DONATE

Showing posts with label Leslie Sacks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Leslie Sacks. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

If I Were Ahmadinejad

Here is some interesting advice for Barack Hussein Obama to win reelection as President of the United States from Leslie J. Sacks.

JRH 10/31/12
*****************************
If I Were Ahmadinejad

By Leslie J. Sacks
Sent: Oct 26, 2012 at 4:33 PM

The possibilities are fascinating. He may or may not be as rational as many assume, considering his messianic beliefs in the coming of the Madji (the Shi'ite version of the coming of the Christ). However, he certainly is wily, manipulative, devious, and a superb strategist operating amorally with patient political acumen.

BHO extending to Ahmadinejad holding bomb toon

If I were Ahmadinejad, I would offer the White House a deal they could not refuse:

-Iran would agree to cease enriching uranium over 20% concentration.

-The White House would in turn agree to reduce sanctions against Iran.

-The Obama campaign desperately needs a game changer now that the debates and post-debate dialogue seems to be going Romney's way. A deal with the Iranians would be such a revelation and the only proof of success for the White House foreign policy of negotiation and accommodation.

-This political coup could well swing the election back the Democrats.

-After November 6, Obama will have another four years and Ahmadinejad will have reduced sanctions, and increased prestige and power.

After a while Iran will likely revert back to its nefarious activities and sanctions may possibly be reimposed. DespiteIran's deception, Obama would at least, for his part, remain in office and continue implementing his remaking of the world in his image. Ahmadinejad would not have to deal with an implacable Romney, who clearly has campaigned as a formidable obstacle to Iran and their nuclear ambitions. Romney sees nuclear Iran as the preeminent enemy of the USA and Ahmadinejad knows this well, if he knows anything. So in Ahmadinejad's playbook, a preferable Obama is a pushover compared to the Republican ticket.

The State Department has 1460 days and Obamas 4-year term to conclude a deal. It is conceivable that only in the last 14 days of this term the White House will manage to expediently cut a deal. Gaming the system, even for dispassionate observers, is clearly an inescapable conclusion. This deal will, if enacted, become Obama's Watergate just as the seeming cover-up of the Al Qaeda terrorist attack in Benghazi (within Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans murdered) is fast becoming one too. It is tragic that members of both parties so willingly politicize the debate, risking further the security of Israel and the USA in their unstoppable quest for one-upmanship.

So words and pieces of paper can help swing an election.

Checkmate.
 

Leslie J. Sacks

LESLIE'S BLOG: STRENGTH AND TOLERANCE

Further Reading:


___________________________
Leslie J. Sacks
10550 Wilshire Blvd
Los Angeles, California 90024
US

Monday, September 24, 2012

It's Always Our Fault - Revisiting the "Stockholm Syndrome"

In the essay below Leslie J. Sacks has an excellent point about Muslim riots and the attacks on U.S. Embassies and the initial response by the U.S. government: I’m sorry that Muslims were incited to violent attacks against us for such a reprehensible movie that was made in the USA according to our First Amendment Rights of Free Speech.

Now since those original apologies by the U.S. government largely by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Obama spokesmen for the White House, it has become evident the riots were planned offenses by Islamic Terrorists using the Mohammed Movie to incite nutty in the brain Muslims. Nevertheless, the Sacks essay is relevant in condemning the appeasement mode of the Obama Administration.

JRH 9/24/12
****************************
It's Always Our Fault - Revisiting the "Stockholm Syndrome"

By Leslie J. Sacks
Sent: Sep 19, 2012 at 7:50 PM

I've been following the sad news out of Benghazi. The late ambassador Stevens was a courageous man committed to uplifting the Libyan people who, together with the Egyptians, are our new "allies." Seeing photos of his corpse being dragged like garbage through the streets of the city by those who demand the niceties of Sharia Law, those who wish to establish the worldwide Muslim Caliphate and enforce the subjugation of women - I had nothing pithy left to say, only sadness to feel.Islamic Terrorist Libya

Yet it took the American Embassy in Cairo, Hilary Clinton and the Vatican to raise my hackles.  The embassy tweeted: "we condemn the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims"; whilst Hilary, parading the endemic White House political correctness, called the obscure video by a crackpot "reprehensible" saying "we absolutely reject its content and message." The Vatican's Father Lombardi did not condemn the killings in Benghazi; rather he condemned "provocations against the sensibilities of Muslim believers."

