Thanks for this Sietze. It is difficult to sit in ambivalent abeyance between the personal activities of the exemplar of Islam, and his followers moving through the sexual mutilation of children still ongoing, and the stunning and transformative art and architecture we have visited in Turkey. Who is Rumi writing about and from? The question is begged: Are Yahweh and Allah the same being?
European civilization is collapsing anyway. This is irreversible. Within a century, native Europeans are a minority. Now already, most Europeans don't believe in European civilization, in Christian values anymore. So we are looking at the sunset of European civilization. That is for me a sad observation.
I agree that Islam is not a worthy replacement. It doesn't have enough spirituality. It is more Jewish than Christian in its essence, with its many irrelevant prescriptions, its materialism, its dogmatism.
That said, I think Islam still offers a better system of values than the nothingness of todays neoliberalism. It will save European humanity from godless transhumanism. And I am certain that in the end it will destroy the nihilistic elite and its ideology that has brought European civilization to the graveyard.
You missed the point of my article, I think. Islam may seem to have better values than liberal societies today, but that is an illusion. There is very little in Islam that teaches one anything approaching spiritual understanding. Most of it is believing things or doing things because Mohammed or Allah said so. And it is, for the most part, the political European Union that is falling apart, not the vanguard of the European peoples. Most of my country is not invaded by muslims or foreigners, so I am not as desperate as you, and certainly not willing to call the fight over when we haven't even drawn our first punch.
Your entire thesis is built upon the fragile, man-made idol of a "European race soul", a modern tribal superstition you offer as an alternative to a world you admit is lost in "sociological chaos".
You correctly diagnose the liberal disease but prescribe a different poison, failing to see that both are symptoms of a world that has abandoned divine guidance.
You attack the Quran's supposed "unclarity", parroting century-old Orientalist fallacies while remaining blissfully ignorant of its primary, unbroken oral transmission that makes your textual critique irrelevant. You then desperately list slanders against the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, repackaging the very arguments your colonial forefathers used to justify their "civilizing mission".
You lament that Islam provides rules for "how to use the toilet" as if it is a tyranny, whereas it is a mercy that brings the sacred into every corner of a believer's life, leaving no room for the chaos you claim to despise.
You correctly observe that rulers in Riyadh indulge in "capitalistic hedonistic expressions", but in your intellectual blindness, you fail to see that they are products of your secular, materialist world order, not the Islamic one.
Your decaying system created the spiritual void in Europe and the corrupt agent-rulers in Muslim lands; they are two sides of the same coin of falsehood.
You call being a "slave to Allah" a prison, but it is the only liberation from the true slavery: to your own base desires, to a dying culture with no purpose, and to the whims of men.
Your pathetic call for Islam to be "removed from Europe" is not a position of strength, but a confession of profound weakness. It is an admission that your "race soul" is so brittle and spiritually empty that it cannot withstand the mere presence of a coherent and divinely revealed idea. Your essay is not a defense of a civilization; it is a terrified cry from a spiritual vacuum, afraid of the only real cure.
Your critique of my article, "Islam as Vanguard Against Liberalism," misrepresents its arguments and hinges on an unproven premise that collapses under scrutiny. The critique labels the “European race soul” a “fragile, man-made idol” and a “modern tribal superstition” offered as an alternative to a world I describe as lost in “sociological chaos.” Yet, this accusation falters because it is founded on belief in a divine godfigure—Allah—for which there is no empirical proof whatsoever. Your attack thus rebounds on itself, as the European race soul is not a baseless construct but a proven cultural and historical reality, evidenced by Europe’s unparalleled contributions to art, philosophy, and human freedom, from the Sistine Chapel to the Enlightenment.
Your critique accuses me of diagnosing liberalism’s flaws but prescribing “a different poison.” Far from proposing a new ideology, my article defends a tangible cultural heritage that has fostered creativity and inquiry for centuries. The European race soul is not a superstition but a lived tradition, seen in the architectural grandeur of Notre-Dame, the literary depth of Shakespeare, and the philosophical rigor of Kant. In contrast, your critique’s reliance on an unproven divine figure offers no verifiable foundation, undermining its claim to superior moral or spiritual authority.
You dismiss my point about the Quran’s “unclarity” as an “Orientalist fallacy,” asserting that its oral transmission negates textual ambiguity. This sidesteps the historical reality of the Quran’s consonantal compilation under Caliph Uthman, which introduced interpretive challenges, as documented in Islamic scholarship (e.g., Al-Suyuti’s Itqan fi Ulum al-Quran). Ongoing debates over qira’at (variant readings) confirm these complexities, not colonial propaganda. On top of that, a Muslim accusing someone of colonialism is patently absurd, as the history of Islam is one of continuous colonisation of non Muslim lands. The critique’s refusal to engage with the presented evidence reveals its intellectual weakness.
