The Problem With Islam


Pages: 1 2

It is difficult for Americans to comprehend the challenge to Western civilization from Islam and Islamist ideology. While our political leaders tell us constantly that we are not at war with Islam, the Obama administration will not acknowledge the fact that we are at war with Islamist ideology.

In a slim new volume of four essays, “Islam in our Midst: the Challenge to our Christian Heritage,” Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo examines the roots of Islamist ideology and finds little difference between them and Islam itself as it is currently preached in the Muslim mainstream.

And therein lies the problem with Islam. “Politically correct approaches often present a sanitized view of Islam, ignoring its terrorist forms,” Sookhdeo writes.

The Obama administration has conscientiously excised words such as “Islamic terrorism,” “Islamist terrorism” and “jihad” from the lexicon of its national security doctrine, “because they are deemed to anger Muslims and increase tensions with the wider Muslim world,” Sookhdeo notes.

This has only encouraged the Islamists, who are using left-wing think tanks such as the Center for American Progress to send out the political thought-police to condemn anyone who dares to discuss such issues openly as “Islamophobe.”

Dr. Sookhdeo is a noted scholar of Christianity and Islam, and is the international director for Barnabas Aid, a Christian agency that gives assistance to Christians facing persecution around the world.

Because of his scholarship and his deep understanding of Islamic texts and Islamic law, it is harder for the pro-Sharia lobby to dismiss him as an Islamophobe.

He believes we need to understand the fundamental contradiction and incompatibility between the “Islamic worldview” (note: not “Islamist”) and its American secular counterpart.

First, “a fundamental doctrine of Islam is the unity of religion (din) and state (dawla),” he writes. “Islam is thus inherently political. In a very real sense, for Muslims Islam is the state.” [p39]

Sharia law, which is derived from the Koran, the Hadith, and the various accounts of the life of Mohammad, “contains a complete social and political order, with regulations not only on personal devotion but also on all elements of legal jurisdiction, political institutions, relations with other states and even military endeavors.”

Muslims are taught in their mosques that they form a community that spreads across national borders, even across continents, as opposed to the individualism of American society.

“This can create tensions and conflicts for Muslims living in societies such as the U.S.,” Sookhdeo writes. “It raises the question of where one’s first loyalty lies.” [p41]

If all this sounds familiar, it should. Sookhdeo’s message bears a strong family ressemblance to what you may have heard from the likes of Robert Spencer, Frank Gaffney, Stephen Coughlin or John Guandolo, who have decrypted Islamist ideology and the efforts of Muslim Brotherhood front groups to gradually impose Sharia law on the United States.

But Sookhdeo’s approach is more spiritual, and he has written this latest slim volume as a challenge to Christians to better understand the differences between their worldview and the Islamic one.

Born a Muslim in exile from his native Pakistan, Sookhdeo moved from British Guyana to Britain and became a Christian while studying at university. He went on to become an ordained Anglican priest, in addition to doing his PhD at the University of London’s School of African and Oriental Studies.

For Muslims, therefore, Sookhdeo is an apostate, a man with a price on his head. In Britain recently, Islamist activists sought to get him condemned as an Islamaphobe by the UK Charities Commission for his efforts to educate Christians about Islamic doctrine and to promote Christian prayer.

“Islam in Our Midst” tackles the problem of Sharia law and the efforts by Muslim organizations to gradually impose it on the West, and why Sharia is totally incompatible with Western societies.

“The existence of a divine law, ordained by the god of Islam, excludes the possibility of any other kind of law, such as natural law or human law,” Sookhdeo writes. [p42] At its core, Islam is a political ideology, operating in the public space. “The concept of a personal devotional life of faith within the private space has little emphasis in mainstream Islam.”

Mainstream Muslim clerics such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the popular proselytizer who appears on al-Jazeera and other Arabic language networks, “explicitly rejects secularism as apostasy from Islam because it means abandoning the rule of Sharia,” Sookhdeo notes.

