The American people must hear the truth about Islam continually until they are completely aware of its dangers. Sadly, our Churches dare not speak up for fear of being accused of intolerance toward another religion. Our academia, the university professors, left or right, dare not, because, most likely, they would lose their salaries. Our politicians dare not because they are master practitioners of euphemism, hedging, doubletalk, and outright deception, and they need your votes as well as your money. Our editors dare not because they would lose subscribers. Businessmen dare not because they might lose customers and clientele. Even ordinary clerks dare not because they might be discharged. So I thought I would tell you. My fellow Americans, America is faced with a formidable enemy. This enemy has a name: Islam. I think it is time to revisit the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and see if Islam is qualified as a religion. Is this an outlandishly absurd proposal? Not at all, serious problems require equally serious solutions. The call for evaluation of the First Amendment may be seen as an attempt to curb Islam or other militant cults. The truth is: it is. It is truly a matter of survival of the United States and the free world.
It is time to take a stand and shift the debate to orthodox Islam. We do not have to investigate every other religion on earth in order to compare them or offer opinion about their relative "goodness" in order to declare that on the whole Islam perpetuates evil. Let others devolve into religious disagreements. But for those commentators who would respond: "OK great, so now what...you claim Islam is evil. How do we combat that?" Your response is already clear: Through the spread of truth, not deceit. Through voluntary social sanctions and laws in every civilized country that forbid evil practices like Sharia, coercion and violence against women, threats against those who disagree, honor killings, apostasy and other hate crimes. Let the world know the truth and decide for itself. Let Muslims who come to their senses opt out.
America, with a long history of protecting religious freedom, still clings to the "hands off" practice of leaving alone any doctrine or practice billed as religion. A thorny problem is in deciding what constitutes a religion and who is to make that call. The dictionary supplies a sociologically useless definition for religion: "The expression of man's belief in and reverence for a superhuman power recognized as the creator and governor of the universe." Just about anyone or any group under this definition can start a religion, and they indeed do-and some do so at significant costs to others.
Muslims, under the banner of religion, are infringing blatantly on the rights of others, not only in Islamic countries, but also in much of the non-Muslim world. By their acts of dogmatic barbarity, Muslims are slowly awakening the non-Muslim democracies to the imminent threat of Islamofascisim keen on destroying their free secular and free societies.
As more and more Muslims arrive in American land, as they reproduce with great fecundity, as they convert the disenchanted and minorities, and as petrodollar-flush Muslims and Muslim treasuries supply generous funds, Muslims gather more power to undermine a serious challenge to the American system of governance-democracy. As for democracy, the rule of the people, Muslims have no use at all. Muslims believe that Allah's rule must govern the world in the form of Caliphate-a theocracy. Making mockery of democracy, subverting its working, and ignoring its provisions is a Muslim's way of falsifying what he already believes to be a sinful and false system of governance invented by the infidels.
A consortium composed of pandering liberal politicians, blinded by short-term self-interest and egotism, attention and fund-seeking self-proclaimed prima donna professors; and, bastions of useful idiots, are the witting or unwitting promoters of Ummah-ism.
Unlike some peaceful religions such as Baha'i, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism and Christianity which advocate universally understood principles of good within their Holy books, and perhaps other religious doctrines (with which I am not personally familiar), Islam cannot be reformed. An example, when the Christian Catholic church was reformed, it was the church that was found to be in violation of Biblical teachings. It had in many ways become anti-Christian.
Reform restored orthodoxy to the plain and well-understood concepts revealed by Christ and the disciples (one of the reasons it took so long was the church forbade lay-people from reading the bible or translating it from the dead language Latin...so Europeans were largely ignorant except for what they were told...see the story of Martin Luther). Some evolutionary ideas such as abolition of slavery were not addressed in the Bible (in part because Christ was after the souls not the bodies), but the other teachings such as compassion, forgiveness, non-violence, and brotherly love are and were always incompatible with slavery. Therefore it should be no surprise that eventually Christians in Europe and America led the abolitionist movement (they were scripturally correct). If a Christian bombs an abortion clinic, there is no scriptural commandment supporting this. It is unchristian (however, it is not unchristian to denounce abortion and seek to make it illegal and thus prevent abortionists from practicing their craft).
It is sad when the counter-argument to this definition of Christianity is lame references to Old Testament violence. Old Testament stories are taught in Christianity as historical fact, not prescriptions based on Christian ethics. If to a Christian, God is sanctioned a violent act, it is 100% irrelevant to the New Covenant that is taught by Jesus. So to say...yeah but the Bible has violence in it too is insultingly banal and misleading.
If some Christians abused their doctrine and hid behind the Cross to justify their personal desire to kill, enslave, and conquer, then they are and always were sinners and they are wrong; and this is why Christianity has taken the natural form it has today...as a religion of peace and compassion (even if many supposed Christians continue to sin). This is not to say that Christians are unable to defend themselves, or intervene to stop injustice. Christians are taught to hate the sin and love the sinner...period! The decision to become aggressive is always a burden on the Christian conscience.
