Thursday, June 16, 2016


Now, I'm not at all anti-Islam. In fact, as religions go, I think it's a cut above most of what the human race has produced. Now, I see two basic kinds of religion — universalist and non-universalist. The non-universalist religions are, basically, the ones you can't convert to, because they're religions of a particular people and aren't designed for the whole human race, so to speak. These include Judaism, Shinto, Hinduism, Druze, and Parsis, though there are many more, probably thousands more, in history.

Yes, I know. You've heard of people who have become Jews, or Hindus, or Shinto. But basically, the non-Universalist religions don't want and won't accept converts, but there are exceptions, because that's the way human beings are. As a rule of thumb, then, let's say that the non-universalist religions are very reluctant to accept converts. Okay?

But the universalist religions, in sharp contrast, do accept converts, enthusiastically and sometimes belligerently. Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism are well-known universalist religions. Among these, Islam has the bad rep of historically forcing conversion. Islam or the sword or, for Jews and Christians, traditionally, the Jizya tax. Google Jizya and Dhimmi if you don't know about that. Christians and Jews in Muslim countries know all about it.

But the point I want to make in this post is what's suggested by the graphic: the good behavior of the Muslims in the United States, for the most part, is due to the fact that there's only a small number of Muslims in the United States. The graphic goes further than I would, really, because I think that very probably, most Muslims here want to behave well, and are here because they think this is neat place to live, and, whether they realize it or not, this is a neat place to live precisely because it's overwhelmingly Christian, and Christian-majority countries tend to be nice places.

But when there are enough Muslims in a country that they can start throwing their weight around, that's exactly what they do. The belligerent Muslims dominate the Muslim community, overwhelming the nice, peaceful Muslims because they're belligerent, and begin demanding, and getting, special treatment for Muslims and Islam, building Mosques wherever they want, special rules for the benefit of Muslims — women allowed to wear face-obscuring clothing where nonMuslims may not do so, special swimming times for Muslim women in public pools, muslim cab drivers being permitted to refuse to allow dogs in their cabs, Muslim deliverymen permitted to refuse to transport liquor. You've heard of all these things and more. And then, when they have big enough plurality or a majority, they impose Islam and Sharia on everybody. That process has taken place in varying degrees in Europe, much more than in the United States, with pretty horrible consequences in Britain, France, Germany, Beglium, and the Scandinavian countries.

No, Islam isn't just another church. It has Sharia law, which good Muslims are required to impose on everybody, Muslim or not, whenever and wherever they can. It is, truly, an ideology as well as a religion. Yes, maybe that was the case with Christianity centuries ago, but it is not the case now, and Christians are required now not to force others to convert to Christianity, but to accomodate nonChristians, to include Muslims. If you don't believe me, just ask the nutty Pope.

Now, I know you have nice Muslim friends who wouldn't impose stuff like that on you. But when we get more and more Muslims, your nice Muslim friends will find themselves both jollied along and bullied a bit by these new Muslims who aren't so nice — you know, like young Vito Corleone was jollied along by Clemenza and bullied by Fanucci — and before they know it, they find themselves part of an Islamic network that they (or their parents or grandparents) left Pakistan or Palestine or Syria or Afghanistan or any number of such places to escape, ironically enought. They brought Islam with them, you see, and all that it implies.

I hope this clears up any confusion anybody might have had about the "equivalence" of Christianity and Islam. Comments welcome.

1 comment:

  1. I've had to change when talking about "Muslims", not unlike the word "Conservative" expired.
    I lived a long time in Michigan as Muslims gathered in Dearborn. I would also note the Jews gathered in Southfield, Oak Park, and West Bloomfield and also demanded special privileges (in this case I-696 was going to split the residences from the synagogues so they forced the government to build "parks" creating unsafe dark tunnels for the drivers so they could avoid crossing the private/public line on the sabbath though those moving there knew it was going to be built eventually).
    The Muslims were mostly secular, though the women would wear head-scarves. Most were in America for a long time and assimilated for the most part. But that was a decade or two ago. Before I left they were starting to demand the loud calls to prayers (early in the morning) and other things. In 2001, you could make the case that the terrorists "weren't them". But between the wars, open borders, and immigration, it changed. So while in 2000, I could argue Muslims were more assimilated than the Jews, 90% or more are non-assimilated, so it is now impossible to talk of "Muslims" that are Americans in any reasonable meaning of the two terms. It is like trying to use the word "Catholic" when you mean Carthusians instead of the casual carnal church-goers.