RSS

Tag Archives: mohammed married a child

Afghanistan: a nation where converts to Buddhism and Christianity face death

Afghanistan: a nation where converts to Buddhism and Christianity face death

Murad Makhmudov and Lee Jay Walker

Modern Tokyo Times

The United States, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, and a host of other nations, keep on sending economic support to Afghanistan and how do the leaders of this nation respond?  Yes, they still support an ongoing Islamic inquisition whereby every Muslim convert to Buddhism, Hindusim or Christianity faces the death penalty.

In truth, the policies of Karzai and the Taliban are not so different because both sides support killing apostates from Islam, the prevention of non-Muslim places of worship, continuing discrimination against women and rigid stratification of Afghanistan. Therefore, any positive images of Kabul being shown in the media, is just “a hidden disguise of reality” and corruption is endemic alongside the heroin trade.

Afghan converts to Christianity and other faiths also face persecution outside of Afghanistan and if de-Islamization of culture isn’t installed into the younger generation via the education system, then what is the point?

Therefore, the mosque and Islamic Sharia law needs to be kept out of all major institutions and reformist Muslim organizations should be supported. After all, how can commerce, pluralism, religious freedom, female emancipation, the rights of homosexuals, and so forth, happen under the prevailing conditions of modern day Afghanistan?

Secularism, credit unions to help business initiatives, a growing liberal media network, a judiciary which is free from religious dogma and an educational system based on liberal values is needed. Of course, other important areas need changing and this applies to restrictions on dress and challenging the power base of traditional rulers who care little about modernity.

This Sunni Islamic version of Islam in Afghanistan is mainly ultra-conservative and based on preserving inequality and the subjugation of non-Muslims, women, and maintaining stratification. The Islamic enlightenment in this country is a million miles away. Therefore, the current Western policy appears to be based on the status quo and allowing another generation of girls to be chained by an oppressive society.

If the option is the Taliban who recently stoned a woman to death for so-called immorality, yes, Mohammed married a child of 6 years of age and consummated the marriage with Aisha when she was 9 years old, and by this time Mohammed was over 50 (Obviously morality is conditional on individuals and not their own prophet); or the Karzai government which is corrupt and supports killing apostates via the state; then what option is this?

Trillions of dollars have been spent on Afghanistan and the return on all this money is you have schools which teach basic education to girls. However, this educational system is uneven and in more conservative areas it is still disliked.

Therefore, what are NATO forces and American troops dying for? Why are the sons and daughters of democrats being thrown to “the jaws of radical Sunni Islam” and the complete corruption and hypocrisy of the Karzai regime?

Once Buddhism and Hinduism nurtured the land of Afghanistan but the Islamic inquisition after countless invasions changed everything and one day all Buddhists would disappear because of many factors. These factors apply to dhimmitude, massacres, pogroms, and once the power shift became dominated by Islamic forces then Buddhism was doomed to just being a shell.

However, the Taliban didn’t even like a shell, therefore, the forces of conservative Sunni Islam turned against all Buddhist images. At the same time, the forces of radical Sunni Islam then turned against the Shia and slaughtered them in the thousands but of course Osama Bin Laden believed that this policy was both Islamic and a jihad.

This madness, and it is madness, which desires to kill apostates to Buddhism, apostates to Christianity, kill homosexuals, stone women to death for adultery, and so forth; isn’t being challenged by “the light of democracy;” on the contrary it is being challenged by appeasement and the corruption of the Karzai regime which also supports killing all apostates and not allowing any other religion in Afghanistan.

If Western political leaders just desire the status quo then surely they should stop wasting the lives of military people who are dying for nothing. Also, tax-payers money shouldn’t be thrown at a county which is undemocratic and corrupt.

America likes to rebuke North Korea but women at least have a million times more freedom in this nation than Afghan women. The same also applies to Saudi Arabia where women can’t drive cars and shop freely with men and so forth.

Indeed, you have more Christian churches in North Korea than in both Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. What does this tell us about Western policy and the nature of conservative Sunni Islam? Also, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia are deemed to be allies but from the point of view of democracy, religious freedom, equality of the sexes, and so forth, it certainly doesn’t look like it.

