25 posts tagged “political islam”
Have you heard or read from a Muslim, a Muslim apologist or a kafir who has befriended a Muslim a statement similar to this:
“Islam is no different than Christianity or Judaism. They both have bloodshed – one in the Quran and the other in the Bible. Muslims worship the same god as Christians and Jews.”
I have heard this often from friends and family who question my criticism of Islam (Mohammedanism is a better word) as being hate-speech or racism.
Bill Warner of Political Islam has posted the best rebuttal to the accusation my blog(s) are full of hatred toward Islam and Muslims.
JRH 11/7/09
Here is a ‘be educated in Mohammedanism’ moment: Mohammedanism is not the religion of peace that Muslim apologists or even the majority of Muslims believe it is.
Here is Bill Warner diffusing the propaganda of the American Left – read and educate yourself.
JRH 8/13/09
Here is a book review from Gary H. Johnson, Jr. of United Against Islamic Supremacism of the book “Defeating Political Islam: The New Cold War” by Moorthy S. Muthuswamy. This is one book everyone should read! It is amazing how little one hears from Western Academics about the Hindu genocide perpetrated by the so-called religion of peace (Mohammedanism) in India.
JRH 7/14/09
*********************
BOOK REVIEW: Defeating Political Islam
By Gary H. Johnson, Jr.
Posted by Dr. Richard Swier
07/07/09 07:09 PM EDT
Defeating Political Islam: The New Cold War by Moorthy S. Muthuswamy, author. Steven L. Mitchell, editor.
Moorthy S. Muthuswamy's 2009 release Defeating Political Islam is a necessary primer for those seeking to understand the multiple-front jihads that have plagued India since the creation of Pakistan in 1947. The tragic history of the ongoing Hindu genocide at the hands of political Islam is not yet a primary focus of jihad scholarship in the West. Admirably, Muthuswamy's critique of Islam's recent political and militant advances in Southeast Asia recognizes the inherent weakness of both democracy and diplomacy in confronting a cohesive political ideology that indoctrinates its adherents with a "passion for conquest". Historical context leaps off the page for jilted Western observers struggling to make heads or tails of Lashkar-e-Taiba's November 2008 jihadi massacre in the port city of Mumbai; Muthuswamy sets the violent affair as but one spectacular atrocity in a decades long "Siege of India".
The central thesis of Defeating Political Islam is that the leaders of an "Axis of Jihad" made up of Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan are actively, consciously, financing political Islam via the local, regional and international propagation of the "Islamic Trilogy". Muthuswamy's polemic is designed to instill a sense of grievance in nations and individuals assailed by the winds of jihadist terrorism; and, unflinchingly holds the Axis nations to account for their "crimes-against-humanity". Steeped in statistical analysis, Defeating Political Islam: The New Cold War is a deliberate challenge to the widely held notion that Islam is a religion of peace. For the independent terror trackers of this new cold war, Muthuswamy's conclusions will be met with a mixture of criticism and agreement; however, what is undeniable is that his remarkable effort in the path of liberty has left over 600 reference points for those of us who are following in his wake in the as of yet still uncharted frontiers of a dawning intellectual revolution.
________________________
Copyright © 2009 Red County LLC
Gary H. Johnson, Jr. critiques Bill Warner’s article, “Official Islam.” You can read the SlantRight.com post of Bill Warner’s article HERE.
Gary’s critique is entitled, “Islam’s Golden Rule.”
You should read the Warner piece before you read Gary’s piece.
I have a few words about Warner and Johnson. Both individuals obviously are obviously well versed in the ways of Islam. I find most of Warner’s articles at his website Political Islam. Johnson’s articles and informative essays are at his website United Against Islamic Supremacism.
To be honest Warner’s website is very good because the information he provides is some what written on a level that the grazing Internet surfer can grasp. Johnson’s website is extremely informative however Johnson writes on a level best suited for Internet seekers searching for the details of Islam from a Western perception yet with the Islamic perception in mind. Therein might lie a difficulty for the curious web surfer looking for understandable information for the reasons that Islam seems to so volatile toward Westerners, Jews and non-Muslims in general. Johnson often uses a Muslim conceptual word that nails the essence of his essays yet you might need to Google what that nail (word) means in understandable English.
My simplistic understanding of Johnson’s “Islam’s Golden Rule” is that he believes that Warner utilizes statistical information about the negative acts executed in the name of Islam. Johnson believes Warner’s emphasis political Islamic ideology is deficient in the larger picture of the “Muslim Ethos.”
When you tackle Johnson’s essay (and you really should!) it seems to me there are two words you should become familiar with: 1. Hisba 2. Jahaliya. I think more the former than the latter.
1. Hisba:
a. (simple): hisba. Office of accounting or public inspection. See muhtasib.
Muhtasib: The officer in charge of the hisba, whose duty, among other things, is to ensure the proper conduct of people in their public activities.
b. (summation of the book “Public Duties in Islam: The Institution of the Hisba” by Ibn Taymiyah): An exposition of the theory of Hisba in the wider context of a just society and an efficient market economy. Al-Haisba is a moral as well as a socio-economic institution in Islam through which public life is regulated in such a way that a high degree of public morality is attained and the society is protected from bad workmanship , fraud , extortion and exploitation.
In Part II - Toward a Just Society, Ibn Taymiya spells out the different stipulations of the Quranic command of amr bi’lma’Rif wa-n-nahi 'anil-munkar.
…
· Commanding Good and Forbidding Evil
· Strategy for Reform
· Men and Movements
· Society and Leadership
· Summing up on Knowledge, Justice and the Duties of the Rulers and the Ruled.
c. (Hisba Institution): The Hisbah is a religious institution under the authority of the state that appoints people to carry out the responsibility of enjoining what is right, whenever people start to neglect it, and forbidding what is wrong, whenever people start to engage in it. The purpose of this is to safeguard society from deviance, protect the faith, and ensure the welfare of the people in both religious and worldly manners according to the Law of Allah. Allah has made it obligatory upon all Muslims to enjoin good and forbid wrongdoing to the extent of their knowledge and abilities. (Click on “Hisba Institution” to read more)
See Also: Hisba: A Historical Overview and Notes on the Muhtasib.
2. Jahaliya (or Jahiliyya or various spelling):
a. Jahaliya or ignorance, is how Muslims term the customs and culture in Arabia before the advent of Islam. (Yahiya Emerick; The complete idiot's guide to understanding Islam. p 193. Google Books)
b. Sayyid Qutb on Jahiliyya: Qutb argued that the entire world, including the Muslim, was in a state of jahiliyah, or ignorance where man’s way had replaced God’s way.
According to Qutb, since jahiliyah and Islam cannot co-exist, offensive jihad was necessary to destroy jahiliyah society and bring the entire world to Islam. Until jahiliyah is defeated, all true Muslims have a personal obligation to wage offensive jihad. When Qutb added offensive jihad to the widely accepted concept of defensive jihad, Qutb broke with mainstream Islam and ridiculed Muslim scholars:
Those who say that Islamic Jihad was merely for the defense of the home land of Islam diminish the greatness of the Islamic way of life and consider it less important [than] their homeland. . . . However, [Islamic community] defense is not the ultimate objective of the Islamic movement of jihad but it is a mean of establishing the Divine authority within it so that it becomes the headquarters for the movement of Islam, which is then to be carried throughout the earth to the whole of mankind . . . (mumbai-central.com)
c. RELIGIOSCOPE - Another key concept in Qutb’s work is the concept of jahiliyya. Could you please explain its traditional meaning and the meaning Qutb gives to it?
IA-R - Jahiliyya is a term used by the Quran for describing the pre-Islamic conditions in Arabia. Roughly, it means ignorance or the phase of ignorance. Islam was supposed to supplant all the different traditions, practices, and ideas of jahiliyya with a new Islamic system that is far different from jahiliyya. Qutb, especially when he was in prison, used the term jahiliyya to refer to the Muslim world in the 20th century, that refused to implement the sharia or establish an Islamic state. That was full of jahiliyya according to him. But it seems to me that he did that under extreme circumstances, and this is the part the Jihad people in prison picked that up in the 1960s and the 1970s, and that became a dominant part of the Islamist discourse especially, in Egypt in the 1970s, 1980s. Many of these people who had that kind of discourse went to Afghanistan to fight against the Soviets, and now they are a part of the Qaeda. Somebody like Qutb must have had a major impact on somebody like Bin Laden, for example, or Ayman al-Zawahri, or others. (Interview with Professor Ibrahim Abu-Rabi)
Now if my selections to give the reader an idea of “Hisba” and “Jahaliya” don’t match Johnson’s view, I am certain he will let me know.
So take a look at “Islam’s Golden Rule”.
JRH 7/11/09
David Bukay has an article in the Summer 2009 edition of the Middle East Quarterly.
Bukay takes an intellectual stroll with the end game being Islam is totally incompatible with Western Society. Then Bukay turns up the burner by demonstrating that Islam is in no way compatible with the Western concept of Democracy.
Bukay even pits the differences between Islam (so-called moderate) and Islamism. Bukay points out that Islam is becoming the uniting force at least among Middle Eastern Muslims to the extent that the very old concept of Pan-Arabism is nearly a dead ideology.
Muslims are finding there heroes among the Islamists that promote an international Caliphate for Islam. The Caliphate ideal is a concept that stretches beyond the Arab Middle East. Thus Islamism is gaining footholds in place like Turkey founded after the ashes of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI. Ataturk purposely founded a Turkish secular government abolish the vestiges of the Caliphate that existed in the defunct Ottoman Empire.
The largest Muslim nation in the world is Indonesia. The pan-Islam ideology is awakening Indonesians who Asian rather than Arab to bump against the secular regime in Indonesia.
Bukay further notes that nations where old fashioned despots are the leadership predominantly only do so because the military backs the despot. He sites Saudi Arabia and Egypt to name a few which would have succumb to Islamism long ago if it were not for the power of military might.
Something you should think about after reading Bukay’s analysis. It has been said that the percentage of Islamists in the world represents 10% of global Islam. Let’s say that as of 2009 there are 2.4 BILLION Muslims globally. Ten percent would be 240 MILLION Islamists world wide.
Now that 240 MILLION is a huge chunk of people. Now imagine this: according to my interpretation of Dr. Bukay’s article; that would mean there 2.16 BILLION Muslims who predominantly look up to the agenda to activist Islamists.
Please read “Is the Military Bulwark against Islamism Collapsing?”
JRH 6/15/09
My cousin Mary was not pleased with this YouTube video I posted at my Face Book profile page.
Here is Mary’s rebuke:
Not all muslims are bad, I married one! He had gone to Bible College when I first met him. He mixes Judaism with Christianity and Islam. Ishmael (?) was Abraham's son.
Mary I understand the reason you may defend Muslims because of your past matrimony with a Muslim and having two wonderful children with him.
Just to be clear I am fully aware that all Muslims are not evil. Indeed statistics report that 90% of Muslims consider them self as moderate and that the Islam practiced by Islamic terrorists place a bad name on Islam. However it must be kept in mind that the 90% who consider them self as a moderate also believe in the infallibility of Mohammed, his Quran and the near infallibility of the Hadith, Sunna, Sira and the developed Sharia Law.
It is the 10% of radical Muslims who actually follow this infallibility ideology to a tee. So in effect according to the Muslim holy writings the so-called radical Muslims are actually the good Muslims. The 90% that knowingly or unknowingly pick and choose the part of Islam that is not violent would not be considered good Muslims according to their own holy writings.