Similarly, the charge that I “list slanders” against the Prophet Muhammad ignores the article’s grounding in Islamic sources, such as Sahih Muslim (e.g., Book 19, Hadith 4366, on the Banu Qurayza massacre). These are not colonial inventions but part of Islam’s textual tradition, open to critical examination. By dismissing these as repackaged colonial arguments, the critique avoids addressing the moral questions raised about Mohammed’s actions as a model for behavior.
The critique defends Islam’s prescriptive rules (e.g., toilet etiquette) as a “mercy” that sacralizes daily life. Yet, this misses the article’s point: such rigidity stifles the European spirit’s need for creative freedom, which thrives on questioning and innovation. What you sees as liberation, the article views as confinement, incompatible with a culture that produced Beethoven and Michelangelo.
The claim that rulers in Riyadh reflect a “secular, materialist world order” rather than Islam is disingenuous. These nations govern under Islamic law (e.g., Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi framework), and their wealth-driven excesses highlight Islam’s practical tensions with modernity, as my article notes. The critique’s attempt to blame these on a secular order ignores their religious underpinnings.
Your assertion that submission to Allah is “the only liberation” from base desires assumes European culture lacks its own moral frameworks. This is false, as Europe’s secular and spiritual traditions—Stoicism, secular ethics, Enlightenment rationalism—have long addressed purpose and virtue without requiring unproven divine authority. The critique’s foundation in an unverified godfigure renders its attack on the European race soul hypocritical, as it accuses my argument of fragility while resting on a premise with no empirical grounding.
Finally, the critique’s claim that calling for Islam’s removal from Europe reflects a “brittle and spiritually empty” race soul misreads the argument. This call stems not from weakness but from confidence in a proven cultural identity that has shaped the world’s greatest civilizations. The European race soul is not an abstract idol but a historical force, evidenced by centuries of innovation and beauty. In contrast, the critique’s reliance on an unproven divine figure exposes its own spiritual vulnerability. My article does not fear Islam’s “divinely revealed idea” but questions its coherence and compatibility with Europe’s needs.
Your hyperbolic rhetoric—“pathetic,” “terrified cry”—reveals your own insecurity, failing to counter the article’s reasoned case for cultural preservation.
In conclusion, your critique collapses under the weight of its own unproven assumptions. The European race soul is not a fragile superstition but a robust, historically validated identity that deserves protection. By grounding its attack in an unverified divine godfigure, the critique undermines its own legitimacy, leaving my article’s argument for Europe’s cultural integrity stronger than ever.
Lots of Chatgpt, no clarification on definitions on Arab nation, Islam, Muslims and Islamic Civilization. They all are different. Each paragraph has no link. Yeah i understand other people with different values coming ur place but when Europe colonize their country, they also felt the same. How could the editor publish such trash article. One thing I will thank is that each time I read, makes me laugh more and more. Please read more books on history and philosophy.
You obviously did not read the article. Judging by your proficiency in English, I doubt that there will be an increase in understanding "each time I read". Also, bringing up colonization by a Muslim is beyond hilarious. I suggest you are the one to do some more studying and learn to read, dimwitted oaf.
Lots of Chatgpt, no clarification on definitions on Arab nation, Islam, Muslims and Islamic Civilization. They all are different. Each paragraph has no link. Yeah i understand other people with different values coming ur place but when Europe colonize their country, they also felt the same. How could the editor publish such trash article. One thing I will thank is that each time I read, makes me laugh more and more. Please read more books on history and philosophy.
Judging from history and current practice, Christianity is a superior religion to Islam. But it is a real religion, and it satisfies spiritual needs. Most Europeans are currently pagan, including some Muslim immigrants. However, in the end, paganism will not be enough, so in the absence of a Christian revival, Europe will become Islamic at some point.
As a traditional Sunni Muslim, one reverted from Catholic background 40 years ago, with some training in theology, I must at least comment here with one remark: you come to this conclusion by your own deductions without having any deeper contrasting with a knowledgeable Muslim.
In'sha'Allah I may elaborate more later, if I find the time for it.
Thanks for this Sietze. It is difficult to sit in ambivalent abeyance between the personal activities of the exemplar of Islam, and his followers moving through the sexual mutilation of children still ongoing, and the stunning and transformative art and architecture we have visited in Turkey. Who is Rumi writing about and from? The question is begged: Are Yahweh and Allah the same being?
