Islam as a movement has no separation of Church and State. No actual church or state separation; so they end up being the same thing.
This logically means that Islam is not a religion, but a classical nation state. It is a body of people with a common culture, and a priestly hierarchy which arms and defends them.
The early history of Christ’s true Church is the story of people talking, praying, and trying to avoid the Roman state; while the early history of the Arabs who followed Mohammed is the story of battle, forced conversion, and death, so as to build a nation and provide a protective state panoply.
While Christ’s followers built a religion of stillness, inwardness, and peace, Mohammed’s followers built a nation state. From which it is obvious, that it is an irreducible component, if not the central pillar of islam, that wherever a muslim goes, he takes the ambition to establish a nation state there. For, his code or the ideals of his movement demands that he think of himself as a citizen of a muslim state, headed by Muhammad’s successors, wherever he is. It is not a religion: it is a nation. And as such, it seeks to acquire a state, and to become a nation state, if it is in Bosnia or Birmingham.
The laws of islam, for example, are laws appropriate to a state, not to a religion. Islamic law's purpose is to make the tribe cohere.
Additionally, muslims don’t behave like religious people: they don’t have spiritual prayer. Their prayer is public, encouraging martial coherence. Whereas Christ taught how to be pray in private, how to attain the life of stillness, and to bring the God’s spirit inside us, Mohammad instructed his followers in how to pray in large numbers, and to build government in other people’s countries.
A major problem about making muslims see their self-deceiving position is, that they are forbidden by their nation from ever leaving. The deal offered to a man is this: convert, or die; and, the corollary: if you leave the tribe, you will be killed by those who remain. It is like the law prohibiting treason, or, the law that you must follow the orders of a police constable. Islam is a primitive nation state building movement.
Now, a modern contemporary non-muslim nation state such as Britain is, ought never to have allowed a foreign tribe inside to set up such an operation within the borders of its territory. A modern nation state must not do that: it goes against all the meaning of what a nation state, such as Britain, is. However, it has been allowed to happen, due to a misunderstanding.
Additionally, Christianity has never been able to deal with islam except on a war footing. But, because muslims have come to Britain in penny packets, there has been no occasion for war to break out, so it has just continued.
I understand that there is pride among muslims about their culture. But it is unjustified. Muslims were originally Christians, in almost every case. Muhammed, his close family, the territory of central Arabia, and the first wave of converts were either Christ's followers, or very aware of Christ's message and his Church. And the original territories conquered and converted by Mohammad and his followers, were Christian places. Therefore, islam, can at best be claimed as a schism within Christianity, or a heresy. But this is to be generous; it muddies the waters of the discussion. To be clear: islam is a movement, not a branch of the only true religion.
Mohammed built a nation state. He did not found ‘a religion’. He and his followers claimed that he was the Final Prophet. Regarding prophets, such men commune with God, transmit his words. The chief Old Testament prophets were political advisors with a single message to the Kings of Israel and Judah: look inwards and hear God, before making any political or cultural decisions. That was the burden of their message to the world. Mohammed, similarly, assumed that the people were part of a tribe, a nation, and spoke to them.
The later prophets, second Isaiah, Ezekiel, and the post-exilic prophets exceeded their nation, at a time when there was no longer a king who could be advised. So those prophets began to foresee the Messiah. The Messiah would be a ruler of the Spirit, of a Kingdom of the spiritual world. These prophets are nothing like Muhammed.
When the muslims refer to the founder of their movement as a prophet, they lie in several ways. And this is insidious and misleading.
Christ was both God himself, and man. This mystery is a terrific idea. But it has the simple origin, as follows: every man alive is free, and as it were, a king of his own inner world, his heart and spirit. So, it is natural that God must have made such a sovereign man in his own image. And the image of God is this: Christ, the man.
Christianity does not invite you to conquer the world: it invites you to go within, to search your heart and to become godlike. It tells you to own up to your individual failure and sin. And in major contrast with islam, it lets the State look after its own business.
See, how Christ was born under Roman imperial rule. He did not hate the secular authorities, or condemn the army. He showed that they are a different thing from a man’s relationship with God. Christ gave us a higher kingdom.
And now look at islam. Wherever it goes, the urge to take control of the state, to set up a country, and to turn violent on non-believers, is built in to it, at its heart.
I should not care: except that this tribe has now populated and begun to arrogate parts of England. This is natural, as I have explained.
There is a remedy, and it ought to have been employed from the start: on account of the danger to the British state, and to the lives of our free people, which muslim tribalism poses to the British nation, mosques should be closed down in England. Islam must be prohibited among all public officials. A basic assent to the Church in our country must be made by anyone with any importance in the land. The Koran should be submitted to literary and historical criticism in public and shown to be what it is. Islam is not a religion, and is not due the same protection as the branches of Christianity are shown.
Laws on freedom of religion were considered, drafted, and published in previous centuries. So religious toleration is part of our culture. But that was before islam arrived. In those days, there was only one ‘religion’ which might cause any discussion or aggression. But other religions have arrived since then, as it were by stealth, so these ancient rules are not adequate anymore.
Because of the nature of islam and Muhammad’s book, muslims have a duty to make England a muslim nation. It is unavoidable, due to the nature of islam in itself. They have this desire in their hearts, holding it in secret, and more than a few of their leaders preach it openly in Britain.
Some non-muslim nation states rule over Islamic regions. Russia boasts that it is multi-religious. But you notice that the muslims of Russia have their own regions, in which they live separate lives and enforce the islamic movement's code of practice. Britain, which is much smaller than Russia, cannot afford to parcel off a portion of the country, and set it aside for muslims.
Declared agnostics, who have made no commitment to the Church, yet comment on the various religions, such as Jordan Peterson, have said that muslims are close to Christians. They say, that muslims and Christians have a common cause, by being God’s followers in an era of secularism. This is not true. Islam a nation, not a religion. Whereas Christ shows God’s character, and shows how to be his son, in the kingdom of heaven: islam by contrast does nothing of the kind, and does not recognise God at all.
God's Son is Christ. God is a Trinity, in which a human being takes part. He comes in the Spirit. The muslims deny this. Therefore, they do not know God at all. Whereas a follower of Christ finds God in the heart, muslims find Allah in forming the muslim nation state, and traditionally, if they refuse to join in this project, they are put to death.
Christ in the gospels, and as understood by Paul, was an infinitely inner focused man. He was uninterested in politics, neither against nor for it. He was like us in our depth, in our peace. On the other hand, muslims are pollical to the core, active, tribal.
Muslims would like nothing more, and they deserve, to be allowed to become Christians. And if Britain were itself a properly Christian country, as it used to be, all muslim foreigners would be offered the opportunity to renounce Islam, as soon as they set foot in our country. While benefiting from Britain's civil life, they would also benefit from its spiritual life. For, the Church and the State are separate here, and the one produces the other. That is to say, it can be taken as proven, that the good things of British civil life are due to the spiritual life of Britain.
The supposed benefits of the tolerant West, which hundreds of thousands come to take advantage of these days, are the results of Christian social engineering. They are the results of Christian life. All people want nothing more than to renounce their tribes and cults, and to join the Christian Church.
From time to time, it happens that apologists for islam point in the direction of the post-Mohammedan flourishing in north Africa, and its rejuvenation of Hellenic and Roman culture; at that time, the West was in a barbarous condition, they say. They claim this was a genuine flourishing of Islamic culture. But that culture was precisely a Hellenic and Roman culture, which had been conquered and borrowed for a while. There was no purely muslim higher society.
Modern Islamic rulers are often atheistic, in order to control the disorderly impulses of the muslim people. Iraq, Turkey, Pakhistan, are examples of states which have been forced to push back against the irrepressible desire for muslim people to make a religious totalitarian state. For, the aspiration toward world domination in the heart of any true believer in Islam is an unbearable impulse, hard wired, never ending. It is the core impulse of the movement, of the tribe. We see this in the recent mass public male prostrating and praying in public in Britain and elsewhere, by muslims.
The first aim of any ruler in the contemporary muslim parts of the world is to hold back the desire of the muslims when they periodically demand a religious leader and a religious nation state. Pragmatic governments in the muslim world have to resetrain and curtail this principle, because it leads to war, disaster and madness. Not so much here, where the British are simply bewildered by this impulse.
As for the Western lands today, I have nothing good to say. They have made their government, their nation state apparatus itself, into God; the government owns 50% of all spending, for example. This indicates the power of the nation state government. Whereas I have said, that the West separates the Church and State, today there is no Church, or any faith in God. So the State has in some mysterious way become the great giver, the source of all good, the tyrant, the mouthpiece of all instruction. This is equally disasterous.
Not recognising God’s claims, the people of Britain largely think of the ‘government’ and its tools and money as a kind of agent for realising dreams, as a fetishistic God.
And, thinking that muslims were just religious people, not understanding what they were dealing with, the state and the people absent mindedly let a tribal primitive nation state enter into Britain, and do what it always does, everywhere it goes. Namely, create and populate a separate nation inside the borders of the host.
Leaving Christ’s church behind, the West also left behind its intellectual muscle and realism, and it has therefore neglected its culture and its self-defence.
Today, when the West thinks of Christ, they imagine him as ineffectual, as a man willing to surrender to everything, and so they imagine that, to be Christian, they should offer no resistance. Atheists have a habit of being priests of a new religion. They try to out-Christian Christ in doing selfless good acts, while boasting that they don't even need to believe in God in order to be perfect; thus they excel in giving away money and our national property to foreigners, opening the house to all comers.
But I have said, that Jesus lived in a very orderly, militarily policed land, where nobody was a fool, and where law and order prevailed along reasonable lines. This is essential. Foreign enemies were made to submit. The defined space of Rome was one thing, and the barbarians beyond were another. And Christ showed, that while you should be defenceless in your Spirit, in affairs of state, you must close the borders against your enemies. It astonishes me that people think that Christ would welcome muslims into his country: when it is clear, that they are unable to become his followers. What? Did Christ say you should associate with people who denied him, and wanted to destroy his Church?
Today, even the theologians and Church leaders of the Church of England – controlled by the secular government in the harmless old Erastian way – have stopped understanding that Christ taught ‘the life of stillness’ to the Church, but he did not teach this to the government and armed forces.
A Christian state should be highly armed and suspicious of foreigners. There must be no foreign nations and tribes being surreptiously built here and there. At times of prayer and in Church, the state must retreat and become gentle.
But the State, usurping God, has become as defenceless as a monk; and misunderstanding what islam is, a foreign tribe or nation has been built right in the middle of where we live.
Jason Powell