Leaving Islam




Islamic Politics 101

By: Vernon Richards, author of  Islam Undressed

            Any review of the Qur’an and history shows that Muhammad taught and led a totalitarian movement (enforced by the sword) strikingly similar to those led by other fascists and despots in recent history. Political Islam compares very well to any totalitarianism system of government including fascism, communism, and imperialism. It is simply indisputable that Islamist fundamentalism shares with other totalitarian movements a commitment to centralization of political power and economic control. Islam, by its own definition and design, is a growth industry designed to mobilize the masses and score political victories, subvert host governments, and establish Islamic domination. Although it attempts to appropriate a particular religious tradition and garb, all forms of Islamist totalitarianism are not, at bottom, religious movements. Pure Islam is first and foremost a political movement – a quest for political power for the express purpose of using it to subjugate all people everywhere.

            Islamic totalitarianism is obsessed with worldly power and influence, desiring to dominate the West at every game of worldly success and power. Radical Islamist fundamentalism does not content itself with mere rejection of the West’s alleged vices. If that were all there was to it, it might simply do what the Amish have done, stage a retreat from wickedness. But the Islamic mandate isn't about building a few mosques, schools, or other centers to meet the needs of Muslim congregations, but rather to change existing societies into Islamic societies, to make Islam both dominate and supreme. This political movement, masquerading as a religion, is contaminated with all the perversions, lusts, and control mechanisms of its secular cousins. Islam’s totalitarian mantra and credo is strikingly similar to pure secular ideologies. But the religious disguise is becoming paper thin, as evidenced by the many actions of Islam with non-Muslims over time, and which is becoming more translucent daily.

            Islam’s goal is to overthrow all competing governments and establish the Khalifat. The Islamic utopian blueprint calls for a Caliph (a glorified Mullah) to wield the Islamic sword of power in one seamless totalitarian worldwide state. This outrageous fantasy pre-dates and has survived all relatively more modern failed political experiments. Today, extremists easily extract the appropriate language (found throughout all Islamic sacred texts) to sell the concept that the Qur’an insists that all nations must be fought until they embrace Islam. Despite claims otherwise, the most violent passages have not been abrogated by more recent doctrine from Muhammad. The Qur’an is the immutable and unalterable word of God, so the movement has been permanently cast into the cement of an unalterable mandate, which is what has given it unusual durability. The doctrine of Jihad and Jizya essentially means building the Islamic Empire by denying infidels all rights except the right to serve their Muslim masters. The secret of Islam’s survival and longevity lies in both the deceptive cloak it wears in the form of a religion, and in the fact that economic weakness is always inherited by states based on its tenants. Up until the age of oil this has made Islamic countries appear relatively unthreatening compared to more modern industrialized countries with more powerful economies and the armies that can be built thereby.

            By any historical definition, bin Laden, the Taliban, and all other Islamic militants can be accurately described as fascists. As violent devotees of Islam, they believe in the innate superiority of a fanatical elite, and are anxious to torture, jail, and kill any who disagree. Non-Muslims of any religion, women, homosexuals, are all dehumanized as their innate and natural inferiors. Hitler also believed he was the leader of the master race destined to rule the world, blaming all Germany 's problems on Jews and Western governments. Hitler for a time managed to convince most Germans it was not a crime to kill all who didn't fit into his Arian mold of the 'perfect human', because they were inferior and sub-human, thus leading to millions of deaths and destruction previously unimaginable. Hitler was a threat to the world many years before a world blinded by pacifism and relativism finally realized that self-preservation dictated he must be fought and destroyed. Hitler justified heinous acts in his efforts to make the Third Reich the ‘only’ Reich, just as Muhammad and militants yesterday and today justify anything to make the entire world bow to Islam. The Nazis cleverly manipulated the German people's collective frustration into a pervasive sense of victimization. Once this victimization psychosis was fully accepted, the Nazis then offered the answer; entitlement, under the guise of superiority and social justice. Properly indoctrinated, Germans readily embraced their inherent superiority and forcefully claimed their entitled power, obliterating or enslaving all opposition.

