CarlosTheGaucho

Lybia, during the Kaddafi regime for example has been one of the very few Islamic countries that achieved both progress and security, but one condition of that was to keep the influence of Islam at bay.

Similarly the other progressive leaders in the Middle East, starting with Kemal Atatürk, whether it was Nassir in Egypt or Mozadek in Iran, the only condition under they were able to or at least attempted to reform their countries was to keep Islam at bay.

In order to understand this better, we need to go back to the history of Islam, and to know a little bit about its doctrine.

The doctrine of Islam is built on the following:

There is no god apart from Allah, Mohammad is his messenger, and, as stated in merely 91 verses of Koran, every Muslim should imitate him in everything he did. Islam is the final ideology, Koran is perfect and nothing can contradict it. There are no natural laws and there is no cause and effect.

That itself of course doesn't leave much space for critical thought, much less for science, or running any sort of productive society.

And indeed the history teaches us that it was not industry or development, but Jihad - violence, oppression, genocide and utilizing slavery that enabled the rise of Islam. Even the so called "golden age" in Baghdad or Spain were merely the remaining dhimmis (mainly Jews and Christians) keeping the culture from a total destruction.

There's been about one million Europeans estimated enslaved throughout the Islamic occupation of the Mediterranean sea. Many Europeans today, if tested for DNA, may find there a certain percentage of a non native aspect due to this.

However, as soon as it couldn't take advantage of enough dhimmis (non-believers, second class citizens that are suppressed and dehumanized under Sharia, paying jiziya - the tax) and their industry, technology, the Islamic empires started to fade out.

This is precisely what happened to the Ottoman empire after its invasion was stopped at the gates of Vienna in 1583. Note that in this case, still, by the 19th century, it was forbidden to use print, and as much as 97 pct. of Ottoman empire was estimated to be illiterate. A perfect totalitarian system built on blind obedience. This is the destructive heritage of Islam.

Once the Ottoman empire was disbanded in 1922 and the Islamic world very weak and decimated- there was a brief moment in history when one could hope for actual reforms and abandoning the political influence of Islam. In some countries it worked up to some extent, yet even those formerly rather secular countries often turned back towards the same destructive path lined up 1400 years ago.

We in the west generally know very little about Islam and its history, because ever since our ancestors fought it for hundreds of years and eventually defeated it, we never had to deal with its totalitarian and destructive aspect. That makes us very naive and guillible in many respects. The doctrine has not changed one bit for 1400 years.

A big part of the world's followers of Islam can't understand Arabic, a big part of them can't read at all. Again we don't discuss people, we discuss the doctrine.

I'm even quite confident that a big part of those that call themselves Muslims know pretty much nothing about the doctrine. However, if they are practicing, then everything they know comes from Imam. If they live under Islamic rule - they are even forced to obey the Imam. So once the call for Jihad would come, it can very easily get out of hand.

An example of these are the Palestinian Intifadas, purges against Christians and Jews in Lebanon in the 70's and 80's. If you want even more destructive example that would be for example the Armenian genocide (est. 1.5 million people) - that happened not even 100 years ago so it's not even that very distant history.

As of the US war zone, of course that this does not help our cause. However, Finland was never involved in the Middle East and even there we have violent Jihad already. There's no cause and effect, as many would like to believe, to rationalize such atrocities, but the answer lays again in the doctrine:

The Islamic doctrine divides the world into the "dar al-Islam" (the land of Islam) and "dar al-harb" (the land of war).

Equally the mankind is divided among Umma (the community of believers) and Kuffir (unbelievers). Kaffir (such as me) is by the way described as the lowest form of life on earth.

Once Kuffir enter the land-of Islam, it is a duty of every believer to come to defend it, that's what we fail to recognize in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. We do not fight terrorists, we fight a fanatical doctrine, wealthy people leave to join Jihad and became a Mujahedeen. Death in Jihad is valued more than life.

One part about this is that once Islam ever conquers a land, it's forever marked as "dar-al-Islam". Spain and Israel are two examples. I'm quite confident these is exactly what the Imam involved in the latest Jihadi attack used to motivate his fedayeen.

The same way the believer is commanded to wage Jihad against the Kuffir in "dar al-harb" (but only if they are strong enough to strike).

Jihad is often understood as terrorism, this is false.

The Islamic doctrine lists the following:

• Jihad by sword

- example - I am afraid we know what it means

• Jihad by word

- an example is inventing the term "Islamophobia" in order to attempt to discredit the critics of Islam

• Jihad by pen

- an example is when Islamic organizations petition the lawmakers and executive branch for special treatment based on "religion"

• Jihad by money

- an example is Saudi Arabia financing approx. 70 pct. of the Mosques in US

Then there's jihad by migration (or overbreeding).

There are not many Islamic countries that would, at this stage, even have any sizable non Islamic minority. And if they do then it's usually from purely economical reasons (Saudis for example couldn't ever function economically without the workforce from abroad).

However, what history teaches us is that once Islam enters a country, it gradually starts to gain influence and attempts to take over. For example Annatolya aka Turkey has been, still as of the 16th century, a Christian country, today its demographics is 99.7 pct. Islamic. The very most of the former classical world is by this day still entirely Islamic.

Nigeria has been a Christian colony, today, its northern part (45 pct. of the population) is Islamic - with a parallel legal and social system, embracing the ideology of their historic slave traders. I leave it up to your consideration how much peace did this bring.

As every totalitarian ideology, Islam is a demagogic doctrine that aims to annihilate dissent. Don't believe that? Ask yourself if you could live the life you live, do what you do, say what you say, in a country that is under Islamic rule (with a strong presence of Sharia).

Notice one thing - there is not one country in the world where Islam would be oppressed, it's always the other way around, even if Islam is in minority.

It starts with Hijabs, halal, Islamic schools, separate pools, no offending facts allowed etc. etc. a demand after demand after demand - what other community immediately starts to oppress the original population and force it to succumb to their requests?

The answer again lies in the doctrine, it is a part of Sharia that a believer is supposed to immediately establish command over Kuffir.

So that guy who won't let you pay for alcohol at his check out, perhaps not even knowing that, is actually practicing Sharia.

The point is, you can't import Islam without importing Jihad. You cannot import the religious part only - you also import a totalitarian ideology, obsessed with you as a non believer, and not in any good way.

__________________
CTG Media | skype: carlosprague | cb |at| ctgmedia |dot| net | Want to make more with your Dating Traffic? | Read My Educational Series | Read my Adult Biz Chronicles | Did your ad revenue drop by 40 pct. or more last year?