Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Concerns about mosques causes a Muslim to call a candidate in Ohio a bigot.

A letter to the editor appeared in the Kentucky Enquirer today, where the writer called a Republican candidate for Ohio State Treasurer a bigot for displaying a picture of a mosque in his campaign ad. The candidate is Josh Mandel, who is a Jew, and the letter writer is a Muslim. The issue needs to be examined more thoroughly to be put into proper perspective.

The difference between a self-described Muslim American and an American Muslim is in the order of preference chosen by letter writer Salmaan Toor who called Josh Mandel a bigot for using images of mosques in his campaign ad. I don't know Josh Mandel and neither do I know Salmaan Toor but I do know about how scary Islam is. I know this because I have read the Qur'an. I know this because I have listened to the words of radical Islamic Clerics who quote verses from the Muslim holy book to incite the overthrow of our country. I have read the writings of former Muslim Ali Sina who made this most descriptive comparison in his article: Exposing the Myth of Moderate Islam.
Every “moderate” Muslim is a potential terrorist. The belief in Islam is like a tank of gasoline. It looks innocuous, until it meets the fire. For a “moderate” Muslim to become a murderous jihadist, all it takes is a spark of faith.
It is time to put an end to the charade of “moderate Islam.” There is no such thing as moderate Muslim. Muslims are either jihadists or dormant jihadists – moderate, they are not.
To understand this concern you need to look into  Islamic Sharia Law and the concepts behind the Arabic terms takfir and hakimiyyah and how Islam preaches there can be "no rule but Allah's" which means all secular governments must be replaced by Sharia. Keep in mind the word Islam means Submission then read the following quote from an Islamic web site Muslims Against Voting  that explains this concept:
True submission to Allah (swt) means that He (swt) has sovereignty over all of our affairs and that we willingly submit to Him (swt). Since He (swt) is the Sovereign and we are His (swt) humble slaves, this means that we must refer to His (swt) guidance in all that we do. The issue of drafting laws to repeal or replace what Allah (swt) has revealed in the Quran, and through the practice of the Prophet Muhammad (saw), is to actually worship that entity – be it a scholar, a government, or another individual or institution. Just as we are forbidden from worshipping idols, we are also forbidden from granting anyone besides Allah (swt) the right to rule. This affirms the idea that we recognize that we need guidance from Allah (swt). That is, guidance is not restricted to the ritual acts of worship but extends to every single action.
In an August 15, 2010 article in American Thinker, American Muslims Debate Loyalty to America written by Eileen F. Toplansky, the author says:
American Muslims are debating key questions of loyalty to America, a debate in which the stakes could not be higher. Alarmingly, "no fewer than four United States citizens and a permanent U.S. resident have risen to senior leadership posts within al-Qaeda," according to an Investors Business Daily editorial by Paul Sperry. Thus, "five English-speaking leaders are actively planning or facilitating attacks against their countrymen, while recruiting and radicalizing other American turncoats to carry them out."

The implications of this are frightening.  No longer is America at war with a foreign enemy. The enemy is here -- an enemy who understands how "America works, having lived here for decades." Thus, fellow Americans are recruited by the enemy. These traitors are "fed by a native Muslim population once believed [to be] ... nonthreatening." Is this an aberration, or does Islam condone and promote this disloyalty?
Most people are not familiar with the Arabic terms takfir and hakimiyyah. Here is a brief explanation of takfir from Wikipedia.
In Islamic law, takfir or takfeer (تكفير) refers to apostasy in Islam, or the practice of declaring oneself an unbeliever or kafir (pl. kuffār), previously considered Muslim. This declaration may be made if the alleged Muslim in question declares himself a kafir, but more typically applies to a judgement that an action or statement by the alleged Muslim indicates his knowing abandonment of Islam. The sentence for apostasy (irtidad), under Sharia law as traditionally interpreted, is execution, alternate amputation, or expulsion.

