is Islam an ideology or a religion?


One of the marked and remarked, but certainly unremarkable, human traits is ensuring where your bread is buttered. In modern politics, nowhere is this truth more evident than in “Islamophobia” wherein so much dread is muttered.

Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician, and very brave, is, in most of what he says on the issue, right on the money; for example, his address to the Danish Parliament. He makes the important distinction between Muslims and Islam, which “muticulturalists” do not make. “Multiculturalists” distinguish between “radical” Islam and “true” Islam, where the latter is a religion of peace; it’s just those radical nasties. In other words, they say there’s nothing to phobe but Islamophobia itself. (See James White: What more does every Christian need to know about Islam and the Qur’an).

If we return to the root of the word “radical” we find it means “root.” So, etymologically speaking, “radical” Islam is the root of Islam. There is no escaping the truth that Islam is rooted in violence. Muslims and Islamophiles say that the violence in the Qur’an is only against those who fight Muslims. Balderdash. If you prove your case by quoting the Qur’an, that is considered Islamophobia.

Geert Wilders calls Islam an ideology, not a religion. By “ideology,” I think he means a man-made system with political goals; and by “religion” he means beliefs and practice based on divine revelation. The point,  though, is that Muslims assert that their beliefs and practice are indeed based on divine revelation, Therefore for them,  Islam is indeed a religion.

Sam Shamoun, a critic of Islam, explains why Islam is not merely a political system – an “ideology.”

“I hope my intention is not to be unnecessarily offensive to Muslims but at the same time I don’t want to sugar coat what Islam actually teaches, because here is a man who claims to be a prophet of the same God as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who comes to complete and perfect a religion practised and proclaimed by all the Biblical prophets including our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. A man who says that Jesus, the Son of God, did not come in the flesh. A man who says that Jesus did not die on the cross and rose again victorious as proof that he died in our place in order to do for us that which we could not do for ourselves. A man who says that if you say that Jesus is the divine Son of God you are an enemy to Allah, and he (Mohammed) will fight you. So that when we deal with Muhammad, we’re dealing with eternal matters, not simply a political game. We’re not talking about politics: “Well if Muhammad is wrong then the only consequences you suffer are temporal, earthly.” We are talking about a man who is commanding people to stake their eternal destinies on his claims.” (Why did Muhammad wear women’s clothing? Minute 20 ff).

Among so-called “radical” Muslim groups, there probably are members who don’t follow the Qur’an, who join these groups solely to gratify their lust for rape, pillage and blood – the extreme expression of the radical corruption of human nature. But many of these “radical” members are devout followers of the one they call Allah and the one they call his prophet. Here’s the rub: the so-called divinely inspired Islamic literature gives believers the right and privilege to rape, maim, kill and destroy those who do not believe in Allah and his prophet. It is Islamophiles who are the true Islamophobes. Being pussylanimous scaredy cats, they call anyone who quotes the violent truths in the Qur’an Islamophobes. They want a peaceful life, no upsetting of apple carts. To criticise Islam is to invite disruption, and the violent defence – taught in the Qur’an and Hadiths – of the honour of Allah and his messenger. “Better dread than dead.”