Northwest

I have heard this stock answer before, but I don’t think that one can divorce such a verse from its context, some of which may lie in (authentic) narrations. A sweeping generalisation all too often can be used to promote a saccharine narrative: a story that appeals to our personal bias, but overlooks evidence to the contrary—and the question it raises. Our modern perspective tends to creep in and colour our worldview; if something seems inconsistent with our subjective notion of God’s “fairness,” it is dismissed as something that can be explained away. In reality it is something that our worldview perceives as unpleasant, not necessarily false. To be fair, I am not making an insinuation about God’s justice. Even if illegitimate people were excluded from Paradise, God’s inscrutable justness would not necessarily be endangered (or vindicated). But the illegitimate offspring are effectively “burdened,” if one may use that term, with a relatively low position in society and the stigma of social origin. The fact that an illegitimate person cannot hold a lot of senior positions also does suggest that something more than mere honour and shame might be at work, i.e., the possibility that he may be “burdened” with a negative spiritual inheritance as well—irrespective of his thoughts and deeds so far in his life. Origin seems to have played a (much?) larger role in Islamic history than it has in modern society, however. Traditional Islamic society was very much based on class, caste, family, clan, tribe, race, and so on. Society was more sensitive to social maladies than it is today. Strictures against illegitimacy and other abnormalities were enforced accordingly, in order to better preserve inheritance, social stability, and so on. Being an orphan is very different from being illegitimate.

@Borntowitnesstruth There also seem to be some traditions to the effect that the offspring inherits some kind of spiritual “taint” as well, apart from anything that he learns from the examples of his parents. There are also some narrations that suggest an illegitimate person cannot under any circumstances attain Paradise, owing in part to the spiritual “taint.” (I have heard of claims to the contrary, but the evidence, to me, seems ambiguous at best.) Problematically, however, these claims would clash with the notion of free will, the belief that we can choose our eternal fate here and now. Barring an illegitimate person from Paradise on account of background would seemingly encourage a tendency to fatalism, by undermining a belief in merit and personal reform. Like people of other traditions, a lot of individual Muslims seem to place more emphasis on factors such as lineage than personal effort, as though circumstances of birth essentially dictate faith (i.e., if your ancestors were grievous sinners, then you will be, too).

I was thinking about this topic recently and have the following to note, keeping in mind that it has no bearing, one way or another, on the veracity of Islam: John 14:16–7 makes clear, contextually, that the direct reference is to the Spirit rather than the Prophet Muhammad per se: for a future Prophet could not be said to be presently dwelling among the disciples and to soon be “in” them (v. 17). Also, the following parallelism would seem to exclude a reference to the Prophet: in emulating God, Jesus is empowered by the Spirit, who represents the Divine presence. As God’s penultimate Representative, the Messiah, Jesus is “one” with Him through His Spirit, and in his absence is “in” his followers by the Spirit he passes on (vv. 18,20). Moreover, Jesus is said to personally “send” or pass on the Paraclete (John 14:26, 15:26, 16:7) through God’s agency, something that cannot be said in relation to the Prophet. All the while Jesus is addressing his disciples rather than a future, unknown generation. In general, the Bible, whether in the Old (Tanakh) or New Testament, seems to contain few, if any, references to Islamic personalities. (The “Lamb”/“Word” of Revelation 5:9–10, 17:14, 19:16 is explicitly said to be martyred and to return in judgment, so he cannot be said to be either Imam Hussein or the Mahdi, for instance.) It may well allude to them—the message of the Bible and the Quran being one, at least in its original form—but does not see them as distinct from earlier Divine Representatives who laid the foundations of faith, i.e., Abraham, Moses, and so on. After all, the Quran is said to confirm all that was revealed before, going as far back as Adam, and in this sense is not original at all. The Prophet’s message is the same as that of his predecessors, with some corrections and clarifications here and there. (On this basis, all God’s Representatives can be said to reflect the primordial Divine Light.) So I do not think that the Bible can be used to disprove (or prove) Islam.