An example of takfir that has featured prominently in Western media is the case of Salman Rushdie, who was forced into hiding after Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa officially declaring him to be a kafir who should be executed. Some contemporary cases in Egypt are also found, for example Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd was accused of apostasy following his work on Islamic sources, describing the Qur'an as a historical document.
The  Routledge Studies in Political Islam contains a book review that sheds light on the term Hakimiyyah.
Hakimiyyah refers to Sovereignty ( al-Hakimiyyah ). The Power of Sovereignty is a book written by Sayed Khatab explores the religio-political and philosophical concepts of Sayyid Qutb, one of the most influential political thinkers for contemporary Islamists and who has greatly influenced the likes of Osama Bin Laden. Executed by the Egyptian state in 1966, his books continue to be read and his theory of jahiliyya 'ignorance' is still of prime importance for radical Islamic groups. Shedding light on Islamic radicalism and its intellectual origins The Power of Sovereignty presents new analysis on the intellectual legacy of one of the most important thinkers of modern Islamic revival.
Wikipedia continues the explanation of the philosophical concepts of Sayyid Qutb:
Qutb had influence on Islamic insurgent/terror groups in Egypt and elsewhere. His influence on Al Qaeda was felt through his writing, his followers and especially through his brother, Muhammad Qutb, who moved to Saudi Arabia following his release from prison in Egypt and became a professor of Islamic Studies and edited, published and promoted his brother Sayyid's work

One of Muhammad Qutb's students and later an ardent follower was Ayman Zawahiri, who went on to become a member of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and later a mentor of Osama bin Laden and a leading member of al-Qaeda. Zawahiri was first introduced to Qutb by his uncle and maternal family patriarch, Mafouz Azzam, who was very close to Qutb throughout his life. Azzam was Qutb's student, then protégé, then personal lawyer and executor of his estate — one of the last people to see Qutb before his execution. According to Lawrence Wright, who interviewed Azzam, "young Ayman al-Zawahiri heard again and again from his beloved uncle Mahfouz about the purity of Qutb's character and the torment he had endured in prison." Zawahiri paid homage to Qutb in his work Knights under the Prophet's Banner.

Osama bin Laden was also acquainted with Sayyid's brother, Muhammad Qutb. A close college friend of bin Laden's, Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, told Wright, that bin Laden regularly attended weekly public lectures by Muhammad Qutb, at King Abdulaziz University, and that he and bin Laden both "read Sayyid Qutb. He was the one who most affected our generation."
Americans who voice concern about the threat of spreading Islam are not bigots. Neither is a person a racist who disagrees with the Marxist/Socialist policies of Barack Hussein Obama. They are people expressing their opinions and freedom of expression is a guaranteed right under the United States Constitution. The real problem is that under Sharia Law there is NO right to such a freedom.


  1. Sorry, he's not expressing his opinions, he's distorting the truth and lying. He's trying to use the anti-Islamic fervor in this country for political gain.

    From the ad that was referenced in the CINCINNATI Enquirer (not Kentucky Enquirer) he refers to Noure Alo by his full name Mohammed Noure Alo even though Noure does not go by Mohammed. Exactly how some refer to Barack Obama as Barack HUSSEIN Obama because they are passive-aggressively bringing to attention Obama's association with Islam.

    Second example, he distorts the truth in his ad about Kevin Boyce because he suggests a job was only posted "at their mosque" suggesting Mr. Boyce is Muslim, when he's NOT. Also, other reports state the job wasn't posted in the mosque at all. Mr. Mandel wanted to get the word "mosque" out there. It's obvious and cowardly and considering Mr. Mandel is a Jew he should be ashamed considering all the bigotry and hate Jews have dealt with for centuries.

    So in the ad he's not "voicing his concern about the thread of spreading Islam" he's attempting to take advantage of the anti-Islamic fervor in this country for political gain.

    You say you're a Catholic. The Bible has explicit verses about killing babies and doing what you want with them. Catholic priests have been doing that for God knows how long. Based on your logic, it would be smart and correct to voice concerns about Catholic churches who have children in their congregation or are near schools, correct?

