The Constitution and Trump’s immigration EO: when is a religion not a religion?
If you want some good discussions of the legal niceties of the restraining order issued on Trump immigration EO, there are a number of posts you can read: this and this at Legal Insurrection, this at Powerline, and this at Althouse.
Judge Robart’s original opinion was unusually laconic, and so we are in the dark on what legal basis (if any) he ruled, although we do have the legal briefs that show what arguments were advanced (I have not read them). Althouse mentions that a recent NY Times article’s author emphasizes the Establishment Clause primarily, so perhaps that was it.
The Establishment Clause refers to a section of the First Amendment regarding religion (which applies to states as well):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
Attorney Jonathan Turley has this to say about the immigration EO and the Establishment Clause:
… I’m still skeptical about whether you could make a successful establishment claim. There’s a lot of cases that have to be moved aside to get from here to there if you want to strike down this law.
It is true there’s establishment issues, but there’s also plenary power in the hands of a president…
I don’t see a court, any court saying that what a candidate said on the trail is going to be material in terms of whether this law is struck down. And I’m surprised that Neal even suggests that.
I have been in cases where those types of arguments have been raised, and courts have shot it down. For example, what if ”” I mean, Trump clearly said that. But he then gave this law to someone to draft, and they came back with a law that is not a Muslim ban.
Now, I don’t like the law, but I don’t think any court is going to look at this law and say it’s a Muslim ban, because it’s not. There’s plenty to object about this law without making it something it’s not. It doesn’t ban all Muslims.
I could go on and on and on with the legal questions involved, because they’re actually very interesting. But that would be an enormous post, and I’m not going to be writing that at the moment. What I will say is that this law obviously is not a Muslim ban; I’ve argued that before, and it’s obvious on the face (as Turley indicates), for the simple reason that plenty of Muslims can still enter the country under it.
The EO (under a more general law passed years ago by Congress) temporarily calls a halt to visas and immigration from certain countries where Islamic terrorism is rife. Islamic terrorists want to kill us (not just us, of course; but us among many others). That’s not anyone’s imagination; it’s a fact. If we are going to let people into this country from those countries, we’d better make very sure we have a good way to screen them. But one thing we also know is that Muslim terrorists in those countries also have as their major targets—for murder and mayhem—the Christians who live in those countries. A distinction is being made by the US government between those who among a pool of people who are the possible victimizers and those who are their proposed (or actual) victims.
If we cannot make such distinctions under the law, we are in trouble. Because this problem will not go away. It is as though, if we had wanted to, we could not have made exceptions during the Holocaust for Jews to come to this country, despite the fact that Jews were the Nazis’ central (although not only) targets.
The entire issue shines a spotlight on the question of what happens when a religion (let’s call it religion A) becomes a mechanism for a significant number of its adherents to murder members of another religion (let’s call it religion B) who live in their countries. Can we not offer the latter group some sort of preference under our immigration system? And what if those same murderous adherents of religion A want to kill us, too? Don’t we have a duty to examine a bit more closely anyone from religion A who might want to come here, through some sort of ideological vetting? And what of other adherents of religion A who might not be killers at all, but who support their cause?
This is not an easy problem to solve, when we also know that there are large numbers of adherents of religion A who also are fleeing persecution and strife and who would like to come here.
As far as Islam goes, I have already written a post on the subject of whether it is a religion. My answer: it is. I have also written about Islam’s vulnerability to interpretations that support terrorism. If you want to understand where I’m coming from on the subject, please read those two posts. But for the purposes of the present, I’ll just say that Islam is a religion—and it also is a religion that has most of the world’s terrorists claiming to be part of it, and has another much larger number of co-religionists who support the destructive activities of those terrorists around the world, as well as another very large group who do not approve of or share those activities.
Is it realistic to treat this religion as though these things were not true? Is it realistic to consider that because Christians—who do not represent a vector of terrorism in the world, and in Arab countries are among its most common victims—are also followers of a religion, that adherents of each religion pose equal risks? Is the Establishment Clause applicable? Is it even applicable to screening immigrants or visitors to this country at all?
