By David J. Jonsson
What the future might hold if we fail to deal with the Leftist/Marxist-Islamist Alliance.
With every passing year following the events of 9/11 the rise of Leftist/Marxist-Islamist Alliance has increased global instability. By the beginning of 2006, nearly all the combustible ingredients–far bigger in scale than those leading to World Wars 1 and 11 and the Gulf Wars of 1991 or 2003–were in place.
There are many misconceptions about Islam that need to be understood. The primary goal of Islam remains from the teaching of Muhammad–to create the "Islamic kingdom of God on Earth." The goal is not negotiable. There is no compromise. The aim of the Islamic movement is to bring about somewhere in the world a new society wholeheartedly committed to the teachings of Islam in their totality and to strive to abide by those teachings in its government, political, economic and social organizations, its relation with other states, its educational system and moral values, and all other aspects of its way of life. The approach will be triple pronged jihad militarily through the sword, economic control and cultural influence.
Most apologists for Islam accept these misconceptions as fact in attempting to assign Western and/or Christian doctrines and values to Islam. In doing so they fail to recognize the origins of next global world war. Such a war may not be fought and won or lost militarily on the battlefield but in the boardrooms of corporations and banks, the media, schools and government councils. The battle will not be just with Islamism but the combined forces of the Leftist/Marxist — Islamist Alliance promoting a totalitarian ideology equally powerful to prior forces of communism and fascism.
Winning in the current war between the combined forces of the Hezbaollah acting as pawns for Syria and Iran against Israel is not simply the winning of daily tactical military battles. The war must be won in its totality. In asymmetric wars, as are currently being fought; the war must be won not only on the battlefields but also in the political, economic and ideological arena. It is these non-military battles that the Leftist/Marxist — Islamist Alliance is concentrating their firepower. The events have taken the battlefield globally, as we will see even down the youngsters at the Atlanta-area Islamic Center and the War Resisters Support Campaign in Toronto. Events occurring in Atlanta and/or Toronto are equally significant to the strategic outcome of Lebanon-Hezbollah conflict. A loss in the Lebanon-Hezbollah conflict would form the basis and model for subsequent duplication among the forces against freedom and liberty.
American reliance on the Kautilya principle–often described as an Arab saying (my enemy's enemy is my friend) in the Middle East has led us, not once but regularly, to choose to ally with (or at least deal with) Islamists of various stripes because they were the potential enemies both of International Communism and of Secular Pan-Arab nationalism. It is this same reliance that leads the Leftists and Marxist to join with the Islamists against the priciples of freedom and liberty.
Many leaders, talk-show hosts and publications by Christians, Muslims and secularists have argued pro and con as to whether Islam is peaceful or warlike and whether or not it is a religion of law.
In an address to the joint session of Congress on September 21, 2001, President George W. Bush spoke of the peaceful teachings of Islam, reiterating that Islam’s teachings are good and peaceful. Many, including Christians, complained and argued exactly the opposite. Both views, attempting to argue whether Christianity or Islam is more peaceful, are wrong.
The issue that needs to be addressed is this: Is Islam political or apolitical? Islam is political, and this is what led Muhammad, when he established the first "Nation State" at Medina, following the migration from Mecca. With the writing of Medina Charter (Constitution), he set himself up as lawgiver and judge. Thus began the Islamic calendar, as well as the first caliphate. Islam is not so much a "religion of peace" as a "religion of law. "
Both Jesus and Muhammad asked their followers to follow them and their teachings. Jesus said he would establish a place in heaven for those who followed him and accepted him as Lord and Savior. In the Islamic tradition, Muhammad established the first and the last "kingdom of God on earth."
Because it is both political and a religion of law, Islam has a profound impact on the issues we face today. To represent it as an essentially apolitical creed of peace is to project onto it a feature that may be held to be–at least in theory–intrinsic to Christianity, but does not necessarily belong to other faiths and does not actually belong to Islam.
Not all Muslim scholars subscribe to the belief that Islam is a religion of law. There is no universal definition of what Islam is. For practical purposes, what matters is what Muslims believe their religion to be, and this varies with circumstances and has changed over time.
Many attribute to ordinary Muslims that their religious belief is essentially a private matter. This probably comes from the fact that many Western nations have historical Christian roots. A principle teaching in Christianity is the individual and personal relationship to God through the person of Jesus Christ. In Christianity God is knowable; in Islam God is unknowable. To transfer the concept of an individual relationship to God from Christianity to Islam is erroneous and unrealistic.
It would be more accurate to say, that for the majority of Muslims, Islam is an intrinsically public matter, in that it not only postulates a community of believers (the Ummah), but it also contains and transmits a corpus of legal prescriptions as well as moral injunctions; therefore, it is the blueprint of a social order.
This being so, there is a powerful tendency, however latent at times, for a large proportion of ordinary Muslims to be responsive to the proposition of activist minorities that the prescriptions of their religion should be reflected in the social mores, laws and form of government of the states in which they live. Thus, the postulated antithesis between ordinary Muslims and Islamic activists is flimsy and liable to break down under pressure. And it can safely be said that most, if not all, Muslim populations today are living under great pressure to cause political change.
The Muslim activist minorities in Western countries, therefore, seek to change the laws of the countries in which they reside–to reflect their social mores and laws–and tend not to assimilate into the culture of the host country. The concept of the "community of believers" also plays a role in the common ownership of natural resources and intellectual property.
The concept that Islam only became political after the rise of Khomeini after the 1979 revolution in Iran is unhistorical, as well as self-serving. Islam, as a political movement, did not originate with the coining of the words, "political Islam," in the wake of the Iran revolution.
To postulate that political Islam did not exist for generations leads to making incorrect assumptions about the risk to our Western economic system, freedom, liberty and democracy, as we now know it. The words only became a subject of discussion when they became associated with anti-Americanism.
Conventional thinking in the West usually groups all these descriptions under a common label. The thinking does not distinguish the purpose and the method actually found in Islamic activism. The West only makes a distinction between militant Islam (radicals) and moderate Islam (those with whom they can do business). The principle weakness of this analytical distinction is that it fails to notice that the most important factor differentiating varieties of Islamic activism is not so much the relative militancy or moderation with which they express their convictions, but rather, the nature of the convictions they hold and how they utilize their strength to accomplish the common goal of imposing Shariah law. These include different diagnoses of the problems faced by Muslim societies, different views of Islamic law, and different conceptions, both of the appropriate spheres (political, religious, military) in which to act and of the kinds of action that are legitimate and appropriate. Accordingly, they entail divergent and often competing purposes.
The Cabal of countries making up the Leftist/Marxist — Islamist Alliance increasingly controls the energy resources of the world. In addition, members of the Cabal such as China have caused a huge surge in demand. An estimated two-thirds of all global oil reserves are controlled by National Oil Companies (NOC’s). A large number of countries require that IOC’s partner with NOC’s in upstream developments or they allow IOC’s to provide only services. The estimate is that International Oil Companies (IOC’s) have full access to less than 10% of all of the world’s reserves.
The second precondition for war is demographics. Demographics is a two edged sword.
Firstly, the population shifts resulting from a declining birth rate in the developed world. At the same time the percentage of Muslims is increasing. To quote Mark Steyn from his article "It’s the Demography, Stupid" published in the Opinion Journal on January 4, 2006; Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries. There'll probably still be a geographical area on the map marked as Italy or the Netherlands–probably–just as in Istanbul there's still a building called St. Sophia's Cathedral. But it's not a cathedral; it's merely a designation for a piece of real estate. Likewise, Italy and the Netherlands will merely be designations for real estate. The challenge for those who reckon Western civilization is on balance better than the alternatives is to figure out a way to save at least some parts of the West.
There is no "population bomb" in the context described by Paul Ehrlich, but there is another kind of population bomb that has the potential dire consequences. There never was an overpopulation bomb. Birthrates are declining all over the world–eventually every couple on the planet may decide to opt for the Western yuppie model of one designer baby at the age of 39. But demographics is a game of last man standing. The groups that succumb to demographic apathy last will have a huge advantage. Even in 1968 Paul Ehrlich and his ilk should have understood that their so-called population explosion was really a massive population adjustment. Of the increase in global population between 1970 and 2000, the developed world accounted for fewer than 9% of it, while the Muslim world accounted for 26%. Between 1970 and 2000, the developed world declined from just under 30% of the world's population to just over 20%, the Muslim nations increased from about 15% to 20%.