            The fruits of Islam also demonstrate that Islam is imperialist, in that it seeks perpetual humiliation of non-Muslims through a system of everlasting subjugation and payment of tribute. This method of dominating and subjugating a people for national gain (through booty and tribute) is what is known as pure Imperialism …by definition! Though Islamic leaders claim to be pious representatives of God acting on divine instruction, it does not change the practical facts and consequences to the conquered peoples and lands. Of course, the practice of Imperialism is not an Arabian invention, murder and plunder of other nations for booty pre-dates Muhammad’s adaptation of the practice for ‘religious’ purposes. But where all other imperialist movements have waned with enlightenment, the decay of regional powers, or the death of individuals, Islam’s imperialist movement has amazingly survived and thrived these last 1400 years, which is the only thing that makes it unique. Nothing is more dangerous to weaker competing forms of governance than Imperialism.

            There are also many similarities between fundamental Islamists and die-hard communists. Both of these groups abhor highly educated thinkers and scholars, essentially forbidding rational thinking that does not support their ideologies. In the early 1960s, as part of the ‘Cultural Revolution’, the Chinese Maoist regime killed many intellectuals and scholars, virtually suppressing most higher education for decades. In place of rational thought and real education they instead set up institutions everywhere to study Marxism and Maoism. Mao’s “Red Book” became a Bible to his subjects, a focus of education with memorizations required. Compare this with Iran , where Ayatollah Khomeini’s regime killed thousands of intellectuals, scholars, and rational thinkers right after the Islamic revolution. Like the communist Chinese, the Iranian fundamentalist government closed the universities for three years and in their place proliferated schools emphasizing religious indoctrination. Memorization of the Qur’an became a national imperative. Because communists possess a hatred of the capitalist West, they supported the Iranian fundamentalists in their rage against America . But despite similarities in their anti-western anti-capitalist rhetoric, and in their methods, these two competing ideologies do not get along very well once their common enemy is removed. In the aftermath of Shah’s removal from Teheran, the Mullahs and their Islamic henchmen killed nearly all communists who helped bring them into power, right along with other intellectuals and ‘infidels’. To Islamists in Iran , communism was simply a tool to be used to secure power. While they were being used by Islamists, poor communists did not imagine they would be killed by their Islamic ‘comrades’. Although most were killed, in a twist of irony a few were able to save themselves by escaping to the evil capitalist West. Remaining and emerging thinkers and intellectuals now struggle to escape their own homeland. [Note: Islamists are currently using liberal democrats in the same way in their efforts to bring down conservatives which are acting in opposition to Islamic hegemony.]

            Though they differ in their methods of control, German Nazism, Italian Fascism, Japanese Imperialism, Stalinist/Maoist Communism, and now Islamic Fundamentalism are all cut from the same totalitarian cloth. The Columbia Encyclopedia, 2001 Sixth Edition defines totalitarianism as;

“A modern autocratic government in which the state involves itself in all facets of society, including the daily life of its citizens. A totalitarian government seeks to control not only all economic/political matters, but also the attitudes, values, and beliefs of its population, erasing the distinction between state and society. The citizen’s duty to the state becomes the primary concern of the community, and the goal of the state is the replacement of existing society with a perfect society.”

            In Berlin in 1939, you would be hard pressed to find a German who did not sincerely believe in the superiority of Arian genetics. The Japanese similarly all originally truly believed in the divinity of their emperor and superior rights/standings of their native people, as did comrades following Iosif Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, and Genghis Khan at the peak of their influence. The common thread in these theologies was the fundamental belief of the superiority of their system of living -and- their inherit right to impose it on others by any means necessary. This thread is duplicated perfectly in the fundamental practices and beliefs of all of Islam, moderate and extremist. Such thinking errors are rampant, and unfortunately at this stage in cultural development, probably completely intractable.

            The problem is that for all its schisms, sects, and multiplicity of voices, Islam’s (often violent) expansionist elements are firmly rooted in its central texts. Following these tenants strictly, Islam cannot be other than a religion of violence, and any system of governance based on it must always be oppressive by Western standards (no principles of tolerance, no religious freedom, and no laws protecting equality or individuality). In Islam all aspects of personal, religious, and political life become merged. This template has resulted in a series of various despots, and corrupt monarchies or Mullahs, and a few Soviet-style state autocracies imposed on tribal societies in the Arab world. Any attempt to throw off the prescribed and accepted Islamic templates is fought vigorously by Jihadists. Beirut Lebanon was briefly a shining example of co-existence between Muslims and other ethnic groups, and a showcase of prosperity, until the fundamentalists took control and turned it into a nightmarish quagmire of terror and oppression. As the people slid backward in every way imaginable, affluent educated Lebanese seemed powerless to prevent the calamity. Few dared risked life, limb, and eternal Islamic hell to resist fundamentalist goals.

            We seek out and fight terrorists, yet on the whole ignore the religious infrastructure that created them. Three and ½ years since 9/11 the theology remains largely immune from challenge because it calls itself a religion. If Adolph Hitler had called Nazism a religion, would we have been similarly disposed and refrained from criticizing Nazi credos? Note that in previous conflicts success meant we did not support or excuse ‘moderate’ Nazis, Fascists, Imperialists, or Communists …all followers and supporters of the dangerous philosophies were brought low in total war. From 1933 onward, anyone wearing a swastika and reciting from Mein Kampf would be immediately recognized as a potentially dangerous enemy of freedom and democracy. Americans need to become fully acquainted with the aspirations, methods, and political philosophy contained in the Qur’an adopted by those who worship the man who wrote that manifesto, which unfortunately are no less dangerous.

            Another point that needs to be made is that Islam is not initially opposed to democratic processes in non-Islamic countries. To orthodox Muslims in non-Muslim lands, democracy represents a convenient tool, not an enemy. Remember both Hitler and Khomeini came to rule through democratic means, but once in power they killed the process that elevated them to power. Through democratic means Islam seeks opportunity through discontent, deception, conversions, and/or demographics to seize control of government institutions, and then gradually to introduce ‘reforms’ until the region is subject to every form of Islamic manipulation and governance. Non-Muslims in democracies are not initially mistreated, but as the power of Muslim traditionalists’ increases, freedoms and protections erode and persecution begins. This modus operandi is the template Muhammad taught by example in conquering the indigenous people in Medina and Mecca . This is peaceful Islam. Those countries that prove resistant to such methods are subject to more violent forms of Jihad to weaken them to the point that they accept and submit to the dictates of Muslim political ambitions. Ultimately, Islam offers only three options to non-believers, …convert, pay Jizya (become slaves to superior Islamic masters), or die.

            History is currently being written in the Middle East . The chief question is whether principals of freedom, tolerance, and equal rights can take permanent root in Islamic lands and reform Jihadists. Such hopes are noble, and emotions run high, but such aspirations may be naïve in the long term. Even the hold of secularists in Turkey remains tenuous. Democratic regimes built up in Afghanistan and Iraq will likely remain only as long as Western troops are present to protect them, and may be in danger of quickly evaporating without that massive support. The term "Islamic democracy" is an oxymoron, like “Tolerant Bigot”, “Honest Falsehood”, "Capitalistic Communism", or “Humane War”. Although democracy has room for a defanged Islam not bent on destroying it, real Islam leaves no room for democratic principals. When principals of free speech and human rights are genuinely adopted, the baby it delivers is free-will and free-enterprise, which then promotes and protects individual progress. All of these positive progressive concepts represent a direct threat to the elaborate control structures ensuring Islam power over the masses.

            Final and permanent victory in the War on Islamic terror can not occur until its dangerous ideology is fought with the same vigor Islamic militancy is opposed militarily. As a first step, schools and universities need to start teaching Americans kids (including Muslims) all about real history and real Islam, instead of the propaganda it currently sells our children. Tenured or not, Communist, Islamist, and apologists promoting misinformation and propaganda need to be exposed and expelled. The last thing we need is colleges and universities pumping out more Islamic brown shirts. In the case of Islam, excessive diversity is irresponsible and means only one thing, …national suicide.






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.