Though America’s Islamic adversaries might claim to be fighting for their own values in their own way, truth and fairness obviously fail to rank high among them. For while Islamic activists dare anyone to speak ill of their cherished faith, it seems they have no intentions of bestowing the same pluralistic courtesies they expect for themselves upon their American, Christian, or Jewish counterparts.
On “The 700 Club”, Pat Robertson went into a detailed analysis regarding the Islamic challenge facing the United States. In his comments, Robertson classified Islam — in the words of the Washington Post — as a “violent religion bent on world domination”.
Both multiculturalists and Islamic interest groups immediately responded in protest, with a Washington Post editorial labeling Robertson’s comments “the least appropriate public statements by any prominent citizen since Sept 11”. Never mind the fact there could have been a considerable degree of truth to what Brother Robertson had to say.
For while it would be irresponsible to hold all individual Muslims personally responsible for the September 11th attack, vocal adherents of this particular religion have expressed such a virulent and widespread antipathy towards the United States that discerning citizens cannot help but exhibit a healthy suspicion of those representing this competing civilization. These warning signs extend from ideological posturing, to political mobilization, to outright threats and violence.
Hussein Ibish of the Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee told the Washington Post that Robertson’s comments that Islam is not a peaceful religion were outrageous. More likely Mr. Ibish is the one trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people.
The very same Washington Post that lamented Pat Robertson’s comments in its February 24th editorial ran a story the very next day examining the role and nature of the Islamic academies popping up around the country. But in these particular halls of scholarship readers might be surprised to learn that the three “R’s” instead stand for “reading”, “writing”, and “revolution.”
Most American citizens would no doubt pay little heed to these schools, overlooking them as innocuous examples of America’s vibrant tradition of private education. However, most schools in this particular sector of the scholastic economy don’t teach the kinds of things being propagated in some of these Islamic academies.
According to the Washington Post, one textbook used at one of these schools contained the following: “Oh Musilm, here is a Jew… Come here and kill him.” And this is the mild stuff. The really juicy material can be found in some of the mosques scattered across the United States and Europe.
Most houses of worship taking their respective beliefs seriously provide access to assorted print, audio, and video resources that augment their teaching activities and support their most cherished doctrines. While most Christian churches posses works on Sunday school administration, Biblical interpretation and missionary biographies, the publications found among the collections of these parallel Islamic institutions tend to be more rambunctious regarding the subject material they address.
An article appearing in the March 3, 2002 Washington Post provides an enlightening review of the bibliographic selections available on the shelves of one British mosque in particular. One book is entitled A Beginner’s Guide to Unarmed Combat; the title pretty much says it all. Related videos teach viewers how to break limbs, twist arms and slit throats. Gives a whole new meaning to spiritual warfare doesn’t it?
Such literature serves a purpose beyond a leisurely afternoon’s light reading. For while Evangelical Christians squabble as to whether or not they should even acknowledge the existence of social issues having religious implications, Islam possess no such qualms as it is a faith quite open about its aspirations of making the world submit to Allah on bended knee.
Having brought much of the Middle East, along with parts of Africa and Asia, under their control, Muslim zealots have now turned their eyes towards a prize they have not had within their grasp since the late Middle Ages or Early Modern period — the lucrative lands of the infidel West.
For while Muslims in America expect Christians to keep their religion to themselves and out of the public square, politically active Muslims don’t think such a prohibition should apply to themselves. This is where observers of socio-religious activity uncover a disturbing intermingling between those of this particular faith who purport to work within the legitimate framework of a democratic republic and those who insist upon winning their political way through means of violence.
Back in February, WorldNetDaily.com profiled organizations straddling the fence between playing within the rules and backing those out to destroy the system in which the rules of legitimacy exist. The article noted that the Council on American-Islamic Relations sports an apple pie image by sponsoring otherwise wholesome activities such as voter registration drives yet at the same time lends support to purveyors of destruction, mayhem, and death such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
Renowned terrorism expert Steve Emerson told WorldNetDaily, “They may not admit it, but ultimately they want to make the U.S. a Muslim country. In the interim they want to acquire as much political power as possible to push their agenda to be afforded legitimacy by political officials.”
For his efforts to expose this threat to the United States, The Council on American-Islamic relations labeled Emerson “the attack dog the extremist wing of America’s pro-Israel lobby.” Just ask Salman Rushdie what happens to those who say similar things about Islam. Like Mr. Rushdie, Mr. Emerson must also take extraordinary precautions to protect his own life.
Note, though, Steve Emerson’s claims have not been refuted and in fact are borne out by the positions taken by Muslim leaders themselves. Pastor John Hagee of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio Texas in a sermon on Islam noted that the first Islamic chaplain to open the United States Congress in prayer later went on to enunciate his desire to abolish the Constitution and replace it with an Islamic system of government.
President Bush has repeatedly insisted that America view Islam as a peaceful religion. However, that task is exceedingly difficult when the foremost leaders of that particular religion paraded before the people of the United States make statements indicating otherwise.
For example, that little Muslim cleric who addressed the memorial service at the National Cathedral in Washington commemorating the September attacks was later revealed to have publicized his support for Hamas. WorldNetDaily quotes Abdulbrahman Alamoudi of the American Muslim Council as saying, “I have been labeled … a supporter of Hamas. We are all supporters of Hamas. I wish they added that I am also a supporter of Hezbollah.”
Should Islamists ever come to power in this country, one can be assured they will have no intention of continuing America’s system of traditional freedoms and liberties if other Islamic regimes around the world are to serve as models of what members of this particular religion might achieve here employing similar ideologies and belief systems.
Phillip Zodhiates, in an email letter circulated under the auspices of Christianpetitions.com, highlights Wall Street Journal statistics that all but one of the world’s remaining military regimes are Islamic, that 28 of the 30 active conflicts around the world involve Islamic parties, and that two-thirds of the worlds political prisoners languish in Islamic prisons. Hardly any Islamic nations hold meaningful elections satisfactory to Western standards.
Citizens troubled by the increasing influence of Islam in our society must walk a fine line. After all, there are many liberal secularists raising an even bigger fuss over private Christian education and political participation. Having been admitted into the midst of American society, Muslims cannot be denied access to these coveted venues of public discourse unless their actions directly threaten innocent lives. Likewise, it is appropriate, however, for the rest of us to use these same constitutional forms of speech to question the peculiarity and appropriateness of the nation’s newest arrivals expressing the most vitriolic disdain for this great nation when no one forced them to migrate to a place they so claim to despise and seek to destroy.