Zionists’ Myth of ‘Radical Islam’

Tony Blair, the former Zionist Prime Minister of Britain in a recent BBC interview said that the western colonial powers are occupying or supporting the occupations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya, Palestine, Kashmir, Philippines, Bosnia, Kosova, etc. is because they want to save the world from “radical Islam”.

Naturally, the bigot western Zionist leaders don’t believe that imposing a European Atheist Jews’ illegal entity in the name of Judaism on once Muslim-majority Palestine or Rabbi Oveda Yosef’s, leader of Israel’s Shas Party, call for the mass-murder of Muslim and Christian Palestinians, as ‘Radical Judaism’ – nor Anne Coulter’s call for “invasion of Muslim lands, killing their leaders and converting them to Christianity” or the anti-Islam filth preached by Israeli puppets like John Hagee, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Franklin Graham and Ron Parsley, as “Radical Christianity”.

Resistance to a foreign occupation is allowed by every major religion and under all international laws. The oppressed ones have the right to wage resistance by every possible mean including the military resistance. In reality, an occupation of a foreign country cannot be achieved without ‘state terrorism’.

Professor John Esposito wrote on August 4, 2010 – that thanks to these Judo-Christian facists:”Muslims and Islam don’t have equal rights in the US.

The teachings of earlier prophets Moses, Joseph and Christ were radical in every sense. They taught to rebel against the existing corrupt and pagan orders. Islam being the last of the three Abrahamic religions, also carry the same messages – fight against all kind of oppressions, establish freedom of faith and equal human-rights for all, irrespective of color, nationality and religion. To the Zionists who are raised on racism and terrorism – such message is “Radical” because they expect their victims to follow ‘peaceful resistance’, or in other words, a total submission to the oppressors.

The term “radical” has been applied to many people, who were considered threat to western colonization, such as Nelson Mandela, Rev. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, Sayyid Qutb, Dr. Ali Shari’ati (the Shia Qutb), Sayyid Maududi, Imam Khomeini, and others. However, now this term is being associated with any Muslim who dare to criticize foreign powers occupying tradionally Muslim lands espectially the Zionist regime in Jewish occupied Palestine.

In April 2010 – the Jew historian Will Newman clarified some of the mist surrounding Zionists’ fear of ‘Radical Islam’ – because the great majority of Jews don’t believe in Moses’ Lord, as Lucifer is God of Judaism.

Islam doesn’t divide the Believers into ‘radical’, ‘moderate’, ‘secularist’ or ‘liberals’. However, since the 9/11 the followers of the last three categories have found their heaven in the US and Europe. These ‘Muslims’ are not ignorant of the true teachings of Islam. But since they like to follow their worldly desires, they want to corrupt the faith from within under the disguise of ‘modernity’, ‘domocracy’ and ‘progress’. Most of them are no less bigots than Bernard Lewis, Samuel Huttington or Daniel Pipes.

For them to be American or Canadian or European Muslims, means a radical departure from the norms and traditions that have defined Muslim identity since 610 CE. For them, the glorious Islamic past needs to be destroyed, to live in the present and prepare for the future. This means giving up concepts, practices and even laws that do not suit their vision of a 21st century Islam. Thus, concepts such as Muslim Ummah, spiritual and military jihad – rooted in the vision of Islam, is anachronistic. It’s incompatible with the (Zionist-controlled) modern world, they claim.


4 responses to “Zionists’ Myth of ‘Radical Islam’

  1. Maybe i got you wrong but what is incompatible in islam to live within a non-islamic rule? Don’t be so harsh to the muslims in western countries. Living there doesn’t mean they have to give up their practices and since none of them have or can be an islamic lawyer none of them offend their islamic laws, like punishing someone else in a non-islamic way.

  2. Islam doesn’t prohibt Muslims to live in non-Muslim countries as minorities – as long as they practice their faith within the boundaries of the local laws – but if those laws go against their faith – they have to fight for their rights and if fail – they have the choice to migrate to some other country where they find freedom to practice their faith without being bullied by the non-Muslims.

    There is is no shartage of Muslim lawyers, doctors and scientists in the US, Canada and most of Europe. However, they never demanded to give 37 lashes to a male singer for performing in front of a mixed audience – as it happened to a Jew singer in Israel a few weeks ago.

    • I think i got your point, but with all the different kind of examples over the world which are presented by islamophobes, i think the muslims are forced to call a moderate muslim as the one which do not ignore peacefull verses in the quran, like your header “There is no compulsion in religion”.
      A liberal muslim is the one which cites verses like “God made us into different nations and tribes so that we can learn from one another”
      A secular muslim is the one which accept living under non-muslim rule without participating in positions that are in contrary to his beliefs.

  3. I am affraid your definition of different classifications of ‘Muslims’ shows that you did not understand my article or the earlier response.

    There is is no classification of the Believers in Islam. Unlike Judaism, one is not a Believer by birth or Salvation in Christ in Christianity. One has to believe in Holy Quran and practice the Prophetic traditions to become a ‘Believer’.

    The are NO ‘peaceful’ or ‘non-peaceful’ verses in Holy Qur’an. The all represent the changing situation of the Muslim community during the 23-year period of Muhammad’s(pbuh) prophethood. My header verse is NOT the sign of ‘peacefullness’ but the ‘tolerance’ of Islam towards non-Muslim communities, which want to live in peace with Muslim communities. It doesn’t negate the military resistance if the non-Muslim oppress Muslim communities. Therefore, one cannot be called ‘moderate’ Muslim if he/she ignore the rest of the command.

    No matter which one cite the verse from Holy Qur’an – unless he/she follow the Prophetic traditions – he/she is NOT a Muslim. One can fool himself by calling himself ‘liberal’ – but in the eyes of Islamic Shari’ah – he/she is not a ‘Believer’.

    A secular person believe in the authority of man, which is the against the very basic principles of Islam. In Islam, allah is the only Authority to make laws (Shari’ah). The Pariliament or Senate can interpret the Divine laws, but cannot formulate new laws. The President, under Islamic law, has NO authority to pass a man-made law, unless it is within the boundary of the Shari’ah. Therefore, the philosopht of ‘secularism’ is toally un-Islamic.

    I hope the above will clarify my article and open a window what Islamic concept is. I would, also, like to mention that my views are not of some Mullah – but of a person who was educated in Catholic and secular institutions and have lived in Canada for the last 40 years.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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