Andrew C. McCarthy has this to say on the matter:
…[I]t is specious to claim that the Constitution forbids a religion test in matters of immigration. This is not merely because the Constitution has nothing to say on the matter (for, as we’ve also noted before, the original presumption was that immigration enforcement would be left to the states, with the federal government limited to prescribing the qualifications for citizenship). It is also because Congress has long expressly made inquiry into religion part of immigration law, specifically, in determining what aliens qualify as “refugees,” and whether aliens qualify for asylum…
Of course, the fact that the Constitution does not forbid a religious test for immigration does not mean the imposition of one would be prudent policy. We have Muslim friends and allies who embrace the West; who reject fundamentalist sharia-supremacism, resist Islamists, and help us fight jihadists. It would be costly to adopt a policy that slams our doors on them. Neither, however, can we remain willfully blind to the fact ”” and it is a fact ”” that as Muslim populations grow in Western societies, sharia supremacism and the formation of insular communities where jihadism flourishes grow with them…
Promotion of assimilation and fidelity to the Constitution have been historical bedrocks of immigration policy. Indeed, before immigrants are naturalized as citizens, they must swear what is pointedly called an “oath of allegiance.” It calls on them to renounce any foreign sovereigns by whom they have been ruled, and to honor our Constitution ”” principles that are inimical to sharia supremacism. We should resist a categorical ban on Muslim immigration; but nothing in the Constitution prohibits the commonsense vetting of immigrants for beliefs that are antithetical to our principles, regardless of whether the immigrant perceives such beliefs as religious or political in nature. We should welcome immigrants who embrace our principles, seek to assimilate into our society, and are value-added for ”” rather than a strain on ”” our economy. But if, in an era of jihadist violence, we cannot seriously vet immigrants to determine whether they fit this bill, it would be better to have a categorical ban. And if, based on an illiterate construction of the Constitution, the political class insists that its fictional “no religious test” rule forbids not only a categorical ban but the heightened scrutiny of Muslim aliens, it would be better to prohibit immigration across the board.
I don’t support an outright religious ban. I do support temporary differential scrutiny based on national origins, as well as a preference for those who are under direct and imminent threat (that would naturally be the Christians in Arab countries). I absolutely support a more long-term approach that features ideological screening for all (which I believe is the ultimate goal of Trump’s temporary EO, although time will tell). And I agree with Andrew McCarthy that—if we wanted to do so—immigrants of a certain religion could be banned under certain circumstances without violating the Constitution. But I don’t think that’s necessary or desirable, nor do I think it is what Trump’s EO is doing or his immigration policy is going.
We’ll see.
This entire EO controversy brings up the issue of why exactly does the left so love Muslims in general? We all have are political inconsistencies but this has to be the biggest of all when you consider that for a large percentage of Muslims that the left champion the hatred for the left’s favored groups (gays, women) is immense. It is further seen in feminism turning a blind eye to the mistreatment of women in predominantly Muslim countries while raising holy hell over relatively minor stuff in the west.
Does the whole ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ mantra override everything?
Neo asks, “when is a religion not a religion?”
A philosophers question for the ages…
Pragmatically, the issue is, is Islam a religion?
Subjectively, yes. As hundreds of millions of human beings sincerely pray to what they believe to be a divine presence.
Objectively, Islam is a totalitarian ideology. One that arguably wraps itself in a facade of religious pretense.
But whether our focus is subjective or objective, Islam’s tenets are inimical to America’s founding precepts. They are fundamentally irreconcilable because they are antithetical to each other.
Which raises the issue of, “we also know that there are large numbers of adherents of religion A who also are fleeing persecution and strife and who would like to come here.”
This is certainly true, as is the fact that adherents of religion A who would like to come here are still Muslim, which means that they are, at best in willful denial of the fundamental antipathy between the theology they continue to embrace and the fundamental precepts of America.
Another issue is that while parental Muslim immigrants may be willing to live in peace, succeeding generations increasingly will not, as proven in the UK and other EU nations. This fact is compounded by the dynamic that as the Muslim percentage of population increases, Islamic fundamentalism also increases. 43% of UK Muslims favor Sharia Law. 84% of Egyptians favor the death penalty for apostasy…
Nor can Islam experience a reformation, given that such an movement would inherently have to deny Muhammad’s most fundamental claim, (Allah is the Koran’s direct author) implicitly declaring him to have either been a liar or deluded. A position that logically collapses Islam’s theological foundations.
An amicable divorce is the best that could be hoped for but the Left will ensure that more violent solutions eventually manifest.
Robart was grandstanding, he is now a 15 minutes of fame leftist darling. Until vetting can be ironclad the EO was long overdue. POTUS has the legal authority to deny any alien or specific group of aliens entry. This authority is in the federal code.
I’m so happy that I was born in the 1960’s, and the presence of anyone who could be a jihadist was non-existent. My nephews will never have the peace and safety I grew up with…
Sorry, I’d ban nearly all Muslims from coming here.