Yet, the attack in Benghazi was more an act of war than a spontaneous protest - 400 showed up with mortars and RPGs.

Why? Why does the most powerful government in the world apologize to a rioting rabble, murderers of ambassadors, avowed followers of Bin Laden, pillagers of sovereign American property, whilst at the same time equating the obnoxious and isolated video with the iniquitous violence, as though the two were in any way comparable? The allure of the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights seems lost to the White House; the integrity of moral judgment has become clouded amongst our leaders.

Yes, this obscure and largely unseen video may indeed hurt the feelings of some devout Muslims, and may inflame some habitual anti-American hatred. But so will every Hollywood movie, every porn site, every political statement that's deemed impure and insulting to the Islamists who have zero tolerance to Western mores and traditions. This 14-minute video by some Egyptian Copt in California about the prophet Muhammad, "Innocence of Muslims," has been on YouTube since June - yet the propagators of these riots waited until September 11th, that infamous anniversary, to fan the flames. (On September 8th a major Egyptian TV station aired this largely ignored short film).

The real question is not the volatility of millions of Middle Easterners taught from birth to hate America and to despise Israel (as any excuse is usually enough). The real question is why we feel the need to pander and apologize to the most radical, violent and intolerant extremes around the world, to let them set the tone; a tone designed to stifle all criticism of Islam, to declare as blasphemy any attempt to reform radical Islam. (To Islamists, free speech does not extend to defamation of Islam and democracy merely another avenue to implement their 7th century theology).

There were indeed in the past other isolated incidents - Geert Wilders' "Fitna" movie in Amsterdam, the now infamous cartoons in the Jyllands-Posten newspaper in Denmark, a few pages of a discarded Koran burnt in error in Afghanistan. In the whole scheme of things, it's remarkable that there are not many more of these criticisms of Islam as we experience some of its radical manifestations today.

When Saudi citizens murdered 3000 innocents on 9/11, no embassies were burnt in America, no ambassadors murdered, no riots started. Yet a video of no value seems to bother the Muslim World more than these 3000 victims. Apologies seem to go only one way - that is the real quandary. We are irrevocably always the Infidels, and they are always the revered protectors of Muhammad.

Ignored yet more relevant is the proliferation, by contrast in the Middle East, of daily anti-West, anti-Semitic propaganda. It's everywhere, all the time - it's the staple of much of the media, the education system, the Madrassas and the Mosques.

A 41 episode series (Horse Without a Horseman) based on the forged Protocols of the Elders of Zion has been running on Egyptian TV presenting the Jews as a cabal of conspiring demons taking over the world.

In Syria, a government-supported TV series trotted out the ancient blood libel, that of Jews murdering Muslim children, then using their blood to bake Passover Matzos. Strange also, since Kosher laws expressly forbid blood residues from meat.

Hamas and the Palestinian Authority regularly equate Jews with the sons and daughters of monkeys, deserving of death and banishment. The PA pay convicted and jailed suicide bombers $3000 per month using American government subsidies.

Ahmadinejad talks of destroying Israel. Huge crowds danced, celebrated and handed out sweets in the Middle East capitals on 9/11.

The list is endless as are the calls to violence, rage and vengeance.

Does anyone from that world apologize for these daily genocidal exhortations? Does anyone from the West demand it? None that I have heard. Why? At MSNBC a consensus from a talk show advocated jailing the videographer as an accessory to murder, but not jailing the murderers themselves, not any lynch mobs. The murderers are granted victimhood in our upside-down world.

US Ambassador to Egypt, Anne Patterson, had forbidden the embassy's security to carry live ammunition - talk about a misguided attempt not to antagonize the Muslim Brotherhood, after all, talk about a more direct accessory to murder.

Where's the outrage when in the Middle East homosexuals are tortured, women stoned, acid thrown into the faces of young girls, Coptic Churches burned, IQ deficient kids used as suicide bombers? The silence is more than deafening.

We now apologize for our unique freedom of speech, the core bastion of our society; we apologize for the words, cartoons and photos of a few independent individuals exercising their inalienable right to free expression, to differing opinions for which we have no control over or responsibility for.

Our ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, and White House spokesman, Jay Carney, insist unwaveringly, against all evidence, against the findings of the Libyan and Egyptian authorities, that the violence was not premeditated, that it was entirely due to the obscure YouTube video. Reports also note that the brother of Al Qaeda's current leader, namely Mohammed Zawahiri, was instrumental in the Cairo attack.

Yet we seem to take the hate speech in the Middle East for granted, the beheadings, kidnappings, rapes, murders, suicide bombings. We cowardly choose to respond by subsidizing these supremacist and fanatical leaders, these anti-American entities. We now show every variation of weakness and pandering, any apology we can muster in spite of the immutable reality that the Middle East only respects the strong horse and mocks the weak horse. Logic and morality be damned.

We, and our ambassadors, should not be anywhere in which we cannot engender respect or elicit appreciation. Skype as an alternative really works very well nowadays. The White House ignores the green revolution in Iran, that hugely deserving opposition to a viciously anti-American regime, in a country of people primarily pro-American. Yet this same White House supports Egyptian President Morsi who demands the release of the first World Trade Center bomber, blind sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman. This same White House supports the Muslim Brotherhood, who has refused to recognize the State of Israel and whose leaders reaffirmed Jihad on Israel.

We apologize when we should stand firm; strangely, we draw our enemies close and alienate our friends.

I don't understand - do you?






_____________________________
About Leslie Sacks:

Born in Johannesburg, South Africa in 1952. My family and I have lived in Los Angeles since 1991. Active in fundraising and promotion of charitable organizations and causes in particular areas promoting moderate Islam (women’s rights and the reinterpretation of the Koran from a moderate and tolerant perspective) combating terrorism, extremism and radicalism in both North America and the Middle East whilst strengthening the tolerance and individual free expression. Conceived, initiated and funds “Women’s Voices Now”, a human rights organization and film festival for women in the Muslim World.

Academic background includes both psychology and computer science at the Univ. of Witwaterstrand, South Africa. Worked in various capacities in opposition to apartheid and in READ THE REST

Monday, May 28, 2012

TWO STATE SOLUTION: Israel and Palestine

Palestine Judenrein
Leslie J. Sacks has sent an email about pushing a Two-State Solution on Israel; viz., Israel and Palestine side-by-side. He as too many people don’t see a problem with a Two-State Solution, except for one thing. Why in the world would the West force Israel to allow a sovereign State on their border that explicitly announces there would be no Jews allowed to live there?

So I am inline and out of line with Sacks’ reasoning.

Sacks is absolutely correct to believe it is lunacy to allow the Palestinian Authority (or Hamas for that matter) to be the government structure of a sovereign Palestine. I tend to delineate from his other thoughts.

You see I don’t view what Jordan has called the West Bank as disputed territories. I am with Israel in calling that land Judea-Samaria because it is a chunk of land with Jewish heritage and history and NOT a land that belonged to a group of people that were not even called Palestinians until after 1967.

The land in question is not occupied by Israel but rather reclaimed by virtue of Jordan losing in 1967 that which they unilaterally annexed in 1950s.

Well that is my two-cents. Here is Leslie Sacks’ post.

JRH 5/28/12

*********************************
TWO STATE SOLUTION: Israel and Palestine

By Leslie J. Sacks
Sent: May 25, 2012 at 12:45 PM

That is not the question.

The vast majority of Israel and much of the West Bank agree: The million dollar question rather is - What kind of kind of states?

We know Israel to be the only functioning democracy in the Middle East, a country where over a million Arabs live as full citizens: safely, securely, and viably. Some are judges, doctors, and members of parliament.

However, if the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority (with or without their prior blood enemies, yet current partner, Hamas) become racist and Jihadist dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and others in this area, then what exactly are the advantages to a peace treaty for Israel?

Should they become a democracy, protective of all religions and races - wonderful. I have no doubt most on both sides would then welcome them with open arms.

The elephant in the room remains, however, the Jews living in the settlements throughout the disputed territories, those remaining on the West Bank after cosmetic adjustments incorporating, into Israel proper, the main population centres close to the '67 border.

