Governments against Islam

The so-called religious conflict between Christians and Muslims is more political than religious. For one thing, it is not in Muslims’ nature to kill Christians, on the contrary Muslims have always, since the beginning of Islam, thought of Christians as neighbors, many say “cousins”, and have gotten along rather well in communities with Christians, whom the Qur’an calls “people of the Book” respecting the origins of the Christian tradition, being from the same source.

When it comes to religious tensions and wars, we often hear the media talk about the old problem of ‘hatred’, which we are led to believe is inherent due to the fact that Muslims have a strange and opposing religion; they are the ‘cousins’ of the Christians (because the two sons of the Prophet Abraham, according to Christians and Jews, especially the evangelizing kind of Christian and the Zionists, were the ‘cousins’ born of two distinct figures, one a legitimate son (Isaac, according to the Christian/Zionist view) and one an usurper, the ‘younger’ Ishmael.

The problem with the logic of the story is that Ishmael (Ismail, A.S.)was the first born, not Isaac (Ishaq). Muslims also believe them to be equally legitimate sons of Prophet Ibraheem (Abraham, A.S., the father of monotheism). Then it follows, that Ishmael’s and Isaac’s descendents would have been equally believers, and Muslims have no problem with this. They don’t see that there was any source of conflict between peoples (from the beginning). There are no ‘stories’ to support such a conflict or hatred.

An important realization (which Muslims get) is that the conflict in the Middle East is about Crusades as much as terrorism; or the Christian governments and Israel holding onto power. From the beginning of Islam, it’s true there was always conflict; it was more political than religious, however. Talk of “war on terror” is an excuse to renew religious hatred in the name of “security”, citing frightening statistics of Al-Qaeda’s presence worldwide, while maintaining bases in the ME to reap the imperialist rewards of tension. But religion is merely a pawn in a chess game of land grabbing. And the UN sponsored Peace talks i.e. Camp David, or what have you, are always unsuccessful, but enough participation by all sides keeps the facade of genuine concern for ME and European stability and human rights in the fore, while in reality land is grabbed away from Muslims (i.e. Palestine, Bosnia, Kosovo). It is the Jews or Muslims who really look bad, while the Christian governments and their representatives are spinning a good story; they are believable, which makes opposition impossible or politically disadvantageous. The Jews can afford the spin, too and are good at it. Muslims, their leaders and representatives (Hamas, etc in Palestine, Taliban in Pakistan, even American Muslims like CAIR, which has some success in media, or at least more savvy)are not viewed as positive, even given the spotlight. The media is more than not controlled. Even with YouTube, Muslims can’t get their positive message across. Most Westerners still don’t know what that is/’might be’.

When Muhammad, SAWS, in Mecca began preaching his message of monotheism, it was the leaders that refused the message, and put up the most fight. They didn’t want to lose their position of power and respect. Islam made them appear ignorant, blind and arrogant. When some of the leaders saw the power Islam possessed they decided within themselves to wait. They thought, if Muhammad wins, then we will join him, but not before. This shows that despite their clinging to the old ways, they were willing to follow Muhammad in the end, and didn’t deny that he was the most truthful among them, which is often stated in the authentic prophetic traditions.

Abu Jahl, the ‘pharaoh of the Arab nation’ even commented that it was not Muhammad he denied, but it was the message he denied. Once, he bragged that there was a prophet from his tribe whereas the other tribe, which his own was always in competition with, didn’t have a prophet of God to boast.

Likewise, the Christians didn’t want to be unseated from their position as the premier religion. They were adamant that God had meant them to be the ‘faithful’ that would enter paradise. They didn’t know that the bible had literally been rewritten, by men, including the story of the garden of Eden which relegated women to the role of a betrayer of the first man and Prophet of God, Adam. She would have to suffer and pay each time for that mistake, in the throes of childbirth. The majority of Christians clung to their traditions, unwilling to give an ear to the new religion, a follow up to the same basic monotheism preached at the core of some of the oldest Christian churches, such as the Unitarian tradition. Basically, Christianity believes in God, and Prophets, and the books of revelation, but they didn’t accept Muhammad, also largely because he was an Arab.

As with many conflicts, fear is a motivating factor, and the ones to use that fear to their advantage is the leadership, fanning it to create a phobia that will buffer their followers from the new tradition emerging. With so much misinformation, Christianity has continued to remain largely in the dark about Islam for 1430 plus years.

While Christianity is misogynistic, Muslims are painted as more misogynistic. While the crusaders were barbaric, Muslims are painted as more barbaric, and so on. Even to the point that despite the complete and eternal ban on alcohol in Islam, the only religion that forbids drinking as well as gambling (two great vices among modern Christians), Muslims are painted as the fat and drunk sultans; always mentioned is the whoring that was supposed to be accompanying this revelry.

The Islamophobic beliefs aside, Christianity (the Church) in the past and Western nations and the Zionists in the present want to hold onto power.
("Who Values Peace?" is similar)

Perhaps the highly touted ‘multiculturalism’ is just a western tool to control Muslims after all. While manpower is essential to any nation’s ability to sustain growth, countries such as Canada, France, etc. benefit greatly from immigration, but the government has a lot of control over what Muslims can and cannot do when they live in Canada. They cannot practice polygamy, for one, except illegally, or in the shadows. Recently in America, there was a feeler sent out of stopping Muslims from performing their five daily prayers.

In Britain, the government banned the niqaab, with no legitimate reason. As facial recognition/racial profiling doesn’t help curb crime (not something Muslim women are accused of as such) and women with hiijab will often look very similar if not identical, to most Brits, the only reason to ban the niqaab would be to hurt Muslims.

“Multiculturalism then becomes a tool which can be used to herd Muslims into the “melting pot” with promises of greater freedom; they can be dealt with more easily; as the (present or sitting) government sees fit; by new laws enacted to stifle expressions of religion or culture different from the majority of Brits.” (newer, revised)

“O Mankind, your injustice is only against yourselves, (being merely) the enjoyment of worldly life” (10:23, Al-Qur’an)

Learn more about Islam's Prophet