@JannahLM First, Jewish favouritism would hardly be “liberal and inclusive.” (The proposal would explicitly discriminate against non-Jewish religious schools.) Second, this policy has not been officially adopted to date, although de facto discrimination against religion has long existed in Sweden, as it has in much of the post-Christian West: The elite, of course, has a schizophrenic attitude toward Muslims: on the one hand, it sees Muslim migrants as useful weapons vs. the natives, but on the other hand it detests Islam as much as it does Christianity, if not other faiths as well. Globalism, if applied strictly, does not abide national or religious identities.

The reference to the “anti-migration crowd” stood out a bit. Anyway, my impression, right or wrong, has been that you have tended to support the open-borders side more than the alternative. A liberal migration policy, however, needs to be managed better than it has been to date in the West, nor do I think a true open-borders policy is sustainable over the long term. If it were, more Muslim states would be adopting it.

@Silas I think that a fair share of the blame lies with any creed, secular or religious, that either relies on or encourages an appeal to victimhood and its companion, vengeance. Unfortunately, Islam is not immune to this. On the one hand, it, like other faiths, encourages personal responsibility—self-help, personal reform, accountability—in the abstract, but also contains elements that can be easily used by the ego to justify itself. Communalism, after all, involves xenophobic attitudes toward the “Other” that tend to lay blame on “outsiders” rather than “insiders.” Secular ideologies (really alternate religions) like Marxism reflect the same dynamics. In any event, collective identities such as race, ethnicity, and/or class take precedence over God and/or the individual, thereby diluting personal agency to varying degrees. Ultimately, mankind must comes up with, or rely on, a creed that at its core centres the self rather than the scapegoat. Ethically, no one would be able to blame anyone but himself as an individual for his situation in life, or his approach to it. So long as the “infidel,” the “oppressor-race,” or the “class enemy“ (often all three are one and the same) exists, one cannot honestly begin to overcome the ego and look at one’s own sins. The enemy is within, not without. Focussing on external threats tends to foster near-asocial tendencies such as arrogance. This is why Muslims who support mass migration to the West, in my view, are shortsighted (sorry, @Haji 2003). They expect like-minded newcomers to be not only of their own faith, but also ethnicity and/or race (i.e., Arab). Yet once the floodgates are opened, nothing will prevent others from following, thereby replicating the same conflicts that go on within Muslim-majority lands (i.e, conflicts between Arab and non-Arab Muslims, or between families). Adding even more “exotic” foreigners like Latin Americans only adds to stressors. Of course, “sticking it” to the whites and/or Zionists (Jews, too?) by flooding the West with Muslim migrants—in alliance with open-borders Marxist globalists—offers short-term gratification, but ultimately does little to remediate one’s plight, let alone advance Islamic causes. (After all, Muslim-majority countries rarely employ the same open-borders policy as the West.) In practice ethics is particularistic, applying only to the in-group. Racial, ethnic, and/or religious groups, along with political mafias, typically do not adhere to a universalistic ethical framework, so manipulating or exploiting others is either tolerated or praised, if doing so helps the in-group. Furthermore, religious practice is typically “reformatted” to fit race and/or ethnicity, so that there is little that unites even people who superficially share the same faith. For instance, different races prefer to be ruled by one of their own: hence non-Arabs, even if Muslim, tend to be at odds with the “Arab” legacy of Islam, so inwardly they cannot be fully loyal to their creed. (If Iran were racially and/or ethnically homogeneous, it might be a bit more stable or religiously harmonious than it is.) Furthermore, everyone has a different definition of who is truly or fully “human,” one that typically only embraces the narrowest confines: one’s next of kin, socioeconomic class, and so on.

@Haji 2003 Re: dependents: does Iran’s policy differ significantly from the UAE’s or Singapore’s? ^ The problem with this is that most of the increase appears to have occurred several years prior to/after those interventions. (For example, see the periods 1997–2000 and 2016–23. NATO invaded Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003, and Libya/Syria in 2011.) Invasion, in my view, only accounts for part of migration, albeit a significant one.

