The Epistemology of Islam, and why we cannot understand it well enough to fight it effectively

In an earlier post today we posted a speech by Douglas Murray on how political correctness created an incubator for Islam in the West that never could have happened if not for leftist narratives. It’s an excellent and even important speech. Frankly it is one of those explanations that really should have been enough to shut Islam down well before now, at least in the West where once we knew better.

There is a second reason why perhaps in particular the United States is having difficulty fighting back against the destruction of its constitution, culture, values and freedoms by Islam. And that is because the 1st amendment is being improperly applied. And that, is because the definition of religion was not given.

In this article at RAIR Foundation it is clearly explained, not by us, not by our side, but by a top shelf Muslim Jurist, not, as the article says, any comic-book diploma Imam, that Islam is sharia, and sharia is Islam.

Really I don’t think it can be said better, or much added than it is at RAIR. So please do click through and read the article. but I will embed a couple of the short video excerpts from the lauded jurist here.

Why this matters, again, which is explained in the article, is because we confuse a very Western understanding of religion with an Islamic one.

To quote Sam Solomon, another once very influential Islamic jurist, “In the West, religion is a part of life. In Islam, life is a part of religion”. You will see how that works as we come to understand sharia, which is Islam, which is sharia.

The essence:

How belief in Islam is mandatory, and is in fact, the sharia:

There is no comparison between Islam and any other religion. No other religion has compulsion to belief and a death penalty for failure to believe. And yes, Koran says something like, “there is no compulsion in religion” but that is abrogated by half a dozen other later sayings where it is clear there is. Like for example, “He who changes his religion (from Islam) kill him”. Etc.

Granting 1st amendment protection to Islam would be the same as doing so to Nazism and communism if they just called themselves a religion where Hitler, or Marx where the messiahs. And frankly a strong case can be made that the Soviets treated Lenin that way, and it would be a slam dunk to say the North Koreans treat their undead founder, the “Eternal President” of the DPRK Kim Il-sung that way as well.

The 1st amendment protects ritual that does not break laws or threaten your civilization. It didn’t even really cover polygamy as practiced by the Mormons. And Mormonism is sorta kinda a version of Christianity, depending on how your telescope or microscope is zoomed in of course. So protecting Islam under the 1st amendment is frankly insane. And the reason for the insanity is covered in the Douglas Murray speech at the bottom of this post.

Please do go read the entire essay and see the other related videos at RAIR Foundation.