Why the Free World Must Ban Political Islam

There is no time to waste in uniting to identify the real enemy, because the various factions of Political Islam are becoming more violently aggressive every day. The latest news from al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al Zawahiri is the formation of a Jihadist organization intended to erase the borders drawn by the British in the 20th Century that divided the Muslims of South Asia from those of the rest of Asia. 


By Mounir Bishay l September 18, 2014

The purpose of this article is not to look at the religious aspect of Islamic doctrine but rather at the political system, built within the Islamic religion, which wants to impose Sharia law that claims to be the only true representation of the religion.

The Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) notes that Islam is the “doctrine that relates to the unbeliever,” where it “demands that Muslims dominate the [unbeliever] in all politics and culture. This domination is political, not religious.”

Political Islam, and its hateful tentacles, is as dangerous for the welfare of American Muslims as it is for non-Muslim citizens. Most global Muslim populations reject Political Islam, as they are more apt to be victimized by its irrational fanaticisms than are non-Muslims.

The distinctions, therefore, between the religion of Islam and Political Islam is clear. Any action against Political Islam must not be interpreted as an action against the religion of Islam or the world’s Muslims.

In a way, the situation is very similar to the 30 years of “Troubles” between the Protestants and the Catholics of Northern Ireland. When the Protestant British government said it was at war with the Catholic Irish Republican Army (IRA), no one took offense.  Citizens of all faiths instinctively understood that the IRA was not one and the same as Catholicism; just as Political Islam is arguably not one and the same as the religion of Islam.

Political Islam is clearly incompatible with Western democracy. In Political Islam there is no separation between mosque and state, as there is between church and state in the United States under the Constitution. The ultimate goal of Political Islam is submission of the entire world of non-believers to Caliphate domination under Shariah Law.

Contrary to the U.S. Constitution, Political Islam demands Shariah Law as the law of the land. Should that become a reality, as unbelievable as that may seem today, all American citizens would have some very difficult choices to make:  Give up their religion by converting to Islam, exit their homeland, or accept 3rd class Dhimmi status. This non-Muslim status renders human rights practically nonexistent and penalizes with a prejudicial Jezya tax that must be paid. The only other choice is death by the sword.

There is no time to waste in uniting to identify the real enemy, because the various factions of Political Islam are becoming more violently aggressive every day. The latest news from al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al Zawahiri is the formation of a Jihadist organization intended to erase the borders drawn by the British in the 20th Century that divided the Muslims of South Asia from those of the rest of Asia.

In the Middle East, the IS Movement is gaining new ground daily by barbarous leaps that are noted for their beheadings, crucifixions and slave auctions of Christians, Yazidis, and Shia Muslims.  In many other parts of the world, militant Political Islam organizations such as Nigeria’s Boko Haram are terrorizing Christians through mass rapes, kidnappings and by selling school age girls in sex slave markets.

The implications of IS’s progress toward this end is at last registering on the radar of the governmental representatives of free nations, including those of the United States.  The recent gruesome slaughter of American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff along with British aid worker David Haines has caught the attention of the U.S., the UK and European  national leaders.  At last, they are seeing that their open society policies invited the infiltration of Political Islam’s violent extremists.  The justified fear is that the infiltrators will join existing sleeper cells that will strike with multiple coordinated attacks at the right moment to cripple their host nations.

Muslims do not have that choice under Political Islam and its interpretation of what is called the Islamic Ummah or the collective body of Muslims worldwide that demands loyalty to Muslims over loyalty to the nation of residence, where nationalism is completely meaningless. For Political Islam, the motto is, “Take your Muslim brother’s side whether or not you believe that his actions are right or wrong.”

Due to the Ummah policy, after September 11, 2001, when the United States got involved in two wars against separate Muslim countries, the military service of Muslim Americans became complicated.  Muslim scholars in the United States were hesitant to issue a blanket statement accepting the notion that American Muslims could fight in a war where the United States is fighting a Muslim country. They issued a vague opinion approving the principle, but qualified it with the condition that the conflict must meet the Islamic standard of a “just war.”  This is actually another way of saying “no, it is not acceptable” for American Muslims to fight an Islamic country because Muslims are never allowed to raise weapons against fellow Muslims.

This must have played a role in two major internal attacks perpetrated by radicalized Muslims serving in the U.S. Army. In March 2003 two days after the United States invaded Iraq, Sergeant Hasan Akbar, a convert to Islam, killed two colleagues in a grenade attack and wounded 14 others at a U.S. base in Kuwait.  Subsequently, in November 2009 at Ft. Hood, Texas, Major Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire killing 13 military personnel and wounding 31 others.

However, this should not be an excuse for a generalized condemnation of all American Muslims serving in the armed forces. More than 3,500 U.S. Muslims were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. As of 2006, 212 Muslim-American soldiers have been awarded Combat Action Ribbons for their service in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 7 lost their lives.

With all of this considered, the governments in the West would be free to open investigations on any person, mosque and organization that propagate incendiary speech and materials or supports terrorism. Those who enlist in the armed services could be thoroughly investigated to insure that they do not have sentiments harboring Political Islam or any type of terrorist inclinations.  This would also apply to anyone filing for citizenship, with automatic denial for ties to questionable organizations and contacts.

The underlying fact is that Political Islam is on the move.  The IS threats to humanity that are now posed are greater than Nazism and Communism ever were.  The seriousness of the situation emphasizes the need for developing a strategy and enacting plans of action to deal with the problem of Political Islam as soon as possible. The enemy within is the most dangerous and delay will put the West at a great and unfortunate disadvantage from which it will be very difficult to recover.

The seriousness of this matter is not simply because it is in conflict with the ideals the West holds dear, but also because the views of Political Islam have become a rapidly metastasizing cancer consuming everything in its path.

“BAN POLITICAL ISLAM” is my cry for America and the West.  The sooner it is done, the better.  If you fail to do so now, the cost later will be infinitely higher.


Mounir Bishay, an Egyptian by birth, is a human rights activist and writer on Coptic (Christians of Egypt) issues. He is the head of the Los Angeles based Christian Copts of California. Mr. Bishay is also a contributor to SFPPR News & Analysis.