@Haji 2003 Migration is a complex phenomenon, involving many forces and actors. Wars not the only source of refugees; other forms of interventionism can be just as decisive. Western NGOs—fronts for international finance and intelligence services—did play a role in initiating the “Arab Spring,” often partnering with Sunni Islamists (MB) in places like Tunisia, at least early on. All the “peaceful” protests significantly disrupted economies in the MENA, spurring migration from the start, before the most violent phase(s) began. During the Cold War both Sunni and Shia Muslims made tactical alliances with the West vs. communism and secular nationalism, among them the jihad vs. the Soviets in Afghanistan, support for anti-secularist coups, and so on. (Imam Khomeini was willing to deal ad hoc with the Israelis during the Iran–Contra affair, as both Iran and Israel feared that Saddam might become too strong, so long as Iran did not sacrifice its core interests. Similarly, if I recall correctly, much of the Shia leadership in Iraq did not support violent resistance to the Americans early on, taking a “wait-and-see” approach that did not exclude selective cooperation.) Prior to the advent of Zionism the British Empire and the Sunni Arabs maintained fairly cordial, pragmatic ties. (Later on some of these Sunni elites willingly sold property to the Zionist colonisers.) Personally, I think that Muslims, like other groups, are no less susceptible to temporary arrangements with outsiders on common goals, even if external intervention of one sort or another is envisaged. There are also shadowy economic and other interests that benefit from a flow of refugees westward, e.g., all those Soros-linked NGOs that try to “resettle” migrants. Conflict provides a convenient cover and pretext for them. As @Silas suggested, various groups (or factions?) such as Marxists and Salafi Islamists, often backed by powerful financial interests, have a stake in altering Western societies. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the pro-DNC Muslim outlet CAIR has endorsed Walz as a supposedly pro-Palestinian candidate. AIPAC is closely tied to both major political parties, so Walz plays a useful role for the establishment in tying both left and right to a pro-Israel platform. The fact that Mark Mellman, a known AIPAC operative, has also endorsed Walz says a lot. CAIR is obviously controlled by petrodollar input from the GCC, which has long been on the side of Israel vs. Iran and Palestine to begin with. The following distills the Zionist strategy: At any rate, regardless of one’s views on Hamas or the Palestinians, large Jewish communities in the MENA thrived, or at the very least persisted, under Muslim rule for centuries prior to World War II. If the prewar Jewish population of Baghdad is any indication, Zionism was not needed to safeguard Jews, claims of “antisemitism” notwithstanding. Had antisemitism been a problem, Jews would not have continued to congregate in such large numbers in the MENA, nor would they have migrated to Muslim lands after being expelled from parts of Europe. Zionism only made the Arab and Muslim majority suspicious of Jewish influence, while creating immense dislocation and suffering in the process, backed by external powers. Self-proclaimed Zionists should really reexamine the costs and benefits of the Israeli project. This, to me, has always been the central problem.

