ACT: Stifle Christians and Jews; but just don’t offend Muslims

Many of us choose to shade the truth to avoid offending with the whole truth.  In some matters, that little lie has little consequence, as when the husband is asked by his wife, “do I look good in this dress?” 

On other occasions the lie has much greater consequence.

One such example is the ongoing lie of the national “radical Islam” awareness organization, ACT for America, in denying that Islam, not just “radical” Islam, is evil and a threat – a threat to our form of government, our freedoms, and the practice of our faith.

At the same time, ACT for America has a policy that requires local ACT Chapter meetings to be “non-sectarian.”  What does this mean?  It means that a Christian like Usama Dakdok who travels around the nation contrasting the good of Christianity with the evil of Islam is blacklisted by ACT National from being invited to ACT Chapter meetings.

So, as I understand ACT, we are to stifle the views of our own religion at the same time we are required to lie about the evils of Islam – pretend the “moderate” version is OK.

“Nuts” to that!

Here is what I have to say about ACT’s bass-ackward, self-defeating policy:

ACT for America Misrepresents Islam

“Radical” is a word ACT for America consistently uses before the word “Islam” in all of their literature and press releases. They do this to avoid criticizing Islam as if there is a non-radical version. This reflects ACT’s policy that the only aspect of Islam worthy of concern in the United States is “radical Islam.” They are critical of anyone who expresses otherwise. Their use of the term “radical Islam” infers that there is a form of Islam that is not radical, that is in fact “moderate”, worthy of respect, and of no concern to our form of government, our freedoms or our peace. ACT is purposely deceitful in hiding the true nature of orthodox Islam. Why? They do not want to offend their support base. They have bought into the lie that “truth is the new hate speech.” They believe most Americans cannot accept the truth of Islam – the truth that Islam is NOT like all other major world religions.

Here are several definitions that distinguish the various terms that describe Islam and Muslims:

Islam: The ideology based on the life and teachings of Muhammad and his followers as recorded in the Islamic Trilogy and interpreted and practiced by Muslim leaders through the centuries.

Study the life of Muhammad and his immediate followers to learn the true nature of Islam which is anything but moderate, benign, and peace loving. Orthodox Islam has a long history of deceit, intolerance, supremacism, and conquest and a moral code starkly different from the West’s Judeo-Christian ethic.

ACT, the media, and politicians mistakenly divide Islam into two subcategories and define them thusly:

Radical Islam: A violent, unreasonable aberration of Islam. 

In fact, “radical” Islam is as “Islam”, plain ol’ “Islam” is defined above. ACT does not accept that “radical” Islam and “Islam” are one in the same. ACT believes that there is a “moderate, benign and peaceful” Islam.

Moderate, benign or peaceful Islam:  The acceptable Islamic ideology, distinct from “radical” Islam.

In fact, “moderate” Islam is a temporary portrayal of Islam awaiting opportunity to express its innate supremacism, intolerance and coercive, terrorist ideology and methods. By distinguishing “radical” Islam from “Islam”, ACT believes there exists a “moderate” Islam. That is wishful thinking - a fantasy – and dangerous.

Muslim: One who identifies with and/or practices the ideology of Islam.

ACT, the media, and politicians also mistakenly divide Muslims into two groups: Radical and moderate. Experience has proven that this is a misinformed distinction. “Moderate” and “apostate” Muslims need to be considered in the light of the teachings of Muhammad (Islamic ideology) as well as their actions.

Radical Muslim: One who identifies himself as a “Muslim” and who is noticed as actively engaging in the practice of the Islamic ideology.

The criterion of being “noticed” in this definition is important. Many infidels, such as ACT leadership, fail to notice that the activities of the perceived “moderate Muslim” are in fact following the pattern of orthodox Islam. Consequently such “moderates” are “radical.”

Moderate Muslim: One who identifies himself as a “Muslim” who is not noticed as actively engaging in the practice of the Islamic ideology but who does not deny the orthodox teachings of Islam. One who is not currently or overtly engaged in violence, the advocacy of violence, or the advocacy of imposing Islam on the population. ACT often does not notice that the so-called “moderates” are in fact doing what orthodox Muslims do.

There is also a chance that “moderate” Muslims are practicing taqiyya by hiding their true identity and intentions, which is a common teaching and practice promoted by Islam. Most Muslims who were publicly portrayed as being “moderate” have subsequently demonstrated they are not moderate. The concept of a “moderate” Muslim is misleading and dangerous. It mischaracterizes and minimizes the true nature of the Muslim threat to our society. The term should definitely NOT be used to describe the predominant Muslim mindset.

Here is a third category:

Apostate Muslim: One who identifies himself as a “Muslim” but who denies the orthodox teachings of Islam. Such individuals are not respected in the Mosques of the US and the World. Zudhi Jasser falls into this category. ACT leaders and most politicians mistakenly believe that apostate Muslims comprise the typical Muslim in the US. No, they do not. They are a tiny minority of Muslim and are disrespected by the Muslim community and in virtually every Mosque in the US. There is also a chance that apostate Muslims are practicing taqiyya by hiding their true identity and intentions, which is a common teaching and practice promoted by Islam.

The above definitions of terms about Islam and Muslims reflects the truth of Islam while ACT presents politically distorted lies so as not to offend the most ignorant among us.

ACT Suppresses other faiths while giving Islam a free pass

While ACT acts to suppress the truth about Islam, they also have a local Chapter policy that prohibits presentations that do not “align with our non-sectarian policy for chapter meetings.” In other words, Islam cannot be contrasted with the faith of the presenters or the attendees at the meetings. Something as basic as contrasting the Allah of Islam to “God the Father” of Christianity or the “God of Israel” is frowned upon.

Here is a quote from an email from ACT National to local Chapters warning them about speakers who might prefer their own religion over Islam:

There is another factor to consider. Mr. Dakdok’s presentation does not align with our non-sectarian policy for chapter meetings. While we respect his love for Christianity, a chapter meeting is not the place for this message. We are non-sectarian because we want anyone to be able to feel comfortable addressing radical Islam, whether Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Budhist, atheist, etc. (Refer to chapter manual for more details.)

This prohibition is wrong. ACT ought to welcome speakers of EVERY FAITH to contrast with Islam. ACT should welcome Jews, Hindus, Shintos, Sikhs, Buddhists, Mormons, Catholics - all of them - to contrast their religions with Islam. As a Christian, I would love to hear a good presentation by Jews expounding on their faith in contrast to Islam.

ACT is acting the role of the consummate dhimmi; yes, and even an apologist for Islam: Promoting the lie about "moderate" Islam's "goodness" while prohibiting the expression of other faiths. If national ACT leaders clamped down on faith expression, members and local leaders should disavow ACT and form separate Islamic awareness groups who feel free to reveal the truth and are not controlled by top down political correctness, intimidation, and blacklisting.