But Islam does not tolerate revisionism in its beliefs or practices over time. Reform is not at play, because one cannot point to Jihadists or terrorists and say Muhammad did not advocate it. He most certainly did, and delighted in his evil thoughts. Islam is a literal religion, taking unabrogated scripture as eternal and absolute. Moreover, there are no calls in Islam for compassion, forgiveness, non-violence, and brotherly love. Instead there are specific prescriptions for retain evil with evil, eternal warfare, religious hegemony, slavery, killing Jews, taxing nonbelievers, stoning, promulgating terror, establishing a caste social system, and perpetuating discrimination against women. The only way to reform Islam is discarding Sharia, but also purging the Quran itself of enormous suras that are not only patently false, but totally repugnant to a civilized humanity. This line of thinking, to sanitize Islam is explicitly forbidden in the Quran:
Quran 2:85:"Do you, then, believe in some parts of the divine writ and deny the truth of other parts? What, then, could be the reward of those among you who do such things but ignominy in the life of this world and, on the Day of Resurrection; they will be consigned to most grievous suffering? For God is not unmindful of what you do."
Therefore there is no such thing as "radical Islam." And those who take a "liberal" view of Islam should be forced to back up their nouveau interpretation with unabrogated scriptural facts. Unless such "reformists" can denounce fascist Islam with scripture, they are the true radicals, which is why we never see them pointing to scriptural arguments against jihad...they cannot because they are lying. Islamic terrorists are only doing exactly what Muhammad demanded, and his demands were not suggestions and they where not ephemeral. They were "perfect," eternal ultimata. Let us not forget that the terrorists are faithful and true to what is written in their holy book.
The notion that only those who denounce what is plainly Islamic (and just as plainly repulsive) are therefore the tools of Jews, or right-wing, paranoid, NASCAR-loving, gun-rights-worshipping, evangelical Christians must be exhaustively combated and rejected. This politicizing and obscuring reality only keeps people confused, inured, and numb.
But because both those who believe Islam is defective and those who believe it has been hijacked are equally in opposition to terrorism and coercion, there is confusion about how Islam should be regarded. Perhaps the contrasting viewpoints should be named so they can be referred to as valid concepts. The notion that Islam is peaceful, but that only "radicals" are usurping and distorting the "peace-of-Islam" should be called: Islam-revisionism and advocates called Islam-Revisionists
The notion that Islam is inherently violent, coercive, harsh, Jihad-oriented...and that it advocates slavery, intolerance, and inequality...and that such traditional and realistic interpretations cannot be reformed should be called Islam-realism and such advocates called Islam-realists.
Once the side of realists has a name and can distinguish itself from wishful revisionists, the public can begin to see that there are many voices which (without advocating a specific competing religion) can denounce Islam per se, and can speak to the real reasons. Islam continues its onslaught, and can counter any senseless position, such as reforming them and bringing democracy and tolerance to their lands (the RINOS position).
Recall how many times former President George W. Bush praised Islam? Recall President George Bush's love affairs with the Sheikh Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and President Obama's bow to the Saudis' Sheikh? Apparently, both presidents were/are unaware of the existence of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasans in the United States military, though the entire 8 years of the presidency of George W. Bush consumed around the 9/11 tragedy and Islamic terrorism. Next in line to the Islamic Republic of Iran, Saudi Arabia is the largest sponsor and supporter of Islamic terrorism in the world. Go figure!
Please tell the American people what has been done since this Muslim-American Maj. savagely killed 14 people while shouting Allah-o-Akbar (one unborn child) and hurting 30 others? As I noted, the recent dastardly mass murder at Fort Hood, committed by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan will be forgotten by the public before very long. Life will continue on its deadly course, pushed along in a variety of ways by agents of death, Islamists. Only the families who lost their loved-ones and those who survived the bullets have to live the rest of their lives with incapacitating injuries and, in the main, won't be able to put the episode behind them.
Those who claim that they want to reform Islam want to transform it by stripping it of a great many provisions that are anathema to civilized humanity. These people are, in fact, trying to make a new religion out of the old with no divine authority that was, supposedly, bestowed upon Muhammad to launch his religion.
If I am right, then Islam will always be a bête noire to the West. Even dopey secularists and leftists will realize that fact one day, perhaps only after their delusions sink all of us. But realizing the fact that this religious power is at eternal war with you is not an act of hopelessness, and therefore it is not a call to pollyanishness. It simply means we must always be on our guard and never self-deluded. It may mean we have to leave the Islamists alone and hope that their people slowly convert to another religion or become unaffiliated. Until then, we should keep our powder dry.
I have refused to accept several organizations that seek to combat or expose the antics of "radical" or "extreme" Islam, because I know that it is not extremism that is causing the violence...it's mainstream, typical, normal, traditional, specified, canonical Islam.
There are those who with a wink and a nod understand this but continue to work as revisionists because they are afraid of starting a religious war, even as they feel compelled to do something. They tell me, "You can't openly accuse an entire religion of being evil! That would just incite them and make them hate us even more. My response: the war started in the 7th century, and if in the 21st century we still refuse to accept that reality, then there is perhaps is no hope at all for civilization. Nothing good can come from deception.
I argue that any belief system that licenses murder in the name of Jihad and the conquering and subduing of the world of the infidels by the Ummah, should be outlawed. Prophet Mohammed brewed up a militant, radical and extremely irrational imperialistic cult that sought world dominance. My fellow travelers, let us make one thing clear; Islam is no more a religion deserving our respect or legal recognition than is cannibalism.
It is time for the Americans to call upon the lawmakers of the United States of America to immediately create a safety board and commissioner to study and examine the dangers of Islamic dogma in our society. In the monumental task of dealing with Islam, every individual, group and government must combine their resources and energies to prevail. The destiny of the civilized life hangs in the balance. Shirking responsibility is an unpardonable act of every enlightened human being and organization that values human liberty and dignity. |
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment