to think reflects Islamic contributions. Not so much. The Islamic world produces fewer works of literature from 1/4 of the world’s population, for example, than are produced from Spanish translations into English (Not all Spanish works are translated into English but Spain itself accounts for about half a percent of the world’s population). Islam is a black hole of advancing knowledge. I can’t WAIT for oil to stop funding these governments and reduce their influence accordingly. I mean, seriously, Saudi Arabia the Chair of the UN Human Rights? Good grief.

            Islam is a perpetual state of Dark Ages thinking in action and the reason, it can be successfully argued, is the totalitarian ideology of Islam that shuts down anything not in line with their Dear Leader’s ancient writings (much of it stolen/plagiarized/borrowed/interpreted from Talmud tradition and the Torah and bits of the NT). That includes considering the beheading of a teacher in front of students for TALKING about free speech relative to CARTOONS as less obscene than seeing the cartoons themselves. That’s definition of barbaric: savagely cruel, exceedingly brutal, primitive, unsophisticated. That’s the dictionary definition that should describe Islam, not because I’m a bigot but because it’s accurate in reality… whether people want to hear it or not.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Spot on.
            And this is why it is time to call out the supposed moderates and see if they are prepared to acrually do anything against their so called Muslim brothers and sisters swho believe and perpetuate this filth.

            But would the likes of Liverpool’s Mo Salah take a stand and actually do something – anythig that wasn’t just words?
            I doubt it.
            After all, isn’t there still a Fatwa on Rushdie’s head?

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Indeed!. But like their Christian counterparts, Islamic adherents are quick to argue that your interpreting it wrong if you don’t read it in the original Aramaic translation using their special, Imam-approved decoder ring.

            Liked by 2 people

      2. Just the same way the Christians have stopped burning witches, though the text is still there, Muslims will stop killing infidels but the text will remain.

        When one thinks they have the only right religion, only education in tolerance can help. But the question is who will bell the cat?


        1. One difference is the bible has always had believers who recognised its text has been open to interpretation and the (Majority of ) Jews recognise that the Creation story is just that … a story.
          I don’t consider Muslims are so flexible about their holy book.
          So we have the Qu’ran and the hadiths.
          ”Pick a text any text!”


          1. I don’t believe violence will solve the problem either.
            Tildeb has suggested some form of oath for Muslim immigrants – and in the interest of impartiality one would presume this would apply to all those who wish to live in another ”foreign” country.

            Let’s facde it, if people wish to have freedom OF religion they need to behave in such a mannar that this is not changed to freedom FROM religion.

            Supporting countries such as Saudi Arabia doesn’t seem to help this cause much either.


          2. First, I think tildeb is jesting. An oath to control human motive now and always. Thats a stretch.
            I agree with you also that support for Saudi and all isn’t helping matters nor is annoying Iraqis and the others.
            But to deal with the problem of Islam, the ridicule should come from so many quarters there would be so many battlefields to fight in

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Maybe, but while people are in a position to do what happened to Paty based on religious belief then that is scary shit and needs to be dealt with head on. In all hinesty, I don’t think ridicule is going to cut it.


          4. It’s neither a jest nor one to control human motives. It’s meant to create a cohesive and unified polity that is personal and meaningful, a way to understand that citizenship is and has to be reciprocal. It is a means to allow all kinds of diversity in thought and belief but bordered by a necessary line one cannot cross to allow for such diversity to coexist. This is the only way I know of that allows historically divided and warring people – divided by these incompatible thoughts and beliefs – the means to live, share, prosper, and enjoy peaceful cohabitation and a unified pride in nationhood. It is the heart of the Canadian model, one that is built on historically warring factions that define incompatible diversity and yet incorporates historically divided peoples into a whole. This liberal model produces real tolerance and real respect for differences… until it is undermined by those who assume they deserve special compensation for their thoughts and beliefs. This special compensation in law is a process that first rots and then destroys liberal democracies from within, a process that eventually destroys shared rights and freedoms and obligations and replaces it with a ideological narrative. It starts locally – like at universities – and then spreads its malignancy throughout every organ of state and into the wider community as more and more graduates of the ideology think themselves moral and tolerant and respectful by raping the liberal principle of shared individual autonomy with shared rights and freedoms and replacing it with group-based ideology and narrative. The ideology can be religious, political, or social but the degradation is always the same. This is as true of fascist and communist ideologies as it is today’s populism and woke culture. It’s all malignant. And I think this shift away from personal responsibility to group-based advocacy throughout the West today will cause not just social upheaval and tremendous discord and distrust in every organ of the state but revolution and armed conflict when our institutions self-implode. I think we have to get back to basics, and the most basic element of the successful liberal experiment is trust in the individual forced to share rights and freedoms equally but with equal obligation.

