Thursday, April 28, 2016

Former Islamist: "Must Change Terrorists Ideology and Theology"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Former Islamic radical Ed Husain told the European Parliament this week at their meeting in Brussels: "Muslims are radicalized not because of Islamophobia, but because of an ideology and theology that must be uprooted if the growing problem is to be addressed."

"They must moderate their beliefs," he told the European leaders, "if we are to control this global surge of extremism."

Husain, a former Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow, now a senior advisor to the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, told the leaders we must "be honest about the nature of the problem."

Ed Husain, a practicing Muslim, was given a standing ovation.

Please read all my comments before drawing a conclusion.





Husain, a Muslim, says he was once a radical, but has moderated his theology and his ideology.

In an OP-ED column for the international Financial Times in 2014, Ed Husain laid out what he was calling the "EU Model For Peace."

In it, he spoke of "perpetual contests over national borders" being responsible for World Wars and "intolerance of minorities leading to horrors like the Holocaust."

Husain, a man with growing influence, is advancing a world model for peace, which at its heart involves moderating "extreme" religious and political beliefs.

His speech in Brussels on Tuesday advanced his model for peace.

To the troubled leaders of Europe and perhaps more troubled citizens, Husain makes sense.

He is also making sense to the progressive Left in America, including our president and Hillary Clinton.

Tuesday he explained that the nature of the world's problems is not "Islamophobia---because it is Muslims who are being killed most by this global surge of extremism and terrorism."

"It's not poverty," he said, because if it were, "then Muslims in countries like Mauritania and Bangladesh would be most radicalized---and they're not."

"In fact, Osama bin Laden, as we know, was from Saudi Arabia," he said, adding that there are many "multimillionaires in the ranks of ISIS."

He said it's convenient to say it's all about the West's foreign policy.

"If it was all about Western foreign policy," he told his Brussels audience, "then why was Belgium attacked [by ISIS last month] rather than Israel?"

The problem, Husian says, is "a perversion of the faith, a politicization of the faith, while the theology is 'Salafism'."

Salafism describes Muslim fundamentalists who believe in a return to the original ways of Islam.

The word "Salafi" comes from an Arabic phrase which refers to the first 3 generations of Muslims, starting with the Companions of the Prophet, also known as the "Pious Predecessors."

Husain says the world is fighting a battle of ideas; we cannot fight it with a battle of bureaucracy, with a battle of procedures, and a battle of funding."

To the troubled souls of the world and their leaders, his model for peace makes sense.

In his speeches and presentations, Husain generally lists 5 ways to cure and eradicate the problem.

1. Our enemies approach scripture [in the Qur'an and Hadiths] literally---metaphor, nuance, poetry, all of this is lost. And where it says in the Qur'an, 'kill them wherever you find them," you see ISIS literally doing that.

He says we Muslims must learn which Scriptures to apply and which not to apply in these modern days---many of them were for another day and time. They are now outdated.

2. Islamists and Salafists believe that Sharia Law must become state law. That belief must be eliminated.

3. We must eliminate the notion that only their kind of Muslims are true Muslims. In that thinking, accusing other Muslims of not being true Muslims justifies killing them.

4. He says the belief in martyrdom must be eradicated. Suicide bombing isn't just a political strategy, it's justified by their literalist approach to Scripture [Qur'an].

5. He says these beliefs represent a "total certainty" that what they are doing is for Allah---that sacrificing one's life is not ending it but "beginning a new life in the next life."

Husain says, "It is these ideas that stop people from integrating, and that "without a change of the narrative by uprooting those ideas, the crises will escalate."

On the surface, who can argue with that? More importantly, who would? If we can change the minds and beliefs of the terrorists, we'll solve the problems.

Their religion is our problem. Right?

Please do not read into my comments anything I'm not saying. Terrorism must be stopped. And it is directly linked to their religious beliefs.

However, consider this:

Hillary Clinton said just last year that the biggest impediment to abortion and "social progress" is the religious beliefs of pro-life Christians.

She said, "Far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth. All the laws we've passed don't count for much if they're not enforced."

"Rights have to exist in practice," Hillary said---"not just on paper."

She said, "Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."

Hillary Clinton is not the only one who believes religious beliefs have to be changed to accommodate.

During his campaign to become president, Barack Obama infamously mocked Christians and conservatives to an elite private group of San Francisco donors, as those people who "cling to their guns and Bibles."

As the practice of linking social and national security problems to "extreme" religious beliefs becomes more a precedent than an exception, is it a great leap to identify biblical Christians as "socially dangerous?"

Is it a big leap to see how Christians still holding to the teaching of the Disciples (those who were with Christ/ first generation Christians) must be moderated to better integrate into an evolving society and culture?

Could the efforts to return our country to our Founding values and principles be seen as regressive and damaging to society---therefore, punishable by laws that already exist?

Could efforts to return to the "old paths" (traditional values) spoken of by Jeremiah be seen as "Salifi-esk?"

To believe in the authority of the Bible as God's infallible Word is already under scrutiny---a common conversation is whether Jesus is the "only" way to God---a Truth that President Obama has denied.

And what about marriage? And biblical teaching on human sexuality?

Every leader and every person in America who supports so-called same-sex "marriage" is in effect saying forget what the Bible teaches, we've moved beyond that---even if they call themselves a "Christian."

Sharing a personal testimony about one's faith in Jesus Christ is already banned on some military bases---and called proselytizing. Could that act of sharing one's faith become an act of "radicalizing" someone?

Will the vast majority of Americans who are not gender confused or homosexual be forced to "change their deep-seated cultural codes and religious beliefs" in the name of progress, inclusiveness, and political correctness" so we, as a nation can continue to "make progress?"---Become a "more perfect union" as President Obama is fond of saying as he advocates for the homosexual agenda.

Will acting on what we believe to be God's will and His purposes for our life come under greater scrutiny because it is considered extremist?

Much hangs in the balance in America. It's decision time. Politically and spiritually.

The Psalmist said, "I have chosen the faithful way, I have placed your ordinances before me" (119:30).

Be Faithful. Be Strong. Be Not Afraid.


3 comments:

  1. Our politicians seem to believe they can change things from without, such as change other nations from without, but all we should need to do is look at America. This is something that came about by something from within.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Our own government wants to change America for the worse, much worse.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Comparing Christianity and the Bible to Islam and the Koran both foolish and un-defendable. Obedience motivated by Love is the quintessential opposite of Submission motivated by Intimidation.

    Compromising fundamental values does not generate "peace"; it generates a "collective" of individuals with the values each individual prefers. The statement "There is no Absolute Truth" is a weak argument for avoiding responsibility to a power greater than "self", and...It is a VERY ABSOLUTE hypocritical statement! There is one true God, not many. All conflicting truths are not equal. There is one truth. God's morals and truth are unchanging, and man's truth and morals are a moving target. Only a non-thinking person who wishes to live in a world where "feelings" rule and "rational thought" is condemned will embrace the premise that morals must always be a "personal" choice that all others are 'required' to honor. Guess what?...there needs to be a power to enforce that requirement..."Enter Fascist Government"...ushered in by the unthinking masses. Now there is one God again...it is the Government. This is why all "ism" governments need to convince their subjects that God does not exist as a single identity. Politicians have, by their nature, become predators. Islam means "submission", and Mohammed made it clear that "submission" of the world was his god's mandate. Claim to be a Christian and live outside God's truth and morals...you are no Christian. Claim to be a Muslim and live outside of Allah's dictates via Mohammed...you are no Muslim.
    What man wants to be true is laughably irrelevant. What IS true will be clear when all heads bow and all knees bend.
    G>T>

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.