@Silas While economics definitely plays a significant role, the “radical” Islamist ideologues have often emerged from privileged backgrounds. The likes of bin Laden, Zawahiri, Banna, Qutb, Ramadan, and so on were hardly of lower-class origin, for instance. (Similarly, Marxism was of bourgeois rather than proletarian origin, a product of the Western intelligentsia, influenced as it was by the Enlightenment, and Jewish materialism.) In my view one cannot reduce the problem of radicalism to economics, as reductionist ideological approaches do. (You yourself have told me this in the past, during our debate about property and Marxism.) A complex interplay seems more reflective of reality—one that acknowledges, as both sides implicitly do, the very real incompatibilities between Islamic and Western modes of life. All the sugarcoating and businesslike arrangements in the world cannot paper over these. Both the far right and the globalist “liberal” left have really caricatured the problem of Islamist radicalism. While the far right has trenchantly relied on subliminal racism vs. “brown” Muslims, and resorted to crude propaganda about Islam itself, the globalist establishment has painted “white” Christian Westerners as the villain and excused every act of Islamist radicalism, instead blaming “Islamophobia,” “racism,” or economic issues. Given that the West, on a political level, has proven quite inviting to Muslim migrants, the globalist’s cries of discrimination, to me, seem rather galling. (The petrodollar inextricably binds the West to Wahhabi–Salafi extremism.) On the other hand, since the far right hardly follows traditionalist Christianity on a number of issues (look at the number of right-wing women who go about scantily clad, without headscarves, and get involved in politics), it does not seem more credible at all. Neither faction really seems interested in examining reality as it is or in learning. You mention America’s “melting pot” as indicative of a stable society. I would argue that tensions remain, but are subterranean. Multicultural societies often tend to yield little trust, resulting in a weakened state and/or disintegration, as has often been the case with empires over time. Brazil, Lebanon, and Northern Ireland have been extremely dysfunctional, for instance, illustrating that “diversity” is not always sustainable over the long run. Some of the most corrupt cities on Earth happen to be among the most “diverse” in terms of race, ethnicity, and/or faith (i.e., Chicago). By contrast, until recently—that is, prior to mass migration—homogeneous societies such as the Scandinavian countries were known for being transparent, characterised by high levels of trust and low levels of dysfunction. Even Iran is not as stable as it could be due to the role of non-Persian groups such as Baluchis and Kurds, who often tend to oppose the government. People, by their nature, prefer to live among their own kind, in small, close-knit groups united by blood, faith, and land. Empires, intrinsically cosmopolitan, oppose this, and also weaken self-governance. As to a solution: my ideas are no better than yours, and I do not dare to suggest one. I am, by experience, rather skeptical of any notion that posits a potential “brotherhood of man,” for I see much more division than unity. Even within faith the tribe, clan, family (caste), race, and ethnicity play far more of a role than faith, and in fact often dictate the faith. There is very little “unity” to speak of, except within the narrowest confines, i.e., those of a single bloodline continuously inhabiting a limited tract of Earth’s surface for generations while imparting a particular tradition. @Haji 2003 As a whole they may not be in a position of power, but in part are entrusted with influence. The Western establishment views native Westerners as a bigger threat than Muslims, at least at home (foreign policy is another story). That is why most—though not all—of the media, academia, and so on are always quick to raise the spectre of the “far right” and “(Christian) nationalism” while co-opting “brown” peoples and/or faiths. The likes of FOX and its traditionalist allies were largely drowned out by anti-Trump “globalist” factions, for instance. As a result Trump was largely unable to implement his domestic policies, with some exceptions, and was kicked out of office. The far right certainly has tremendous, albeit heterogeneous, influence within its base, but reaches a much smaller audience and is less well-financed than the globalist, multiculturalist, “liberal” left. Certain Muslim groups are “privileged” by the “liberal”-leftist establishment, and by siding with the establishment’s arms—the DNC in the U.S., Labour et al. in the U.K.—many Muslims have indeed abetted the “liberal”-leftist “woke” agenda for the sake of multiculturalism. Given that the globalists often view the extinction of “whites” as desirable (BLM, anyone?), the far right, hypocritical though it is, can be partly forgiven for suspecting some Muslims. As many Muslim institutions in the West have had ongoing relationships, direct or indirect, with globalist finance and have endorsed globalist politics (i.e., open borders, “tolerance,” anti-white “reverse racism,” and so on), one can certainly qualify the universal refrain that the only problem is “Islamophobia” and “racism,” neither of which really seems to fully describe the actual power-relations at work—given the role of GCC petrodollars. None of this is to endorse the far right, however. After all, the same far right, like other Western factions, played a big role in creating the Islamist “Frankenstein” during the Cold War, if not earlier, for the sake of “anticommunism.” Now its Islamist offspring have turned around and sponsored post-Marxist tacticians as weapons vs. the Western masses, on behalf of the globalist establishment. (And groups like CAIR are sponsored by the GCC, i.e., Qatar.) Nevertheless, I will concede that much of the far right’s animus toward “Islam” and “Muslims” has less to do with religion than with ethnicity and/or race. (After all, the far right is hardly more knowledgeable about Islam, or even Christianity, than the globalist establishment is.) I am only arguing that Muslims as a bloc have sometimes tended to be the “mirror image” of the right in this regard. Unless this is also acknowledged problem-solving will be difficult.

