Objective Islam, Subjective Islam

You can sort the written and spoken words about Islam into two categories–negative and apologist. Closer observation shows that the negative camp and the apologist camp use different logic, as well as come to different conclusions.

An easy way to see this is to go to a reporting source on the web such as a newspaper that has an article about Islam. Read the comments. The negative comments tend to be more based on ideas taken from the Islamic source material from the Koran and Mohammed. Or they quote a jihadi, a poll or a historical fact.

The apologist comments tend to quote a Muslim friend or establishment expert and attack those who criticize Islam. Critics are called bigots, neo-Nazis, Islamophobes or some other cruel name. In essence, having negative comments or judgments about Islam is labeled as evil. The term hate speech is even bantered about. The critic of Islam is a failed sinner who is shamed and morally condemned. It is all very personal and very much about feelings.

A good apologist will have a second attack on the problem of, “Is Islam good or bad”? Islam must be supported by something besides an attack on the person. There must be with some facts about Islam from other apologists, mainly Muslim scholars and academic types. These experts are authorities who can deliver judgment from on high. But, many times they don’t have facts, only opinions.

If you are to base your arguments on what some expert says, then what “expert” do you ask? What imam or what professor? If you quote a Jew-hating Saudi imam found on MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute) you fail the criteria of the expert the apologist needs, because the “expert” must be a moderate, at all costs. So that fire breathing Palestinian jihadi just won’t do.

If you turn to Google, you can wind up at sites like ReligionLink, a website for reporters. This looks very official, very authoritative; surely you can trust them, but if you are knowledgeable, there are organizations on the site that are associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, such as ISNA, which should raise a flag to the knowing.

It is interesting to take the ReligionLink site as an example of how the Islamic information war works. Go to what seems like a very solid choice of experts recommended on the site: a Naval Academy professor, Dr. Brannon Wheeler. Get his advice on Sharia law and when you line up what he says against what the current Muslim Brotherhood position on Sharia in America today, they match exactly. Dr. Wheeler says that Sharia is vague, not really law, an old idea, very adaptable and no country really follows Sharia. Move along, there is nothing to see here, says the apologist professor peddling the Muslim Brotherhood line.

The facts are that as far as the Kafirs is concerned, the Sharia is very clear. It is also unimportant that Sharia is not an exact analog to our laws. So far as being an old idea, the Koran and the Sunna are even older and held to be absolutely true. It is true that no nation uses the Sharia for 100% of its rule, but the law is so ruinous to women and Kafirs that any application of Sharia is not humane. And all 57 of the Islamic countries use it to some degree.

If you cannot trust a Naval Academy professor of Islamic Studies, then how do you evaluate the source of information? How can we know the true nature of Islam? Are there actual facts that nail everything down?

Islam is supremely logical. Every Muslim agrees that Islam is the doctrine found in the Koran and the Sunna of Mohammed. (Mohammed is the perfect Muslim and his words and actions have been recorded in detail.) All of Islam is founded on Allah and the pattern of Mohammed. Allah is found in the Koran and Mohammed is found in the Hadith (the Traditions of Mohammed) and the Sira (his biography). All of the doctrine of Islam is found in the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith (the Trilogy). If it is in the Trilogy, it is Islam by definition.

The Trilogy is not only an objective source of Islamic doctrine, but it is also the measure of all statements about Islam. We have an objective measure of experts. We don’t need to see what institute gave them the authority to speak as an expert. We need to compare their comments to what is in the Trilogy. If the comment agrees with Mohammed, it is true. If it disagrees with the Trilogy, then it is false.

The question is: why even ask the experts? Why not ask Mohammed and Allah and quote them? Quote the doctrine. Skip the experts and find an objective answer.

The beauty of objective Islam is that you get the same answer no matter who does the work. The subjective method gives any answer you want. So you ask the expert who gives the answer you want. Subjective Islam is garbage Islam. Objective Islam is Islam.

The problem is that no one knows there is objective knowledge about Islam. Everybody has been lied to by the media, the schools, the religious leaders and all those who listen to opinions of experts and do not know a single objective fact about Islam, i.e. doctrine. We have a choice: learn about the Koran and Mohammed or be the fools listening to a good lie told by “experts”.


Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink http://politicalislam.com/objective-islam-subjective-islam/
Copyright © 2010 CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com

3 Responses

  1. nandrolone
    |

    Thank you for the sensible critique on http://www.politicalislam.com . Me & my neighbor were just preparing to do some research about this. We got a grab a book from our local library but I think I learned more from this post. I am very glad to see such great information being shared freely out there.

  2. Mark Hallenberg
    |

    Thank you for the sensible breakdown. Do you have a recommendation for the ‘Trilogy’? I am asked by folks where they can get, for example, a hard copy version of the Koran – one that has not been ‘cleansed’ by the taqiyya-ites. Can you point me in the right direction.

    Thanks again – God bless you.

  3. Democracyistheanswer
    |

    The thesis of this article is correct. Islam was completely codified by the year 1111 AD and further speculation on the meaning of the source texts (the trilogy) was closed.

    Speculation or romantization of the original texts began in earnest in the 19th century when Christian missionaries entered the East in large numbers. The contrast between their ‘golden rule’ preaching and the aggressive, imperialist jihad preaching of the mullahs was black and white. Moslems were ashamed of the central aggressive doctrine of Islam and tried to mitigate its stark repulsiveness.

    But all this was to no effect the modern jihad movement has contradicted the contradiction. No wonder we are in the present confusion!

Leave a Reply

We require registration to prevent excessive automated spam commenting.