Nineteen seventy doesn't seem that long ago. If you're the age many of the chaps running the Western world today are wont to be, your pants are narrower than they were back then and your hair's less groovy, but the landscape of your life–the look of your house, the layout of your car, the shape of your kitchen appliances, the brand names of the stuff in the fridge–isn't significantly different. Aside from the Internet and the cell phone and the CD, everything in your world seems pretty much the same but slightly modified.
And yet the world is utterly altered. Just to recap those bald statistics: In 1970, the developed world had twice as big a share of the global population as the Muslim world: 30% to 15%. By 2000, they were the same: each had about 20%.
And by 2020?
So the world's people are a lot more Islamic than they were back then and a lot less "Western." Europe is significantly more Islamic, having taken in during that period some 20 million Muslims (officially)–or the equivalents of the populations of four European Union countries (Ireland, Belgium, Denmark and Estonia). Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the West: In the U.K., more Muslims than Christians attend religious services each week.
Can these trends continue for another 30 years without having consequences? Europe by the end of this century will be a continent after the neutron bomb: The grand buildings will still be standing, but the people who built them will be gone. We are living through a remarkable period: the self-extinction of the races who, for good or ill, shaped the modern world.
Yet while Islamism is the enemy, it's not what this thing's about. Radical Islam is an opportunistic infection, like AIDS: It's not the HIV that kills you, it's the pneumonia you get when your body's too weak to fight it off. When the jihadists engage with the U.S. military, they lose–as they did in Afghanistan and Iraq. If this were like World War I with those fellows in one trench and us in ours facing them over some boggy piece of terrain, it would be over very quickly, which the smarter Islamists have figured out. They know they can never win on the battlefield, but leading Islamic scholars such as Al-Qaradawi and other Muslim clerics figure there's an excellent chance they can drag things out and cause the populous to accept appeasement until Western civilization collapses in on itself and Islam inherits by default.
It might be said according to Spengler writing on August 2, 2005 for Asia Online that Infertility is killing off the secular world, as a number of writers have observed, including Phillip Longman, in his 1994 book The Empty Cradle. In the former Soviet empire, where atheism reigned as state policy for generations, the United Nations forecasts extreme declines in population by 2050, ranging from 22% for the Russian Federation to nearly 50% for the Ukraine. Secular Western Europe will lose 4% to 12% of its population, while the population of the churchgoing United States continues to grow. Is secularism at fault? The numbers do not suggest otherwise.
Humankind cannot abide the terror of mortality without the promise of immortality, I have argued in the past. In the absence of religion, human society sinks into depressive torpor. Secular society therefore is an oxymoron, for the death of religion leads quickly enough to the death of society itself.
Secondly, the declining birth rate in the Muslim countries will ultimately reduce the "human fodder" available to provide the terrorists acting as suicide bombers. This then provides an urgency to conduct war and accomplish their goals of having the three cities of the Christian faith of particular significance: Jerusalem, Constantinople and Rome fall to Islamic control and hence the End Time occurs.
General staffs before World War I began war planning with demographic tables, calculating how many men of military age they might feed to the machine guns. France preferred an early war because its stagnant population would not produce enough soldiers a generation hence to fight Germany. Only Israel’s general staff looks at demographic tables today, to draw prospective boundaries that will enclose a future Jewish majority.
Demographics still provide vital strategic information, albeit in quite a different fashion. Today’s Islamists think like the French general staff in 1914. Islam has one generation in which to establish a global theocracy before hitting a demographic barrier. Islam has enough young men - the pool of unemployed Arabs is expected to reach 25 million by 2010 - to fight a war during the next 30 years. Because of mass migration to Western Europe, the worst of the war might be fought on European soil.
The third and perhaps most important precondition for war is the rise of the Clash of Ideologies. Since the 1979 revolution that transformed Iran from a constitutional monarchy, under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, to an Islamic, populist theocratic republic under the rule of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, not just Iran but the greater part of the Muslim world has been swept by a wave of religious fervor.
The ideological events that produced Islamism was as potent as either of the predecessors arising in the prior century–communism and fascism. Islamism is anti-Western, anti-capitalist, and anti-Semitic. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has the goal of not just the destruction of Israel but the entire West including the U.S. and Europe.
The West should listen to him and take him at his word.
In calling for an immediate cease fire in Lebanon, Ahmadinejad added that "the main cure is the elimination of the Zionist regime." He called on all Muslim countries to cut political and economic ties with Israel and "isolate" the U.S. and the U.K. for support of Israel.
Following the emergency session of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) in Kuala Lumpur on August 3, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, the president of the world’s largest nation, said the Lebanese must stop or "it will radicalize the Muslim world, even those of us who are moderate today. From there it will be just one step away to that of the ultimate nightmare: a Clash of Civilizations.
In prior battles, these forces had only terrorism as a method to attack. Today they have combined forces brought by the Leftist/Marxist-Islamist Alliance to employ Weapons of Mass Destruction with Economic means to cause an Economic Holocaust.
The United States has a growing antiwar movement. If one looks under the ‘covers’ we find that that this movement had its origins in the Leftist/Marxist - Islamist Alliance following the Gulf War of 2003.
Today, U.S. military deserters are going to Canada where a small group is growing. Once across the border, a network of Vietnam War-era draft evaders meets them, Quakers and anti-war activists, who are waiting with lawyers, free housing, job offers and organic groceries.
A described in Islamic Economics and the Final Jihad — The Muslim Brotherhood to the Leftist/Marxist-Islamist Alliance, on December 13 and 14, 2003, activist delegates from the West and the Middle East joined at a conference in Cairo to exchange ideas and debate plans for actions. The second Cairo Conference against Capitalist Globalization and U.S. Hegemony brought together anti-war activists from across the world. The conference discussed how best to support the Iraqi and Palestinian resistance movements and how to challenge the United States’ drive for power. (The third Cairo Conference took place March 24 to 27, 2005, sponsored by the Stop-the-War Coalition.)
As the news of Saddam Hussein’s capture spread, delegates reaffirmed their support for the Iraqi resistance to continue against the U.S. occupation. Hamdeen Sabahy, an Egyptian M.P., said, "The resistance in Iraq is not based on Saddam Hussein. It will continue after Saddam Hussein. It is there because there is an occupation. As long as there is an American occupation, there will be resistance."
This was much bigger than the 2002 conference, attended by four hundred people. Left-wing groups, Arab nationalist groups, and the Muslim Brotherhood organized the conference. It was supported by a number of trade unions.
In the opening session, John Rees from the Stop-the-War Coalition in Britain received loud applause when he said: "We stopped George Bush from launching his re-election campaign in London last month. Hundreds of thousands of ordinary people poured onto the streets. People have come from Britain in solidarity with you. This is not merely because we sympathize with your struggle, and that of Iraq and Palestine. We come because your struggle is our struggle; your enemy is our enemy. In the last year we have created an international mass movement. We will not let the rule of profit and arms destroy our world. Only ordinary people can stop the political elites."
The chemistry between the conference’s left wing and Islamic currents was a revelation to many. Making a rare appearance in such a socialist-oriented gathering, Ma’moun El- Hodeibi, the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood’s supreme guide, spoke at the opening session. Slamming "the authoritative imperialist and aggressive capitalist systems," Hodeibi hailed the "new [anti-globalization] global movement."
Since this conference the Muslim Brotherhood achieved significant victories in Egypt through the election process.
Stop-the-War’s Yakoub described the anti-war movement as a "bridge between East and West. From Cairo to Birmingham, Muslim and Jew, we have more in common than we have differences, and it’s unity that gives us the potential to be the other superpower." British M.P., George Galloway called the conference itself a bridge between East and West. "Across the bridge, in two-way traffic, should come experience and support. We learn from here and here will learn from us."
Sona’ Allh Ibrahim, a famous Egyptian writer who turned down a major award recently in protest at the Egyptian government, also addressed the conference. Other speakers included former Labour M.P. Tony Benn, former United Nation’s humanitarian coordinator for Iraq Denis Halliday, Salma Yaqoob from Britain and Ramsey Clark, former U.S. attorney general. The Leftist/Marxist - Islamist Alliance was in full attendance.
