 |
|
Is the real threat Islamic
radicalism or Islamic liberalism?
It is often perceived that Islamic radicalism
is the real threat and not Islamic liberalism, yet how true is this?
For history teaches that Islam not only conquered by the sword, but also
via liberals who preached a different Islam in order to convert the
masses. Yet irrespective if former nations were either conquered
by the sword, or via Sufi mystics or liberal versions of Islam, the
outcome was normally the same and this applies to gradual Islamization
of society which eventually leads to Islamic conservatism and
oppression.
Today the sword of Islam is still forcing
non-Muslims to convert in nations like Sudan and Indonesia, and in Sudan
many African Christians and Animists are still being sold into slavery.
Yet in the West, and the world in general, it is clear that Islamization
must apply to two simple strategies, and this applies to massive Islamic
migration and having large families; whilst the second strategy applies
to Islamic liberalism, and this applies to manipulating world leaders
and institutions.
For example in the United Kingdom the current
Prime Minister, Tony Blair, often praises the beauty of Islam and that
he often reads the Koran. And similar major figures like Prince
Charles glorify Islam and he supports Islamic organizations in the
United Kingdom. At the same time the mass media ignores major
issues like forced conversion, Islamic Sharia Law which discriminates
against both women and non-Muslims; and nations like Saudi Arabia who
kill all male converts to any other faith are free to spread their
propaganda and build Islamic institutions throughout the West.
At the same time Islamic leaders at major
institutions are spreading a liberal version of Islam and if you didn't
know about the "real" Mohammed, you would believe that
Mohammed was gentle, loved humanity, treated women with respect and that
he was a forerunner of global human rights. Yet the
"real" Mohammed made it clear that the enslavement of
non-Muslims and war was justifiable in order to spread Islam.
Mohammed also made it clear that male Islamic apostates must be killed
and he made sure that non-Muslims were inferior in law and had to pay
extra taxes.
Therefore, while Islamic militants are a threat
with regards to Islamic terrorism and persecuting non-Muslims in nations
like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan and countless other mainly
Islamic nations; this does not apply to the whole picture. For in
Western Europe, North America, East Asia, and other parts of the world,
Islam can not conquer by the sword, yet the message of Islam and
Islamization can take place via mass migration and liberal Muslims
spreading an enlightened version of Islam, which does not apply in the
real "Islamic world."
Given this, the real threat of Islamization is
not via people like Osama Bin Laden, but the university lecturer who is
spreading liberal Islam and Western liberals like Karen Armstrong who
are teaching an alternative history of Islam and the teachings of
Mohammed. For the spread of Islam is growing in nations like the
United Kingdom and at least 50,000 people have converted to Islam.
Yet why did they convert? Was it because of people like Osama Bin
Laden or because of people like Karen Armstrong and Islamic liberals?
It is also baffling that religious leaders in
the West are also quiet about the threat of Islam or the persecution of
non-Muslims in mainly Islamic nations. And when brave religious
leaders rebuke Islam, Sharia Law and the Hadiths, they in turn become
rebuked by their own co-religionists, why? For surely religious
leaders have a duty to tell the truth and to warn their co-religionists
about Islamic persecution in mainly Muslim nations. However, their
silence is helping Islam to grow and would 50,000 British nationals
convert to Islam if they knew that Mohammed had slaves, had sex with a
child, killed Jews and Pagans, raped a Jewish lady and had countless
wives and concubines?
The irony is that Osama Bin Laden is a
"real" Muslim who follows the teachings of Islam; and even if
you hate this person, he at least follows his convictions which have
been installed into him from reading the Koran, Hadiths and Sharia Law.
Yet Islamic liberals, like Sufi teachers, are hypocrites and they are
the real threat. For once the liberal period of Islam manages to
Islamize society, then only one conclusion will happen, and this applies
to a future society being backward and based on Sharia Islamic Law.
In the past the Islamization of many nations
took place slowly and Sufi leaders talked about the love of God, yet
this love of God in time became replaced by conservative Islam and
non-Muslims were subdued to either being a small minority, or in the
case of Buddhism in Afghanistan, then being wiped from the face of
Afghanistan. Given this, then who is the real threat, is it Osama
Bin Laden or Islamic liberals who are re-writing Islam?
|
|
|