It is time to stop coddling up to despotism and for greater accountability.

http://www.aina.org/news/20111116185325.htm  (Recent article about apostates in Afghanistan)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2060380/Afghan-mother-daughter-stoned-shot-dead-Taliban-accused-moral-deviation-adultery.html  (Woman and daughter stoned to death)

leejay@moderntokyotimes.com

http://moderntokyotimes.com

 
 
 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saudi Arabia: Child marriage, the Hadiths and the Islamophobia card

Saudi Arabia: Child marriage, the Hadiths and the Islamophobia card

Murad Makhmudov and Lee Jay Walker 

Modern Tokyo Times

Saudi Arabia continues to allow old men to marry young girls aged eight years old and upwards. The mantra by Muslims and converts to Islam, is that Islam equals morality and that Mohammed is a great role model but this depends on your interpretation of a good role model?  Therefore, with Saudi Arabia supporting Islamic Sharia law and believing that society should be based on what Mohammed did and stated in the Hadiths, it is clear that child marriage is sanctioned because Mohammed also married a child.

This reality is creating a problem for the Guardians of Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia. If this nation modernizes, then it may be seen to be pandering to Western morals and increasing the age of marriage will be challenged by conservative Sunni Islamic leaders in Saudi Arabia.

Ironically, the people who use the “Islamophobia card” are basically trying to prevent individuals speaking out against Islamic Sharia law. This is despite the fact that Islamic Sharia law and the Hadiths support pedophilia, killing homosexuals, killing apostates, chopping hands and feet off for petty crimes, stoning people to death for adultery, and other draconian laws. All these draconian measures are based on the life and sayings of Mohammed.

Therefore, if people are deemed to be “Islamophobic” for fighting against the brutal reality of many Islamic states which are based on hatred and supporting the abuse of children, apostates, homosexuals, and others; then in a world based on justice and morality the overwhelming majority of people should be deemed to be “Islamophobic.”

However, democratic nations, the mass media on a whole, international child advocates, and major institutions like the United Nations are not doing enough to fight against a legal system which clearly discriminates against non-Muslims and allows children to be married to old men. 

More surprisingly is that major religious leaders, irrespective if they are Christian, Buddhist, or whatever, appear to be fearful of speaking out against this injustice. The political correct brigade and “trendy left” and “trendy liberals” appear to have “sold their soul” because if anyone speaks out against the brutal reality of Sharia Islamic law then they are deemed to be “Islamophobic.”

However, it is the political correct brigade, “trendy left” and “trendy liberals” who have joined forces with a legal system and a religion which supports pedophilia; killing homosexuals; supporting the notion that a female testimony is unequal in law; killing or victimizing apostates; and supporting a dhimmitude system which states that non-Muslims are unequal. 

Not only this, it is only Islamic sources which are being used by individuals who fear the growing threat of Islamic Sharia law.  Despite this, freedom to counter the reality of Islamic Sharia law in nations like Saudi Arabia or rebuking the most draconian aspects of this legal system is being crushed by political correctness and moral relativism.

Therefore, despite a raped teenager being stoned to death in Somalia by Sunni Islamists; converts to Christianity being beheaded in Somalia; homosexuals being hanged in Iran; women facing being whipped in Saudi Arabia for not covering up; non-Muslim men facing the death penalty if marrying a Muslim female in several Islamic Sharia law based nations; old men marrying young girls in nations like Saudi Arabia and Yemen; people facing the death penalty in Pakistan for blasphemy; and so much more, including the unequal testimony of women and chopping hands and feet off; this hatred is being allowed because of the weakness of nations and the failure of people to confront this reality.

Turning back to Saudi Arabia, in an earlier article by Modern Tokyo Times it was stated that “On the one hand the Saudi Arabian legal system of Islamic law supports killing people for adultery and homosexuality. However, on the other hand it is deemed to be Islamic to marry a young child of 8 years of age or 9 years of age, irrespective if the male is 30 years old or 40 years old, or even older. Surely these morals are twisted?”

“Before focusing even more on the strange morals of the Saudi Arabian legal system it is vital to state why child marriages are allowed. This of course applies to Mohammed. “After all, when Mohammed, the prophet of Islam, was 49 years of age he married a 6 year old child called Aisha. When Aisha was 9 years old and Mohammed was 52 years old, he consummated the marriage.”