The conference released the second Cairo declaration, calling for opposition to capitalist globalization and U.S. power. It also urged support for the Iraqi resistance and the Palestinian intifada against Israeli occupation.
Ashraf El Bayoumi was one of the organizers. He is a campaigner based in Egypt who was arrested recently for joining an anti-war protest. He spoke to Socialist Workers about the importance of the event. The conference came from the belief that imperialist globalization must be met with people’s mobilization. The people who attended the conference in 2002, especially those who were invited to speak, gave an anti-imperialist flavor to the conference. There were some professors and academics who were irritated by the injustice in Iraq and Palestine, such as Thomas Nagy, a professor at George Washington University.
The Al-Ahram Weekly gave a picture of the events of the third international Cairo Anti-War Conference held March 24-27, 2005.
Perhaps it was not totally ironic that the third international Cairo Anti-War Conference ended on the same day that dozens of members of the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood were arrested for organizing a peaceful protest calling for constitutional reforms and the lifting of Egypt's 24-year-old state of emergency. For four days, almost 1,000 Egyptian, Arab and international activists representing anti-war and anti- globalization movements, had been arguing that the liberation of Palestine and Iraq should start with changing undemocratic regimes in the Arab world.
Activists from Islamist, secular, communist and socialist currents from across the globe sat together sharing their views, and absorbed in friendly conversation.
According to comparative literature professor, Abdel-Wahab El-Missiri, the author of many works on Zionism and Jewish thought, globalization is no more than a U.S. dynamic for hegemony. "Globalization reduces people into consumptive beings with no identity or history," El-Missiri told the Weekly. "It is no wonder that the proponents of globalization are also those who invaded Pakistan and Iraq, and blindly support the Israeli occupation of Palestine."
That rhetoric provided a new dimension to resistance in Iraq and Palestine as "the front-line" of fighting against imperialism and globalization.
According to John Rose, author of Myths of Zionism, "the Palestinian flag has come to symbolize the dispossession of the poor peoples of the world."
"The flag adorns the great anti-globalization and anti-war mass demonstrations on every continent," Rose said.
The general mood of the conference was one of defiance, where passionate speeches inspired a general spirit of hope and enthusiasm. John Rees, from the U.K.-based Stop-the-War Coalition, boasted of the fact that the global anti-war movement had forced many countries, including Holland, Poland, Hungary and Spain–and perhaps now Italy–to withdraw their troops from Iraq.
But there was also general consensus that resistance was the only way to liberate Palestine and Iraq. Most delegates seemed to share Galloway’s opinion that U.S. troops in Iraq would be destroyed between "the hammer of the anti-war movement and the anvil of resistance."
Sheikh Hassan al-Zorqani, of the Sadri Shia resistance movement in Iraq, told the Weekly that the Iraqi resistance "still has a long way to go before it liberates Iraq." He expressed enthusiasm, however, that the conference gives him "a platform to clear misconceptions about resistance."
The conference again demonstrated the Leftist/Marxist - Islamist Alliance.
Since that time Iran Reaches the Mediterranean and the conflicts erupt between the Hezbollah and Israel as described in Iran, Lebanon, Russia, and India—It is about Power and Oil!
True, the Middle East’s secular gospel is anti-Semitism, broadcast hourly from Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. In these places, state run media boom out tired sermons about "pigs and apes," Again in Russia and China, and possible even some European countries don’t much care what happens to Israel, as long as it does not affect business.
As Barry Rubin in his article in the New York Post on August 2, 2006 wrote: "It is the greatest innovation in diplomacy since Britain's Neville Chamberlain sold out Czechoslovakia to Adolf Hitler in exchange for a promise of peace. Call it the Douste-Blazy cower."
Philippe Douste-Blazy is the French foreign minister, and last week he was seen cowering in a doorway while visiting northern Israel after air raid sirens warned people to take cover against incoming Hezbollah rockets.
At a press conference in Beirut a few days later, Douste-Blazy praised Iran without (in contrast to the French government's attacks on Israel) criticism. He called Iran "a great country, a great people and a great civilization which is respected and which plays a stabilizing role in the region." It is also a major supplier of oil to France and a big customer for French goods.
And it built the rocket that had left Douste-Blazy cowering in that doorway. It shipped the rocket, very possibly on an Iranian airliner that landed at Beirut airport. Tehran trained and paid the Hezbollah terrorists who fired it. It also encouraged them to attack Israel and no doubt guaranteed them its military and diplomatic support in case they faced a serious threat from Israel.
Thus, we have the Douste-Blazy maneuver: First cower; then praise those shooting at you.
The French position is that Hezbollah, Syria and Iran should be brought into the cease-fire negotiations as equal partners. This is the same Hezbollah and Iran whose leadership holds anti-Semitic views not heard since the last bunker fell in Berlin in 1945." That's the wonderful thing about multiculturalism: You can choose which side of the war you want to fight on. When the draft card arrives, just tick "home team" or "enemy," according to taste.
It does not seem to matter that much, even in the United States as to what happens to religious freedom in Saudi Arabia. According to report in the Financial Times on July 20, 2006 [to appease the Sunnis] the U.S. yesterday said it had decided not to impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia over its policies towards religious practices and minorities following commitments by the kingdom to halt the dissemination of extremist ideology and to promote tolerance of non-Muslims.
John Hanford, ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom, was due to explain to Congress why the State Department would issue a waiver for Saudi Arabia under the Religious Freedom Act. Saudi Arabia was designated a "country of particular concern" under the act in 2004.
Raising doubts about the Holocaust and the genocide that occurred is now Ahmadinejad’s aim as much as targeting Israel targets. Although, Holocaust denial has been used many times before, his approach is different. He is well aware of the power of the Leftist/Marxist - Islamist Alliance and their commitment to Western Postmodernism, nursed on its holy trinity of multiculturalism, moral equivalency and relativism. He has a ready-made audience for his rhetoric. He expects the West along with the media to not focus on his fascism if he along with his Venezuelan supporter Chavez repeats enough times the past sins of the West. He uses the age-old strategy of victimology. If Western relativism works–who can say what are "facts" or "true."
Events are taking place in Small Town America. Vacation Bible School is a rite of summer throughout the American southeast. In the Bible Belt of the deep south, a couple of weeks after school lets out, the elementary school aged kids flock to their churches for a week of Bible Stories, crafts, and fun.
It’s changed a little since I was a child; some churches now schedule the sessions in the evenings to accommodate working parents. The curriculum has been jazzed up a little, and often they have themes like and even mascots. But for the most part, Vacation Bible School is still the same thing that many of us experienced as children.
However, you may not know that similar events are taking place at Islamic Summer Study Week. The well-known commentator Laura Mansfield had the opportunity to spend an evening recently at one of these sessions, and she was amazed at what is being taught in this country to children between the ages of 5 and 10. The differences between a Vacation Bible School and the Islamic Summer Study Week were apparent from the moment she entered the door, starting with the dress code. Her story follows below:
Kids at Vacation Bible School for the most part wear shorts, and T-shirts, although some of the girls wear cute little outfits from Gap Kids and Gymboree.
The youngsters at this Atlanta-area Islamic Center were required to wear Islamic dress, even though the air conditioning was only functioning at a minimal level and the temperature during the days rose into the high 80’s. The boys were clearly more comfortable that the girls; they wore navy pants, and white T-shirts or white polo shirts. Some of the boys wore longer, knee-length navy shorts.
The younger girls wore long navy pants, a long sleeve white cotton shirt, and a navy tunic. Even some of the youngest girls were wearing a white hijab (headscarf), although a hijab was optional for the girls until they reached the age of 10. Some of the older girls were wearing a long floor length skirt instead of long pants. According to the director, the girls who opted to wear pants were required to wear the knee-length sleeveless tunic over the pants and long sleeve white shirt so as to be dressed in a non-revealing manner.
She expressed surprise that the young girls especially were willing to wear the hijab, and the director suggested she ask some of the kids to explain their reasons.
Selwa, a cute little five year old with blonde curls escaping from under the headscarf to frame her face, told her "I like to wear it. My mommy wears it too." She asked her what she liked about it. Her blue eyes were wide, as she exclaimed, "Cause then bad men won’t kidnap me and hurt me."