Yet the Palestinian Authority has made it abundantly clear that no Jews would be allowed in any future state. This does not bode well for peace - it's hard to find a more racist and discriminatory position that legislates for hate and enmity. Jews and bibles are banned from Saudi Arabia; the persecution of minorities is predominant in the Middle East. Why is it impossible to follow Israel's example where Jews, Arabs, Christians, Druze and others all live with reasonable comfortability and equality under the law.

Another "Judenrein" state smacks of Nazi Germany, not a peace-loving West Bank come to terms with the adjoining Jewish state of Israel. Most of the Jewish settlers would be happy to live there as part of a new democratic state, provided their safety was reliably guaranteed.

No reason why existing populations are not all respected, unless indeed the ultimate goal of some of the Arab leaders is not only a Jew-free Palestine, but a Jew-free Israel as well.
_________________________
Leslie J. Sacks | 10550 Wilshire Blvd | Los Angeles | CA | 90024

Saturday, October 1, 2011

Islam: Reformation, Transformation or just Plain Political Cult?

islamic-nature-muhammad-says

John R. Houk
© October 1, 2011

Leslie J. Sacks writes briefly somewhat as an introduction to Janet Levy’s review of the Rebecca Bynum’s book “Allah is Dead: Why Islam is Not a Religion”. The theme of Sacks’ thoughts is Islamic reform which is also hinted in Levy’s book review. An excerpt from the Bynum book indicates her reasoning that Islam is not a religion. However, her reasoning to me shows that Islam has more akin to Leninist-Stalinist Communism or Nazism than to goal of any other religion. In the culture formed by a Communist or Nazi State the people are brainwashed to obey the State without question and to place the leader on such a pedestal that there is the appearance of divine worship but with the denial of a deity.

Islam is Communist-like except the cult founder picked out a deity from all the Meccan polygamous deities and declared that deity to be the ONE deity and backed that claim up by stealing mostly from Jewish theology with a swash of Christian theology mixed together with a lot of distortion and revisionism to make Allah that ONE deity. In order to make a worldly connection between Allah and the World, Mohammed made sure that he was mystically elevated to a pedestal of being Allah’s sole and last mouthpiece to humanity.

The difference between Communism and Islam is the former rejects the existence of deity or deities and the latter embraces a monotheistic faith as a control mechanism over the people.

Allow me to add one other thought about Islam and the concept of reform. The true reform movement that is currently happening in Islam is all the fundamentalist Islamic movements of Sunni and Shia that seek a purity that existed in Mohammed’s day. It is a reformation that is actually gaining momentum among Muslims everyday because it reinforces what all Muslims are taught: Allah is one god and Mohammed is his prophet. Thus everything Mohammed said and did is the PERFECT example for all Muslim believers to follow. If Mohammed is perfect then killing kafir (unbeliever in Islam), killing an apostate (one that leaves Islam for another religion or for atheism), killing a Jew first and then a Christian (because ultimately the People of the Book will perish for unbelieving Allah and his prophet Mohammed) and all the brutal dictates of Sharia Law which if broken can lead to amputation or death depending on the punishment defined by Sharia Law (e.g. a Muslim adulteress, a Muslim homosexual, a Muslim female that dishonors her Muslim family for various offenses will all find death either by the Muslim government or by the hands of the Muslim family).

Purist Islam is the Islamic reformation that Radical Islam that is real and is happening in the 21st century. Islam does not need a reformation. Islam needs a transformation to enter the realm of a religion that provides a path to peace with a deity, deities or the seeking of escaping the wheel of life such as moksha or nirvana.

Islamic transformation would eradicate the dark side of Islam contained primarily of the Quranic suras that are attributed as Mohammed’s sayings from his arrival in Medina and afterwards.

Without further adieu here is Leslie J. Sacks post about Islam below.

JRH 10/1/11
****************************
Why Islam is in Desperate Need of a Reformation

By Leslie J. Sacks
Sent: Sep 28, 2011 at 7:05 PM

Rebecca Bynum writes a focused and timely, yet largely one-sided book entitled "Allah is Dead: Why Islam is Not a Religion".  Janet Levy's timely review of this book (see below) questions why parts of the left wing have taken up political commonality with the ACLU, CAIR, MAS and those who would advance Sharia law and Muslim religious expression in our schools, colleges and communities.  Yet these selfsame individuals and groups rail against any Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Baha'i or Hindu representation in the same institutions.

