Pat Robertson: Islam not a religion. A political system bent on world domination

[Ladewig]

"If we don't stop covering up what Islam is ... Islam is a violent -- I was going to say religion, but it's not a religion, it's a political system, it's a violent political system bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world and world domination," Robertson said. "You're dealing with not a religion, you're dealing with a political system, and I think we should treat it as such, and treat its adherents as such as we would members of the communist party, members of some fascist group."

These comments were in response to the Fort Hood shootings, but Robertson has made this same statement, almost verbatim, back in 2008.

I am curious as to precisely what he means. After all, here in the 21st century we allow members of the communist party to vote, to hold jobs, to publicize their views. What exactly does he think we should do to these Muslims in America?

 

[Darth Rotor]

These comments were in response to the Fort Hood shootings, but Robertson has made this same statement, almost verbatim, back in 2008.

I am curious as to precisely what he means. After all, here in the 21st century we allow members of the communist party to vote, to hold jobs, to publicize their views. What exactly does he think we should do to these Muslims in America?

What do you expect from Pat Robertson? He's been whack since "God almost called him home" in 1988.

It is a testament to God's sense of humor that Pat is still among the quick ...

DR

 

[Epok]

Islam is a violent -- I was going to say religion, but it's not a religion, it's a political system, it's a violent political system bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world and world domination

I do believe that is the funniest quote I have ever heard. There really isn't much you can comment on about that that hasn't been said before but thanks for posting that. I needed a good laugh after a hard day of work. Mwahahaha!!!

 

[Sun Countess]

Actually, it was Oral Roberts that was almost called home in 1987.

And it sounds like he wants to "blacklist" Muslims somehow, but I think he's a few decades late for that. It's my personal opinion that Pat Robertson doesn't believe a single word he says, but just gets off on riling up his followers. He never utters anything with a straight face.

 

[Skeptic]

These comments were in response to the Fort Hood shootings, but Robertson has made this same statement, almost verbatim, back in 2008.

He means, it seems, that Islam -- like Judaism, but unlike (modern) Christianity -- an all-encompassing religion, which controls the government, eating habits, and the public life as well as private belief. There is no separation of Church (Mosque?) and state.

Sharia law, like the Talmud, rarely deals with questions of the nature of Allah or the exact place of heaven or hell; it deals with who gets how much money in a divorce or who is liable for a fire caused by a blacksmith's sparks under certain conditions.

In this respect, Islam is, indeed, also a "political movement" -- since it says what kind of government Muslims should have, what its relationship with other governments should be, etc.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yep. Robertson is, in a limited sense, correct there.

And I agree that we should treat muslims as we treat members of the communist party: They should have the same rights and protections under law as any other citizen.

Though I kind of doubt that's what he meant.

 

[Howie Felterbush]

He means, it seems, that Islam -- like Judaism, but unlike (modern) Christianity -- an all-encompassing religion, which controls the government, eating habits, and the public life as well as private belief. There is no separation of Church (Mosque?) and state.

Sharia law, like the Talmud, rarely deals with questions of the nature of Allah or the exact place of heaven or hell; it deals with who gets how much money in a divorce or who is liable for a fire caused by a blacksmith's sparks under certain conditions.

In this respect, Islam is, indeed, also a "political movement" -- since it says what kind of government Muslims should have, what its relationship with other governments should be, etc.

You're right, Skeptic. It would seem that this is what he's saying, until you take into account the fact that Pat Robertson has a Whack-A-Mole game located where most people have a brain.

 

[the_eye]

He means, it seems, that Islam -- like Judaism, but unlike (modern) Christianity -- an all-encompassing religion, which controls the government, eating habits, and the public life as well as private belief. There is no separation of Church (Mosque?) and state.
.

Christianity is just as encompassing , it's just that Western Christians don't really follow tenets of their religion they find inconvenient. I know many East Orthodox and African Christians, who follow the tenets just as ardently.

Sharia law, like the Talmud, rarely deals with questions of the nature of Allah or the exact place of heaven or hell; it deals with who gets how much money in a divorce or who is liable for a fire caused by a blacksmith's sparks under certain conditions.

Shariah is a legal system, it doesn't need too. Just like the American doesn't justice system need too.

In this respect, Islam is, indeed, also a "political movement" -- since it says what kind of government Muslims should have, what its relationship with other governments should be, etc.

Because that's why Saudi Arabia is a kingdom, Iran was a Theocratic republic, Turkey is an extremely secular republic and Afghanistan was Tribal republic. Oh that's right, it doesn't.




It's the same slur that's been throw at the Jews to justify antisemitism for centuries.

 

[Hux]

Same old whack job. He's just saying everyone else's religion is wrong except mine. He's so crazy even other Christians notice.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

He means, it seems, that Islam -- like Judaism, but unlike (modern) Christianity -- an all-encompassing religion, which controls the government, eating habits, and the public life as well as private belief. There is no separation of Church (Mosque?) and state.

Sharia law, like the Talmud, rarely deals with questions of the nature of Allah or the exact place of heaven or hell; it deals with who gets how much money in a divorce or who is liable for a fire caused by a blacksmith's sparks under certain conditions.

In this respect, Islam is, indeed, also a "political movement" -- since it says what kind of government Muslims should have, what its relationship with other governments should be, etc.

So what about all the Western Muslims who live quite happily in secular democracies and not under Sharia Law at all? Are they not REALLY practising their religion?

Selectively choosing theocracies and then pointing out there is no separation between church and state is hardly an argument.

And don't many of the Christians making these claims against Islam actually want the Christian view to be given a voice in their own government? They are quite happy for church and state to be mixed as long as it is THEIR church.

As for the OP, if someone claims Islam isn't a religion we can pretty much stop listening there and then.

 

[imjohn]

Pat Robertson is a whacko.

He has the wealth to maintain his own TV network (most of that wealth inherited) -- the only reason anybody even knows who he is.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Actually, it was Oral Roberts that was almost called home in 1987.

Oh, dear, my memory is shot.

*calls the knackers*

It was a good run, y'all be good to one another.

*Sits down and patiently waits*

 

[hgc]

Robertson is only half right here. The trappings of this religion are used in political systems by its clergy and politically prominent people within their communities, disturbingly.

But of course the exact same thing can be said of Robertson's own "religion," of which he himself is a highly placed political practitioner. Pot, meet kettle.

 

[cwalner]

He means, it seems, that Islam -- like Judaism, but unlike (modern) Christianity -- an all-encompassing religion, which controls the government, eating habits, and the public life as well as private belief. There is no separation of Church (Mosque?) and state.

Sharia law, like the Talmud, rarely deals with questions of the nature of Allah or the exact place of heaven or hell; it deals with who gets how much money in a divorce or who is liable for a fire caused by a blacksmith's sparks under certain conditions.

In this respect, Islam is, indeed, also a "political movement" -- since it says what kind of government Muslims should have, what its relationship with other governments should be, etc.

Yeah, because no form of christianity has never had a legal system that dealt with secular concerns. That claim can easily be shot down with a BB Gun, but I think I will use something bigger, maybe a canon

 

[Darth Rotor]

Yeah, because no form of christianity has never had a legal system that dealt with secular concerns. That claim can easily be shot down with a BB Gun, but I think I will use something bigger, maybe a canon

The year is 2009. The usual difficulty in dealing with contemporary issues versus historical issues once again arises. If you would, please demonstrate the validity of the equivalency of the counter example you used to what Robertson is foaming at the mouth about. Robertson (and I may be misreading him here) is thundering on about a current issue. (If he's not, your comment would make more sense).

Bernard Lewis now and again makes a worthwhile comment, and the one that I thought made sense at the time was that Islam has yet to go through, or maybe complete, its Rennaisance and Reformation stages. Put another way, its political and cultural influence is closer to the front, than the middle or the back, than its older two cousins among the Abrahamic religions.

The Church police in Saudi exist. They don't in what you might call, grossly, Christendom. Try finding the Church Police anywhere in Europe. The home of Christendom. The rules in Malaysia, for an odd example, on what Muslims may not do, versus what non Muslims may not do, or do, regarding drinking (brought to our attention a few months ago on the JREF forums) are there. Compare, though it's not a matter of canon law, it derives from religious norms, the not quite analogous "dry county laws" in some counties in my country: they apply to everyone, not to someone based on their religion, and not on others.

To cut off my musing here, the Canon Law is still applicable, more or less, within the Catholic Church, which people may freely leave with no civil sanction. People elect to adhere to it, or not. That does not, at present, describe what Roberston was attempting (badly) to address. (And if I misread him, well, my bad).

I was going to say religion, but it's not a religion, it's a political system,

It is my opinion that Roberston tries to paint Islam as monolithic, which is hardly the case.

DR

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Religion? Political system bent on world domination?

Not mutually exclusive.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Religion? Political system bent on world domination?

Not mutually exclusive.

If I may adapt a bit of cwalner's reference to the Pope and his friends, it is reasonable to presume that the RCC is interested in getting each and every person on the planet into the Church. That is the vision of the RCC. They are not shy about that. The RCC asks its members to go out, spread the word, and get people baptized in the RCC in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It promotes breeding policies aimed at increasing the number of Catholics living on the planet. The "no contraception" policy has that as either a primary, or a secondary, aim.

Now, how the RCC go about doing that ... well, that's another story. Their methods, since the three hundred year smackdown (since the Thirty Years War) that was laid upon it in Europe, have had to change/adapt.

I am sure that Roberston, a Protestant Evangelical American preacher, has more than a few things to say about Popery and the RCC's deviousness.

To me it appears that the Ummah, (I think I used that correctly) are still in the Thirty Years War stage, or so.

DR

 

[cwalner]

DR:

As Fraggles already pointed out, the fact that some Islamic nations are theocrocies does not = Islam is a political system. Canon Law still exists and if given half the chance, Christian churches that have them would implement them in secular concerns in a heartbeat.

The fact that the countries where Christianity is dominent don't allow it, where some countries in the Islamic world do, is not based on the fundamentals of either religion.

Therefore, it is a fallacy to blame Islam because the regions in which it is dominant also tend to have more theocrocies. What we are seeing is correlation, with no evidence of causation.

 

[Darth Rotor]

As Fraggles already pointed out, the fact that some Islamic nations are theocrocies does not = Islam is a political system.

Well, I didn't say it was, though Robertson attempts to. Please don't make the mistake of pretending that I am Robertson, nor that I hold his position. I don't. What I raised was the weakness of your counterargument. More importatntly, however, is that most political systems are reflections of the people who practice it, and in most Islamic countries, the weave between the political and the religious is far tighter than the weave in the West. The tightness varies in the west as well, as do the colors of the cloth. (Please visit Mexico for a marvelous example). A better example is the Philippines, IMO, since both religions are at play there.

Canon Law still exists and if given half the chance, Christian churches that have them would implement them in secular concerns in a heartbeat.

Speculation. Possibly true. Unknown to either of us.

Your raising Canon law in juxtaposition to the current practices of some (yes, some) predominantly Muslim nations is a red herring. See the different stages of development, I raised that because it's a decent point that Lewis made.

The fact that the countries where Christianity is dominent don't allow it, where some countries in the Islamic world do, is not based on the fundamentals of either religion.

We agree, but the balance between the influences of that religion's codes, and what all else it is that influences the body politic, is germane, hence my reference to Lewis' observation. The balance is different "there" than "here" for the most part, Turkey being a notable exception.

Therefore, it is a fallacy to blame Islam because the regions in which it is dominant also tend to have more theocrocies. What we are seeing is correlation, with no evidence of causation.

Blame Islam for what, being a powerful influence?

Again, you are invited to talk to Robertson about your problem with his position, as it is oversimplistic at best. My problem was with your attempt at equivalency with the influence of Christian norms, specifically canon Law, in contrast.

Your inability to find the Church police ought to provide a clue.

Likewise, your evoking that fails to fit the balance between the state and the religion, as it is variously parcticed in the contemporary world.

Robertson overstates that relationship as well, in gross terms. (Gross, yes, that's the term for it).

@ Fraggles: evoking Muslims in Western states where the secular and religious sectors are not so tightly bound is related to ... what? Robertson's gross overstatement?

DR

 

[Ausmerican]

He means, it seems, that Islam -- like Judaism, but unlike (modern) Christianity -- an all-encompassing religion, which controls the government, eating habits, and the public life as well as private belief. There is no separation of Church (Mosque?) and state.

Sharia law, like the Talmud, rarely deals with questions of the nature of Allah or the exact place of heaven or hell; it deals with who gets how much money in a divorce or who is liable for a fire caused by a blacksmith's sparks under certain conditions.

In this respect, Islam is, indeed, also a "political movement" -- since it says what kind of government Muslims should have, what its relationship with other governments should be, etc.

That word you italicized? Also? That seems misplaced. Robertson wasn't saying Islam is also a political system. The way he made a point of prefacing Islam being a political system with the part about how it is not a religion pretty much means 'also' would be extraneous in Robertson's statement.

So no, that wasn't what he meant, at all.