Hosnia, who is 6 years old, explained in a very serious manner: "I’m Muslim. God says girls have to wear it."
After a few more minutes of socializing while other students arrived, the rally began. The group filed into the large room where the rally was to be held. The boys were already sitting in rows on the floor near the front of the room. The girls sat in rows behind the men.
Laura asked the teacher who was sitting in front of her why the girls were at the rear, when the younger ones wouldn’t be able to see over the heads of the older boys without standing. Little Hosnia, who was sitting beside her, heard my question and whispered "we have to sit back here so the boys can’t look at our butts". She burst out into giggles, but the teacher immediately told her to hush.
The director introduced the Imam from the mosque, who started the rally with a quotation from the Qu’ran in Arabic. The surah of the day, which would be the Islamic equivalent of the Bible Verse of the Day, Al Ikhlas. The imam translated the surah as:
He is Allah, the One and Only;
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
And there is none like unto Him.
The Imam repeated it several times in Arabic, line by line, encouraging the children to repeat it with him. Shifting back into English, he told them that their task for the day was to memorize this 4-line surah.
He then began to explain the surah, and its importance. He told the children that this surah described the essence of Islam — that there is only one Allah, and that Allah has no children. Then, quite abruptly, he told the room full of children that this surah was what Muslims were dying for in Palestine, and Iraq, and Chechnya. He told them that the Christians were all doomed to eternal hell for the sin of "shirk", or assigning partners or a son to God.
He ranted for around 10 minutes about the "kafirs" and how the ambition of these unbelievers used the name of Christ to work with the Zionists to kill all of the Muslims in the world.
Then, suddenly he shifted gears. He started discussing Jews and Zionists, explaining that they were the most hated creatures by Allah. He told the children that Allah in fact hated them so much that at one point he turned all the Jews into pigs and monkeys.
The focus shifted to politics again. The imam told the children to never forget the struggle of the Palestinians, who were only trying to regain their ancestral land, which has been their home for thousands of years. He told the story of Mohamed Durah, and explained to the audience how the 14 year old had been killed while "innocently going down the street with his father." He emphasized that the killing was an unprovoked murder by the "Jewish sons of pigs and monkeys". He reminded the children that the goal of every Christian and Jew was to kill every single Muslim, even the tiny babies.
The imam explained that although they are in America they have an obligation to help their fellow Muslims elsewhere in the world. He told the kids to save their quarters and dollars and bring them to the center each day, and at the end of the program they would send the donations to their Muslim brothers and sisters in Palestine and Iraq.
At that point, he abruptly shifted back to the Surah of the Day. He offered several of the older boys the opportunity to recite the surah in front of the group.
When will Americans adapt the modified Pledge of Allegiance proposed by the Bureau of Islamic and Arabic Education?
As an American Muslim, I pledge allegiance to ALLAH and His Prophet,
I respect and love my family and my community,
and I dedicate my life to serving the cause of truth and justice.
As an American citizen, with rights and responsibilities,
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
And to the republic for which it stands, one nation, Under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
"Political correctness run amok" is how one senator is describing a court's ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional in June 2002.
A federal appeals court ruled that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is an unconstitutional "endorsement of religion" because of the addition of the phrase "under God" in 1954 by Congress.
On June 14, 2004 The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a California father could not challenge the Pledge of Allegiance, a decision that sidestepped the broader question of the separation of church and state.
In the name of political correctness will Americans be able choose whatever they desire to say? – Or even worse the above BIAE text will be adopted.
David J. Jonsson is the author of Clash of Ideologies —The Making of the Christian and Islamic Worlds, Xulon Press 2005. His new book: Islamic Economics and the Final Jihad: The Muslim Brotherhood to the Leftist/Marxist - Islamist Alliance (Salem Communications (May 30, 2006). He received his undergraduate and graduate degrees in physics. He worked for major corporations in the United States and Japan and with multilateral agencies that brought him to more that fifteen countries with significant or majority populations who are Muslim. These exposures provided insight into the basic tenants of Islam as a political, economic and religious system. He became proficient in Islamic law (Shariah) through contract negotiation and personal encounter. David can be reached at: email@example.com
BACK to America At War - Salem The Soldier's Homepage