Two preeminent questions jump out at us:

1)      Why do anti-religious elements choose to see Christianity et al. as a religion but Islam as a culture, the former worthy of denigration whilst the latter deserves understanding, empathy, support and expression?  Surely Judaism for example is as much a culture, a way of life as Islam is.

2)      Why has Islam been high-jacked by the fundamentalists, the literalists, the extremists, all seemingly in commanding control of the many "faces" of Islam's expressions, of Islam's visible personality?  At the same time, why have these supremacists fervently and successfully denied moderate voices, interspersed throughout the world of Islam, even a modest participation in the public persona, in the governmental personas, and ultimately in the voices of today's Islam?

If many multiculturalists, if many well-meaning albeit somewhat naïve citizens of the West, insist on projecting their most optimistic and myopic visions onto Islam, in total indifference to the fatwas and intolerance everywhere evident, then support for the Muslim moderates will never spring forth, and the radicals will hold ground.

Moderate Muslim Voice Non-Existent 

If there remains no allowance in the Muslim world for alternative interpretations of their scriptures, or tolerance for an evolving set of applications, lifestyles, beliefs and allowances, and if jihad is not replaced by an acceptance of other religions, cultures and peoples, then any reformation will remain, as it has for 1400 years, a dim fantasy.

And in those instances Rebecca Bynum's vision of Islam (or radical Islam in the view of many) will keep ringing true, and the one overarching face of medieval Islam in our modern age will remain all-powerful, omnipresent.  All the world's major religions except mainstream Islam (Wahabism, Iranian Shiism, and the many offshoots like the Taliban) have largely learnt over thousands of years to live and let live. 1 Moderates and apostates in the Islamic world still fear for their lives.  Bibles are banned in Saudi Arabia, as are women drivers.  Honor killings and beheadings should have no place in a modern civilization; as should supremacist and exclusitory interpretations of any religion.

My hope and my prayers are for every moderate Muslim, every tolerant Muslim, every unequal woman in the Muslim world, to not lose hope, to retain their faith and keep chipping away at the unbending monolith surround them, until a reformation indeed arrives.2

Peace in the West depends on it, just as prosperity in the East will.

Note 1 The bible has for millennia established the concept that we are all indeed equal, a concept only now largely accepted by most religions.  "You Shall not hate the Edomite because he is your brother; you shall not hate the Egyptian because you were a stranger in his land" (Deuteronomy 23:8).  "You shall love the stranger because you were strangers in the land of Egypt" (Deut. 10:19).  "... You shall love your neighbor (every human being) like yourself; I am the Lord" (Lev 19:18)

I enclose excerpts from Janet Levy's review which highlights questions that need answering and issues that desperately bear discussion.  Some may argue as to how relevant Bynum's thesis is, however the mere existence of its application as a reality is an indictment of one of the world's great religions, and one desperately in need of modernization.

By Rebecca Bynum Published by New English Review Press, 2011
Reviewed by Janet Levy

In a July 29 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit essentially regulated the language of prayer by ruling that any mention of "Jesus" during public prayer constitutes sectarian and unconstitutional language.  But the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) brought the legal challenge seeking to end a traditional practice commonly used before public meetings in state and local legislative bodies across America.

Such attacks by the Left against religious expression are commonplace. In August, leftist groups roundly criticized Texas Governor Rick Perry's call for a day of prayer to "seek G-d's guidance and wisdom in addressing the challenges that face our communities, states and nation." In January, Hawaii caved in to ACLU demands and became the first state to eliminate daily prayer, although approval of a 2009 bill to celebrate "Islam Day" mysteriously escaped their censure.

Several state legislatures including Iowa, Texas, and Washington have opened their sessions with Islamic prayers invoking Allah, calling for "victory over those who disbelieve (i.e. all non-Muslims)" and soliciting "protection from the Great Satan." These requests that Allah grant Muslims victory over non-Muslims are hardly prayers to bless the work of legislatures, but neither the ACLU or AU raised objections, even though the prayers excluded Christians and Jews and declared cultural war against American society.

