Go to: => TOP Page; ROAD MAP; Search Page; What's New? Page; Emmaus Ministries Page
by Amil Imani -- Freedom of Iran website --- Monday, 20 November 2006
http://www.amilimani.com:80/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=47&Itemid=2
(See E. Fox comment below)
A relatively recent demographic change—significant
increase in Muslim population—poses a serious challenge to the American system
of governance—democracy.
Historically, people from all over the world came to this land-of-take-all and
made it their home. In becoming American, each new aspirant had to meet specific
provisions and take the “Pledge of Allegiance” as sworn affirmation of his
highest loyalty to his new homeland. After a couple of generations, all
hyphenated Americans saw themselves as Americans with a special affection for
their ancestral heritage. An Irish-American, for instance, considered himself
every bit as American as a German-American, or a Chinese-American.
Traditionally, America did not homogenize its diverse people. The notion of the
“melting pot,” is inaccurate. Instead, America did one better. As it welcomed
its diverse people, America united them around a set of core values such as
respect for human rights, democratic governance, and the rule of law. The large
number of Muslims arrival of recent years is posing a serious problem to this
nation of all nations. Bluntly speaking, no one can be a faithful Muslim
and an American at the same time. Here are some of the reasons.
* A Muslim is, first and foremost, an Ummehist—a citizen of
international Islam. So, when a Muslim takes the Pledge of Allegiance, he is
either ignorant of the implication of his pledge or is lying willfully.
Ignorance is never a valid reason in the court of law, and lying in the process
of becoming citizen is a ground for denying the application and even deporting
the violator. Sadly enough, tagyyeh—lying, or dissimulation—is not only
condoned, it is recommended to the Muslims in their scripture. Hence, a Muslim
can and would lie without any compunctions, whenever it is expedient.
* Muslims, by belief and practice, are the most blatant violators of
human rights. We hardly need to detail here Muslims’ systemic cruel treatment of
the unbelievers, women of all persuasions, and any and all minorities across the
board. To Muslims, human rights have a different meaning, and it protective
provisions are reserved strictly for Muslims—primarily for Muslim men. Just a
couple of examples should suffice for now.
Oppression of women, for one, is so systemic in Islam that to this day women
are, at best, second class citizens under Islamic law. Saudi Arabia, the
custodian of Islamdom, denies women the right to drive, vote or hold elective
offices—the most basic rights of citizens in democratic societies.
For another, no non-Islamic literature are allowed in Saudi Arabia. A visiting
Christian, for instance, is denied to enter the Kingdom with a Bible. Further,
severe punishment is meted out to anyone daring to disagree with Islam or
espouse a different religion. Iran’s resurgent Shiism often vies with Saudi
Arabia in its mistreatment of religious and non-religious minorities. To the
fanatical ruling gang in Iran, it is their brand of Islam or disenfranchisement
of rights of citizenship and even death for the “sin” of apostasy. And of
course, there is no point at all in talking about the savage Islamic Taliban.
* Respect for the rule of law, as it is understood and practiced by
civilized people, is an instrument of convenience to be used to advantage and to
be violated when it is not, for the Muslim. A Muslim believes in a different
law—the Shariah: a set of stone-age rules. Violation of the non-Muslim laws,
therefore, is no violation at all to a Muslim.
What is incredible is the gull and audacity of Muslims in demanding
that Western and other democracies legalize Shariah in their societies. Large
populations of Muslims, mostly recent arrivals, in countries such as Canada,
Great Britain, and Sweden are experiencing the insistent demands by Muslims to
have Shariah rule their Islamic communities. This is just the beginning and it
may seem relatively harmless to the simpletons in our midst. Yet, once Shariah
is recognized to any extent, it will reach out to rule not only on matters that
concern Muslims, but also those that may involve a Muslim and non-Muslim. Under
Shariah, a Muslim man married to a non-Muslim woman is able to divorce the woman
at will, automatically have custody of the children, and literally toss the wife
out of “his” home with just about no compensations.
* As for democracy, the rule of the people, Muslims have no use at
all. Muslims believe that Allah’s rule must govern the world in the form of
Caliphate—a theocracy. Making mockery of democracy, subverting its working, and
ignoring its provisions is a Muslim’s way of falsifying what he already believes
to be a sinful and false system of governance invented by the infidels.
To Muslims, Ummeh-ism—international Islamism—is the legitimate form of
government. Ummeh-ism is another form of despotism such as Communism and
Fascism, with the added feature of enjoying “divine” authority.
The world has good samples of Ummeh-ism in practice to scrutinize in Islamic
autocracies. Khamenei of Iran is not called “Caliph.” He is called the “Supreme
Guide.” The Saudi King is just another Caliph vessel of the “divine.” These
Islamic despots are every bit as vile as the Hitlers, the Stalins, the Pol Pots,
and the Mussolinis. The government these Islamic autocrats head is infested to
the core with the Islamic disease of oppression, corruption and the absence of
accountability to the people.
Democracies believe that government must be of the people, by the people, and
for the people. Ummeh-ism is anathema to this sacrosanct fundamental democratic
ideal.
As more and more Muslims arrive in non-Islamic lands, as they reproduce with
great fecundity, as they convert the disenchanted and minorities, and as
petrodollar-flush Muslims and Muslim treasuries supply generous funds, Muslims
gather more power to undermine the democratic rule. A consortium composed of
pandering politicians, blinded with short-term self-interest and egoism;
attention and fund-seeking self-proclaimed prima donna professors; and, bastions
of useful idiot liberals, universities, is the witting or unwitting promoter of
Ummeh-ism.
It is human nature to be concerned, first and foremost, with his personal
well-being. Some people evolve to a higher level of humanness and place the
welfare of the general public above their own. Yet, many remain fixated at the
constricted stage of “self first, self, last.” Even if you belong to this latter
group, your self-interest demands that you do all you can to make sure that the
disease of Islamofascism does not devour democracy. Democracy is both fragile
and corruptible. It takes vigilant citizenry to protect its integrity.
We fully agree with Churchill’s observation, “Democracy is the worst form of
government, except for all the rest.” Yet, as imperfect as it is, democracy is
still humanity’s best system of self-rule. We, one and all, must defend it with
our all.
[COMMENT: I think the article above is
quite accurate -- except that we are not a democracy, a form of government
rejected unanimously by our founding fathers. A pure democracy is nothing more
than the tyranny of the majority. But we do have a democratic element in our
government, i.e., the
rulers are chosen by and responsible to the people. However, we were given,
not a democracy, but a
democratic republic under God.
The "under God" part is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence
-- which affirms that our freedoms come from God, or they to not come at all.
Only the law of God makes our freedoms unalienable. I.e., civil government must
be under an authority higher than itself. The only candidate is God.
And that means a "theocracy". For my take on theocracy and how to
handle the objections, go to
http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Pl/Cnst/00Const.htm#Church/State.
A theocracy is not a churchocracy.
Only God can protect the democratic element in our government (freedom
of the individual, equality before the law, the people being the highest
officers of the state, etc.). Without God, civil government takes over the
God-role, as our Supreme Court has, with the gleeful backing of the globalists,
et al, who are busily deconstructing our constitution, with the apathetic
onlooking of most Americans.
The so-called liberal democracy promoted by our politicians is neither
liberal (does not liberate) nor democratic (it always ends up subverting the
people). Liberal democracy gives the illusion of being for the people, but ends
up with a centralized government in which the people are just pawns -- fodder
for the economic success of the industrialists / politicians, i.e., fascists.
Amil Imani may be a moderate Muslim,
it is not clear from the article. In any event, if the moderates are to be
believed, they will have to publicly support the military and police against the
radicals, who, they say, are hi-jacking Islam.
I see no hope for America or the West apart from a deep spiritual
renewal and recovery of our Biblical worldview. Which is on the way
-- and what the Road to Emmaus is all about.
See the movie by Aaron Russo, America:
from Freedom to Fascism and CD
by G Edward Griffin,
Creature of Jekyll Island. It is an excellent documentary on the IRS and Federal
Reserve. We do not have much time left to scuttle those two institutions of
control and tyranny (and world-wide liberal democracy).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|
Go to: => TOP Page; Islam; Constitution; ROAD MAP |