The hysteria with which the Left has attacked this EO is stunning. This tells me this is a very important issue to them. Big tech companies going completely nuts and this tells me they will fight even harder on H1b visas; their cheap labor source. One thing for certain, I have come to dislike tech reporter Kara Swisher even more and that is tough to do.
The Dems will fight POTUS in the courts on immigration. This is the new SSM case for them.
And I will continue to not buy Budweiser. The Busch family got pushed out by a Belgium or Brazilian company. Buy America first. And I have always hated that swill anyway.
GB’s resonse is excellent, as is Neo’s essay.
Left out from both though, is the wee little issue of “taqiyya”, the right and perchance the duty of Muslims to lie to unbelievers, though not to other Muslims.
So all vetting of Muslims by non-Muslims is problematic in selecting out the jihadis.
Resembles the problem of Eastern European immigrants in the 1920s-1940s who were Communists and thus by definition anti-American, swore oaths of allegiance to the USA (their taqiyya), and then set up Red cells, spied and raised Red-diaper babies.
“And I will continue to not buy Budweiser”
I’d suggest Yuengling , but for now unavailable west of the Mississippi
Shiner Bock Beer! Texan.
You might add that despite its Chineesie name, Yuengling is an American brew of long standing, or so I believe. Never had one.
Frog you got taquia half right. It allows Shia to lie to Sunni, and of course to kuffar, or so I’ve heard. As a non Muslim Geoffrey sounds all knowing about Muslims and of course knows the future as well. Hubris.
Geoffrey Britain,
Part of the problem is that while the first generation can adapt to or at least live with western norms, they raise their children as they were raised back home. They can’t select their own mates and usually are not allowed to date non-Muslims. This becomes very problematic when the hormones set in, and this is often when the 2nd gen is radicalized. Furthermore, if the immigrants live in an enclave, the parents are pressured by more observant neighbors. It’s the honor culture thing. Unless somewhat assimilated Muslims deal with this in their own communities, outsiders will keep facing the same problem.
Imagine being a 17 year old in America who is being sent back to Pakistan to marry a cousin he has never met because his father wants something from her father.
“Does the whole ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ mantra override everything?” Griffin
IMO the Left and Islam have both correctly ascertained the West’s Right to be the greater obstacle to the furtherance of their agendas. There is an unspoken understanding between the two, a temporary marriage of convenience.
Cornhead,
I agree. IMO, the goal is to get the EO up to SCOTUS before a 9th Judge is approved. A 4-4 tie leaves Robert’s stay in place. If Trump then ignores it, it creates a Constitutional crisis and provides the excuse needed to push for impeachment. The Left will happily endanger Americans in order to get Trump.
Frog,
That is another factor. I suggest googling “Muruna”. Not just lying but deceitful behavior is approved in Sunni Islam.
OM,
I only claim to know Islam’s theological basics, which lead to logically inescapable conclusions. Hubris is a base charge, especially as the beginning of wisdom is to realize how little we know, followed by a thirst for truth regardless of where it leads, followed in turn by a willingness to throw off prior beliefs when contrary facts arise.
“They can’t select their own mates and usually are not allowed to date non-Muslims.” expat
Islam forbids marriage of a Muslim woman to a non-Muslim. Muhammad, the “perfect man’ has so declared it.
“According to all four schools of Sunni law and Shia law, interfaith marriages are condoned only between a Muslim male and a non-Muslim female from the People of the Book and not vice versa.”
Hubris is basic when you apply limited knowledge so broadly.
Somehow I’m under the impression that the US barred Jewish immigration from the 1920’s, or so, and past WWII.
We did not take Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazis –Roosevelt in fact, sent a ship with desperate Jewish refugees back to Hitler.
We also did not resettle many post war Jewish refugees here, though many languished in DP camps –shockingly, the former concentration camps, yuck— for years.
We also had a program, in the 1980’s (?), accepting persecuted Jewish refugees from the Soviet Union.
I don’t understand. If we never made religious observations about immigrants, and Jews were forbidden or allowed at various times, what was that based on?
Freedom of religion is absolute, except when it’s not. Ask the Mormons or Native Americans or The Little Sisters of the Poor.
If a nation cannot decide whom it will admit into its country to become a citizen, then it is not a sovereign nation. Period, end of discussion.
The First Amendment is not an issue. Congress, as the legislative body, and the President, as the executive with enforcement, have the final authority. If the people, under the law, have chosen not to admit anyone, or any group of people, for any reason whatsoever, then that is their choice, and there is nothing to appeal to.
If there is not the freedom to exclude non-citizens, for any reason the people see fit, then this is not a free country. The citizens have less liberty when they cannot choose whom they will admit into the country. If we say that we have to admit anyone, and that we must not exclude anyone, then we are saying that the country no longer belongs to us.
I feel very strongly about this. All the more so, as all of my ancestors were English colonists who came over here in the early to mid-1600s, well over 100 years before the Declaration of Independence.
The Spanish and the Hungarians figured out the hard way — the VERY hard way — that you can’t suffer a Muslim faction within your borders.
And today’s Afghanistan shows that Muslims can’t suffer a kafir faction within its borders.
There is a STRONG inclination on the part of many Americans to conflate the Muslims that they know, who seem okay fellas, with some broader rule of social function.
I must point out that when Muslims are but a tiny minority, Mohammed bade them to go-along-to-get-along.
When their numbers and power grew, Mohammed commanded them to be dramatically more assertive — to create Muslim enclaves.
When their numbers became dominant, Mohammed insisted that they go on full bore jihad — and crush all rivals — at every point of the compass.
This staged sequence is Islamic dogma — universally respected by all sects of Islam.
Thus no-one can take today’s behaviors has indicative of what the future holds.
“On the Wings of Eagles” is an epic docu-drama about Bull Simons and Ross Perot and the flight of the EDS executives from revolutionary Iran.
Of particular note is that no-one could figure out where they stood vis a vis the Iranians that they thought they knew so well.
Many Muslims were “called to dawa” and flipped like a switch. Others proved to be moles for the fanatics.
Similar events happened in Mosul when ISIS rolled into town. There are simply no end of Iraqi accounts of moles, terror, and retribution — and especially the marking out of Christian’s homes and businesses — straight from the Nazi play-book.
Once you realize what has happened — time after time — everywhere — you must conclude Muslim immigration is just not worth it.
Further, we need to kick out all alien imams — which is all of them.
Every mosque is a state sponsored project — most by the King of Saudi Arabia.
We don’t allow our own government to sponsor a favored religion. How can we permit the paleo-Nazi state, KSA, sponsor Islam ?
OM,
Basic fundamentals are not “limited knowledge”. They are by definition the foundation upon which all else rests. Any conclusion in conflict with foundational fundamentals is by definition, erroneous. Conclusions in full congruity with foundational fundamentals are logically inescapable conclusions. Labeling it ‘hubris’ is objectively evidence of bias, which forms the bars of your own imprisonment.
OM,
Back from a neighborhood dinner party….. sorry to have to say you are way off base and deserve to be pick off by Yogi Berra. There is an undeniable problem with islam in the West. Yes, there are muslims in the West that want to enjoy our freedoms (and our economic benefits); perhaps even a significant majority, although I doubt this is true. However, there are others who want to cause death and destruction AND there are others who silently condone their violence.
Me bad, I sometimes feel Mecca and Medina should become glass parking lots.
Is there anything wrong with funding and protecting a zone for these people to live, in Syria, and/or one of the bordering countries?
Then, perhaps have a much better opportunity to observe and vet, if conditions don’t improve for a return, and if we choose to accept refugees after that?
Avoids the need for this EO, and buys time for ironclad extreme vetting.
trump’s negotiation skills could be put to the test by getting Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc to pay for it, too.
Big Maq,
None of these ‘refugees’ are our (the West) problem. Period. At most, with ironclad venting we should be willing to accept religious minorities that face credible threats of harm. IMO if you are muslim in those disfunctional nations you should be denied entery into the West. So sorry, but your religious affiliation may have doomed you; but you made a choice, you have bowed down 5 times a day. Actions/believes have consequences.
Cry me a river to water your sands. Meanwhile, my give a damn is busted.
The problem is Islam is both a religion and a violent supremacist ideology.
I tell people to read the Quran. It’s not long and not hard to understand. However, it is tedious and unpleasant to read constantly how much Allah hates infidels and how they will be punished.
Then read the sections on Muhammad and Islam in a decent encylopedia — not wiki — and see what you think.
You won’t be a scholar on Islam but you will understand the basics and how it is different from Judaism and Christianity.
For me that exercise cleared up my confusion on how Islam has been a source of substantial violence since its beginning and probably always will be.
Foreigners who reside outside of the USA, don’t have a green card or a visa don’t have any constitutional rights. And especially they have no right of entry to the USA.
If it were otherwise, expect about one billion people moving here tomorrow.
Of course, no one takes my advice on the Quran. I understand. It may not be long but it’s long enough and not fun.
So my second recommendation is to open a copy of the Quran randomly and see how far you have to read before the voice in the book starts ranting at you.
Usually it only takes a page or two.
It doesn’t seem mysterious to me how a person who believes the Quran is the perfect literal word of God could become a terrorist in the name of Islam.