European civilization is collapsing anyway. This is irreversible. Within a century, native Europeans are a minority. Now already, most Europeans don't believe in European civilization, in Christian values anymore. So we are looking at the sunset of European civilization. That is for me a sad observation.
I agree that Islam is not a worthy replacement. It doesn't have enough spirituality. It is more Jewish than Christian in its essence, with its many irrelevant prescriptions, its materialism, its dogmatism.
That said, I think Islam still offers a better system of values than the nothingness of todays neoliberalism. It will save European humanity from godless transhumanism. And I am certain that in the end it will destroy the nihilistic elite and its ideology that has brought European civilization to the graveyard.
You missed the point of my article, I think. Islam may seem to have better values than liberal societies today, but that is an illusion. There is very little in Islam that teaches one anything approaching spiritual understanding. Most of it is believing things or doing things because Mohammed or Allah said so. And it is, for the most part, the political European Union that is falling apart, not the vanguard of the European peoples. Most of my country is not invaded by muslims or foreigners, so I am not as desperate as you, and certainly not willing to call the fight over when we haven't even drawn our first punch.
I prefer Christianity above Islam but Islam above neoliberalism.
I don't share your apparent point of view that all Muslims are and think the same and all are slaves of dogmatism.
See for example: https://x.com/rnaudbertrand/status/1948358496040137134?s=46
Your entire thesis is built upon the fragile, man-made idol of a "European race soul", a modern tribal superstition you offer as an alternative to a world you admit is lost in "sociological chaos".
You correctly diagnose the liberal disease but prescribe a different poison, failing to see that both are symptoms of a world that has abandoned divine guidance.
You attack the Quran's supposed "unclarity", parroting century-old Orientalist fallacies while remaining blissfully ignorant of its primary, unbroken oral transmission that makes your textual critique irrelevant. You then desperately list slanders against the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, repackaging the very arguments your colonial forefathers used to justify their "civilizing mission".
You lament that Islam provides rules for "how to use the toilet" as if it is a tyranny, whereas it is a mercy that brings the sacred into every corner of a believer's life, leaving no room for the chaos you claim to despise.
You correctly observe that rulers in Riyadh indulge in "capitalistic hedonistic expressions", but in your intellectual blindness, you fail to see that they are products of your secular, materialist world order, not the Islamic one.
Your decaying system created the spiritual void in Europe and the corrupt agent-rulers in Muslim lands; they are two sides of the same coin of falsehood.
You call being a "slave to Allah" a prison, but it is the only liberation from the true slavery: to your own base desires, to a dying culture with no purpose, and to the whims of men.
Your pathetic call for Islam to be "removed from Europe" is not a position of strength, but a confession of profound weakness. It is an admission that your "race soul" is so brittle and spiritually empty that it cannot withstand the mere presence of a coherent and divinely revealed idea. Your essay is not a defense of a civilization; it is a terrified cry from a spiritual vacuum, afraid of the only real cure.
Your critique of my article, "Islam as Vanguard Against Liberalism," misrepresents its arguments and hinges on an unproven premise that collapses under scrutiny. The critique labels the “European race soul” a “fragile, man-made idol” and a “modern tribal superstition” offered as an alternative to a world I describe as lost in “sociological chaos.” Yet, this accusation falters because it is founded on belief in a divine godfigure—Allah—for which there is no empirical proof whatsoever. Your attack thus rebounds on itself, as the European race soul is not a baseless construct but a proven cultural and historical reality, evidenced by Europe’s unparalleled contributions to art, philosophy, and human freedom, from the Sistine Chapel to the Enlightenment.
Your critique accuses me of diagnosing liberalism’s flaws but prescribing “a different poison.” Far from proposing a new ideology, my article defends a tangible cultural heritage that has fostered creativity and inquiry for centuries. The European race soul is not a superstition but a lived tradition, seen in the architectural grandeur of Notre-Dame, the literary depth of Shakespeare, and the philosophical rigor of Kant. In contrast, your critique’s reliance on an unproven divine figure offers no verifiable foundation, undermining its claim to superior moral or spiritual authority.
You dismiss my point about the Quran’s “unclarity” as an “Orientalist fallacy,” asserting that its oral transmission negates textual ambiguity. This sidesteps the historical reality of the Quran’s consonantal compilation under Caliph Uthman, which introduced interpretive challenges, as documented in Islamic scholarship (e.g., Al-Suyuti’s Itqan fi Ulum al-Quran). Ongoing debates over qira’at (variant readings) confirm these complexities, not colonial propaganda. On top of that, a Muslim accusing someone of colonialism is patently absurd, as the history of Islam is one of continuous colonisation of non Muslim lands. The critique’s refusal to engage with the presented evidence reveals its intellectual weakness.