I hosted a panel in June on the future of the war on terror at Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom conference. In addition to excellent contributions from Frank Gaffney and CBN correspondent Erik Stakelbek, a lawyer named Marshall Bregar was added to our panel at the last minute at the assistance of Grover Norquist, a close friend of Ralph Reed’s.

Pages: 1 2

  • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

    A few corrections.

    Islam in its ENTIRETY is the problem, and to rid of islam and muslims in the US is a SOLUTION. Let them reform their religion elsewhere, and let us wait a mere one thousand years.

    Islam cannot become a faith like any other religion. More importantly, America does not need any other religions anyway. America already has its proper religions and the national identity being founded as a Judeo-Christian nation. Is it really asking for too much if one wishes to preserve one's own national identity?
    http://lc.org/media/9980/attachments/flyer_foundi

  • Amused

    Bravo Chez well said indeed .Normally I find myself at odds with about all of your statements , but on this we find common ground . The author puts his life at risk , simply by way of his conversion . Islam is diametrically opposed to Christianity .There is absolutely no comparison , similarity , or commonly held beliefs .There never was , nor will there ever be .. Islam has no place in civilised society .Islam is anti-thetical to humanity .A vile and extremely dangerous ABBERATION of human behavior .

  • http://satanstrinity.com C"H"Martel

    My book, "Satan's Trinity: Hitler, Stalin & Muhammad, is available at http://satanstrinity.wordpress.com/ For the first time in history "HSM" appear together on a book cover. The idea behind the book is to make headway against the ludicrous idea that Muhammad should be conjoined with any religious leader/founder. This book uses the specific names of Hitler and Stalin to efficiently identify the nature of Muhammad and by extension Islam. It compares the personalities and approach of each man to such categories as; war, peace, sex, torture, slavery, women, their respective childhoods and deaths, the critical affects of geography and timing, each man’s anti-social and narcissistic personalities. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=CHMar

    • mlcblog

      Wow!! good for you. Hope it sells.

      This is an important point.

  • http://www.kodload.com www.kodload.com

    Much thanks for that helpful post I will go to your website. Well done. Goodbye for now. <a href="http://www.kodload.com” target=”_blank”>www.kodload.com

  • PatriotX

    “The Obama administration has conscientiously excised words such as “Islamic terrorism,” “Islamist terrorism” and “jihad” from the lexicon of its national security doctrine, “because they are deemed to anger Muslims and increase tensions with the wider Muslim world,”

    Really?

    Have you noticed how Islam never get’s blamed for “increasing the tension”. A good example is an ealier article of those lunatics who firebombed that magazine shope in France. I’m willing to bet in media all across Europe, the owner of that shop will get blamed for “increasing the tension”.

    I for one don’t think it’s the words “Islamic Terrorism”, “Jihad” or others that decpict Islam for what it is that’s “increasing the tension”. I think it’s the lunatics that are commiting these attrocities that are “INCREASING THE TENSION”!!!

  • effielane

    There is a treasonous sleeper cell in the White House. Barack Hussein Obama's, early years were spent in Muslim Indonesia and was adopted by his Muslim step father. He attended Muslim schools as well and learned the Koran in Arabic. In January 2009 in New York, Obama told the Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit that he is a Muslim, his father was a Muslim, his step father is a Muslim, that his half brothers in Kenya are Muslim, his half sisters are Muslim.
    He said "If things turn negative, I will come down on the side of Muslims." Obama is closely connected to The Muslim Brotherhood.
    As a sitting U.S. Senator he traveled to Kenya to campaign for Raule Odinga for President of Kenya. Odingat lost and went on a rampage and burned Christians in their church & other crimes.
    Circumstances convine me that Obama is not a citizen of the UnitedStates. For instance, won't he allow the State Dept to release his Passport? I believe he has an Indonesian Passport. Only American citizens can get a passport.

