ISLAM: A Totalitarian Political Theocracy

· Islam, Religion


(8852 words)
What is Islam? Islam has religious, social, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard (cloak) for all the other components.
Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called “religious (and political) rights.” 18.06.11;21.09.11
What Is Islam?
How Most Non-Muslims Perceive Islam and its Reality
Many People Do Not Appreciate that Islam is a Totalitarian Theocracy Determined to Spread Islam to the Whole World
Islamic Dissimulations: Taqiyya and Kitman
“Islam has religious, legal, political , economic and military (militant) components. The religious component is a beard (cloak) for all the other…
The Six Articles of Faith in Islam.
The Caliphate, Jihad and Sharia
In Islam the Kingdom of Heaven Must Extend to the Kingdom On Earth
The Book on Government (Kitab Al-Imara)Sahih Muslim,Bk.20
Can We Ban Islam? – Legal Guidelines for the Criminalization of Islam in the United States

What Is Islam?

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult; it is a complete ideological semi-religious and absolute totalitarian theocracy totally subjugated to Allah with the sole purpose of converting and dominating the world to the world of Dar al Islam (The House of Peace.) And Islam will use all the powers provided by Allah to achieve this ultimate aim.
Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard (cloak) for all the other components.
Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called “religious (and political) rights.”
When politically and culturally diverse societies agree to “the reasonable” Muslim demands for their “religious rights,” they also get the other components under the table. [1]

How Most Non-Muslims Perceive Islam and its Reality

(1) The Myth promulgated by Muslims that Islam is a religion like all other religions, and is a religion of “peace”  in order to deceive non-Muslims. This is the most common myth. Islam has been at war against infidels since Muhammad entered Medina, 622 AD as proven by historical records. Islam does not mean “peace” it means “total submission to Allah.” Islam is not a true religion, it is a totalitarian theocracy whose ultimate aim is to rule the world, Allah Willing (Inshallah!) [3] [4] [5]

(2) Another common myth is that Islam’s origins stem from Adam and Abraham like in Judaism and Christianity. This is another myth because Muhammad’s claim that his tribe, the Quraishi, were descendants of Ishmael, son of Abraham was a myth. Hence any similarities of Islamic history to Judaic or Christian history was plagiarised. Origins of Islamic ideology stem principally from the Quraish tribe’s ancient pagan culture with some concepts borrowed from the Judaic and Christian faiths. [6]

(3) Another common myth (believed by some gullible non-Muslims) is that Islam, like other religions (which it is not), can moderate and change if given the right incentives. This is a most dangerous and common myth believed by a large percentage of the non-Muslim people and their political leaders. (This hope has existed since the 7th century but has never happened and never will.) This is a myth, because the Qur’an is the “literal and immutable word of Allah”  and thus Islam’s ideology and principles cannot ever change. Otherwise to be able to override the Word of Allah will make a mockery of the Quran. [7]

Many People Do Not Appreciate that Islam is a Totalitarian Theocracy Determined to Spread Islam to the Whole World

For years, Europeans feared the “Yellow Peril” from the East with vivid memories of the Mongol warrior (racially Mongols are unrelated to the Chinese,) Genghis Khan, who swept into Europe so much so that the whole peoples of the East have been demonised ever since, and this fear has been transposed on to China today. Then when Nazism was determined to conquer Europe, the world plunged itself into a world war, the West fought tooth and nail to defeat Nazism. This was followed by the fear of Communism and their threat of wanting to spread their ideology throughout the world. This was resisted with every economic, military and psychological energy till it was defeated. But to this day this same fear has not arisen with the threat of Militant Political Islamic Totalitarianism, because Islam is seen by many as a benign religion like the other Abrahamic faiths and thus it is a part of our world social order. Therein lies the danger to Western civilisation – ignorance.

To illustrate the complacency most people view Islam, let me mention some luminaries who have expressed views or made policies that have included Islam as an equal religion to Christianity in their perceptions.


These people have inclusive  attitudes towards Islam :

(1) Franklin Delano Roosevelt, through the Atlantic Charter (August, 1941) destroyed “European Colonialism” that kick-started the  Islam renaissance. He believed in “Freedom from Oppression for All.” (But did not visualise that Islam could turn out to be an oppressor.)
(2) Charles de Gaulle (After WWII) and Jacques Chirac wooed and collaborated with Muslim Africa to regain French world prominence in world affairs. This was adopted by the European Union in their policies of cooperation and thus started the Eurabia movement in Europe.
(3) Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, supported Islam by supporting Sharia in Britain and to date there are now 85 legitimate, recognised Sharia courts in Britain.
(4) Prince Charles, who opened the Finsbury Park Mosque, in London, and wants to be “Defender of (ALL)Faiths” which includes Islam. He has been badly misguided and misinformed.
(5) Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron,  and others, have all been apologists for Islam, and have support Islamic immigration to Britain and support the admission of Islamic Turkey into the EU. America has always supported Turkey in the EU.
(6) Manmohan Singh’s, prime minister of India, judgement is in doubt, who declared:
“Muslims must have first claim on (our) resources”
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said plans for minorities, particularly Muslims, must have the ˜first claim” on resources so that benefits of development reach them equitably.
Reaction:”Muslims must have first claim on resources declares M.M. Singh, the Prime Minister of Hindu mejority India. why?. Is India a free basket for all who complain. Muslims put their religion above India, so that any muslim can refuse to serve for India in the three forces in case a war breaks out with Pakistan. Still Singh wants to give preference to Muslims.”
(7) Barack Hussein Obama’s sentiments are definitely in sympathy with downtrodden Muslims as he patronises Muslim leaders like the King of Saudi Arabia and others.
(8) Canadian Government has openly accepted Muslim immigrants without any restrictions.
(9) Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister, Singapore, appears to play an appeasing tune to Muslims.


The following luminaries appear to understand Islam better and are (or had) resisted Islam’s charms:

(1) Winston Churchill from his book, “The River War”
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism (sic) deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems (sic)may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science – the science against which it had vainly struggled – the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient” Rome.

(2) ***Angela Merkel and Nicola Sarkozy from their own experiences are “dead against the admission of Turkey into the EU. Sarkozy has passed a law banning the Burka in France.
(*** Correction: Update: Angela Merkel’s recent policies on Islamic Refugees into Europe proves that Merkel is totally ignorant of the Islamic Totalitarian Supremacist political agenda.)
(3) George W. Bush showed every sign that he could not tolerate Islam in his fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.
(4) Michael Nasir Ali,  Anglican Bishop has been an open critic of Islam but has since been silenced and sidelined for his views. He, originating from India, understands Islam well.
(5) Lee Kuan Yew, ex-Prime Minister of Singapore, has openly said that Islam must learn to integrate. He realises that Islam cannot integrate.
(6) Australia’s Prime Minister’s, have showed little tolerance for Islam.  They have declared to all immigrants, “Accept the Australian culture or leave.”
(7) China claims to accept all minorities, but will not tolerate an uprising against the government.
(8) Russia with her troublesome experiences with Chechen Muslims within are wary of Muslims.

Why do these two schools of thought exist side by side?  Both cannot be right. Sure it must be due to the lack of knowledge of Islam i.e., ignorance of Islam. So we will now examine Islam with its religious and political agendas which is quite unique among religions.

Islamic Dissimulations: Taqiyya and Kitman

Islam has always presented the acceptable/benign side of Islam to the world, telling all peoples that Islam means Peace, but that is dissimulation because Islam in Arabic means “submission.” By portraying Islam as a religion of Peace is Taqiyya, a form of deceit because in reality Islam has a long history of wars and conflicts with everyone around them for centuries. But many Westerners desperately  want  to believe that Islam is a religion of peace and can be compatible with others faiths and cultures and so deceive themselves into accepting this myth. In order to appease Muslims, many Westerners will practice positive discrimination and overlook anything that shows Islam as an aggressive supremacist ideology. Let us see what Islamic literature does say about Islamic totalitarianism most of which will be unknown to the apologists of Islam.

From the attitudes expressed by world leaders above it is clear that most of them do not understand that Islam is “not a simple (Abrahamic) religion like other religions,”  because Islam is a “complete autocratic supremacist cultural theocratic political ideology.” Non of the politicians of the first group would ever considers Islam as such but the Islamic ideology will prove different.

“Islam has religious, legal, political , economic and military (militant) components. The religious component is a beard (cloak) for all the other components.” [1]
Most westerners, including most of our leading politicians  consider Islam only as a religious entity, and they do not look beyond that. The fact that Islam’s driving force and stimulus for hatred of the west comes from the “political, and military(militant) components of Islam” is almost always overlooked and brushed aside as Islamophobia. This ignorance and lack of perception of political and militant aspect of Islam has existed over generations but has been consciously or subconsciously “denied,” swept under the carpet. This paper will attempt to discuss whether Islamophobia is a weapon used to silence the truth by tarring those who speak the truth?

Let us examine some aspects of Islam.

“There is no God but Allah and Muhammad (pbuh) is His Messenger.”
Alongside the Shahadah are the Six articles of faith:
The Six Articles of Faith in Islam.
These are (1) belief in unity of one God, Allah, (2) belief in Angels of God(Allah),(3) belief in Scriptures of God(Allah),(4) belief in all the Prophets of God (Allah), (5) belief in a general Resurrection and (6) the total submission to the will of the Creator(Allah) and acceptance of fate – be it good or bad.
No one can be a Muslim who does not swear the Shahadah, accept the 5 Pillars of Islam and accept all the 6 articles of Faith.
This innocent declaration of faith clearly separates (excludes) Islam from all other religions. The total submission to the Will of the Creator, Allah, and the acceptance of his ideologies seals this divide. It clearly defines the “Us and Them.” All devotees of Islam have therefore sworn partisanship of Muslims verses infidels. But although all religions are partisan one way or another, except that Islam’s political and militant supremacist components threatens all others as we will  illustrate.

When Muhammad died in 632 AD, he left a “political organization” that was entirely centred around him. He was “a political, military and cult leader” and he was the source of Islamic revelation and innovation (abrogation.) When political or social difficulties came up, not only would Muslims depend upon Muhammad’s wisdom, but sometimes through revelations, while he swooned, he would receive new guidance from Allah himself, from time to time, thus needing to upgrade (abrogate) older visions of Allah’s proclamations.  Muhammad was so egocentric that he never considered  grooming anyone to succeed him in the event of his death. So when Muhammad died there was no apparent heir to carry on his mission. Finally, Muhammad’s father-in-law, Abu Bakr, was named the khalifa or “Successor” to Muhammad. A new religion, Islam under new circumstance was formed, the concept of the Islamic Caliphate.

The Caliphate is a political system derived from the ideology of Islam that enshrines: the rule of law, representative government, accountability by the people through an independent judiciary and the principle of representative consultation. It is government built upon a concept of (faith) citizenship regardless of ethnicity, gender and is opposed to the oppression.

The highest executive post is the Khalifah who appoints ministers without portfolio to assist in ruling, and governors for the various regions. (This was Islamic patronage.) The legislative sources are the Quran, and sayings of the prophet Muhammad (Hadiths). While differences of interpretation of these sources can occur, as with any legislative sources, the particular interpretation adopted by the Khalifah must be justified before an independent judiciary, which has the power to remove him from his post should he flagrantly deviate from the boundaries of credible legal interpretation ( ijtihad). The Khalifah is appointed by the people, and hereditary rule by supposed divine right is forbidden. Consultation is one of the pillars of ruling and is best served by the establishment of representative councils composed of men and women from the religious sects and ethnic groupings within the state.

While this system differs from western liberal democracy in a number of ways, there are some superficial similarities. It must, however, be realised that though Muslims in Iraq sometimes use the term democracy, it is the Islamic concept of the rule of law, the right of the people to appoint their own leader and open accountable government that they aspire to. This has hitherto been denied them by the western backed quisling regimes that hitherto have taken away all their political rights. Egypt, for example, has just gone through elections to its consultative upper house of parliament with 80% of the seats going to the ruling party. The darker side of Egypt’s façade of democracy is commented upon by Mona Makram-Ebeid, a prominent Egyptian politician and human-rights activist “They [the government] always manage to get a hold of Islamist leaders and put them in jail, then release them when the elections are over”. Egypt’s president Mubarak has won a majority in each of the three elections held since his appointment twenty three years ago – what helped him was that nobody dared to stand against him.

The Middle East’s experience of democracy to date is a deceptive formality of elections, which serve only to rubber stamp dictatorial rule. Failure to realise this will lead to frustration, later, when the Muslims of Iraq appear ungrateful to the west for removing Saddam Hussain and offering in his place western style liberal secular democracy.


The arbitrary rule by the whim of self-appointed presidents and kings that has plagued Iraq and the whole Middle East is anathema to the principle of the rule of law within Islam’s political system. The application of the law is in the hands of an independent judiciary that has a special section called the ‘court of unjust acts’ whose task is to investigate impropriety on the part of members of the executive against the people. As for individual wrongdoing – the khalifah is subject to the same laws and penalties as the rest of the people because the khalifah is not considered a sovereign over his subjects. [8]

The following excerpt from the Qur’an, known as the ‘Istikhlaf Verse’, is used by some to argue for a Quranic basis for Caliphate:
God has promised those of you who have attained faith and do righteous deeds that, of a certainty, He will make them Khulifa on earth, even as He caused [some of] those who lived before them to become Khulifa; and that, of a certainty, He will firmly establish for them the religion which He has been pleased to bestow on them; and that, of a certainty, He will cause their erstwhile state of fear to be replaced by a sense of security [seeing that] they worship Me [alone], not ascribing divine powers to aught beside Me. But all who, after [having understood] this, choose to deny the truth – it is they, they who are truly iniquitous!” [24:55] (Surah Al-Nur, Verse 55)
In the above verse the word Khulifa (the plural of Khalifa) has been variously translated as “successors” and “ones who accede to power”.

Small subsections of Sunni
Islamists argue that to govern a state by Islamic law (Sharia) is, by definition, to rule via the Caliphate, and us the following verses to sustain their claim:
“So govern between the people by that which Allah has revealed (Islam), and follow not their vain desires, beware of them in case they seduce you from just some part of that which Allah has revealed to you. (Quran 4:49)

O you who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and then those among you who are in authority; and if you have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to Allah and the messenger’s rulings, if you are (in truth) believers in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and more seemly in the end. (Quran 4:59)
It is abundantly clear that the Caliph, and the Caliphate is ruled by “the Laws of Allah” through the interpretations of the Qur’an, the Hadiths, and the Sharia Laws. “A Caliphate, within a Dar al Islam, is the most ideal and preferred form of Islamic government that will conform to all the tenets of Islam.” Such a Caliphate is the ultimate aim of all dedicated, pious, orthodox Muslims as evidenced in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, and most Islamic countries across the world. This is what the Muslims are fighting for, but let us examine some of the Laws of Allah that will be incorporated that may be in conflict with western idealisms.

The fact that the concept of an Islamic Caliphate sought after by Muslims the world over is in fact a THEOLOGICAL POLITICAL TOTALITARIAN MOVEMENT TO RULE THE WORLD FOR ALLAH. TO CREATE A “DAR AL ISLAM” A LAND OF PEACE OUT OF A LAND OF CHAOS (WAR: Dar al Harb.)

FEBRUARY 26, 2011 4:00 A.M.
The OIC and the Caliphate by ANDREW C. McCARTHY
The Islamic agenda is not coexistence, but dominion.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is the closest thing in the modern world to a caliphate. It is composed of 57 members (56 sovereign states and the Palestinian Authority), joining voices and political heft to pursue the unitary interests of the ummah, the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims. Not surprisingly, the OIC works cooperatively with the Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s most extensive and important Islamist organization, and one that sees itself as the vanguard of a vast, grass-roots movement — what the Brotherhood itself calls a “civilizational” movement.
Muslims are taught to think of themselves as a community, a single Muslim Nation. “I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke,” Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini famously said of his own country in 1980, even as he consolidated his power there, even as he made Iran the point of his revolutionary spear. “We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah.”“ Muslims were not interested in maintaining the Westphalian system of nation states. According to Khomeini, who was then regarded by East and West as Islam’s most consequential voice, any country, including his own, could be sacrificed in service of the doctrinal imperative that “Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.”
Because of that doctrinal imperative, the caliphate retains its powerful allure for believers. Nevertheless, though Islamists are on the march, it has somehow become fashionable to denigrate the notion that the global Islamic caliphate endures as a mainstream Islamic goal.
The caliphate is an institution of imperial Islamic rule under Sharia, Muslim law. Not ontent with empire, Islam anticipates global hegemony. Indeed, mainstream Islamic ideology declares that such hegemony is inevitable, holding to that belief every bit as sincerely as the End of History crowd holds to its conviction that its values are everyone’s values (and the Muslims are only slightly less willing to brook dissent). For Muslims, the failure of Allah’s creation to submit to the system H3 has prescribed is a blasphemy that cannot stand.
“Individual Muslims,” Churchill wrote at the turn of the century, demonstrated many “splendid qualities.” That, however, did not mean Islam was splendid or that its principles were consonant with Western principles. To the contrary, Churchill opined, “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.” Boxed in by rigid Sharia, Islam could only “paralyse the social development of those who follow it.” Reason had evolved the West, but Islam had revoked reason’s license in the tenth century, closing its “Gates of Ijtiha” —its short-lived tradition of introspection. Yet, Sharia’s rigidity did not render Islam “moribund.” Churchill recognized the power of the caliphate, of the hegemonic vision. “Mohammedanism.” he concluded, remained “a militant and proselytising faith.”
As I recounted in The Grand Jihad, Churchill’s views were not eccentric. A modern scholar of Islam, Andrew Bostom, recalls the insights of C. Snouck Hurgronje, among the world’s leading scholars of Islam during World War I. In 1916, even in the dark hours of Ottoman defeat, he marvelled at the grip the concept of Islamic hegemony continued to hold on the Muslim masses:

It would by a gross mistake to imagine that the idea of universal conquest may be considered as obliterated….The canonists and the vulgar still live in the illusion of the days of Islam’s greatness. The Legists (law experts) continue to ground their appreciation of every actual political condition on the law of the holy war, and which war ought never be allow to cease entirely until all mankind is reduced to the authority of Islam — the heathen by conversion, the adherents of acknowledged Scripture (i.e., Jews and Christians] by submission. I

Muslims, of course, understood the implausibility of achieving such dominance in the near term. Still, Hurgronje elaborated, the faithful were “comforted and encouraged by the recollection of the lengthy period of humiliation that the Prophet himself had to suffer before Allah bestowed victory upon his arms.” So even as the caliphate lay in ruins, the conviction that it would rise again remained a “fascinating influence” and “a central point of union against the unfaithful.”

They are quite right about that. The Cairo Declaration boasts that Allah has made the Islamic ummah “the best community …. which gave humanity a universal and well-balanced civilization.” It is the “historic role” of the ummah to “civilize” the rest of the world — not the other  way around.
The Declaration makes abundantly clear that this civilization is to be attained by adherence to Sharia. “All rights and freedoms” recognized by Islam “are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah,” which “is the only source of reference for [their] explanation or clarification.” Though men and women are said by the Declaration to be equal in “human dignity,” Sharia elucidates their very different rights and obligations — their basic inequality. Sharia expressly controls freedom of movement and claims of asylum. The Declaration further states that “there shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in Shari’ah” — a blatant reaffirmation of penalties deemed cruel and unusual in the West. And the right to free expression is permitted only insofar as it “would not be contrary to the principles of Shari’ah” — meaning that Islam may not be critically examined, nor will the ummah abide any dissemination of “information” that would “violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical Values, or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society, or weaken its faith.”
Americans were once proud to declare that their unalienable rights came from their Creator, the God of Judeo-Christian scripture. Today we sometimes seem embarrassed by this fundamental conceit of our founding. We prefer to trace our conceptions of liberty, equality, free will, freedom of conscience, due process, privacy, and proportional punishment to a humanist tradition, haughty enough to believe we can transcend the transcendent and arrive at a common humanity. But regardless of which source the West claims, the ummah rejects it and claims its own very different principles — including, to this day, the principle that it is the destiny of Islam not to coexist but to dominate.

We won’t have an effective strategy for dealing with the ummah, and for securing ourselves from its excesses, until we commit to understanding what it is rather than imagining what it could be.

