Islamic radicalism or Islamic liberalism: which is the real threat?
Lee Jay Walker - The Modern Tokyo Times
In the 21st century you have two types of Islam and this applies to the systematic persecution of minorities, for example which is happening in Iraq, the Maldives, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Yemen, and many other Muslim dominated nations. This violence is aimed at converting minorities or crushing them via dhimittude and systematic persecution.
The other type of Islam is aimed at “stealth jihad” and this comes via liberalism, blatant lies about the real Mohammed, control over the media, playing the persecution card, inter-marriage but with the child or children always being Muslim, and a complete re-writing of history and facts. At the same time many non-Muslim liberals or the political correct brigade are sowing the seeds for Islamic expansion because of the manipulation of language.
Therefore, 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 conquered by the sword or via Sufi mystics or liberal versions of Islam, the outcome was normally the same and this applies to the gradual Islamization of society. This in turn led to dhimmitude, religious persecution, female exploitation, and backwardness.
Today the sword of Islam is still forcing non-Muslims to convert in nations like Sudan and Somalia, and systematic persecution in majority based Muslim nations is ongoing. Despite this, many liberals and Western leaders remain silent about the true nature of Islam, the Hadiths, and Islamic Sharia law. Even worse, many major leaders are praising Islam and it is clear that Islamists are winning the media war in many parts of the world.
For example in the United Kingdom the ex-Prime Minister, Tony Blair, often praised the beauty of Islam and he stated openly 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 other draconian facts about Islam.
Also, nations like Saudi Arabia are free to spread their propaganda and build Islamic institutions throughout the West. Therefore, despite the fact that Saudi Arabia persecutes all non-Muslims it is still clear that this nation can spread false images of Islam and attack nations from within.
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 stated that male Islamic apostates must be killed and he made sure that non-Muslims were inferior in law and had to pay extra taxes via the system of dhimmitude.
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 when it comes to developed nations. Instead the real threat is liberal Islam and non-Muslims who are re-writing history. Also, many liberal nations are bending-over-backwards in order to reach out to the so-called Muslim world, therefore, the stealth jihad is growing and Islam is being protected by the very same liberals who would be crushed and persecuted under Islamic Sharia law.
For example, Karen Armstrong is teaching an alternative history of Islam and her Prophet Mohamme is very different to say the least. The same applies to Prince Charles and many others, for these people Mohammed was a man of peace and of course they negate to mention that Mohammed supported jihad, that he cleansed Arabia of Jews and Pagans, and that he married a child and so forth.
Therefore, 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? Or is it because of other factors like marriage and the fact that little is said about the real nature of Islam?
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?
Surely religious leaders have a duty to tell the truth and to warn their co-religionists about Islamic persecution throughout the Muslim world? However, their silence is helping Islam to grow. Therefore, how many of the 50,000 British national converts know about the real Mohammed?
Were they told that Mohammed had slaves, had sex with a child, killed Jews and Pagans, attacked caravans, divorced many times, had sex with concubines, and so forth?
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, the 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 either quickly because of forced conversions, massacres, slavery, dhimmitude, and so on. Or Islamization was slow and Sufi leaders were then sent in order to talk about the love of God and this lead to confusion or to fusions which would lead to Islamic conversion but based on outside influences.
However, this love of God in time became replaced by conservative Islam and non-Muslims were subdued or became a small minority, or in the case of Buddhism and Hinduism in Afghanistan, then being wiped from the face of Afghanistan. Given this, then which is the real threat, is it Osama Bin Laden and fellow Islamists who will wake people up to read about the real nature of Mohammed and Islam. Or is it Islamic liberals and non-Muslim liberals who are re-writing Islam?
Lee Jay Walker