Tag Archives: Salafism

Alternative für Deutschland – Comments on Positions about Islam

Commenting on selected excerpts, I attempt to bring to the attention of any person concerned several points that will prove to be of seminal importance in AfD’s effort to change misperceptions and to correct grave political errors committed over the span of several decades in Germany and across Europe. I therefore quote in German language some of the most renowned statements of Alternative für Deutschland and declarations made by first rank AfD party members, offer an English translation, and then expand.

 

 

  1. Der Islam ist an sich eine politische Ideologie“.

(Islam is in itself a political ideology.)

That’s right! Historical Islam and today’s “Islam” are two different entities. Whereas the former constitutes a religion and civilization, the latter is formed out of the succession of three theological systems (those of Ibn Hanbal, Ibn Taimiyya, and Abdulwahhab – all Sunni), which in their times (respectively in the 8th – 9th, 13th – 14th, and 18th c.) were rejected by Muslims as heretic, un-Islamic, and barbaric.

 

Today’s problem of the entire Islamic World hinges on the fact that, due to sociopolitical developments, the theological system of Ibn Taimiya prevailed and its gradual prevalence caused the elimination of other opposite systems and the confiscation of political institutions, including even that of the Ottoman Empire.

 

Another dimension of the problem is that Ibn Taimiya’s theological system affected all the denominations of Islam and, today, it is accepted by all Islamic religious authorities. As a theological system, it definitely contains a part concerning “political ideology”, which -at the times of Ibn Taimiya- was a catastrophic innovation in striking opposition to the earlier Caliphatic – Imperial Doctrine. The collapse of the Ottoman Caliphate is partly due to the propagation of Ibn Taimiya’s political ideology, which was the main reason for the erosion of the Imperial Doctrine within the Islamic World.

 

The discourse in which many Westerners try to polarize today’s Islamic religious authorities around ‘extremists’ and ‘moderates’ is nonsensical, as long as ‘extremists’ are defined as ‘Salafist’ or ‘Wahhabi’ (from the aforementioned Islamic theologian Abdul Wahhab) elements, and inasmuch as ‘moderates’ are identified as those rejecting the 18th c. theologian.

 

For Islamic ‘moderates’ to be truly moderate on the basis of evidence drawn from the Historical Islam, the condition sine qua non is total rejection of the theological systems of Ibn Taimiya and of Ibn Hanbal. There the dreams of the European and North American establishments will come to crash, because all the Islamic religious institutions that Westerners love to define as ‘moderate’ (ex. Al Azhar, Cairo) will have difficulty to reject and denounce Ibn Taimiya’s system.

 

 

  1. “eine politische Ideologie, die mit dem Grundgesetz nicht vereinbar ist”.

(A political ideology that is incompatible with the Constitution)

This is also very correct; in support of this claim, one has only to collect a plethora of statements, discourses, khutbas (Friday sermons before the Islamic prayer), interviews and publications of various ‘extremists’ and ‘moderates’ residing in Germany. One only risks coming up with the longest encyclopedia in the History of the Mankind!

 

However, this is a type of work that AfD has to carry out meticulously, because more people will be convinced in Germany and across the European Union, if abundant documentation comes to surface. This activity should not be left entirely in the hands of independent activists in the social media, because this effort will not gain momentum; contrarily, if a political party sets up a group of members tasked with the collection of documentation and the group committee highlights every week and every day the menacing words uttered on German and European soil against the German Nation, its Identity, Integrity, and Tradition, and against the European Civilization in its totality, things will change more rapidly.

 

 

  1. “Der Islam ist keine Religion wie das katholische oder protestantische Christentum, sondern intellektuell immer mit der Übernahme des Staates verbunden”.

(Islam is not a religion like the Catholic or Protestant Christianity but intellectually always associated with the takeover of the state.)

This is not very solid for various reasons.

 

First, Christian Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant History are full of evidence whereby “the religion is intellectually related with the takeover of the state“. This is very much part of the European past. From the Eastern and the Western Roman Empire, to the Holy Roman Empire, the State of the Teutonic Order and the kingdoms of Asturias and Aragon, religion was the quintessence of the state in Europe for almost two millennia.

 

Second, it is true that historically all the Islamic Caliphates, empires, kingdoms, sultanates, emirates, and khanates were states of divine rule, but this does not make them similar in anything with the form of state that today’s Islamists, Salafists and all other branches of Political Islam want to set up. Whatever major Islamic historical state one may study (Umayyad – Abbasid – Ottoman Caliphate, Andalusia, Fatimid Egypt, Safavid Iran, Mughal India, etc.), one will soon reach the conclusion that the Imperial Islamic Rule and Doctrine was very different from modern Political Islam. Pretty much like in the Eastern Roman Empire, there was no political life or “political ideology” properly speaking in the Ottoman Caliphate, the Safavid Empire or Mughal India.

 

To draw a parallel with the modern Christian World and help readers understand clearly this critical point, I would say that, if radical Evangelicals obtain political control in a Christian country tomorrow, their new regime will have a “political ideology”, but it will be very different from Justinian’s or Heraclius’ Eastern Roman Empire that did not have any ‘political’ life or ideology, being a ‘universal’ state and consisting in a real ‘Oecumene’.

 

So, the main problem of the above statement is that, in an indirect manner, it allows Salafists and all branches of today’s Political Islam “represent” the Islamic Past, whereas they do not; they oppose it! This is a colossal error from the part of Western intellectuals and political theoreticians, because by this they offer Islamic legitimacy to those who totally distort Islam.

 

 

  1. “Deswegen ist die Islamisierung Deutschlands eine Gefahr”.

(Therefore the Islamization of Germany is a danger.)

Yes, this is certain, but I am not quite sure what is herewith meant as “Islamization”. I am afraid this is again a truly great present made to all the extremists, radicals, terrorists and sympathizers. It is as I just said in the previous paragraph.

 

By identifying either Islamists and Political Islam or fake moderates (followers of Ibn Taimiya across the Muslim World) with Islam (which is only the evidenced Historical Islam), AfD gives them much wanted political accreditation and theoretical-ideological legitimacy. This is a calamitous, double mistake.

 

More precisely, it is historically inaccurate and politically catastrophic, because it gives the impression that AfD is directed against Islam, which in historical depth is not true, because AfD real opponents (i.e. Salafi – Wahhabi Islamists, Political Islam, and fake moderates) are not true Muslims.

 

I am afraid that, due to precipitated and incompletely assessed political developments (2001-2016), Western ideological confusion, and Orientalist academic biases, AfD makes the double error of

  1. seeing as Muslims those who are not true Muslims (i.e. Salafi – Wahhabi Islamists, Political Islam, and fake moderates) and
  2. considering Terrorism as the main characteristic of this realm or as the more threatening element of their beliefs, which is also false.

 

By getting rid of Orientalist fallacies, by reassessing the enormous documentation gathered in Western universities about the Islamic civilization as part of the Oriental civilizations, and then by contrasting the true historical data with the – only partly – assessed present political situation, one can easily conclude that things are very different.

