We recognize that the answer to this question can appear harsh or unpalatable to those who value peace, justice, free speech and religious freedom. However, Islam demands a response from every national government as well as each individual human. Why? Because it is a pervasive evil that should be destroyed. Of course, no civilized nation and no decent person could suggest that all Muslim people must be killed. That would be both evil and impossible. Evil because killing humans is always wrong to some extent or another. Impossible because we cannot even identify all believing Muslims. There is no possible way that either a society or an individual can know or control what any other person believes. Therefore, the only acceptable option left open to decent non-Muslims is to somehow separate themselves from the threat – that is; from all people who openly profess Islam.
This page is to discuss what national governments should do to confront Islam as opposed to what individuals should do.
We have shown that Islam is an evil force coming from an evil source. We have proposed that Islam is flawed at the foundation (which is Mohammad) so there is no reasonable hope that it can be reformed. We maintain that it is inherently violent, oppressive and divisive. It acts to terrorize and enslave both its enemies and its followers. Where Islam is in political power in a nation, it becomes oppressive to the citizens of the nation and dangerous to all neighboring nations. There is no place in a civilized world where Islam should be accepted. While political correctness and non-discrimination have a valued place in every modern society, they must both be trumped by practicality when it comes to dealing with the danger of Islam.
A. Discover the Facts
We have said all of the above things and we believe that they are true. However, we cannot count on being believed and respected by all citizens of the non-Islamic world. We suggest that the government of each non-Islamic nation has the responsibility to protect its citizens with respect to Islam. Islam is one of the greatest threats to the peace and even the existence of non-Islamic nations. Each government needs to determine the facts about Islam for itself. Politicians who, for political reasons, advocate for Islam as a religion of peace need to be held accountable for these baseless statements. We start by asking them to show us their facts. They simply can’t provide these facts. We need to challenge them to discover and publicize the true facts in this all-important issue.
The first action that should be taken by the leadership of every non-Islamic nation is to create an investigative body that is assigned the task of investigating Islam on behalf of the nation. This body must be required to examine the scriptures of Islam and the history of the Islamic cult’s interaction with the non-Islamic world. It must only examine the relevant documentation and the recorded history and must be limited to these two areas of investigation. We cannot stress strongly enough that this body must not be allowed to consider or be swayed by anecdotal “evidence” such as apologists and useful idiots who insist on telling people that Islam is a religion of peace and that the majority of Muslims are peaceful and nice. It must ignore the fact that not all Muslims are terrorists and look at the facts relating to the influence that the ideology of Islam has had on all of the neighboring nations throughout its long and bloody history.
There is a serious danger if such a public inquiry is carried out by people who want to be politically correct, inclusive, etc. If it is to arrive at a clear understanding of the teachings of Islam there must be a strict separation between its examination of the ideology of Islam and any consideration of the personality or character of individual Muslims. When we consider how to treat individual Muslims we need to separate the individual from the ideology. In the same way, the inquiring body must separate its examination of the ideology of Islam from any examination of the positive aspects of Islamic lifestyle.
As we have shown elsewhere on this website, some Muslims believe in deception as a legitimate tool for the promotion and protection of Islam. We have seen multiple examples where modern Islamic apologists have distorted, softened and white-washed the literal message of Islamic scripture. The investigating body must therefore confine itself to examination of the “hard” evidence. Islamic scripture, including the Sunnah provides the appropriate hard evidence of what Mohammad taught. It should be read first to determine the literal meaning. It should not be “interpreted”, especially by modern Islamic apologists, to mean something different to what the literal meaning expresses.
Our suggestion of an official examination of the ideology of Islam will sound radical to many people. They may ask what other ideology has been subjected to such an examination. We would respond to this challenge by asking what other religion has so often and consistently been blamed by the perpetrators of terrorist acts for their actions. There is a long list of terrorist organizations beginning, possibly, with the Muslim Brotherhood that have claimed they are carrying out their terrorist actions because their god Allah has decreed that they should do so. We believe that, if we know the facts, we must concur that Islamic scripture condones this terrorism.
We challenge every nation’s government to discover the facts!
B. Categorize Islam as it Deserves:
The connotation that most people have about the term “religion” is that it is all about humanity’s relationship with the supernatural. This preconception hampers lawmakers who are confronted by a dangerous ideology like Islam. In non-Islamic countries at least, governments generally believe that the relationship between people and their god is not the business of government and that government has no right or need to regulate that relationship. The law in most non-Islamic nations provides for some form of freedom of religion. The problem we see is that the term religion is poorly defined in these laws.
We have firmly rejected the statement that Islam is a religion of peace and we have shown many examples indicating that neither the founder of Islam nor the ideology itself has earned the right to be categorized as peaceful. But we believe we have also shown that Islam is not simply a religion in the traditional sense of the word.
What is a religion? One definition from Dictionary.com says that a religion is: “a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects”. By this definition, a religion doesn’t really have to believe in anything supernatural or spiritual. Thus, by this definition, one can subscribe to a religion that holds that the earth is flat or that the best route to spiritual growth is to get stoned on marijuana. While these ideologies do actually exist in today’s world, they have seldom been considered religions in the traditional sense because they are not related to belief in a deity or in a spiritual aspect to humanity. Islam does believe in a deity, so it could probably be considered a religion in the traditional sense were it not for some other aspects of the ideology. Elsewhere on this website, we have discussed whether or not Islam is also a cult and the conclusion to which we lean is that it is, in fact, a cult and not a religion in the traditional sense. On the other hand, we have also shown that the cult of Islam is dangerous to everyone, especially those who are not members of the cult. The challenge that non-Muslims face in non-Islamic nations is protecting themselves from the threat of Islam while retaining the legal right to freedom of religion.
When lawmakers in Europe and the Americas began to enact laws relating to freedom of religion, they probably didn’t consider the possibility of encountering a religion in which the members were mandated and committed to the destruction of all religious, social and political systems but their own. As a result, the term “religion” is generally poorly defined in law or not defined at all in those countries that assure a legal right to freedom of religion. This is a weakness in our legal system that needs to be addressed! To be fair, it is extremely difficult or impossible to define “religion” in a manner that can leave the concept of freedom of religion in place but protect against a malevolent religious cult such as Islam.
How, then, can we protect ourselves from a cult such as Islam? As we have shown above, the first step is to recognize the true nature of the teachings of Islam. The next step is for the government of the nation to officially identify and declare that Islam is a dangerous cult. We can almost see the hackles rising on liberal necks when we say this. Even staunch conservatives may be uncomfortable with the concept. But it is not so far-fetched as one might think. The list of high-ranking and highly respected people that have come out openly to declare that Islam is dangerous is very long. It includes people like John of Damascus, a sixth-century Syrian monk, the venerable Bede, a 7th century British monk. Maimonedes, a twelfth-century Jewish scholar, Pope Urban the second, who called for the first Crusade against the Islamic occupiers of the Holy Land, Winston Churchill the Prime Minister of Great Britain in the later years of the second world war and Newt Gingrich, a US presidential candidate in modern times.
Unfortunately, many modern-day leaders have failed to recognize or acknowledge the threat that Islam poses. Some confuse the ideology with the more extreme followers of that ideology. Some are more concerned about their liberal or globalist ideologies of tolerance and inclusiveness and thus cannot admit that there is danger in Islam. Some are stupidly confident that the more affluent lifestyle and freedom experienced in European and American nations will entice devout Muslims away from adherence to Islamic doctrine. Some are influenced by their financial dependence on Middle-Eastern oil. Some are simply ignorant of the less-savory aspects of Islamic ideology. Whatever the cause, leadership in most non-Islamic countries has failed miserably with respect to recognizing the threat of Islamic expansionism and protecting their nations from Islam.
We must demand that our politicians examine the ideology of Islam, recognize it for what it is and they must publicize their findings. One cannot examine the Islamic scripture with an open mind and fail to conclude that Islam is undeniably a dangerous cult. This message must be spread throughout our country.
C. Change or Enforce the Laws
In Islamic nations, the freedom and actions of people professing religions other than Islam are restricted – sometimes severely. Although this can be dangerous and is somewhat distasteful, even to us, we suggest that some requirements should be placed into law specifically with respect to Islam.
The greatest enemy of evil is truth. Therefore, truth is the greatest enemy of Islam. It is also the best shield we can use to protect ourselves from Islam. We need to speak the truth about Islam loudly in the media, in our workplaces and especially in our schools.
In recent years Islamist apologists have been working both nationally and internationally to create a world in which it is unacceptable to criticize Islam. We must counter this effort. They have adopted the epithet “islamophobe” to encourage people to view criticism of Islam as distasteful, unjust and somewhat insane. But is it really insane to reject an ideology that is aimed at the destruction of your own way of life? Is it wrong to criticize a person who perpetrated political murders and genocide? Is it unjust to point out the lies of a cleric, a political leader or even a self-styled prophet? We don’t think so and we challenge anyone who does think these things are wrong to re-examine their view of morality. We must fight lies with the truth. We must publicize the evil actions of the founder of Islam and the evil precepts of Islamic ideology. We must also throw the term “islamophobe” into the trash bin where it belongs.
Regulatory bodies, government agencies, schools and colleges have all supported and advocated the lie that Islam is a religion of peace. Why have they done this? We believe that most of the people that have made the decisions that have resulted in this situation have done so with the best of intentions. On the other hand, they may have done this as a result of one of two common errors. Possibly they have wanted to protect innocent individual Muslims from adverse reaction or even harm from people opposed to Islam. Or, perhaps they simply don’t understand the true nature of Islam. The first error is understandable and excusable. The second is not!
We have read or heard suggestions from well-meaning people about how to build bridges between ourselves and Muslims. Often, they suggest that one starting point for doing this is to acknowledge that Mohammad was a prophet of the same God worshipped by Jews and Christians. We strongly disagree with these suggestions for one simple reason. There is only one rational response for someone who believes that Mohammad was a prophet of the Creator. That is to convert to Islam. To acknowledge Mohammad as a prophet is to deny any other belief system. This would be the action of a hypocrite, a fool or a liar. If we build a relationship on a lie, that relationship will be weak and futile. My advice is to build every relationship you have with a Muslim on the basis that you have a different belief about the deity of Allah and the prophethood of Mohammad. Our society should not condemn or harm individual Muslims who have done nothing wrong. In our own defense, however, we must either accept the destruction of our way of life or we must limit the free exercise and expansion of Islamists into our nation. We must prevent the unrestrained spread of the Islamic lies in our nation. We must limit the transfer of our resources into radical Islamic hands where they will be used in the jihad against our society and way of life. We must stop Islamists from enticing our children and youth into the cult of Islam. In short, we must speak out against Islam in the public forum. All of this must be done while respecting innocent individual Muslims – for after all, they are just as much victims of this evil ideology as we are.
People in leadership in our nations appear, in general, to be quite ignorant of the teachings of Mohammad and of Islam. They are told lies by so-called “moderate Muslims”. We do not suggest that there are no moderate Muslims. We think most Muslims just want to live-and-let-live. Many have done little studying about the roots of Islam so they, themselves, believe the lies. But they are still lies and we need to counter them. We can only do that by learning the truth about Islam. We should all learn the basics about Islam and we should all work to spread the knowledge – particularly in the political arena but also in the media and in our educational institutions.
Lawmakers must be elected who will change laws to enable and even mandate public education programs that are designed to reach all people in non-Islamic countries, including the Muslims residing here. These programs must convey the truth about Islam, especially with respect to how Islam teaches its followers to relate to non-Muslims. We must actively reach out to those Muslims who sincerely want to co-exist peacefully with non-Muslims, exposing to them the negative aspects of their ideology. To be clear, we are not advocating forced conversion to or even from any ideology. We are suggesting that, as a society, we should encourage Muslims to reject an evil ideology. Of course, we should also discourage non-Muslim people from adopting this ideology. We do this by exposing the truth about Islam.
Islamists and Islamic apologists have moved into influential positions in government and many civil administrative positions. Too often these people have made decisions and rulings that favor Islam and put adherents of other ideologies at a disadvantage. Laws must be enacted to ensure that holders of these positions make decisions and rulings that are consistent with the legitimate wishes of the government. Control mechanisms must be put into place to review decisions of administrators and to remove those who have made inappropriate decisions.
