Islam and Environmentalism: United in Anti-Humanism

Islam and Environmentalism: United in Anti-Humanism

Posted By Theodore Shoebat In Daily Mailer,FrontPage 

With Al Gore’s Current TV now sold to Al Jazeera, Woodstock and Mecca now unite, and Allah and Mother Earth are joined together in marriage. The purchase brings us to a much deeper topic, and that is that the ideology of Islam coincides with much of what the environmentalists uphold. Al Gore claims to be a Christian, but in fact he would rather praise Islam than subscribe to any Christian ideals. Gore actually once wrote:

Islam, for example, offers familiar themes. The prophet Muhammad said, “The world is green and beautiful and God has appointed you His stewards over it.” The central concepts of Islam taught by the Qur’ân – Tawheed (unity), khalifa (trusteeship), akharah (accountability) – also serve as the pil- lars of the Islamic environmental ethic. The earth is the sacred cre- ation of Allah…The Qur’ân declares that “we have created everything from water.” In the Lotus ‘Sutra,’ Buddha is presented metaphorically as a “rain cloud,” covering, permeating, fertilizing, and enriching “all parched living beings, to free them from their misery to attain the joy of peace, joy of the present world and joy of Nirvana…”

Islam really is rooted in naturism. Allah is a product of the Venus goddess Athtar, and is the male counterpart to the earth goddess Allat. The Blackstone itself, the holiest idol in Islam, was originally a fertility symbol, which is still placed in a frame shaped in the form of a vulva.

The result of wholly accepting environmentalism is the exalting of animals and the belittling of man. Hence why the Quran says that humans are of lesser value than is creation: “The heavens and the earth is greater than the creation of man; but most people know not” (Q 40:57). Even the animal kingdom is on par with humans: “No creature is there on earth nor a bird flying with its wings but they are nations like you” (Q 6:38). Abdul Haseeb Ansari, in Islamic Law,explaining the significance of this verse, warns against arrogance and says that the believers (Muslims) are “no better than other creatures” (p. 34). This reminds me of when Ingrid Newkirk, the president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), declared: “When it comes to feelings, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. There is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights.”

The result of disrespecting human life is collectivism, since the individual is trampled upon and made no better than a herd servile to the state. Human life does not belong to God, but to the government. This is exactly what Thomas Malthus, the father of modern human population paranoia, wanted when he wrote:

All children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room is made for them by the deaths of grown persons. We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality.

To deem human life as no better than an animal leads to actions such as those committed by these Syrian jihadists, who opened fire on innocent people driving in their car:

Or to purely evil practices, such as burning human beings alive simply for being Christians:

Christianity is the greatest foe to the demeaning of human life, and to the anti-human movement found in both environmentalism and Islam.

It is no marvel, then, that Paul Ehrlich, a proponent of human population control, wrote that in order to dramatically decrease the population in America, the country needs to replace its Judeo-Christian roots with Animism – a religion which only exists predominantly in third world nations:

Somehow we’ve got to change from a growth-oriented, exploitative system to one focused on stability and conservation. Our entire system of orienting to nature must undergo a revolution. And that revolution is going to be extremely difficult to pull off, since the attitudes of Western culture toward nature are deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian tradition. Unlike people in many other cultures, we see man’s basic role as that of dominating nature, rather than as living in harmony with it. Professor Lynn White, Jr., has elegantly discussed this entire problem in Science magazine. He points out, for instance, that before the Christian era trees, springs, hills, streams, and other objects of nature had guardian spirits. These spirits had to be approached and placated before one could safely invade their territory. As White says, “By destroying pagan animism, Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects… Both our present science and our present technology are so tinctured with orthodox Christian arrogance toward nature that no solution for our ecological crisis can be expected from them alone. Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious, whether we call it that or not.’

Islam too wants to replace Christianity with its cult of Mecca and the Blackstone. Any country which has been taken by Islam loses its respect for human life. Where Christianity is, life is honored; where Islam or Leftism prevails, humanity is lost.


4 thoughts on “Islam and Environmentalism: United in Anti-Humanism”

  1. (2nd video)

    Q. 5:33 The punishment in this world for unbelievers (who make “mischief” i.e. 7:103 “reject Allah’s signs” (i.e. Qur’an, e.g. refuse pay jizyah 9:29) is: “crucifixion … cutting off hands and feet”

    … in the Hereafer the evil punishment continues for ALL time:

    Q. 4:56 “Those who reject our Signs (i.e. Quran), We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.”

  2. Seriously: am I a nature-worshipper because I think that a crude ethos of ‘if it moves, shoot it, if it doesn’t, chop it down’ is, shall we say, not quite what the bible meant when it spoke of humanity having ‘dominion’.

    Is a national park ungodly? Is it immoral – pagan – for a Christian to refrain from using persistent poisons in his or her garden? To use lead-free petrol? To have a rainwater tank? Is it less Christian to plant a tree, than to chop down a forest? Is it somehow more godly to render a perfectly harmless animal species extinct, than to preserve it? I care about Northern Hairy-Nosed Wombats, mountain pygmy possums, and eastern barred bandicoots, and I pray for God to bless the efforts of those who are trying to help them to go on existing; and I am awed by the discovery of the Wollemi Pine: does that make me a pagan? Or just a Christian who delights in the extraordinary handiwork of God?

    I grow very annoyed with people who try to claim that anybody who wants to save the trees or the whales must also ipso facto be pro-euthanasia, pro-abortion, etc.

    What’s wrong with loving whales, old-growth forests AND babies?

    Why can’t I work for a world in which, every winter season, my grandchildren can go down to the eastern headlands, stand under tall trees, and see the whales swimming past on their seasonal migration? What’s wrong with that? Is that pagan? Is it immoral? Would it be a more Christian world, a more moral world, if we slaughtered every last whale, chopped down every last tree, and sat on concrete under a plastic umbrella looking at a sea with no whales in it?

    Is it ONLY Christian to kill whales – when, frankly, we can get by without doing so, nobody is starving to death because of the ban on whaling – and somehow pagan or immoral, to choose not to do so, because they are beautiful?

    A Christian must define the meaning of ‘dominion’ first and foremost by the way in which Jesus defined – and lived – his authority, his kingship. What if we are in fact meant to be SERVANT kings; what if the delegated authority granted to us by God is meant to be expressed precisely as Jesus’ authority was expressed – in preserving and restoring life, not …destroying it? He said that the worldly definition of being a ruler was to trample upon and exploit others, but that ‘this shall not be so among you’.

    A purely utilitarian approach and attitude – a view that if something isn’t immediately and obviously useful to a human, useful in a crude economic sense, it can and perhaps should be obliterated without a qualm, even if it is not dangerous to anybody – is not Biblical.

    The bible doesn’t say God created great whales simply and solely in order that they might be turned into corsets, steaks and whale oil.

    It says God created them ‘to play in the sea’. That is: they glorify Him by their existence. By being. That is sufficient. They have value to Him independently of us, and alongside us.

    I have always understood that the biblical view is that the creatures belong to God…not us. We and they belong to God and glorify him by our existence. Our authority over them or among them is not unlimited; it is subordinate to His authority, and it is not meant to be destructive, or abusive nor exploitative. They are our fellow-servants.

    A scientist patiently studying some obscure and unregarded little animal for the whole of his or her life, is exercising authority in a Biblical manner.

    Remember Genesis 9: 9-17. YHWH’s covenant is not just with humanity: YHWH is committed to *all flesh*…and that ‘all flesh’ includes all living things, it is ‘a covenant between Me and the earth’. Remember Jesus speaking to the storm. Remember Romans 8: 19-21 and the visions of the – nonhuman – ‘living creatures’ in Ezekiel and Revelations. Their function, like ours, is ultimately to praise and glorify God, by being.

Comments are closed.