Thanks to liberal judges everywhere, virtually everyone has heard of the “separation of church and state.” But what about “separation of mosque and state?”
Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an outspokenly aggressive Muslim, yelled “Allahu akbar,” Arabic for “Allah is great,” before killing 14 (a victim was pregnant) and wounding 31 at Fort Hood, Texas, on Nov. 5.
He had reportedly praised Muslim suicide bombers on the Internet; refused, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female colleagues; listed his nationality as “Palestinian,” and dressed as a fundamentalist Muslim when not in uniform. In 2007, his supervisor at Walter Reed Army Medical Center wrote an evaluation that said of Hasan, “The Faculty has serious concerns about (Capt.) Hasan’s professionalism and work ethic. … He demonstrates a pattern of poor judgment and a lack of professionalism.” As National Public Radio reports, this memo was sent to officials at Fort Hood when Hasan was transferred there.
Even with all of this, some still question whether Hasan’s killing of U.S. soldiers was motivated by his belief in Islam or whether he got a pass from politically correct superiors fearful of accusations of religious bigotry.
Before we condemn as “hateful” those who dare ask such questions, it should be determined what is meant by the term “Islam.”
Is Islam 1) a religious system, 2) a political system or 3) a military system?
The answer is all three, as Muhammad was: 1) a religious leader 2) a political leader and 3) a military leader.
One may ask, what relevance does Muhammad’s life 1,400 years ago have today?
Well, since Muhammad was the best Muslim, those striving to be better Muslims are trying to imitate him, just as Christians try to imitate Jesus (WWJD, or What Would Jesus Do?).
Muhammad’s life is called “the Sunna,” which means “the way” or “the example.” By examining Muhammad’s life, we can gain insights into his followers’ motivations.
Muhammad was a religious leader in Mecca for 12 years, beginning in 610 A.D., making around 100 converts before being chased out. In 622, he fled 200 miles north to the predominantly Jewish city of Medina. The Jews rejected Muhammad, so he went into pagan neighborhoods where he made converts, gained a political following and, in a sense, acted as a community organizer.
With his new following, he went back to the Jews as a candidate of change, promising to be objective and fair as he was a newcomer to the city’s heated partisan politics. The Jews made a treaty with him, and Muhammad became a political leader in Medina. When Muhammad’s followers back in Mecca were harassed, chased out and their houses confiscated, he permitted them to rob caravans headed to Mecca in retaliation. The Meccans sent 1,000 soldiers to protect their caravans. With just 300 warriors, Muhammad defeated them at the Battle of Badr in 624 A.D. This amazing victory while being outnumbered three-to-one convinced Muhammad that he was to be a military leader. He fought in 66 battles and raids in the next eight years before he died. In Medina, he slew or enslaved all the Jews in the city.
Muhammad sent his warrior, Abdullah, in 625 A.D., to lie to gain entrance into the military base of his enemy, Chief Sofyan ibn Khalid. When Abdullah had convinced Sofyan of his loyalty, Sofyan let down his guard. When the moment was right, Abdullah beheaded Sofyan.
Since Muhammad was the best Muslim, those wanting to be better Muslims gravitate to following his example, religiously, politically – and militarily.
Most Americans are not concerned about someone’s religion, or in which direction someone prays or if someone believes paradise consists of sex with 72 virgins. But Americans do care if their freedom of speech is taken away, if their wives and daughters are threatened if they don’t wear veils, if nations such as Israel face extinction or if terrorists attack our military bases or civilian targets.
It is political/military Islam that concerns Americans, not the religion of Islam. When a political/military Muslim bows toward Mecca, he is effectively pledging allegiance to something other than the United States.
For the sake of discussion, let’s go beyond the religion of Islam and, for the moment, examine political/military Islam. Political/military Islam has two features: 1) a global conquest aspect and 2) wherever it takes power, non-Muslims are not treated equally.
The question is, what other political/military systems has America faced in the last 60 years that had 1) a global conquest aspect and 2) wherever they took over, non-adherents were treated unequally?
Answer: Germany, Japan and Italy in World War II, and later the Soviet Union and other communist countries.
During the Cold War, Americans said, “We love Russians, but we have to identify and resist the political/military system of Stalin’s and Khrushchev’s Soviet communism.” And, “We love Cubans, North Koreans, Vietnamese, Cambodians and Chinese, but we have to identify and resist the communist political/military systems of Fidel Castro, Kim Il-sung, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong.”
Today, Americans have no problem with Arabs, Indonesians, Turks and Egyptians, but Americans have to identify and resist the political/military system of Islam, because it has a 1) global conquest aspect and 2) wherever Islam takes over, non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims. Unlike Nazism and communism, political/military Islam has been harder to identify and resist because it can advance under the cloak of religion.
It’s increasingly obvious that some Muslims in America with a political/military agenda are taking advantage of the freedoms extended to Muslims who are simply practicing the religion of Islam.
In order to prevent more tragic episodes, such as the killings at Fort Hood, more attention should be given to the separation of mosque and state.
William J. Federer is the author of the best-selling book, “What Every American Needs to Know About the Qur’an: A History of Islam & the United States,” as well as “America’s God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations” and “Treasury of Presidential Quotations.”