Because of this one rarely hears about a Moderate Muslim from the 90% being critical amongst their brethren about the 10% who are following the Theo-political tenets of Islam to the tee.
Now there is a good reason for this kind of self-justification among Muslims. The goal of Islam as set forth by Mohammed was to subjugate all humanity to Islam whether humanity appreciates Islam, Allah and Mohammed or not. So there is set of dualistic ethics that pertains to Muslims and other ethics that pertain to kafir (or house of war – aka dar al-harb).
Bill Warner says it best at his website Political Islam.
The dualistic ethical system of the Islamic Trilogy prepares the foundation of jihad with one set of ethics for Muslims and another set of ethics for the kafirs. So, there are two ways to deal with the kafirs. One is to think of them as inferiors but act in a kindly way. The other is jihad.
…
The following hadith summarizes all the key elements of jihad. (Notice that only the fourth item, the Day of Resurrection, is purely religious in nature). It tells us that the whole world must submit to Islam; kafirs are the enemy simply by not being Muslims. To achieve this dominance, Islam may use terror and violence. It may use psychological warfare, fear, and theft. It may take the spoils of war from kafirs. Violence and terror are made sacred by the Koran. Peace comes only with submission to Islam.
Bukhari 1,7,331 Mohammed: "I have been given five things which were not given to any one else before me:
Allah made me victorious by awe, by His frightening my enemies for a distance of one month's journey.
The earth has been made for me and for my followers a place for praying and a place to perform rituals; therefore, anyone of my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due.
The spoils of war has been made lawful for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me.
I have been given the right of intercession on the Day of Resurrection.
Every prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind."
The story of the Trilogy culminates in the dominance of political Islam. The Trilogy teaches that Islam is the perfect political system and is destined to rule the entire world. The governments and constitutions of the world must all submit to political Islam. If the political systems of the kafirs do not submit, then force, jihad, may be used. All jihad is defensive, since refusing to submit to Islam is an offense against Allah. All Muslims must support the political action of jihad. This may take several forms-fighting, proselytizing or contributing money.
The Trilogy lays out the complete strategy, tactics, and vision of political Islam and jihad. Much of the Trilogy is about how Mohammed dealt with those people who disagreed with him. Violent political action with a religious motivation was taken against kafirs. Under Islam, their only political freedom was to submit. This legal inferiority is sacred, eternal and universal.Duality of ethics was the basis for Mohammed's greatest single innovation-jihad. Jihad is dual ethics with sacred violence. The key religious element of the dual ethics is that Allah sanctifies violence for complete domination. The kafirs must submit to Islam.
In Mecca, Mohammed demonstrated the initial practice of jihad when Islam was weak: persuasion and conversion. When he moved to Medina, he demonstrated how jihad worked when Islam was strong: using immigration against inhabitants, creating political power by struggling against the host, dominating other religions, using violence, sowing division among the tribes, and establishing a government.
Jihad is civilizational war for two reasons. First, jihad uses every aspect of civilization as an element of war. Violence, education, fear, psychology, sociology, sex, population, immigration, public relations, corruption and religion are all used in jihad. Military force and terror are the smallest aspects of jihad. The second reason that jihad is civilizational war is that the purpose of jihad is to annihilate every aspect of the non-Islamic civilization. Art, history, law, dress, manners, names, education, customs, government, foreign policy, economics, and every other detail must become Islamic.
…
Islam has been waging civilizational war for centuries. Before the Muslims arrived, Egypt and North Africa and the southern coast of the Mediterranean were Christian. There was a Buddhist monastery in Alexandria Egypt. Turkey was Buddhist and Christian. Persia-now Iran-was Zoroastrian. The Hindu culture covered an area of the world twice as large as it is now. Languages disappeared to be replace (sic) by Arabic.
…
Mohammed encouraged the rape of female captives after battles. This is reported in the Sira and Hadith and approved in the Koran. In jihad it is not considered rape to have forced sex with a woman as long as she is a kafir captive or slave. This is true even if she is married. In the Muslim world, the act is only rape when committed against a Muslim. Again, the dual ethics of Islam prevail.
Bukhari 3,34,431 One of the captives was a beautiful Jewess, Safiya. Dihya had her first, but she was given to Mohammed next.
4:24 Also forbidden to you are married women unless they are your slaves or captives.
Rape was one of Mohammed's tactics of conquest because it worked. Forced sex with women whose protectors had been killed was considered supreme domination. It was also a humiliation to the women's male relatives and husbands who had not been killed. If a woman is captured, raped and absorbed into the captor's environment, her helplessness renders her totally compliant and her submission is complete. To protect her children from slavery, many widows and rape victims readily agreed to conversion and their children were raised as Muslims.
Forced sex is far more than rape in political Islam. It is a method of war, a tactical strike which is not a crime because it is jihad. It is not a sin. It is practiced against the kafir and is sanctioned in the Trilogy of the Koran, the Sira, and the Hadith. (Excerpts from Bill Warner)
Thus it is my position that all Muslims may not be evil, but the potential to be evil is in their holy writings and the example of their prophet.
Bill Warner has a series of essays that exposes Islam as not a cool religion for humanity. The series is called, “An Ethical Basis for War Against Political Islam.”
As to Ismael being a son of Abraham. That is absolutely true; however the Muslim version is absolutely false!
The Muslims call Ishmael the preferred son because he was the oldest. Yet the Old Testament (the true Word of God written before Mohammed was born) clearly shows that Abraham was to have a child of promise through his wife Sarah. Ishmael is the son of Abraham and the slave girl Egyptian Hagar.
The child of promise was Isaac the son of Abraham and Sarah. It is from this bloodline that leads up to the incarnated birth of Jesus the Christ the Son of God and the son of Mary.
The New Testament portrays Ishmael as the son of the bondwoman Hagar. Isaac is portrayed as the son of the free woman Sarah. The promises of God flow the son of the free woman – Sarah – culminating in the Savior of the world Jesus. Salvation is by faith rather than by the sword. Deviated from Christianity is handled at the Last Judgment and not by execution in this life.
Awesome anti-radical Islamic organizations like
This comprehension has led to a clarion call to rightly keep Gitmo open as an Islamic-terrorist prison open.
Mohammedans obviously wants Gitmo closed and Islamic terrorists freed.
Deluded Leftists want Gitmo closed due to well meaning altruism and the belief that all human beings regardless of inherent evil deserve equal rights of protection under the law. The equal rights thing is a lofty goal; however I believe all ideologies and religions that actively practice and/or incite their disciples into non-State acts of war or acts of terrorism against innocent civilians or governments protecting those citizens have made the decision to revoke civil rights.
Many of these anti-close Gitmo organizations and people are trying to alert American citizens that radical Islam has embraced America’s prisons. The meaning of which convicts in American prisons are turning to the radical Islam espoused by Saudi Wahhabists and Salafist Mohammedan terrorists. After these convicts are released from prison they take their acquired Theo-political ideology with them and either join terrorist cells or act alone against the American rule of law.
Steven Emerson is one individual that takes this hotbed of Islamic radicalism in American prisons to point out the foolishness of sending Gitmo inmates to those prisons. It is viewed that these Gitmo inmates will be viewed as soldiers of Allah available to strengthen radical Islam permeating American prisons.
The Theo-political Islam being taught and practiced in America must stop! Many would argue that the deification of the Quran and lesser Mohammedan revered books is part and parcel to today’s radical Islam. I know there are Mohammedans that believe they are above the barbarity propagated in the Quran and other writings and consider themselves good Muslims. However I tend to agree with the train of thought that good Mohammedans are those that follow the “fundamental” teachings of those texts. In essence those labeled as radical Islamists are in reality purist Mohammedans after the order of the prophet-dude that founded this Theo-political empire-building death cult.