—  Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, is the author, most recently, of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America. [8]
The Caliphate, Jihad and Sharia
as the West begins to understand the unique nature of its enemy—caliphate, jihad, and sharia all pose a perpetual, transcendent threat—it must also understand that a unique response is required. The clean, hygienic way the West likes to deal with socio-political conflicts will simply not do this time, especially in the long run.

Consider the caliphate: its very existence would usher in a state of constant hostility. Both historically and doctrinally, the caliphate’s function is to wage Jihad, whenever and wherever possible, to bring the infidel world under Islamic dominion and enforce Sharia.. In fact, most of what is today called the “Muslim world”—from Morocco to Pakistan—was conquered, bit by bit, by a caliphate that began in Arabia in 632.

A jihad-waging, sharia-enforcing caliphate represents a permanent, existentialist enemy—not a temporal foe that can be bought or pacified through diplomacy or concessions. Such a caliphate is precisely what Islamists around the world are feverishly seeking to establish. Without active, pre-emptive measures, it is only a matter of time before they succeed.

In this context, what, exactly, is the Western world prepared to do about it—now, before the caliphate becomes a reality? Would it be willing to launch a pre-emptive offensive—politically, legally, educationally, and, if necessary, militarily—to prevent its resurrection? Could the West ever go on the offensive, openly and confidently—now, when it has the upper-hand—to incapacitate its enemies?

One may argue in the affirmative, pointing to the pre-emptive Iraq war. Yet there are subtle and important differences. The rationale behind the Iraq war was physical and practical: it was limited to the elimination of suspected WMDs and against a specific government, Iraq’s Saddam regime. War to prevent the creation of a caliphate, on the other hand, is metaphysical and impractical: it is not limited to eliminating material weapons, nor confined to one government or person.

The fact is, the West does not have the political paradigms or language to justify an offensive against an ideological foe in religious garb. After all, the same international culture that saw to it that an autocrat like Egypt’s Mubarak stepped down—simply because he was handicapped from responding to the protestors in the name of human rights—certainly cannot approve a preemptive offensive by the West articulated in terms of a “religious” threat.

What if an important nation like Egypt does go Islamist, a big domino in the quest of a caliphate? It is a distinct possibility. Can we also say that it is distinct possibility that the West would do everything in its power to prevent this from happening? Of course not: all the Muslim Brotherhood has to do is continue pretending to be “moderate”—recently by removing its by-laws from the Web, as shown by Steven Emerson, including its intention of creating an “Islamic state” presaging the caliphate. [9]


the jihadi terrorists have a patently self-evident ambition: to establish a world dominated by Muslims, Islam, and Islamic law, the Shari’a. Or, again to cite the Daily Telegraph, their “real project is the extension of the Islamic territory across the globe, and the establishment of a worldwide ‘caliphate’ founded on Shari’a law.”
Terrorists openly declare this goal. The Islamists who assassinated Anwar el-Sadat in 1981 decorated their holding cages with banners proclaiming the “caliphate or death.” A biography of one of the most influential Islamist thinkers of recent times and an influence on Osama bin Laden, Abdullay Azzam declares that his life “revolved around a single goal, namely the establishment of Allah’s Rule on earth” and restoring the caliphate.
Bin Laden himself spoke of ensuring that “the pious caliphate will start from Afghanistan.” His chief deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, also dreamed of re-establishing the caliphate, for then, he wrote, “history would make a new turn, God willing, in the opposite direction against the empire of the United States and the world’s Jewish government.” Another Al-Qaeda leader, Fazlur Rehman Khaliul, publishes a magazine that has declared “Due to the blessings of jihad, America’s countdown has begun. It will declare defeat soon,” to be followed by the creation of a caliphate.
Or, as Mohammed Bouyeri wrote in the note he attached to the corpse of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch film maker he had just assassinated, “Islam will be victorious through the blood of martyrs who spread its light in every dark corner of this earth.”
Interestingly, van Gogh’s murderer was frustrated by the mistaken motives attributed to him, insisting at his trial: “I did what I did purely out of my beliefs. I want you to know that I acted out of conviction and not that I took his life because he was Dutch or because I was Moroccan and felt insulted.”
Although terrorists state their Jihadi motives loudly and clearly, Westerners and Muslims alike too often fail to hear them. Islamic organizations, Canadian author Irshad Manji observes, pretend that “Islam is an innocent bystander in today’s terrorism.”
What the terrorists want is abundantly clear. It requires monumental denial not to acknowledge it,[10]

In Islam the Kingdom of Heaven Must Extend to the Kingdom On Earth

Sahih Muslim Book 20 leaves no doubt of the importance for the ABSOLUTE SUBMISSION OF ALL PEOPLE, INCLUDING RULERS/CALIPHS TO THE WILL AND LAWS OF ALLAH (SHARIA.) Thus “The Totalitarian Theocracy with Allah as its Head.” This Islamic concept differs from that of the Western concept (Catholicism) where the Pope (a human) heads the Roman Catholic Theocracy. Hence the importance in highlighting the differences  here.

The Book on Government (Kitab Al-Imara)Sahih Muslim,Bk.20

Islam says that the creation of the Kingdom of Heaven within (the) heart is not enough; this Kingdom of Heaven within must be externalised into a Kingdom of Heaven on earth, so that  the organised life of man  may be built up on the basis of love, fraternity and justice. (Sharia) The Islamic State is not an end in itself, but a means to an end, the end being the development of a community of people who stand up for equity and justice, for right against wrong or to phrase it differently, for the creation of such conditions as would enable the greatest possible number of human beings to live spiritually, morally and physically in accordance with the teachings of Islam (ideally under a caliphate exercising the Laws of Allah (Sharia.)
The Islamic State, or Caliphate, an absolute Theocracy, must enforce “The Laws of Allah, (Sharia)” within its territorial jurisdiction as commanded by Allah.
The de jure sovereignty of an Islamic State belongs to ALLAH. Allah’s de facto sovereignty is inherent and manifest in the working of the entire universe and Allah also has exclusive sovereign prerogative over all creation.
Quran 12:40 The command is for none but Allah: He has commanded that ye obey none but Him: that is the right path.
Quran 7:3 Follow the revelation sent unto you for your Lord (Allah,) and do not follow the (so-called) guardians other than Him (Allah.)
An Islamic State is Theocratic because it is clearly established solely on the basis of Allah’s sovereignty and his Laws and cannot introduce or enforce any law that contravenes the Quran, the Sunnah, or the Sharia Laws.
Quran 5:44 And those who do not make their decisions in accordance with that revealed by Allah are (in fact) the “deniers of Truth.” [11]
So in order  to illustrate the contents of Sahih Muslim Bk 20  the following link is provided due to the length of the Hadith Sahih Muslim, Book 20: [11]


Mawlana Sayid Abul Ala Mawdudi, an Islamic scholar wrote:

“Islam is not a normal religion like other religions in the world, and Muslim nations are not like normal nations.
Muslim nations are very special because they have a command from Allah to rule the entire world and to
dominate every nation in the world.”

“Islam is a revolutionary faith that has come to destroy any government made by man. Islam does not look for a nation to be in a better condition than another nation. Islam does not care about the land or who owns the land.
The goal of Islam is to rule the entire world and to submit all of mankind to the faith of Islam. Any nation or power that gets in the way of that goal, Islam will fight and destroy. In order to fulfil that goal, Islam can use every power available any way it can be used to bring world wide revolution. This is Jihad.” [12]

This is a view most Westerners cannot imagine can be real and have been in denial about it. But the ideology of Islam is clearly a totalitarian fascist domination of the world is without any doubt.


I will quote an article here in full for contemplation:

Can We Ban Islam? – Legal Guidelines for the Criminalization of Islam in the United States
Posted on February 22, 2011 by notalemming1

