About Amil Imani
Amil Imani is an Iranian-American writer, poet, novelist,
essayist, literary translator, public speaker, political analyst and a
pro-democracy activist who has been writing and speaking out about the danger of
radical Islam both in America and internationally. He has become a formidable
voice in America against Islamic terrorism as well as for the struggling people
of his native land of Iran. Imani has been educating Americans regarding the
danger of radical Islam, and has encouraged democracy for Iran and helping the
Iranian people. His numerous articles about radical Islam have been published in
many newspapers and magazines around the world as well as in thousands of
Internet magazines, websites and blogs. Imani's writings can be found on his
Amilimani.com. He is a regular go-to-guy on the
Iranian issues on BBC World News. He is also 2010 honoree of EMET: "the Speaker
of the Truth Award" at the Capitol Hill. Imani is the author of the smashing
America: Break the Silence on Islam
Muslims’ Sheep Mentality
Pacifism v. Islamic Extremism
Anachronism of Apostasy
Islamic Republic of Torture, Rape & Murder
Day for Iran
Empowering Iranians to Dislodge the Mullahs
Christmas Spirit & Islam
& Dealing with Jihadists
Cyrus the Great on His Day
Obama's Policy Disaster
Artist Immortalizes Neda
the Committee with a Cause
A Call to
Republic of Iran: A Reality Check
Surrenders to Ahmadinejad
Solidarity with the Iranian People
Neda’s Fourth of July Message?
Victimization of Iran
Angel of Freedom
Everyone Is an Iranian
Is Democracy the Killer of Liberty?
Honoring Nazanin: An Angel of Iran
Countdown to Disaster? Who Says?
Pres. Obama: What Is It You Do Not Understand?
Obama & Khamenei
An Appeal to Cultural Muslims
A Salute to Champions of Liberty
Turning Universities into Graveyards
The Story of the Liberty Gene
Chaos, Crisis & Terror Serves the Islamic Republic
Good Hate, Bad Love
Islam Demands Surrender
for more articles by Amil Imani
America: Break the Silence
March 17, 2010
The American people must hear the truth
about Islam continually until they are completely aware of its dangers. Sadly,
our Churches dare not speak up for fear of being accused of intolerance toward
another religion. Our academia, the university professors, left or right, dare
not, because, most likely, they would lose their salaries. Our politicians dare
not because they are master practitioners of euphemism, hedging, doubletalk, and
outright deception, and they need your votes as well as your money. Our editors
dare not because they would lose subscribers. Businessmen dare not because they
might lose customers and clientele. Even ordinary clerks dare not because they
might be discharged. So I thought I would tell you.
My fellow Americans, America is faced with a
formidable enemy. This enemy has a name: Islam. I think it is time to revisit
the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and see if Islam is qualified as a
religion. Is this an outlandishly absurd proposal? Not at all, serious problems
require equally serious solutions. The call for evaluation of the First
Amendment may be seen as an attempt to curb Islam or other militant cults. The
truth is: it is. It is truly a matter of survival of the United States and the
It is time to take a stand and shift the debate to orthodox Islam. We do not
have to investigate every other religion on earth in order to compare them or
offer opinion about their relative "goodness” in order to declare that on the
whole Islam perpetuates evil. Let others devolve into religious disagreements.
But for those commentators who would respond: "OK great, so now what...you claim
Islam is evil. How do we combat that?” Your response is already clear: Through
the spread of truth, not deceit. Through voluntary social sanctions and laws in
every civilized country that forbid evil practices like Sharia, coercion
and violence against women, threats against those who disagree, honor killings,
apostasy and other hate crimes. Let the world know the truth and decide for
itself. Let Muslims who come to their senses opt out.
America, with a long history of protecting religious freedom, still clings to
the "hands off” practice of leaving alone any doctrine or practice billed as
religion. A thorny problem is in deciding what constitutes a religion and who is
to make that call. The dictionary supplies a sociologically useless definition
for religion: "The expression of man’s belief in and reverence for a superhuman
power recognized as the creator and governor of the universe.” Just about anyone
or any group under this definition can start a religion, and they indeed do—and
some do so at significant costs to others.
Muslims, under the banner of religion, are infringing blatantly on the rights of
others, not only in Islamic countries, but also in much of the non-Muslim world.
By their acts of dogmatic barbarity, Muslims are slowly awakening the non-Muslim
democracies to the imminent threat of Islamofascisim keen on destroying their
free secular and free societies.
