Sharon says there is no “fundamentalism” in Islam (I prefer the old Western term Mohammedanism). Sharon points out that the term “fundamentalism” is a term associated with Christianity not Mohammedanism. He even gives a polite definition of Christian Fundamentalism:
“It means faith that goes by the word of the Bible.”
That was kind of Sharon for Main Line Christian denominations are a bit harsher toward Christian Fundamentalism. But that is another story.
Sharon points out that Christian Fundamentalists do not go around killing people for disagreeing with their interpretation of the Bible. It is also the case with the Quran, it is all about interpretation.
Westerners that scream Appeasement or toleration for the intolerant Mohammedans is because Westerners believe (or duped) that Mohammedanism is basically as peaceful as any other religion active in the world. Here is Sharon’s sarcasm on Western interpretation of the Quran:
All of a sudden we see that the greatest interpreters of Islam are politicians in the western world. They know better than all the speakers in the mosques, all those who deliver terrible sermons against anything that is either Christian or Jewish. These western politicians know that there is good Islam and bad Islam. They know even how to differentiate between the two, except that none of them know how to read a word of Arabic.
The point being that Mohammedans that speak to the West are media savvy. In Mosque or Mohammedan schools hatred of Jews, Christians and the West is indoctrinated into Middle Eastern people. I suspect the same is going on in Mohammedan communities in America and Europe who have chosen self-segregation rather than cultural assimilation. After 9/11 Western Liberals were horrified that outrage might take the form of violence against Mohammedans residing in America. They were probably correct; however the Liberals took a stand that was not an accurate portrayal of Mohammedans. Mohammedanism is not a religion of peace, but contrarily it is a religion of hate. It is a religion of hate that has had an agenda since its emergence as a sword and slashing conquering empire in 634 AD. That agenda is global domination.
It is a religion that gave first and foremost a wide and unique legal system that engulfs the individual, society and nations with rules of behaviour. If you are Moslem, you have to behave according to the rules of Islam which are set down in the Koran and which are very different than the teachings of the Bible.
If you are not a Mohammedan you also must behave according to the rules of Mohammedanism. A non-Mohammedan does have some choices: convert, dhimmitude (if you are lucky), or die. It is very simple.
The convert part is what a huge amount of Christian chose to do after being conquered by the sword in the Middle East and North Africa. The committed Christians were relegated to second class citizenship of dhimmi.
A dhimmi is a non-Mohammedan (usually Christian and Jews) that most pay a poll tax (jizya) to live. Also part of dhimmitude is acts of purposeful humiliation on the part of Mohammedans. Mohammedans regard dhimmis as dirt and thus treat them as such. This is something that has not changed since old Mo’s initiation of world conquest. The West needs to be thankful for such as Charles (the hammer) Martel who stopped the Mohammedans at the Battle of Tours/Poitiers in present day France in 732 AD. And again the West needs to be thankful to King Jan III Sobieski of Poland for beating back the Mohammedan Ottoman Turks from the Gates of Austrian Vienna in 1683 AD. Without these two huge Christian victories over ravenous Mohammedans, those who chose to be faithful to their beliefs would be humiliated dhimmis today.
Then there is the “death” choice. If a dhimmi insulted a Mohammedan in anyway, the result would be death unless a gracious mercy was extended. Those people of who were not Christians and Jews were supposed to be executed if there was not an immediate conversion to Mohammedanism. Later due to the lust for dhimmi slaves, Hindus, Buddhist and Zoroastrians were extended the offer of dhimmitude. Incidentally, Buddhism was founded in India. There reason Buddhism is largely unknown on the northern Indian sub-continent is that they were exterminated by Mohammedans.
Now let's move to the essence of Islam. Islam was born with the idea that it should rule the world.
Let's look, then, at the difference between these three religions. Judaism speaks about national salvation - namely that at the end of the story, when the world becomes a better place, Israel will be in its own land, ruled by its own king and serving God. Christianity speaks about the idea that every single person in the world can be saved from his sings [sic, should read – sins], while Islam speaks about ruling the world. I can quote here in Arabic, but there is no point in quoting Arabic, so let me quote a verse in English. Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions.
The idea, then, is not that the whole world would become a Moslem world at this time, but that the whole world would be subdued under the rule of Islam.
When the Islamic empire was established in 634 AD, within seven years - 640 - the core of the empire was created. The rules that were taken from the Koran and from the tradition that was ascribed to the prophet Mohammed, were translated into a real legal system. Jews and Christians could live under Islam provided they paid poll tax and accepted Islamic superiority. Of course, they had to be humiliated. And Jews and Christians living under Islam are humiliated to this very day.
Moshe Sharon gives this bit of enlightenment in understanding the Mohammedan threat and agenda against Western Civilization:
However, there are four streams of factions within Islam with differences between them concerning the minutiae of the laws. All over the Islamic world, countries have favored one or another of these schools of laws.
The strictest school of law is called Hanbali, mainly coming out of Saudi Arabia. There are no games there, no playing around with the meanings of words. If the Koran speaks about war, then it's war.
There are various perspectives in Islam with different interpretations over the centuries. There were good people that were very enlightened in Islam that tried to understand things differently. They even brought traditions from the mouth of the prophet that women and children should not be killed in war. These more liberal streams do exist, but there is one thing that is very important for us to remember. The Hanbali school of law is extremely strict, and today this is the school that is behind most of the terrorist powers. Even if we talk about the existence of other schools of Islamic law, when we're talking about fighting against the Jews, or fighting against the Christian world led by America, it is the Hanbali school of law that is being followed.
Sharon points out there are less blood thirsty schools of thought in Mohammedanism. I don’t know about you but I have not heard even an echo of from those other schools of thought denouncing radical Mohammedanism in al-Jazeerah or other Arabic based popular media. I have not heard denunciations in Western media by those other schools of thought either. Which Mohammedan school of thought appears to be dominating Mohammedan thinking today? It is Hanbali. Hanbali is financed by Saudi oil. It is what radical Wahhabism and Muslim Brotherhood look to as a foundation.
I have just tapped the essence of Professor Moshe Sharon’s essay on the Mohammedan agenda at global domination. READ THE WHOLE THING! You should know your enemy.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment