Satanism provides a convenient hook to hang every ignorant negative issue upon when it comes to outsiders, and in the case of Abu-Khadeejah Abdul-Wahid a Muslim leader in the Birmingham area of the UK, it was to compare the actions of the Islamic extremist who attacked innocent people in London recently to Satanism, as if to say my religion is associated to:
““unbelievable” cowardice in targeting innocent men, women and children.”
The attack in London that killed four and injured some fifty others was undertaken by a Muslim, a man who was radicalised by internet propaganda and the views of fellow Muslims. This attack had no connection to the religion of Satanism, nor to any Satanist. The responsibility rests fully and totally upon the heads of Muslims who because they have their heads stuck in the sand do little to counter the radicalisation of their young people.
Two of the leading Satanist groups in the UK quickly responded. The London Chapter of the Satanic Temple said:
“Mr Abdul-Waheed stated that the actions and values of the attacker were nearer to the values of Satanism than to Muslim values. I can’t think of anything further from the truth. And while we recognise the value in underscoring the ideological disparities between the actions of a lone radical and the Muslim world, we would prefer that any comparisons to Satanism be informed by facts.
Much like Islam, Satanism is often on the receiving end of speculation, scapegoating, and ignorance. And like Islam, the religious intolerance and prejudice behind these conspicuous accusations perpetuates fear and facilitates conditions that can threaten the safety and wellbeing of our members, inhibiting our ability to live and practice freely and openly. Far from the pervasive myth that Satanists sacrifice infants, commit incest, and participate in human trafficking The Satanic Temple has a mission that cites empathy, benevolence, and common sense as shared values. Like the Five Pillars of Islam, our members follow Seven Fundamental Tenets that inspire our daily lives with nobility in thought and compassion in practice. It might surprise you to learn that The Satanic Temple is in-fact an unrelenting advocate for the rights of women and children and for protection against domestic violence and institutional abuses.”
The UK-based Church of Rational Satanism gave their own statement:
“We would like to highlight that the actions of this man were in no way in line with any satanic philosophy. As stated above it would be in complete error for myself and us as an organisation to to speak for every Satanist as opinions cannot go further than the individual. What we can do however is demonstrate using the philosophical foundations of our belief structure as to why this statement is in fact untrue.
Satanism is a life loving philosophy that aims for the individual to get the best from life with self preservation and vital existence being the priority. Therefore the complete disregard of the attackers own life this goes against our core belief structure. Satanism is completely based around the individual with our organisation, as least, focusing on the excellence in the self in all aspects of life. Putting focus and energy into ideologies that go against the individual system, through our unique concepts, would simply be counter productive and go against the core values of Satanism. We use Satan as a metaphorical archetype (although we do not limit ourself to one archetypical figure) we also promote personal responsibility for an individuals actions.”
Muslims need to take responsibility for dealing with Islamic extremism
This Satanist has attended several Islamic conferences, and has a reasonable understanding of this religion. It is troubling that a billion Muslims have done little to allow a radical few to become the voice and image of the moderate majority. Until Muslims can take responsibility and the initiative to tackle extremist points of view in their own ranks rather blame other religions for their problems, attacks like in London will continue and increase in number.
The extremist problem in Satanist ranks – Order of Nine Angles
In finishing, this writer would like to highlight a problem within Satanist ranks called the Order of Nine Angles who share and promote similar extremist views to those of the Islamic State. The ONA was founded and is under the leadership of David Myatt, who formerly called himself Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt and Abdul al-Qari, and encouraged similarly extremist views as is pandered by Islamic extremists. The ONA are deeply embedded into Satanism, and sadly whilst they exist in our ranks, we are open to accusations of promoting similar outrages as has been inflicted upon the innocent by extremist Muslims. Like the Muslims it is down to the majority in Satanism to prevent the small minority (ONA) from being the image and voice of our religion.
satanicviews 
I was hoping that The Satanic Temple give up its witless solidarity with the Islamic religion after this. But no, they still like to emphasize the whole “Islam is a scapegoat” thing, defending a religion that is patently against them and the rest of us Satanists in the name of “benevolence” towards all people. While I do understand the importance of separating individual normal Muslims from the realm of radical terrorism, the religion of Islam itself still contains the kind of bad ideas that, combined with an insular community attitude and an attitude of solidarity that prevents some Muslims from reporting radicals (you know, the “this guy did something wrong but he is Muslim, therefore he is my brother and I cannot betray him” sort of attitude) ultimately inspire religious radicialism, and the religion itself goes without the kind of liberalization that Christianity ultimately went through as it dealt with the rise of secularism. I have to say you are definitely more patient with The Satanic Temple than I am.