American-Mohammedans that promote the purist form of Islam are thus advocating the overthrow of the American government and American Liberty that Leftists believe they are protecting.
Do not believe for a moment that the radical Islam (advocators of death and destruction) is a religion after the manner of most religions looking for inner peace in one form or another. The only inner peace offered by Mohammed’s religion is to totally submit to the will to the carnality inherent in Islam. One of the primary enticements to fight for Islam is to die a martyr and enjoy the raw sex offered in the Mohammedan Paradise. This enticement led to conquering Mohammedan hoards slaughtering non-Muslims in the quest to spread the Islamic cancer by violence and/or degrading humiliation.
This is the purist Islam. This is the Islam of Islamic terrorists. This is the Islam of Wahhabi, of Salafi and of Twelver Shi’ites.
JRH 5/25/09
If you have been reading my posts on Islam/Mohammedanism you may be aware I have been working out a stand concerning the religion founded by Mohammed (e.g. Here and Here).
The decision is between banning Mohammedanism in America or considering Mohammedanism a religion protected by Free of Religion and Free Speech ala the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Cornell University Law School)
There are three points that need to be examined pertaining to Islam:
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
2. (Congress shall make no law) prohibiting the free exercise thereof (i.e. religion).
3. (Congress shall make no law) abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
A few other points could well be addressed pertaining to Islam however without an understanding of these three points the later is irrelevant or relevant depending on the conclusions of those points.
The first point about the Law and the establishment of religion is one of my pet peeves because Leftists over the last sixty years or so have extrapolated ex nihilo that this means a wall of separation exists between the government (Federal, State and Local) and religion.
This extrapolation has zero to do with the Constitution or with those attributed to reasoning out the meaning of the Constitution in the Federalist Papers. Rather it comes from a letter (A LETTER!) to the Danbury Baptists in which President Jefferson trying to calm the fears of Baptists about the traditional concept of Christian nations establishing a State Church.
Baptists had never been privy in any nation as a State Church. In those days part of taxation was to support the State Church. Many of the Thirteen Colonies and then the Thirteen States of the United States of America initially had State Churches on the State level.
Saying all this, the majority of America’s ruling elite from the Revolutionary War days considered the rule of law and morality based on Christian principles. My conclusion (though admittedly an opinion) is that the First Amendment did not prohibit religion from being involved in the State; rather it prohibited the State from being involved in religion. The religions of the day were the varieties of Christianity in the new USA with a smattering of Judaism. The Courts of the day would not even consider extrapolating ex nihilo a law prohibiting the involvement of religion in the government apparatus.
The second point is that Congress shall make NO laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. This opened the door for religions other than Christianity to practice freely in principle; however you have to be aware the populace in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s would look with prejudice upon a non-Christian religion such as Islam/Mohammedanism. Nonetheless the letter of the law in the Constitution is very concrete. The specific word “religion” was used rather something such as the “religion of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Although Christianity would have been considered the faith of America in post Revolutionary War days, an extrapolation of diverse religious worship is free to occur.
An uncorrupt Court would have to rule to prevent public or private harassment of non-Christian religions in America because Congress can make NO law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
There are over a billion people who consider Mohammedanism a religion. At this point one has to realize my quandary about banning Mohammedanism. I’ll back to this thought in a moment.
The third point is that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or the press. This takes care of America’s atheists who choose to live by a philosophy, philosophical principle or merely not care about the existence of religion/deity one way or the other. It is the freedom of conscience without fear of retribution.
Even today ideologies such as Communism or Nazism are allowed freedom of expression in America as long as the expression does not lead to breaking the law via murder, assault, theft, incitement to riot disturbing the public welfare and so on.
Thus today fringe Leftist and fringe Rightist groups test how close they can get to the line of the rule of law without crossing it. Prosecution followed Communists in what was known as the McCarthy Era and today White Supremacists are prosecuted for arms violations and the breaking of other citizens’ civil rights.
It is the THIRD POINT I believe that Mohammedanism crosses the line.
