Islam. No stronger retrograde force exists….

All the political class and media attacks on Pauline Hanson over her comments on Islam are predictable but avoid directly debating what she said.

So let’s look at what she said.

 

In a Sky News interview, Senator Hanson, speaking in reference to radical Islam, said: “You say there’s good Muslims out there. Well I’m sorry. How can you tell me there are good Muslims?”

 

Now, the context was it was a discussion on radical Islam as, just before those comments, she had said: “I’ve got no time for radical Islam. Their religion concerns me because of what it says in the Koran. They hate Westerners. That’s what it’s all about.”

She later clarified she did indeed mean those Muslims who follow the fundamentalist version of Islam, saying:

 

“If I’ve offended anyone out there that doesn’t believe in Sharia law or multiple marriages or wants to bring the ISIS brides in, or people from Gaza who believes in the caliphate and all the rest of it, then I apologise to you for my comment.”

 

But let’s take Pauline Hanson’s comment at face value. Can someone who believes wholeheartedly in the Islamic faith truly be good?

 

Now I’ve used the term fundamentalist and also the term radical in this post. However, the reality is that Islam, true Islam, is actually both fundamentalist and radical.

 

Islam stands as one of the most regressive and oppressive ideologies masquerading as a religion in the modern world.

 

It is a barmy belief system founded by a possibly insane and paedophilic warlord who is likely to have badly and perhaps deliberately misinterpreted the Scriptural and religious teachings he received as a kid from a heretical Christian monk.

 

Muhammad, the self-proclaimed prophet, claimed divine revelations in a cave, but his life story reeks of opportunism, violence, and moral depravity.

 

From leading caravans as a merchant to amassing power through conquest, his “prophethood” conveniently aligned with personal ambitions, including marriages that today would land anyone in prison for child exploitation.

 

His union with Aisha, consummated when she was just nine years old, isn’t just a historical footnote; it’s a foundational embarrassment that apologists twist into cultural relativism.

 

At the heart of Islam’s toxicity lies Shariah law, a draconian code derived from the Quran and Hadiths that pretends to be divine justice but functions as a blueprint for totalitarian control.

 

Shariah isn’t some benign set of guidelines; it’s a system that mandates stoning for adultery, amputation for theft, and death for apostasy; punishments that echo medieval barbarism rather than enlightened governance.

 

In countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran, where it’s enforced, Shariah turns society into a surveillance state, where religious police patrol streets to enforce dress codes and prayer times, stifling any whisper of individual freedom.

 

It’s incompatible with human rights on every level, yet millions are indoctrinated to view it as infallible, creating generations trapped in fear of eternal damnation for daring to question.

 

The subjugation of women under Islam is perhaps its most glaring indictment, reducing half the population to second-class status under the guise of “protection” and “honor.”

 

The Quran explicitly sanctions wife-beating (Surah 4:34), mandates veiling as a marker of modesty to prevent male temptation, and grants men unilateral divorce rights while women must beg for scraps.

 

Polygamy is not just allowed but celebrated, allowing men up to four wives (and unlimited concubines in historical contexts), perpetuating a system where women are commodities traded for alliances or pleasure.

 

In practice, this manifests in horrors like honor killings, forced marriages, and female genital mutilation in some Muslim-majority regions; acts defended as cultural but rooted in Islamic texts that view women as inherently inferior, needing male guardianship from cradle to grave.

 

Brutality isn’t an aberration in Islam; it’s woven into its fabric, from the prophet’s own campaigns of conquest to the endless jihadist violence that plagues the globe.

 

Muhammad’s life was marked by battles, massacres (like the Banu Qurayza tribe, where hundreds of Jewish men were beheaded), and assassinations of critics, setting a precedent for holy war as a path to paradise.

 

The Quran is riddled with verses calling for violence against non-believers (e.g., Surah 9:5, the “Sword Verse”), which extremists cite verbatim to justify beheadings, bombings, and slavery.

 

This isn’t misinterpretation. It is literal adherence to a text that glorifies martyrdom and domination.

 

Speaking of terrorism, Islam’s track record is a blood-soaked ledger that no amount of “not all Muslims” disclaimers can erase.

 

From 9/11 to the Charlie Hebdo attacks, ISIS’s caliphate horrors to Boko Haram’s kidnappings, Islamic terrorism isn’t a fringe phenomenon; it’s a direct outgrowth of doctrines like jihad and takfir (declaring fellow Muslims apostates worthy of death).

 

Groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS don’t hijack the faith; they embody its most puritanical strains, promising virgins in heaven for slaughtering infidels.

Finally, Islam’s incompatibility with democracy is stark and irreconcilable. Democracy thrives on secularism, equality, and the sovereignty of the people; Islam demands submission to Allah’s law above all, viewing man-made governance as shirk (idolatry).

 

In Muslim-majority nations, attempts at democracy often devolve into theocracy or authoritarianism… look at Turkey’s slide under Erdogan or Pakistan’s blasphemy laws that mob-rule minorities into silence.

 

Free speech? They’ve issued fatwas and rioted over cartoons.

 

LGBTQ rights? Sodomy is punished by death in places like Brunei.

 

Religious liberty? Non-Muslims are tolerated only as dhimmi and face subjugation such as having to pay pay jizya taxes for “protection.”

 

And what we have seen in the West is that Islam doesn’t adapt to democracy; it seeks to supplant it, turning ballots into tools for imposing Shariah and Islamifying the host nation.

 

Islam it’s a dangerous belief system that perpetuates suffering, stifles progress, and clashes with every value of a free society.

 

What about so-called “moderate Muslims”?

 

Yes, moderates who identify as Muslims exist but they are essentially heretics or deviants from their own faith, not real Muslims in the strict, fundamentalist sense.

 

By cherry-picking, ignoring, or reinterpreting the plain and unalterable commands in Islam’s core texts (the Quran and authentic Hadiths), they stray from what orthodox Islam demands.

 

The religion’s foundational scriptures provide endless fuel for radicalisation precisely because they are deemed perfect and eternal, making any meaningful reform an act of betrayal against Allah’s final word rather than a legitimate evolution.

 

True adherence requires submission to the fundamentalist teachings; jihad as warfare, strict Shariah punishments, gender hierarchies, and intolerance of disbelief, without dilution or modernisation.

 

Moderates who embrace secular values, equality, or peaceful coexistence effectively apostatise from the uncompromised path laid out by Muhammad and the early community, rendering their version of Islam a watered-down heresy that fundamentalists rightly scorn as inauthentic and weak.

 

Given all of this, can we say that someone who truly believes in the pure adulterated belief system of Islam is good?

 

In that regard I think Pauline Hanson asked a pretty good question.