As more and more Muslims arrive in American land, as they reproduce with great
fecundity, as they convert the disenchanted and minorities, and as
petrodollar-flush Muslims and Muslim treasuries supply generous funds, Muslims
gather more power to undermine a serious challenge to the American system of
governance—democracy. As for democracy, the rule of the people, Muslims have no
use at all. Muslims believe that Allah’s rule must govern the world in the form
of Caliphate—a theocracy. Making mockery of democracy, subverting its working,
and ignoring its provisions is a Muslim’s way of falsifying what he already
believes to be a sinful and false system of governance invented by the infidels.
A consortium composed of pandering liberal politicians, blinded by short-term
self-interest and egotism, attention and fund-seeking self-proclaimed prima
donna professors; and, bastions of useful idiots, are the witting or
unwitting promoters of Ummah-ism.
Unlike some peaceful religions such as Baha’i, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism and
Christianity which advocate universally understood principles of good within
their Holy books, and perhaps other religious doctrines (with which I am not
personally familiar), Islam cannot be reformed. An example, when the Christian
Catholic church was reformed, it was the church that was found to be in
violation of Biblical teachings. It had in many ways become anti-Christian.
Reform restored orthodoxy to the plain and well-understood concepts revealed by
Christ and the disciples (one of the reasons it took so long was the church
forbade lay-people from reading the bible or translating it from the dead
language Latin...so Europeans were largely ignorant except for what they were
told...see the story of
Martin Luther). Some evolutionary ideas such as abolition of slavery were
not addressed in the Bible (in part because Christ was after the souls not the
bodies), but the other teachings such as compassion, forgiveness, non-violence,
and brotherly love are and were always incompatible with slavery. Therefore it
should be no surprise that eventually Christians in Europe and America led the
abolitionist movement (they were scripturally correct). If a Christian bombs an
abortion clinic, there is no scriptural commandment supporting this. It is
unchristian (however, it is not unchristian to denounce abortion and seek to
make it illegal and thus prevent abortionists from practicing their craft).
It is sad when the counter-argument to this definition of Christianity is lame
references to Old Testament violence. Old Testament stories are taught in
Christianity as historical fact, not prescriptions based on Christian ethics. If
to a Christian, God is sanctioned a violent act, it is 100% irrelevant to the
New Covenant that is taught by Jesus. So to say...yeah but the Bible has
violence in it too is insultingly banal and misleading.
If some Christians abused their doctrine and hid behind the Cross to justify
their personal desire to kill, enslave, and conquer, then they are and always
were sinners and they are wrong; and this is why Christianity has taken the
natural form it has today...as a religion of peace and compassion (even if many
supposed Christians continue to sin). This is not to say that Christians are
unable to defend themselves, or intervene to stop injustice. Christians are
taught to hate the sin and love the sinner...period! The decision to become
aggressive is always a burden on the Christian conscience.
But Islam does not tolerate revisionism in its beliefs or practices over time.
Reform is not at play, because one cannot point to Jihadists or terrorists and
say Muhammad did not advocate it. He most certainly did, and delighted in his
evil thoughts. Islam is a literal religion, taking unabrogated scripture as
eternal and absolute. Moreover, there are no calls in Islam for compassion,
forgiveness, non-violence, and brotherly love. Instead there are specific
prescriptions for retain evil with evil, eternal warfare, religious hegemony,
slavery, killing Jews, taxing nonbelievers, stoning, promulgating terror,
establishing a caste social system, and perpetuating discrimination against
women. The only way to reform Islam is discarding Sharia, but also purging the
Quran itself of enormous suras that are not only patently false, but totally
repugnant to a civilized humanity. This line of thinking, to sanitize Islam is
explicitly forbidden in the Quran:
Quran 2:85:”Do you, then, believe in some parts of the divine writ and deny the
truth of other parts? What, then, could be the reward of those among you who do
such things but ignominy in the life of this world and, on the Day of
Resurrection; they will be consigned to most grievous suffering? For God is not
unmindful of what you do.”
Therefore there is no such thing as "radical Islam.” And those who take a
"liberal” view of Islam should be forced to back up their nouveau interpretation
with unabrogated scriptural facts. Unless such "reformists” can denounce fascist
Islam with scripture, they are the true radicals, which is why we never see them
pointing to scriptural arguments against jihad...they cannot because they are
lying. Islamic terrorists are only doing exactly what Muhammad demanded, and his
demands were not suggestions and they were not ephemeral. They were "perfect,”
eternal ultimata. Let us not forget that the terrorists are faithful and true to
what is written in their holy book.
The notion that only those who denounce what is plainly Islamic (and just as
plainly repulsive) are therefore the tools of Jews, or right-wing, paranoid,
NASCAR-loving, gun-rights-worshipping, evangelical Christians must be
exhaustively combated and rejected. This politicizing and obscuring reality only
keeps people confused, inured, and numb.
But because both those who believe Islam is defective and those who believe it
has been hijacked are equally in opposition to terrorism and coercion, there is
confusion about how Islam should be regarded. Perhaps the contrasting viewpoints
should be named so they can be referred to as valid concepts.
The notion that Islam is peaceful, but that only "radicals” are usurping and
distorting the "peace-of-Islam” should be called: Islam-revisionism and
advocates called Islam-Revisionists
The notion that Islam is inherently violent, coercive, harsh,
Jihad-oriented...and that it advocates slavery, intolerance, and
inequality...and that such traditional and realistic interpretations cannot be
reformed should be called Islam-realism and such advocates called
Once the side of realists has a name and can distinguish itself from wishful
revisionists, the public can begin to see that there are many voices which
(without advocating a specific competing religion) can denounce Islam per se,
and can speak to the real reasons. Islam continues its onslaught, and can
counter any senseless position, such as reforming them and bringing democracy
and tolerance to their lands (the RINOS position).
Recall how many times former President
George W. Bush praised Islam? Recall President George Bush’s
love affairs with the Sheikh Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and President
Obama’s bow to the Saudis’ Sheikh? Apparently, both presidents were/are
unaware of the existence of
Maj. Nidal Malik Hasans in the United States military, though the entire 8
years of the presidency of George W. Bush consumed around the 9/11 tragedy and
Islamic terrorism. Next in line to the Islamic Republic of Iran,
Saudi Arabia is the largest sponsor and supporter of Islamic terrorism in
the world. Go figure!
Please tell the American people what has been done since this Muslim-American
Maj. savagely killed 14 people while shouting Allah-o-Akbar (one unborn child)
and hurting 30 others? As I
noted, the recent dastardly mass murder at Fort Hood, committed by
Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan will be forgotten by the public before very long.
Life will continue on its deadly course, pushed along in a variety of ways by
agents of death, Islamists. Only the families who lost their loved-ones and
those who survived the bullets have to live the rest of their lives with
incapacitating injuries and, in the main, won’t be able to put the episode
Those who claim that they want to reform Islam want to transform it by stripping
it of a great many provisions that are anathema to civilized humanity. These
people are, in fact, trying to make a new religion out of the old with no divine
authority that was, supposedly, bestowed upon Muhammad to launch his religion.
If I am right, then Islam will always be a bête noire to the West. Even dopey
secularists and leftists will realize that fact one day, perhaps only after
their delusions sink all of us. But realizing the fact that this religious power
is at eternal war with you is not an act of hopelessness, and therefore it is
not a call to pollyanishness. It simply means we must always be on our guard and
never self-deluded. It may mean we have to leave the Islamists alone and hope
that their people slowly convert to another religion or become unaffiliated.
Until then, we should keep our powder dry.
I have refused to accept several organizations that seek to combat or expose the
antics of "radical” or "extreme” Islam, because I know that it is not extremism
that is causing the violence...it’s mainstream, typical, normal, traditional,
specified, canonical Islam.
There are those who with a wink and a nod understand this but continue to work
as revisionists because they are afraid of starting a religious war, even as
they feel compelled to do something. They tell me, "You can’t openly accuse an
entire religion of being evil! That would just incite them and make them hate us
even more. My response: the war started in the 7th century, and if in the 21st
century we still refuse to accept that reality, then there is perhaps is no hope
at all for civilization. Nothing good can come from deception.
I argue that any belief system that licenses murder in the name of Jihad and the
conquering and subduing of the world of the infidels by the Ummah, should be
outlawed. Prophet Mohammed brewed up a militant, radical and extremely
irrational imperialistic cult that sought world dominance. My fellow travelers,
let us make one thing clear; Islam is no more a religion deserving our respect
or legal recognition than is cannibalism.
It is time for the Americans to call upon the lawmakers of the United States of
America to immediately create a safety board and commissioner to study and
examine the dangers of Islamic dogma in our society. In the monumental task of
dealing with Islam, every individual, group and government must combine their
resources and energies to prevail. The destiny of the civilized life hangs in
the balance. Shirking responsibility is an unpardonable act of every enlightened
human being and organization that values human liberty and dignity.