Geoffrey assumes that the Muslim religion will never change, and makes his grand statements about what must occur. It seems that his belief in the Koran is pretty strong. Me not so much.
OM: Read the Quran and some history. See what you think.
It’s not bad luck that Islam has not reformed yet.
I don’t rule out the possibility but it will be very difficult for a religion that is by nature fundamentalist, supremacist and totalitarian to change.
“Islam” is sometimes translated as “peace,” but a more precise definition is “submission.”
There have been lots of calls for “moderate Muslims” to do something to reassure the rest of us that there can be a non-violent brand of Islam willing to assimilate the great classical liberal values of the West.
Don’t hold your breath.
http://hotair.com/archives/2017/02/06/muslim-reform-movement-leader-it-is-not-bigotry-to-discuss-radicalization/
“We spent significant resources on this outreach over a period of ten months. We reached out through snail mail, e-mail, and telephone to over 3,000 mosques and over 500 known public American Muslims. We received only 40-plus rather dismissive responses from our outreach, and sadly less than ten of them were positive. In fact, one mosque in South Carolina left us a vicious voice mail threatening our staff if we contacted them again.”
Another couple of viewpoints.
http://libertyunyielding.com/2017/02/05/trumps-immigration-order-tactical-fight-versus-kabuki-dance/
“Different Americans are seeing the fight over Trump’s executive order on immigration through very different eyes. And although this is a big topic — the different eyes, more than the immigration order — involving far too much to put in one post, I want to get a shot across the bow on this one.
On one side of the divide, there are the people who are waiting for the stately, predictable kabuki dance of political rhetoric and media coverage to function as their minds say it’s supposed to. It’s a familiar convention we have lived by for the last 80 years. For these people — many of them goodhearted and intelligent — it is actively distressing that the kabuki dance isn’t proceeding as they expect. Their eyes see disruption and unexpectedness, and it’s throwing them for a loop.
On the other side of the divide are the Trump voters. Unlike the distressed people, the Trump voters cut their mental ties with the kabuki dance months or even years ago. They see that the mainstream media are in charge of the dance, and that there is no winning role in it for anyone who represents their interests. So the Trump voters have a different set of expectations. They’re not looking for the same clues that things are going well, or poorly.
And that’s why they’re not impressed by how affronted the kabuki dancers are about Trump’s cowboy posse, which is now on the move in the realm of action — not scripted gestures — and is making things happen, offstage.
To the kabuki dance, all real action — surprise, improvisation, material changes of circumstance, even just moving around offstage — looks like an out-of-control mess.
But it doesn’t look like a mess to the cowboy posse. It looks like a campaign in progress. A campaign always has to fight for gains and deal with obstacles. It’s dynamic, an ever-shifting interplay of tensions and momentum whose outcome is not predetermined. Obstacles and fights aren’t evidence that something is wrong — they’re evidence that something is happening.
The political kabuki dance, by contrast, is heavily pre-scripted, and has been used in recent decades mostly to prevent anything from happening.”
Just in case you were wondering if all these protests were really about Muslim immigration rather than bald-faced partisanship:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/01/30/protestor-to-daily-signal-obamas-temporary-iraqi-ban-in-2011-was-fine-because-i-love-him-n2278859
I always thought that it would be a good idea that somebody created a religion based in Nazism, naming Hitler as their prophet and the Mein Kampf as the holy book.
So, how do you discriminate against a religion based in Hitler and the Mein Kampf while protect one based in Mohammad and the Q’Ran… because it happens that both are quite similar.
Any person criticizing Nazism could be labelled as Hate Speech, religiously intolerant, close-minded and opposed to Diversity. Any person talking bad about Hitler would be offensive to believers and even committing blasphemy.
It would be real fun 😀
Do people come to America to be safe or to be free?
Big difference.
For once I agree with Cornhead.
People with no right to live in the US are not covered by the Constitution. It’s mental to say non-US citizens have any US rights.
Islam must be destroyed.
“Islam must be destroyed”
Lots of Muslims are American Citizens.
The problem with the EO is that it was rammed in like a bulldozer. I’m a conservative and would prefer the government be more thoughtful and careful (and I have at least one greencard friend who got caught in some of the indiscriminate confusion). We already have lots of vetting. Is it enough? I don’t know – I would have rather had congress debate this than have an EO.
But I’m a conservative – I don’t want the President to rule by EO for the next four years. I want the President’s power (all Presidents, not just this one) reduced.
I’m for the right amount of sane vetting. I also know we need immigration of some amount. Certainly my industry employs a lot of immigrants. As does the medical industry.
Trump wasted a good opportunity by trying to ram this through. It’s blown up in his face. This wasn’t a win no matter how you spin it. The shame is that immigration and terrorism are major issues and there is legitimate concern and it could have been handled so much better.
I’ll give credit where due when he does good things (such as his SCOTUS nomination). This EO, however, was not smart and the thumb-in-the-eye implementation made it worse.
Geoffrey is absolutely right that Islam is a totalitarian ideology, but this missed the point. Every religion is a totalitarian ideology. Real problem what is the aim of this particular totalitarian ideology. I remind an old observation: fundamentalist Jews want to be left alone. Fundamentalist Christians want to convert you. Fundamentalist Muslims want to murder you. So let us make more specific definition of Islam as religion: it is a political project to achieve totalitarian world domination through military conquest, a vehicle of Arab suprematism and a licence for violence against all dissenters, very much alike the Nazi ideology. The fact that it is formulated as a religion and not as secular ideology makes it only more insidious and dangerous and makes necessary to contemplate all possible measures to defang and defeat it.
Every religion is a totalitarian ideology.
Sergey: Huh?
Religion aims deeper than any moral or legal authority. It prescribed not only behavior, but attitudes, values, emotions and often the whole content of human mind. Nothing bad in that, if it operates only by persuasion and not by coercion. That is, if it can only propose and advice, and can not punish for non-compliance. And can not in any way punish those who want to quit it. That scope of religious norms can be called totalitarian. The problem with so-called totalitarian sects is that they do not restrict themselves to persuasion only, but often use coercion and do not allow to quit them without being intimidated, shamed and other way punished for such decisions; they declare their doctrines above the secular laws; they do accept separation of religious and secular authority. As easy to check, all these pathologies are integral parts of Islam, which makes it a totalitarian sect of enormous size wanting to become a totalitarian state.
Do not accept, of course.
It appears that the problem of Islam and the West is deeper and more complex than Geoffrey knows, and that never is a long time. But then there are always simple answers to complicated difficult problems, often those solutions are wrong.
I’m not sure of Geoffrey Britain’s credentials as a theologian, but his analysis of Islam and reform match pretty closely to that pd Pope Benedict XVI, and I consider him one of the greatest living theologians.
He too was puzzled about the issue of reform of Islam, stating that the religion is based on their Scripture being the revealed word of God. Christianity and Judaism have many different ways of reflecting on the inspired Word of God. Modern Biblical scholars focus on Scripture as salvation history; in the past an allegorical approach was dominant, and so forth. There’s a difference between revealed and inspired, and Islam is hamstrung by this. Alternate methods of understanding Scripture clash with the basic underlying idea of actual ‘revelation’.
B16 cited this as a particular challenge to Islamic scholars and religious authorities. I’d call that a serious understatement.
Juli,
Muhammad did NOT claim that the Koran is the ‘revealed’ word of God.
He repeatedly and consistently claimed that the Qur’an is God’s direct words perfectly transmitted to Muhammad for dictation by the archangel Gabriel. No “inspired by”, no “visions”, no “interpretations”. Instead, “direct from the horses mouth”. Direct dictation, i.e. Gabriel repeating verbatim God’s words to Muhammad for transcription. Gabriel making sure that Muhammad got it exactly right, down to the last comma.
Since fallible mankind CANNOT ‘correct’ infallible Allah… accepting Muhammad’s claim leaves no theological path for reform of the Qur’an, upon which Islam’s theological foundations rest.
While rejecting Muhammad’s claim of the Koran’s divine authorship implicitly declares him to have either been a liar or deluded. In either case, Islam’s theological foundations collapse.
All of this is basic Islamic theology examined in the light of logic, reason and common sense, leading to inescapable conclusions.
OM,
If you can’t objectively examine the above chain of logic, then the problem lies in your heart. In which case, attempts to engage your intellect are a waste of time.
“And can not in any way punish those who want to quit it. That scope of religious norms can be called totalitarian. The problem with so-called totalitarian sects is that they do not restrict themselves to persuasion only, but often use coercion and do not allow to quit them without being intimidated, shamed and other way punished for such decisions”
Sounds like an indictment of Christianity too, by that definition, for example…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition
Certainly, Christianity has outgrown those barbarities, has it not?
Or, are you arguing that it is an inherent part (if recessive in the West) of Christian “philosophy”?
