Protestant Reformation vs. Islamism

Submitted by Robert (United States), Jan 9, 2022 at 12:45

Westerners who know their religious history are aware how the Roman Catholic lost its dominance over the individual states or countries of Western Europe. But that was a breakup of one dominant Religion in one part of the Mediterranean "Lake." The result was that each state was free to choose its own version of Christianity or, in the alternative, continue adherence to the Roman Pontiff now restricted to the Vatican.

Before the World War (1914-1918), within the Ottoman Empire the Secular Political center was at the Sultan's Palace in Istanbul. However, the Highest Religious Muslim authority was in Cairo, Egypt, at Al-Azhar, now Al-Azhar University. It is there where the oldest and most prestigious Muslim Religious institution is based and housed. It is from there were Fatwa rulings were issued - in Cairo, Egypt, not Istanbul, Turkey.

I will not recite the complex disintegration of the Ottoman Empire and the weak states and religious institutions that emerged therefrom - except to point out that we are only 103 years away from the consequent Muslim "Reformation."

What you call Islamism is in fact a term appropriated by outsiders (Infidels, or Christians, or those who abandoned Islam). But it is up to the Ummah - the Community of All Muslims - to Reform the Religion of Islam.

From the point view of the USA, we have out Constitutional guarantee of Freedom of Religion wherever the Jurisdiction and Venue falls and extends. By the way, the reason we sent so-called Islamist to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba was precisely because our constitution does not apply there, where the land is leased from Cuba.

There is nothing improper or unconstitutional from prohibiting immigration from Muslim Majority countries.

For example, we did not even want East Europeans coming here (USA) in the 20th century. And we did not permit NAZIS, or ex-NAZI, or Communists from coming here. We did not explore what type of Nazi or Communist a person was. Accordingly, the correct approach is to ban Muslim majority country citizens. There is nothing Unconstitutional about that. On the other hand, any Muslim who Abandoned or Converted or became an Atheist, Deist, or Agnostic, should have the Privilege and Refuge of immigrating to the USA.

I do not support the idea of screening individuals to discover if they fit our definition of Islamism. Islam is still evolving. But is should not evolve in the USA, where it took the form of the Muslim Bomber. There is no way of determining what Muslim will become a so-called Islamists. Let's wait another 100 years to make that call possible. In the mean time, let's permit the outcasts of Islam to acquire Refuge in the USA. The Only Religion we must FEAR is Islam! I watched 9-11 from my 25th floor in my Manhattan apartment - so I do suffer from ISLAMOPHOBIA. 100% of the terrorists who committed suicide that day were Muslims; why do I need to excuse them by calling the Islamists? All Muslims are not Islamists. But all Islamists are Muslim.

This Discrimination is not at all like Racism. Not only is Race an unscientific distinction, but one cannot change it, or get out of it; that is not the case with one's Religion - it may be psychologically difficult, but it can be done; but there is one difficult - only a Muslim is in danger of being killed for abandoning his or her Religion.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".