Positions of trust such as high rank in the government, in the judiciary or in the military should be denied to professing Muslims. Although we can almost hear the gasps of outrage being uttered by liberals and globalists, we ask you to consider this. We already do this sort of thing on a small scale. For example, recently the governing Liberal party of Canada refused to allow a sitting member of Parliament to assume the chair of a government committee on the status of women because she holds anti-abortion views. We believe a pro-life world view is greatly preferable to the pro-death cult of Islam. But we also believe in the principle that we should not be lead, governed or placed at the mercy of people who hold dangerous worldviews.
The educational system has been attacked vigorously by Islamists. It is now necessary to re-claim it for the protection of our society. Currently-used texts and materials must be examined to ensure that they are not biased toward Islam. Legally mandated curricula must be developed and implemented that tells the other side of the story about Islam. People must be taught about the murders, genocides, conquest, rapes, forced conversions and other atrocities carried out by Mohammad and his followers in the name of Allah. While it must be admitted that people of all faiths have carried out similar atrocities, there is no other major religion where these atrocities have been carried out by the founder of the ideology. Nor is there any other major religion that instructs its followers to continue to carry out similar atrocities. These facts must be revealed to the youth of our nation.
Non-Islamic countries must prohibit and halt immigration of professing Muslims. It is simply irrational for any non-Islamic nation to allow them entry because it can no longer be disputed that the ideology they profess (Islam) seeks to destroy the government and social order of the nation to which they intend to immigrate.
Governments must awaken to the reality that, because they advocate Islam, professing Muslims present a much greater risk to their nations than non-Muslims do. Legislators must face the hazard and take quick and decisive preventive action. It simply cannot be denied that most Islamic terrorists come from the ranks of professing Muslims. Neither can it be denied that a large percentage of professing Muslims support the actions of Islamic terrorists, even if they do not actually engage in those activities. Islam is undeniably evil, but governments must recognize the danger without forgetting that not all professing Muslims are evil.
Today, most nations in the world have many professing Muslims as home-grown or naturalized citizens. These people may or may not be evil. They may or may not support violence and terrorism. They may or may not be willing to live peacefully with people of other religions. They may or may not be fully aware of the evil actions that Mohammad initiated and sanctioned. They may or may not recognize the danger inherent in Islam.
Governments have both a right and a responsibility to discriminate appropriately between citizens that can presumably be relied upon to be loyal and supportive of the government and those that pose an active threat to the nation. Obviously, governments cannot dictate what people believe. It is simply impossible to know or control what a person believes. On the other hand, the professed ideology of all major Islamic sects requires that Islam must dominate all other religious, legal and political systems. Therefore, Islam must be considered an active threat in all non-Islamic nations. Governments already have the ability to legislate controls on what a person publicly professes. They also have the right and the responsibility to preclude people in high-risk categories from obtaining or keeping positions where they could present a risk to the interests of the government or to the safety of its citizens. Pro-Islamic programming in the media or at public meetings must be banned. Educational materials must have pro-Islamic content removed or countered with material condemning the Islamic teachings related to non-Muslims. By law, professing Muslims should be precluded from obtaining specified job positions and elected offices where their ideology could cause them to make inappropriate decisions or where their power could be exercised inappropriately.
It must be remembered that the Islamic principles like Takkiya make it acceptable for a devout Muslim to deceive others and lie about his/her true allegiance. Unfortunately, there is no acceptable and civilized defence against this sort of deception. Governments must recognize the fact that they can neither know nor control the minds and ideologies of the individual. On the other hand, governments have the right and responsibility to place restrictions upon the words and actions of people whose ideology advocates genocide or the destruction of the laws and society of the nation in which we live. Therefore, openly professing Muslims should be subject to regulations and laws restricting their ability to promote Islam or to attempt to proselytize.In short, our government must speak out against Islam and it must also protect those who speak out against Islam! The evil character of Mohammad must be recognized and publicized with the authorization, support and sanction of the government in every civilized nation. It must become illegal to honor Mohammad publicly or to promote the teachings of Mohammad.
- How Should Governments Respond To Islam?