    • traeh

      I am against Obama. It's not impossible that he is a Muslim. But you are misquoting him, when you say he said, "If things turn negative, I will come down on the side of Muslims." A statement that sounds similar, but that is different in a critical respect, can be found in one of his books. But you, or whomever you are quoting, slightly altered it the actual statement. Further, you left out the context. In the passage in question, Obama is talking about minority groups in general, not just Muslims, and how minority groups can be victimized. He says that minority groups should not be victimized. He says that he will stand with minorities — including Muslims — should others try to victimize them. It's absolutely clear to anyone who reads it and is not mentally ill with a hate-Obama syndrome that Obama was not declaring himself a Muslim, but rather a defender of minorities against majorities.

      Now, that is very different from the way you make that quote appear, isn't it?

      I'm a conservative who badly wants Obama out of office, but I also hate lies like this tripe about how Obama said when the s__t hits the fan, he'll come down on the side of the Muslims.

      Well, perhaps you didn't know and you were just quoting something you picked up somewhere on the internet. Well, now you can do a little research on the internet and verify for yourself what I've said. I think you can find the actual quote by the "look inside" function at amazon.com in his two books. You can also just google the words and read various websites, but keep a critical mindset operating, don't just retail any crap you see.

      If, however, you know very well that what you have said here is a lie, then shame on you. I say this as a conservative and someone who finds Islam totalitarian and would like a moratorium on immigration of Muslims. I will vote for the Republican nominee against Obama. But I also hate lies.

  • Debanjan Banerjee

    "Whatever evils that have been perpetrated in the name of Christianity over the centuries, they were done so IN CONTRAVENTION to the teachings of Christ."

    I do have certain observations regarding this. When Native Americans were killed by the Spaniards in their own cities , I guess those were blessed by the Pope. So was that Pope also was acting against Christ ?

    When John Winthorp and his minions decided to settle in Massachusstes , it involved killing against the native Americans there including raids that burnt whole villages killings thousands of women and children. John Winthorp invoked biblical passages there. So was John Winthorp acting against Christ ?

    When Presidents Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren decided to expand the American territories by capturing native American territories they invoked biblical passages. So was that also against Christ ?

    When atom bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki , President Trueman uttered biblical passages. So was that also against Chirst ?

    Friends please quench my confusion here.

    • radicalconservative

      Wow you sure are clever. Well dude, where to start…. The Pope did not give a “blessing” to kill Native North Americans. IF he did, then yes, pal that would have been a “sin” and not in concert with Christian principles.
      Christians (most) do believe in the right of self-defense. The war against Japan was committed in self -defense. Christians agonize over details regarding methods, e.g., use of atomic bombs in that circumstance.
      The colonization of America and the attendant violence against Natives is a clash of civilizations that happened in a complex fashion only marginally related to Christianity in that many Christians were immigrants, but not all immigrants were Christians, or practiced their faith, or were very good at it etc. The sheer volume of immigration into an wide open area, poorly defended by its natives who were technologically less organized and advanced, doomed them to marginalization. Sad but true. It could happen to YOU too when Moslems dominate due to your moral equivalencies….

    • aspacia

      Debanjan, you appear to have difficulty in reading comprehension. Do you know what contravention means? It appears not.

      Bartolomé de las Casas is well known for protesting the attacks against Native Americans. His writings are in numerous academic texts.

      Native American tribes massacred each other, often burning or skinning enemies alive and kidnapping the women and children. Sounds like great companions for you.

      Besides, there is far more call to murder infidels simply because they are infidels in the Qu'ran than the Torah.

      I am a supporter of our right to defend ourselves and the atomic attacks. I am also a supporter of neutron bomb attacks on the vase oil ME oil fields and surrounding cities because those governments are our enemies, and most of their citizens are also our enemies who wish us harm.

    • taeh

      Yes, John Winthrop, and Presidents Jackson and Van Buren and the Popes have all acted against Christ. Anyone who uses state violence to spread belief in Christ is acting against Christ, as can be seen by reading the New Testament. Unlike Muhammad, Christ repeatedly rejected state power. That is why, over the long historical run, Christian nations have finally ended up with the separation of religion and state. Christians following Christ cannot use violence except perhaps for purposes that do not have anything directly to do with spreading belief in Christ. For example, a policeman who happens to be Christian can use force to stop a criminal from doing violence. A soldier that happens to be Christian can rightfully fight in a war that is for self-defense or for the defense of innocent victims.

      Bernard Lewis says Jihad is an unlimited offensive to bring the whole world under Islamic law; Christian crusades a defensive, limited response to, and imitation of, jihad. From pp.233-234 of The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2000 Years

      Even the Christian crusade, often compared with the Muslim jihad, was itself a delayed and limited response to the jihad and in part also an imitation. But unlike the jihad it was concerned primarily with the defense or reconquest of threatened or lost Christian territory…The Muslim jihad, in contrast, was perceived [by Muslims] as unlimited, as a religious obligation that would continue until all the world had either adopted the Muslim faith or submitted to Muslim rule.… The object of jihad is to bring the whole world under Islamic law.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      I hate to rain on your mentally deficient parade, but Indian land wasn't usurped for the purpose of making Christianity supreme, instead it was usurped to make way for Western expansion and settlement. Hell, for thousands of years before the arrival of Westerners to the new world, Indians themselves regularly and routinely usurped each others' lands, burned down villages, and massacred their enemies, and again it wasn't for the purpose of making any particular religion or ideology supreme.

      Only Islam and Islam alone has as its sole purpose, fundamental mission, and main goal the imperative to make Islam supreme throughout the world via the imposition of Sharia. Hence, you can try like a mentally handicapped dumb ass to morally equate Islam with Christianity all you want you moron, but the only thing you are doing is demonstrating what an unhinged self-hating loon you are. Indeed, Islam is not even a faith-based religion, instead it is a supremacist theo-political totalitarian ideology. By the way, are you posting from a tent parked on Wall Street?

  • Marty

    islam has been a menace to western civilization from its beginnings. It has consistently been supremacist, imperialist, aggressive, genocidal, anti-semitic, anti-Christian, and in complete opposition to human decency. The koran makes all of this very clear and islamic advocates and apologists do what is possible to pave the way for a global caliphate. islam has few if any good qualities. Its violent seizure of power anywhere brings social and economic breakdown. islam promises only a long and brutal dark age on a planetary scale.

  • cavan edwards

    I direct all the readers of this article to the very scholarly research in "The Legacy of Jihad:Islamic Holy War and the Fate of non-muslims".
    The hatred of India towards Pakistan can be directly traced to the most cruel and devastating jihad of 1350AD. All combatants who were captured by the mujahhadin had their heads cut off. The people of nearby towns and villages were lead past piles of severed heads. Then they were asked if they wanted to become muslims.

    • aspacia

      There are also many African writings regarding Islam expantionism and massacres against Blacks, which is still occurring. You might want to peruse Simon Deng regarding his plight

  • Stuart Parsons

    The Imams, Mullahs and Ayatollahs will continue to rule for as long as Muslims believe the nonsense they tell them and Western politicians fear to challenge them.

    Islam is a far, far greater threat to the well-being of mankind than Fascism and Communism ever were.

  • mburu

    between International zionism and islamism, which is a greater peril to the freedom of humanity? lol!

    • aspacia

      Zionism is no threat to freedom! This is a false analogy.

    • David Hayden

      I'd venture to say Islam. Zionists are interested in the Jewish state in Israel (a tiny place). Islam demands world supremacy for Allah. It's not even close: the greatest peril is Islam.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      between International zionism and islamism, which is a greater peril to the freedom of humanity? Lol!

      Neither one of them, the greatest peril to the freedom of humanity is that you procreate and pass on your defective genes.

  • PatriotX

    Those goals include “the peaceful or gradualist Islamization of all countries, through tactics that concentrate on every area of society, including the political, legal, social, media, and financial.”

    This form of Jihad is probably the biggest threat to the United States from Islamists. This is happening here in the United States, ongoing as we speak. The gradual acceptance of the PC lie that shariah is no different from the same religious laws that Christian denomonations use to resolve issues. It’s not the same, it’s as different as night and day. Many of the laws used in Amish and Mennonite religious communities recognize the individual rights that are in the Constitution. Nor does it end in the brutal death of someone for abandoning the faith. In alot of cases, what would seem like a slight or mild infraction in Western society would be deemed under Shariah law as “punishable by death”.

    All over Europe and the UK Muslims are establishing their own communities and prohibiting citizens of the host nation from entering in. Threats of violence and other hostilities are used to intimidate those who oppose or speak out against their laws or policies used to govern these communities called “Muslim no-go zones”. They are attempting to do this in the U.S. The potential for violence is something that’s somewhat of a concern however the fact that the U.S. has many wary gun wielding citizens that aren’t going to put up with a lot of nonsense is the reason why we haven’t seen an explosion of violence. In the U.S. they are using methods of propaganda and loopholes through our legal system such as twisting the Constitution or ignorance of it’s meaning and significance as a means for infiltrating our society. A good example of the propaganda was our 9-11 Anniversary. If you noticed, in all of the speeches, no one mentioned Islam as any factor in the motivation for that attack. It was portrayed pretty much as an unfortunate accident. In fact, if someone who had little knowledge of the attack, were listen to the speeches, they would hardly know that it was terrorist attack. This was done to avoid sparking tension. Go figure. If our leaders have become this scared of addressing the threats than in a sense the enemy has already won.

    The curriculum in our schools will avoid mentioning any of the unpleasant truths of this religious ideology at all however will go out of it’s way to list and elaborately discuss in vivid detail, the Christian crusades. None will even dare discuss the Islamic crusades that took place centuries before. If so, I’m sure that what ever school that did it would be assaulted by a tidal wave of threats by lawyers of Muslim actvists.

    In conclusion ladies and gentlemen, liberal-progressive thinking that has crept into our laws and schools is opening the gates of destruction for our nation. In short liberalism is going to kill us dead.

    • mburu

      funny! everything you say about islamists can be said of Zionist Jews? lol!

      • radicalconservative

        Zionist Jews? Sorry, for some crazy reason I just don’t have it in me to fear Zionist Jews. But keep me posted when they own and terrorize non-jews in 57 or so countries and spread their crazy ideas to all of the rest…

      • aspacia

        Not true. Muslims have the right to worship, vote, and work in Israel, the same cannot be said of religious minorities in Muslim majority lands.

        mburu, before you respond check the facts using valid sources because this is one of my areas. In other words, do not appear the fool that I already believe you to be.

        Remember, most conservative bloggers on this site appear to be well-read and often educated.

      • PatriotX

        Really?

        How many Jews have blown themselves up with their last words being “God is great”? How many Jews have been involved in beheading Muslims? When was the last time you were rebuked or beaten in a Jewish community for wearing a cross?

  • randy

    How many natives were slaughted by chistians as thier land was being stolen.

    • traeh

      If Christians aggress against others, the do so against the teachings of the New Testament. If Muslims aggress against others, they do so in agreement with Muhammad and his teachings.

      Sorbonne linguist finds Islam's core texts the most aggressive against other groups

      Tina Magaard is a linguist who got her Ph.D. in Intercultural Communication from the Sorbonne, and did a three-year study of the original texts of the world's ten largest religions. One of her findings was that Islam's core texts are the most aggressive against other groups. http://jp.dk/indland/article223091.ece

    • ObamaYoMoma

      How many natives were slaughted by chistians as thier land was being stolen.

      Except Indian land wasn't usurped for the purpose of making Christianity supreme, instead it was usurped to make way for Western settlement. Hell, for thousands of years before the arrival of Westerners to the new world, Indians themselves routinely and regularly usurped each others' lands, and again it wasn't for the purpose of making any particular religion or ideology supreme. Only Islam and Islam alone has as its sole purpose, fundamental mission, and main goal the imperative to make Islam supreme throughout the world via the imposition of Sharia. Hence, you can try like a dumb ass to morally equate Islam with Christianity all you want, but the only thing you are doing is demonstrating what an unhinged loon you are. Indeed, Islam is not even a faith-based religion, instead it is a supremacist theo-political totalitarian ideology. Go buy a clue.

  • Beth

    I would say "None" randy:

    Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

    Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

  • randy

    Canada would be better off to ban any christian religions for the harm done to the native kids in the residential schools run by the pervert priests and nuns.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Sharia law can “have no place within the public sphere; nor can the more political expressions of Islam that hide under a religious burqa.” While individual Muslims deserve the protections provided by law to all citizens, “Islam as an ideology needs to be challenged, not protected.” [p76]

    The notion that individual Muslims deserve protections provided by law to all citizens is extremely naïve to say the least, as you cannot import Islam into your country and not at the same time also import Sharia and Jihad, since Sharia and Jihad are intrinsic to Islam. Indeed, Sharia is the will of Allah and jihad, which in stark contrast to terrorism can be both violent and non-violent, is the sixth and most important pillar of Islam. Take either away or both and there is no Islam.

    In fact, mass Muslim immigration to the West is a form of non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad, as Muslims never ever migrate to assimilate and integrate but instead to eventually subjugate and dominate to make Islam supreme via demographic conquest. Indeed, in Cote D'Ivoire earlier this year the new majority of Muslims just imposed Sharia on the country and at the same time subjugated the former majority of non-Muslims into harsh and degrading dhimmitude.

    Yes, you can temporarily legislate Sharia out of the public sphere. However, because Muslim immigrants in country after country like clockwork always flat out refuse to assimilate and integrate and instead form Muslim no-go zones ruled by Sharia as fifth columns, in due time and especially after the population of Muslims reaches critical mass, they will inevitably impose Sharia by force of numbers on any democracy. Thus, the only solution is to outlaw Islam and ban and reverse mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage ASAP.

    Indeed, can anyone point to a single country anywhere in the world where mass Muslim immigration with all of its excessive baggage didn't turn into an unmitigated disaster? Then why in the hell are we even allowing mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage in the first place?

    Not to mention that the Bush administration like a Dhimmicrat administration on steroids just recently doubled the size, scope, and power of the federal government in response to 9/11, which did nothing but create a false sense of security so that we could continue accommodating mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage, as the country is not one iota safer from jihad attacks as the Fort Hood Massacre, Christmas Day Bomber, Times Square Bomber, and Arkansas Jihad Attack all fully demonstrate.

    Indeed, had the Bush administration used common sense and outlawed Islam and banned and reversed mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage instead, all of those people killed in Texas and Arkansas would still be alive and well today, and the only reason people weren't killed in mass in Detroit and New York was sheer luck. As a matter of fact, without a fifth column of non-violent stealth and deceptive jihadists already living in America, the 9/11 jihad attacks would have been completely impossible.

    Sookhdeo has particularly harsh words for John O. Brennan, President Obama’s counter-terrorism advisor, for his attempt to interpret “jihad” as a purely spiritual concept.

    Brennan is not only totally incompetent where Islam is concerned, but he also wouldn't hold the position he holds in the Obama administration if he wasn't also totally incompetent in that regard either.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    “What about the whole Islamist culture and ideology, which has the same long term goals as the terrorists, even though it does not always explicitly endorse terrorism?” Sookdheo writes. [p79] &nbsp;Those goals include “the peaceful or gradualist Islamization of all countries, through tactics that concentrate on every area of society, including the political, legal, social, media, and financial.”

    Here Sookdheo is trying to explain Islam using PC multicultural loaded terms. In reality, there is no such things as Muslim terrorism, as terrorism is a manifestation of Western civilization only, while jihad, on the other hand, which is holy fighting in the cause of Allah against non-Muslim unbelievers to make Islam supreme, is a product of Islamic civilization only.

    In addition, jihad, in stark contrast to terrorism which as its name implies is always violent, can be both violent and non-violent. However, in the West because of the prevalence of PC multiculturalism which pervades our society, jihad is always conflated and morally equated with terrorism, and that big mistake consequently causes our society to completely ignore the many varieties of non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad. Indeed, jihad can comprise violent jihad such as when Muslims lop off the heads of non-Muslims and non-violent jihad such as the giving of zakat. As a matter of fact, again mass Muslim immigration to the West for the purpose of demographic conquest is a form of non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad.

    Indeed, the sixth and most important pillar of Islam makes it an obligatory duty in Islam for EVERY MUSLIM, not just so-called radical Muslims and extremist Muslims, to fight jihad in the cause of Allah against non-Muslim unbelievers to make Islam supreme. Hence, ALL MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX MUSLIMS are jihadists! A few of them are VIOLENT JIHADISTS, while most of them are NON-VIOLENT JIHADISTS, and the few of them that are not jihadists are not Muslims at all, but instead blasphemous apostates that per the dictates of Islam should be executed.

    Hence, the prevalence of so-called moderate Muslims is a PC multicultural myth, since ALL MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX MUSLIMS are in fact jihadists and the ones that aren't violent are not so-called moderate Muslims at all but instead non-violent jihadists. Indeed, assuming that non-violent jihadists are moderate Muslims is analogous to ignoring the clandestine covert war waged by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Had we assumed that most Communists were moderate Communists the same way we assume today that non-violent stealth and deceptive jihadists are moderate Muslims, we would have lost the Cold War.

    Here, too, Sookhdeo invites us to open our eyes: “Policy makers try to minimize the problem of radical Islam by presenting it as having nothing to do with classical Islamic ideology, when in fact it has much to do with it,” he concludes.

    Here, too, Sookhdeo is using PC multicultural loaded terms such as “radical Islam” in this instance, which implies that there is a “moderate Islam,” but there is no such animal. The truth is the texts of Islam are immutable, therefore, there can only be one Islam, which is mainstream orthodox Islam, and mainstream orthodox Islam's fundamental mission, sole purpose, and main goal is to make Islam supreme.

    Indeed, certain PC multicultural loaded terms such as radical Islam, extremist Islam, radical Muslims, extremist Muslims, moderate Muslims, terrorists, and terrorism should be banned altogether from the vernacular when discussing Islam because all they do is reenforce false PC multicultural myths and assumptions.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    In other words, Islam as it is currently preached is the problem, and it is up to Muslims themselves to wage the battle to reform their religion.

    Reforming Islam is absolutely impossible since Islam is NOT a faith-based religion because it is instead a supremacist theo-political totalitarian ideology, because Islam forbids the freedom of conscience, because Islam punishes blasphemy and apostasy under the pain of death, meaning that all reformers must be executed for blasphemy and apostasy, because Islam lacks the desire and motivation to be reformed, because Islam's texts are immutable, because the doors to ijtihad have been locked closed for over a thousand years, because there is no hierarchical system within Islam to make reformation possible, and most of all because Islam is winning today. Hence, anyone, such as the writer of this article, that naively assumes that Islam can be reformed is dreaming and engaging in wishful thinking. Good luck with that. Only people that don't understand what Islam really is believe that Islam can be reformed, and again that misunderstanding is a product of PC multiculturalism that morally equates Islam as being a religion, when it is not.

    Until Islam becomes a faith like any other religion – and gives up its pretence to rule every aspect of society – it will remain a threat to our Western belief system and our freedoms.

    It will be a cold day in hell before that ever happens.

    • curmudgeon

      i cannot disagree with anything obama wrote. i will add, just in case it wasnt made clear enough, that there is no safe level of muslim immigration. if there is one muslim in an infidel country, that country has a muslim problem. the only answer to islam is no muslims at all. in the case of eurabia and north amuslia, stopping muslim immigration only delays the day of reckoning, when all will be called on to decide, worship the god of evil, or die. to avoid that choice, we must get rid of all muslims.

  • alphakilosingh

    There is no problem with Islam. The problem is with commentators, who never fail to mention 'Islam' and 'Islamism' as two distinct entities: This, despite the fact that we have over 1300 years of data on how Islam has acted in a given situation!
    Even this author has very cleverly begun with:"It is difficult for Americans to comprehend the challenge to Western civilization from Islam and Islamist ideology"!
    Whatever else the commentators accuse Islam of, they cannot accuse Islam of hiding its intentions. It is all documented, and it is out in the open.
    Britain has as much as 3% Muslim population, but they want Sharia! What further proof is required to prove that the concept of Islamic Rule is central to Islam? Political overtones of Islam cannot be separated from spiritual teachings of Islam, and therefore, Islam preaches Islamism, and both the terms mean the same thing. At present, 'Islamists' indulge in violence, which includes intellectual violence, and the rest of Islam believes that the Islamists are right.
    There is no problem with Islam.
    Islam is the problem.

  • Jaladhi

    In one sentence : Islam is the problem. Period. No ifs and buts!!

    Islam is all warfare against those who don't subscribe Muslim's murderous ideology. There isn't even an iota of spirituality in this ideology masquerading as a religion. Once the West and other non-Muslims recognize this truth about Islam, we will know how to deal with it. Islam cannot be a part of any civilized society – its followers prove it on a daily basis and of course their 1400 years' record of mayhem is there for everyone to see it. so why all this hand wringing about Islam and its followers?

    • ObamaYoMoma

      so why all this hand wringing about Islam and its followers?

      That's the $64 million dollar question.

  • steven l

    Islam a weapon of civilizations destruction.

  • alphakilosingh

    'The Problem with Islam' is a highly misleading title, and sounds like 'Problems with Cancer'.
    There is no problem with Islam. Islam itself is the problem.
    The reason why God created Islam is the same why He created snakes, scorpions, leeches, mosquitoes etc. Mankind has to learn to live with such irritants.
    The left-liberal thinkers, who believe that the entire quota of brain meant for human beings has been given to them, and anyone who does not subscribe to their view does not have any brains, usually do not like to engage in arguments with non-liberals, but when cornered by 1400 years of authentic historical data on conduct of Muslims, their line of argument is, that now that Muslims are so many in numbers that they cannot be dumped in Atlantic or Indian Oceans, and that the rest of the world must learn to live with them.
    That is exactly the point. We know we cannot finish mosquitoes, but does this mean we should stop spraying DDT everywhere? We aim to completely finish mosquitoes, spend on completely annihilating them, till we are caught up with the law of diminishing marginal utility, and then learn to live with the remaining mosquitoes.
    This is the way to deal with Islam. Never mind if it is impossible. Strive to eradicate Islam.

  • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

    Very well said, thank you.

  • PatriotX

    Well written and true.

  • Amused

    Chez , I'm a Centrist to my core .An Independant as it were but with the small [i]. I have been such for as long as I can remember , believing in compromise for the greater good , since neither side is going away – and never voted in any primary . I was a fan of Ross Perot , but he backed out , and no one since in the Independent party has held my interest . I do recognize the faults on the Left , but see the same in some on the right . The "enablers and facilitators " exist on both sides of the aisle, but for differing reasons , I disagree with both , for anyone who does so , for whatever reason bares their neck to the sword ,and puts their fellow Americans at risk .

  • aspacia

    Hey voted, please stop using memory with your boring cut and paste. I quit reading it after the first time.

  • Beth

    would like to share this with you then Amused:

    1Ti 1:18 This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy [includes all Christians], according to the prophecies which went before on thee – that thou by them – mightest war a good warfare.

    2Cr 10:4 The weapons [Scriptures] of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds.

    Eph 4:25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth

    I'm also an independent Christian. Always have been – always will be.

  • voted against carter

    AWWwwwwww,… poor little libratard. sucks to be you.

    Is it too difficult for your comprehension?

    Oh wait,… it IS too difficult as you are an "english teacher". Nuf said.

    silly teachers union tool.

    LOL!!

  • aspacia

    And what make you believe I am a liberal? I find your cut and paste boring and lacks any original thought. You just keep pasting the same lines over and over again.

  • Jaladhi

    Yeah, the future is here already – do our leaders see it they want to keep their head buried in Islamic oil sands??