Swedish Democrat Explains Why Islam Can’t be Compared to Other Religions…….

Kent Ekeroth:
Religious relativism does not help one to understand Islam

The Tundra Tabloids has come across Kent Ekeroth’s timely op-ed in which he addresses two different articles concerning a familiar meme in defending Islam from criticism, that being, “all regions are the same, “but since Christianity has commited far worse atrocities than Islam ever has”, the West is being hypocritcal when it atands in judgement of Islam.

Kent Ekeroth offers the reader a lot of food for thought while mulling over the recent articles from self confessed experts of Islam, Helen Törnqvist, a clergywoman from the Church of Sweden, and Ann-Louise Trulsson, a teacher of Swedish as a second language. According to Ekeroth, both display a glaring lack of knowledge about the subject they write about, which might help to explain why only the Christian West is mentioned in relation to the slavery trade.

That’s only one of the examples Kent Ekeroth provides as proof that these two women do not know what in the world they are talking about, when they criticize the Swedish Democrat’s International Secretary (Ekeroth’s) points of view regarding Islam. The Google translation is somewhat good, but please excuse any of the obvious mistakes. KGS

Törnkvist’s Islam is based on the excuse that it is a religion and claiming that “it is everyone’s affair”. Trulsson’s excuse for Islam is by trying to equate it with Christianity in the true spirit of relativism. None of them seem to really understand what it is about.
Törnqvist seems to misunderstand what multiculturalism is all about. She seems to be under the impression that multiculturalism occurs when someone drinks coffee. The “kebab argument” seems to be her strongest card, and it says a lot.
The interesting thing is that she writes that “religion is everyone’s affair”. Sure, it may be, but it did not save her argument. A religion is a set of views, and opinions can, and in many cases should, be criticized. It does not help to refer to a “God” in order to achieve protection from criticism or rejection. If she had read my first article she would have seen that I introduced just such thoughts. Not even Törnqvist may well deny that religious views in exactly the same way that political opinions can be the cause and rise to exactly the same concrete actions in the real world. If it is Allah or a politician who calls for any player, then smaller role – it is equally wrong whether the command comes from a God or a man.
And you realize this very simple relation can be no protection is given only as being a religion. A society, a political organization or an individual can to fight a religious ideology in the same way as it is accepted that fighting political ideologies.
In another opinion piece on the same subject Trulsson  writes of relativism signs that all religions are equally good / bad. In his article questioning her how SD can advocate a “secular and religious civil society” as the norm “in a global perspective [is] unique” in which religion “is a collective concern of the majority of Earth’s population”. This may come as news to Trulsson, but we do not care about what a “majority of Earth’s population” believes that religion should have in place in society. The western system of secularism and civil religion is superior, if you look at a whole on how far the West has been in development compared to most out of Earth’s population. What Trulsson saying is that most of the world does not agree with that, which indirectly is to defend the majority opinion – she supports, therefore, collectivism, and opposition to secularism.
Trulsson then tries to equate Christianity with Islam, which is symptomatic of Islam’s apologists. Success in understanding Islam will be delayed as people might think that Islam gives rise to the same society that Christianity has done. But there are crucial differences between Islam and other religions.
Trulsson takes up examples of the wrong she believes that Christianity has committed, but does not mention that the Muslim world engaged in slavery before the trans-Atlantic (western) slave trade started and was longer – it has actually not even stopped to today’s date. The Muslim slave trade, also includes more people than the transatlantic did and it has to date never been raised with this bit of Islamic history – nothing of Islam’s crimes, for that matter. In addition, it was so that it was Christians who were at the forefront of the abolition of slavery – no such movement has never existed in Islam. The fact is that slavery was conducted by Mohammed himself – and he is considered by Muslims to be a flawless human being. A pretty big difference compared to the founder of Christianity Jesus and thus between the different religions.
Apartheid is practiced today in the Muslim world where non-Muslims may have dhimmi status in Muslim societies. It is in both the Quran and hadith, and again this is a big difference compared to Christianity. Dhimmi status, is a form of apartheid, supported by the Muslim ideology. Apartheid, however, finds no support in Christianity which Trulsson however, insinuates.
She does not appear to be aware that the “colonial expansion ‘, in the Crusades, which she certainly aimed at, was a defensive war against Islamic invaders after 400 years of Islamic expansion and aggression, among others, for exmaple, against Europe. This expansion is a core part of Islamic doctrine that Muhammad spread Islam by the sword and let the critics and executed prisoners of war. His successor, the first caliphs, had conquered a land area ranging from Spain in the west to India in the east. The holy war played a different role in Islam than in Christianity, and still preached jihad – war of conquest in the name of Allah – the Muslim theologians and imams the world over.
When Trulsson writes that “the Church was wrong and theology was to change,” she misses a crucial difference between Islam and Christianity. Firstly, the two sacred texts of various religions in the sense that the Bible is written by humans, while the Qur’an is considered to be Allah’s own words. The same applies Sharia, where new interpretations can not be advanced in matters of consensus, “ijma”, considered to prevail. When a question is finished, when “ijma” exists, it can not be opened up again. It is set in stone and must be followed.
“Ijtihad”, is independent interpretation of the law can not be conducted in areas where “ijma” prevails. Shariah does, unfortunately, martial law, and the law of holy war – jihad – is settled, there is “ijma” among all law schools that Muslims have a duty to engage in aggressive war to force non-Muslims living under Sharia. Although it is taught today, such as the al-Azhar in Cairo, Sunni Islam’s equivalent of the papacy, which still publishes texts which teach the classic doctrine of Jihad.
To which Trulsson equate Islam with Christianity shows a lack of knowledge about Islam. When the violence perpetrated in the name of Christianity, it was against the Christian message. But the aggression war to spread Islam, dhimmistatus and numerous other crimes and violations are directly supported in Islam and exemplified by Muhammad himself. As the violence in Islam from the Qur’an, Muhammad’s sunna and lagskolorna, religion can not be fundamentally reformed. Therefore, it is also justified to deal with Islam as the expansionist political ideology whatsoever, because this is precisely what Islam – among many other things – include. Islam is both a religion and a political ideology and must be subsequently addressed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.