Islam and Tyranny: Why Islam is Antithetical to Liberty

"In democracy, freedom exposes man to all evils, corruption, and everything else that would ruin his good morals and pure nature; it causes him to become inclined towards aggression and abnormality. Its similitude is like that of a person driving a car without brakes who is also negligent of other drivers and pedestrians, therefore, he would slam into others and cause many accidents." (see entire article: http://www.muslimsofcalgary.ca/data.php?s=5&action=3&id=173&ts=5) - NOTE - the author removed the article from the website following my letter to them. The entire letter is now posted below this article

I cannot believe that in a free country such as Canada, there are people who advocate the destruction of liberty! The very things the author of the quoted artcle criticizes about freedom and democracy are also the very things that allow Islam to be disseminated here, allow them all to peacefully gather and worship, however they wish, without fear in perfect safety from those that oppose their beliefs.

The article, therefore, is rather disingenuous if not hypocritical. I know this because in most Mohammedian/Islamic nations, there is no liberty, unless you bow down to Allah. There is (NO) opportunity, in fact, in these cuntries, unless you cater to the notion that Islam is the superior religion and others, who practice a different religion, are ripe candidates for torture, and destruction.

I've read about this religion, read many supposed 'constitutions' of "Islamic Republics" and not under ANY OF THEM can a non Islamic person enjoy ANY of the liberties that Moslems currently enjoy here. And yet, these people would, if the article is taken as a statement of desire, deny the rest of us these freedoms here, too. To that I would reply as the Great Empncipator, Abraham Lincoln, said once before: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves."

Certainly our society is not perfect. There is crime, there is immorality, and there is a mentality of 'getting more' at the expense of our fellow man. But there is also GENUINE CHOICE, and that includes the CHOICE TO REJECT these very things, through the agency of personal liberty. It is what allows common, ordinary people, of any faith or no faith, to also that change society, WITHOUT the sort of tyranny that Sharia Law and Mohammedian custom currently imposes upon others, in places where that religion dominates.

The article, and the author, therefore, are highly disingenuous and quite hypocritical. It suggest that only through the agency of a strict adherence to Islam can a man truly be free. Yet in those cuntries where it is practiced, the very notion of liberty is crushed by dedication of the state to a blind adherence of Sharia Law, and the enforcement, through torture, death, and other means, to ensure its perpetuation.

This is EVIL INCARNATE. It is totalitarianism disguised as freedom. It is as the lies of Lenin, who once said that he also "believed in freedom" provided YOU believed in his 'right to shoot you' when you said or did something HE DID NOT AGREE WITH. It is Robespierre, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao all rolled into one. But instead of the secular worship of man, it is rearranged to the worship of a supposed being known as Allah and promoted as such by his supposed messenger, Mohammed.

How, therefore, is Islam any different from those other forms of tyranny? How are those, who truly believe that only the imposition of strict Sharia Law and Islamic custom can bring social justice (and what the article defines as real freedom and democracy), really any different from the advocates of Facism, Communism or other dictatorships?

Clearly they are not, which means that this 'religion' not a real religion but a cult of tyranny. The only difference is that, instead of advocating a belief in Marxism, or of one class or race over another, the author advocates that Islam should be the dominate force in molding a society; a religion that would deprive those who reject its tenets of life, liberty, property, and personal security. Yet THESE elements, however, are what you have now within the "imperfect" democracy the author's article criticizes, and what allows him and his co-religionists to worship in peace.

Frankly, I would rather live in an "imperfect democracy," even one that has injustice, and even permits immorality, and other forms of godlessness, IF if also gives me the RIGHT to REJECT those things too; a right I would be denied under or within an Islamic system. THAT is what gives western democracy its vibrancy and its strength. It ALLOWS US to take personal responsibility for our actions and the right to live with the consequences of them. But it also allows us to change our society, and make a better one WITHOUT the kinds of tyranny and controls that Mohammedian (Islamic) countries require to maintain the dominance of this religion.

The right to choose your beliefs is as integral to democracy and freedom as it is when you sit down and decide what to eat. When others, however, advocate a system, be it secular or religious, that would deprive people of that right, I get angry and that's not a good thing. It makes me, and people like me, question my confidence and trust in friends who are Islamic but do not share the views espoused by the author. Moreover, this anger has the unfortunate result of planting the seeds of hatred; and "hatred" is also wrong in our society, though it is not yet 'illegal' (at least until the politically-correct decide to impose thought control on us too). I pray, therefore, that the author, and people who support his views, understand and appreciate just how dangerous and short-sighted their criticism of our democracy and our liberty is.

The Bible says that "Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty." (2 Cor. 3:17) Our western democracies were founded, at least in part, upon this notion, this right to live in liberty as we find it here. By implication, therefore, where there is NO GOD, there is also NO LIBERTY. That is true in Fascism, Communism, Atheism, Satanism, and Mohammedism (Islam) too.

Sincerely,

I.M. Ulysses.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE, as it was written and publsihed from the site http://www.muslimsofcalgary.ca/

Freedom in Islam and in Democracy

There is no word that nations have called for, spoken about in length, and desired fervently in their hearts more than freedom. People have delivered speeches about it, written books on the subject, composed newspaper columns in support of it, and have raised banners calling for it; they have made it an objective for which all other matters could be sacrificed. On many occasions, people have keenly called for it while being unaware of what they wished to get from it.
This has remained the case until it became the means by which politicians achieved their political aims and personal interests, and used their apparent pursuit of it to attract people’s attention and gain their support. In many cases, this claimed pursuit of freedom has become a means and a justification to destroy any real freedom and wage wars against many nations.
It was made to sound as if democracy is the way to achieve such freedom, because democracy is founded upon freedom; thus the proponents of this ideology have made having a democratic system mandatory for achieving freedom; they argue that one leads to the other, and must exist in order for the other to do so; therefore, one who loves freedom must call for democracy and love it, and vice versa. Such people also claim that, consequently, whoever hates democracy and is an enemy of it is also an enemy of freedom.
The questions that arise here are: does democracy (as practiced by the Western nations) truly achieve the freedom that mankind desires and requires? Does it even raise the level of freedom that people enjoy? What is the type of freedom that democracy achieves for nations, and where are its boundaries? Is an American or a European truly free? Are the lives that they live in their nations ones of freedom, or even paltry so? Does Islam oppose the principle of freedom or does it approve of it and call for it? If Islam does approve of it, then how does it deal with it and expect people to practice it, and what are the permissible types of freedom within Islamic boundaries? Also, is freedom in Islam the same as that in democracy, or are they different? Which one of the two `freedoms` is more realistic and coincides with the sought freedom, the one in Islam or the one in democracy?
All these questions and many others force one to compare between freedom as Islam presents it and calls for it - how it was practiced under Islamic rule for fourteen hundred years and is still being practiced today, and how freedom is practiced in democratic systems, and how contemporary countries and nations apply it.
This comparison must be made in order to see which of the two is more beneficial, more realistic, more honest and closer to the truth.
The limited human mind is what defined freedom in democracy and decided what is good and what is bad in it according to what its desires and lusts imposed, which entails that freedom in democracy becomes limited at times and broadens at others, depending on what the decision makers feel is beneficial at the time.
This means that the nations who practice such systems become experimental laboratories and are in a state constant flux regarding what is allowed and what is not.
In Islam on the other hand, freedom is clearly defined and its limits and boundaries have been set by Allaah alone, who is the infallible Creator of all mankind Whose Qualities are perfect and beyond defect, weakness or incapability. He is All-Knowing of the condition of His creation and Knows best what their requirements are and what suits them.
Thus, freedom in Islam has a distinct feature, which is stability - what was permissible in Islam fourteen hundred years ago remains so until the Day of Resurrection.
In Islam, every person knows what he can and cannot do as well as the areas in which there is room for manoeuvre, according to what Allaah has permitted. Furthermore, freedom in Islam is underpinned by ultimate justice and authority because it comes from Allaah, contrary to that defined by democracy, which is man-made and therefore fallible and subject to shortcomings and injustice. In democracy, the limits of freedom move within the circle that has been defined by human legislators.
In democracy, freedom is opposed to and conflicts with whatever is defined as evil by human legislators, which, due to their limited knowledge and abilities, entails the inclusion of much evil in the circle of what is good and allowable. It also implies that much good will be included in the circle of the evil and forbidden.
Under democracy, many evil things have been made permissible based on its definition of freedom, but were later found to be immoral and oppressive, which caused them to then be prohibited. Likewise, many matters that were later found to be beneficial were initially prohibited, and this constant fluctuation causes the concept of freedom in democracy to be undermined and belittled.
Conversely, in Islam, freedom is opposed to and conflicts with whatever Allaah has defined as evil due to His comprehensive Knowledge and infallibility. Allaah has only permitted what is good and beneficial for mankind and has prohibited only that which is evil and dispraised. Consequently, the range of freedom in Islam is only from what is good to what is praiseworthy.
Freedom in democracy only serves to enslave people to one another - people who should in reality be slaves to Allaah only; it causes people to be under the control of others who may be lower in status than themselves; those who are in control are the ones who set their rules and forbid and allow them whatever they wish – all that those who are under such control can do is to submit and obey. What type of freedom is this which entails enslavement to other humans?
In Islam, freedom frees man from enslavement to other humans to the comprehensive enslavement to Allaah Alone. One might argue that both are forms of enslavement, so what is the difference?
- Allaah is the Creator; He provides for man, facilitated the universe for him and guided him to the right path; therefore, Allaah alone has the right to be worshipped and man should be grateful to Him and obey His commandments. Worshipping the Creator gives the slave might, honour and dignity, while on the other hand, being enslaved by other humans who are weak and incapable is a form of oppression and punishment.
- Man was created with the natural disposition of being a slave, so if he is not a slave to Allaah, then he will certainly become a slave to another human, and this is a false state of affairs, regardless of the form it takes and the status of the human who he is enslaved to.
- Worshipping Allaah represents the ultimate freedom because it frees one from being enslaved to other false gods. In democracy, freedom places man under varied types of pressures and external strains that make him lose a great portion of his freedom of thinking and choice.
Examples of these pressures are the media; the pressure of fulfilling his lusts using different means to do so; the pressure of earning provisions, which is one of the greatest that people face; the pressure that politicians and religious leaders place upon people, and how some of these people fabricate and alter facts; the pressure of intoxicants and drugs, which are now widespread; and the latest pressure, which is the threat to anyone who refuses to give in to the instructions that have been set to deal with the phenomenon of `terrorism,` which is a powerful means of placing great pressure upon people.
These types of pressure deprive man from a great deal of the freedom of choice, freedom of thinking and freedom of adopting opinions that he would have taken if these pressures did not exist. These pressures deprive man from his freedom, despite the claim of some who live under such a system to be free.
The contemporary tyrants do not need to exert much effort to accomplish what they wish from other nations; all they have to do is apply some of these pressures for a short period, and sure enough, other nations usually surrender to their requests. These pressures are referred in the Quran.
Allaah Says (what means): “Those who were oppressed will say to those who were arrogant: `Rather, [it was your] conspiracy of night and day when you were ordering us to disbelieve in Allaah and attribute to Him equals.` But they will [all] confide regret when they see the punishment; and We will put shackles on the necks of those who disbelieved. Will they be recompensed except for what they used to do?” [Quran 34: 33] They plot continuously, day and night, in a way that prevents one from having an opportunity to pause and think correctly in order to be guided to a sound decision.
In Islam, man is freed from all external pressures and effects that may limit or even deprive him from his freedom of choice and decision. Islaam frees man from all such pressures.
In democracy, freedom exposes man to all evils, corruption, and everything else that would ruin his good morals and pure nature; it causes him to become inclined towards aggression and abnormality. Its similitude is like that of a person driving a car without brakes who is also negligent of other drivers and pedestrians, therefore, he would slam into others and cause many accidents.
On the other hand, in Islam, freedom is a cause for one to adopt the finest and most courteous morals and behaviour, it does not allow one to transgress in any way and preserves man’s health, faith and thinking; its similitude is like that of one who drives a car with excellent brakes and who stops where he is supposed to and drives only when it is safe to do so.
Freedom in democracy appears as if it is a gift that man gives to another fellow human, and it is as if he has the right to give him as much of it as he desires and whenever it suits him. In Islam however, it is a right that Allaah has granted to His slaves, and no human has the right to deprive others from it except for a reason that is legislated by Allaah.
The words of ‘Umar, clearly reflect this when he said: “Who gave you the right to enslave others when they were born free?”
This is freedom in democracy and in Islam, so which is worthier for the title?
Allaah Says (what means): “…And remain on a right course as you are commanded and do not follow their inclinations...” [Quran 26:15]

God HATES Sinners, Homos and all!

I'd hate to disagree with anyone who can defend the idea that homosexual behavior is sin, because it is a sin. Period, and by more biblical verses than I have time to expostulate about now. What I object, though, is the oft-stated notion that 'God loves sinners' which is patently untrue!

The Bible clearly states that "The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth." (Psalm 11:5). Wickedness is defined as sin, and sin is the transgression of the law of God.

Homosexuality, like murder, like adultery, like theft, is as much a sin and is just as subject to God's righteous hatred and wrath as any other sin, regardless of what the typical brat-pack of liberals, sociologists, and others have to say about it. The origin or cause of homosexuality is not the issue, it’s the ACT of homosexual behavior that follows from it and which God, in righteousness condemns (look what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah if you doubt me).

Nor does the Lord somehow 'separate' the sin from the sinner, and 'loves the sinner' as if they had no relation to each other at all. If He did, then our very concept of justice (which is based on Judeo-Christian teachings) would be reduced mere state-sanction revenge.

It would also, essentially, void and nullify the Christian faith since we believe that Jesus Christ suffered and died to take upon Himself the full and divine penalty for all our sins. It is better, I believe, for all Christians, to say that Lord hates sinners because of their sins, and wants everyone to REPENT. When they do that, through faith in Christ, they are FORGIVEN, and can TRULY experience the love of God.

That is true no matter what sins are committed, even homosexuality. Man may, indeed, judge and condemn a person for whatever rules they break. They may even, like Islamic nations, impose penalties upon them that we in the 'enlightened' West think of as draconian for miniscule violations of law. But that does not compare to the eternal penalty that a far more righteous and Holy God can impose upon mankind, FOREVER, if we do not REPENT and accept the freely given gift of forgiveness that was manifest at Calvary almost 2000 years ago.

Sincerely,
I.M. Ulysses

Pat Robertson, Haiti,and God

AS many of you know, I’m a right-wing Conservative Christian, with a streak of Libertarianism in me. I’ve seen the rise of not only ignorance of God’s truth in churches but a failure to address the genuine needs of people whose main fault is being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

The case of the Haiti Earthquake is a prime example. I honestly cannot believe that a once-respected member of the Christian church would dare say such things as he did about those poor people. As a Calvinist and a Christian, I do not believe that things happen by accident and so whether it is an earthquake in California, Iran, or Haiti, or Tsunamis is the Pacific or the Indian oceans, or snow in the Serengeti, God is in charge of these events and brings them about for His purposes, not ours. But where I differ from people like Mr. Robertson and his ilk is that I don’t have the temerity (or I hope, the presumption)to stand on behalf of the Lord, in judgment of others, and say ‘for this reason, this has happened.’

If that were true, then, the entire Middle East, large parts of Africa, Europe, Asia, and even the Americas, would be filled with desolation. And where was the “Prophet Robertson” before this event took place? IF he somehow KNEW that Haiti would be struck in a fit of divine vengeance, why did he not, like a genuine prophet or apostle of old, or even like John the Baptist, go there and warn people to ‘Repent now and seek Christ for the remission of sins, or God will bring disaster upon you on January 12, 2010?” A REAL prophet of the Lord would have said something beforehand, as they did in the past, and given the people a chance to repent, much like Jonah, or Abraham (before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah), or Moses, to name a few.

Robertson didn’t because he’s not a prophet, that’s why. He’s just a pitiful old man, who perhaps still dreams of the glory days when he was the toast of White House parties and a regular on the Republican mash potato circuit. It’s a sad end he’s come too and I grieve for him because when he had an opportunity to show compassion, as a real Christian would, he got on his creaky old soap box and spewed out his venom against a hurting people.

Well did the Apostle say of this sort of person, pointing out that “If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion [is] vain. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, [and] to keep himself unspotted from the world.” (James 1:26-27) But it doesn’t stop there, nor can it.

Christ said “… Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” (Matthew 5:44-45) When told of an incident that befell the Galileans, the Lord said “… Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:2-5). My hand would type themselves to nubs were I to express further to you the story of many innocent (and not-so innocent) men upon whom God’s wrath fell and for reasons which were not known later, the primary one being Job, but above all Christ Himself, who suffered more than any other man on this earth too.

Were the likes of Robertson, though, extant in the time of these great men (and who’s to say there weren’t?), I’m sure they would find cause to rejoice in their own self-righteousness and slander the innocent on behalf of ‘God’, much like the Pharisees of old. But to them, and others like them, I have only this to add, both as a warning and as a plea: God knows you too, and if such things can befall those upon whom you cast stones, be careful and repent, lest God toss one upon you too. As it is written,” Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” (Matthew 7:19-23).

Sincerely,
I.M. Ulysses