Author: Lewis Loflin
This examination explores Islam from a Deist perspective, focusing on its ideological and political dimensions rather than daily news events. My aim is to clarify the distinctions between Islam and Deism, addressing common misconceptions and examining Islam’s core texts and their implications for non-Muslims.
Islam, meaning “submission,” is often described as a “religion of peace,” but this peace, as understood in Islamic theology, is contingent upon non-Muslims (referred to as Kafirs) converting to Islam or accepting Sharia law. Sharia, which governs both religious and societal aspects of life, is central to Islam’s identity. The term “Kafir” in the Quran and Sharia refers to all non-Muslims—Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, pagans, and “People of the Book” (Christians and Jews)—and carries a deeply derogatory connotation, akin to a severe insult in other contexts.
Some argue that Islam operates through two approaches: one group works within societies to influence and challenge systems, while another resorts to violence. However, framing this as “radical” versus “moderate” Islam may oversimplify the broader goal shared by many Muslims to expand Islam’s reach and implement Sharia, as noted by historian Bernard Lewis in Crisis of Islam (p. 134). Lewis suggests that applying Western concepts like “fundamentalism” to Islam can be misleading, as many Muslims, even those who reject modernity, believe a return to “pure” Islam will address cultural and economic challenges.
Deism, contrary to the oversimplified “Watchmaker God” idea popularized during the French Revolution, is not a hands-off belief system. That caricature was a tool to de-Christianize France, not a true reflection of Deism. Some hoped Islam might evolve into a form of Deism, as seen in Turkey’s secular experiment, but Turkey has since shifted toward Muslim Brotherhood-led fundamentalism, illustrating the challenges of such a transformation.
Similarly, the notion that Sufism represents mainstream Islam is a misconception often promoted by Western liberals. Sufism, a mystical branch of Islam, is rejected by groups like Wahhabism and the Muslim Brotherhood as un-Islamic. From a Deist perspective, I agree that Sufism’s practices diverge significantly from core Islamic teachings, aligning more with universal mysticism than traditional Islam.
Deism, as I understand it, is grounded in classical principles:
Notably, Deism avoids politics, holy books, and human intermediaries claiming to represent God. While the three Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—might agree with these principles in theory, their focus on prophets and political agendas often leads to conflict. When these religions face defeat or societal change, their adherents may seek a “purer” form of faith, sometimes resulting in violence or reform. Christianity and Judaism have experienced this historically; Islam faces similar dynamics today.
Islam’s foundational texts—the Quran, the Sira (Muhammad’s biography), and the Hadiths (sayings and deeds attributed to Muhammad, such as those in Bukhari)—form what I call the “Islamic Trinity.” According to Bill Warner’s A Self Study Course on Political Islam, these texts are predominantly ideological rather than religious, with 16% focused on Allah and 84% on Muhammad’s life and actions, which are largely political in nature.
Approximately 60% of these texts address Kafirs, often in hostile terms. For example, the Quran permits mocking Kafirs (83:34), beheading them (47:4), plotting against them (86:15), and terrorizing them (8:12), describing them as evil (23:97), disgraced (37:18), and cursed (33:60). Muslims are forbidden from befriending Kafirs (3:28), including Christians and Jews, unless they accept Muhammad as a prophet and reject core Christian beliefs like the Trinity (9:29). Even then, Muslims are positioned above Kafirs socially and politically, with the jizya tax (a poll tax on Jews and Christians) serving as a form of humiliation (9:29).
Much of what is framed as Islamic “religion” is, in practice, political. Actions like violence over cartoons (e.g., Danish cartoons, Charlie Hebdo), demands to ban criticism of Islam or Muhammad, or insisting a pig farm relocate near a Muslim community center are political, not religious. These actions often infringe on others’ rights, such as property or free speech. Similarly, calls to ban pork in school lunchrooms reflect political demands, not spiritual ones—if someone objects to pork, they can choose not to eat it without imposing restrictions on others.
Under the U.S. Constitution, religion is protected, but political actions are not. Islam, however, does not separate religion and state; Sharia and the Quran are meant to supersede all laws, including the Constitution, for believing Muslims. Warner notes that 84% of Islam’s texts are political, and because Muslims are forbidden from religious interaction with Kafirs, Islam’s relationship with non-Muslims is inherently political, not spiritual. Thus, criticizing Islamic politics is not an attack on its religion.
Historically, actions like the massacre of 800 Jews in Medina for rejecting Muhammad’s prophethood illustrate this political dimension. Muslims may view such acts as justified to enforce Muhammad’s authority, similar to modern incidents like the Charlie Hebdo attack, where violence was deemed “necessary” to defend Islamic prohibitions against mocking Muhammad. Likewise, the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, where a Muslim killed 49 people, was rooted in Islamic teachings that condemn homosexuality, yet some liberal commentators deflected blame onto Christians or political figures like Donald Trump, ignoring the ideological motivations.
Liberal responses often frame criticism of Islamic politics as bigotry, citing historical events like the Crusades (a response to earlier Islamic expansion) or the treatment of Native Americans (who were not exterminated, as evidenced by their 6 million descendants today). This tendency to avoid critiquing Islam while condemning Western actions reflects a broader ideological bias among some liberals, who may view Islam as a partner in opposing Western traditions.
Several factors explain why some secular leftists defend Islam:
Yet, this defense ignores Islam’s lack of secularism and its foundational reliance on Muhammad, whose life and teachings conflict with many liberal values, such as gender equality and freedom of expression. Some leftist academics even argue that reason itself is a “white male construct,” a claim that undermines their own principles.
Of the Abrahamic religions, only Islam has not undergone a reformation, and I believe it may be structurally resistant to one. Deism emerged from the Christian Reformation, influenced by the scientific revolution, liberal Christianity, and Unitarian thought in England, emphasizing reason, freedom of conscience, and the separation of religion from politics. Islam, however, is deeply tied to Muhammad’s political legacy—without him, its identity as an ideology weakens significantly.
From a Deist viewpoint, I have no issue with Islam’s religious core, which aligns with Deism’s belief in a transcendent God and moral principles. However, I strongly oppose its political aspects, which I view as authoritarian and incompatible with modern pluralistic societies. Deists also critique the political imposition of Christianity and Judaism when it infringes on others’ freedoms, but Islam’s current trajectory suggests continued conflict unless its political elements are isolated or reformed—a challenging prospect given Muhammad’s central role.
References: Crisis of Islam by Bernard Lewis; A Self Study Course on Political Islam by Bill Warner.
