How Nazism Explains ‘Moderate’ and ‘Radical’ Islam


The question to ponder: Since a majority of Muslims consider themselves to be moderate and non-violent because the true Islam is non-violent and peaceful, should we believe the moderates since Islamic terrorists quote the Quran to justify their violent actions? Raymond Ibrahim examines some examples from Hitler’s Third Reich between a good Nazi and a bad Nazi; then applies the logic to Islam.

JRH 8/17/15

Please Support NCCR

*****************************

 

How Nazism Explains ‘Moderate’ and ‘Radical’ Islam

By Raymond Ibrahim

August 16, 2015

Raymond Ibrahim – Islam Translated

Also posted at PJ Media

If Islamic doctrines are inherently violent, why isn’t every single Muslim in the world—that is, approximately 1.5 billion people—violent?

This question represents one of Islam’s most popular apologetics: because not all Muslims are violent, intolerant, or sponsor terrorism—a true statement—Islam itself must be innocent.

Let’s briefly consider this logic.

First, there are, in fact, many people who identify themselves as Muslims but who do not necessarily adhere to or support Islam’s more supremacist and intolerant doctrines. If you have lived in a Muslim majority nation, you would know this to be true.

The all-important question is, what do such Muslims represent? Are they following a legitimate, “moderate,” version of Islam—one more authentic than the terrorist variety? That’s what the media, politicians, and academics would have us believe.

The best way to answer this question is by analogy:

German Nazism is a widely condemned ideology, due to its (“Aryan/white”) supremacist element. But the fact is, many Germans who were members or supporters of the Nazi party were “good” people. They did not believe in persecuting Jews and other “non-Aryans,” and some even helped such “undesirables” escape, at no small risk to themselves.

Consider Oskar Schindler. An ethnic German and formal member of the Nazi party, he went to great lengths to save Jews from slaughter.

How do we reconcile his good deed with his bad creed?

Was Schindler practicing a legitimate, “moderate,” form of Nazism? Or is it more reasonable to say that he subscribed to some tenets of National Socialism, but when it came to killing fellow humans in the name of racial supremacy, his humanity rose above his allegiance to Nazism?

Indeed, many Germans joined or supported the National Socialist Party more because it was the “winning” party, one that offered hope, and less because of its racial theories.

That said, other Germans joined the Nazi party precisely because of its racial supremacist theories and were only too happy to see “sub-humans” incinerated.

Now consider how this analogy applies to Islam and Muslims: first, unlike most Germans who chose to join or support the Nazi party, the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world were simply born into Islam; they had no choice. Many of these Muslims know the bare minimum about Islam—the Five Pillars—and are ignorant of Islam’s supremacist theories.

Add Islam’s apostasy law to the mix—leaving Islam can earn the death penalty—and it becomes clear that there are many nominal “Muslims” who seek not to rock the boat.

That said, there are also a great many Muslims who know exactly what Islam teaches—including violence, plunder, and enslavement of the kafir, or infidel—and who happily follow it precisely because of its supremacism.

In both Nazism and Islam, we have a supremacist ideology on the one hand, and people who find themselves associated with this ideology for a number of reasons on the other hand: from those born into it, to those who join it for its temporal boons, to those who are sincere and ardent believers.

The all-important difference is this: when it comes to Nazism, the world is agreed that it is a supremacist ideology. Those who followed it to the core were “bad guys”—such as Adolf Hitler. As for the “good Nazis,” who helped shelter persecuted Jews and performed other altruistic deeds, the world acknowledges that they were not following a “moderate” form of Nazism, but that their commitment to Nazism was nonchalant at best.

This is the correct paradigm to view Islam and Muslims with: Islam does contain violent and supremacist doctrines. This is a simple fact. Those who follow it to the core were and are “bad guys”—for example, Osama bin Laden. Still, there are “good Muslims.” Yet they are good not because they follow a good, or “moderate,” Islam, but because they are not thoroughly committed to Islam in the first place.

Put differently, was Schindler’s altruism a product of “moderate Nazism” or was it done in spite of Nazism altogether? Clearly the latter. In the same manner, if a Muslim treats a non-Muslim with dignity and equality, is he doing so because he follows a legitimate brand of “moderate Islam,” or is he doing so in spite of Islam, because his own sense of decency compels him?

Considering that Islamic law is unequivocally clear that non-Muslims are to be subjugated and live as third-class “citizens”—the Islamic State’s many human rights abuses vis-à-vis non-Muslims are a direct byproduct of these teachings—clearly any Muslim who treats “infidels” with equality is behaving against Islam.

So why is the West unable to apply the Nazi paradigm to the question of Islam and Muslims? Why is it unable to acknowledge that Islamic teachings are inherently supremacist, though obviously not all Muslims are literally following these teachings—just like not all members of any religion are literally following the teachings of their faith?

This question becomes more pressing when one realizes that, for over a millennium, the West deemed Islam an inherently violent and intolerant cult. Peruse the writings of non-Muslims from the dawn of Islam up until recently—from Theophanes the Confessor (d. 818) to Winston Churchill (d. 1965)—and witness how they all depicted Islam as a violent creed that thrives on conquering, plundering, and subjugating the “other.” (Here are Marco Polo’s thoughts).

The problem today is that the politically correct establishment—academia, mainstream media, politicians, and all other talking heads—not ones to be bothered with reality or history, have made it an established “fact” that Islam is “one of the world’s great religions.” Therefore, the religion itself—not just some of its practitioners —is inviolable to criticism.

The point here is that identifying the negative elements of an ideology and condemning it accordingly is not so difficult. We have already done so, with Nazism and other ideologies and cults. And we know the difference between those who follow such supremacist ideologies (“bad” people), and those who find themselves as casual, uncommitted members (good or neutral people).

In saner times when common sense could vent and breathe, this analogy would have been deemed superfluous. In our times, however, where lots of nonsensical noise is disseminated far and wide by the media—and tragically treated as serious “analysis”—common sense must be methodically spelled out: Yes, an ideology/religion can be accepted as violent or even evil, and no, many of its adherents need not be violent or evil—they can even be good—for the reasons discussed above.

This is the most objective way to understand the relationship between Islam as a body of teachings and Muslims as individual people.

_________________________

The reproduction of any material or information originating on this website
must include either a link to this website or cite the name of this website
(RaymondIbrahim.com) as the source of the material or information reproduced. Violators will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

© 2015 Raymond Ibrahim

The U.S. State Department: Out of Touch with Reality


United Against Terrorism - Sharia heavy Muslim manual

ACT for America promotes an Andrew C. McCarthy article from NRO that exposes the U.S. State Department endorsing a Muslim manual supposedly meant to be an anti-terrorist perspective from Canadian Moderate Muslims. The hypocrisy that McCarthy exposes is that the Muslim manual promotes all that is harsh and extreme pertaining to Islam’s Sharia Law.

 

JRH 10/15/14

Please Support NCCR

********************************

The U.S. State Department: Out of Touch with Reality

 

Sent by ACT for America

Sent: 10/13/2014 7:57 AM

 

The U.S. State Department: Out of Touch with America, Out of Touch with Reality

 

The U.S. State Department once again demonstrates that it fails to grasp the true nature of the threat from Islamic jihad by endorsing a Canadian publication produced by Islamist organizations—even after the Canadian Mounted Police rejected the very same manual.

State Department Endorses Canadian Islamist Manual that Describes Jihad as ‘Noble’

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++

State Department Endorses Canadian Islamist Manual that Describes Jihad as ‘Noble’

 

By Andrew C. McCarthy

OCTOBER 8, 2014 2:29 PM

National Review Online

 

At the Washington Free Beacon, Adam Kredo reports that the State Department has issued a tweet endorsing a manual that promotes sharia and admonishes investigators not to use terms like “jihad,” which it describes as “a noble concept” in Islam.

 

The manual, United Against Terrorism, is said by its sponsors – the Islamic Social Services Association (ISSA) and the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) – to combat the radicalization of young Muslims. Yet, after being consulted during the manual’s writing, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police rejected the final product due to its “adversarial tone.”

 

That’s putting it mildly. Upon reading the book, Toronto Star columnist Anthony Furey observes that it frowns on “liberal values,” forbidding such things as the intermingling of the sexes in civil society and the marriage of a Muslim woman to a non-Muslim, while promoting the treatment of adultery and premarital sex as crimes for which “punishments are harsh.”

 

The manual admonishes that “Terrorism is not jihad. Jihad is a noble concept in Islam.” It further discourages Muslims from cooperating with law enforcement officials, even if the police are seeking information about Islamic radicals – the very “extremists” the manual ostensibly sets itself against. It also derides investigative measures designed to gather intelligence against terrorists.

 

Yet, the U.S. State Department lauded the manual yesterday, tweeting: “Canada: handbook to help parents understand extremists, combat recruitment [with a link to the manual.]”

 

As Mr. Kredo notes, the State Department’s approbation struck some Twitter users as curious. It should not have. The State Department, throughout the tenures of Secretaries Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, has been second only to the White House itself in championing the Muslim Brotherhood, whose promotion of sharia and project to forbid notice of the Islamic doctrinal roots of Islamic terrorism are amply reflected in the manual.

 

The airbrushing of jihad is also familiar. It is the same spin I discussed here in 2010 when then-White House counterterrorism czar (and now-CIA director) John Brennan claimed that we must not “describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’” because “jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam” that merely means “to purify oneself or one’s community.”

 

In point of fact, according to the authoritative sharia manual Reliance of the Traveller, which has been endorsed by scholars at al-Azhar University in Cairo (the seat of Sunni scholarship since the tenth century) and by the International Institute of Islamic Thought (the Muslim Brotherhood’s think-tank), “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims.” As Answering Islam’s Yoel Natan has recounted, jihad is referred to in 164 verses of the Koran, almost exclusively in terms of combat.

 

Moreover, if – even as jihadists are rampaging – you want to indulge the Brennan/Obama administration fantasy that jihad has evolved, Brennan’s anodyne rendering of the concept is hopelessly flawed. I explained why in the 2010 column:

 

Jihad is, always and everywhere, the mission to implement, spread, or defend sharia, the Islamic legal code. It is not exclusively violent; an army doesn’t need to be violent if its enemies are willing to give ground. But jihad only “means to purify oneself or one’s community” in a very narrow sense. It is not the syrupy quest to become a better person but the command to become a better Muslim; it is not the smiley-face mission to “purify” one’s community of crime but the command to cleanse one’s community of non-Islamic influences.

 

The inextricable bond between jihad and sharia is also easily explained. In Muslim doctrine, sharia is deemed the necessary precondition for Islamicizing a society. Islam’s designs are hegemonic: Even in its less threatening iterations, it is taken as a given that believers must call all of humanity to the faith. What separates the true moderates from the faux moderates and the terrorists are the lengths to which one is willing to go in carrying out that injunction. That it is an injunction, however, is not open to debate.

 

Our political leaders can continue to trivialize jihad as if it were some benign struggle to brush after every meal. They can continue to ignore the core tenets that make sharia antithetical to a free, self-determining society. But they can’t do that and do the only job we need them to do: protect our lives and our liberties.

 

Again, if the State Department, the administration, and the Beltway political class are going to keep looking at Islamists –i.e., Islamic supremacists who promote sharia – as part of the counterterrorism solution rather than a big part of the anti-American, anti-Western liberalism problem, we are never going to get out of our own way.

_______________________

The U.S. State Department: Out of Touch with Reality

 

ACT for America is a 501(c)(4) issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure. Donations to ACT for America are not tax deductible.
_____________________

State Department Endorses Canadian Islamist Manual that Describes Jihad as ‘Noble’

 

© National Review Online 2014. All Rights Reserved.

Radical Islam is the Muslim Reformation


Mo - Martin Luther

John R. Houk

© September 4, 2014

 

ACT! for America basically represents the Counterjihad camp in which there is a divide in in Sunni Islam, viz. between the majority Moderate Muslims and the Radical Muslim purist Islam which is often described as Salafist Islam (Arab influence) or Deobandi Islam (Indian subcontinent [Short version and more Detailed version] – i.e. India-Pakistan). Pew Research estimates that 87% – 90% of Muslims are Sunni in 2009. A BBC article dated in December 2013 has the Sunni percentage between 85% – 90% of Islam.

 

The Counterjihad leader of ACT! for America Brigitte Gabriele cites “intelligent services” globally at a 2014 Benghazi Conference for the Heritage Foundation. Gabrielle says 15% – 25% of global Muslims are Radical. Unfortunately she does not cite which specific intelligence services she has in mind:

 

There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world today. Of course not all of them are radicals! The majority of them are peaceful people. The radicals are estimated to be between 15 to 25 percent, according to all intelligence services around the world. That leaves 75 percent of them peaceful people.

 

But when you look at 15 to 25 percent of the world’s Muslim population, you’re looking at 180 million to 300 million people dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization. That is as big [as] the United States. (Heritage Panelist Brigitte Gabriel was asked about radical Islam. Her response is BRILLIANT… By Hannah Bleau; Young Conservatives; 6/14/14)

 

In a 2008 article by Daniel Pipes that was originally posted in the Jerusalem Post, Pipes shows the difficulty in pinning down the percentage of Muslims that are Radical:

 

As with any attitudinal estimate, however, several factors impede approximating the percentage of Islamists.

 

·         How much fervor: Gallup polled over 50,000 Muslims across 10 countries and found that, if one defines radicals as those who deemed the 9/11 attacks “completely justified,” their number constitutes about 7 percent of the total population. But if one includes Muslims who considered the attacks “largely justified,” their ranks jump to 13.5 percent. Adding those who deemed the attacks “somewhat justified” boosts the number of radicals to 36.6 percent. Which figure should one adopt?

 

·        

 

 

Negatively, 10-15 percent suggests that Islamists number about 150 million out of a billion plus Muslims – more than all the fascists and communists who ever lived. Positively, it implies that most Muslims can be swayed against Islamist totalitarianism. READ ENTIRETY (Counting Islamists; By Daniel Pipes; DanielPipes.org; 10/8/08)

 

Ten percent was the percentage of Radical Muslims I last heard about prior to Brigitte Gabriel’s 15% – 25%. Pipes places in perspective the reasons for pulling a lot of radical numbers out of the hat of percentages. That percentage might be as low as 7% or as high as Gabriel’s 25% or even the higher 36% criteria. Also cited by Pipes that the number of radical Muslims will number to the hundreds of millions at the lowest to a higher number of over 300 million cited by Gabriel. In 2012 Pew Research believes the global amount of Muslims was 1.6 billion. Thirty percent of 1.6 billion Muslims is around 576 MILLION Radical Muslims. Whether the Radical Muslims number about a hundred million or half a billion that is a lot of Muslims that might be willing to enforce Islam by violence.

 

Then there are the Counterjihad writers and pundits that look at the Quran in the same way a Radical Muslim does and comes to the conclusion that a good Muslim follows the examples of Muhammad the false prophet of Islam. Self-proclaimed Moderate Muslims will proclaim that Muhammad is the perfect example of the perfect man, ergo Mo is the perfect example for the basis for a Muslim to conduct his life. It would not matter to a devout Moderate or a Radical Muslim on the nature of the Islamic lifestyle based on the etched in stone perfect man which is Muhammad (Mohammed, Mohamet, etc. depending on the time period in which an English language publication is involved). To the Counterjihadists who look at all good Muslims are Muslims of Muhammad and the Quran there is really no difference between Moderate and Radical except in the display of violence. Which is to say every single Muslim under the right circumstances are more than capable of emulating their prophet.

 

I tend to lean toward this second camp of Counterjihadists. I’m very appreciative of non-violent expositors of Islam but because of the Islamic Quran, Hadith, Sira and Sunnah I do not trust the ultimate aim of Islam’s version of evangelism (dawah).

 

And specifically for me Islam is a particularly vile because its own writings condemn Judaism and Christianity as perversions of Islam as if Islam has always existed. Islam has not always existed. Old Mo crafted the death cult borrowing from Judaism, Christianity and singularizing the polytheistic moon cult of the deity of Allah. Mo essentially eclecticized*** the three religious beliefs to mold a singular monotheistic death-cult that is capable of transforming the human mind socio-politically via a divine theology.

 

[*** Apparently a quick perusal of Google tells me I may have created a derivative word with “eclecticized”. For clarity’s sake I derive this word from “eclecticism” which is definitely a word – from dictionary.com under ‘Encyclopedia Article for eclecticism’:

 

(from Greek eklektikos, “selective”), in philosophy and theology, the practice of selecting doctrines from different systems of thought  without adopting the whole parent system for each doctrine. It is distinct from syncretism-the attempt to reconcile or combine systems-inasmuch as it leaves the contradictions between them unresolved. In the sphere of abstract thought, eclecticism is open to the objection that insofar as each system is supposed to be a whole of which its various doctrines are integral parts, the arbitrary juxtaposition of doctrines from different systems risks a fundamental incoherence.                In practical affairs, however, the eclectic spirit has much to commend it.]

 

A Muslim apologist might bring up the thought that not all Radical Muslims are violent jihadists. Indeed there is an element of truth in that thought. Yet since I am in the camp that believes every Muslim that believes he is a good Muslim is capable of violence present with the proper circumstances, the so-called non-violent Radical Muslims will easily turn to violence when provoked. And provocation can be set off with anything a Muslim considers an insult to Muhammad, Islam and Allah. Essentially a Biblical Christian as myself has insulted Muhammad, Islam and Allah by calling Mo a false prophet, calling Islam an antichrist religion and Allah a man-made deity manufactured from Judaism, Christianity and an old Arabic polytheistic moon-god. I have no doubts that if I was a bigger dog in the blogosphere I would have a fatwa given by some cleric for my death or that some Muslim taking it upon himself to satisfy honor would murder me.

 

I have to assert here I am no expert on Islam nonetheless I can read. From what I have read pertaining to Radical Islam is that it is a relatively recent development in a historical perspective. The theo-political religion of Islam itself historically is attributed to Mo circa 622 AD. (Modern academics prefer Christian Era or Common Era or C.E. these days rather than the Latin Christian usage of Anno Domini or AD translated to English as Year of our Lord.)

 

As I wrote in the first paragraph the Radical Sunni Islam is roughly divided between Salafists and Deobandis. These are Islamic purist renewal movements within Islam. In essence it is the Muslim version of a Reformation. In Christianity many Christians began to believe the Papacy had exceeded its purpose in granting such things as indulgences for money, i.e. forgiveness of sins if a sum of money was paid to the Papacy. Another example was evoking a reverence for holy relics which were more often than not fake forgeries of what were claimed to be artifacts from Biblical and Early Christian beginnings. These protesting Christians became known as Protestants because the protested that the Roman Catholic Church was moving too far into man-made traditions above the authority of the Holy Scriptures. The Papacy’s first solution for these protesting Christians was to condemn them as heretics for being contrary to the Holy Pope the vicar of God on Earth. The Protestants became successful largely to the support of big dog Nobles and Kings supporting the earliest protesting Christians such as Martin Luther (German), Ulrich Zwingli (Swiss) and John Calvin (French). The three Protestant Reformers were hardly on the same page monolithically however they agreed on one point, viz. that the Pope had exceeded his theological authority in creating tradition rather than adhering closer to the Scripture and/or the Early Church.

 

The Salafis and the Deobandis also desire a return to the earliest principles of Islam. Which if you are unfamiliar with those Islamic early days were very sadistically violent and expansionist in building an empire to convert the world to Islam. For me this explains the gravitation of Radical Muslims to gravitate toward violent terrorism. These transnational Islamic terrorists really haven’t had the means to create a formidable military to exact conquest of the world since the demise of the Ottoman Turkish Empire. Or least not yet …

 

Iran has been developing nukes to spread its concepts of a Shia Revolution upon the Earth. Now it is looking like ISIS-ISIL-IS forging a Sunni-Jihadi-Salafi-Muslim nation carved out of Iraq and Syria.

 

In the detailed version link above pertaining to Deobandi Sunnis you will note its origins derive Shah Waliullah who lived from 1703 – 1762. I say “derive” because a school was founded in 1867 in India called Darul Uloom Deoband. Whence the name Deobandi.

 

The Salafi Movement also has early inspiration but its spread among various Sunni locations did not really occur until 19th and 20th century. There are two or three Muslims scholars that were influential on modern Salafi movements. The primary one I am aware of is Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah (1263 – 1328):

 

[He] was a Sunni Islamic scholar born in Harran, located in what is now Turkey, close to the Syrian border. He lived during the troubled times of the Mongol invasions. As a member of the school founded by Ibn Hanbal, he sought the return of Islam to its sources: The Qur’an and the sunnah (the prophetic tradition of Muhammad). He did not consider the Mongols to be true Muslims and encouraged war against them. He believed that legitimate Islam is based on the opinions of the earliest Muslims, the salafa. He was critical of Shi’a and of Sufi Muslims for venerating their Imams and Sheikhs and for teaching that God dwelt within them. He was also critical of venerating and visiting the shrines of dead saints.

 

He was intolerant of Christians, arguing that Christianity as practiced was a corruption of what Jesus has taught, which was the message of Islam. He was also critical of Islamic philosophy and accused Ibn Rushd, Ibn Sina, and al-Frabi of being unbelievers for teaching that the world is eternal, which makes God redundant. At times employed by the authorities he was at other times imprisoned by those same authorities, who disagreed with his views. However, he attracted a large following and about 100,000 people, including many women, are said to have attended his funeral. He did much to revive the popularity of the Hanbali legal school. He is cited with approval by Islamist Muslims. His belief that Muslims who did not live under the Sharia lived in ignorance (jahilia) was taken up by such twentieth century thinkers as Sayyid Qutb and Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi. (Ibn Taymiyyah; New World Encyclopedia; This page was last modified on 3/30/14 22:41)

 

Another person of influence among Salafists is Ibn Qudamah (1147 AD – 1223 AD):

 

Imam Mawaffaq ad-Din Abdullah Ibn Ahmad Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi (Arabic ابن قدامة Ibn Qudamah) was a noted Islamic scholar of the Hanbali madhhab, author of many treatises of Hanbali jurisprudence and doctrine, including al-Mughni (the most widely known textbook of Hanbali fiqh) as well as Tahrim an-Nazar (Censure of Speculative Theology, criticism of Ibn Aqil‘s views.) He was a member of the school founded by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and is considered, along with Ibn Taymiyyah, as one of the two most significant proponents of Hanbalism; in the modern era, adherents of the school often refer to the two as “the two sheikhs and Sheikh ul-Islam.[2] (Some links removed – Ibn Qudamah; Wikipedia; This page was last modified 1/15/14 01:02)

 

And according to Mark Durie another influential person to Salafists was Ibn Qayyim:

 

There is hardly another Muslim Mamluk polymath of such standing who at the same time is best known as the student of someone else. Despite his own extraordinary scientific output, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyah (1292–1350) was Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyah’s (1263–1328) most famous and important student. Even centuries later, he is still primarily known and defined by his relation and service to his master, whose works he compiled and whose legal doctrines and hermeneutical and theological convictions he defended. While Ibn Taymiyah led a life characterized by conflict on several fronts, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyah—with the exception of a few incidents—was a rather bookish man who preferred pious scientific endeavors to confrontations of any kind. (Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyah: His Life and Works; By BIRGIT KRAWIETZ; Middle East Documentation Center, The University of Chicago; © 2006, 2012)

 

A prominent book among Salafists on living a Sharia-like life is al-Misri’s Reliance of the Traveller (easy to access but difficult to read pdf and a Scribd assessable pdf) translated into English by Nuh Ha Mini Keller (an American convert to Islam living in Jordan). Salafists tend to think of themselves as most affiliated to the most conservative Islamic school of thought of Hanbali; however the irony is seems Reliance is affiliated with the Shafi’i school of Islamic thought which from what I have read seems to be the easiest to follow of the four schools. Keller’s English translation of Reliance includes biographical info on people some of Misri’s concepts include. One of those people is ibn Taymiyyah.

 

There are two Radical Islamic groups that have affected America and Israel via transnational terrorism that think of themselves as Salafists but other Salafis question that appellation for them: Wahhabis and the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). Between Wahhabis and the MB there seem to be nuanced differences but in the eyes of Americans there both anti-Liberty theo-political ideologies bent on Islamic Supremacism by hook or by crook.

 

Wahhabism

 

Wahhabism began as a religious and spiritual reform movement in Najd, a remote and rather featureless area of central Arabia. Its founder, Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab (1703-92), was born in Najd, into a region inhabited by an Arab population of predominantly tribal structure. Based on the legal interpretations of Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taymiyah, which are conservative and literal in approach, Wahhabism is based on Sunni Islam but is very puritanical in its outlook. It forbids all practices that might be considered innovations, such as the Sufi custom of venerating saints, and disapproves of activities such as listening to music.

 

Wahhabi Muslims do not usually refer to themselves as such, but use terms such as Salafi (‘followers of pious forefathers’). (Wahhabi manuscript; Online Gallery Sacred Texts)

 

Wahhabi or Wahabi (wähäˈbē) … reform movement in Islam, originating in Arabia; adherents of the movement usually refer to themselves as Muwahhidun [unitarians]. It was founded by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahab (c.1703–1791), who was influenced by Ibn Taymiyya and taught that all accretions to Islam after the 3d cent. of the Muslim era—i.e., after c.950—were spurious and must be expunged. This view, involving essentially a purification of the Sunni sect, regarded the veneration of saints, ostentation in worship, and luxurious living as the chief evils. Accordingly, Wahhabi mosques are simple and without minarets, and the adherents dress plainly and do not smoke tobacco or hashish.

 

Driven from Medina for his preaching, the founder of the Wahhabi sect went into the NE Nejd and converted the Saud tribe. The Saudi sheik, convinced that it was his religious mission to wage holy war (jihad) against all other forms of Islam, began the conquest of his neighbors in c.1763. By 1811 the Wahhabis ruled all Arabia, except Yemen, from their capital at Riyadh. The Ottoman sultan, nominally suzerain over Arabia, had vainly sent out expeditions to crush them. Only when the sultan called on Muhammad Ali of Egypt for aid did he meet success; by 1818 the Wahhabis were driven into the desert.

 

In the Nejd the Wahhabis collected their power again and from 1821 to 1833 gained control over the Persian Gulf coast of Arabia. The domain thereafter steadily weakened; Riyadh was lost in 1884, and in 1889 the Saud family fled for refuge into the neighboring state of Kuwait. The Wahhabi movement was to enjoy its third triumph when Ibn Saud advanced from his capture of Riyadh in 1902 to the reconstitution in 1932 of nearly all his ancestral domain under the name Saudi Arabia, where it remains dominant. Wahhabism served as an inspiration to other Islamic reform movements from India and Sumatra to North Africa and Sudan, and during the 20th cent. has influenced the Taliban of Aghanistan (sic) and Islamist movements elsewhere.

 

The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2012, Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. (Wahhabi; Infoplease.com)

 

9/11 Commission. The Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (the “9/11 Commission”) claims that “Islamist terrorism” finds inspiration in “a long tradition of extreme intolerance” that flows “through the founders of Wahhabism,” the Muslim Brotherhood, and prominent Salafi thinkers. The report further details the education and activities of some 9/11 hijackers in the Al Qassim province of Saudi Arabia, which the report describes as “the very heart of the strict Wahhabi movement in Saudi Arabia.” According to the Commission, some Saudi “Wahhabi- funded organizations,” such as the now-defunct Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, “have been exploited by extremists to further their goal of violent jihad against non-Muslims.”17 Due in part to these findings, the Commission recommended a frank discussion of the relationship between the United States and its “problematic ally,” Saudi Arabia. (The Islamic Traditions of Wahhabism and Salafiyya; By Christopher M. Blanchard; fpc.state.govCRS Report for Congress; updated 1/17/07)

 

Muslim Brotherhood

 

·         Influential Islamist organization

 

·         Ideological forebear of Hamas and al Qaeda

 

·         Supports imposition of Shari’a law

 

·         Approves of terrorism against Israel and the West

 

         See also:


       The Muslim Brotherhood’s “General Strategic Goal” for North America


The Muslim Brotherhood’s “Global Project for Palestine”

Hasan al-Banna 

 

Sayyid Qutb 

 

Yusuf al-Qaradawi

 

Al Qaeda

 

Hamas

 

Jihad Is The Way

 

Founded in 1928 by the Egyptian schoolteacher/activist Hasan al-Banna (a devout admirer of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis), the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) — a Sunni entity — is one of the oldest, largest and most influential Islamist organizations in the world. While Egypt historically has been the center of the Brotherhood’s operations, the group today is active in more than 70 countries (some estimates range as high as 100+). Islam expert Robert Spencer has called MB “the parent organization of Hamas and al Qaeda.” In 2003, Richard Clarke – the chief counterterrorism advisor on the U.S. National Security Council during both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations – told a Senate committee that Hamas, al Qaeda, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad were all “descendants of the membership and ideology of the Muslim Brothers.”

MB was established in accordance with al-Banna’s proclamation that Islam should be “given hegemony over all matters of life.” Toward that end, the Brotherhood seeks to establish an Islamic caliphate, or kingdom — first spanning all of the present-day Muslim world, and eventually the entire globe. The organization further aspires to dismantle all non-Islamic governments wherever they currently exist, and to make Islamic Law (Shari’a) the sole basis of jurisprudence everywhere on earth. This purpose is encapsulated in the Brotherhood’s militant credo: “God is our objective, the Koran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, struggle [jihad] is our way, and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations.”

 

 

Embracing Hasan al-Banna’s belief that Islam is destined to eventually dominate all the world, MB today is global in its reach, wielding influence in almost every country with a Muslim population. Moreover, it maintains political parties in many Middle-Eastern and African countries, including Algeria, Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen, and even Israel. Not only does the Brotherhood exist in Israel proper, but its Palestinian chapter created the terrorist organization Hamas, through which MB has supported terrorism against Israel ever since. …

 

 

In May 1991, MB issued to its ideological allies an explanatory memorandum on “the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.” Asserting that the Brotherhood’s mission was to establish “an effective and … stable Islamic Movement” on the continent, this document outlined a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” for achieving that objective. It stated that Muslims “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands … so that … God’s religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions.” Through stealth jihad, the Brotherhood would seek to impose Islamic values and customs on the West in piecemeal fashion — gradually, incrementally gaining ever-greater influence over the culture. The memorandum listed some 29 likeminded “organizations of our friends” which sought to realize the same goal.

 

 

MB Outlawed in Egypt:

On Christmas Day 2013, the Egyptian government formally labeled the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group, banning all of its activities including protests. The announcement came after the government blamed the Brotherhood for the suicide bombing of a police station in Mansoura. READ ENTIRETY (some repetitive links removed – MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD (MB); Determine the Networks)

 

I felt compelled to share my thoughts on Islam due to an ACT! for America email that promotes an essay by Alastair Crooke that ACT found on HuffPo. As a Conservative I am suspicious of the value of anything found on a website that promotes a Leftist perspective. HuffPo definitely is Left Wing (or for those into politically correct semantics – Progressive). So I decided to do a little checking on Mr. Crooke:

 

Alastair Crooke, … (born 1950) is a British diplomat, the founder and director of the Conflicts Forum, an organisation that advocates for engagement between political Islam and the West.[1] Previously he was a ranking figure in both British intelligence (MI6) and European Union diplomacy.[2]

 

… He held clandestine meetings with the Hamas leadership in June 2002. He is an active advocate of engagement with Hamas to whom he referred as “Resistants or Resistance Fighters”.

 

… (Alastair Crooke; Wikipedia; This page was last modified 9/1/14 10:05)

 

 

Now, documents seized by Israel which have just been published reveal that in June 2002, Alistair (sic) Crooke, then working for Moratinos, met secretly in Gaza with a Hamas delegation headed by the organization’s then-leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.

 

 

Grovelling behaviour, indeed; but more than that, a lethal confusion of language. Crooke told Yassin that: ‘The main problem is the Israeli occupation’. Yassin agreed. But while Crooke appears to have been talking about the post-1967 occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, Yassin was talking about the ‘occupation’ of 1948:

 

 

In other words, the problem Yassin wanted removed was the existence of Israel itself. And Crooke did not demur. Instead, he replied:

 

‘I completely understand what you are saying. There is an understanding not only on the government level but also on the popular level, and there is sympathy with the Palestinian people…’

 

… Crooke observed:

 

‘As for terrorism, I hate that word. I have spent some time in my life with freedom fighters like in Colombia.’

 

So to the EU’s security adviser, the genocidal terrorists of Hamas are actually freedom fighters. In other words, they are morally justified in their campaign of mass murder, and Israel is morally unjustified in trying to defend itself against it. And this was just three months after the massacre of the Passover seder in Natanya.

 

… (Melanie Phillips on Alistair (sic) Crooke; Posted by Robert Spencer; Jihad Watch; 4/22/05 7:26am)

 

As far as Counterjihad writing goes, Crooke is Islamic terrorist friendly promoting the ungodly concept that Israel does not have the right to exist and the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians have a right to the Land of Israel – the Promised Land from God Almighty to the Jews as a perpetual inheritance.

 

Crooke’s essay on HuffPo is a fairly decent explanation of the Radical Islam of the Islamic terrorists ISIS-ISIL-IS. Crooke takes his readers on a journey of understanding on the emergence of Wahhabism and Saud family founder connecting theologically and politically for a mutual benefit. To understand the differences between Wahhabi Islam of Saudi Arabia and the extreme Salafism of ISIS he says this:

 

There is nothing here that separates Wahhabism from ISIS. The rift would emerge only later: from the subsequent institutionalization of Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab’s doctrine of “One Ruler, One Authority, One Mosque” — these three pillars being taken respectively to refer to the Saudi king, the absolute authority of official Wahhabism, and its control of “the word” (i.e. the mosque).

It is this rift — the ISIS denial of these three pillars on which the whole of Sunni authority presently rests — makes ISIS, which in all other respects conforms to Wahhabism, a deep threat to Saudi Arabia.

 

Crooke goes on a historical journal of how the Al Saud tribal leader Abd-al Aziz – continued by his son Saud bin Abd al Aziz – utilized Wahhabism as a unifying ideology of the Arab Peninsula Bedouins to push out the Ottoman Turks from control of Medina, Jeddah and Mecca. These are among the holiest sites in Islam. By 1818 the Ottomans used their client army composed of Egyptians to destroy the then Wahhabi capital of Dariyah. The Wahhabis and the Sauds disappeared into a desert life for the rest of the 19th century. In the early 20th century another Abd-al Aziz Saud tribal leader again used Wahhabi ideology to unite Arab Bedouins taking advantage of the Ottomans weakness in their empire because of the eventual loss of WWI.

 

Thus when read Alastair Crooke’s (not ‘Alistair and not to be confused with Alistair Cooke) essay of illumination about ISIS it is fairly decent; however keep in mind Crooke is writing under the belief that these poor misguided Radical Muslims desire a reform to the purist early days of Mo because they are exploited by the West, America in particular and Muslim world despotic leaders exploiting the universal Islamic ummah.

 

JRH 9/4/14

Please Support NCCR

*************************************

SAUDI ARABIA AND THE ISLAMIC STATE

Sent by ACT! for America: 9/2/2014 4:30 PM

 

There can be no denying that Saudi Arabia has long played a key role in the global Jihadist movement:


• 16 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis.

• The largest single source of foreign fighters among insurgents in Iraq fighting US GIs was Saudi Arabia.

• Wealthy Saudis have long funded charities that supported the families of HAMAS suicide bombers in Israel.

These are just a few examples of Saudi treachery in the war on terrorism.

But what is Saudi Arabia’s relationship with the new Islamic State? Why is Saudi Arabia’s king warning the West to take action against them? Can he be trusted?