@Fear Not Love I think a bigger problem is that most of the Muslim institutions in the West are financed by Wahhabi–Salafi petrodollars. In turn the institutions promote extremism and then cry “Islamophobia,” while also working to prevent the West from developing its domestic reserves, thereby perpetuating dependence on the GCC’s oil—a bipartisan problem. Yet somehow Iran receives most of the blame for terrorism, even though most of it, homegrown or not, comes from Western “allies” like Saudi Arabia. (Incidentally, the “Liberal Democrat” entities that you mention have spent a lot of effort supporting anti-Islamist, secularist movements inside Iran, i.e., the “Green Movement.”) Re: “false historical claims,” regardless of Islam’s veracity, I am hard pressed to find a better example than the Trinity. In my view, one cannot seriously contend with Islam while also promulgating the orthodox Christian view of Jesus’ “divinity.” Nevertheless, part of me thinks that you do have a valid point about the ties between certain Islamist organisations and the “Liberal Democrat” (globalist, leftist, Marxist?) Western establishment. If the West were irremediably “racist,” it would not have taken in so many migrants, a large proportion of them Muslim. Nor would it have forged longtime alliances with Muslim states and/or rulers, as the British Empire and its American successor did. In the main, I think there is more evidence that the Western elite has long sided more often with the interests of foreigners than those of the native population. If you consider yourself a conservative Christian, then you might recall the Cold War-era alliance between the Muslim and Western worlds vs. “Godless communism”. Before building up its Muslim foes, the West also played a big role in building up its communist adversaries, as it did prior to and during World War II. And of course, ever since the “Holocaust” Western Christians are forbidden from seeing their interests as distinct from those of Jews, be they Zionist or “liberal”-leftist/globalist. I see the Western masses more as useful idiots/stooges for foreigners and a traitorous ruling class than anything else—albeit willing ones, so they have little right to complain, honestly. @Haji 2003 To be fair, don’t some of these Muslims share part of the blame for siding with “liberal”-leftist groups that, while supporting open borders, openly sponsor the LGBTQ+I and related dysgenic policy? How can they blame Western society for being so degenerate, while tacitly siding with groups that promote the degeneracy? (I know from @Abu Hadiand others that many Muslims have started to notice the contradiction.) Globalist, “multicultural” institutions have indeed tried to pit “brown” Muslim factions vs. the Western masses while sponsoring “woke” ideology among whites. Most of the institutional weight lies on the side of the globalists rather than the nationalists (“far right”), in my view.

^ I am still struggling with this and am genuinely interested in hearing counterarguments. Any takers?

If I recall correctly, those businessmen gained much of their wealth through lucrative associations with the state, not laissez-faire. If not for their ties to the state, these men and their assets would not have been as influential as they have been. SpaceX is tied to NASA (and the Federal Reserve), Facebook to the military, and so on. Big Pharma and Amazon have received massive subsidies, whether directly or indirectly. A genuinely free market might not permit these kinds of associations.

@Eddie Mecca “Absolutist”? I feel that I am distilling the essence of the case. Chávez’ Venezuela was guided by very different ideological considerations from the IRI’s. Aside from common economic interests and anti-imperialist rhetoric, both sides had very distinct objectives. In such a situation, I believe, the overtures would have been much more for pragmatic than other purposes. Yet some people here have acted as though Chávez might have been a secret Shia of sorts, the absence of hard (or even circumstantial) evidence notwithstanding. I care more about his deeds than his words, but for the record, in 2008 he went on record stating that he disbelieved in the afterlife: He has also called Jesus Christ a revolutionary communist and compared him to Che Guevara and put forth the heretical notion that vox populi, vox Dei: ^ Here Chávez denies all religious hierarchy, including the existence of Divine messengers, and claims that “the people” are the true “god.” Another gem: Chávez only temporarily shed his materialistic outlook when he learned of his having contracted cancer, but was motivated chiefly by politics. Chávez “Catholicism” was more for show than anything else, and privately Chávez seemed agnostic at best, and entertained syncretistic, animistic forms of belief, probably reflective of pantheism, which would be compatible with a materialistic outlook, à la Spinoza. Chávez was heavily influenced by Marxism via liberation theology, which was condemned by the Catholic hierarchy in its time. Chávez tried to nationalise the entire Venezuelan economy, either directly or indirectly. Socialism refers to the state’s owning the means of production, something that Islam seemingly rejects, favouring private ownership in general. ( @Haji 2003, you referred to an emergency, not a general principle.) Chávez’ definition of these things was entirely different from Shia Islam’s, given his Marxist-leaning perspective.

I have often heard the argument that without proper faith in God one cannot discern the truth about anything. For example, postmodernist sexual degeneracy is often blamed on a lack of faith in Divine revelation. I have pondered this notion for some time and, while seeing some truth in it, find it problematic. It posits that reason in and of itself is incapable of discerning, much less interpreting, the laws of nature (i.e., natural law), which are also God’s, being created. If this were the case, then people would not even be able to understand human physiology on its own terms, and would end up promoting things like sodomy, bestiality, and other unnatural (deviant), unhealthy sexual practices. But is this really the case? One can easily observe the workings of the natural world—the behaviour of organisms, bodily functions, and the individual components of ecosystems—and thereby conclude that species-specific pairings are needed principally, or at the very least primarily, for procreation. Successful reproduction is evolutionarily advantageous and therefore likely to be much healthier than any alternative, i.e., sterility. One does not need to defer to revelation to conclude, based on empiricism, that biology is an objective factor and that sex is meant to ensure the survivability of an organism. This would rule out the whole notion that biological sex is a construct (“gender”), that same-sex “intercourse” is appropriate, etc. One also has the tools to confirm that sexual organs indeed aim to generate viable offspring. One can observe embryos, discern the relationship between sperm and egg, and so on. All this is testable. By contrast, one cannot prove that a particular claim to Divine revelation, and hence a specific form of ritual observance, is correct, given that a) miracles typically cannot be tested and b) many creeds lay claim to exclusive truth on a similar, untestable basis. (Of course, neither can the existence of God be proven, but this does not necessarily disprove a particular faith or the existence of God.) Nor can one defer to “science” to justify the whole LGBTQ+I nonsense, which has more in common with religion, or religious justification, than empiricism. My point is not that religion or belief in God should be disparaged per se, but that one does not necessarily need religious faith (i.e., in Divine revelation) to come to a conclusion about reality that may be in tune with a Designer’s intention. A counterargument is that a purely material basis leads to a belief in evolution, and that this presupposes human imperfection, thereby leading to attempts by man to alter himself, often surgically, for some subjective “higher“ end, as in trans-humanism. But a belief in evolution, coupled with an understanding of world-systems, can also be used to oppose artificial interference in a complex system such as the human body’s, given the incompleteness and imperfection of science. This would be both prudent and scientific. After all, if complex systems developed over time, one should not go about willy-nilly altering its most fundamental processes, for even a slight change can affect the whole natural world, or civilisation itself. And, as has been mentioned before, belief in evolution does not presuppose atheism. (Nevertheless, I am rather convinced that such an intricate universe could not have randomly developed on its own, without external guidance and/or initiation. This is why I believe in a Higher Power or Creative Intelligence, that is, God.) So, as noted before, one does not need Divine revelation as a referential basis to come to viable conclusions about the world as it is. One does not necessarily lead to the other. LGBTQ+I can be opposed on science and reason alone. Thoughts?

@islamicmusic Wasn’t Chávez simply engaging in PR? Venezuela depends on foreign sponsors to support its domestic and regional agenda(s). As far as I know Chávez’ daughter does not dress like an observant Muslim, nor does she really behave like one. (She does not wear hijab, for instance.) Furthermore, Chávez’ socialism, being statist/interventionist, wasn’t really compatible with Islamic economics, which is more laissez-faire. Chávez always liked to attach himself to religion for ulterior motives. He was more of a secular nationalist and populist with quasi-Marxist leanings than anything else. Currently his successor Maduro is quietly undoing much of his economic policy, in part by relaxing controls on currency, stealthily privatising certain functions, and so on.