“Therefore, this sets a major problem for the conservative Islamic religious leaders in Saudi Arabia because they want to govern society by the laws of Islamic Sharia Law and the Hadiths. If they support increasing the age of marriage like the majority of mainly Muslim nations have done, then how does this fit in with the legal system being based on the teachings of Mohammed?”

This is a real problem for Saudi Arabia because the majority of Muslim nations have introduced laws which protect children by increasing the marriage age.  Also, more secularized Muslim majority nations have introduced reforms whereby the most draconian aspects of Sharia Islamic law have been rejected.

However, many conservative and radical Islamic organizations in the so-called Muslim world and within Western nations desire to re-introduce the most draconian aspects of Islamic Sharia law. 

Turning back to Saudi Arabia and allowing old men to marry young girls then clearly this is based on the Hadiths. The following quotes are from highly acclaimed Islamic scholars and these Hadiths have been known since the early days of Islam.

“Narrated Aisha: The prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six. We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Harith Kharzraj” and it continues that “Unexpectedly Allah’s Messenger came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.” Sahih Al-Bukhari states in volume 5, 234

“Aisha reported: Allah’s Messenger married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine…..” Muslim, volume 2, 3309

“Narrated Aisha: that the prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old.” Al-Bukhari

Therefore, the Hadiths vindicate religious leaders and the kingdom’s Grand Mufti, Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh, commented that “A girl aged 10 or 12 can be married. Those who think she’s too young are wrong and they are being unfair to her.” From an Islamic point of view and based on what Mohammed did, then the Grand Mufti is technically correct – however, how is this moral and why no reformation like in other faiths?

In an earlier article it was stated that “…a judge in Saudi Arabia justified the right of an 8 year-old child to marry a man of 47 years of age. Even after the mother signed a petition to demand the annulment of the marriage, the judge still refused because of the teachings of Islam. Therefore the judge, Sheikh Habib Abdallah al-Habib, refused openly to annul the marriage and in his eyes it is morally right to marry a child to an old man.”

In the modern world you still have seven Islamic Sharia law based nations where apostasy is punishable by death.  Also, in nations like Saudi Arabia men who are very old are allowed to marry young girls.  Therefore, it is time for nations like Saudi Arabia to be challenged and the same applies to societies which sanction child marriage to old men.

Also, in modern day Saudi Arabia many Muslim citizens are fed-up and ashamed by religious clerics and some brave human rights organizations in this nation desire change.  It is vital that their voice is heard and supported.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-17/world/saudi.child.marriage_1_saudi-arabia-deeply-conservative-kingdom-top-saudi-cleric?_s=PM:WORLD

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-12/world/saudi.child.marriage_1_appeals-court-marriage-girl-s-mother?_s=PM:WORLD

http://moderntokyotimes.com please visit

 
 
 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

United Kingdom: Ahmad Thomson, Islamic hypocrisy and sharia law

United Kingdom: Ahmad Thomson, Islamic hypocrisy and sharia law

Lee Jay Walker

Modern Tokyo Times

 

In the United Kingdom the British elites reside in leafy areas and understand little about the reality of what is happening in this world.  Therefore, this ignorance enables people like Ahmad Thomson to spread Islamic kitman and to reach parts of the nerve centre of British power.

In recent years Ahmad Thomson, who was born Martin Thomson, was allowed to give a speech at Cambridge University and in 2011 he participated at an inter faith event at the House of Lords.

Ahmad Thomson is a member of the Murabitun movement which was founded by Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi, another convert to Islam and who is clearly anti-Shia and anti-Catholic.

Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi stated the following:

“Jordan, too is split. The mass are modernist but devoid of an ‘Aqida and a Fiqh, while the Rulership openly espouses one-worldist movements and has issued a Declaration accepting the Shi‘a as if it could subsist within Islam. Shi‘ism is not a cancer in the body of Islam, it was a wart which fell off, hence its name.” 

“Bahrain we have identified as an anomaly. Since the rulers are too weak, bearing as they do a calamitous history, they can only do one of two things, submit to the kafir capitalist doctrine of counting people as numbers and give the country over to the Shi‘a, or ask Arabia to annex the territory, thus rescuing the arithmetic. I do not, cannot propose the Maliki Islamic solution. Declare the State Islamic, thus preventing non-Muslims holding office and at the same time charge the Shi‘a Jizya assuring them protection alongside the Jews and Christians. Now there is tolerance at its limit! This would have to be preceded by introducing a collected Zakat.”

Therefore, it is clear that Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi supports Islamic dhimmitude on non-Muslims and Shia Muslims who he deems to be outside of Islam.  This is clear evidence that Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi and Murabitun view jizya and enforced Islamic Sharia law on non-Muslims and Shia Muslims to be applicable.

However, Ahmad Thomson through the legal company Wynne Chambers and (http://www.wynnechambers.co.uk/) who belongs to Murabitun is trying to change laws in the United Kingdom, which he deems to be acting unfairly against Muslims.  Wynne Chambers does advocacy work in the United Kingdom and Ahmad Thomson talks about inequality in the United Kingdom while praising the virtue of noble Islamic law.

What is more alarming is that in the past Ahmad Thomson was known to have had influence within 10 Downing Street but it is difficult to know why.  After all, being a convert and belonging to a movement where the founding father, Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi, is anti-Shia and anti-Catholic; then what would he know about mainstream Islam and its powerbase which lies within the Muslim communities of the India subcontinent which have settled in the United Kingdom.

Wynne Chambers is a legal company which focuses on Islamic law and English law and the following is stated on its website:

“At present Muslims in the United Kingdom are promised equal rights in theory, but do not always enjoy them in practice. Wynne Chambers has been at the forefront in indicating, in as realistic and as constructive a manner as possible, where legal reform is most required.”

This legal company is clearly involved in Islamic kitman and Ahmad Thomson knows the reality of Islamic Sharia law but despite this he talks about human rights and Islam.  However, let us focus on the land of Mecca and Medina and laws in the United Kingdom.

Let us remember that in the past Ahmad Thomson enjoyed his visit to Saudi Arabia and clearly this means that he supports Muslims visiting a nation which is based on hatred, sexism, and despotism.

In Saudi Arabia it must have been clear to Ahmad Thomson that no non-Muslim places of worship are allowed and that women can’t even drive cars.  Also, Ahmad Thomson knows full well that all converts from Islam face the death penalty and that male non-Muslims also face the death penalty if they desire to marry a Muslim female in this nation.

The laws of Saudi Arabia are based on Islamic Sharia law and this means that converts from Islam face the death penalty, people can be stoned to death for adultery, old men can marry young children, homosexuals face the death penalty, people can have limbs chopped off for petty crimes and so forth.

Despite the rampant inequality of Islamic Sharia law and barbaric laws which support killing non-Muslims for merely marrying Muslim females; Ahmad Thomson and Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi still peddle their Islamic kitman.

Both individuals know that non-Muslims are unequal in Islamic Sharia law and when they visited Saudi Arabia they witnessed a nation which even imprisons Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, and other non-Muslims, for merely talking openly about their faith.

These two hypocrites openly proselytize in mainly non-Muslim nations in order to spread the Islamic faith and they do this in the full knowledge that non-Muslims face the death penalty if they try to convert Muslims in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, The Maldives, Yemen, and a few other nations.

However, Ahmad Thomson in the United Kingdom is in the vanguard for changing laws in this nation and his voice is being listened to in important circles. 

Ahmad Thomson cries human rights in the United Kingdom but what about the human rights of non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia and Islamic Sharia law?

It is obvious that they have two worlds and Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi can’t hide this with his anti-Shia and anti-non-Muslim comments.  Therefore, these individuals and their doctrines and open hypocrisy should be challenged but of course the opposite is happening.

Osama bin Laden despite all his hatred was more honest about Islam than the human rights peddling Ahmad Thomson.

The Islamic kitman brigade is more dangerous because their stealth jihad is much more long term and it is based on eating away at the non-Muslim culture and system from within. 

Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi made comments about the Catholic faith:

He stated that All during the time of Papal power the Catholic Church tortured and burned non-Catholics by an institutionalised system, the Inquisition, the envy of modern America. The celibate priesthood so widely took mistresses, nuns and prostitutes that they could boast that sodomy and pederasty were relatively rare. Unlike today when a prim celibacy has joined a repellent pedophilia.”

Again note the irony!  Mohammed married a child therefore if Shaykh Adbalqadir as-Sufi is so focused on lumping history and modernity together then why does he deny reality?

The Islamic Hadiths tell us clearly that Mohammed had sex with slave concubines, married more than 9 women at the same time, divorced often, and married a child.

Therefore, from the pedophilia statement of Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi it is clear that he should be stating the same about Mohammed if he wants to use the same criteria.  This is his logic and at the same time pedophilia is sanctioned in Islamic Sharia law and in modern day Saudi Arabia it is allowed for men between the ages of 20 years of age to 80 years of age, or older, to marry a child of 8 years of age or 9 years of age.

Yet Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi and Ahmad Thomson and a multitude of others clearly want to ignore the reality of Islam and Islamic Sharia law.  Instead, they want to spread Islam and Islamic Sharia law.

Ahmad Thomson should be given a test because does he want to be selective about Islamic Sharia law in the United Kingdom?  If so, does this mean that he is against aspects of Mohammed and Islamic Sharia law?

Ahmad Thomson knows that the Hadiths and Islamic Sharia law supports child marriage, killing apostates, killing homosexuals, stoning people to death for adultery, and so forth.

Therefore, does he want these laws to be installed into British law?  If not, then how Muslim is this individual?

It is mystifying to how these individuals think and how they can deny reality and be so selective.

However, what is more mystifying is how Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi, Ahmad Thomson, and a host of others, can peddle their hypocrisy without being challenged by reality.

Also, why is the British government listening to people like Ahmad Thomson? After all, whatever the weaknesses you have in the British legal system at least unlike Islamic Sharia law it does not support killing apostates, cross amputation, stoning to death and so forth.

Instead of listening to these hypocrites they should be challenged and rebuked for their hypocrisy because Islamic kitman and stealth jihad is a bigger threat than terrorism.

(http://www.wynnechambers.co.uk/)

http://www.shaykhabdalqadir.com/content/articles/Art093_11052009.php

http://www.shaykhabdalqadir.com/content/articles/Art115_30032011.php  – The full texts of what Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi stated. 

http://moderntokyotimes.com (please visit)

 
 
3 Comments

Posted by on June 10, 2011 in EUROPE, Islam, RELIGIOUS ISSUES

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Islamic liberalism is a million times more dangerous than radical Islam

Islamic liberalism is a million times more dangerous than radical Islam

Lee Jay Walker

Global Security News

The biggest threat to all civilizations is Islamic liberalism because Islamic liberals fully understand Islamic history but like the deceivers they are; they still desire to Islamize but by Islamic dawah, stealth jihad, and Islamic kitman.

Osama bin Laden supported killing apostates, Islamic jihad, Islamic Sharia law, killing homosexuals, child marriage, stoning women to death for adultery, enslaving non-Muslims during jihad, and he believed that Muslim men would go to heaven and meet virgins after killing infidels.

The Islam of Osama bin Laden was based on Mohammed, the Koran, Hadiths and Islamic Sharia law.  All the above in the previous paragraph was sanctioned by Mohammed and Mohammed himself married a child and ordered the killings of non-Muslims in the name of Allah.

Islamic liberal organizations like Muslim Bridges (http://muslimbridges.org) in America are openly spreading Islam despite claiming to build bridges.  You only have to check their website to note that they visit Christian churches and teach people how to pray to Allah and how Islam is based on love and peace.

Of course, these liberal kitman Muslims know full well that apostates are killed in Islamic nations based on Sharia Islamic law.  Therefore, Muslim converts to other religions face the death penalty in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, the Maldives, and Yemen.

However, the kitman liberal Muslims will state that Mohammed means peace and that Islam means love and humility.  Somehow killing apostates, stoning to death, cross amputation, child marriage (child rape and still sanctioned in Saudi Arabia), stoning to death for adultery, enslaving during jihad and so on; all this means “peace” in the minds of kitman loving liberal Muslims who love to spread Islamic dawah by stating complete lies.

Muslim Bridges also plays the race card and states how ethnicity is not important in Islam and so forth. This organization praises the fact that mixed marriages can be seen openly in Mecca and all because of the greatness of Allah.

Strange because slavery was not abolished until the 1960s in the lands of Mecca and Medina and this only happened because of external pressure by non-Muslim nations.  Also, in modern day Mauritania and Sudan it is clear that black Africans are treated with disdain and that slavery is a constant threat.

Another point which Islamic liberals gloss over is the fact that non-Muslim men face the death penalty in Saudi Arabia for marrying a Muslim female.  Yes, for an act of love the reality of Islam in accordance to Islamic Sharia law means death in the lands of Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, the Maldives, Yemen and a few other nations.

Of course the liberal media machine, the United Nations and political leaders in the West desire to ignore this reality.  After all, the non-Muslim world must show its fairness while Islamists kill Buddhists in southern Thailand and marry non-Muslims freely and without any hindrance. 

It seems that Islamic fanatics and Islamic liberals can’t lose because either way it is a win-win situation.  Therefore, the Muslim population keeps on growing in India and the United Kingdom and at the same time the Hindu population faces complete annihilation in Pakistan and the same fate awaits the Christian community in Iraq.

If you magnify organizations and individuals like Muslim Bridges then it is abundantly clear that liberal Islam is the real threat to non-Muslim nations.   Also, liberals in the West and India are bending over backwards in order to allow this lie to spread despite Islamic sources in the Koran and the Hadiths which state the opposite.

Therefore, for every non-Muslim who is converted to radical Islam in mainly non-Muslim nations, you will have another 99 who are converted to liberal Islamic kitman, whereby Islamic dawah openly enabled lies to be told in order to spread the faith.

The madness of these Islamic liberals is much worse than individuals like Osama bin Laden who fully understood the reality of Islam. 

After all, if you look at Afghanistan then firstly liberal Islam was spread along with the Sufi deceivers who are dangerous because they first went out and converted in the name of deceit and lies. 

Once the faith spread and Islam grew in power then Buddhism, Hinduism and all non-Muslim faiths in Afghanistan were doomed to slavery and the Islamic inquisition.

In time Islamization would take place in Afghanistan and all Buddhists and Hindus faced the sword of Islam.  After this, the various thought patterns in Islam were seen to be problematic because past culture remained therefore the Sunni Islamic Taliban emerged and now it was the turn of Shia Muslims and other non-Sunni branches to face the wrath of pure Sunni Islamization.

Liberal Muslims are the real threat because Islamic armies can no longer invade the majority of non-Muslim nations.  Therefore, Saudi Arabia and others are spreading Islam via Islamic dawah, deceit and open lies in order to Islamize.

It is vital that non-Muslim religious leaders and politicians don’t fall into this trap and the truth about Mohammed, slavery in Islam, child marriage, and so forth; must be told to the masses in order to fight stealth jihad and liberal Islam.

Islamic fanatics like Osama bin Laden only wake people up to the real hatred of Islamic dogma.  However, the television version of Malcolm X who supported the slave owning Mohammed is the real threat alongside organizations like Muslim Bridges.

This is based on the reality that Islam is being revamped in the mainly non-Muslim world in order to Islamize and Islamic liberals, Islamic kitman and stealth jihad is a trinity which is much more powerful than Islamic terrorism.

In nations where non-Muslim minorities are small they face the sword of Islam and in modern day Somalia the Islamic inquisition is in full swing and many Christians have been beheaded and killed in gruesome ways.  The same barbarity is being unleashed against Buddhists in southern Thailand and against minorities in a host of other nations.

However, in the non-Muslim world the threat is liberal Islam, stealth jihad and Islamic kitman. This threat is magnified by the “enemy from within” and many universities, the mass media, Western politicians and liberal non-Muslim religious leaders are bending over backwards in order to accommodate the Islamic faith.

Yet history tells us that Islam cares little about accommodation and the Islamization of Kashmir, Kosovo, Pakistan, Iraq, southern Thailand, and in other parts of the world, is ongoing in the twenty-first century.

http://global-security-news.com

 
 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Islamic radicalism or Islamic liberalism: which is the real threat?

Islamic radicalism or Islamic liberalism: which is the real threat?

Lee Jay Walker  -   The Modern Tokyo Times

Islamic terrorism is spreading its hatred
Islamic terrorism is spreading its hatred

 

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

http://islamicpersecution.wordpress.com
http://themoderntokyotimes.wordpress.com

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.