 

It is not Terrorism that constitutes the main characteristic of, or the major threat emanating from, the Salafi – Wahhabi Islamists, Political Islam, and fake moderates; it is Barbarism.

 

To understand the extent of the danger that is currently menacing Germany and Europe, one has to make a working hypothesis; eliminate from the scene (in Europe and in Islamic countries) all those, who demand anything from Islamic states in Europe, brutal Islamization, and Islamic Reconquista to ‘mere’ Western respect for ‘religious freedom’, and replace them with all those, who reject Islamic extremism, radicalism and terrorism!

 

There are hundreds and hundreds of millions across the Islamic World, who are truly peaceful and definitely unpretentious; they want to live calmly and peacefully their simple daily lives in Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey or Germany. But, at the same time, they also

  1. force their wives to stay at home under the threat of a divorce (which is quite easy to arrange, as per the misinterpreted Sharia law: it is enough for a husband to say to his wife “I divorce you” three times!)
  2. force their wives to get dressed in niqab, when out of home
  3. teach their young boys to insult any uncovered young Muslim girl
  4. accept as normal that any Muslim man can get married with up to four women, when he cannot already fully address the needs of his family with the first wife
  5. develop and show great contempt with any Muslim who does not comply with his own lifestyle and breaks away from the socially imposed uniformity
  6. find it normal that a Muslim man makes a fake and deceitful marriage with a Western woman (at her unbeknownst), in order to move to Europe and within few years gather a targeted amount of money, and then divorces his cheated European wife, in order to return back to his country or origin and get married in the ‘true’, ‘Islamic’ fashion
  7. disregard practically speaking every form of Islamic Literature, Art, Philosophy, Science and Culture, viewing education as having only two legs, namely ‘Islamic’ (by which it is only meant the religious systems emanating from Ibn Taimiya’s theological system – as per the customary descriptions of the uneducated sheikhs belonging to either Salafi – Wahhabi Islamists and Political Islam or the fake moderates) and modern Western technological (in fact, their “Education” leaves 99.9% of true Historical Islam out of today’s pedagogical systems in the Islamic / Muslim countries.)
  8. have a total lack of interest or respect for the ‘other’, which ends up with the lack of a real civil society, and with the production of a very filthy material environment in their neighborhood
  9. reject to send to school their girls, while they find it normal to arrange profitable marriage deals for them (the bridegroom has to pay for the dowry) at a very young age
  10. are ready to literally kill their child if he/she decides to reject Islam and adhere to another religion
  11. deeply desire the establishment of a state that fully abides by the so-called theological principles of the Islamic terrorists and is governed as per the misinterpreted Sharia law, and
  12. want to remain out of the influence of any other idea, ideology, theory, philosophy, and way of life.

 

If I expand so much, giving few examples of life plunged in utter barbarism, I do it because I want to ask a simple question now:

 

  • Does it really make a difference that the “peaceful” and “unpretentious” person of my example totally and fully rejects Islamic Terrorism as an international political phenomenon, denies all brutal acts of war in Syria, Yemen and Libya, and dismisses the perspective of Islamic states as proclaimed by extremists in Europe and elsewhere?

 

I am sure that everyone will agree that it does not make any difference. Most of today’s Muslims live in Barbarism, Ignorance, Negativity, Counter-productivity, Apathy and Misery that they draw to themselves. This is the hotbed of the Islamic Terrorism.

 

It is therefore high time for people in Europe and worldwide to perceive the reality as it is and to evaluate the existing threat accurately in its real dimension: Barbarism, not Terrorism, is the core nature of the outright majority of today’s fake Muslims.

 

Today’s fake Muslims’ barbarism hinges very much indeed on total ignorance of the Islamic Civilization; this is a key point in understanding what has truly happened to two billion of Muslims.

 

Their religious authorities – all of them (Salafi – Wahhabi Islamists and Political Islam or the fake moderates) – keep the masses of today’s Muslims systematically disconnected from Islamic History, Philosophy, Art, Architecture, Science, Literature, Music, Spirituality and in the process they obliterate almost all elements of the Islamic Civilization, as it has been historically known. This is the main reason of the darkness that prevails in the minds of today’s average Muslims.

 

Why the religious authorities proceed so is easy to understand. As I already said, Historical Islam totally contradicts and opposes the nonsensical, tenebrous theological system of Ibn Taimiya that they know. First, today’s religious authorities do not know this material and they never studied it. Second, if Muslims have access to this material, the religious authorities will totally lose their influence on them, looking ignorant and incompetent to the eyes of the awakened Muslims.

 

This point must become a key tool of AfD policy in order to bring firth drastic change and serious damage to the plans or wishes of all Islamic terrorists, radicals and extremists or – to put it more accurately – of all pseudo-Muslim barbarians.

 

 

  1. “Symbole des Islams aus der Öffentlichkeit zu verbannen”.

(Symbols of Islam must be banned from public places.)

This is also correct. Furthermore, today’s Muslims know quite well that throughout Islamic History, whenever Muslims for various reasons (such as trade) lived in non-Muslim countries (like the Eastern Roman Empire and China), they were offered a small, separate district to stay, but outside that location they honestly and fully abided by the local rules.

 

However, it will be essential in this regard to interpret the demand of many Muslims for public display of their religious symbols. With the exception of Muslims in the Balkan region (Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey) whereby the Muslims are part of the native populations, Muslims in Europe are migrants who arrived to countries in which the symbols of the local religion were not (anymore) stressed. Their stance would be very different, if the European countries were more markedly Christian.

 

 

  1. “Wir sind für ein Verbot von Minaretten, von Muezzins und für ein Verbot der Vollverschleierung”.

(We are for a ban on minarets, muezzins, and full-face veil.)

Υour position is very right. Almost all the measures that AfD party members suggest here were implemented in a secular Muslim country, i.e. Turkey, at the times of Kemal Ataturk. Do not confuse the present situation in Turkey, when Political Islam managed to effectuate a strong and dangerous comeback through simulation policies and procedures, with the secular society policies that had been implemented in Turkey as early as the 1920s and the 1930s and which prevailed for many long decades. Turkey 2002-2016 proves very well that the entire Western system of Democracy and Civil /Human Rights is ill-defined and that freedom of religion can eventually be interpreted as Tyranny of Theology. If Erdogan manages to achieve his publicly undisclosed targets, he will still offer extensive ‘explanations’, pretending that the eventual Islamist Turkey is still a country that respects the freedom of religion!

 

In my proposals below, I will expand further on this point. European and American intellectuals, politicians, statesmen and analysts make a colossal error in this regard; the real criterion to evaluate the freedom of religion is not to be established by the conditions under which live the diverse, officially recognized, religious minorities of a country (ex. Christians and Jews in Turkey or Egypt). This is only a secondary criterion.

 

As litmus paper should be used the following three cases:

  1. non-officially recognized religious minorities (examples: 1-Alevis in Turkey; 2-Shia in Egypt: their situation is even worse because they make ca. 20-25% of the country’s Muslim population, but are not allowed to openly declare their identity), and more importantly,
  2. the irreligious people (in Turkey, they are about 10% of the population)
  3. the non-practicing followers of a religion (ex. secular Turks or Egyptians or citizens of any other Muslim country who find it quite pertinent to drink alcohol in Ramadhan, to walk by the seaside while wearing only their bathing suit, and to politely flirt with a girl in the streets). Because they don’t want to practice their religion, this does not mean that

– they should not deserve the same right (freedom of religion) as the rest,

– they should not be considered as relevant to this religion (Islam in Turkey) or as undeserving of proper representation at all levels, and

– they should not be asked to evaluate their country’s sociopolitical conditions and to state what they demand as an independent group.

 

When in Egypt, it is impossible to buy alcoholic drinks during the entire month of Ramadhan, one has to consider the local authorities as a terrorist Islamist government whatever the present administration may pretend in the international fora. In fact, their practices are mostly identical with that of the Fake Caliphate at Mosul-Raqqa.

 

When it comes to Turkey’s Muslims, “freedom of religion” for Erdogan in Turkey is the freedom of practicing Sunni Muslims.

 

But in real terms, when it comes to Turkey’s Muslims, “freedom of religion” – as they perceived it in their outright majority – is the freedom of the Alevis, the freedom of the irreligious, and the freedom of the non-practicing Muslims, for they constitute the absolute majority of the Turkish population.

 

Viewed through this perspective, which is the only real, “freedom of religion” has been uninterruptedly and shockingly violated for 14 years in Turkey (2002-2016) without anyone in Europe reacting!

 

What does “freedom of religion” mean for Turkey’s irreligious and non-practicing Muslims?

 

This is simple to answer by giving just one example whereas there are thousands of examples available! It means that we do not accept to wake up at 4:30 am because of the deliberate, vicious screaming of the muezzin, who invites the practicing Muslims for prayer.

 

Of great importance is therefore the Alevi judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) which in its 66th paragraph states: “They maintained that this refusal implied an assessment of their faith on the part of the national authorities, in breach of the State’s duty of neutrality and impartiality with regard to religious beliefs“. (http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{“itemid”:[“001-162697”]} /  CASE OF İZZETTİN DOĞAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY – Application no. 62649/10)

 

What happened in Turley over the past 14 years is this:

 

A political minority (i.e. the practicing Muslims who total ca. 15-25% of the entire Turkish population – Turkey’s Muslims total 99.8% of the country’s entire population) imposed their will on the outright majority (i.e. the Alevis, the irreligious, and the non-practicing Muslims) by usurping the political power (because many Alevis, irreligious and non-practicing Muslims voted for Erdogan for a wide array of reasons) and by pursuing extensive simulation policies and procedures, in view of the prospect establishment of an Islamic Republic of Turkey.

 

And this is exactly what the tenebrous and perverse followers of Salafism – Wahhabism, Political Islam and the fake moderate Islam want to implement in Germany and Europe over the next few years.

 

 

  1. “… wandte sich gegen die Vorstellung, dass es neben der fundamentalen Ausrichtung des Islams auch einen aufgeklärten Islam gebe, der mit der freiheitlich-demokratischen Grundordnung vereinbar sei”.

(Objected to the idea that, in addition to the fundamental orientation of Islam, there is also give an enlightened Islam, which is compatible with the free democratic basic order.)

This is partly correct. Yes, there is no “Enlightened Islam” … as a currently organized political force, and as an opposition (either in Europe or in the Islamic / Muslim World) to Salafism – Wahhabism, Political Islam and the fake moderate Islam.

 

However, there is a great number of uncoordinated elements of “Enlightened Islam” that AfD should first identify, second cooperate with, and third help rise in power. The most problematic point in this regard is neither the Western failure to take note of them nor the evident lack of coordination that does characterize these elements; in fact, due to the prevailing troubles caused by the rise of Salafism – Wahhabism, Political Islam and the fake moderate Islam, these elements have presently the tendency to be rather ‘dormant’. The reason is very obvious: they feel they are more endangered than AfD party members and followers, Germany in its entirety, and Europe.

 

By failing to identify the uncoordinated elements of “Enlightened Islam”, AfD only deprives itself of its right arm! This is definitely calamitous – anytime anywhere and under any circumstances whatsoever.

 

I could come up with a long list of names, but I am sure that AfD leadership and members are certainly aware of the subject. If Benazir Bhutto is not anymore among the Living today, former Turkish Premier Tansu Çiller is very much alive, but inactive: a mere member of the Council of Women World Leaders. The same concerns another former Turkish Premier, Mesut Yılmaz. The same is also true for Mohamed ElBaradei, the former Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency. I would similarly name Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, the incumbent leader of the major opposition party in Turkey, Selahattin Demirtaş, another opposition leader in Turkey, award winning authors like Orhan Pamuk and Kerem Işık, and many others.

 

My statement about the existence of uncoordinated elements of “Enlightened Islam” is also correct when it comes to masses. Already in Germany there are more than 1.5 million Turks; if AfD leadership sees them all as being pro-Salafist – pro-Wahhabi, pro-‘Political Islam’, and pro-‘fake moderate Islam’, AfD as a German political party commits a grave error; by so doing, they drastically weaken their own position and appeal, and this attitude will not help them achieve much in the direction they wish to go. A great number of Turks currently living in Germany are secular and very westernized; they have a totally different vision of Islam (than that of Erdogan’s AKP party), and they represent an Oriental-Occidental cultural amalgamation that has been quite typical of Turkish supporters and fans of the secular state of Kemal Ataturk.

 

Similarly, one can find in Italy, France and Spain hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of secular, westernized Maghrebins (Tunisians, Algerians, and Moroccans). Last but not the least, there are numerous secular, westernized Muslims in England either they originate from India or they come from the Black Continent.

 

Only AfD worse enemies would like AfD leadeship to make the mistake of considering the great number of secular, westernized, non-practicing or irreligious Muslims as definitely non-ascribed to an Enlightened Islam. They certainly are not coordinated; they do not represent one group; their opinions vary; their viewpoints diverge, but they all reject the fake Islam of the Salafi – Wahhabi Islamists, of the Muslim Brotherhood (Political Islam), and of the fake moderates.

 

 

  1. “Einen Euro-Islam gibt es in Wirklichkeit nicht”.

(In reality, a Euro-Islam does not exist.)

My comment here is similar with that in the previous point; yes, at this moment, there is no Euro-Islam, but all the constituent elements of a forthcoming Euro-Islam do exist, and AfD will greatly promote their own targets by contacting these people and by helping them setup an organizational structure and thus start challenging their monstrous opponents, who happen to be AfD adversaries as well, namely the Salafi – Wahhabi Islamists, the Political Islam, and the fake moderates.

 

 

  1. “Viele Muslime gehören zu Deutschland, aber der Islam gehört nicht zu Deutschland”.

(Many Muslims belong in Germany, but Islam does not belong in Germany)

This is also correct. Islam does not belong in Germany, pretty much like Shintoism does not belong in Germany either. However, at this point, there has to be a remark; the sentence makes clear that “many Muslims belong in Germany”, which automatically means that “not all the Muslims belong in Germany“. This is very correct indeed, and more particularly in view of the aforementioned; irreligious and non-practicing, secular Muslims definitely belong in Germany. It is therefore evident that, in the near future, AfD needs to provide people with a definition stating explicitly who among the Muslim Gastarbeiten truly belongs to Germany, and who do not. This will help AfD in the years ahead, because I am convinced that the departure of extremist elements from Germany and Europe must start before major disasters occur and irrespective of their official status or place of birth. And I want to believe that AfD definitely understands the need of perhaps kicking out of Germany up to one million people or even more. Being born in Germany, having German citizenship, and speaking German fluently are null in case of deeply anti-German and un-German mentality, mindset, attitude, behavior, and ideology.

 

 

  1. “Es ist notwendig, den Wildwuchs von islamischen Religionslehrern und Koranschulen, die privat finanziert werden, zu stutzen. Es muss Kontrollen geben, wer das finanziert und wer dort lehrt”.

(It is necessary to trim the proliferation of Islamic religious teachers and Islamic schools that are privately financed. There must be controls about who finances them, and who teaches there.)

This point is the very epicenter of the problem. If one fails to accurately perceive what happens, one will definitely be unsuccessful in contravening the ongoing phenomenon of gradual, almost indiscernible Islamist radicalization.

 

Before speaking about ‘religious teachers’, one has to clearly define the existing groups of Muslims; by this I do not only refer to denominations like the Shia, the Sunni, the Alevi (Turkish Alevis are not Shia: it is essential to avoid the confusion), etc. There are more groups concerned and I already mentioned them: irreligious Muslims are still Muslims. Non-practicing Muslims are also Muslims.

 

The past wrong assumption must take an end; it was a terrible mistake that allowed the problem get worse. By consciously becoming irreligious or by preferring not to practice their religion, Muslims do not go out of Islam. They simply take another stance toward established religion; but their stance is a different religious stance. As such, it must be viewed as one of today’s Islam’s components or constituent parts. Useless to add, this part of Islam must be fully represented and respected too, at all levels anytime anywhere.

 

It is therefore absolutely totalitarian and deeply undemocratic to send all Muslims’ children to religious schools whereby the teachers are either Salafi – Wahhabi Islamists or adherents the Political Islam or fake moderates.

 

As a matter of fact, in Germany, in Turkey, in every Muslim country, and in every country with a major number of Muslim immigrants, there have to be established religious-educational-cultural organizations of irreligious and non-practicing Muslims whereby they will promote, diffuse, teach and explain their vision of Islam, which is the hitherto missing “Enlightened Islam”.

 

These sociopolitical organizations must subsequently launch their educational institutions, and it goes without saying that with the necessary support, they will come up with schools, libraries, curricula and teachers in no-time. How will they achieve it? The answer is simple: by mobilizing the still lethargic masses of irreligious or non-practicing Muslims. It goes without saying that not one graduate from hitherto existing religious schools (either in Germany, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia or anywhere else) will be incorporated into the new organizations and institutions.

 

One has to anticipate that this development will create a “Great Schism” within Islam. The moment this schism is declared will be the beginning of the End of the Islamic Terrorism phenomenon.

 

Do not misread the above statement! The eradication of the evil phenomenon is not imminent and it will not be imminent, even when in every Muslim country a new pole of socio-political, educational, cultural, academic, intellectual, theoretical, ideological, political, artistic, religious, spiritual identification will appear in force. It is evident that strong Western support will be needed in many cases.

 

But then, the true battle will be engaged, and the conflict will stop being misplaced, as it will be duly and effectively contextualized. This clash is not a clash of civilizations or a clash of religions, but an internal clash between Barbarism and Civilization within Islam. And it was so for many centuries as one can understand, due to historico-religious and socio-political studies and researches focused on the gradual collapse of the historical Islamic Civilization during the times of the Ottoman Empire.

 

The evil phenomenon of gradual Islamist radicalization has also an important financial dimension, which can help explain much about how it has spread enormously within few decades. In every Muslim country, there is a Ministry of Awqaf (Religious Endowments) to which the governments allocate an at times enormous budget. Certainly, governments use these ministries as tools of internal security and control, but hidden amounts of money can be thence easily transferred to unknown recipients. In secular, Kemalist Turkey, the corresponding term is the so-called Diyanet, i.e. the Presidency of Religious Affairs (that does not have the status of a ministry).

 

There are many critical parameters in this regard, but here I mention it in order to show the abuse of public money made in still nominally secular Turkey. Although, Diyanet was established by Kemal Ataturk to encompass all the religions that exist in Turkey, it presently – under terrorist Erdogan – acts as presidency of Sunni affairs, because it finances only Sunni Muslim worship.

 

This means that Alevi, Bektashi, Câferî, irreligious, and non-practicing Muslims

  1. a) are not recognized officially,
  2. b) must ensure a financially self-sustaining running,
  3. c) don’t receive any funding, and – even worse –
  4. d) are forced to participate in the financing of the mosques and the salaries of Sunni imams, which is an outrage!

 

Now, one must not get confused with the term ‘irreligious’ (din karşıtı or dinsiz in Turkish); this represents only the average Turk’s profound and overwhelming, political – ideological rejection of the West-supported Islamist terrorist government of Erdogan. These ‘irreligious’ Turks have still Muslim personal names and, when dying, are buried in Muslim cemeteries. This reality imposes therefore that they also contribute to the shaping of Diyanet’s targets and policies.

 

In fact, the extraordinary Diyanet scandal must be internationally denounced and obliterated. An internationally supervised census should therefore take place in Turkey and the percentage of each socio-religious group specified; then, Diyanet budget should be allocated proportionally.

 

The extent of the problem is highlighted by the following data:

 

As of 2012, the budget of the crypto-terrorist organization Diyanet totaled more than US$ 2.5 billion!

 

In 2013, Diyanet’s budget represented

23% of the budget of the Turkish Army (NATO’s second largest standing army)

31% of the budget of the National Police

57% of the budget of the Public Hospitals

67% of the budget of the Ministry of Justice

79% of the budget of the Police

 

The budget allocated to Diyanet was

3.4 times larger than the budget allocated to the Ministry of Economy

2.9 times larger than the budget allocated to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

2.5 times larger than the budget allocated to the Ministry of Culture and Tourism

2.4 times larger than the budget allocated to the Ministry of Environment and Urban Planning

1.9 times larger than the budget allocated to the Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology

1.8 times larger than the budget allocated to the Ministry of Health

1.6 times larger than the budget allocated to the Ministry of the Interior

 

More:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Turkey#Secularism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism_in_Turkey#Criticism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Religious_Affairs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Awqaf_(Egypt)

 

 

  1. “Das gelte insbesondere für Moscheen, in denen Imame aus Saudi-Arabien predigten und die von dort auch bezahlt würden. Nur wenn diese Verbindungen offengelegt werden, können die Verbindungen zu den Befürwortern einer strengen Religionsausübung in Saudi-Arabien gekappt werden”.