There is no need to re-write the text itself to change its interpretation. Orthodox Judaism makes the same claim about Hebrew Scripture, that it is immutable revealed truth, but this did not prevent a host of different interpretations of its meaning in Talmudic studies. As a matter of fact, these different interpretations appear on the same pages of Talmud, and comparison of these different views is the main purpose of high-level Torah studies. And some schools of Islamic law do the same with Quranic verses. In Sufi Islam, for example, an allegoric interpretation is the mainstream, and most of so-called classic Persian-Tajik poetry is exactly this. The only problem here is that Sufi sect of Islam is seen as heretic by more stringent and literalistic schools of Islamic law, such as Wahhabi promoted by Saudi clerics in thousands of mosques all around the world. But in Central Asia Sufi version is the most popular (all former Soviet republic of Central Asia).
Geoffrey:
What I know about Islam is more than enough to know that I should not to waste my time with you debating the finer points of the deceiver and his minion (his name starts with a M too). I prefer the OT and the NT to find the word of God.
Spend more time in the Bible and in prayer.
Big Mac: Rather indictment of Inquisition or pre- Reformation Catholicism. But Reformation changed this all, and Roman Catholic Church had been forced to change her attitude, too. I still insist that every religion can be called totalitarian in the sense that it proposes a holistic, unified worldview which demands not only certain restriction on external acts, but also on thought, opinions and attitudes, which no legal code and no moral code demands. But all these restrictions people impose on themselves voluntary, and no external control if they are true to comply with them is possible. Freedom of conscience is not a legal principle, it is a medical fact.
Sergey: “I still insist that every religion can be called totalitarian in the sense that it proposes a holistic, unified worldview which demands not only certain restriction on external acts, but also on thought, opinions and attitudes, which no legal code and no moral code demands”
The whole bloody history of the 20th century atheistic totalitarianisms should give your analysis some pause.
The idea that Christianity limits freedom, for example, is propaganda, not even supported by Christian texts and certainly not by the evidence of Christian societies – I would argue even before the Reformation.
You want to see some good old get-down oppression and submission of the will, take a look at societies where the Nation, rather than the Individual or People, is the main thing, the immortal thing.
These atheistic totalitarianisms were all based on ideologies, a secular pseudo-religions, that copied and aped the worst practices of old traditional religions. They were theocracies without God. And of course, any civilization, any moral and any culture somewhat limits freedom, and rightly so. Christianity is not an exception, and I see nothing wrong with it.
CD sez:
“For once I agree with Cornhead.
People with no right to live in the US are not covered by the Constitution. It’s mental to say non-US citizens have any US rights.”
So the next time I’m on a wine tour in Oregon, or visiting one of your national parks, I can be arrested and imprisoned indefinitely without charge?
[Makes note to self to change vacation plans]
I must add, that after Reformation Christianity limited freedom much more effectively than before it. And this made life much more safe and ordered than in medieval times. Today Protestant countries have much less crime and corruption that Catholic ones, better public moral and more trust in all interactions between strangers.
Sergey,
Buddhism would seem to be just one example of a religion that in no way can be said to be totalitarian. Perhaps you mistake a path that avoids pitfalls for “restriction on external acts, but also on thought, opinions and attitudes”?
If free will exists, then you are free to think and opine as you will and even act freely provided you do not impinge upon other people. But though you’re free to try, you can’t bake a cake with cement.
Jesus saith unto him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” i.e. he who shows the path (wayshower) to reconnection with the divine.
Buddhism does not qualify as religion in the sense Judaism, Christianity or Islam do. It is more like philosophy, and pagan in that. All pagan religions were not totalitarian in any sense, this feature came only with monotheism. In Antiquity a very broad religious tolerance was a norm. Even Christians in Rome were persecuted not on religious grounds, but on political ones.
Sergey:
I don’t think “totalitarian” means what you think it means.
To impose certain restrictions on opinions or attitudes in order to join a group or adhere to a certain philosophy (or religion) is not totalitarian. There is no demand (your word) that adherents be part of most religions today; they have free will, and no one in charge of those religions is suggesting they be killed or imprisoned if they don’t comply.
To the extent that a religion permeates and controls government, and uses the mechanism of a restrictive and aggressive/coercive state to enforce these beliefs (or otherwise kills or imprisons or harms or punishes apostates or nonbelievers), that is the extent to which it is totalitarian.
Plenty of religions don’t do that, and are not totalitarian.
GB:
“Muhammad did NOT claim that the Koran is the ‘revealed’ word of God.
He repeatedly and consistently claimed that the Qur’an is God’s direct words perfectly transmitted to Muhammad for dictation by the archangel ”
Actually, that is what B16 said. Perhaps I should have been more explicit. Revealed as in direct words, not as in a revelation, not inspired. Thus it requires a literal interpretation. When you get more into the weeds of technical biblical scholarship, you will find the distinction of revealed as opposed to inspired.
