1. Introduction
This posting argues that Islam is not a religion as defined by western democratic countries. Many non-democratic mid-eastern countries call it a religion. However, nothing compels western democracies to agree with that definition. In fact, Islam is an anti-democratic political movement masquerading as a religion using features of fascism and communism. Al Queda and the Taliban are its barbaric Gestapo/KGB like enforcers.
Many peace loving Muslims probably bear no ill will to citizens of western democracies. But, within Islam’s political movement are leaders and followers who seek the end of democracy by violent means. It is not up to the western democracies to cull the jihadists from the non-violent Muslims. That is up to the Muslims themselves. Failing to do so, suggests that every Muslim is a potential jihadist unfit for work in government or the military.
2. Islam - an anti-democratic political movement
Here are several differences between anti-democratic Islam and religions in western democracies.
(a) Separation of church and state
Islamic law developed by Islamic religious leaders regulates the day to day life of Muslims including, politics, economics, banking, family matters, etc. The religion of Islam and the government are one. Islamic Law is controlled, ruled and regulated by the Islamic religion. The unelected theocracy controls all public and private matters. Government, law and religion are one.
Roman Catholicism has some similarities to Islam since adherents supposedly subscribe to Papal infallibility. But unlike Islam, that Christian religion accepts the principle of separation of church and state. As well few western practicing Catholics accept Papal doctrine about birth control, censorship of reading material, priestly celibacy, etc.
Most western democracies believe in the separation of church and state. This means that government lacks legislative authority in the realm of individual conscience including religion since government has no right to intrude on that personal "liberty of conscience."
b) Anti-democratic fascism, communism and Islam
Fascist and communist political leaders are appointed without contested democratic elections. So are the top Islamic leaders who are called Imams.
Western democracies elect their political leaders by popular vote.
c) Anti-democratic law making by fascist, communist and Islamic Imams
Unelected fascist, communist and Islamic political leaders rule by decree or edict, rather than through laws made by elected legislators.
Western democracies enact laws made by popularly elected legislators. No one is above the law.
d) Anti-democratic law interpretation by fascist, communist judges and Islamic Imams
Fascist and communist judges interpret the laws in accordance with directives from their political leaders.
Islamic Shi'a law believes that Imams are chosen by God to be perfect examples for the faithful and to lead all humanity in all aspects of life. They also believe that all the Imams chosen are free from committing any sin and have a status directly parallel to those of a prophet, infallibility which is called ismah. These leaders must be followed since they are appointed by God.
Judicially independent judges in western democracies interpret the laws enacted by elected legislators without any influence by political leaders.
e) Anti-democratic suicidal practices by the Islamic political movement.
In World War II the Japanese fascist government encouraged suicide Kamikaze pilots to sacrifice their lives for Japan. Islam encourages its believers, including children, to sacrifice their lives for the cause of Islam.
Western democracies consider such conduct to be a crime because they value the life of every human being.
f) Anti-democratic hatred of Jews by fascist Germans and the Islamic political movement
Fascist Nazi Germany tried to kill all Jews before and during WW II. So do many Islamic leaders and their followers want to do that today.
Western democracies treat Jews as equals and value their contribution to our societies.
g) Intellectual superiority of Jews over Muslims
There are approximately 1.4 billion Muslims in the world. Nobel prizes were first awarded in 1901. Since then, Muslims have only managed to win 8 prizes. Five were for Peace; two for literature and one for Chemistry.Today, there are about 12 million Jews in the world. At least 179 Jews have won Nobel prizes including prizes for Chemistry, Economics, Medicine, and Physics.
Jews have done a great deal for the betterment of mankind. Comparatively speaking, the Muslim contribution is insignificant.
Ordinary Muslims do not have the right of free speech, particularly when it comes to interpreting the Koran. Most western democracies give their citizens the power to interpret the Bible without religious clerical intervention.
Muslim clerics control Islamic thinking through censorship. This robs individual Muslims from expanding their intellect and condemns them to worldwide ignorance. If Muslims were allowed to think for themselves there would be no need for the intervention of Muslim clerics.
That would raise the level of intellect in the Muslim community and make it a contributor to the betterment of mankind.
h) Muslim Women and Islamic headdress
A hijab is the type of head covering traditionally worn by Muslim women. Most Islamic legal systems define it as covering everything except the face and hands in public. Muslims differ as to how "hijab dress" should be enforced, particularly over the role of religious police enforcing hijab in Iran and Saudi Arabia.
A burka is an enveloping outer garment worn by women in some Islamic traditions for the purpose of cloaking the entire body. It is worn over the usual daily clothing and removed when the woman returns to the sanctuary of the household. The face-veil portion is also called purdah, a Persian word meaning "curtain".
Both of these publicly advertise their religious beliefs as Muslims.
Western democracies know that the public exhibition of religious belief is divisive. That is why most Christians do not publicly hang large crosses around their necks to advertise their religious beliefs. And, most Jews do not wear their religious skull caps in public for the same reason.
The wearing of a hijab or burka signifies that Muslim women’s’ devotion to their anti-democratic political movement takes precedence over the western democracy in which they live.
i) Women and Islamic law
The study of women in Islam deals with the attitudes and beliefs about the roles and responsibilities of women within the religion of Islam. The complex relationship between women and Islam is defined by both Islamic texts and the history and culture of the Muslim world. According to some sources, women are equal to men before God.
But that does not square with the many anecdotal stories coming from mid-eastern Islamic states. In some of these states women are not allowed to drive cars. They are sometimes stoned to death for alleged acts of adultery by order of Islamic courts. They can be one of four wives of a man. They can be abused and degraded by men with impunity. They sometimes suffer genital mutilation. They cannot divorce their husbands. If their husband divorces them, they lose their children. Their testimony in Islamic courts is worth half that of their husbands. And so on.
In western democracies women have the same rights as men and those rights are protected by law.
3. Eliminating Islam as a religion in Canadian society
As a western democracy, Canada has the legal right to decide which organization is a religion and which one is not. From the above discussion, it seems clear that Islam is an anti-democratic political movement and not a religion.
If Canadian cities and municipalities declined to define Islam as a religion, it would remove any local property tax benefits that Islam may now have. Islamic Mosques and buildings would be treated as commercial property and subject to municipal taxes based on their fair market values.
Similarly, if federal and provincial taxing authorities found Islam did not meet the qualifications of a religion, monies that Muslims or others pay to the Islamic political movement would no longer be tax deductible as charitable donations.
Unlike Islamist countries, Muslims would have the right to prove in Canadian courts before independent judges that Islam is a religion as that word is commonly used in Canada.
If they lose, they can still carry on as Muslims but with a huge stigma attached. Other levels of government may then seek to marginalize them from our democratic society.
Bottom line:
1. Canada and western democracies can no longer tolerate the acceptance of Islam as a religion.
2. In fact, it is an anti-democratic political movement with overtones of fascism and communism. If allowed to flourish, that will be the end of western democracies.
3. Should western democracies embrace the Trojan Horse of Islam, they will be dragged down to its level of ignorance,
23 November 2009

Recent Comments