            In other words, believe what you want but don’t you dare try to undermine a shared freedom to grant you privilege in law over someone else based on some concocted group membership. Doing so breaks your personal oath and breaks this shared reciprocity in respecting and defending the shared rights and freedoms of every single citizen. This understanding needs to be hammered home BEFORE legislation – whether local, regional, or federal – is created to divide people into group-based rights and privileges, and so I think such oath is central to creating a baseline known to all, shared by all, and obligated to all.


          5. I think such an oath should be a precursor to attaining full citizenship – for Every. Single. Citizen. Because citizenship is for everyone, the oath should be for everyone… so that ‘natural’ citizens are treated no differently than immigrants who attain it. There is currently no means to hold accountable anyone who advocates for the destruction of the country’s fundamental rights and freedoms… using those rights and freedoms to protect them while undermining them. An oath creates a legal recognition that citizenship is accompanied by a personal civic obligation recognized in law and a shared responsibility for everyone to first maintain these rights and freedoms in exchange for using them. Breaking this obligation breaks the oath, which means a personal decision to NOT be a responsible citizen, a person undeserving of the protections afforded to all citizens by oath because that individual has already decided to reject the support necessary for these shared rights and freedoms and so cannot use them to protect him- or herself from being held legally accountable for failing to accept this personal obligation. Reject the obligation, reject citizenship. Reject citizenship, reject the rights and freedoms it maintains.


        2. Will they, Mak? Really? … when sharia is the law of these lands, when the West FAILS to support those few moderate voices but widely apologizes if anyone dares to criticize the ideology in the West? Look at the vilification of those who do criticize. Where and for what reasons will this proposed quiet revolution and modernization occur, Mak, when those willing to do so are held in widespread contempt in the West, who criticisms are widely condemned throughout the Islamic world as blasphemy and its proponents shot, killed, and imprisoned with hardly a peep of sustained criticism from the West? I mean, seriously, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia with some of the worst very real systemic abuses are not just ‘allies’ but head up international human rights organizations! This is what a women’s rights committee looks like.


          1. It’s a global problem. Recognizing what the problem actually is – believing in any group-based ideology – is a very first step (which is why I think atheists used to the religious version can play a key role here). Until that problem is recognized, the problems associated with this cause will not be understood. And so the various responses will not be aligned with solving the real problem but merely a never-ending and ineffectual series of responding to the myriad of symptoms it causes.


    2. Agreed! Banning ideas and free speech is a slippery slope. Defending ourselves against those who resort to violence to promote those ideas, OTOH, is perfectly acceptable.

      Liked by 1 person

          1. Thats a good question.
            For one, not all Muslims walking around are trying to behead you so that’s the first challenge.
            To defend ones life, you use anything you got. Sometimes there is no time to help oneself like this case we are discussing


          2. Agreed, however a larger number than most normal people think consider the death penalty for apostasy is okay, and I’ll take a bet it is a similar story for insulting Mohammed.


  2. The Enlightenment Period helped many Christians break the shackles of power the Church had over them . The Power of Reason was available to everyone to help understand the Universe and improve their own condition. Followers of Islam have yet to attain this. Honor Killings, Female Genital Mutilation, Stoning Gays and Adulterers are still very much a part of what “Islam is”


    1. The major (current) problem with Islam is, it is atill very much steeped in its violent, misogynistic roots.
      Its aims are the establishment of Sharia Law and it is thus, incompatible with a secular democratic society.
      This problem is compounded because of the Qu’ran and the refusal of adherants to
      condemn/reinterprate the text.


      Fast forward fifty years …

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Islam is far more than just a religion but it uses the religion to purify its legal, social, political, and ethical objectives, namely, its complete subjugation of its ‘followers’… the current ones and the ones that are going to be.

    And the main tool for this subjugation is the threat of death. It’s throughout both Korans, the hadiths, and the sirah. It’s a religion of peace only to the ignorant.

    Add to the fact that no one from within Islam is understood to be a ‘radical’ Muslim; the correct metric is from ‘good’ to ‘bad’. This measurement is based entirely on how closely one follows all the teachings that constitute Islam. That’s why there’s no such thing as Muslim ‘extremist’; it’s the wrong metric. That’s also why a full third of British born university educated middle to upper class Muslims say it’s okay to kill in ‘defence’ of the faith. As this cohort gets older, that number rises significantly. No other religion comes close to this.