(This applies more particularly to the case of mosques where imams from Saudi Arabia preached and would be paid from there. Only when these connections will be disclosed, the links to the advocates of strict religious practice in Saudi Arabia will be restricted.)

 

Surely this statement brings owls to Athens! Saudi Arabia is the Islamist terrorist state par excellence. Every imam, German citizen or not, who set foot in Saudi Arabia must be immediately removed from his post and immediately expelled with his family to his father’s country of origin. The same should apply to imams who studied in Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Egypt, Algeria and Pakistan.

 

While new religious – educational institutions with new, different curricula must be set up by irreligious and non-practicing Muslims, the existing schools should either be closed down or staffed with Russian, Azeri, Kazakh or Uzbek imams. Germany and other European should work closely with aforementioned Christian or Muslim countries that managed to drastically contain and effectively eliminate Islamic extremism, radicalism and terrorism.

 

It is also essential to understand that the Western concept of freedom of religion must be wholly reassessed in the light of its effective use by Islamists of all types, who through simulation policies and procedures have used freedom of religion in order to promote a fake-religion that rejects freedom altogether.

 

If Islamists managed to unleash an overwhelming tsunami of moral darkness and foremost barbarism, this is due to the fact that they played without opposition. Engaging irreligious and non-practicing Muslims against Islamists in Germany first will bring a colossal change and will stop Germany’s descent in the Nether World.

To be or not to be. Western Questions about ISIS and Islam reveal the Collapse of Christianity

By Prof. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

Refutation of Prof. Mark Juergensmeyer’s article ‘Is ISIS Islamic?’

topkapi

This is the Caliphate that France, England and America did not want.

ISIS 1

And this is the ‘Caliphate’ that France, England and America wanted.

Sultan Murad and Safavid embassy

This is the Caliphate that France, England and America did not want.

ISIS 2

And this is the ‘Caliphate’ that France, England and America wanted.

Istanbul Topkapi

This is the Caliphate that France, England and America did not want.

ISIS 3

And this is the ‘Caliphate’ that France, England and America wanted.

In a previous article under title ‘Ottoman Empire, Fake ‘Middle East’, the Pseudo-Christians of the West, and the Forthcoming Tribulation’ (https://megalommatiscomments.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/ottoman-empire-fake-middle-east-the-pseudo-christians-of-the-west-and-the-forthcoming-tribulation/), I analyzed why the Western Christians’ stance towards their governments’ policies against the Ottoman Empire and its detached provinces (the technical entities of the so-called ‘Middle East’) is very wrong, definitely immoral, and in total contradiction with the Christian principles, values and virtues. I concluded that a great number of nominal Christians, who approved of the evil policies and deeds of the Western governments, are in reality pseudo-Christians irrespective of what they may think they are.

In a world engulfed in the worst crisis of identity of all times, it is only normal that doubts are raised as regards the identity of the ‘other.’ Only yesterday, Prof. Mark Juergensmeyer, who specializes in ‘global religion’ – a non-existent entity – questioned in an article the identity of ISIS (Is ISIS Islamic? / http://www.theglobalist.com/is-isis-islamic/).

Quite interestingly, under the title, a motto gives the summarizing idea of the article (“Every religion has its dark sides, but the conflict is about politics.”). This is absolutely irrelevant; dark sides in a religion are what you don’t know of that religion. They don’t exist by themselves. No religion has ever had any dark side whatsoever. And all conflicts about politics cannot be deprived of their own religious dimension, because everything in a human society hinges on the spiritual belief or disbelief. Atheists are religious too; they are slaves of Satan either they understand it or not. Their theory and their rejection of God is a form of Satanic faith.

When one starts with so many preconceived ideas as the global religion theoretician Prof. Mark Juergensmeyer, his approach is doomed to fail, but this does not originate from the lack of knowledge of the ‘other side’. And Prof. Mark Juergensmeyer’s main problem is not his lack of insightful knowledge about both, the Islamic world and ISIS itself. The article reveals a serious problem of Christian identity and for this reason I intended to comment on it. I think that my comments will be useful to both, Christians and Muslims.

The author of the article tries to implement the following simplistic logic: if we hold the Ku Klux Klan in the US and the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda as ‘Christian’, then we can consider ISIS as ‘Islamic’. This sort of approach does not clarify anything, and rather creates further confusion among both, Christians and Muslims. Generally speaking, I understand and accept the approach through analogy, but to implement this method in your text, you’ve got to select very firm examples. Yes, it is correct to say ‘if we hold the New and the Old Testament as holy books for the Christians, then we can consider the Quran as holy book for Muslims’. Beyond the limit of such comparisons, we can achieve minimal result through analogy and at times lose clarity.

There is always a very serious mistake in every approach that avoids a proper, direct definition and attempts to define something through its opposite. If you want to define Christianity, you cannot possibly be as vague as you are when saying ‘Christianity is something other than / different from Ku Klux Klan’ (or the LRA). Ditto for the Islamic World.

It is really gross to try to define Christianity as the antithesis of what the author calls the LRA ‘a terrible terrorist organization’! Who can expect a religion to possibly be ‘a terrible terrorist organization’? No one!

In addition, there are in Uganda hundreds of thousands if not millions of simple people who, if not terrorized, will have the courage to state that the LRA is NOT a terrorist organization – or if you want not as terrorist as the execrable, racist Ugandan government. And who is authorized to speak about ‘terrorism’? The global mass media? Or the defenders of a non-existent ‘global religion’?

But the term ‘terrorism’ (or ‘terrorist’) is an unhistorical fabrication that was composed only recently as a vicious tool of the world’s most evil, most villainous, and most dictatorial regimes, the likes of America, England and France. It has no credibility, and above all, it is used within political context. Why on Earth a scholar and an academic feels the need to confuse his readers so much as to mention a political term when he talks about religion?

Whatever Christianity has been or has not been or may have been, it is certainly something unrelated to modern political terms; even more so if these terms are recently invented as result of scheming and propaganda and therefore fully rejected by vast populations worldwide.

However, the use of brutal manners in order to achieve power that will later consolidate the survival and the propagation of a faith, a religion, a sect or a secret order-organization is widely attested in almost every religion, culture, nation and period.

There are many historical examples in this regard. The Ismailiyah Order of the Shia Muslims, who were also called Hashashin (because their leader, the famous ‘Elder of the Mountain’ administered the proper dose of hashish to his disciples in order to duly instrumentalize and effectively utilize them for his purposes) and were known to Marco Polo (he called them Assassins and this is how this word was first used in European languages), used to send members (their secret knights) to cross incredibly long distances to arrive where their target (a ruler, an military leader, an imam or other) lived and, by treacherously approaching, assassinate them. Should we call them ‘terrorists’? This would be utterly ridiculous.

It is actually always pathetic and ludicrous to project one period’s / civilization’s / culture’s measures, values and criteria onto other periods, civilizations and cultures. One cannot evaluate others through use of one’s own criteria; every civilization, culture, religion, and historical period is an independent entity that no scholar can transform as per his theoretical needs in any way. The reason for this maxim is simple; by slightly transforming (through improper evaluation involving external criteria) a civilization, culture, religion, and historical period, a scholar only modifies and misinterprets it. This scholar is therefore speaking of a false entity that practically speaking never existed (except in his misinterpretation and imagination); thus, he only confuses his unfortunate readers.

Another example is offered by the Christian Catholic Holy Inquisition. It is undisputed that this Holy Office carried out very brutal policies for long. Should we call it ‘terrorism’? This would also be utterly ludicrous.

As the author is continuously avoiding a proper definition for what is ‘Islamic’ and what is not, the article is characterized by a personal, individualistic approach that is both, irrelevant and confusing. Prof. Mark Juergensmeyer implements again the analogy approach, but this time at the very personal level. He, as a Christian, dissociates himself from the Ugandan LRA and the American Ku Klux Klan, and he therefore postulates that, accordingly, ‘this is the same position most Muslims are in now with regard to ISIS’.

This is very irrelevant because scholars are expected to include personal views and experience in their memoirs at the end of the their lives and not as supposedly convincing evidence in their articles and other publications. This style is very arrogant; in addition, it is very confusing because personal approaches do not constitute proper definitions. The sentence he makes is quiet evident: ‘As a Christian, I feel like they have nothing to do with me or with the Christianity that I know’. The last words reveal the extent of the problem; probably the globalist professor and specialist of the non existent ‘global’ religion ( !! ? !! )  does not know the Holy Inquisition, and consequently we can safely claim that he does not know Christianity well. And this is the problem for him and for all the misled and confused Christians of the West.

Many people have been driven to the impasse of assuming a lot; one of their wrong assumptions is to take today’s fallen Christianity as the true Christianity. Similarly, in the Islamic world, there are many Muslims, who assume that today’s fallen Islam is the true Islam. Both groups fail to understand one another because they primarily fail to understand themselves and accurately specify how far they have gone from their respective religions, sailing adrift in the Sea of Relativism and Faithlessness.

After the preliminary part of the article, its inconsistency turns it to a mere worthless piece. As the title obliges the author to give a definition of ISIS, the ‘global religion’ specialist or rather propagandist Mark Juergensmeyer enters into a series of mistakes while giving to his readers unexplained terms that are absolutely meaningless to the non-specialist.

He says: ‘What makes things even more complicated is that ISIS bases its beliefs and actions on a form of Islamic interpretation called Salafism’.

– Why on Earth is now the Salafist nature of ISIS (which is true and beyond any doubt) a problem?

Let me make my position clear. In many articles, I denounced the Wahhabism (the correct term for Salafism) as a deformation of Islam. But Wahhabism (or if you want Salafism) is nothing new to the Western world’s academia and diplomats.

To paraphrase Prof. Juergensmeyer, before any other institution on Earth, Saudi Arabiathe country that America catastrophically chose as its primary ally in the region before …. 70 years or, to put it otherwise, the country that England disastrously conspired with against the Ottoman Caliphate for more than 100 years before the fall of the Ottoman dynasty and continually ever since ‘bases its beliefs and actions on a form of Islamic interpretation called Salafism’.

What is Prof. Juergensmeyer talking about?

If Saudi Arabia did not exist, there would never be an ISIS.

What does Prof. Juergensmeyer want?

Does he want ISIS to disappear and Saudi Arabia to survive?

That’s silly.

Because if Saudi Arabia continues existing, even if ISIS is mercilessly exterminated and all its members and fighters executed ( and this needs at least 50000 US soldiers in a large scale land attack and in coordination with the venerable president of Syria! ), there will be another ISIS, an ISIS bis if you want, or an ISES (Islamic State of Egypt and Sudan), an ISYA (Islamic State of Yemen and Arabia), or any combination of letters you may choose!

As long as Saudi Arabia exists, Wahhabism will be its pseudo-Islamic state dogma, and through the filthy money of the inhuman gangsters who rule from Riyadh, Wahhabism will be diffused among the masses of Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia to the Muslim Diaspora worldwide.

What is even worse is that Prof. Juergensmeyer fails again to either give a definition of Wahhabism (Salafism) or the historical perspective thereof; as a matter of fact, all the filthy and un-Islamic, dark and inhuman ideas that Muhammad Abdel Wahhab (the founder of Wahhabism) shaped and propagated during the 18th c. did not fall from the sky into his idiotic and ignorant mind. There has been an entire historical process within Islam (with heretic theologians preceding Muhammad Abdel Wahhab by 450 and 900 years) that led to this monstrous theological deformation of Islam. All this is unknown to the ‘global religion’ professor who writes about Islam without having a clue of all academic fields pertaining to the study of this historical – spiritual phenomenon.

This is the historical reality, which is quite well known to specialists of Islamic History and Religion in the West, but it remains concealed, because it is politically disturbing and troublesome. If Wahhabism is not uprooted, if all the Wahhabi institutions across the world are not shut down, if a new class of Muslim intellectuals at the antipodes of Wahhabism is not formed, the explosive situation will only turn worse.

First point of conclusion is therefore that Saudi Arabia and the Saudi family itself must be denounced as the only matrix of all evil across the Islamic world for the last 200 years, and an overwhelming attack against it must be undertaken in order to totally eliminate Riyadh and the villainous, heretic elite which from there managed to incessantly spread the evilness of Wahhabism worldwide.

The confusing presentation of Prof. Juergensmeyer is due to the fact that he does not seek the historical, religious, cultural and theological truth, but only writes in order to serve political purposes and needs, preserve strategic alliances, and in the process, effectuate compromises. We saw these compromises in Mosul, in Sanjar and in Raqqah. These compromises are responsible for the evacuation of most of the Yazidis from their homelands; these compromises are the reason for the deracination of all the Aramaean Christians of Mosul; these compromises are the root cause of the hecatomb that the bloodthirsty vampires of ISIS want to deliver.

For one more time, the ‘global religion’ specialist, Prof. Juergensmeyer, attempts a confusing definition through analogy! He writes: “The Salafi movement is similar to an extreme fundamentalism in Christianity”. This is an understatement; in addition, who can specify what ‘fundamentalism in Christianity’ means? This is not called ‘definition’ but ‘anyone’s guess’…

It must however become crystal clear to Western readership that ISIS, Saudi Arabia, and Wahhabism, (Salafism) do not constitute any form of Islamic fundamentalism. They are heretic, so they cannot be held as Islamic in any sense. They are far and out of the foundations of Islam, so they cannot possibly be ‘fundamental’. Muhammad Abdel Wahhab in his days was considered as a heretic and a traitor by the Ottoman administration; the same evaluation concerned also the Ottoman Caliphate’s traitor and founder of the Satanic house of the Saudis.