  2. First of all, I am only addressing the letter to the editor written by Salmaan Toor that was published in the Kentucky Enquirer, nothing else. In that letter, Salmaan Toor referred to himself as a "Muslim American" as opposed to an "American Muslim". My post was directed at how Muslims identify themselves as being Muslim first and American second. Their allegiances appear to be first to Islam and second to the country they claim citizenship in. Muslim refers to a religion, not a nationality as in African-American so it seemed very odd to see it expressed that way.

    In previous posts I have detailed issues brought up by Islamic scholars who are reminding Muslims they should obey no laws made by man because the only law they should obey is Sharia Law. Read the section above about: ""no rule but Allah's" which means all secular governments must be replaced by Sharia.

    I am not aware of or concerned by the content of Josh Mandel's ad. Yes, I am a lifelong Catholic and I am Pro-Life as well. I believe my church and my religion was hijacked by subversives many years ago as evidenced by the billions of dollars paid by the Catholic Church to the victims of the pedophile priests.

  3. This is Salmaan. Describing myself as Muslim-American wasn't something that I did purposefully but if I had to pick between the two I'd keep it how it is. I'm not sure if it's about identifying myself first as Muslim and second as American, it was moreso to identify myself as Muslim because there is such a pervasive idea out there that Muslims are crazy, secretive, violent, and plotting to take over the world a country at a time.

    But life or death, if I had to pick allegiances, I'd have to say I'd go with religion. Also, I'd find it surprising if a Catholic, Christian, Jew, Hindu, etc. did not pledge allegiance to their faith over their country. Don't we hear it all the time..."God, family, country" in that order?

    I'm not really concerned what these Islamic scholars say, there are just as many that say when in a non-Islamic country, you abide by the rules of the country. It's that simple and I believe the gross majority of Muslims, certainly in America, abide by that principle.

    So as a Catholic, life on the line, would your allegiance go to the Church or country? I'd be interested in your answer and reasoning. Thanks.

  4. Salmaan, you raise several valid points that need to be addressed. Yes, I have heard - and used myself - the phrase "God, family and country", but that is allegiance to God, not religion. There is a technical difference. While I am a Catholic, as I have already mentioned my religion was hijacked by subversives. Part of the modern Catholic Church's problem with pedophiles today stems from the liberalism that took it over in the mid-1960s.

    In the context of worldwide Islamic terrorism, you could also say that so has your religion been hijacked by extremists except that there has been no change in the teachings in the Qur'an. The words used by radical clerics today have been in this holy book unchanged for over a 1000 years, they are only just being reemphasized today.

    My information shows that a vast majority of Muslims would like to follow Sharia Law and too many parts of Sharia are in direct conflict with the civil laws and the Constitution of my country. How do you stand on this?

    You say that you are not really concerned what Islamic scholars say. If you ignore their calls for violence against non-Muslims or to strive to replace secular government with Sharia then your rejection of what those scholars say is good. Have you openly condemned the terrorist acts of Muslims in America? Most have not.

  5. I'm glad you wrote the last comment because this bothers me more than most of the other stuff. I believe every Muslim country in the world condemned and gave condolences after 9/11 with the exception of Iran. Thousands and thousands of Muslims condemn terrorism and terrorist acts regularly.

    In a number of cases where Muslims committed crimes/terrorist acts in America, other Muslims were attempting to tell them that their thinking was inaccurate or manipulated. I have repeatedly condemned any type of terrorist act, especially those committed by supposed Muslims. Thousands of others have as well. But can Muslims be blamed for the media not covering these condemnations? Every major Muslim association in North America repeatedly comes out to condemn terrorist attacks. Here is just one reference:


    Does more need to be done, I suppose so since there is such a strong belief that Muslims are secretly attempting to take over America, love blood and violence, and will lie about their religion to trick and manipulate. There is a responsibility for Muslims to speak out, but also for non-Muslims to put aside their stereotypes and pre-conceived notions and actually listen.

    It would be like myself referencing the verse in the Bible that suggests keeping little children for oneself. Based on that vague quote, and what's happened with priests and preachers (heck, probably some clerics), I could make the argument that they are true believers because it suggests the act in the holy book and these religious leaders are just following religious texts.

    I'm assuming you're thinking my argument is weak as it is way out of context, but I'd argue the same when "experts" pull verses from the Qu'ran and say "see look, they are terrible, violent people." The Qu'ran was revealed contextually (Muslims believe this), in the sense of what was needed at that specific time. So it should be interpreted and understood contextually. It's not, by Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

    To comment on the "God, family, and country" saying, I see your technicality but it would be interesting to see what happened if one had to choose between religion and country. Actually I'd say quite a few Muslims have had to do that and results are mixed.

    As for Sharia law (however one wants to define that), I'm for what the community wants. The Qu'ran actually stresses democracy, equality, and human rights. That's why I really don't like Muslim countries that at times treat their citizens (men and women) inhumanely. I'm not a scholar in any way of Sharia law but I know what is highlighted by the media are extreme cases of radical implementation (stoning, honor killings, etc.). I and the vast majority of Muslims are against that, certainly in America.

  6. stoor:
    I define Sharia Law as it is defined in The Reliance of the Traveler. You can find download copies or buy the book here: http://www.iqra.org/index/itemdesc.asp?ic=541&eq=541A&Tp=

    Another excellent reading reference is Statistical Islam. You to read the entire nine parts of Statistical Islam found here:

    From Part 1: We have been taught that the Koran is the source of Islamic doctrine. However, the Koran is only 14% of the total sacred texts . Actually, the Sira and the Hadith are 86% of the total textual doctrine . Islam is 14% Allah and 86% Mohammed. This is very good news. The Koran is obscure, but anyone can understand the life and sayings of Mohammed. These statistics point to the easy way to know Islam—know Mohammed. Anyone, absolutely anyone, can understand Mohammed and hence, Islam.

    From Part 2: Case 1: The Koran of Mohammed
    Mohammed can be clearly understood, but the Koran must be the most famous book that has been read so little and understood even less. Contrast this with Mohammed's day. In the Sira (the biography of Mohammed), we find accounts of illiterate Muslims debating the meaning of the Koran. The Muslims of Mohammed's day understood the Koran for a simple reason. The Koran of 632 AD (Mohammed's death) is not the one of today. Every verse had the immediate context of Mohammed's life. A new verse had the context of what he needed at that time. To all those near Mohammed, each new verse made sense; it had a context and therefore meaning. The voice of Allah resolved Mohammed's problems. It is Mohammed's life that gives the Koran its context and meaning.

    The Koran of the bookstore is not the historical Koran of Mohammed, because Uthman, a caliph (supreme ruler) had it arranged starting with the longest chapter and ending at the shortest chapter. After he created the Koran we know today, he burned the originals. The time and story have been annihilated by the rearrangement. From a statistical point of view, the text was randomized and, hence, very difficult to understand.

  7. stoor: I define Sharia Law as it is defined in The Reliance of the Traveler. If you don't already have a copy here is a Muslim web site that sells it: http://www.iqra.org/index/itemdesc.asp?ic=541&eq=541A&Tp=

    It is also on line in PDF format for download.

    You may also be interested in an excellent work called Statistical Islam which can be viewed in nine parts here: http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/statistical-islam-part-1-of-9/

    From Part 2: The Koran of the bookstore is not the historical Koran of Mohammed, because Uthman, a caliph (supreme ruler) had it arranged starting with the longest chapter and ending at the shortest chapter. After he created the Koran we know today, he burned the originals. The time and story have been annihilated by the rearrangement. From a statistical point of view, the text was randomized and, hence, very difficult to understand.

  8. I'll check out those references. I think at some point we (Muslims) need to use common sense and I think the vast majority of us do.

    It's rare to see stonings, honor killings, etc. in Islamic countries. I'm not saying they don't happen and even once is once too many. But I truly believe the vast majority of Muslims share very similar beliefs as the rest of the "developed" world. Actually there was a study in America that found that Muslims have the same beliefs as most Americans.

    If most Muslims believed that non-Muslims were allowed to be killed, why aren't there daily killings in every country in the world? More of a rhetorical question.


No foreign language comments allowed. English only. If you cannot access the comments window send me an email at Oldironsides@fuse.net.