    So a Muslim is not an extremist or a fundamentalist if he or she is a good Muslim. And that includes beheading teachers who insult the Prophet. In other words, all Muslims are peace-loving, respectful, tolerant and very nice people… not extremist at all… until they take some action we cannot grasp as being anything but barbaric. Because we use such a barbaric act to judge intention, we fail miserably to understand that doing something like this is widely seen within Islam authority as the moral thing to do, the godly thing to do, the right thing to do… to ‘defend’ their religious beliefs – that include a social, legal, professional, and ethical code that will brook no transgression or evolution because it is the PERFECT word of Allah – that are diametrically opposite and in conflict with the West’s Enlightenment liberal principles. A Muslim is not an extremist… and so a good Muslim can never be an extremist.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. I often advocated for an oath of allegiance for citizenship by all. When someone acts contrary to this oath, then legal proceedings can be initiated.

        Short of that, I listen to ex-Muslims, pay heed to their warnings, take their advice, and donate money to help those brave enough to leave.

        Oh, and I sometimes comment online to criticize the religion and its apologists and accommodationists. Shhh. Don’t tell Inspiredbythedivine1 or he’ll have my head.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Ark,

    Please bear with me on my long comment. Sorry Sir, but I do have a personal perspective worth sharing on this topic. 🙂

    As you may or may not know, I am currently in an ongoing (8-yrs and counting), progressing, intimate relationship with a WONDERFUL, kind, beautiful, smart, and phenomenally disciplined Chinese woman from Hangzhou, China near Shanghai. She moved to the U.S., to a suburb of Kansas City in 2012. She is driving down to Dallas—for the fourth time!—to finish up her 50-hours of Clinical before being licensed in specialized “Chinese-Asain” Massage & PT to compliment her work (now on hold due to COVID-19) in nursing homes and massage/physical-therapy clinics. 🙂

    Anyway, I am getting a very intimate firsthand account of what life is like living inside a country that is completely controlled by a few men/one man and their/his puppet-government. Where ALL MEDIA, news—whether radio, TV, WiFi-internet, social-media platforms, newspapers, et al—has only ONE slant, ONE agenda. Ark, it’s pretty effin scary to listen to what ultimately happens to Chinese dissidents, e.g. those university students of Tiananmen Square in 1989. Remember them?

    Qin tells me that almost every one of those people, many of them young, have disappeared completely if they were not killed or imprisoned immediately that summer in ’89 or they somehow managed to get out of China before they were stopped. When I explained to her how here in the U.S., throughout our entire history, it was only the PEOPLE, the masses, the “E Pluribus” in “E pluribus unum”… all organized as ONE with ONE goal in mind is 9-times-out-of-10 the ONLY way the “Many” can take power away from “one/few.” And it often means death and/or mutilation and other atrocities for the Commoners. 😦 That’s what happened in 1776, in 1861 to 1867 (slavery), over two hundred years (still counting) for Native American Indians here, and then AGAIN during our Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s—which unbelievably was NEVER fully settled in 1865 when the GOD DAYUM EVIL Confederacy was beaten after 4-bloody years of war!!! I told her,

    As scary, daunting, and probably as lethal as it probably will be, freedom (of expression with accountability), liberty, equality (in all sectors of life!), and happiness FOR ALL must always be protected too BY ALL people/commoners!!!

    If we all do not do this diligently 52-weeks a year every year, every decade… then men like in her Chinese government, or Kim Jong-un of North Korea, or Bashar al-Assad of Syria, or Putin of expanding Russia, or Donald Trump of the U.S., or Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, etc, etc, ad infinitum, will sooner or later seize power quickly or slowly by whatever means possible. Until that male-gendered DNA is eventually removed from our primate species, then this fight/war is perpetual every generation.

    I frightened Qin with that speech and my illustration with brittle twigs & sticks from the yard, spread them all out in singularity, stomped on all of them when solo and broke/shattered them all. But when I gathered them all together, bound in a HUGE bundle and then tried to do the same thing… well, you get the picture. But Ark, she then began to tell me what the government/few men, or dictator’s “police” begins doing to all your family members, especially your own sons/daughters. She asked me, “How can you protect everything most sacred to you?” 😔

    I tell ya Ark, it’s a whole other ballgame when it involves your own children or spouse. Freedom (and its protection) is and always has been VERY COSTLY. But it has to be protected from that small specific genetic group of male primates! Period. Easy? Certainly not. Worth it? HELL THA DUCK YES!!! At least for my own kids!

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Apparently Venezuela has the greatest oil reserves in the world. But until they are properly harvested Islam (Mecca) controls the flow. Frightening thought? It should be …

    As for sawing people’s heads off, have we all forgotten Gunner Rigby, or wotever his name was?

    Blessed be those who saw people’s head off for God, etc etc … in accordance with the better Good Book.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Indeed, Ark. You might as well try to ban unfounded opinion. The problem (religion, but in this case Islam) is the reason such things are done.
    So I ask, for the love of Pete, “Where have all the flowers gone?”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s