The two earlier Islamic theologians on whom Abdel Wahhab was based to produce his pseudo-Islamic trash, namely Ahmed ibn Taimiyah and Ahmed ibn Hanbal who lived in the 13th-14th c. and the 8th-9th c, respectively, were also considered as heretic in their times and duly imprisoned. They may be unknown to Prof. Juergensmeyer, but he should then abstain from writing purposelessly on issues he is not relevant of.

The famous, 14th c. Moroccan traveler, explorer and scholar Ibn Battuta encountered in Damascus people who knew personally the evil, villainous and ignorant heretic Ibn Taimiyah who was then imprisoned. This is what the Islamic World’s most illustrious traveler wrote about the progenitor of Wahhabism:

A controversial theologian  

One of the principal Hanbalite doctors at Damascus was Taqi ad-Din Ibn Taymiya, a man of great ability and wide learning, but with some kink in his brain. The people of Damascus idolized him. He used to preach to them from the pulpit, and one day he made some statement that the other theologians disapproved; they carried the case to the sultan and in consequence Ibn Taymiya was imprisoned for some years. While he was in prison he wrote a commentary on the Koran, which he called ” The Ocean,” in about forty volumes. Later on his mother presented herself before the sultan and interceded for him, so he was set at liberty, until he did the same thing again. I was in Damascus at the time and attended the service which he was conducting one Friday, as he was addressing and admonishing the people from the pulpit. In the midst of his discourse he said “Verily God descends to the sky over our world [from Heaven] in the same bodily fashion that I make this descent,” and stepped down one step of the pulpit. A Malikite doctor present contradicted him and objected to his statement, but the common people rose up against this doctor and beat him with their hands and their shoes so severely that his turban fell off and disclosed a silken skull-cap on his head. Inveighing against him for wearing this, they haled him before the qadi of the Hanbalites, who ordered him to be imprisoned and afterwards had him beaten. The other doctors objected to this treatment and carried the matter before the principal amir, who wrote to the sultan about the matter and at the same time drew up a legal attestation against Ibn Taymiya for various heretical pronouncements. This deed was sent on to the sultan, who gave orders that Ibn Taymiya should be imprisoned in the citadel, and there he remained until his death.

At a certain point in his article, Prof. Juergensmeyer makes a totally misleading statement (“So, yes, ISIS is ultimately Islamic – whether you like it or not”), which can have disastrous consequences on anyone who may happen to accept it. A heretic cannot be identified with the religion from which he was rejected. It is not a mere point of accuracy, but a critical issue of false target.

Failing to understand this, he adds perjury to infamy, by completing his sentence with the following: “but it is certainly not the kind of Islam that most Muslims would accept or profess”.

This is a pure lie. And more than a merely false point, it reflects the tendencies of the Western governments to totally conceal the truth from their peoples. First of all, no one has accurate estimates on the subject. Gallup polls in several Muslim countries are prohibited – particularly on a subject this critical -, whereas in the rest no Gallup polls have ever been conducted on issues as troublesome as that.

However, there are many indicators that ISIS does truly reflect in a certain way the kind of false, heretic and decayed Islam that most Muslims accept and profess. If you make a list of what is correct as an act or practice of the Islamic way of both, personal life and social organization, including perhaps 500 detailed points accepted by the followers, the fighters and the leaders of ISIS, and then you submit this list to 1000 average Saudis (without adding that these points are all approved by ISIS members), their responses, homogeneous and ominous, will take you by surprise. Their agreement with the 500 points of the list will deliver a result far above 90-95%.  Similar results, always above 80%, you will collect from countries like Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Yemen, Sudan, Egypt, Algeria, etc. And certainly the agreement will be lower in other countries, but even in Turkey, it will be as high as 40% due to the vicious Western policies in favor of the AKP party Islamists and against the nationalist military establishment of Ankara (a paranoid policy that allowed the ruling Islamists to widen their basis through a varied set of methods).

How can one be sure of this?

By simply walking in the streets of districts inhabited by middle and lower classes (that total more than 80-90% of the total population of the country in most of the aforementioned cases) and observing what goes around, talking to the people, asking about their ideas, and entertaining comprehensive discussions as to just how they see and how they want to see their lives and their social environment – something that Prof. Juergensmeyer did not do, ultimately preferring the calmness and the security of his office somewhere in the States.

However, the situation is far worse than that. If you now present the same list (of what is correct as an act or practice of the Islamic way of personal life and social organization, including perhaps 500 detailed points accepted by the followers, the fighters and the leaders of ISIS) to a selected group of academics, engineers, businessmen, administrators and high profile functionaries, deputies of ‘parliament’ (this is a non-representative assembly for most of the cases), military, ministers and religious authorities across the Islamic world (without however saying that these points are all approved by ISIS members), you will collect even more surprising results. The outright majority of the elite of these countries (and I don’t mean here only Saudi Arabia but all the aforementioned countries) in majority supports the same points. This is for instance the reason one should view the latest president El Sisi of Egypt as theologically – ideologically – politically far closer to the former president Morsy than to the one time vice president El Baradei.

It would take too long to narrate how this situation has been formed, but I would however like to briefly hint at what I said earlier about the theologians who served as source of inspiration for Muhammad Abdel Wahhab, the founder of the Wahhabism (Salafism), namely the heretics Ibn Taimiyah and Ibn Hanbal. In fact, if Muhammad Abdel Wahhab developed the theological system that constitutes today’s Wahhabists’ doctrine, this is due to the fact that Ibn Hanbal’s and Ibn Taimiyah’s successive and intertwined theological systems gradually prevailed among the Islamic world and eliminated or transformed/altered all the opposite systems.

As a matter of fact, if one Muslim imam, qadi, mufti, minister, general, professor, president or businessman today rejects Wahhabism, he still accepts Ibn Taimiyah’s widespread and fully accepted theological system, which is – metaphorically speaking – the tree that produced the fruit of Wahhabism. There is, practically speaking, little difference or no difference at all between the two systems; simply every posterior system that emanates from an anterior is expected to feature and does actually feature some extra points.

The real difference existed in the past, in Islam’s Golden Era, when totally opposite philosophical systems totally prevailed across the highly educated Islamic World. These are the philosophical systems of Ibn Sina, Qurtubi, Ibn Rushd, Ghazali, Mohyieldin Ibn Arabi, Ibn Hazm, to name but a few; to them is due the Islamic Enlightenment, whereas to the gross, villain, uneducated trash of Ibn Taimiyah is due the complete disfigurement of Islam’s quintessence. However, due to the gradual diffusion of Ibn Taimiyah’s theological nonsense and ignominious darkness, and following its prevalence among ignorant and uneducated masses that it created in a vicious circle mechanism, as it attacked Science, Knowledge, Philosophy, Art and Spirituality, gradually all the philosophical systems of the aforementioned Titans of the Islamic Thought disappeared until the end of the 16th c.