Interestingly enough, although nearly all Christians accept Scripture as inspired, but not too long ago (18th Century) a more literalist approach became popular. That seems to me to be at odd with each other.
If all religions are totalitarian, then no religion is totalitarian.
According to the Quran, Allah requires Muslims not just to preach to people but to subjugate the entire world under sharia law — which includes killing gays and apostates and circumscribing the open practice of other religions.
It’s hard for me to think of anything at all comparable under say, Taoism.
I guess you could say Christianity at the height of the Roman Catholic Church’s power was tending towards totalitarianism, but that’s not the way Christianity started nor how it is today.
A key difference between Christianity and Islam was that Christ was a spiritual teacher and Messiah (if one believes) who drew the distinction between church and state — “Render unto Caesar the things which are Ceasar’s and to God the things which are God’s.” Thus it wasn’t too difficult for the Church to back out of the powers of state.
Muhammad was a spiritual teacher but also a warlord and political ruler. Islam is intended to be a religious and a state solution which covers all of life and controls all human beings, whether they accept Islam or not. And that control can be enforced quite cruelly.
I don’t idly call Islam a totalitarian ideology.
Sergey
There is no need to re-write the text itself to change its interpretation. Orthodox Judaism makes the same claim about Hebrew Scripture
Hebrew scripture is based in oral tradition. The same happens with the Christian Old Testament.
Of course, you will always find people both in Judaism or Christianism that claim that those texts should be taken literally. The difference with Islam is that for EVERY Muslim the Q’Ran is to be taken literally, because it’s the direct word of God.
There’s a big difference between a religion with some people taking a literal approach, and a religion where everybody is supposed to take a literal approach.
Correction from previous comment. Bad xhtml tags.
Hebrew scripture is based in oral tradition. The same happens with the Christian Old Testament.
Of course, you will always find people both in Judaism or Christianism that claim that those texts should be taken literally. The difference with Islam is that for EVERY Muslim the Q’Ran is to be taken literally, because it’s the direct word of God.
There’s a big difference between a religion with some people taking a literal approach, and a religion where everybody is supposed to take a literal approach.
It’s hard for Westerners to understand how seriously Muslims take the Quran. It’s not a book of divinely inspired writing as earlier commenters point out. It’s the literal eternal perfect Word of God (and only valid in the original classical Arabic).
In an important early theological dispute, traditional Muslims claimed the Quran is coeternal with God, i.e. the Quran was not created but has always existed just as God has. The rationalist school argued God must have preceded his own speech.
This ultra-strict fundamentalist basis of the Quran is a major reason it will be very difficult for Islam to reform.
Muslims go on about the utter beauty and perfection of the Quran. They claim the Quran is inimitable and that inimitability is one of the proofs of the Quran’s miraculousness. They challenge any human to produce verses of equal quality.
I don’t read classical Quranic Arabic. (And neither do most Muslims.) So I’m not equipped to argue the point.
However, I have read from three Quran translations and the content is consistent, if the music of the original was lost. Perfection is not a word which came to my mind as I read the Quran.
There are beautiful, profound scriptures — the Tao Te Ching, the Bhagavad-Gita, books of the Bible, Buddhist sutras. The Quran is not one of these. I supppose the Quran makes up for it by providing a full chapter on “War Booty” — a subject inexplicably not covered in other scripturees.
To this Westerner the Quran reads as a bizarre, monstrous book of rants with occasional moments of beauty. I am horrifed that a billion people believe the Quran is the ultimate, unquestionable, perfect word of God.
If that many people really believed a book like the Quran, we would probably live in a world that looks a lot like this one.
Once again, I’ll refer to this article from several years ago which opened my eyes about Islam.
https://tinyurl.com/Meme-of-Islam
It considers Islam to be a meme-plex: an idea which is passed from one mind to another, wholly intact.
Which is exactly the way Islam regards itself: The Perfect Book, the Koran, is the Literal, Eternal, Immutable Word-of-God. Islam demands total “submission” (which is the translation of the Arabic word “islam”) to God’s/ Allah’s plan.
The True Believer does not need to understand why Allah said “do thus-and-so”. And it would be DAMNABLY (literally) presumptious of a mere human to approve or disapprove of Allah’s intent or methods. The Believer must submit to Allah and follow His Plan – no “think”, just “do”.
PS- what the Progressives/ One-Worlders don’t quite understand is –briefly– Allah commands Believers to “Force {unbelievers} to convert; if they refuse, impose crushing humiliation and ruinous taxation on them, or else kill them”.