Similarly, the charge that I “list slanders” against the Prophet Muhammad ignores the article’s grounding in Islamic sources, such as Sahih Muslim (e.g., Book 19, Hadith 4366, on the Banu Qurayza massacre). These are not colonial inventions but part of Islam’s textual tradition, open to critical examination. By dismissing these as repackaged colonial arguments, the critique avoids addressing the moral questions raised about Mohammed’s actions as a model for behavior.
The critique defends Islam’s prescriptive rules (e.g., toilet etiquette) as a “mercy” that sacralizes daily life. Yet, this misses the article’s point: such rigidity stifles the European spirit’s need for creative freedom, which thrives on questioning and innovation. What you sees as liberation, the article views as confinement, incompatible with a culture that produced Beethoven and Michelangelo.
The claim that rulers in Riyadh reflect a “secular, materialist world order” rather than Islam is disingenuous. These nations govern under Islamic law (e.g., Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi framework), and their wealth-driven excesses highlight Islam’s practical tensions with modernity, as my article notes. The critique’s attempt to blame these on a secular order ignores their religious underpinnings.
Your assertion that submission to Allah is “the only liberation” from base desires assumes European culture lacks its own moral frameworks. This is false, as Europe’s secular and spiritual traditions—Stoicism, secular ethics, Enlightenment rationalism—have long addressed purpose and virtue without requiring unproven divine authority. The critique’s foundation in an unverified godfigure renders its attack on the European race soul hypocritical, as it accuses my argument of fragility while resting on a premise with no empirical grounding.
Finally, the critique’s claim that calling for Islam’s removal from Europe reflects a “brittle and spiritually empty” race soul misreads the argument. This call stems not from weakness but from confidence in a proven cultural identity that has shaped the world’s greatest civilizations. The European race soul is not an abstract idol but a historical force, evidenced by centuries of innovation and beauty. In contrast, the critique’s reliance on an unproven divine figure exposes its own spiritual vulnerability. My article does not fear Islam’s “divinely revealed idea” but questions its coherence and compatibility with Europe’s needs.
Your hyperbolic rhetoric—“pathetic,” “terrified cry”—reveals your own insecurity, failing to counter the article’s reasoned case for cultural preservation.
In conclusion, your critique collapses under the weight of its own unproven assumptions. The European race soul is not a fragile superstition but a robust, historically validated identity that deserves protection. By grounding its attack in an unverified divine godfigure, the critique undermines its own legitimacy, leaving my article’s argument for Europe’s cultural integrity stronger than ever.
Lots of Chatgpt, no clarification on definitions on Arab nation, Islam, Muslims and Islamic Civilization. They all are different. Each paragraph has no link. Yeah i understand other people with different values coming ur place but when Europe colonize their country, they also felt the same. How could the editor publish such trash article. One thing I will thank is that each time I read, makes me laugh more and more. Please read more books on history and philosophy.
You obviously did not read the article. Judging by your proficiency in English, I doubt that there will be an increase in understanding "each time I read". Also, bringing up colonization by a Muslim is beyond hilarious. I suggest you are the one to do some more studying and learn to read, dimwitted oaf.
Lots of Chatgpt, no clarification on definitions on Arab nation, Islam, Muslims and Islamic Civilization. They all are different. Each paragraph has no link. Yeah i understand other people with different values coming ur place but when Europe colonize their country, they also felt the same. How could the editor publish such trash article. One thing I will thank is that each time I read, makes me laugh more and more. Please read more books on history and philosophy.
garbage article. kill yourself r2tard.
Ever watched DUNE? that is what we aspire for, not retvrn, but future.
thanx, that means a lot from someone with four followers and zero posts of his own.
Some very interesting observations about Islam.
Judging from history and current practice, Christianity is a superior religion to Islam. But it is a real religion, and it satisfies spiritual needs. Most Europeans are currently pagan, including some Muslim immigrants. However, in the end, paganism will not be enough, so in the absence of a Christian revival, Europe will become Islamic at some point.
As a traditional Sunni Muslim, one reverted from Catholic background 40 years ago, with some training in theology, I must at least comment here with one remark: you come to this conclusion by your own deductions without having any deeper contrasting with a knowledgeable Muslim.
In'sha'Allah I may elaborate more later, if I find the time for it.
Best regards!
💯 but is it too late? I fear that the few who are aware become vilified and silenced