In the past, the Left, which asked the nihilistic question "Is G-d Dead?," made common cause with communism (and Socialism) rejected religious faith in favor of "godless" secular humanism.  Today the connection between the totalitarianism of the Left - control of human activity and thought in the name of "social justice" - and the totalitarianism of Islam - control of every aspect of life through the shariah - is a bond fusing their efforts to pursue a common agenda: to undermine America's Judeo-Christian values and traditional institutions.

In her book Allah Is Dead: Why Islam Is Not A Religion, Rebecca Bynum (author and publisher of New English Review) adeptly explores the traditional role of religion, the G-d is dead posture of the left, and the nature of Islam. She offers astute observations on the meaning and essence of religion as the very basis of reality for Western culture, extols its noble purpose of elevating man toward a path of righteousness, and contrasts this with the nihilistic ideologies presented as religion by the Left and Islam. She describes the deleterious effects of the Left on the meaning, value, and practice of religion, and argues that Islam's fundamental characteristics deny it status as a religion.

Bynum identifies the critical role religion plays in fostering morality, anchoring society, buttressing the family, and promoting social harmony, public service, and charity. She makes important distinctions between the mechanical adherence to religious doctrine and the exalted, living experience of faith. A transcendent reality, faith captures the human heart and spirit and imbues our lives with meaning, Bynum writes. Faith is not coercion through the recitation of Biblical passages. Instead, scripture is a series of guidelines for human behavior which empower individuals to freely and creatively chart a path, constantly striving toward spiritual perfection. Bynum emphasizes that individual free will encouraged by faith is the pathway to understanding goodness, truth, and beauty, and ultimately the unique experience of discovering G-d and godliness.

The influence of the anti-religion Left has caused the church to abandon this traditional role and these values, Bynum asserts. For the most part, the church has turned away from spiritual ministry toward political and social causes with a focus on "works" over faith and religious practice.  Religion is used politically to bolster social reforms, she writes, rather than to nurture spiritual and moral development. Religion emphasizes self-realization and sensual comfort, rather than attainment of the ideals of truth, beauty, and goodness. Instead of helping individuals aspire to the virtues of self-reliance, self-control, and gratitude, religion fosters an infantile sense of entitlement, a victim mentality of blaming external factors, and an unwillingness to take personal responsibility.

For the Left, religion is the enemy, morality is non-existent, and actions relate to narcissistic wants. In this view, man's higher purpose, his ability for self-reflection, and his capacity for imagination are denied. As human dignity has been debased, the human values of love, truth, and goodness, as well as religious experience, are dismissed as delusional. Bynum concludes that spiritual transcendence is impossible when free will is viewed as an illusion and morality is arbitrary.

Just as leftist-influenced Western religion has abandoned the search for spiritual transcendence, Islam similarly does not provide a path to spiritual transcendence, either, Bynum asserts. Islam does not qualify as a religion, she argues, because it lacks the essential qualities and attributes of religion. Muslims are not free to establish a relationship with Allah but are required to recite prayers in a specific format and direct them to an object - the Kaaba, a cube-shaped building in Mecca that is the most sacred site in Islam. In Islam, strict rules regulate all behavior and Islamic worship is merely unquestioned obedience. Lacking is any quest for truth, acknowledgment of reality, or historical verification. The goal of Islam is complete control over the mind and the physical body and its functions. Bodies and minds are controlled with no nourishment for the soul.

With no outlet for individual expression in Islam, creativity does not exist nor does anything that would capture the human heart or spirit. No quest to discover Allah is required because he exists merely to be obeyed. Piety is enforced by conformity to Islamic doctrine with sinners severely punished or killed to uphold the community's purity. Islam's goal is complete submission, which stifles curiosity, creativity, motivation, and individuality, plus denies the truth.

In Islam, history begins with Mohammed. Nothing that occurred prior to his existence is of any value, thus history is revised and knowledge rendered meaningless. Islam requires cultural genocide because culture is an obstacle to establishing Allah's authority on Earth. No concept of G-d-given free will and tolerance exists. Individual thought makes no difference because only the decrees of Islamic doctrine have value.

