Sunday, January 20, 2008

Response to blog's thesis

This is my attempt again to address those good Islamist fighters who believe that the best way to do it is to work within the moderate Muslim community, respecting their beliefs in the non violent aspects of the Islamic doctrine, and hoping that our good will and acceptance of their approach to Islam will assist any efforts reform Islam. This very valuable site, Religion of Peace, focuses on current Islam related news and keeps track for the west of Islamist terrorism attacks and subsequent deaths and injuries.

Posted by Jesse Collins

Dear Blog Author,

My name is Jesse Collins. The location of credentials are listed at the bottom of this letter. But quickly and importantly to its theme, for 30 years I've been in the business of managing psychological trauma events, not just in the treatment of trauma victims, but perpetrators of trauma, including those who do it as a support to hegemonic political activities, as it the use of jihad by Islamists. I'm writing to you briefly to present a different perspective of your view regarding the concept of making a distinction of Muslims from Islam. I've just finished reading your thesis. Also, I've been a reader of your site and use it as a research resource. I applaud and admire your work as forthright, courageous and one of the most needed sources of information for the country.

Having expressed my support of you, I want to say that when a systemic perspective of Islam is taken, it shows it to be governed by traditional cultic management methods. I know you are well educated on this subject.

Those methods have lasted over a millennium because its declarations, that is its theory and implementation rules, have given the organization the tools to control its umma (Muslims) through methods that have controlled the behaviors of individual Muslims over Islam's history, no matter their otherwise peaceful intent and entry, motivations for joining, and primary uses of the ideology. But the systemic effects led by the immutable declarational controls found in its charter documents, the Koran, Al hadith, Sharia, Dhimme guidelines, and Mohammad's most noted early biography, make individual Muslimism practically impossible when the system makes its moves to advance its doctrine and directives, which are explicitly aggressive and empire natured if the Islamic legal authority (Ulema), encompassing many centuries of study and administration, of abrogation are accepted as the normative interpretive doctrine. Of course, the cult techniques also allow for Al taqiyya, which supports the development of individual identities for proselytizing through Dawa, non coercive persuasion.

But when called upon over its multicentury history, individual identity to which you provided noted laudatory support becomes, as you stated "submissively" (submission) capitulated to the organization's identity and original bylaws. The excellently drawn cultic management methods rigidly promulgated by Muhammad then enforce that individual to organizational identity Allah mandated conversion when the system sees its opportunity to follow Muhammad's dictates to overwhelm and control, usually where there is an established advance deployment of innocent moderates in a contiguous country from a Muslim managed country. Throughout its history, the offensive jihad directives, sometimes masquerading as defensive protection of the oppressed Muslim moderate contingency in the offending country, overwhelm the otherwise peacefully presented face of Islam. There is no instance on record of that process being changed by the peaceful and "uninformed" group of Muslims to which you refer. They have always complied when the call to arms is dictated.

I believe the evidence shows that their passive representation primarily serves as the cult's excuse for invasion of the hosting country when Islam as a whole grows strong enough to invade and conquer it successfully. At least, that is a component of the directives that require the commission of offensive jihad. Moreover, the innocence attending the peaceful Muslim image, when combined with the parallel use of terror through special terror methods like slaughtering, (decapitating victims like Buddhists or priests) splits the analytical mind of the target populace, causing total confusion as to whom the enemy truly is. Those are traditional cult methods.

I advocate that Muslims who declare loyalty to the cult are violating laws and by virtue of their oaths to follow the declarations become unqualified enemies of the countries Islam is targeting for conquering. If those oaths and statements of intent in their charter were not prevalent in this matter, then you analysis would hold. It would be logical. But because they do swear allegiance to Allah and Muhammad as his messenger, they are conspiring to overthrow targeted countries targeted as infidel.

I've recommended on blog, that US law address the issue of Islam's declarations and declare it a hostile, terrorism supporting entity, which requires secular intervention on the violent directives of Islam's charter to remedy the duality it uses to fight its enemies. I would hope that you would change your view to support the process of ordering Islam to address its doctrine and remove the aggressive and hostile, not to mention genocidal, directives from its charter. Otherwise, the organization, thus individual Muslim members, are operating outside of our laws and are a grave threat to our national security. If they want a religion, be responsible to our culture and choose one that doesn't advocate mass murder.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. I have provided a more detailed description of thesis and its prospective implementation at the blog noted above.


Jesse Collins
Author: The Etiotropic Trauma Management Series

Response from the blog The Religion of Peace

Just a note to let you know that I have read your opinion. While I agree that this certainly does describe pure Islam (as evidenced by the rapid military expansion following Muhammad's death) I also feel that there are many Muslims who genuinely believe that their religion is just the heir to the Judeo-Christian tradition, and incorporates the same priniciples with a different vocabulary.

I think that Islam is just as dangerous as you describe it, but I believe that we have to deal with the reality that many, if not most Muslims simply don't believe this about their religion. My strategy is to try and reason with them from within their faith, rather than condemning it wholesale from the outside, which would merely isolate them.

While I don't disparage your efforts, since they are based on the reality of Islam being an ultimately cannibalistic ideology, I disagree with the absolutes being offered.

I hope that we can respect each other's opinion. I believe that we are both working toward the same goal - which is to warn the West about the real threat that Islam poses.

Editor, TROP

No comments: