Home

 Articles

 Op-ed

 Authors

 FAQ

 Leaving Islam
 Library
 Gallery
 Comments
 Debates
  Links
 Forum

 

 

 

 

  

Is the real threat Islamic radicalism or Islamic liberalism?

 

 
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 either conquered by the sword, or via Sufi mystics or liberal versions of Islam, the outcome was normally the same and this applies to gradual Islamization of society which eventually leads to Islamic conservatism and oppression.
 
Today the sword of Islam is still forcing non-Muslims to convert in nations like Sudan and Indonesia, and in Sudan many African Christians and Animists are still being sold into slavery.  Yet in the West, and the world in general, it is clear that Islamization must apply to two simple strategies, and this applies to massive Islamic migration and having large families; whilst the second strategy applies to Islamic liberalism, and this applies to manipulating world leaders and institutions.
 
For example in the United Kingdom the current Prime Minister, Tony Blair, often praises the beauty of Islam and 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 nations like Saudi Arabia who kill all male converts to any other faith are free to spread their propaganda and build Islamic institutions throughout the West.
 
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 made it clear that male Islamic apostates must be killed and he made sure that non-Muslims were inferior in law and had to pay extra taxes.
 
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, but the university lecturer who is spreading liberal Islam and Western liberals like Karen Armstrong who are teaching an alternative history of Islam and the teachings of Mohammed.  For 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?
 
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?  For surely religious leaders have a duty to tell the truth and to warn their co-religionists about Islamic persecution in mainly Muslim nations.  However, their silence is helping Islam to grow and would 50,000 British nationals convert to Islam if they knew that Mohammed had slaves, had sex with a child, killed Jews and Pagans, raped a Jewish lady and had countless wives and concubines?
 
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, 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 slowly and Sufi leaders talked about the love of God, yet this love of God in time became replaced by conservative Islam and non-Muslims were subdued to either being a small minority, or in the case of Buddhism in Afghanistan, then being wiped from the face of Afghanistan.  Given this, then who is the real threat, is it Osama Bin Laden or Islamic liberals who are re-writing Islam?
 
 

 

 

 

 

Articles Op-ed Authors Debates Leaving Islam FAQ
Comments Library Gallery Video Clips Books Sina's Challenge
 

    copyright You may translate and publish the articles in this site only if you provide a link to the original page.