My main criticism of Islam is the apathy of the vast majority of that religion in dealing with extremists in its own ranks. Family and community have massive influence over their younger members, and they let their young people become radicalised.
I agree. That’s one of the main problems with Islamic communities in Europe and parts of Britain. I wonder, would TST be willing to talk about that sort of thing?
TST comes from a background where Christianity is the extremist religion they have to deal with, their experience of the challenges from Islam is limited.
That would be fair to point out, as I know Americans don’t have the same grasp of British and European problems as, well, Brits and Europeans, but in America Christianity isn’t as extreme as it’s often portrayed. Yes, there is a hardcore fundamentalist element in the country, but typically those people are reviled by the wider public and the media. When the Orlando shooting occurred, for instance, and a couple of pastors praised the killing of 50 gay people in Orlando because they thought gays were basically pedophiles, they were rightly condemned by almost everyone including the media. Not to mention, American Christians nowadays are more tolerant than Islamic communities tend to be throughout the world. The Christian community in America simply doesn’t have the same problem as the Islamic community does in Europe.
The kind of Christianity that exists in the USA is a leftover from the puritanical versions that were kicked out of the UK in the 1600’s. Satanic Temple has a challenging situation right now with a powerful Christian voice now dictating policy at all levels via the Republican Party.
In the UK Christianity is sedate and moderate. Islam presents a serious challenge due to its many attitudes and activities that is clashing with Western cultural values.
By the way I’m mostly referring to the powerful Christian voice thing. The way Christianity is in America vs the UK is pretty true.
Hi SV – can I ask: what is the current status of ONA re being self-described Satanists, and what is the level of their acceptance among the wider Satanic community?
Also, one thing I would be interested in is a clarification of why the ONA would not be classed as genuine Satanists (for the public to understand)? I have my own views, and my own reasons from the limited amount I have seen, but my knowledge of them is limited, and hasn’t been helped by what I see as their deliberate obfuscations and evasions.
I disagree with TST on the similarity between scapegoating of muslims and Satanists. The doctrinal nature of Islam, and established sects such as Salafism gives a real blue print for organised religious violence and violation of what we have come to generally accept as human rights, while Satanism lacks such a blue print, and in fact in its modern form philosophically opposes such implicitly, while not elaborating a collective value system.
My criticism of the ONA from what I have seen is that it either acts as a delusional RPG (in which case it is irrelevant as anything at all), or else it abrogates the essential principles of modern Satanism as I understand them.
best wishes
Hi Credencedawg, the influence of the ONA is starting to weaken. The ONA have been kicked out of many of the LHP forums, and their activities have been significantly reduced on 600Club. However, they have an active membership base who are active on social media especially on WordPress. Even though ONA makes it clear they are not Satanists, and actively attack Satanists as mundanes worthy of being murdered, they are still being tolerated and accepted in the Left Hand Path, which is where the problems begin to manifest.
ONA treats Satanism as like a hat, called a “form”, but they treat Satanism no different to other hats they wear such as Islam or Buddhism. Regardless of what hat they promote their ideas under, the message is still the same, which is a desire to promote harm to other people they refer as “mundanes”.
The ONA would not be classed as Satanist because they have put on record their philosophy is not Satanist. They are a confusing philosophy because they are parasitic in nature by using different movements and religions as the vehicles in which to manifest their ideas. It makes no sense from a Satanic point of view that a philosophy like ONA will present itself as Satanist, Christian and Islam at the same time. If an individual desires to go deeper into the ONA philosophy they will be identifying with what in essence is another religion.