2 Votes

By Daniel Greenfield  Monday, May4, 2009
Geert Wilders’ recent call at a Palm Beach synagogue to ban Islam has stirred up all sorts of controversy, with more “moderate” blogs speaking out in opposition to it. So let’s take a closer look at the issue of banning Islam.
Banning Islam is more difficult in the United States than in Europe, because of the First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
On the surface of it this is a fairly straightforward formulation barring the legislative branch from taking any action to create a state religion or barring the practice of any religion.
The founders were English citizens and well aware of the way in which religion could stoke political violence. In the late 18th century, Cromwell was not ancient history, neither were the Covenanters or the Gunpowder Plot. While they did not anticipate the rise of an Islamic insurgency in America, they understood quite well that religion and violence could and would intersect.
That of course was one of the reasons for barring a State Church, to avoid giving the government control over religion, a situation that had resulted in much of the religious violence in England. By giving religion independence, but not political power, the First Amendment sought to avoid a repeat of the same ugliness that had marked centuries of wars in Europe.
That of course is a key point. The separation of church and state was meant to protect the integrity of both, and avoid power struggles between religious groups. There was to be no state religion, the government could not leverage religious authority and religious factions could not begin civil wars in a struggle to gain power or autonomy. For the most part it worked.
Until now the only real acid test for this approach involved the Mormon Church, an ugly history on both sides that has mostly been buried under the weight of time. More recently Scientology flared up as a cult turned church that demanded its own autonomy and did its best to make war on the government and its critics.
And then there is Islam. The first problem with using the First Amendment in defence of Islam—is that its goal is to violate the First Amendment. Islam’s widely stated goal is to become a State Religion, around the world and in America as well.
Sharia has been making steady advances in Africa and parts of Asia. Majorities of Muslims in the UK have said that they want Sharia law, and leading British figures such as the Archbishop of Canterbury have supported the introduction of Islamic law into the British legal system. Domestic advocates for Sharia, such as Noah Feldman, are pushing for the normalization of Sharia law in the United States as well.
This would in effect turn Islam into an Established Religion in the United States, itself a violation of the First Amendment.
Furthermore Islam abridges the remaining portions of the First Amendment, which protect Freedom of Speech and the Press. Islam rejects both of these. To protect Islamic rights therefore means depriving non-Muslims of freedom of religion—- and both Muslims and non-Muslims of freedom of speech and the press.
These are not hypothetical scenarios, the Mohammed cartoon controversy has demonstrated exactly how this will work. So did the persecution of Salman Rushdie. To accept Islam is to reject freedom of speech and religion… in the same way that accepting Communism meant rejecting freedom of speech and religion. Islam and the Constitution of the United States are incompatible in the same way that Communism and the Constitution are incompatible.
The Founders sought to protect religious freedoms, at no point in time did they seek to protect religious terrorism. And Supreme Courts throughout American history have found that the First Amendment does not provide license for significant lawbreaking. That is why polygamy is not legal in the United States.
Having to choose between religious freedom and the rights and dignity of women and children—America correctly chose the latter.
In 1785, James Madison, Father of the Constitution, wrote, “We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth that religion or the duty which we owe our Creator and the manner of discharging it can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.”
Yet Islamic history and recent events in Eurabia demonstrate that Islam does indeed spread by force and violence. Upholding the right of Islam to force its statues and views on Americans, violates Madison’s fundamental and undeniable truth.
In 1802, Jefferson wrote his explanation for the First Amendment to the Danbury Baptist Association;
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, and that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that the legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
There is a key phrase in this statement, which is that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions. This statement was used as a legal principle by the Supreme Court in 1878 in the case of Reynolds vs the United States. Reynolds had been charged with bigamy and claimed that his faith required him to engage in polygamy.
The Court found that while Reynolds had the right to believe that polygamy was his duty, he did not have the right to practice it—thus upholding Jefferson’s distinction between action and belief.
As the court put it;
In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control. This being so, the only question which remains is, whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law
Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?
So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? [98 U.S. 145, 167]  To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.
The outcome then was that we could not have a situation in which crimes could be committed in the name of religion and protected by the First Amendment. Belief could not be criminalized, but practice could be.
But what does that actually mean and how exactly do we distinguish between action and practice? Does it merely mean that it is legal to believe in seizing America in the name of Islam, but not to practice it.
We can begin by pointing out that any number of Islamic practices which violate American law or promote an unhealthy social consequence can be banned, for much the same reason that polygamy was. In Reynolds vs the United States, the Court upheld the right of the Utah legislature to brand the spread of polygamy as a threat to innocent women and children, that had to be arrested through strong measures. The spread of Islam’s practices can be seen in the same way.
France has treated the Hijab in a similar way. The United States can too, if it finds any abuse or violence associated with its enforcement or use. Honour killings over the Hijab demonstrate that this is the case. State Legislatures can then move to ban the Hijab.
Thus while we cannot charge someone with believing in Islam, we can stamp out many Islamic practices that are dangerous or abusive. The First Amendment does not protect religious practices that are illegal or made illegal, it protects only the beliefs themselves.
And we can go much further at an organizational level, based on the Sedition Act of 1918 and the 1954 Communist Control Act , which give us some guidelines for cracking down on Islam.
Sec. 2. The Congress hereby finds and declares that the Communist Party of the United States, although purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the Government of the United States. It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship within a republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges accorded to political parties, but denying to all others the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Unlike political parties, which evolve their policies and programs through public means, by the reconciliation of a wide variety of individual views, and submit those policies and programs to the electorate at large for approval or disapproval, the policies and programs of the Communist Party are secretly prescribed for it by the foreign leaders of the world Communist movement. Its members have no part in determining its goals, and are not permitted to voice dissent to party objectives
This applies to Islam just as much as it applies to Communism. And this preamble was part of a passage demonstrating the fundamental distinction between Communism and legitimate political parties.
The assumption of the Communist Control Act was that the First Amendment did not apply to the Communist party or to Communist controlled parties… because they did not fit the democratic template of the First Amendment. As such the Communist party was not a legitimate party, but an overseas directed conspiracy to overthrow the United States and replace it with a Communist system.
Not only can this same argument also apply to Islamic organizations such as CAIR, but Islam can be distinguished from other religions on similar grounds. The following phrase from the original document represents the key point here;
It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship within a republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges accorded to political parties, but denying to all others the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.
And that is the core of the problem. While we cannot criminalize individual beliefs alone, we can criminalize organizations dedicated to overthrowing the United States and replacing it with a totalitarian system. An organization is not merely “belief”, it also represents an attempt to put those beliefs into practice.
The Internal Security Act of 1950, along with the 1954 Communist Control Act provides extensive legal grounds for criminalizing organizations dedicated to the overthrow of the United States, as well as membership in such organizations—and even provides for the removal of citizenship from members of such organizations.
While succeeding courts have thrown out many portions of these laws, had the United States truly gotten serious about the War on Terror, it could have passed a real Patriot Act that would have clamped down on Islamist organizations in a similar way.
The bill could have easily retrofitted some of the language of the Communist Control Act as follows;
Sec. 3. Islamic organizations, regardless of their assumed name, whose object or purpose is to overthrow the Government of the United States, or the government of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein by force and violence, are not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof; and whatever rights, privileges, and immunities which have heretofore been granted to said party or any subsidiary organization by reason of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, are hereby terminated:
Sec. 4. Whoever knowingly and wilfully becomes or remains a member of such organizations, or (2) any other organization having for one of its purposes or objectives the establishment, control conduct, seizure, or overthrow of the Government of the United States, or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof, by the use of force or violence, with knowledge of the purpose or objective of such organization shall be subject to all the provisions and penalties of the Internal Security Act of 1950
The question then becomes one of defining what exactly an Islamist organization is. If we define Islamist under the same guidelines as Communist, but specifically modified as representing a belief in the overthrow or takeover of the United States or any part of it, thereby placing the United States under Islamic law… we already have a very broad net to work with.
Or to simply quote the Internal Security Act again
Sec. 4. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to combine, conspire, or agree, with any other person to perform any act which would substantially contribute to the establishment within the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship
Since Islam represents a totalitarian dictatorship, any organization or individual seeking to establish Islamic Law or Sharia within the United States, can be held liable and charged over its violation. This would apply to both Muslims and non-Muslims.
And the Koran or Quran itself represents a volume whose contents implicitly call for the violent overthrow of the United States.
Consider Chapter 9 of the Koran, which governs the interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims. Particularly Sura 9:29
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
There are numerous other verses in the Koran which similarly call for Muslims to subjugate non-Muslims and take power. This parallels the charge against the Communist party and places Muslims who believe in the Koran on the same level as Communists who believed in the overthrow of the United States.
Participation in any Muslim organization therefore becomes the equivalent of participating in a Communist organization—and can be banned.
So back to the original question, can we ban Islam? While we cannot ban an individual from personally believing in Islam, we can ban Islamic practices and organizations—which would effectively ban any practice of Islam in an organized way.
While the First Amendment does not permit a ban on any specific religion, this is limited to religious belief, not religious practice. And the laws enacted against Communism in the 1950’s demonstrate that organizations aimed at the overthrow of the United States can be banned and membership in them can even be criminalized.
Thus we can ban Islam from the public sphere, ban Muslim organizations as criminal organizations, criminalize Muslim practices and even denationalize  and deport Muslims who are United States citizens. The legal infrastructure is there. Despite the fact that the United States is far more protective of political and religious rights, within a decade every single Muslim organization, from the national to the mosque level, can be shut down… and the majority of professing Muslims can be deported from the United States regardless of whether they are citizens or not.
We can do it. Whether we could or will do it is another matter. It would require rolling back a number of Supreme Court decisions that are a legacy of the corrupted Warren Court. But it was possible post 9/11. It may yet become possible again. [13]
Unless the Islamic world can somehow reform itself, which is doubtful seeing that there has been no deviation in its path in the last 1400 years, there will result in a ultimate clash of civilisations and a final Religious war. Either the totalitarian fascist Islamic ideology is defeated or the West succumbs and accepts the status of a dhimmi, which I cannot see the West ever capitulating to. The physical battle/war will be so colossal and final that no one today can even envisage. It could even result in the destruction of mankind. [14]