Mohammedanism as a religion simply has too many tenets in their revered books or traditions that cross the line of the rule of law according to the American Constitution. Mohammedanism is a warrior religion that its revered books call to establish the ideological-religion globally first by peace. If peace does not work then war is forced on unbelievers of Mohammedanism until there is Mohammedan conversion or submission to second class citizenship forced to not do anything anti-Islamic or death in a heinous way.
So even though there is a theological nature of otherworldliness to Mohammedanism, the political nature of Mohammedanism in practice in this world tends toward an ideology of political world domination. This world domination mentality has the ferocity inspired by Adolf Hitler’s Nazis on the German population of a superior race. In the same way the German Nazis sought to exterminate human beings (not just Jews) considered as subhuman as not worthy of life. Those outside the Nazi vision of the Germanic Aryan nation not deemed subhuman would be second class citizens serving the Nazi German State.
The Mohammedan ideology of the days of Mohammed in which one can label as radical Islam today is really a Reformation movement on the scale that Protestantism was a movement to reform the Catholic Church to a return of the perception of the Early Church and Patristic Church.
Ali Sina has an awesome essay that points out that “reform” is a movement to go back to the way it was rather than a transformation to another a better way of thinking. The appellation of “Progressive” Churches is a case in point. Progressive Churches are not reforming Christianity; rather they are inserting Leftist humanism to eliminate what is perceived as archaic and of no value in today’s society.
Ali Sina thus stipulates Mohammedanism is not able to be reformed. If there is any reformation occurring in Mohammedanism it is the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, Wahhabi and Shi’ite aims to bring Mohammedanism back to a closer vision of the Prophet Mohammed.
The implication is that Mohammedanism would have progressive thinking added to it to bring it back to a religion that is otherworldly seeking inner peace in this life and the life to come. For this to happen a progressive Mohammedanism would have to deny Mohammed’s revelation from Allah pertaining to convert or die, sex slavery, honor killing and intolerance of everything non-Islamic.
Part of Sina’s point is to not trust Mohammedans that claim to be reform minded. Sina does not specifically point to a website called Muslims Against Sharia but implies that one should not trust Muslims who say they wish to reform Islam. The link for Muslims Against Sharia does not have its name in it, rather the link is http://www.reformislam.org/.
Sina implies there is a religion that is a progressive version of Mohammedanism. That religion is known as Bahá’í.
The Bahá'í's believe in an essential unity of the great religions of the world. However, this does not mean they believe the various religious creeds and doctrines are identical. Rather, they view all religions as having sprung from the same spiritual source. The social and outer forms of different religions vary due to the circumstances at the time that they were founded. Other differences in doctrine and belief can be attributed to later accretions, after the death of the founder.
…
Bahá'í beliefs promoted major social changes when they were first circulated in the 19th century: they supported gender and race equality; world government; freedom of expression and assembly; world peace; religious tolerance, and religious cooperation. In many ways, they were a century or more ahead of many other faiths. Their followers are heavily involved in promoting these concepts today. Also, unlike many other religions, Bahá'ís view scientific inquiry as essential to expand human knowledge and to deepen their members' faith. They feel that science needs to be guided by spiritual principles so that its applications are beneficial to all humanity. (Excerpted from Bahá'í Faith: Beliefs and Practices)
I have come around to the conclusion that if Mohammedanism wishes to evolve into a true religion of peace (Note as a Christian I did not say the true religion) then Muslims would embrace Baha’ism which is an actual root from Mohammedanism.
So now I am pretty much in the “Ban Islam” crowd even though it is not completely etched into stone in my thoughts. It is entirely reasonable to view Mohammedanism as a Theo-Political cult with the emphasis on political ideology. The inherent political ideology of Islam definitely crosses the line of American Constitutionalism and the rule of law to protect citizens from harm.
Thus to ban Islam could be viewed as terminating an ideology which would harm the Constitution of the United States of America.