The majority of Islam is heaviliy influenced by elements of a hardline interpretation of their religion, especially when one learns that many mosques are funded and have leaders influenced by Saudi Arabian sources. There is also the problem that many other versions of Islam are also hardline, for instance the opponents of Saudi Arabia in Iran are hardline, and the tribal versions of Islam such as in Somalia, Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan that finds its way into the West. Being a group-minded religion Islam is built on external authorities such as their Quran, hadiths, mosques, religious leaders and communities which makes its members conformist, controlled and obediant. If the external authorities are corrupt, so will the group.
It is different with Satanism as the focus is on the will and choice of self rather than obediance to external authorities. Any claim that Satanism is harmful to society is a nonsense because it does not act as a group like a group-minded religion such as Islam does.
The leadership and spiritual integrity of Islam is weak at its heart, evidenced by the fact that Islamic State exists and why so many terrible acts happen each year in the name of Islam.
At the heart of say Satanic Temple is its seven tenets, which regardless of some criticisms, means that everything that spins off from it will be likely beneficial and positive rather than harmful to society and people.
Not sure you can attack the problem of Islam as ‘Being a group minded religion Islam is built on external authorities such as their Quran, hadiths, mosques, religious leaders and communities which makes its members conformist,’ and then defend herd Satanism on similar grounds ‘At the heart of say Satanic Temple is its (external authority) seven tenets, which regardless of some criticisms means that everything that spins off from it will be more likely beneficial and positive rather than harmful to society and others.’ All your really saying is; Islam bad and Satanism good, which is no argument.
@ spit of a ball
If you look at the Satanic Temple seven tenets, they are simple and common sense. In one of the tenets they say:
“Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.”
In other words they acknowledge the essence of Satanism, that we are all free-thinkers and individualists, that we need to look towards our own internal values rather than mindlessly follow external authorities and rules.
Satanic Temple has to lay down some ground rules for how those that become involved in its campaigns should behave. For instance Satanic Temple never says go kill people in order to achieve this end, however external authorities in Islam makes plenty of provision for promoting or being interpreted as an invitation to kill in the name of their religion.
Co-operating with others in shared activities does not mean that the individual or those participating is “herd Satanism”. The test of if a thing is unSatanic is that if the individual has been asked to totally sacrifice their will and choice for the benefit of the group. In any interactions between individuals there has to be some rules and common values otherwise nothing is possible in cooperative activities.
Regarding the ONA and terrorism, you should have mentioned the following two texts written by “Anton Long” many years ago.
{quote}
1) “We of the Order of Nine Angles do not, never have, and never will condemn acts of so-called terrorism (individual or undertaken by some State), nor do we condemn and avoid what mundanes regard as evil or as criminal deeds. For us, all such things are or could be just causal forms or causal means, and thus are regarded by us as falling into three categories, which categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive: (1) things which might or which can be the genesis of our individual pathei-mathos and which thus are the genesis of our own sinister weltanschauung; (2) things which aid our sinister dialectic or which are or might be a Presencing of The Dark; or (3) things that can or could be a test, a challenge, a sinister experience, too far for someone who aspires to be one of our sinister kind, someone who thus fails the test, balks at the challenge, or is destroyed or overcome by the experience.
For our criteria are not those of morality; are not bounded by some abstract good and evil; are not those defined by the laws manufactured by mundanes. Our criteria is the amorality of personal judgement and personal responsibility, whereby we as individuals decide what may be right or wrong for us based on our own pathei-mathos, and act and take responsibility for our acts, knowing such acts for the exeatic living they are or might be, and knowing ourselves as nexions possessed of the ability, the potential, to consciously – via pathei-mathos and practical sinister experience – change ourselves into a new, a more evolved, species of life. Herein is the essence of Satanism, for us.” A Satanism Too Far
2) “It is of fundamental importance – to evolution both individual and otherwise – that what is Dark, Sinister or Satanic is made real in a practical way, over and over again. That is, that what is dangerous, awesome, numinous, tragic, deadly, terrible, terrifying and beyond the power of ordinary mortals, laws or governments to control is made manifest. In effect, non-Initiates (and even Initiates) need constantly reminding that such things still exist; they need constantly to be brought ‘face-to-face’, and touched, with what is, or appears to be, inexplicable, uncontrollable, powerful and ‘evil’. They need reminding of their own mortality – of the unforeseen, inexplicable ‘powers of Fate’, of the powerful force of ‘Nature’.
