Bob McCarty Writes

By William J. Federer
Guest Blogger

Everyone has heard of separation of church and state, but what about separation of mosque and state?

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan (right) yelled “Allahu Akhbar,” Arabic for “Allah is great,” before killing 13 and wounding 31 at Fort Hood, Texas.

He had praised Muslim suicide bombers on the Internet; refused, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female colleagues; listed his nationality as “Palestinian”; dressed as a fundamentalist Muslim when not in uniform and attended the same mosque as the 9/11 terrorists.

Some question if Major Hasan’s killing of U.S. soldiers was motivated by his belief in Islam.

But before we condemn as “hateful” those who dare ask such a question, 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 Mohammed was:

1) A religious leader;

2) A political leader; and

3) A military leader.

One may ask, “What relevance does Mohammed’s life 1,400 years ago have to us today?”

Well, since Mohammed was the best Muslim, those striving to be better Muslims are trying to imitate him, just as Christians try to imitate Jesus (“WWJD — What Would Jesus Do?”).

Mohammed’s life is called “the Sunna,” which means “the way” or “the example.”

By examining Mohammed’s life, one gains insight into the motivations of his followers.

1) Mohammed was a religious leader in Mecca for 12 years, beginning in 610 A.D., making around 100 converts. When he became confrontational and threatening, the Meccans chased him out in 622 A.D.

2) Claiming to be a victim of harassment, Mohammed fled 200 miles north to the predominantly Jewish city of Medina. The Jews rejected Mohammed, so he went into the 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 and Mohammed became a political leader in Medina.

3) When Mohammed’s followers back in Mecca were chased out and had their houses confiscated, he permitted them to rob the caravans headed to Mecca in retaliation. The Meccans sent 1000 soldiers to protect their caravans and Mohammed, with just 300, defeated them at the Battle of Badr in 624 A.D.

This amazing victory, being outnumbered 3 to 1, convinced Mohammed he was to be a military leader. He won 66 battles and raids in the next eight years before he died.

Mohammed even sent his warrior, Abdullah, in 625 A.D., to lie in order to gain entrance into the military base of his enemy, chief Sofyan ibn Khalid. Abdullah convinced Sofyan of his loyalty, so Sofyan let down his guard. When the moment was right, Abdullah committed a terrorist attack, beheading Sofyan.

Since Mohammed was the best Muslim, those wanting to be better Muslims gravitate to following his example, religiously, politically … and militarily.

Most Americans do not care what religion someone has, in which direction someone prays or if someone believes paradise is sex with 72 virgins.

But what Americans do care about is if their political freedom of speech is taken away; if their wives and daughters are threatened if not veiled; if nations, such as Israel, face extinction; or if terrorists attack their military bases.

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 us not be concerned with religious Islam, and, for the moment, just examine political-military Islam.

Political-military Islam has two features:

1) A global conquest aspect; and

2) Wherever it takes over, non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims.

What other political-military systems has America had to face in the last 60 years that had (1) a global conquest aspect and (2) wherever they took over, non-adherents were not equal to adherents?

Beginning in the 1930’s, Americans had to say, “We love Germans, but we have to identify and resist the political-military system of Nazism.”

Why? Because it had a global conquest aspect and wherever it took over, non-Nazis, like Jews, were not equal.

During World War II, Americans had to say, “We love Japanese, but we have to identify and resist the political-military system of Hirohito’s Imperialism,” and “We love Italians, but we have to identify and resist the political-military system of Mussolini’s Fascism.”

During the Cold War, Americans had to say, “We love Russians, but we have to identify and resist the political-military system of Stalin and Khrushchev’s Soviet Communism.”

Americans had to say, “We love North Koreans, Vietnamese, Cambodians and Chinese, but we have to identify and resist the Communist political-military systems of Kim Il-sung, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong.

Why? Because Communism has a global conquest aspect and, wherever it takes over, non-Communists are not equal.

Today, Americans love Arabs, Indonesians, Turks and Egyptians, but Americans have to identify and resist the political-military system of Islam.

Why?  Because:

1) It has a global conquest aspect; and

2) Wherever Islam takes over, non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims.

Political-military Islam, though, has been harder to identify and resist, as it can advance under the cloak of religion.

Could it be that some Muslims with a political-military agenda are taking advantage of the freedom 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, maybe a little more attention should be given to the separation of mosque and state.

William J. Federer is author of “What Every American Needs to Know About the Qur’an – A History of Islam & the United States.”