Little by Little, The Word is Getting Out

This morning, I woke up to hear, for the first time, a radio talk show host in our area discussing the implications of the threats being made by Muslim cleric Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammad. Not only the host's views, but those of the callers was very encouraging. I wanted to share with you the email I sent to him a few minutes ago:


Dear Dan,

I listened to your show this morning for the first time, and it pleases me no end that Mme. Reality is beginning to knock at our door!

The information you gave on Muslim cleric Bakri (to say nothing of the fact that his views are typical) is much needed in the PC World. Inasmuch as you are interested in him, and inasmuch as you mentioned his desire to fly the flag of the Ummah all over the world, I thought you'd enjoy one of his more revealing publications, called "Khilifah: The First 24 Hours" available at:
http://www.islamistwatch.org/texts/khaliplan/24hrs%20Khilifah%20book.pdf . It was written by our friend (the Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad), and published by Al-Muhajiroun publications (mnapublic@yahoo.com).

Along those lines, Siraj Wahhaj, who was the Imam of Masjid al-Taqwa in Brooklyn, New York, said "Take my word; if 6-8 million Muslims unite in America, the country will come to us."

The reason for all the changes proposed by the Sheikh is the fact that state and religion are inextricably fused in Islam; the Koran is their constitution, and sharia, their law, is derived from it, and considered to be the word of Allah. Since they consider the word of Allah to be supreme, no man-made government, and no man-made law (such as our Constitution) can take precedence over the Koran or sharia. To that end, the former Muslim chaplain and political science professor at Yale, Imam Zaid Shakir, said: "The Koran pushes us in the exact opposite direction to the forces at work in the American political spectrum." As a result, he maintains that Muslims cannot accept the legitimacy of the existing (American) system.

And did you hear the one about a Muslim convention held in San Jose a month after 9/11, where one of the speakers said "By the year 2020, we should have an American Muslim president of the United States."

I simply must take this opportunity to mention a very fine resource that deserves to be more widespread; this is an on-line book written by Vernon Richards, and given a "thumbs up" by Robert Spencer, a scholar-author doubtless already known to you. It is the best "overview" of Islam I have ever seen, written in chronological fashion, and should be the textbook of choice about Islam in every high school and college in the United States. It is called "Islam Undressed," and it is available at: http://www.islamundressed.com/ [Updated link as of 31 July 2005, 1402 hours, PDT (gm)] . It is extremely well documented, and a great resource.

I don't know if the author would be available to be interviewed, but I'd sure tune in if he were.

Until the canonical documents of Islam--the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sirat Rasul Allah--delete the exhortations to convert the earth into an Islamic planet, there will ALWAYS be those in EVERY generation who will respond to the religious obligation to carry out the plan, and who will take seriously the moral authority these documents grant to the followers of Islam to do anything, including murder and mayhem, that they deem necessary to accomplish the goal. It won't matter that some Muslims would prefer to live in peace--the fact that the religious obligation to conquer the world by any means necessary is the "word of Allah" makes their desires for peace with the Infidel an act of heresy, which is punishable by death under sharia.

World conquest is the raison d'etre of Islam; it is its whole identity, it's whole purpose for existing. No individual, and no group, can tolerate loss of purpose or identity, so this conflict isn't going away any time soon. Iraq has NOTHING to do with the attacks on the non-Muslim world. It is the fact that there are non-Muslims (pagans, according to them) on the planet that "provokes" violence by Islam.

It is interesting to note that by plotting the location of every conflict in the world today, you see that they occur at the interface between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb (the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds respectively), and not just in Iraq. I like to call the picture that is produced by plotting these conflicts the "Ring of Fire," only it doesn't refer to geologic activity. It is the Infidel, the "Not-Muslim," be he Christian, Bhuddist, Jew, Confucian, animist, agnostic, or atheist, that provides the excuse for Muslims to throw their lethal temper tantrums.

Reality always wins in the end, and eventually, the PC Curtain will be drawn back enough even for some of the "make-nice" people to see how hopeless their dreams of appeasement with this implacable, intransigent foe are. One day, even they will get the picture--the Golden Rule is meaningless to Islam. As Our Friend Bakri said, "We don't make a distinction between
civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents. Only between
Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever has no value. It has
no sanctity."


Best regards,

(Cubed)

P.S. Aside from the English-language versions of the Koran etc., the greatest reference text for your book shelf is Craig Winn's "Prophet of Doom." He has used the founding documents of Islam to expose it for what it is, and as a result, receives frequent death threats. It's not an easy read, but it's something that everyone interested in the nature of Islam should have available.

P.P.S. The government-religion "fusion" issue is important, and what has happened in Islam is PRECISELY the sort of thing that the Founders feared could happen to us if separation between religion and state weren't maintained. There was a guy named Robert Molesworth, who was a pre-Revolutionary author (whose friends later wrote a series of pamphlets that became known as "Cato's Letters" that were considered pivotal justification for the American Revolution) who studied the relationship between religion and government extensively, and concluded that if religion and government were fused, then government could be considered an agent of God, and not merely a human production. Where that is the case, criticism of government is considered a sin, and not honest intellectual disagreement.

The Founders were in agreement with this concern, and to protect the freedom of the citizen to disagree with and criticize the government, and to prevent the situation we now see with Islam, they inserted the "separation clause" that so many today think is such a bad thing.