If this means killing, wars, suffering, sacrifice, terror, disease, tragedy and disruption, then such things must be – for it is one of the duties of a Satanic Initiate to so Presence The Dark, and prepare the way for, or initiate, the change and evolution which always result from such things. Such things as these must be, and always will be, because the majority of people are or will remain, inert and sub-human unless changed. The majority is – and always will be until it evolves to become something else – raw material to be used, moulded, cut-away and shaped to create what must be. There is no such thing as an innocent person because everyone who exists is part of the whole, the change, the evolution, the presencing of life itself, which is beyond them, and their life only has meaning through the change, development and evolution of life. Their importance is what they can become, or what can be achieved through their death. their tragedy, their living – their importance does not lie in their individual happiness or their individual desires or whatever.” To Presence The Dark
{/quote}
Now, if these quotes are not “Satanic” and evil and “hardcore” and “antinomian”, then what or who is? Certainly not The Satanic Temple nor the Church of Rational Satanism who seem at pains to depict modern Satanism as no threat to anyone, as rather tame, and certainly not as genuinely, in practical life-threatening terms, antinomian.
Surely “Anton Long”, who wrote the above, qualifies as evil and Satanic and antinomian, and perhaps even as a terrorist?
@WyrdSister.
Firstly, ONA was never Satanism, as you well know. Secondly, Christianity, Islam and others tend to dump anything they disagree with under the Satanist heading; their definitions of Satanism is unreliable, and those who follow Christian definitions of Satanism and then go on to do harmful acts are known as Reverse Christians.
Of course we can all argue about what is and what is not historical Satanism, but it is only until the coming of Anton Lavey and his Church of Satan that finally we got some clear boundaries about Satanism, and they clearly defined that Satanism was not about harming children and animals for instance. Building upon the foundations of the ideas of Church of Satan, we now have new Satanist movements such as Satanic Temple and the UK Church of Rational Satanism.
Included of course are the many versions of spiritual or theistic Satanism, who also value life.
Even if boundaries were not clear a hundred years ago about Satanism, they are clearly defined now, and they value life, and reject ONA types of harmful activity. As Satanism continues to evolve in future years, the focus upon the positive and on life will remain at the core of Satanism.
You wrote: “ONA was never Satanism.”
That is a moot point because it depends on how one defines “satanism” and “evil”. Obviously followers of Howard Levey define both terms so that their “satanism” is not “actually or potentially harmful, destructive, disastrous, pernicious; baleful; terrifying,” and so that they themselves are not “malicious; mischievous, sly, bad, dangerous, deadly.”
So it’s not a question of Nazarene definitions but of what is “actually or potentially harmful, destructive, disastrous, pernicious; baleful; terrifying,” and who are “malicious; mischievous, sly, bad, dangerous, deadly,” in real life.
Just trying to redefine “Satan” so that “he” isn’t “malicious; mischievous, sly, bad, dangerous, deadly, pernicious; baleful”, destructive” but instead is just some sort of “symbol” of carnality and egoism doesn’t answer basic ontological questions.
Or to put it simply, the ONA would say – and have said – that “Satan” is the archetypal “terrorist”. Which kind of places the remarks of some minor Islamic preacher into perspective.
I decided to cover this subject in a new blog post:
https://satanicviews.wordpress.com/2017/03/26/taking-ownership-of-satanism/
The commonly understood meaning of Satanism for centuries in Abrahamic cultures is worship of the Devil and doing evil, transgressive deeds in His name. The fact that recently some geeks have tried to turn this traditional meaning on its head and claim that Satanism is just a “goth” variety of nu-atheist social justice warrioring doesn’t actually change the meaning. It just means we have a group of imposters trying to appropriate language and create a “safe space” where none can exist. The Muslim is correct, because he’s talking about real Satanism, not this imposter safe space Satanism that an irrelevant nu group claims is the “real Satanism”. We can go around in circles about this forever, but surely in a hundred years Satanic Temple will be long gone, whereas the Satanism this Muslim speaks of (and probably the ONA) will still be around, because they are rooted in something deeper than childish secular philosophy.
@ Blackstone.
Satan in the original sense was a Jewish idea meaning anything that presented a challenge to that people such as sickness, foreign invader or a famine. Satan became associated with an angel under the direction of the Jewish god to test the people of Israel, hence it was considered the adversary. When Christians came along they changed the meaning of Satan, merged it with other entities, made it a type of evil bucket in order to dump all they disliked into.
Satanism as a religion is an evolving organic religion, thus whereas it may have been the focus of so-called devil worship in pre-Lavey era, it evolved to include the Church of Satan version, then evolved yet again giving rise to Satanic Temple. There is no difference between Satan of the Jews “adversary” and Satanic Temple being the “adversary” to various movements such as those wanting to eliminate the split of church and state in the USA.
Shaytan in Islam is an origin of sin and all evil. So if the Muslim leader uses the word “Satanic”, he means what the word really means; EVIL. He isn’t putting the blame on non-Muslims. He is simply saying that the terrorists according to Islam are evil. If the “Satanic” Temple is offended, they should change the mascot.
I refer you to the newspaper report:
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/mosque-leader-says-london-terrorist-12786489
The Muslim leader was not talking about Satan/Shaytan…he was ignorantly directing his attack at Satanism and at “satanic values.”
A minor point – perhaps, but you keep mentioning David Myatt in relation to both the Order of Nine Angles and “Anton Long” even though you provide no evidence from primary sources that Myatt=Long or that Myatt founded or was involved with the ONA. Until you – or anyone – does provide such evidence from primary sources then you’re only making assumptions or repeating the unverified allegations of others.
Surely, if you really believed in the tenets of your Howard Levey style ‘satanism’ you’d either stop repeating verbatim the unverified allegations of others about a public figure or you’d add the words “alleged” or “allegation” when you mention Myatt in relation to Anton Long and the ONA.
Or is repeating verbatim the unverified allegations of others about a public figure now the ‘satanic’ thing to do?
Like so many issues ONA like to attempt to obscurate and confuse, this is a matter that has been argued over many times in the past, but it is generally considered, and supported in my opinion that David Myatt founded ONA, and that he has used the name Anton Long. Myatt is clearly associated with ONA as his name is always being mentoned by its associates and is linked to many of its publications.
The Muslim leader might not have been talking about Shaytan but Satanic in Islam means the similar thing it means in Christianity. As for Myatt, there is no evidence available to the general public that he founded the ONA though for sure he is involved. Neither can we be sure that he’s the only one behind the nym Anton Long. It’s more probable that the pen name was used by several people we refer to as Old Guards. The ONA fanboys are as clueless about the ONA as the rest of outsiders. Only the few are on the inside so I would take their claims with the grain of salt.
Muslims are as ignorant as Christians about Satanism, so it is great to see Satanist groups challenging their ignorance about my religion.
Yes, an issue argued over many times over the past three decades. But: no one has ever provided any evidence from primary sources that Myatt is Anton Long or that Myatt was or is involved with the ONA. That this lack of evidence, for such allegations about Myatt, is seldom if ever mentioned by modern ‘satanists’ was and is my point.
There really is little point debating with this neurotic and anonymous coward. He is hell bent on mentioning the ONA in every post he can, whilst simultaneously claiming it’s ‘influence’ is ‘weakening’. Quite ironic when there are endless mundane individuals such as this blogger who spend endless nights fretting over what we are up to.
Amusing read regardless, carry on :’)
Noted, that for your dismissal of what this blog writes about the ONA, it is important enough to you to comment on it.
>important
Perhaps, if I were drawing critique to what you’ve written here; I didn’t though- I spoke to a peer on her comment she made.
Satanism will always be attacked by other religions. Take it as the rock in your shoe while you walk the left hand path. Take your time, use that rock wisely, or walk on it long enough to turn it to a diamond. Most prefer to throw the rock at their enemies. Take pleasure in what u do, that is all.
You are right. I like the saying, when life throws lemons at you, make lemonade out of the lemons.