I was perusing my latest Faith Freedom International (FFI) e-newsletter showing recent posts to that website. I noticed a link that honored Dr. Wafa Sultan who is an ex-Muslim gal from Syria who has done what many anti-Islam males fear to tread. Sultan has gone into the heart of the devil’s media lair such as Al-Jazeera and verbally slapped Islamic clerics into fits of anger. Evidently when confronted with the truth of Islam the measured response of a typical Muslim cleric is not to provide a reasoned response. Rather the cleric goes into fits castigating Sultan’s integrity and eventually issuing a fatwa that threatens Sultan’s life.
This makes Sultan special!
Anyway the FFI post honoring Dr. Wafa Sultan is entitled, “Honoring Wafa Sultan (Video).” There are a huge amount of Dr. Sultan videos explaining the evils of Islam/Mohammedanism. I encourage everyone to go there to receive mini-lessons on the reality of the Theo-Political ideology known as Islam which I prefer to call after its founder Mohammedanism.
To comprehend how brave Dr. Sultan actually is, here is a post from the American Congress for Truth pertaining to her sheer courage:
JRH 4/25/09
As a Christian Right kind of guy I view Islam/Mohammedanism as the greatest threat to American Liberty and freedom of thought or conscience since Soviet Communism was extremely active in infiltrating American social settings as well as infiltrating the government.
I have been on the fence between grouping Islam with radical Islam and trying to see a separation between the two.
As an American and a huge supporter of Freedom of Religion (although not to the extent Leftists shut down Christianity on related taxpayer connected community or national apparatuses) I struggle with the concept of Islam being a religion that can practice in America. There is absolutely no tolerance within Islam for other faiths or lack of faith for that matter.
In Mohammedan dominated nations being a non-Muslim makes you a second class citizen and susceptible to retribution for practicing another faith (or lack thereof) openly, especially if the other faith promulgates its tenets as better to Islam or is critical of Islam. Retribution could be as horrible as death and destruction.
According to Islamic sacred writings there is no separating the acts of worship from the acts of politics. Thus the American and/or Westerner needs to comprehend the concept of Political Islam. Part of honoring the Mohammedan Allah and its Prophet is wreaking havoc on non-believing Muslims (kafir) until there is a humiliating submission (the second class citizen) or conversion or death. This Political Islam concept is hugely prevalent among Mohammedan dominated nations.
In the West it is obviously not quite so virulent; however there is evidence that the back to the basics ideology of radical Islam is making an inroad into America and the West. Honor Killings is something the Western Public is beginning to slowly understand is part of the strict Islamic paradigm even though the politically correct Mainstream Media (MSM) has gone to great lengths to obfuscate the murder of a Muslim (usually woman, daughter or sister) to any connection to Mohammedan practices. I have even read the denunciation of Honor Killing from Muslim-American groups as being un-Islamic and more a cultural phenomena from foreign nations. Hello, the foreign nations alluded to are Mohammedan dominated.
Just as I am about to join groups and people that are on the “Ban Islam” bus I across such websites similar to Muslims Against Sharia or committed Muslims who denounce the Political Islam of Mohammedan retro-revivalists. One such person is M. Zuhdi Jasser who condemns Political Islam because he wants his Islamic family to be partakers of the American dream of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness while freely practicing his faith.
Now that is the real American Way: individual autonomy merged with an American consciousness or assimilation while honoring the roots of your heritage. This kind of assimilation has occurred with countless immigrants to America in the past yet this is the kind of assimilation that retro-Islamists abhor as insulting to their Prophet Mohammed and his god known as Allah.
Jasser has an essay entitled, “Obama Administration Stacking the Deck with Islamists”. It is an awesome essay which points to the Obama Administration having connection with Islamists in America and abroad who are definitely anti-American and live for the premise that America will slowly be infused with a enough Muslim converts to take over the political process thereby ending the American paradigm of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. READ IT!
JRH 4/17/09 (Hat Tip: ACT! For America)