Random Comments:

(1) One Blogger likes this page. < >

(2) Reality Porn Kings

February 3, 2012

I’ve been exploring for a little bit for any high quality articles or blog posts on this sort of house . Exploring in Yahoo I eventually stumbled upon this web site. Studying this information So i’m glad to exhibit that I have a very excellent uncanny feeling I came upon exactly what I needed. I such a lot for sure will make certain to do not disregard this web site and provides it a glance on a relentless basis.

[1] Demographic Demands By Muslims:

[3] Islam Means Submit to Allah not Peace:
[4] Pre- and Post- Medina, Muhammad changes:
[5] Jihad:
[6] Ishmael was not the father of Quraish:
[7] The Caliphate:
[8] The OIC and the Caliphate:
[9] Caliphate, Jihad and Sharia:
[10] What Do Jihadists Want?
[11] Sahih Muslim Bk20:Government:
[12] Totalitarian Jihad:
[13] Banning Islam?:
[14] Will Islam Dominate or Will the West fight?
Islamic Racism:!.thtml


Comments RSS
  1. ellex0

    Thank you! I try to join up the dots to form a clear picture of the true circumstances.

  2. Reality Porn Kings

    I’ve been exploring for a little bit for any high quality articles or blog posts on this sort of house . Exploring in Yahoo I eventually stumbled upon this web site. Studying this information So i’m glad to exhibit that I have a very excellent uncanny feeling I came upon exactly what I needed. I such a lot for sure will make certain to do not disregard this web site and provides it a glance on a relentless basis.

  3. ellex0

    Reality Kings, I am glad you have found this useful.

  4. continue reading

    Good article! We are linking to this great post on our site.
    Keep up the good writing.

    • mbplee

      kasha_barry, I am so glad you have found this site to your liking. I have spent many hours putting it together as a source of a certain type of imformation that may be deemed controversial elsewhere. Not everyone will agree with my findings, but then we can never please everyone.

  5. Felecia Ambrosio-cardone


    • mbplee

      Felecia Ambrosia-cardone, I am pleased that my article, “Islam: A Totalitarian Political Theocracy” has created an impression on you as it was meant to. Today so many people are bowing to ‘political correctness’ so much so that the truth is so clouded with mysticism that people lose perspective. I wanted to bring back a proper perspective.

    • mbplee

      Red Herring Alert: citations required for your red Herring accusation.

  6. It’s America, so? | Head Space linked to this post.
    • mbplee

      So? It is not really a religion but a fascist ideology cloaked in a veil of religion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: