Three Schools of Scholarship Regarding Study of Islam

Some additional thoughts about people who study Islam. Those who study and report on Islam tend to fall into three separate groups. These are:

(a) First group -- the Islamic School, with all its many subdivisions. Most of the writings and observations in this group are done by Muslims for other Muslims. In general, the Islamic School is written by Islamic believers.

(b) Second group -- the Academic School. Most of the writings and observations in this group are done by academics about non-traditional Islam. This school generally omits connecting dots of current events to explain the "why" of fundamentalist Islam; nor does it attempt to explain future Islamic actions. Generally, this school references itself for explanations and doesn't refer to traditional Islamic texts or the Islamic Trilogy (Koran, Sira, and Hadith). This school generally accepts Islam as one of the world's great religions and tends to be respectful and not find fault in Islam. This school tends to not reference the Trilogy and seldom includes the suffering of any of its victims. In general, this school's writings are done by non-Muslims for other non-Muslims, all tending to serve and defer to Islam.

(c) Third group -- the Foundational School. This school uses the source documents of Islam to explain the world-view of Islamic civilization; primarily the Trilogy (Koran, Sira, and Hadith). The history of Islam is interpreted as an expression of the political Islam. Mostly, this school studies current and historical effects of traditional Islam upon society, including the history of slaves and dhimmis (a special class of "slave" that is heavily-taxed by his/her Islamic "owner"). Generally, this school attempts to "connect the dots" to see patterns of current Islamic events, explain Islamic history, and predict possible outcomes for the future. Most often, this school studies the same texts used by the Islamic School. Writings of this school typically include quotes from the Koran and Mohammad, and includes descriptions of suffering of radical Islamic expansionism. The writings of this school tend to be written by unbelievers (khafirs).

[Source: Mohammad, Allah, and Politics, The Islamic Political Doctrine; published by the Center For The Study Of Political Islam.]

Can Islam Become "Moderate?"

Below is a snapshot "borrowed" from a panel discussion by Timothy Furnish, a former U.S. Army Arabic interrogator; Tawfik Hamid, an Islamic thinker and reformer; M. Zuhdi Jasser, M.D., President and Founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD); and Robert Spencer, scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and director of Jihad Watch.

This is a very important topic. An interesting summary by Robert Spencer in this panel notes that:

"Islamic reform circa 2010 remains largely an abstraction, a postulate, an intellectual construct. No one has ever actually seen it, and so everyone imagines it in a different way. Islam has been around for 1,400 years, and yet there is still no mainstream sect or school of jurisprudence that teaches the separation of mosque and state, the equality of rights of women with men, the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, or the equality of rights of unbelievers with believers."

The panel also noted the following: The dilemma in Islam is that anyone who wants to change any part of the Koran and/or Sharia to modernize it, it considered a heretic and subject to death; such as separation between Mosque and state; a catch-22 situation.

The panel also noted that Christian reformation was allowed to occur because there wasn't a call for killing reformers, as there is in the Islamic doctrine.

To read the entire panel discussion, go to:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/05/in-search-ofmoderate-islam.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook

Support for Reasons To Believe (RTB) Ministry

Interesting in resolving the perceived differences between Biblical creation and physical reality? Check out Reasons to Believe at www.reasons.org for the answers. Hugh Ross and Fuz Rana both have science-oriented backgrounds and provide convincing arguments that Biblical and physical creation events can be resolved ...

Reasons To Believe: Hugh Ross, Fazale Rana, Kenneth Samples, David Rogstad, Jeff Zweerink
www.reasons.org
The mission of Reasons To Believe is to show that science and faith are, and always will be, allies, not enemies.

A Brief History of the Beginnings of Islam

This brief history "lesson" was in response from a reader on my Facebook account regarding Islam.

To xxx: I wouldn't call it "enlightened." When Mohammad started Islam and writing the Koran, he tried getting converts, but was largely unsuccessful and garnered only a few. He was eventually run out of Mecca because of his radical views, and migrated to Medina where he learned that force gains converts. His writings changed from peaceful coercion in the beginning, to use of forceful conversion in later writings. Using force, He became highly successful and gained many converts across the entire region. Under his leadership, Islam became a religion and, more importantly, a political force, all under the command of Allah. The new religion says that Islam is not to be equal to other religions, rather, it must be superior. Accept Islam, become a slave (dhimmi) or death.

Source: Mohammed, Allah, and Politics, The Islamic Political Doctrine, available from the Center for the Study of Political Islam. This is a great book (paperback) and is inexpensive. I recommend anyone interested in Islam read this book.

Muslim/Arab American wins Miss USA

I think it is good that Rima Fakih, 1st Muslim & Arab American wins the Miss USA contest. This is a good thing for our country culturally, and especially so since it helps fight radical Islam, one beauty at a time! Can you imagine the shock the Jihadists will get when seeing this!!!

A Response to a Facebook Comment

Regarding fanatics in all religions -- Granted, there are fanatics in all religions and historically, lots of people have been killed by individuals, in the name of religion. Except Islam. Islam is different. Islam's teachings in the Koran, Sira, and Hadith command pious Muslims to promote Islam and Sharia Law, not to be equal but dominant; non-believers must convert to Islam, accept slave-hood (dhimmi), or death; no alternatives. And Sharia is also incompatible with our country's freedoms and our US Constitution. To learn more read Mohammad, Allah, and Politics, the Islamic Political Doctrine, published by Center For The Study Of Political Islam.

My Response to another Facebook Reader

Txxxx: My you sound angry, but your question is valid -- why!!! In order to work against this violence, one needs to understand why it occurs. I recommend that you get involved in learning the truth about Islam, political Islam, and Sharia. Then you can answer your own question, and help others see the reason why as well. A good book to start with is: Mohammed, Allah, and Politics, The Islamic Political Doctrine, published by the Center for the Study of Political Islam. This is a small low-cost paperback book. I have a copy of it right here with me as we "converse."

Some Musings for the Day

Hmmm, Looks like our national debt will soon be 100% of GDP; just like Greece. How exciting. Isn't socialism nice? Guess we out to prepare, get rocks in streets, when our hand-out friends realize that taking other-peoples money can't go on forever!

===============

I had to laugh, Brit Hume on Fox News, said that Eric Holder isn't the "sharpest tool in the shed." Similar to my statement about myself not being the "brightest bulb in the room" when it comes to civics, the US Government and most importantly, the Constitution.

===============

Can you believe it? Posner, Asst Secr of State, appologizes to China for AZ immigration policy; apparently equating what AZ is doing to control its border with Mexico, with the killing of millions under Chinese rule, their total lack of human rights, and their infanticide to control popn. These comparisons are non-equatable!

===============

Hmmm, there seems to be a "war" going on in Washington DC with the current administration. Seems like the current administration wants to be big government and big taxes in control of each individual, versus other administrations who want small government and small taxes and giving each individual right to pursue their own dreams.

Eric Holder Refuses to say "Radical Islam"

The following exchange between Eric Holder and Senator Smith highlights the problem our current administration is having in facing up to the threat of radical Islam. BHO and administration can't even say the words to address the danger that this country faces as a result of radical Islam...

Could radical Islam be responsible for recent terrorist attacks inside the U.S.? That question doesn't seem like too much of a poser, but it was too much for Attorney General Eric Holder when he testified before the House Judiciary Committee today.

Rep. Lamar Smith tries to get Holder to acknowledge that radical Islam could have played a role in one or more of the recent attacks, but Holder apparently views it as a trick question: would be possible, no doubt, to assemble an administration lamer than Barack Obama's but it would take a real effort. Here is the transcript of Holder's exchange with Smith:

SMITH: Let me go to my next question, which is -- in -- in the case of all three attempts in the last year, the terrorist attempts, one of which was successful, those individuals have had ties to radical Islam. Do you feel that these individuals might have been incited to take the actions that they did because of radical Islam?

HOLDER: Because of?

SMITH: Radical Islam.

HOLDER: There are a variety of reasons why I think people have taken these actions. It's -- one, I think you have to look at each individual case. I mean, we are in the process now of talking to Mr. Shahzad to try to understand what it is that drove him to take the action.

SMITH: Yes, but radical Islam could have been one of the reasons?

HOLDER: There are a variety of reasons why people...

SMITH: But was radical Islam one of them?

HOLDER: There are a variety of reasons why people do things. Some of them are potentially religious...

SMITH: OK. But all I'm asking is if you think among those variety of reasons radical Islam might have been one of the reasons that the individuals took the steps that they did.

HOLDER: You see, you say radical Islam. I mean, I think those people who espouse a -- a version of Islam that is not...

SMITH: Are you uncomfortable attributing any other actions to radical Islam? It sounds like it.

HOLDER: No, I don't want to say anything negative about a religion that is not...

SMITH: No, no. I'm not talking about religion. I'm talking about radical Islam. I'm not talking about the general religion.

HOLDER: Right. And I'm saying that a person, like Anwar Awlaki, for instance, who has a version of Islam that is not consistent with the teachings of it...

SMITH: But...

HOLDER: ... and who espouses a radical version...

SMITH: But then is -- could radical Islam had motivated these individuals to take the steps that they did?

HOLDER: I certainly think that it's possible that people who espouse a radical version of Islam have had an ability to have an impact on people like Mr. Shahzad.

SMITH: OK. And could it have been the case in one of these three instances?

HOLDER: Could that have been the case?

SMITH: Yes, could -- again, could one of these three individuals have been incited by radical Islam? Apparently, you feel that that they could've been.

HOLDER: Well, I think potentially incited by people who have a view of Islam that is inconsistent with...

SMITH: OK. Mr. A.G., it's hard to get an answer yes or no, but let me go on to my next question.

SCOTT adds: Tom Bevan asks a rhetorical question: "Who's the coward now, Mr. Holder?"

[Source:http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/05/026287.php]

Taking a Stand (Against Radical Islam's efforts to stop free speech)

The following article addresses the issue of free speech and how radical Islamists work to prevent it from telling the truth about Islam.

Taking a stand

By Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser | Published: 05/05/10 at 12:00 AM | Updated: 05/05/10 at 10:28 AM

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/05/05/taking-a-stand/#ixzz0n4byHsOS

In November 2007, Gillian Gibbons, a British schoolteacher in Sudan found herself behind bars in a Sudanese prison sentenced to 15 days after being found guilty under Section 125 of the Sudanese Criminal Act, for "insulting religion, inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious beliefs". She had committed the crime of allowing one of her pupils to name a teddy bear Mohammed after the first name of one of the popular students in class. Little did she know that she also committed the criminal offense of maligning the Prophet Mohammed. She was spared 40 lashes because she apologized to the shar'iah court and after intervention by British leaders was given a presidential pardon by Omar Bashir after seven days in prison.

Many Muslim leaders in Khartoum agreed with the sentence and held demonstrations of tens of thousands [NOTE: Not exactly a "tiny minority of extremists" who have hijacke an otherwise peaceful religion.] Sudanese to express their anger at a perceived insult to Islam's Prophet. In the demonstrations they threatened violence against her and against British citizens. Western media was shocked even though this has been going on for decades. Ultimately, a government that imposed medieval Muslim shar'iah laws in order to prevent blasphemy against "their Islam" suppressed the human rights of free expression of this teacher. [NOTE: Islamic shariah laws are NOT "medieval". They have been on the books for more than a thousand years, and they are on the books today. They are based on the Koran and the sayings of Muhammad, one of which is: "Anyone who changes his ()Islamic) religion -- kill him!"] American media was quick to point out how obviously that incident pointed to the great chasm that existed between enlightened, modernized, principles of religious freedom in the west and the oppressive restriction of free speech (blasphemy laws) exerted by the coercive Islamic state of Sudan. Maybe.

Gillian Gibbons was released, went into hiding and was whisked back to her homeland of the United Kingdom safe from Sudanese shar'iah. Fast forward three years to the United States, in the belly of freedom, the irreverent comedy program South Parkfound itself censored by the powers that be at Comedy Central for a very similar offense. During the now famous 200^th episode, Matt Parker and Trey Stone decided to depict the Prophet Mohammed in a bear suit. Funny? Perhaps to some. Inappropriate to Muslims-yes. But that's not what's at issue here.

Two comedy artists living in the belly of freedom and free speech found themselves in basically the same position as that innocent British schoolteacher. Their 200^th episode had their depiction of "Mohammed" censored. The details of the episode and what was censored has been broadly discussed in the media with valuable commentaries by Nina Shea and Cliff May to name a few.

I am sure that the Sudanese government agrees with the decision by the executives at Comedy Central. But Matt Parker and Trey Stone were not visited by the Sudanese government's thought police. They were insidiously threatened by a "terror cell wannabe" bunch of thugs out of New York City called Revolution Muslim. Incidentally that same group posted a picture of me on their website after my media appearances in the wake of the Ft. Hood massacre. They declared me a 'murtad' or an apostate which is a crime that holds a capital sentence in some Islamist nations run by shar'iahlaw. Yet, I did not let their veiled threats impact our work at the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD). Paradoxically, even with a fraction of the resources that Comedy Central has to protect themselves against such threats, we held our ground.

The examples of appeasement to radical Islamists are growing exponentially. Who would have guessed how weak and subservient so many American corporations who pride themselves as the distributors of the uncensored work of the world's leading artists would be in the face of threats from militant Islamists?

In October 2008, Sony Entertainment delayed the further release of Little Big Planet (LBP) the most awaited Playstation 3 game of the season when it was reported that music in the game briefly used Qur'anic verses. Toumani Diabate, the responsible artist was in fact reported to be a devout practicing Muslim who knew exactly what he was doing. He did not intend offense, but even if he did, this was his art form, which LBP contracted him to do. Fundamentalist Islamists made postings decrying offense of their religious sensibilities. Sony Entertainment issued a global recall and removed the "offensive" verse from all future production of the LBP game. Sony bowed to the pressure and exerted self-censorship over LBP artists. Sony's decision to respect the hypersensitive sensibilities of Islamists took complete precedence over free speechand an unencumbered creative realm.

The suffocation of free speech on the heels of a growing western corporate phobia of radical Islamists and their barbarism is concerning. From the Danish cartoons to theSouth Park episode, the response seems to repeatedly be the same-bow to any pressure and suggestion of violence from Islamists. Hard to believe, but basically, "censor the artists, and freedom be damned." And I say this as a devout Muslim who does in fact question the propriety and artistic value of much of the works in question. But that is not the issue.

At the end of the day, there is little difference between what the medieval Sudanese theocrats [NOTE: What is the point of calling them "medieval"? They are following Islamic law that goes back to Muhammad.] did under their shar'iah law to the British teacher on their land and what Comedy Central did to the producers of South Park on American soil.

Non-violent Islamist groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) do try to distance themselves from the behaviors of radical Islamists. They, however, do not respond logically by actively voicing the need for necessary reforms against blasphemy laws and theocracy of the Islamic state. [NOTE: Such reforms are not possible without ripping the guts out of Islam. The Islamist organizations like CAIR are well aware of that.] Their director, Ibrahim Hooper instead told FoxNews.com that "it may be a setup to smear Islam." True to form, Islamists will always contrive deflective bizarre conspiracy theories reflecting their pathological denial when case after case of violent Islamists should point Muslims instead toward the need for deep seeded reform.

Private corporations like Comedy Central, Sony Entertainment, and various book publishers will probably try to tell us that their decisions are not guided by real censorship but rather based in concerns of physical safety, liability, and some concerns of profit losses in the face of boycotts. These distinctions and excuses matter little.

At AIFD we believe companies producing the work of artists should stand behind their products. These companies are entering into a shared free market mission of art production with writers and videographers. If they censor their artists when things get hot due to the physical and existential threats of militants, they have shirked one of their deepest ethical responsibilities to our nation in which they operate-the preservation of a climate of genuine free speech and thought.

There is no mandate in the Islam I know and practice for anyone to force respect of Islam or the Prophet Mohammed and likewise to punish offensive art. [NOTE: What a pity that Dr. Jasser's Islam contradicts the Islam of all the Islamic religious authorities as well as the Koran and the sayings of Muhammad and Sharia law.] In fact the Islam I learned taught me that the Prophet Mohammed was subjected to profoundly offensive criticism and ridicule during his life. He met this criticism with dialogue or avoidance with an admonishment to Muslims to either ignore it or respond positively, peacefully, and intellectually. [NOTE: This is either inexcusable ignorance or a plain lie. Muhammad had two poets murdered for their poems which mocked him.] This is the true example of the Prophet of Islam. Words and art, even when offensive, were never to be met with anything but mutual respect. [NOTE: Dr. Jasser is no scholar of Islam. What he says about Muhammad contradicts everything in traditional Islam.]

We desperately need a national conversation on the inherent duties of media and corporations in the war of ideas. We need to have a united front against these insidious threats, which radical Islamists impose upon artists and upon all of us.America cannot survive without the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech cannot survive in an environment that panders to political correctness. [NOTE: BRAVO!!!!]

As a devout Muslim dedicated to defeating Islamists, I am pleading with the artistic and intellectual community to stop their pathological timidity against Islamism. The last stronghold of human equality and principles of freedom is our First Amendment and the inviolable nature of free speech. Our culturally collective slide down the slippery slope of Islamist blasphemy laws is sending us hurling toward a society bizarrely no different from Sudan, which will remain a global obstacle to the very reforms we need within Muslim communities. [NOTE: The fact that we need them doesn't mean that we are going to get them, or even that they are possible. The only way to reform the "Muslim communities" is to get Moslems to stop following the doctrines of Islam. Don't hold your breath for that.] My family escaped Syria and the Middle East because America represented the supposed beacon of freedom around the world to protect those voices, which the thugs of the Middle East would not protect. Yet a small group of thugs behind a computer right here in America can invoke the same fear we thought we left behind in the lands of autocracy and theocracy.

While the excuses are different, the end result of censorship on South Park's 200th episode is the same as what the government of Sudan did to that schoolteacher.

Media companies need to understand that the root cause of Islamist terrorism is the desire of Islamists to stifle critique and put into place the shar'iah of political Islam like blasphemy laws around the world. [NOTE: Actually, it is more accurate to say that the root cause is in the doctrines of "political Islam" which come straight from the Koran, the sayings of Muhammad and Sharia law.] The profound uptick in homegrown terror plots in 2009 shows that we are losing the war of ideas on the home front and globally.

Programs like South Park cannot have special standards for Islam versus that which they have for the program's treatment of Christianity, Scientology, or any faith tradition. Islamists will capitalize on this double standard and it will nurture their sense of supremacy, which feeds the narrative that fuels terrorism. [The sense of supremacy is inherent in Islam and is held by all religious Moslems. It comes from the Koran:

--“ the (only) religion (acceptable) before God is Islam." (3:19)
-- " If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him." (3: 85)
-- “You are the noblest community ever raised up for mankind.” (3:110)]

There is a reason free nations have adopted the effective principle that "we do not negotiate with terrorists."

As a devout Muslim I will be the first to acknowledge that we have a great deal of work to do in reinterpreting Islamic scripture in a manner that marginalizes radical theocratic interpretations into ideological oblivion.[NOTE: "great deal of work"??? The task is impossible. Which mortal human being is going to "reinterpret" Allah's literal words when those words are so absolutely clear? It is not a matter of "interpreting" or "reinterpreting." The Koran says what it says. There is no way to read much of it except literally.] We need to better lift up modern, pluralistic interpretations of Islamic scripture which are in fact not in conflict with western principles of universal freedom [NOTE: This is all a contradiction in terms. It is impossible. The two systems, Islam and western principles of universal freedom and equality, are absolutely incompatible with one another. Any Moslem, such as Dr. Jasser, who follows western principles is NOT following Islamic principles.]and societies that are based in one law that does not favor one religion above others. [NOTE: ALL Moslem majority countries subscribe to the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam which specifically states that ISLAM is superior to all other religions, and that ALL human rights must be in accord with the Sharia. This Declaration is approved by the highest Islamic religious authorities in all of those Islamic countries. Does Dr. Jasser know more about Islam than they do?]

The only way to force real reform within the Muslim consciousness is to show a united front in the defense of artists and their freedom of expression. [NOTE: It might be possible to reform the Muslim consciousness, but then those Muslims become ex-Muslims. It is not possible to reform Islamic doctrines.] Once radical Islamists find themselves beating their head against a wall, they will eventually wither and disappear. Corporations distributing the work of provocative artists need to take the artists as a whole package. Once the companies begin to pick and choose the populations they feel comfortable offending and those they do not, they become gateway drugs for the advancement of radical Islamists.

Comedy Central took a small "wannabe terror cell," Revolution Muslim, and made them into an effective global leader of political Islam and its imposition of blasphemy laws. Every other corporation that caves into physical threats by radical Islamists does the same.

Brave anti-Islamist Muslim dissidents around the world [NOTE: Who is the other one besides Dr. Jasser?] should be collectively offended by the actions of Comedy Central and every other individual, corporation, and government which bows to the intimidation of Islamists domestically and abroad. Believe it or not, shirking away from the defense of free speech in America profoundly affects many deeply devout Muslims dedicated to defeating the ideas of theocracy. [NOTE: "many"??? How do you know? Where are they?] There are Muslims across the globe fighting an internal civil war against extremists and Muslim theocrats that manifests at many levels over the role of clerics in government and law. Ultimately they become the first victims of the blunt instrument of theocratic shari'ah law because of the avoidance behavior right here in supposedly the freest nation on earth.

M. Zuhdi Jasser is the President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracybased in Phoenix, Arizona. He is a former U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander. He can be reached at zuhdi@aifdemocracy.org

Radical Islam and Useful Idiots

The following article, by Amil Imani, briefly highlights the dangers of radical Islam, and how useful idiots work to foster its cancerous growth.

My honorable friend Amil Imani is one of the most powerful writers on the planet today. A Persian ex-Muslim who left Iran shortly before the revolution in 1979, Amil is a founding member of Former Muslims United.

Amil knows Islam very well, as not only was he raised a Muslim but also his family in Iran/Persia are still under its domination. He has been an outspoken critic of the Islamic Republic of Iran for many years - he is absolutely against the fundamentalist Islamic ideology itself and does not want to see it destroy Western civilization, as it has his beloved native land.

Amil is a very patriotic American citizen who is well educated as to the U.S. Constitution, with all its freedoms - freedoms he will never take for granted because he knows firsthand what fascism and tyranny mean, as he suffers alongside his family and Persian people in general.

The courageous, insightful and eloquent Amil posted the following commentary on one of my threads about Islam on Facebook. Nobody says it better.

Quote:

Amil Imani commented on your link:

Islam enjoys a large and influential ally among the non-Muslims: A new generation of "Useful Idiots," the sort of people Lenin identified living in liberal democracies who furthered the work of communism. This new generation of Useful Idiots also live in liberal democracies, but serve the cause of Islamofascism—another virulent form of totalitarian ideology.

Useful Idiots are naïve, they are foolish, they are ignorant of facts, they are unrealistically idealistic, they are dreamers and they are willfully in denial or deceptive. They hail from the ranks of the chronically unhappy. They are anarchists, they are aspiring revolutionaries, they are neurotics who are at war with life, the disaffected alienated from government, corporations, and just about any and all institutions of society. The Useful Idiot can be a billionaire, a movie star, an academe of renown, a politician, or from any other segment of the population. Arguably, the most dangerous variant of the Useful Idiot is the "Politically Correct." He is the master practitioner of euphemism, hedging, doubletalk, and outright deception.

The lesson is clear. Beware of the Useful Idiots who live in liberal democracies. Knowingly or unknowingly, they serve as the greatest volunteer and effective soldiers of Islam. They pave the way for the advancement of Islam and they will assuredly be among the very first victims of Islam as soon as it assumes power.

Amil Imani is a recipient of a "Speaker of Truth" award.

[Source: email message from Amil Amani, 5/15/2010]

Constitution for United Socialist States Of America

Here is a poke at our current administration friends in Washington DC.

A Suggested Socialist Constitution for the United Socialist States of America:

We the Government of the United Socialist States of America, in order to form a more perfect State, will use strong-arm tactics to impose justice & domestic tranquility, minimize defense, promote equality of all people, enhance welfare, and secure blessings derived from a majority-State for our leaders and their individual posterity, do ordain & establish this living Constitution for the United Socialist States of America.

Some Musings about Tyranny, Liberalism, Statists, and Conservatism

Tyranny

What is Tyranny? Tyranny results when a government has a single ruler vested with arbitrary and/or absolute power; usually doled out in an unjust or cruel manner. (1)

Liberalism

What is a Liberal? A person having, expressing, or following political views or polices that favor civil liberties, democratic reforms, and the use of governmental power to promote society's progress; having, expressing, or following views or polices that favor the freedom of individuals to act or express themselves in a manner of their own choosing. (1)

What is Liberalism? The state or quality of being liberal; liberal views and policies, especially in regard to social or political questions. (1)

Modern Liberalism

What is Modern liberalism? Modern liberalism is a form of liberalism that promotes "soft tyranny," a form of tyranny that becomes more oppressive over time, eventually becoming "hard" tyranny, eventually resulting in some form of totalitarianism. An equivalent word in common use today is "Progressive." (2)

Statists

What is a Statist? Statistics are people who believe in an all-powerful centralized government where an elite few dictate to the many, in a continuing drive for power. They tend to manipulate public awareness to build popular momentum for the divestiture of liberty and property from their rightful owners. (2)

Statists hide their pursuits in a cloud of moral indignation, believing that only they can provide justice and rightful solution to human problems such as economics, civil conditions, employment, ownership, and of the state in general.

Statists reject fixed rules such as those found in the American Constitution, referring instead to their own "better" moral compasses. (2)

Statists build a culture of conformity and dependency, where the ideal citizen becomes a drone in service to the state. Individuals are drained of uniqueness and self-worth, being deterred from independent thought or behavior reinforced through economic punishment and political suppression. (2)

Statists misuse equality to pursue uniform economic and social outcomes. They continuously enhance their power at the expense of self-government and violate the individual's property rights at the expense of individual liberty. Statists believe that persuasion, deception, and coercion can be used to tame man's natural state and perfection, eventually leading to Utopia. (2)

Statists are generally dissatisfied with the condition of their own existence. They condemn their fellow men, surroundings, and society itself for denying them the fulfillment, success, and adulation they believe they deserve. They are angry, resentful, petulant, and jealous. They are incapable of honest self-assessment and reject the honesty others of themselves, thereby evading responsibility for their own miserable conditions. Statists search for significance and glory in a utopian fiction of their mind's making, the earthly attainment of which, they believe, is frustrated by those who do not share their views. Therefore, Statists work to destroy civil society, piece by piece. For Statists, liberty is not a blessing, rather it is an enemy to be dealt with harshly. (2)

Statists lay claim to the power necessary to make that which is unequal equal and that which is imperfect perfect. They believe that if the individual only surrenders himself to the all-powerful state, the impossible can eventually be made possible; if now now, soon, if not soon, then eventually. Statists never admit error; their failed policies simply result from insufficient data and control, and all that is needed is for more data and more control. (2)

Conservatism

Conservatism is a way of understanding life, society, and governance. Conservatists believe in the dignity of the individual; that we, as human beings, have a right to live, live freely, and pursue that which motivates us not because man or some government agency says so, but because these are God-given natural rights. (2)

The conservative also recognizes in society a harmony of interests characterized in a civil society. A society where the individual is recognized and accepted as more than an abstract statistic or faceless member of some group; rather, he or she is a unique, spiritual, being with a soul and a conscience. (2)

To a conservative, individuals are free to discover their own potential and pursue their own legitimate interests, tempered, however, by a moral order that has its foundation in faith; a faith that guides their lives through the prudent exercise of judgement. Individuals in a civil society strive to be restrained, ethical, and honorable (i.e., virtuous). They reject the relativism of liberalism that blurs the lines between good and bad, right and wrong, just, and unjust and means and ends. (2)

Conservatives don't despise government -- they despise tyranny. Conservatives are alarmed by the ascent of soft tyranny and its cheery acceptance of neo-Statists (Statists who "march" more slowly toward governmental control and eventual tyranny). Conservatives know that liberty, once lost, is rarely if ever recovered. (2)

Equality, as understood by our country's Founders, is the natural right of every individual to live freely under self government, to acquire and retain the property they create through their own labor, and to be treated impartially before a just law. (2)

Our Founding Fathers understood that the greatest threat to liberty is an all-powerful central government, where the few dictate to the many.(2)

References

(1) The American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd College Edition.

(2) Levin, Mark. Liberty and Tyranny, a Conservative Manifesto, 2009, Threshold

Editions.

The following article highlights the notion that Islam and Sharia Law are based upon the Koran, and are at odds with the US Constitution. The article argues that Faisal Shahzad, a naturalized US citizen, conducted a traitorous attack upon New York's Times Square in the name of Islam.

NEWS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

AIFD calls for Shahzad to be treated as a traitor

May 6, 2010

AIFD

American Islamic Forum for Democracy

American Muslim Organization calls for Shahzad to be treated as a traitor

Actions of Times Square bomber, a naturalized US citizen, were treasonous

PHOENIX (May 6, 2010) - Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim and the president and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy issued the following statement regarding the attack of Faisal Shahzad on New York's Times Square.

"The actions of Faisal Shahzad a naturalized US citizen on May 1, 2010 were a calculated and deliberate act of treason. [NOTE: See above definition of treason.]Shahzad's cowardly attempt to kill innocent Americans in Times Square clearly demonstrates his loyalty lies with the Islamist radicals [NOTE: Is he loyal to "Islamist radicals" or to Islam???] and not his chosen countrymen in the United States. His actions were a result of his faith in the supremacy of an Islamic State over the United States. [NOTE: This faith in the supremacy of an Islamif state is standard, traditional Islamic doctrine. All religious Moslems must believe in the supremacy of Islam. The Koran says: -- Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme. (8:40) Notice the word "until". The goal of Islamic supremacy is clearly stated.] His citizenship oath was given falsely in 2009 and was in the direct service of powers at war with the United States. His prosecution should encompass the gravity of those actions. No different from Hassan Abujihad convicted in 2008, Nidal Hasan and other Islamist traitors Shahzad if guilty is an enemy of the state and should be immediately legally treated as one.

Whether we declare it or not the United States is at war with the ideology of militant Islamism. [NOTE: 1) "militant Islamism" IS the ideology of Islam. Islam is both a religion and an ideology wrapped into one package. There is no way to separate them because they are both based in the Koran and the sayings of Muhammad. 2) In the eyes of our Obama administration, we are not at war with an ideology, but only with a small band of "militants" -- al Qaeda and the Taliban.] Islamists are not afraid to call for the complete destruction of the principles that built our great country. The United States cannot afford to be timid in our response to their actions. Our citizens mustabandon the paralyzing fears of political correctness and engage in long overdue genuine theo-political debates about the dangerous separatism of political Islam and its radicalizing effects. [NOTE: "theo-political"??? I assume that the "theo" part means Islamic theology as set forth in the Koran and the sayings of Muhammad. It's dangerous, alright, but few people are willing to look into the Koran as the source of the trouble. Not even Dr. Jasser.]

Our elected officials must show true ideological leadership if we are to ever begin the long process of ridding ourselves of the scourge of Islamist terrorism. [NOTE: "Islamist terrorism" is Islamic terrorism: The Koran says: -- We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. (3:151)] We cannot cower to victim-mongering organizations that thrive on keeping us from addressing the very real threats to our security. Platitudes that only condemn violence and ignore common ideology [NOTE: That is precisely the ideology of Islam.] will not bring about the necessary reforms which can eventually prevent radicalization.

At the American Islamic Forum for Democracy we believe that it is incumbent on our elected leaders to engage in the war of ideas and demonstrate that the rule of one law that protects universal religious freedom takes precedence over the Islamic state. America in fact provides the best atmosphere for Muslims to practice our faith [NOTE: This is NOT true. In order for Muslims to practice their faith, they must follow Sharia law, and American law prohibits the practice of most of Sharia law. Muslims have religious freedom here only if they renounce Sharia law. But, then they are apostates, not religious Muslims.] and it is time for us to empower honest reformist Muslims [NOTE: There is no such thing as a "reformist Muslim" because Islam is inherently not subject to reform. The fundamental premise of Islam is that the Koran is Allah's literal word -- perfect, complete, immutable and valid for all of eternity. Therefore, the notion of reforming Allah's already perfect word is logically absurd. Muslims like Dr. Jasser cannot reform Islam. All they can do is fail to practice it as Islamic law requires.] to declare the 'Islamic state' dead. We will never slow down the recurrence of Islamist terror against our citizenry until such a movement from Muslims against political Islam is palpable."[NOTE: Don't hold your breath!]

[Source: AFID (American Islamic Foundation for Democracy), May 6, 2010]

About the American Islamic Foundation for Democracy

The American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) charitable organization. AIFD's mission advocates for the preservation of the founding principles of the United States Constitution, liberty and freedom, through the separation of mosque and state. For more information on AIFD, please visit our website athttp://www.aifdemocracy.org/.

America's Role in World Leadership

President Obama sees America as weak and apologizes for our being who and what we are, contrary to some of our past Presidents. For example, President Ronald Reagan explained America's role in the world clearly to Soviet President Leonid Brezhnev:

When World War II ended, the United States had the only undamaged industrial power in the world. Our military might was at its peak, and we alone had the ultimate weapon, the nuclear weapon, with the unquestioned ability to deliver it anywhere in the world. If we had sought world domination then, who could have opposed us? But the United States followed a different course, one unique in all the history of mankind. We used our power and wealth to rebuild the war-ravished economies of the world, including those of the nations who had been our enemies.

Unlike Reagan, President Obama sees the USA as simply another declining power like Britain or Greece, countries burdened with massive state welfare debt. Obama is working hard to help our country become like them with massive federal debt. He intends to borrow 42 cents per dollar spent in 2010, create fixed annual deficits of more one trillion dollars by 2020, and impose a debt of more than seventy-four thousand dollars per household upon our children and grandchildren.

We need to resist this by replacing the current administration. Exercise your right -- register and vote in November 2010 and especially in 2012! Let's all work together to return our country to the beacon on the hill that it once was, and can be again!

[Source: The Heritage Foundation, Morning Bell, 05/04/2010]