Of course, there is one more difference between the political elites of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, etc. and the ISIS extremists; the former, although accepting most of Abdel Wahhab’s theories and all of Ibn Tamiyah’s ideas, differ politically and make the necessary compromises to ensure the survival of their regime. Contrarily, the latter reject the compromise of the former, viewing it as a treason of Islam. Political difference is therefore due to mere survival tactics of elites that are theological quasi-identical to ISIS; these elites believe that by making compromises upon compromises with the West, they can prolong their tenure and the ensuing material benefits. But their existence only spearheads new waves of uncompromising Wahhabists. Certainly, there is also an attitudinal difference (but no behavioral difference) between the followers of a guy like al Bashir of Sudan or Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen and the fighters of ISIS; the former want to pocket more money and store it in their banks, whereas the latter are ready to die. But none of them would accept his wife to be uncovered (without hejab, the Islamic veil) or his daughter to travel alone on motorbike across Europe.

The best corroboration of the aforementioned is the following tragicomical contrast between Egypt’s last and current presidents; Muhammad Morsy is viewed by some as extremist  whereas the incumbent is considered as a moderate and pragmatist person.

Former Egyptian president Muhammad Morsy’s wife wears hejab (Islamic veil that allows the face to be seen).

Current Egyptian president El Sisi’s wife used to wear a niqab (Islamic veil that covers the face entirely leaving only two small holes for the eyes) and only recently “swapped the niqab for a trendy hijab, hushing up claims that she was dyed-in-the-wool” (http://www.albawaba.com/slideshow/sisi-wife-intisar-amer-581626)!!

Prof. Juergensmeyer goes on saying that the reason for which “world leaders are trying to make in saying that ISIS is ‘not Islamic’.” is that ISIS “is certainly not the kind of Islam that most Muslims would accept or profess”. In the light of the aforementioned this appears to be a very unfortunate consideration and an erroneous evaluation of what is going on in the Islamic world.

Reaching the end of the brief yet mistaken article, Prof. Juergensmeyer says that Islam’s name means “peace” which is very wrong (in reality, it means ‘submission to God’ although it originates from the word ‘peace’).

In the article’s last three paragraphs, Prof. Juergensmeyer makes one more futile effort to dissociate ISIS from today’s prevalent Islamic theological systems and to associate it with politics. This is quite pointless and misplaced. In fact, there is no, and there cannot be any, difference between religion and politics in Islam. So, everything that is religious is also political, and vice versa.

Contrarily to the wrong Western assumption that Islam is the only system whereby religion and politics constitute an indivisible entity of faith and action, it is historically proven that all the major religions were systems in which faith and government were perfectly well interwoven. The same occurred particularly in Christianity either Orthodox or Catholic; one may even ponder that in some cases the phenomenon occurred more emphatically in Christianity than in Islam; extensively discussed terms, such as Papocaesarism and Caesaropapism are quite telling in this regard.

So, Prof. Juergensmeyer’s sentence “Besides religion, it is critical to recognize that all the forms of terrorism that we have seen are about politics. Any act of violence in the public sphere is aimed at trying to claim political space – at taking over power to assume control over regions or peoples. This is certainly true in the case of ISIS” is absolutely irrelevant and completely wrong.

The way one family lives is defined by religion; the way one society is organized is specified by religion; the way the art of rule is exercised is decreed by religion. The aforementioned does not only apply to the Islamic world; it does also to Ancient Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Iran, etc. It is also valid in Confucian China, Biblical Israel, and Christian Rome or Constantinople. One can enter into details that can fill volumes: the way one fights in battle is determined by religious orders; the way one sleeps is elucidated by religious advice; the way one eats is clarified by religious guidance; the way one has sex is stipulated by religious prescriptions, and so on.

Piety is one of the religious traits and virtues that must be reflected in a person’s life, either this person is Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu or Confucian. I fully agree with Prof. Juergensmeyer that “most people directly involved in ISIS are not pious Muslims”; this is right. But does it really matter?

And what about Prof. Juergensmeyer? Will he agree with me saying that “most people directly involved in Assets Management are not pious Christians”?

When we see vulture-funds in Latin America terrorizing nations like Argentina (which involves populations far larger than Iraq or Syria) and endangering the lives and the well-being of dozens of millions of people, do we still need to focus exclusively on a minor terrorist group and forget worse gangsters and terrorists who are far more perilous than the idiotic fighters of ISIS?

And this concludes the case of this type of confusing presentations and futile approaches that leave the Western readership in mysteries; identifying the true reasons of an explosive situation may help greatly solve and diffuse the crisis. But it entails a real inquiry about the original and the altered, the genuine and the transfigured, the authentic and the corrupt. Instead of searching pretexts and excuses, one should seek the truth.

It is not only greatly comical but also highly perilous for the Western leaders to continue on the same track. Why should they bother whether most of today’s Muslims accept or don’t accept the doctrine and the practices of ISIS? The Western leaders themselves constantly disregard the majority of the population back in their countries, and particularly when the majority is ostensibly opposite to calamitous choices that they make (such as the case of the erroneously conceived and catastrophically carried out attack against, and occupation of, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq). Their disregard for the wishes and the opinions of the majority of their countries’ populations is monumental; they cannot be sensitive for other nations when they are insensitive for their own.

The search for the reasons that brought about the present situation cannot be undertaken by Western academia, intellectuals and diplomats without a deep investigation of the developments that took place in their own countries in the first place. Before bothering to know whether ISIS is Islamic or not, they should care to find out whether the so-called Christian nations of the West are really Christian. Drunken of their colonial successes for many centuries, the Western peoples lived with myths and lies that totally disfigured the true dimensions of their own deeds, choices and policies. Modernity is not Christian but Anti-Christian. Globalism is not Divine but Satanic. And the Homosexual Marriages are not the ‘right of the free’ but the evilness of the slaves – of Satan.

Atheist, materialistic, and despiritualized, the Western world turned out to be the Cemetery of the Christian Faith. That’s why the leaders of the Western countries did not give a damn about the persecution, expulsion and extermination of the Aramaean Christians in Mosul. They face now a nominalist and legalist theological system of despiritualized Muslims, who are partly westernized and deeply materialistic, which means filled with extremely contradictory elements able to explode with uncontainable consequences.

The fallacy, inhumanity and monstrosity of either systems is such that one could simply consider them as the two faces of same coin. So corrupt and eroded this coin is that nothing can save it; it will soon be thrown in the Hell that it deserves. And its two faces, in full discord to one another, are triggering now by themselves the downgrading spiral that will bring their end. To survive one has to dissociate him/herself from the onerous coin as much as possible, as soon as possible, and as irreversibly as possible.