Former British intelligence officer Alastair Crooke provides an informed background on this subject that can help all of us understand…

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
You Can’t Understand ISIS If You Don’t Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia

 

By Alastair Crooke

The World Post – HuffPo

Sent by ACT! for America: 9/2/2014 4:30 PM

HuffPo original post: 08/27/2014 11:56 am EDT – Updated: 08/28/2014 3:59 pm EDT

 

The dramatic arrival of Da’ish (ISIS) on the stage of Iraq has shocked many in the West. Many have been perplexed — and horrified — by its violence and its evident magnetism for Sunni youth. But more than this, they find Saudi Arabia’s ambivalence in the face of this manifestation both troubling and inexplicable, wondering, “Don’t the Saudis understand that ISIS threatens them, too?”

It appears — even now — that Saudi Arabia’s ruling elite is divided. Some applaud that ISIS is fighting Iranian Shiite “fire” with Sunni “fire”; that a new Sunni state is taking shape at the very heart of what they regard as a historical Sunni patrimony; and they are drawn by Da’ish’s strict Salafist ideology.

Other Saudis are more fearful, and recall the READ THE REST at SlantRight 2.0 with this as the starting point

Islam: Radical and Moderate or just Islam


Chris Plante, Clare Lopez, Brigitte Gabriel & Frank Gaffney

John R. Houk

© June 21, 2014

 

Justin O. Smith shared a Right Scoop article that largely contained a video of a Heritage Foundation panel Townhall question-answer session with the topic being, “Benghazi: The Difference it makes is Accountability”. At the Right Scoop link the post takes about 9 minutes of the panel discussion that focused on a question form a self-indicated Moderate Muslim gal by the name of Saba Ahmed.

 

Saba Ahmed’s question is roughly: How does America fight an ideological war with weapons? (In full disclosure I probably just gave an insufficient paraphrase. You’ll have watch the video to hear the full gist of her question.)

 

Frank Gaffney JR was the first panel member to respond, but Right Scoop wants you to focus on the answer provided by panel member Brigitte Gabriel. Gabriel’s reply was greatly passionate making it clear that not all Muslims are radicalized. Roughly she explains that about 25% of Muslims are proponents of Radical Islam and that the other roughly 75% are Moderate. I have read at various sources that may imply there is disagreement with Gabriel’s percentages. The thinking being more like 10% radical and 90% moderate. Frankly, if you are into the percentages I suspect Gabriel’s figures are probably closer.

 

Gabrielle points out that the 25% of Radical Muslims still represents approximately hundreds of millions Muslims dedicated to killing Christians, Jews and Americans. That is a bunch of ridiculously angry people!

 

Gabriel says since there are so many Radical Muslims, the 75% Moderate Muslims are irrelevant in the sense that their peace-loving nature cannot compare to the violent hatred of the agenda of Radical Islam.

 

I’ll post the video below in order for you to see just how passionate Brigitte Gabriel’s explanation was to Saba Ahmed. BUT that which piqued my interest in the Justin Smith Facebook share of the Right Scoop post was his reaction to the concept of their being a division of Radicals and Moderates practicing the Islamic theopolitical religion. Justin categorically believes any difference between Radical and Moderate Muslims is a politically correct mentality that non-Muslims should view with extreme skepticism.

 

On my part I have wavered over the years between siding with counterjihad writers in the Brigitte Gabriel camp and the counterjihad writers that specifically read the Islamic text of the Quran, Hadith and Sira (Sunna) who are convinced ultimately that Islam is fully violent in nature. I have wavered because I have known Muslims that are very offended to be included in the group that are the Radical Muslim faithful. But then I witness on the news how huge populations of Muslims in Islamic lands go nutso-crazy over what the West – especially America – that would consider Free Speech issues like when some European Newspapers published parodies mocking Mohammed. Parodies I might add that were actually derived from Quranic, Hadith and Sira text that portrayed Mohammed in a negative light. Crowds went crazy in town squares, at Western Embassies of the host nations that published the cartoons, the publishers and cartoonists had to actually go into hiding in their own nation because of the death fatwas and assassination threats. AND the Mo-Cartoons is just one such issue in Muslims became howling lunatics over their prophet being shown in such a negative light.

 

These days I am leaning with the counterjihad writers that believe Islam is evil – period. My current reasoning for this are the Muslims own considered holy writings of the – wait for it – the Quran, Hadith and Sira.

 

So I have given you the gist of Brigitte Gabriel’s thoughts on Radical and Moderate Muslims. I might add those thoughts were quite convincing due to her passionate delivery. Below are Justin Smith’s thoughts on Gabriel’s impassioned reply. I do concur with Justin by the way; however I am reluctant to be as critical of the Radical-Moderate proponents in counterjihad writing. People like Brigitte Gabriel and Frank Gaffney JR are huge in the effort to educate Americans that there is a nefarious side to Islam. Whether or not you believe that Islamic nefarious side is limited to the practice of a few Radical Muslims or is the totality of the essence of Islamic theopolitical ideology is up to you. Dear God either way, understand the demands of Islam especially as required under Sharia Law is oppressively anti-Bill of Rights which means anti-U.S. Constitution. Allowing Muslims to practice the unconstitutional aspects of Sharia Law will transform America in ways that our traditional Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness will cease to exist.

 

Below are Justin’s response to Brigitte Gabriel which I will follow with the entire 9 minute and 17 seconds Youtube video of Saba Ahmed’s question followed by Frank Gaffney’s response and then by Gabriel’s passionate response. Brigitte Gabriel speaks at about the 4 minute 17 second point. Right Scoop has a video that just shows only the Gabriel portion of the video.

 

JRH 6/21/14

Please Support NCCR

********************************

Justin Smith: There are NO Moderate Muslims

(Title by Editor)

 

By Justin O. Smith

June 19, 2014 at 3:17pm

Justin Smith Facebook Page

 

I am one who does not subscribe to the belief there are “moderate” Muslims, however “peaceful” they may appear initially. Just as Ms. Gabriel remarked, this young Muslim woman essentially took the focus from the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi to make her point about so-called “peaceful” Muslims, even though she is a U.S. citizen. One sees this all too often – The Muslim is worried about Islamic and Muslim concerns, the concerns of their “ummah”/worldwide community, before they are worried for the nation; they are “peaceful”, until called upon, issued fatwas, to be otherwise.

 

I normally do not like disagreeing with fellow American Patriots, but I would ask the panel, just how in the hell do they think most of the known free world at the time was either conquered or under siege by 1500 A.D. by Islam and Its warriors? Ms. Gabriel says the “peaceful” Muslims were irrelevant and draws an excellent correlation between historical and cultural settings in Germany, Russia and Japan. But more than irrelevant, too often the “peaceful” Muslims, while not actively engaging in violence themselves, perhaps from their own fears, were silently cheering the jihadis on. Case in point, hundreds of thousands of Muslims danced on the rooftops of Europe, the Middle East and the U.S. when the World Trade Center collapsed.

 

Were the jubilant Muslims yelling “Allahu Akbar” as the Twin Towers crashed to the ground part of the 15-25% Ms. Gabrielle speaks about? How can anyone know the “REAL” statistical figure? From my studies alone, I place the most radical of Muslims at 400 million, but all 1.2 to 1.8 billion of them (depending on stat source) are “radical” in the sense that they always support Islam and the “ummah” over their host nation, whether through their tacit approval and vocal and financial support or through active and violent jihad. And for Gaffney to suggest that not all Muslims seek adherence to Sharia law is surreal. In order to be truly Muslim one is commanded by the Sira and Hadith and the Koran to follow the Sharia – Sharia is central to Islam for ALL Muslims.

 

Brigitte Gabriel gives FANTASTIC answer to Muslim woman claiming all Muslims are portrayed badly

This Heritage event on Benghazi has gotten a lot of press over the last day…

THE RIGHT SCOOP

 

VIDEO: Full Context: Benghazi Accountability Coalition Event

 

Posted by The Heritage Foundation

Published June 17, 2014

 

___________________________________

Islam: Radical and Moderate or just Islam

John R. Houk

© June 21, 2014

_________________________________

Justin Smith: There are NO Moderate Muslims

(Title by Editor)

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Justin O. Smith is a concerned citizen with a B.S.-MTSU/ International Relations & Cultural Geography, ex-firefighter, U.S. Army and freelance writer.

TrentoVision Exposes Idiocy of MSM Praising Jihad Muslims


Pam Geller - Tom Trento. Screen Capture of TrentoVision

John R. Houk
© June 22, 2013
 
Tom Trento has these near hour programs that are awesome Counterjihad exposés Islam. The program is a part of The United West and the videos are a part of TrentoVision. Trento sends out an email telling when the live broadcast will occur. I almost never watch them live; however you can watch old episodes via Youtube which is what I typically do.
 

On June 19, 2013 Trento had Pamela Geller on his show. The topic of discussion was the NY Times promoting Radical Muslims either out of idiocy or Multiculturist blindness. And part of this episode is showing portions of an older documentary in which some those Muslims praised by the NY Times is a Sharia Law lover to the point that you will see such things as so-called Moderate Muslim say the act of adultery the woman is punished by stoning and the man gets a pass. Here is the promo for the Trento-Geller episode:

 
 
The NY Times article garners info from Muslim Sinclair Hejazi Abdus-Salaam. Sinclair is now retired but on September 11, 2001 he worked as a construction electrician working in one of the Towers of the World Trade Center that was hit by Muslim terrorists that resulted in nearly 3,000 deaths.
 
The NY Times article paints a picture of Sinclair as a victimized person as anyone else that was a survivor of the 9/11 attack. Sinclair in the article is the same guy in the promo video above!
 
Here is some praise slanted excerpts from the NY Times in case embarrassment actually inspires the Internet article to be deleted:
 
Sometime in 1999, a construction electrician received a new work assignment from his union. The man, Sinclair Hejazi Abdus-Salaam, was told to report to 2 World Trade Center, the southern of the twin towers.
 
 
Over the next few days, noticing some fellow Muslims on the job, Mr. Abdus-Salaam voiced an equally essential question: “So where do you pray at?” And so he learned about the Muslim prayer room on the 17th floor of the south tower.
 
He went there regularly in the months to come, first doing the ablution known as wudu in a washroom fitted for cleansing hands, face and feet, and then facing toward Mecca to intone the salat prayer.
 
 
Leaping down the stairs on Sept. 11, 2001, when he had been installing ceiling speakers for a reinsurance company on the 49th floor, Mr. Abdus-Salaam had a brief, panicked thought. He didn’t see any of the Muslims he recognized from the prayer room. Where were they? Had they managed to evacuate?
 
 
Given the vitriolic opposition now to the proposal to build a Muslim community center two blocks from ground zero, one might say something else has been destroyed: the realization that Muslim people and the Muslim religion were part of the life of the World Trade Center.
 
Opponents of the Park51 project say the presence of a Muslim center dishonors the victims of the Islamic extremists who flew two jets into the towers. Yet not only were Muslims peacefully worshiping in the twin towers long before the attacks, but even after the 1993 bombing of one tower by a Muslim radical, Ramzi Yousef, their religious observance generated no opposition
 
 
Yeah, you can see from the promo video above Sinclair is not innocent peaceful Moderate Muslim. Sinclair is a follower of Radical Islam that subscribes to the brutality of Sharia Law. Sinclair Hejazi Abdus-Salaam, now retired in Boca Raton, Fla., prayed at the trade center.Sinclair – the Moderate Muslim – subscribes to stoning adulterous (which often is an accusation not confirmed by evidence) women and the execution of people that leave Islam (called apostates).
 
I am going to do my part in exposing Islam by posting the text of the Trento email less the pictures. Then at the end I going to post the entire 58 minute Youtube video of the June 19 episode.
 
JRH 6/22/13

Please Support NCCR

*************************************
NEW YORK TIMES BUSTED! – TRENTO/GELLER JIHAD EXPOSÉ
 
TrentoVision Email
Sent: 6/18/13 8:45 PM
 
WEDNESDAY SHOW
JUNE 19, 2013 5-6pm (E)
 
BUSTED! NEW YORK TIMES HONORS MUSLIMWHO BELIEVES APOSTATES SHOULD BE KILLED… IN AMERICA!
 
 
*******
 
WEDNESDAY SHOW OVERVIEW

Tom Trento and Pamela Geller present for first-time broadcast a video EXPOSE’ that the amazing United West investigative team of Alan Kornman and Randy McDaniels put together back in 2011. This story is simple, the New York Times is so blind to Islamic Jihad that they could not see it if they…INTERVIEWED IT!  Which they did in the person of Sinclair Hejazi Abdus-Salaam. The NYT presented a “heart-warming” look at a “wonderful” Muslim, who no longer has a place to pray because (Pamela Geller) won’t let Imam Rauf build his victory mosque at Ground Zero in New York! America, this expose’ is a perfect illustration of the stupidity of the left as they ignore the DOCTRINE of Islam in their efforts to DEFEND Islam. Logically, it cannot be done, even by the paper of (a bad) Record.
 
DO NOT MISS WEDNESDAY’S SHOW – 5p (E)
 
*******
_____________________
 
Published on Jun 19, 2013
 
______________________________
TrentoVision Exposes Idiocy of MSM Praising Jihad Muslims
John R. Houk
© June 22, 2013
_______________________________
NEW YORK TIMES BUSTED! – TRENTO/GELLER JIHAD EXPOSÉ
 
TrentoVision airs every day Monday through Friday at 5-6pm, (E) and is simulcast on a 50,000 watt radio station in South Florida and on the internet, worldwide.
 
The radio broadcast goes from north Miami to Orlando and can be heard on:
 
WNN-1470am – http://wwnnradio.com/
 
GET “I HEART RADIO”
http://www.iheart.com/  (search for WNN, south Florida)
 
The Live Internet broadcast can be watched on
 
TRENTOVISION ARCHIVES

Radical Islam is Islam


pigman-above-the-law-sharia-law

 

John R. Houk

© December 5, 2011

 

I first became acquainted with Bosch Fawstin during the time period the Muslim world was going flipping nuts over a series of Mohammed cartoons published by a Danish newspaper. Those Mo-toons were widely condemned by Muslims (Moderate & Radical), Muslim Apologists and Leftist Multiculturalists. The death threats and the fatwas began to fly via the Religion of Peace. Cartoonists had to go into hiding out of fear for their life. At the time I could see going into hiding if you lived in a predominantly Muslim nation but I was having a difficult time grasping the reason why a person in the West would have to go into hiding for exercising Free Speech. I mean the West is supposed to be the paragon of nations living by the rule of law rather than the rule of man. The law should be sufficient to protect a citizen by investigating a threat of death and arresting the person or persons involved in the conspiracy to commit murder, right?

 

These were the days I became aware that Europe had a sizable immigrant, naturalized, 2nd and 3rd generation Muslims. These Muslims who were supposed to be living in the West for a job or persecution relief acted in the same way as the Muslims in Islamic lands. The European Muslims went flipping nuts. I am not talking about a mere protest on the sidewalks of newspaper publishers expressing their Free Speech right of displeasure with the Mo-toon publications. I am talking about scary unruliness that added fuel to the death threats. How is a police force going to investigate tens of thousands (if not millions) of suspects that have a motive to murder?

 

What path did European law enforcement take? Law enforcement, EU and European governments chose to condemn the publishers with the hint of leveling hate-speech accusations rather than protect the right to Free Speech. This is when I discovered Islam is dangerous to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness beyond a terrorist level but also on the cultural level. Islamic Supremacism demands a violent response to the perceived insult to Islam, their prophet Mohammed or to their Allah.

 

So then I ran into Fawstin’s Blogger site (he has more) and enjoyed the politically incorrect graphic novel pictures of anti-Jihadist Pigman. Have not really paid attention to Fawstin’s story. So now I have discovered he is an ex-Muslim motivated to drawing anti-Jihad toons as his form of Free Expression in the post 9/11 world we live in.

 

Political Islam has cross posted a FrontPageMag.com in which Fawstin writes about the thought that a small minority of Muslims are radical and most Muslims are Moderate. Fawstin who is an ex-Muslim expresses anguish that Muslims living in the West are not Islamic terrorists; however the Moderate majority does not actively get involved in condemning Radical Islam. Here are some teasers:

 

So while I understand that most Muslims are not at war with us, they’ve proven in their silence and inaction against jihad that they’re not on our side either, and there’s nothing we can say or do to change that. …

 

Another problem with Muslims who aren’t very Muslim is that they lead some among us to conclude that they must be practicing a more enlightened form of Islam. They’re not. They’re “practicing” life in non-Muslim countries, where they are free to live as they choose. But their “Islam” is not the Islam. There’s no separate ideology apart from Islam that’s being practiced by these Muslims in name only, there’s no such thing as “Western Islam”.

 

This is a good read from someone who is not squeamish about exposing his former faith. Read the article that I am actually posting from Political Islam because is who sent me the FrontPageMag.com article.

 

JRH 12/5/11

Mohamed Elibiary – Whistleblower or Muslim Fifth Column?


Mohamed Elibiary  - Got Quran

John R. Houk

© November 3, 2011

 

Stealth Jihad continues in America and shamefully in American government. Mohamed Elibiary has cozied himself up to the Obama Administration as a “Moderate Muslim”. Elibiary acquaintances have duped the government yet I doubt he has duped President Barack Hussein Obama. President BHO is not a dummy. Leftist does not necessarily equal dummy.

 

Elibiary has publically placed Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini on a pedestal of honor. That is not the action of a Muslim who is of the alleged persuasion of Moderate.

 

Robert Spencer writes about the potential – probable – crime of leaking classified documents to a Left Wing media outlet. The documents were a part of a data base shared between law enforcement agencies in Texas. Elibiary’s reasoning for leaking the documents was to demonstrate Islamophobia rampant within law enforcement agencies.

 

So is Elibiary a whistleblower exposing an illogical hatred of Islam or an Islamist utilizing the Left to throw a monkey wrench into the investigative process in finding American government for an Islamist agenda?

 

JRH 11/3/11

 

Islam: Reformation, Transformation or just Plain Political Cult?


islamic-nature-muhammad-says

 

John R. Houk

© October 1, 2011

 

Leslie J. Sacks writes briefly somewhat as an introduction to Janet Levy’s review of the Rebecca Bynum’s book “Allah is Dead: Why Islam is Not a Religion”. The theme of Sacks’ thoughts is Islamic reform which is also hinted in Levy’s book review. An excerpt from the Bynum book indicates her reasoning that Islam is not a religion. However, her reasoning to me shows that Islam has more akin to Leninist-Stalinist Communism or Nazism than to goal of any other religion. In the culture formed by a Communist or Nazi State the people are brainwashed to obey the State without question and to place the leader on such a pedestal that there is the appearance of divine worship but with the denial of a deity.

 

Islam is Communist-like except the cult founder picked out a deity from all the Meccan polygamous deities and declared that deity to be the ONE deity and backed that claim up by stealing mostly from Jewish theology with a swash of Christian theology mixed together with a lot of distortion and revisionism to make Allah that ONE deity. In order to make a worldly connection between Allah and the World, Mohammed made sure that he was mystically elevated to a pedestal of being Allah’s sole and last mouthpiece to humanity.

 

The difference between Communism and Islam is the former rejects the existence of deity or deities and the latter embraces a monotheistic faith as a control mechanism over the people.

 

Allow me to add one other thought about Islam and the concept of reform. The true reform movement that is currently happening in Islam is all the fundamentalist Islamic movements of Sunni and Shia that seek a purity that existed in Mohammed’s day. It is a reformation that is actually gaining momentum among Muslims everyday because it reinforces what all Muslims are taught: Allah is one god and Mohammed is his prophet. Thus everything Mohammed said and did is the PERFECT example for all Muslim believers to follow. If Mohammed is perfect then killing kafir (unbeliever in Islam), killing an apostate (one that leaves Islam for another religion or for atheism), killing a Jew first and then a Christian (because ultimately the People of the Book will perish for unbelieving Allah and his prophet Mohammed) and all the brutal dictates of Sharia Law which if broken can lead to amputation or death depending on the punishment defined by Sharia Law (e.g. a Muslim adulteress, a Muslim homosexual, a Muslim female that dishonors her Muslim family for various offenses will all find death either by the Muslim government or by the hands of the Muslim family).

 

Purist Islam is the Islamic reformation that Radical Islam that is real and is happening in the 21st century. Islam does not need a reformation. Islam needs a transformation to enter the realm of a religion that provides a path to peace with a deity, deities or the seeking of escaping the wheel of life such as moksha or nirvana.

 

Islamic transformation would eradicate the dark side of Islam contained primarily of the Quranic suras that are attributed as Mohammed’s sayings from his arrival in Medina and afterwards.

 

Without further adieu here is Leslie J. Sacks post about Islam below.

 

JRH 10/1/11

****************************

Why Islam is in Desperate Need of a Reformation

 

By Leslie J. Sacks

Sent: Sep 28, 2011 at 7:05 PM

Website: STRENGTH AND TOLERANCE

 

Rebecca Bynum writes a focused and timely, yet largely one-sided book entitled “Allah is Dead: Why Islam is Not a Religion”.  Janet Levy’s timely review of this book (see below) questions why parts of the left wing have taken up political commonality with the ACLU, CAIR, MAS and those who would advance Sharia law and Muslim religious expression in our schools, colleges and communities.  Yet these selfsame individuals and groups rail against any Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Baha’i or Hindu representation in the same institutions.

 

Two preeminent questions jump out at us:

 

1)      Why do anti-religious elements choose to see Christianity et al. as a religion but Islam as a culture, the former worthy of denigration whilst the latter deserves understanding, empathy, support and expression?  Surely Judaism for example is as much a culture, a way of life as Islam is.

 

2)      Why has Islam been high-jacked by the fundamentalists, the literalists, the extremists, all seemingly in commanding control of the many “faces” of Islam’s expressions, of Islam’s visible personality?  At the same time, why have these supremacists fervently and successfully denied moderate voices, interspersed throughout the world of Islam, even a modest participation in the public persona, in the governmental personas, and ultimately in the voices of today’s Islam?

 

If many multiculturalists, if many well-meaning albeit somewhat naïve citizens of the West, insist on projecting their most optimistic and myopic visions onto Islam, in total indifference to the fatwas and intolerance everywhere evident, then support for the Muslim moderates will never spring forth, and the radicals will hold ground.

 

Moderate Muslim Voice Non-Existent 

 

If there remains no allowance in the Muslim world for alternative interpretations of their scriptures, or tolerance for an evolving set of applications, lifestyles, beliefs and allowances, and if jihad is not replaced by an acceptance of other religions, cultures and peoples, then any reformation will remain, as it has for 1400 years, a dim fantasy.

 

And in those instances Rebecca Bynum’s vision of Islam (or radical Islam in the view of many) will keep ringing true, and the one overarching face of medieval Islam in our modern age will remain all-powerful, omnipresent.  All the world’s major religions except mainstream Islam (Wahabism, Iranian Shiism, and the many offshoots like the Taliban) have largely learnt over thousands of years to live and let live. 1 Moderates and apostates in the Islamic world still fear for their lives.  Bibles are banned in Saudi Arabia, as are women drivers.  Honor killings and beheadings should have no place in a modern civilization; as should supremacist and exclusitory interpretations of any religion.

 

My hope and my prayers are for every moderate Muslim, every tolerant Muslim, every unequal woman in the Muslim world, to not lose hope, to retain their faith and keep chipping away at the unbending monolith surround them, until a reformation indeed arrives.2

 

Peace in the West depends on it, just as prosperity in the East will.

 

Note 1 The bible has for millennia established the concept that we are all indeed equal, a concept only now largely accepted by most religions.  “You Shall not hate the Edomite because he is your brother; you shall not hate the Egyptian because you were a stranger in his land” (Deuteronomy 23:8).  “You shall love the stranger because you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Deut. 10:19).  “… You shall love your neighbor (every human being) like yourself; I am the Lord” (Lev 19:18)

 

I enclose excerpts from Janet Levy’s review which highlights questions that need answering and issues that desperately bear discussion.  Some may argue as to how relevant Bynum’s thesis is, however the mere existence of its application as a reality is an indictment of one of the world’s great religions, and one desperately in need of modernization.

 

Allah is Dead: Why Islam Is Not a Religion

By Rebecca Bynum Published by New English Review Press, 2011

Reviewed by Janet Levy

 

In a July 29 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit essentially regulated the language of prayer by ruling that any mention of “Jesus” during public prayer constitutes sectarian and unconstitutional language.  But the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) brought the legal challenge seeking to end a traditional practice commonly used before public meetings in state and local legislative bodies across America.

 

Such attacks by the Left against religious expression are commonplace. In August, leftist groups roundly criticized Texas Governor Rick Perry’s call for a day of prayer to “seek G-d’s guidance and wisdom in addressing the challenges that face our communities, states and nation.” In January, Hawaii caved in to ACLU demands and became the first state to eliminate daily prayer, although approval of a 2009 bill to celebrate “Islam Day” mysteriously escaped their censure.

 

Several state legislatures including Iowa, Texas, and Washington have opened their sessions with Islamic prayers invoking Allah, calling for “victory over those who disbelieve (i.e. all non-Muslims)” and soliciting “protection from the Great Satan.” These requests that Allah grant Muslims victory over non-Muslims are hardly prayers to bless the work of legislatures, but neither the ACLU or AU raised objections, even though the prayers excluded Christians and Jews and declared cultural war against American society.

 

In the past, the Left, which asked the nihilistic question “Is G-d Dead?,” made common cause with communism (and Socialism) rejected religious faith in favor of “godless” secular humanism.  Today the connection between the totalitarianism of the Left – control of human activity and thought in the name of “social justice” – and the totalitarianism of Islam – control of every aspect of life through the shariah – is a bond fusing their efforts to pursue a common agenda: to undermine America’s Judeo-Christian values and traditional institutions.

 

In her book Allah Is Dead: Why Islam Is Not A Religion, Rebecca Bynum (author and publisher of New English Review) adeptly explores the traditional role of religion, the G-d is dead posture of the left, and the nature of Islam. She offers astute observations on the meaning and essence of religion as the very basis of reality for Western culture, extols its noble purpose of elevating man toward a path of righteousness, and contrasts this with the nihilistic ideologies presented as religion by the Left and Islam. She describes the deleterious effects of the Left on the meaning, value, and practice of religion, and argues that Islam’s fundamental characteristics deny it status as a religion.

 

Bynum identifies the critical role religion plays in fostering morality, anchoring society, buttressing the family, and promoting social harmony, public service, and charity. She makes important distinctions between the mechanical adherence to religious doctrine and the exalted, living experience of faith. A transcendent reality, faith captures the human heart and spirit and imbues our lives with meaning, Bynum writes. Faith is not coercion through the recitation of Biblical passages. Instead, scripture is a series of guidelines for human behavior which empower individuals to freely and creatively chart a path, constantly striving toward spiritual perfection. Bynum emphasizes that individual free will encouraged by faith is the pathway to understanding goodness, truth, and beauty, and ultimately the unique experience of discovering G-d and godliness.

 

The influence of the anti-religion Left has caused the church to abandon this traditional role and these values, Bynum asserts. For the most part, the church has turned away from spiritual ministry toward political and social causes with a focus on “works” over faith and religious practice.  Religion is used politically to bolster social reforms, she writes, rather than to nurture spiritual and moral development. Religion emphasizes self-realization and sensual comfort, rather than attainment of the ideals of truth, beauty, and goodness. Instead of helping individuals aspire to the virtues of self-reliance, self-control, and gratitude, religion fosters an infantile sense of entitlement, a victim mentality of blaming external factors, and an unwillingness to take personal responsibility.

 

For the Left, religion is the enemy, morality is non-existent, and actions relate to narcissistic wants. In this view, man’s higher purpose, his ability for self-reflection, and his capacity for imagination are denied. As human dignity has been debased, the human values of love, truth, and goodness, as well as religious experience, are dismissed as delusional. Bynum concludes that spiritual transcendence is impossible when free will is viewed as an illusion and morality is arbitrary.

 

Just as leftist-influenced Western religion has abandoned the search for spiritual transcendence, Islam similarly does not provide a path to spiritual transcendence, either, Bynum asserts. Islam does not qualify as a religion, she argues, because it lacks the essential qualities and attributes of religion. Muslims are not free to establish a relationship with Allah but are required to recite prayers in a specific format and direct them to an object – the Kaaba, a cube-shaped building in Mecca that is the most sacred site in Islam. In Islam, strict rules regulate all behavior and Islamic worship is merely unquestioned obedience. Lacking is any quest for truth, acknowledgment of reality, or historical verification. The goal of Islam is complete control over the mind and the physical body and its functions. Bodies and minds are controlled with no nourishment for the soul.

 

With no outlet for individual expression in Islam, creativity does not exist nor does anything that would capture the human heart or spirit. No quest to discover Allah is required because he exists merely to be obeyed. Piety is enforced by conformity to Islamic doctrine with sinners severely punished or killed to uphold the community’s purity. Islam’s goal is complete submission, which stifles curiosity, creativity, motivation, and individuality, plus denies the truth.

 

In Islam, history begins with Mohammed. Nothing that occurred prior to his existence is of any value, thus history is revised and knowledge rendered meaningless. Islam requires cultural genocide because culture is an obstacle to establishing Allah’s authority on Earth. No concept of G-d-given free will and tolerance exists. Individual thought makes no difference because only the decrees of Islamic doctrine have value.

 

Islam requires complete self-denial and robot-like functioning as part of a collective: the umma, or Islamic community. Behavior is mandated by the shariah, which makes law and morality one and the same. Islam does not recognize the state as a higher authority and requires ultimate jurisdiction in all worldly matters. No explorations of and (sic) independent conclusions about justice and judgment exist as the shariah explicitly outlines every aspect of existence and sanctions forced marriage, child marriage, polygamy, death for apostasy, dhimmi status for non-Muslims, and other rulings and actions outlawed in other societies. Islam is the highest value, with no room for mercy or compassion. Islamic doctrine is immutable, unquestioned, and does not bend to any human circumstances.

 

Because of all these characteristics, Islam is not a religion, Bynum concludes, as it places ideology above life itself. It fails to advance individual morality, sacrificing the individual for the collective. It is unable to preserve wisdom because it denies everything but Islamic beliefs. It fails to foster peace and social harmony and instead requires perpetual war with non-believers. It weakens the family as the foundational unit of society by promoting polygamy. It is not transcendent in purpose, as its highest purpose is to perpetuate itself, and it has little meaning beyond rituals.

 

Islam cannot stand with the other religions of the world as a belief system that relates humanity to spirituality and to moral values and imbues life with meaning, Bynum writes. Instead, Islam is a supremacist, totalitarian, theo-political-legal ideology that engages in constant war with non-believers, controls the lives of its believers who are unable to question or relinquish its mandates, and fails to provide spiritual nourishment and to promote social harmony.

 

Just as the secular humanism of the Left diminishes man, Islam similarly diminishes man through its hatred of non-believers and its emulation of its brutal, murderous prophet as the ideal specimen of a man. Thus, leftists who assert their nonreligious and non-spiritual agenda and diligently work to eliminate G-d from the public square – including prohibitions against religious observances, holidays, symbols, and prayer – are allying with Muslim efforts to demonize and supplant non-Muslim faiths. Both represent a danger to Western society, and in particular the United States, which was founded on a core belief in G-d and the transcendent power of spirituality. Both Islam and the left’s secular humanism are godless ideologies that undermine Western values and civilization.

 

Janet Levy, MBA, MSW, is an activist, world traveler, and freelance journalist who has contributed to American Thinker, Full Disclosure Network, FrontPage Magazine, Family Security Matters and other publications. She blogs at www.womenagainstshariah.com

 

Note 2 There is an exciting new venue in which to see what Arab reformers have to say – the website [may be found at http://almuslih.org/ (It is in both Arabic and English.) According to its mission statement, Almuslih.org “aims to maximize the exposure and distribution of journalism and analyses promoting progressive thought in the Arab Middle East and the Muslim world.” Go there to see how some of the most brilliant minds in the Arab world, like writer Sayyid al-Qimny, Abd al-Hamid al-Ansari, the former Dean of Islamic Law at Qatar University, and Hassan Mneimneh, director of the Iraq Memory Foundation, understand the situation today and what must be done to secure a democratic future. Invariably, they address the problem of the culture.   

Contrary to al-Qaradawi’s condemnation of secularism, Tunisian philosopher Latif Lakhdar, one of the brightest lights in the Muslim world, calls for “an acceptance of the division between the domains of faith and politics.” He also states that a reformed Islam “ends the conception of the world divided up into an Abode of Islam destined for expansion and an Abode of War destined for ‘Jihad unto the end of time,’ as al-Bukhari’s Hadith has it.” Lakhdar says forthrightly, “our faith today constitutes a part of the problem, and it is incumbent upon us to reform it, in the school of religious rationalism, so that we turn it into a part of the solution.”    The most recent posting on Almuslih, is an article titled “Freedom and the Progress of Civilization,” by Mohammed al-Sanduk. Al-Sanduk confirms the thesis in The Closing of the Muslim Mind that the greatest scientific and cultural achievements of the Arab Muslim world occurred during, and because of, the ascendancy of the rational theologians, the Mu’tazilites, whose thinking “laid emphasis on the freedom of choice and on the responsibilities that accompany this.” Likewise, its decline resulted because of their suppression. He even provides a chart which tracks the rise and fall of Muslim scientific achievement parallel to the rise and fall of Mu’tazilite thought.   

One of the best essays on the website is “A Manifesto for Reform,” by the eloquent Hasan Hanafi, chairman of the philosophy department at Cairo University. He writes that “no real change can take place if there is not a change in the mindset first.” This is the reason, he says, that prior efforts at reform have failed because they “started with social, political and economic structures rather than with inherited intellectual substructures, which remained unchanged even as liberal, western enlightenment-derived structure was superimposed over them.” This has not worked because “the imported freedom therefore perches on an infrastructure of inherited fatalism, while the imported Rights of Man sit atop a substructure of the inherited Rights of God, in the same way that the imported sciences are superimposed over an infrastructural legacy of miracles.” As this brilliantly insightful sentence implies, the real problem is theological, and it is at this level reform must take place.

 

Without a different theology, can one have democracy? Iranian philosopher, Dr Abdulkarim Soroush, explicitly answered this question: “You need some philosophical underpinning, even theological underpinning in order to have a real democratic system. Your God cannot be a despotic God anymore. A despotic God would not be compatible with a democratic rule, with the idea of rights. So you even have to change your idea of God.”    Can this be done? Can what seems to be the bedrock of Islam change? This seems a very tall order, though there is precedent for it in Muslim history. However, if it is going to be done, it will no doubt be accomplished by courageous Muslim thinkers such as those appearing on [the Almuslih website]. Through it, you will feel spring in the air.

 

Leslie J. Sacks

______________________________

Islam: Reformation, Transformation or just Plain Political Cult?

John R. Houk

© October 1, 2011

__________________________

Why Islam is in Desperate Need of a Reformation

 

Leslie Sacks Fine Art | 11640 San Vicente Blvd. | Los Angeles | CA | 90049

Islam: Reformation or Transformation


Radical-Moderate Islam

John R. Houk

© March 29, 2011

 

Christopher Logan of Logan’s Warning is very displeased with Brigitte Gabriel’s distinction between Moderate Islam and Radical Islam. Logan is one of those that believe Islam is Islam as is inherent in Islamic holy writings.

 

I have long struggled back and forth internally about the existence of a Moderate Islam. I am fully aware that in America a significant amount of the Muslim community subscribe to America’s concept of constitutional freedom as is guaranteed by the first ten Amendments which are called the Bill of Rights. Of those ten Amendments the First Amendment is the big dog of civil liberty guaranteeing Free Speech, Religious Freedom, Free Press, Free Open Protest, Freedom to petition the government without fear of retribution and no government interference of the practice of religion.

 

I also know that most of the Mosques in America receive their Islamic religious and theological literature from the Saudi Arabian dime. This means that purist Islam of the Wahhabis (and Muslim Brotherhood) niche, which the Western media asserts is a minute minority in Islam, is what American-Muslims read. Also if one ever takes a peek at angry Muslims in Islamic dominated lands it is difficult to believe that those who are supposed to be the Islamic majority subscribe to a moderate interpretation of Islam. When one reads about mass Muslim protests over idiotic cartoons of Mohammed in an unflattering expression, there was not so much a demonstration of a religion of peace and more of a demonstration of  religion threatening violence and calling for murder and revenge on embassies that allowed Mohammed cartoons to be freely published in Western media. Also it is becoming common in Muslim dominated lands for hateful and violent persecution to be executed upon Christians. This violence leads to pogrom-style destruction of Christian Churches and property that often leads to rape and kidnapping of women as well as death to Christians that are in the way of the Islamic pogrom-style madness.

 

Now back to those Muslims that wish us non-Muslims to believe most Muslims are moderate and religion of peace kind of guys, I need to refer to a Muslim that has really become the face of Islamic “reform” in America – Dr. Mohammed Zuhdi Jasser.

 

Dr. Jasser is very anti-Islamist and pro-Moderate Islam. No one disputes his antagonism toward radical Islam and his complaint that the most known Muslim organizations in America have an Islamist and/or Muslim Brotherhood connection. The many that are critical of Dr. Jasser dispute his claim that most Muslims in America are moderate because they don’t actually attend the radicalized Mosques (which seems to be the majority) in America. This criticism goes back to those that believe Islam is Islam as it is recorded in the Quran, Hadith and Sira (combination of Sunna and Hadith). This is the very purist Islam that the Muslims we call radical subscribe to. The actual reform movement in Islam is the call to a return to the Islam established by Mohammed and congealed by the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs. This is the very purist Islam that the Muslims we call radical subscribe to. The reform called by Dr. Jasser is the eschewing of the violent concepts in Political Islam which is the majority portion of Sharia Law. Though many of us kafir (non-Muslims) might call this reform, it is actually a transformative call by Dr. Jasser and the few that follow his (what I believe to be) noble call to change Islam into an actual religion of peace.

 

Dr. Jasser’s assertion that most American-Muslims are moderate is because American-Muslims do not follow the radical Islam that permeates most American Mosques. Dr. Jasser’s critics believe that is a deluded fallacy. Ergo, if Dr. Jasser is preaching a fallacy he must be a deceiving liar. Debbie Schlussel who complains about many prominent exposers of radical Islam as being con artists and/or plagiarists of her journalistic pieces says this about Dr. Jasser:

 

You see, the message Mr. Jasser is spreading is contrary to the one he claims in the movie. The movie warns of the homegrown jihad we’ve been warning about for years, since before 9/11. But Jasser’s statements regularly contradict the movie. He’s two-faced, and a liar. And you simply can’t believe a single piece of fertilizer coming out of his mouth. He openly lied to me in an e-mail, claiming he’d never discussed a topic on Detroit radio, which he expressly did discuss on the air for a full half-hour.


Jasser has consistently appeared on Detroit radio shows and TV and radio shows around the country, saying the usual bullcrap, i.e., that Islam is a peaceful religion, that the majority of Muslims are peaceful because they don’t belong to a mosque, that CAIR and MPAC and ISNA, etc. don’t represent Islam.

 

 

Sorry, but that’s baloney. Islam is not peaceful. Whether or not Muslims belong to a mosque is not the determinant of their radicalism, only an adding factor. I know some extremely secular Muslims who drink alcohol and haven’t been to a mosque in decades. But they love Hezbollah and HAMAS and hate Jews, Christians, America, and Israel. If the majority of Muslims are really peaceful and don’t support terrorist groups, why did I see ten thousand Muslims–during the workday–marching on the streets of Dearborn and Detroit in support of Hezbollah and HAMAS in both 2006 and early 2009? Why do Bin Laden, HAMAS, Hezbollah, Ahmadinejad, and Nasrallah remain the most popular figures and entities in poll after poll of Muslims? Why do a third of young American Muslims support homicide bombings?

 

Dr. Jasser was kicked out of his mosque in Arizona, a pretty good sign that Islam is, in fact, radical, and they don’t want his pretentious claim otherwise. I’m sorry, but CAIR, ISNA, and MPAC do represent Islam more than he does. Far more, despite his claims otherwise. It’s like when Communist fantasists and utopians used to tell me that I can’t judge Communism by its manifestation and practice in the Soviet Union or Cuba or China, because they don’t practice “real” Communism and don’t represent this silent, imaginary majority of Communists worldwide who love peace and don’t throw people in jail for a life of torture for writing a poem. Sorry, Zuhdi, but you know better. And yet, you continue to lie. I asked Jasser how many Muslim members he has in his organization, the “American Islamic Forum for Democracy,” and he didn’t respond. He’s told others it’s about 100. That’s not even negligible. It’s downright embarrassing.

 

Not negligible are the speaking fees and other payments and funding Dr. Jasser is getting from this speaking tour, a good chunk of it courtesy of the Clarion Foundation, which in using him as its two-faced spokesman seems not to heed its own eponymous clarion call. I dream (and will forever dream) of the day we will see a Muslim (which means an ex-Muslim) or an Arab who is actually putting forth a consistent, truthful, truly peaceful message . . . and not some uninformed double-talk, milked as a money-making enterprise. Jasser, Hanan Tudor a/k/a “Brigitte Gabriel,” Walid Shoebat, and other frauds have all made a mint after they opened up shop post-9/11 (and lying about what and who they are). Before then, they were nowhere to be seen. Apparently, the underside of the rock was quite cozy ’til then, but afterward the outside suddenly became far “greener.” (The Sad Truth About Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser–Star, Narrator, & Producer of “The Third Jihad” Mar. 12, 2009 2:45 PM)

 

As you can see Schlussel is not pleased with a lot of people that actually have the same agenda of exposing Islam. Schlussel seems to believe that any defense of the existence of “Moderate Islam” must have an agenda of self-aggrandizement for gain; thus the Gabriels, the Jassers and the Shoebats criticizing Radical Islam deceive to make money because they lie or are plagiarizing the Schlussel journalism. Honestly I believe every one of the people Schlussel castigates has accomplished a great service in exposing the agenda of Islam in America. I have never heard that Brigitte Gabriel’s name is Hanan Tudor (Where did that come from?). If Gabriel had an alternative name, what is the implication?

 

I have kind of taken the middle road about the nature of Islam. According to Islamic holy writings that affect non-Muslims, the religion of Islam is evil. Muslims that declare they practice a moderate path of Islam simply means that Moderate Muslims wittingly or unwittingly disregard the portions of Islam that are doom and gloom in this present physical time for non-Muslims. All Muslims that call for a return to the practices of the early days of Islam are calling for a reformation to the pure days of Islam. The Muslims that call for an updated or a modernized Islam are calling for the elimination of the portions that call for defending the faith with a good physical offence (i.e. with violence) to propagate or to force submission of non-Muslims to the supremacy of Allah and Islam. Frankly my friends if you find a Muslim that denies that all of the examples of the perfect man, their prophet Mohammed, that Muslim person is part of a very miniscule minority in which the Muslim will find their life is endangered.

 

Does this mean that Muslims no matter how few they are, such as Dr. Jasser, should be criticized because they have a vision for an Islam that is actually a religion of peace in more than in mere deceptive propaganda? As long as the desire for a new kind of Islam exists among Muslims, it will be a noble desire.

 

I have to admit I sense it is a bit of dangerous territory for non-Muslims to believe in an Islamic transformation. Multicultural diverse Leftists that are deluded about the validity of all cultures whether evil, good or foreign are understandable. However, for Conservatives and those that wish to expose the nature of Islam by writing about the tenets of radical Islam as distinct from Islam itself is a path with good intentions yet probably doomed to failure. The only way for a transformed Islam is for a charismatic figure within the substructure of the Islamic faith that has the ability to catch the mind of Muslims to abandon the medieval-intolerant-global empire mindset of purist Islam. I am afraid such a person would be a miracle for both Muslims and non-Muslims alike. It would be a miracle for Muslims in the sense that the Clerics are self-indoctrinated and they indoctrinate their followers that Islam is pure and all else is false; even if the defense of the faith requires a violent action to correct even the least insult to Islam, Mohammed and Allah. Centuries of Islamic programming among Muslims has entrenched intolerance and Islamic Supremacy into their minds. I dare say that non-Muslims living in Muslim dominated lands have also been brainwashed to the point of accepting the supremacy of Islam; i.e. in following the rules of Sharia as it applies to non-Muslims not offending anything to do with Islam. So a Muslim willfully believes a dhimmi or pseudo-dhimmi life is better Islam. The offering of basic human right to religious freedom, free speech and freedom of conscious is anathema to the Islamic Supremacist mind especially in Muslim dominated lands.

 

In this sense Debbie Schlussel’s castigation of Brigitte Gabriel (Christian from Lebanon) and Walid Shoebat (Converted Christian and former Palestinian terrorist) might be a bit justified except for her use of bridge burning words that offends an ally in exposing Islam. It also brings one to an understanding of Christopher Logan’s frustration with Brigitte Gabriel and Dr. Jasser for looking for a Moderate Islam.

 

There was a serious effort in the nineteenth century to transform Islam away from its violent nature. Islamic Supremacism marginalized and persecuted that transformation attempt. The attempt of transformation was initiated by an Iranian by the name of Sayyid ‘Ali Muhammad Shirazi. Shirazi declared himself to be the Bab which translated into English means the gate or gateway or doorway and probably other synonyms I didn’t take time to look for. The Bab imagined himself to be the Hidden Twelfth Imam of the Twelver portion of Shias who are predominantly Iranian (once called Persians). The Bab’s effort to declare himself the Hidden Imam was a transformation movement within Shia Islam. Here is a summary of the Bab’s idea of Islamic transformation:

 

Babism (bä’bizum) [key], system of doctrines proclaimed in Persia in 1844 by Ali Muhammad of Shiraz. Influenced by the Shaykhi Shiite theology that viewed the Twelve Imams as incarnations of the Divine, Ali Muhammad proclaimed himself the Bab, the living door to the twelth Imam and the knowledge of God, and sent missionaries throughout Persia. He also announced a series of revelations, detailing the cosmogonic sequence, abrogating Islamic obligations and replacing them by a new set, structured around esoteric concepts such as the importance of the number 19. The year was hence divided into 19 months of 19 days each; the community was led by a council of 19 members. The movement placed special emphasis on the coming of the Promised One, who would embody all the tenets of the new religion. In 1848 the movement declared its complete secession from Islam and all its rites; upon the accession of a new shah, the Babi (the Bab’s followers) rose in insurrection and were defeated. Many of the leaders were killed, and the Bab was executed at Tabriz in 1850. Two years later, after an attempt on the life of the shah, there followed more persecutions. In 1863 the Babi were removed to Constantinople and later to Adrianople and Cyprus. After 1868 one group had its center in Acre under the leadership of Mirza Husayn Ali Nuri (known as Baha Ullah), the founder of the Baha’i faith, who declared himself the Promised One. (Babism; Fact Monster)

 

 

When the Bab was captured and tried for heresy by the Twelvers and imprisoned, the Babi followers went off on a jihad that turned into a Persian civil war. During this time the Bab was executed by firing squad. The Babi Jihad went on for a couple of years until it was ruthlessly put down resulting in the deaths of most of the leadership and thousands of Babis. One of the survivors of the lost Babi revolution was Mirza Husayn Ali Nuri. Husayn Ali was disturbed by the violence of the Bab, Babism and Islam. After a period of hiding Husayn Ali eventually ended up Acre (Akka and present day Israel) of the Syrian Magistrate of the Ottoman Empire. Husayn Ali was part of a split between the Babis. At that time a greater amount of Babis joined Husayn Ali’s version of a spiritual evolution of the Bab’s teaching. Husayn Ali became Baha’u’llah the founder of the Baha’i faith.

 

Baha’i is a religious movement founded in the 19th century by the Persian Bahaullah. It claims members in practically every country of the world. Objecting to polygamy, slavery of any kind, religious prejudices, and politicized religion, Baha’is call for world peace and harmony. The ideals of a world federalist government and a new world language are also a part of their teachings. Recognition of the common ground of all religions is seen as fostering this move toward global unity; Krishna, Buddha, Moses, Zarathustra, Jesus, and Muhammad are all recognized as divine manifestations, a series of prophets culminating in Bahaullah. Nonresistance, respect for persons, and legal recognition of the equal rights of both sexes constitute additional aspects of Baha’i teaching.

 

Baha’u’llah survived brief imprisonment in Iran/Persia and then was exiled to the Ottoman Empire who basically imprisoned him or placed on virtual house arrest for the rest of his life. Effectively Baha’u’llah was persecuted as a heretic from Islam by both the Shias of his homeland and the Sunnis of the Ottoman Empire.

 

Considering all that had happened in the 48 years beginning with the declaration of the Báb in 1844, Bahá’u’lláh’s passing on May 29, 1892 at about 3:00 A.M. might seem anticlimactic. He died quietly at the age of 75, still marginally a prisoner but permitted to live outside the walls of Akká in a mansion known as Bahjí. The relative tranquility of His final days on Earth stand in marked contrast to the tumult that had surrounded Him for much of His life, yet it proved to be merely the calm before another storm for ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, His oldest son and appointed successor. (Read the rest of essay at Reflections on the Ascension of Bahá’u’lláh; Dale E. Lehman; Revised: 05/25/2001)

 

From a Christian perspective Baha’i is part of the many paths that are wide and lead to the destruction of the soul in which the human spirit is in danger of experiencing the second and final death. From an Islamic perspective Baha’i is the transformative path that would truly evolve Islam into a religion of peace.

 

Reformation in Islam is a return to Mohammed’s wickedness. A transformation in Islam will lead to the Mecca-Mohammed before the Hegira to Medina in which Mohammed became mad with power. Without that transformation there will be definitely a clash of civilizations between the West and the violent culture that is Islam.

 

JRH 3/29/11

Comment by Ashraef


Here is a comment from one who would describe himself as a moderate Muslim but I would describe as a transformative Muslim. Radical Muslims or Islamists or Salafis or Wahhabis are the purist Muslims seeking a reform back to the days of Mohammed’s initiation of brutal conquests. A transformative Muslim wishes to eschew the elements of Islam that underline violence as the primary theme of theology.

Ashraef Ahmed is primarily addressing fellow Muslims as in an open letter. As a Westerner the letter is awesome. As a Christian I still a bit of Islamic Supremacism; however I’m a Christian Supremacist in a New Testament kind of way. Thus, I can’t be too critical.

JRH 10/5/10 (Original Post Date)

*********************************

Comment by Ashraef

Sent: Oct 1, 2010 at 10:38 PM

Comment: Ashraef Ahmed [to] Brothers and sisters,

The Islamic community in the West is suffering as a direct result of the radical elements within Islam that have hijacked our religion and turned it into a faith of terror. You make us look like barbaric uneducated uncivilised people. STOP!

The internet is full of Hate speeches by Islamic Clerics. The internet, media, press have exposed the weakness within Islam. We are unable to control Muslims perverting the Holy Koran; they have portrayed us as evil inconsiderate monsters. Our non-Muslim friends in the West have every right to be critical. It is time for us to be honest and reclaim and take ownership of our faith Islam. Why are we allowing radicals to destroy our image to the whole world? Where are our honest leaders? Where is the peace of Islam?

As you are all aware the spot light is now focused on Islam all over the world. Let’s be totally honest with each other, since 9/11 the West has become terrified of Islam, and rightly so… Muslims are NOT terrorists and we are good people wanting to live in peace. So why is only the modern-day terrorists threatening the world are radical Muslims? Why are we silent, while they totally shame our faith? I do not blame the West, America, or any one; I blame these radicals that have hijacked Islam and destroyed any notion Islam is a peaceful religion.

I find it incredible that our Islamic leaders cannot or will not recognize this and deal with it. As a group of Muslims in the West we have some basic questions to ask Our Islamic leaders, so they may understand our concerns and why there is so much hatred and annex towards Islam. Why is the Islamic community allowing terrorists to hijack their religion to justify hideous attacks on Western countries? What are the “moderate Muslims” doing to prevent abuse of their religion by their radical brothers and sisters in Islam? When the Muslim community continually does nothing except complain about the reaction of the West to the radical elements in Islam and labeling them “Islamophobics”, what do we expect them to do? Are we doing nothing about them? It is the responsibility of every moderate Muslim to claim ownership of Islam and openly denounce any Muslim abusing or using the Koran to ratify their evil acts. Do you agree that when civilized Muslims take control of Islam, people might view us in a different light? Do the Muslim nations agree it should not [be] up to the Western nations to clean up the mess left behind by radical Islamists? We totally accept that as a direct result of the inaction of the Islamic community, the West has no option but to protect ourselves? [Perhaps the author means themselves?]

We have failed to protect our religion! Are we aware everyone has the right of self-defence; this is not solely an Islamic or Koranic teaching? As true Muslims we feel ashamed and embarrassed by the 100,000’s of YouTube videos and internet sites where our religious leaders are promoting absolute vile barbaric and evil doctrines in the name of Islam. Shameful! What are our Islamic leaders doing to protect the name of Islam from these radicals? These people are the ones totally damaging the name of Islam and turning the West against Islam. What is the Muslim community doing about them or going to do about them and when? When is Islam going to accept responsibility for the evil actions of radical Muslims acting in the name of ALLAH? What does the Koran tell us Muslims about dealing with any Muslim perverting the word of the Koran?

You must be aware the world is now a very small place, due to technology we in the West “hear and see everything in the Muslim world via Internet, TV, media, etc”. Radical Islamists must realize their barbaric extreme actions are viewed with complete revulsion and disgust by Muslims and non-Muslims. No we have some young Muslims here wanting to follow in the footsteps of these evil people. These small but radical Muslims come across as barbaric uncivilized people much to the detriment of Islam. For example look at their reaction when one Pastor threatened to burn a Koran, the Islamic community went into a frenzy and mass demonstrations. It would have been better to show composure, maturity and simply issue a clear statement stating this act is unchristian and unhelpful in every way and will pray for him and leave it at that.

The West would have turned against him. By contrast the hypocrisy as countless of radical Muslims come out and threaten Western nations and post evil inciting speeches based on the Koran and calling “god is great” yet there is not a whisper from any Muslim, Moderate or otherwise.

You make Islam and the Muslim people look like foolish ignorant hypocrites. More so we ask, what are Islamic scholars going to do about the suras in the Koran that incite violence, call for the killing of Jews and Christians, and prohibiting people from leaving Islam, and condoning lying to infidels? Why does Islam feel the need to come out and attack our Jewish brothers and sisters and call for the elimination of Jews and Israel? This is only adding fuel to the fire, and it does make us look like an evil race of people following evil hatred.

Why does the leader of Iran come out and threaten Israel and the Jews in the most disgraceful inciting and hateful way? Can the Islamic community see – it is their Muslim brothers that are damaging the reputation and the name of Islam? Where is the voice of the civilised Muslim, the educated Muslim, and the peaceful Muslim? All the messages to the West are hatred, evil, violence, terror. Of course they are going to hate us, let us as a community become honest with ourselves? If the West does something we dislike, we must react in a civilised, diplomatic manner and not have mad men come out declaring war in the name of Islam?

Who is in control of our faith, our Leaders, Clerics, The radical elements and the terrorists? We do not have ONE voice to speak out on our behalf with reason, tolerance and as a role model for Islam. You have allowed barbaric terrorists to destroy our image, our reputation, our standing and our self-esteem. The Islamic communities in Islamic nations must understand, that 95% of Westerners are by far more highly educated, well read and liberal minded than they can ever imagine. They are not fools or stupid that will be swayed by threats of violence, terrorism, deception or lies.

How do we explain all the hatred and evil on the Net: look at You Tube? Clean yourselves up and stop self-destructing and blaming others. You are foolish for allowing this to happen in the first place. It is NOW, yes NOW, time for Islam to stop pointing the finger, claim ownership of Islam, control the Muslims and clean out own house, our image, our approach and our mindset.

The fact is if our Islamic leaders and community take direct and firm action against any radicals within the ranks of Islam, there would be no need for external intervention by any one. We would be viewed as truly a peaceful religion, not an unruly religion where everyone is free to do what they want in the name of Islam. It is time that Islam rescues its own reputation and uproots the core of the cause destroying the name of Islam. The Islamic leaders are fully aware of the problem, just as we are in the West. Our Islamic Leaders must immediately demonstrate to the world they are in control of the destiny of Islam and it is not in the hands of a minority radical element. They must condemn and excommunicate the entire “Islamic brotherhood” [Perhaps the author means the Muslim Brotherhood] in Egypt.

Everyone in the West, as you are aware, are the chief promoters of Jihad, Shariah and terrorism all over the world. It is no secret. It is all over the Net and the media and the latest report released in America on 15/9/2010 [I am uncertain of the report referred to by the author; however this report was produced circa 9-15-10].

Islam must stop thinking they can continue to wash their hands of the root causes and blame everyone else. No one is stupid. All over the world they are aware of the manner the Copts get treated. They [i.e. the West has seen] the reaction to comments by a Bishop [SlantRight Google Search:Muslim Body Sets Conditions for Christian Citizenship in Egypt”].

What is the matter with you all? Do not react like animals: the Torah and Bible have been scrutinised, examined and debated for 2000 years. They [i.e. Jews, Christians and the West] don’t go wild. [The] “Da Vinci Code” [was written and made into a movie], not one demonstration or act of violence, we must learn from this. We as Muslims have nothing to hide; we are not scared to answer questions about the Koran. If someone says something or asks a question, we answer them and educate them. We don’t react like stupid fools unable to answer a question. In the West they see the way Muslims treat the Copts. That [is] image of Islam they get [and] makes them hate us and not trust us.

Everyone in the West knows the Copts are natives of Egypt. Islam, they see what you have done in Egypt and they believe we will do the same in their countries. Look at all of Europe everyday in the news because of Islam. How do you think the rest of the world views this?

Islam must show we can live in peace, tolerance, equality and love. I do not blame them, I blame the Islamic clerics that brainwash them and places hatred and evil in the hearts and incite them to commit evil acts. AT the SAME TIME these clerics live in safety and will not expose themselves to harm, prosecution or courts. This is wrong and madness. Again we remind you all the problem is within Islam not the West; especially after 9/11 it succeeded in turning the world focus on Islam and put us under the microscope. They have every right [to be upset]. If the same thing happened to us in an Islamic country, the Islamic community would have burned down their own countries’ in mass protest.

Finally the request for a Mosque at Ground Zero shows a complete lack of empathy, sympathy, consideration, remorse or respect. Do not add insult to injury. All it has done is increase the worldwide hatred and condemnation of Islam. Please have civilized educated people take control of Islam all over the world. It would be such a wonderful gesture if an Islamic Leader came out and said,  “After due consideration, the Islamic community will not seek to build a Mosque on scared [I presume the author means “sacred”] ground where so many innocent people lost their lives at the hands of a foolish terrorists perverting the name of Islam.”

We as Muslims should let the Americans heal their wounds from this evil act. We as Muslims in an Islamic nation would [n]ever – ever – ever allow a religious building on a site where adherents of that faith committed a similar evil act. It is time to treat each other equally with respect, dignity, decency and consideration. I can only hope and pray.

Ashraef Ahmed

_____________________________

NOTE: I have run a spell check. Also in places I added words in brackets that was not in the original. Also I placed some clarification in italics embraced by brackets. I also believe Ashraef Ahmed learned his/her (sorry about the uncertainty) English in a British influenced nation. Some of the words have a British spelling. I tried to leave those alone.