Islam’s ideology is immoral to its core - should we declare war against it?


Let us be honest. Islam’s ideology is immoral to its core. Should we ask the Haigue and U.N. to rule on the free world first duty to the world. Should we declare war against this immoral ideology?

Our collective leadership must lead by honor. Honor demands the first duty of all free people be to do their best to ensure that all the people of the world enjoy the same level of freedom that they enjoy. This is irrefutable, in terms of morality.

Freedom can only be enjoyed in a moral society.

The Hague and U.N. must rule on the duty of the free world to humanity, and decide if it is better to have all these little wars that disrupt our cities and countries, or declare a real ideological war against the barbaric and non-progressive ideology that the Eastern hordes are trying to force down the Wests throat.

As usual, religions are trying to grow themselves by the sword. A redirection is in order and quite necessary if peace is to be achieved.

We, the collective of the free world, must move the war to one of words that judge the ideologies for their moral worth, and seek to live by the best one. That verdict will determine the will of the free world as to which direction we free people wish the world to evolve to; in terms of the limits of freedom and the duty of free people.

The free world has forgotten that its first duty to the world is to work to have the whole world share in that freedom.

A war of words tends to kill fewer people than the murderous religious insurgencies we now suffer.

I think our legislators ought to consider such a strategy.

Do you?




Religions have core beliefs, which are their “holy books”. The issue with religion is that it’s “open to interpretation”. It doesn’t matter the religion, there is always going to be someone having a different interpretation based on their already prevalent beliefs. This is why christianity isn’t burning witches and killing atheists anymore, and why the early years of Islam was a Golden Age where freedom of religion and free exchange of scientific and philosophic knowledge existed. Declaring war on the ideology is idiotic, when you really should be looking at the people who try to use it to justify the killing of innocents.


How do you propose a war should be fought against Islam?

Who is the free world? I have never seen evidence of a free world, it doesn’t exist.

Anyway, what you and many other people see as Islam being a ‘threat to freedom’, to others Islam is their freedom.


I’ve had this argument so, so many times on this forum, please not again… @StrangeSignal phrased it well.

I hope you appreciate the reasons why there is currently an upsurge in Islamic terrorism against the West.


(9-30-2017) Edited the title as it was too long and disrupting the UI.


I’m curious to hear from our newest member @Joshua_Heckathorn on this subject.


“Freedom can only be enjoyed in a moral society”

Actually it’s quite the opposite. And by free world you mean the West I suppose, which has greater overall freedoms than any other part of the world.(with a few exceptions of course).

Islam is not one ideology there are a few differing major sects. I do agree however it has not advanced in the same way as christianity. The argument in truth is really a security one, not one of freedom. Since a free society in truth is dangerous freedom, while a very much controlled society is one of great security and little freedom.

A country has the right to choose who they wish to allow in however.

Though if you speak of Morality by what standard do you suppose should be enforced? Yours?

It is in fact immoral to legislate moralty when you infringe upon personal rights. Religion is one of those. I’ll give you a postive example in the US. There are a people known as The Amish who dress and live hundreds of years behide. They refuse military service as well.
But even though they are backwards and have settlements. They get along fine with society. I’d go and buy fresh food and furniture.

So the arguement that simply because someone is not progressive. So what? If they will contribute to society then they have the right to be progressive or not to be.


However, you have every right to say whatever you want about a religion. And to advocate who you wish to be allowed into your country. But once they are already settled, become citizens… legally and morally to attack those of a religious affiliation would require the violation of basic human rights and western values.

Once they are citizens they have all the same rights as you to popular sovereignty. Hence, if a country wishes to preserve its stability and culture they must guard their system of immigration well.


So basically what happens in most muslim countries.


That some of them do it doesn’t mean that we should do it. Besides, it’s not like a crazy christian like you is for freedom of religion anyway. That’s something you have in common with the Taliban.


The Confusement is between religion and culture there.

Many of those cultures are simply not compatible with Western Culture if we wish to preserve it.

The issue is the religion in itself lays the seeds for a political system known as Sharia. The threat of non assimilation creates a micronation within the host nation, with their high Birthrates I’ve calculated in decades they will be a major political bloc. And people vote their values, which could be eastern Islamic values.

To many have been let in, in short terms. When a few are let in they are more likely to assimilate than if they have their own community.

They have high population growth and the host populations have low growth.

In a few decades you will not recognize Europe. If you wish to preserve the culture of the land of your ancestors. If you take pride in it. Then you’ll need to defend it against a socioeconomic ideological invasion before it is to late.


There’s not morally equivalent idealogical roots. Muslims are extremely socially conservative even compared to the most extreme Christians. There was no reformation in Islam, they were ruled by a Calph till WW1.

Do you wish to sacrifice the liberal society that you erected on the altar of inclusiveness?


‘Let’s be honest’ <- Apparently this is a magic phrase that means that you don’t need to give any reasoning whatsoever for your argument. Islam is a religion that developed on the teachings of Judaism and Christianity. Jesus (or Isa) is actually one of the major prophets in Islamic teachings. So at least be consistent and against all three religions.

Stuff like covering women are actually habits that Islam inherited from Judaism or Christianity near its inception. A lot of Muhammad’s teachings were basically feminist for the time and region. It helped produce rights for widows who would otherwise starve or have to join a harem to survive. Obviously these are no longer relevant for modern times, but all society back that far was no better. Modern issues are almost entirely cultural and aren’t commonly tied it Islam (see Christian countries like Ethiopia or Atheist ones like North Korea).

P.s. Big up for using an argument so empty of substance it’s bloody hard to argue against


Ah, great, another mindless alt-right folk.

Sounds like you haven’t read the old testament.

Depends. Afghanistan, Syria and Libya used to be very left-wing, until the western countries’ foreign policies turned them into a shit place. Then you have countries like Turkey, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan, with no Sharia Law whatsoever. Even countries like Iran and Iraq don’t have Sharia Law in the criminal system, although they do use it in social issues like marriage. One of the notable exceptions is Saudi Arabia, which is the most radical muslim country and a US ally.

No, on the contrary, in the beginning of the religion, Arabia won over many territories by a smart combination of warfare and commerce. However, the perception people had at the time was that religion should be kept to the religious authorities only, resulting in a system without religious prosecution. There were radical sects, but in places like Syria and Iraq, the Saracens created a system in which philosophical discussion and religious debates were freely discussed.

This was during the Islamic Golden Age, from which we got, among other things, our numerical system, algebra, and arabic names for stars. In comparison, christianity was burning witches and dissenters during the Crusades. But after the Crusades, the Mongol invasions of the 13th Century and the destruction of the Khwarezm Empire, the muslim world entered in decay and the fanatic sects gained traction, until they created theologies. The poverty and destruction created by many wars, and the cultural backlash the Ottoman Empire created against itself by trying to emulate Western culture (some “modern” muslim social practices come from medieval or renaissance Europe), created mostly poor agrarian societies, highly religious, and with little interest whatsoever to give up their religion. This is a —extremely resumed— overview of the track of most modern muslim countries, exceptions above.

A society that wants to eradicate a whole religion because of the actions of a few can hardly call itself liberal. There is no need to.


iirc the numeral system was Hindu in origin

likewise much of the “Arabic algebra” was build off of translated Greek works.

Almost all of the Islamic achievements seem to come from the fact that they were able to build a giant stable empire that allowed scholars to translate works from both the Indian subcontinent and from the Latin world. I can’t find a lot that was independently generated. imo most impressive was probably some of their medical work.

Other than that it just seems to be the revival of Hellenic knowledge combined with Hindu/Chinese technologies, which isn’t really all that impressive for a 400 year “Golden Age” period considering how much knowledge Greece was able to produce with a population size that was magnitudes smaller.


Christianity has massive intellectual roots. The Eastern Empire was the height of technological advancement and prosperity till the Catholics sacked their Capitol.(they went on a crusade to help them but plenty of the kings and lords were anything but pious).

Soon after The Muslims invaded from Turkey and won because they had built a few massive cannons. Then they likely had seized great stores of knowledge and passed it off as their own.

If you want to quote something legitimate they did help in the medical field.

I am well versed in the old Testiment(Torah) which even the Jews don’t enforce in their nation state. Christians however are not Jews and haven’t followed Mosiac Law for 2000 years. Those who do have no logical theological leg to stand on since their Christ fulfilled and evolved the law of Moses.


tfw when people are still confused as to my views. [quote=“StrangeSignal, post:10, topic:106617”]
That some of them do it doesn’t mean that we should do it.
Most do. And even when it isn’t the government it’s a mob of angry muslims killing people (which happened in Indonesia, which some liberals seem to want to portray as a wonderfully moderate country, after all only 30% of indonesians want infidels killed, still a minority).


Exactly just compare the founders. Their model citizens.

The founder of Christianity had no wifes. Muhammad married a six year old, starting a trend of child marriage lasting up to today.

Jesus stopped stoning of women personally. Muhammad commanded them. And they still go on to today.

The difference is due to religion most christians outgrew cultural shortcomings. As early as before 600 Natural Law, modern ethics and ideals of equality were being propagated from the works of Boethius.(Or St Boethius). My favorite early writer and poet whos works affected me greatly.

From him also came Modern Humanism. Aspects of Liberalism.


They probably still would have been without Ataturk.


Abdülmecid II was the last Calph. In fact if it wasn’t for the west. The line likely would have stayed in power till this very day. The only current Calph on earth heads the Islamic State or ISIS, continuing Jihad. A pope on the other hand has not called a Crusade since for around 700 years, all of which were to stem Muslim Jihad.(Not that the pope wasnt corrupt or the troops wernt corrupt. But even all those combined were on a very small scale compared to the Jihad that attacked thousands of cities and every country from India to southern France.)