Educating Obama, Clinton and Democrats about Islam long overdue

After listening to President Barack Obama’s speeches— breathlessly anticipated by the sycophants who call themselves reporters — many Americans believe the man needs to be educated about Islamofascism, terrorism, and religious radicalism. The lessons should also be given to many other Americans especially Hillary Clinton, who hopes to soon wear the mantle of President of the United States.

When the United States fought Nazi Germany during World War II, soldiers were not fighting a war on blitzkriegs. When the U.S. declared war on Japan following their vicious sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, the military forces were not fighting a war on militarism. Why do the news media and politicians continue to say the U.S. is at war against terrorism?

When President George W. Bush rightly called terrorists “Islamofascists,” he was ridiculed, lambasted and vilified by the Democrats and their media lapdogs. So Bush never used the term again. In fact, he invited radical Islamic leaders to the White House in order to back away from his use of an accurate term.

To be sure, terrorism is an ambiguous term. Some liberal-left newsman on a radio show said that Israel was engaged in “state terrorism” against the Lebanese people. All the Israelis wanted was for Hezbollah to stop lobbing rockets into Israel.

You have liberals within the US and Europe who call the United States a terrorist nation. How often have people heard this nugget of wisdom: “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

However, when you say the United States is at war against Islamofascism or radical Islam or Muslim extremists, there is far less ambiguity and much more focus on whom the enemy is in this current war.

Yet, many political leaders—such as Sen. Chuck Schumer—who have no problem denigrating Christians on the floor of the U.S. Senate, refuse to acknowledge the true enemy in this war.

Most of our political leaders are ignorant of Islam and the problems Muslims face when attempting to practice a cohesive religion. Islam is and always was an ambiguous religion. In order to understand how one group can argue that Islam is a religion of peace while another group commits atrocities in the name of Islam, one must return to the source of this religion which is diametrically opposed to liberal democracy.

The Koran is actually a very confusing book. It does not provide practitioners of Islam a clear and unambiguous roadmap to heaven. In fact, Arabic scholars have explained that the Koran is divided into two contradictory—opposing—viewpoints of how Muslims should interact with one another as well as non-believers. In fact, there are only two points on which all Muslims agree:one must accept Allah and Allah’s Trinity (Din, Dunya, Dwala); and Mohammad is the last and foremost prophet of God.

Scholars divide the Koran as written by Muhammad into the Mecca period from 610 to 622; and the Medina period from 622 to 632. Mecca is best described as a period of tolerance, even pluralism. It was a belief in “live and let live.” (“You shall have your religion and I shall have mine.”)

However, the Medina period can be characterized as a religion delving into politics, power and armed conflict in the name of Allah. (“And kill them wherever you find them.”)

So when we hear Islamic leaders discuss their beliefs, we come away as confused as the Muslims themselves. The fact is that some may be referring to Mecca, some may be referring to Medina, and some may be referring to both the Mecca and Medina. Besides the confusion caused by the Koran, add other components of Islam such as Sunna, Hadith and Rivya, and it’s no wonder that Koranic scholars are at odds with one another.

Islam is at once a religion and an ideology. It’s totalitarian ideology is comparable to Nazism, Communism and Fascism. Islamic leaders in the United States tell politicians that Islam is a religion of peace and give them some verses from the Koran and they relay this to the American people. As with most politically correct jargon, people are encouraged to deny the evidence of their own senses.

Practitioners of Islam are today involved in conflagrations throughout the world. Here are a few violent conflicts occurring today:

• The continued battle in Iraq has morphed from the deposing of a dictator into civil unrest by opposing sects of Islam, as well as Al-Qaeda terrorists who believe in an Islamic mission of world domination. Al-Qaeda in Iraq eventually morphed into the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
• In Afghanistan, the remnants of the radical Islamic groups the Taliban and Al-Qaeda continue to wreak havoc in that fledgling democracy. Recently, ISIS joined the jihadist fray in the disoriented country.
• In Somalia, Islamists have all but overthrown a newly formed government. These Islamists have been responsible for not only violence, but also the starvation of the Somali people. The unrest is growing, with neighboring Kenya, Chad and Ethiopia becoming involved in the armed conflict.
• In India, a predominately Hindu nation, Islamists have conducted terrorist attacks and Kashmir remains a region of violent contention by Islamic and Hindu residents.
• Terrorist attacks have occurred in Spain, France, Belgium and other European nations. The armed conflict occurring in Russia is being perpetuated by Islamists. In one attack, these Muslim terrorist invaded a school and brutally murdered children.

Add the Islamic terrorist operations in the Philippines, Indonesia, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc., and it is clear to most observers that there exists an asymmetric war being waged by those whose religion-ideology favors Medina over Mecca.

There is nothing new with large scale violence perpetrated by Muslims. At the end of the 19th Century, a man arose who claimed he was the Mahdi (The Expected One) — the one promised by Mohammad — who would unite the Islamic world either peacefully or through violence and then conquer the world for Allah’s paradise.

This Mahdi created a massive army of followers who decided on the way to worshiping in Damascus — and while there, occupying Syria — they would overthrow the governments of the Sudan, Egypt and other nations. When the Mahdi wiped out a modern army in the desert and then brutally invaded the Sudanese city of Khartoum, the British found it necessary to send a large force to stop him and his murderous Dervish.

In short, it’s safe to say that Islamism is a political religion or a religious ideology. So political correctness be damned. We at war with radical Islamists, or a better term would be a war on Islamofascism.