Islam requires complete self-denial and robot-like functioning as part of a collective: the umma, or Islamic community. Behavior is mandated by the shariah, which makes law and morality one and the same. Islam does not recognize the state as a higher authority and requires ultimate jurisdiction in all worldly matters. No explorations of and (sic) independent conclusions about justice and judgment exist as the shariah explicitly outlines every aspect of existence and sanctions forced marriage, child marriage, polygamy, death for apostasy, dhimmi status for non-Muslims, and other rulings and actions outlawed in other societies. Islam is the highest value, with no room for mercy or compassion. Islamic doctrine is immutable, unquestioned, and does not bend to any human circumstances.

Because of all these characteristics, Islam is not a religion, Bynum concludes, as it places ideology above life itself. It fails to advance individual morality, sacrificing the individual for the collective. It is unable to preserve wisdom because it denies everything but Islamic beliefs. It fails to foster peace and social harmony and instead requires perpetual war with non-believers. It weakens the family as the foundational unit of society by promoting polygamy. It is not transcendent in purpose, as its highest purpose is to perpetuate itself, and it has little meaning beyond rituals.

Islam cannot stand with the other religions of the world as a belief system that relates humanity to spirituality and to moral values and imbues life with meaning, Bynum writes. Instead, Islam is a supremacist, totalitarian, theo-political-legal ideology that engages in constant war with non-believers, controls the lives of its believers who are unable to question or relinquish its mandates, and fails to provide spiritual nourishment and to promote social harmony.

Just as the secular humanism of the Left diminishes man, Islam similarly diminishes man through its hatred of non-believers and its emulation of its brutal, murderous prophet as the ideal specimen of a man. Thus, leftists who assert their nonreligious and non-spiritual agenda and diligently work to eliminate G-d from the public square - including prohibitions against religious observances, holidays, symbols, and prayer - are allying with Muslim efforts to demonize and supplant non-Muslim faiths. Both represent a danger to Western society, and in particular the United States, which was founded on a core belief in G-d and the transcendent power of spirituality. Both Islam and the left's secular humanism are godless ideologies that undermine Western values and civilization.

Janet Levy, MBA, MSW, is an activist, world traveler, and freelance journalist who has contributed to American Thinker, Full Disclosure Network, FrontPage Magazine, Family Security Matters and other publications. She blogs at www.womenagainstshariah.com

Note 2 There is an exciting new venue in which to see what Arab reformers have to say - the website [may be found at http://almuslih.org/ (It is in both Arabic and English.) According to its mission statement, Almuslih.org "aims to maximize the exposure and distribution of journalism and analyses promoting progressive thought in the Arab Middle East and the Muslim world." Go there to see how some of the most brilliant minds in the Arab world, like writer Sayyid al-Qimny, Abd al-Hamid al-Ansari, the former Dean of Islamic Law at Qatar University, and Hassan Mneimneh, director of the Iraq Memory Foundation, understand the situation today and what must be done to secure a democratic future. Invariably, they address the problem of the culture.   

Contrary to al-Qaradawi's condemnation of secularism, Tunisian philosopher Latif Lakhdar, one of the brightest lights in the Muslim world, calls for "an acceptance of the division between the domains of faith and politics." He also states that a reformed Islam "ends the conception of the world divided up into an Abode of Islam destined for expansion and an Abode of War destined for 'Jihad unto the end of time,' as al-Bukhari's Hadith has it." Lakhdar says forthrightly, "our faith today constitutes a part of the problem, and it is incumbent upon us to reform it, in the school of religious rationalism, so that we turn it into a part of the solution."    The most recent posting on Almuslih, is an article titled "Freedom and the Progress of Civilization," by Mohammed al-Sanduk. Al-Sanduk confirms the thesis in The Closing of the Muslim Mind that the greatest scientific and cultural achievements of the Arab Muslim world occurred during, and because of, the ascendancy of the rational theologians, the Mu'tazilites, whose thinking "laid emphasis on the freedom of choice and on the responsibilities that accompany this." Likewise, its decline resulted because of their suppression. He even provides a chart which tracks the rise and fall of Muslim scientific achievement parallel to the rise and fall of Mu'tazilite thought.   

One of the best essays on the website is "A Manifesto for Reform," by the eloquent Hasan Hanafi, chairman of the philosophy department at Cairo University. He writes that "no real change can take place if there is not a change in the mindset first." This is the reason, he says, that prior efforts at reform have failed because they "started with social, political and economic structures rather than with inherited intellectual substructures, which remained unchanged even as liberal, western enlightenment-derived structure was superimposed over them." This has not worked because "the imported freedom therefore perches on an infrastructure of inherited fatalism, while the imported Rights of Man sit atop a substructure of the inherited Rights of God, in the same way that the imported sciences are superimposed over an infrastructural legacy of miracles." As this brilliantly insightful sentence implies, the real problem is theological, and it is at this level reform must take place.

Without a different theology, can one have democracy? Iranian philosopher, Dr Abdulkarim Soroush, explicitly answered this question: "You need some philosophical underpinning, even theological underpinning in order to have a real democratic system. Your God cannot be a despotic God anymore. A despotic God would not be compatible with a democratic rule, with the idea of rights. So you even have to change your idea of God."    Can this be done? Can what seems to be the bedrock of Islam change? This seems a very tall order, though there is precedent for it in Muslim history. However, if it is going to be done, it will no doubt be accomplished by courageous Muslim thinkers such as those appearing on [the Almuslih website]. Through it, you will feel spring in the air.

Leslie J. Sacks
______________________________
Islam: Reformation, Transformation or just Plain Political Cult?
John R. Houk
© October 1, 2011
__________________________
Why Islam is in Desperate Need of a Reformation

Leslie Sacks Fine Art | 11640 San Vicente Blvd. | Los Angeles | CA | 90049

Saturday, October 17, 2009

RE: Wall Street Journal - Islam, Israel and the United States


Leslie Sacks has sent an editorial response to an article published in the Wall Street Journal by Sheik Ali Gomaa, Grand Mufti of Egypt.

A brief synopsis of Gomaa’s article runs something like this:

Gomaa gives the impression he is a moderate Muslim. He categorically calls radical Islamic promoters a violent few that do not represent Islam as a whole. He calls the attacks in America on 9/11 “the most egregious of their attacks”.

Gomaa goes on to mirror that Islam has been addressing a reform to engage the modern world for years.

Yet there is still a hint of Islamic Supremacism for calling Israel an occupier of land which is the propaganda the West has fallen for. The reality is ALL the land acquired by Israel after 1948 was the result of wars of aggression or preemptive self-defense. Not to mention most of that land was supposed to be a part of the original Palestinian Mandate that was usurped by the 1948 invading armies.

Well that is enough of my synopsis Gomaa’s WSJ article. Below is Leslie Sacks’ presentation to SlantRight.com.

JRH 10/17/09
**********************


RE: Wall Street Journal, Oct 7, 2009, Islam, Israel and the United States by Sheikh Ali Gomaa (Egypt's Grand Mufti)

By Leslie Sacks
Email sent: Fri 10/16/2009 1:50 PM


To the Editor:

By pointing to Islam's respect for law, peaceful co-existence and human rights, Dr. Gomaa elegantly answers the West's preoccupation with the question "Where are the [Islamic] moderates?" A number of questions loom, however. First and foremost: has this important statement been published widely in Arabic? I doubt it, and I wonder if the sheik's current status - and perhaps even his personal safety - explain why. If so, therein lies an essential problem: the West is hungry for accommodation, while the Arab world excoriates those who deviate from the fundamentalist interpretations of Islam that dominate the regions' religio-political landscape.

Furthermore, he reasonably seeks an end to the "occupation" of Palestine and the withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. However, the sheik ignores the potentially tragic consequences of those propositions - namely, rule by the same radical fundamentalists he so eloquently opposes.

Imagine if a Muslim of Dr. Gomaa's stature came out boldly and spoke the following so-far-forbidden yet simple words: 'Israel has an irrevocable right to exist as a Jewish country in peace and safety, while Iraq and Afghanistan's successful independence requires the exclusion of radical elements like the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Iran from their political, legal, and military arenas.' Imagine further that the sheik declared all of this in Arabic. That would truly be a gift to rapprochement; that we could truly take to the bank.

Sincerely,

Leslie Sacks
Los Angeles, CA