Another video was released which critics say is intended to help John McCain to win the 44th presidential election against his opponent, Barack Obama. This video has deserved many controversial comments.

Obama is claimed to attend a radical Muslim school and he was taught Wahhabism (a fundamentalist form of Islam). In reality, Obama attended a Muslim elementary school, as according to him, he was unable to bear the expensive cost in an American school. This statement was clearly written in his second book entitled “The Audacity of Hope”. On page 274, he wrote that:

Without the money to go to the international school that most expatriate children attended, I went to local Indonesian schools and ran the streets with the children of farmers, servants, tailors, and clerks.

Some unknown e-mails claimed that Barack Obama attended a Muslim school for as long as 4 years. How true is this statement? In fact, Barack Obama only attended a Muslim school for 2 years, and later he attended a Roman Catholic school. He explained that he was neither taught Wahhabism nor any Islam related materials. In his autobiography entitled “Dreams from My Father” which was published in 1995, on page 142, Barack Obama wrote that:

In Indonesia, I'd spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Roman Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies. In the Catholic school, when it came time to pray, I'd pretend to close my eyes, then peek around the room. Nothing happened. No angels descended.

It is said that Obama's father raised Barack Obama as a radical Muslim. How true is this fact again? With regards to this issue, Barack Obama described in his autobiography which was written in 1995 about both his biological father Barack Hussein Obama Sr. and his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro (a non-practicing Muslim) as both Muslim. Whether it is an agnostic or atheist is by choice. Though Barack Obama was raised as a Muslim, there're no firm evidences to support that he is a radical Muslim. Also, by the time his father married the younger Obama's mother, he was an atheist or agnostic, meaning that he was no longer practicing a Muslim practice in his life. Barack Obama once wrote:

For my mother, organized religion too often dressed up closed-mindedness in the grab of piety, cruelty and oppression in the cloak of righteousness.

This isn't to say that she provided me with no religious instruction. In her mind, a working knowledge of the world's great religions was a necessary part of any well-rounded education. In our household the Bible, the Koran, and the Bhagavad Gita sat on the shelf alongside books of Greek and Norse and African mythology. On Easter or Christmas Day, my mother might drag me to church, just as she dragged me to the Buddhist temple, the Chinese New Year celebration, the Shinto shrine, and ancient Hawaiian burial sites. But I was made to understand that such religious samplings required no sustained commitment on my part. Religion was an expression of human culture, she would explain, not its wellspring, just one of the many ways - and not necessary the best way - that man attempted to control the unknowable and understand the deeper truths about our lives.

In sum, my mother reviewed religion through the eyes of the anthropologist she would become; it was a phenomenon to be treated with a suitable respect, but with a suitable detachment as well.

A wicked e-mailed claimed Barack Obama as a Muslim. In fact, Barack Obama has been associated with the United Church of Christ since the mid-1980s. Barack Obama says that he attends the 11a.m. Sunday service at Trinity in the Brainerd neighborhood every week and his pastor, Wright, has become a close confidant. He is a Christian and he is rooted in the Christian tradition.

Some say Barack Obama converted himself to Christian to seek for a post of public office. But, this statement is not true. Barack Obama has become a member of the United Church of Christ since 1988, before he sought public office. That means his intention to be in Christ Jesus is not wholly aimed for seeking public office.

It is said that Barack Obama has benevolence towards radical Islam. However, this is not true again. Barack Obama once said: “You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings”. This statement further remarked that he won't tolerate with radical Islam, and he's more likely to give Osama bin Laden a kick. Therefore, there's no connection of the Obama's name with a terrorist leader, Osama bin Laden.

Barack Obama is said to have a middle name of “Hussein” and this is proved by many sources. But, even so, do you know how absurd and funky if people judge on other person's middle name. Do you know that George .W. Bush has a middle name of “Walker”? The “Walker” here refers to a devastatingly powerful armored combat vehicle, AT-AT Walker which Bush piloted while he was in the Galactic Empire's campaign in the Galactic Imperial Reserves on Endor. While piloting his AT-AT Walker, Bush fired on Endor civilians, which are called Ewoks. Up to now, Bush's involvement in the tragedy on Endor is sealed with mystery. Even a deceased victim came to Bush to seek for a justice. Press secretary Tony Snow asserted "The incident on the planet Endor is outside of United States jurisdiction. The Ewoks are not from the planet Earth and are therefore exempt from the Geneva Conventions." Bill Kristol came to the Bush's aid and said, "Look, I think that at the time, no one knew the Ewoks weren't a grave and gathering threat to national security."Kristol added, "I think in the end, history will show that George Bush did the right thing." And Bush was further defended by Bill O'Reilly, "Who are these Ewoks anyway? And can we trust them? They don't wear pants. Is that really the kind of example we want to set for our kids? The president was just protecting America, and your children."

Another claim hit Barack Obama is that he was willing to choose to study radical Islam as an adult in Indonesia. In fact, Barack Obama did attend a Muslim school in Jakarta in his age of 6 to 8. I think at these ages, he was under dilemma to have no choice to select which school he has to attend. Furthermore, Barack Obama emphasized that the school he attended did not teach radical Islam or Wahabbism. I know the Indonesian education system well. The school that Barack Obama attended in Indonesia is not really a religion-based school but just a government school with secular curriculum. Here, kids from different religions are mixed in one class and there is no obvious separation of male and female. And this is not a case in the radical Islamic school. The CNN in Jakarta, Indonesia and Washington, D.C. reported that the allegations that Barack Obama has attended a Madrassa to be baseless and untrue. The deputy headmaster of the Basuki school (in which Obama attended from 1969 to 1971), Hardi Priyono said, “This is a public school. We don't focus on religion. In our daily lives, we try to respect religion, but we don't give preferential treatment.” He further remarked, “It's not an Islamic school. There's a lot of Christians, Buddhists, also Confucian….So, that's a mixed school.”

When dealing with recent e-mails falsely claimed that Barack Obama is a Muslim, he said, “I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ,” while interviewing by Ted Olsen and Sarah Pulliam. Barack Obama has been constantly mentioning about the role of faith in politics in June 2006. Barack Obama emphasized his strong Jesus Christ beliefs to the media. During his election campaign, it was obvious that he has his head bowed in prayers and he insists that he will be guided by prayer when he's in his office. Barack Obama made clear of his position as a Christian by repeatedly said that he is a Christian who attends Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

Barack Obama denied the three rumors on him that are circulated widely on the internet. The rumors claimed that he is a Muslim, he was sworn in to Congress on the Quran, and that he rejects to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Watch the video to know the explanation from Barack Obama.

Remark:

I personally think that people should never have narrow mind towards the elected 44th US President, Barack Obama. Is that a shame for people not a “Christian” (not on Obama case) to run the country? Religion doesn't have any close-relation to run a country, does it? Who's capable to rule the country, he or she will be selected for this IMPORTANT task. The Christians are not necessary be in white, it can be of any colors. These days, due to the influx of different cultures, “the White Christian” has been a past, no more fact emphases that the Christian must be white.

Regardless of who is elected for a president, it's a time for most Americans to demand for a change as 8 years Bush's administrations have brought more frustrations to Americans. Why do people still want to question about the eligibility of Barack Obama as the next president of the United States? It's time for a new government under Barack Obama to address people's needs and desires that have long been dreamed of on the land of America.

Personally, I don't matter Barack Obama's past, but the foremost thing is whether he's capable to bring a progress to America and at the same time, he is justice to every American, including those who're not of his races.

Any discussions on Barack Obama's past, background and school he attended during his childhood are pointless. As I think he's a Christian for many years, people shouldn't attack him with his previous background upon his victory in the recent election. I think his task, choice of career and his patriotism towards America matter much rather than anything else. I am sure that he's a right person to fill the vacancy of 44th president of America. Let us pray whole-heartedly for a unity, economic growth, political stable of the America, and no more controversy circulated around Barack Obama who I think is better than George W. Bush and John McCain. Place your belief and confidence towards your new elected president, Barack Obama but please don't be stirred by the wicked and unintentionally planned messages with the aims to see America in collapse.

Upon exciting about Obama's victory, I'm concerned about Barack Obama's personal security. He might become a focus for a radical Islam group to attack as he tried to convert from Islam to Christian. For them, any conversion to other religion is DEATH. So, America should have a strict protection towards this newly elected president while preparing to attack from any unexpected bombings and planned attacks. At this moment, CIA, and other security arm forces should be careful enough to protect America so that 911 event won't repeat in the United States.

Cool chick, writing warrior and friend, Blogging Naveen, recently shared Campbell Brown’s fabulous commentary, So what if Obama were a Muslim or an Arab?  It’s worth the read, but, should you be short on time, the title alone communicates the crux of the message, “When did Arab and Muslim become dirty words?”  

Sure, in 1961 some people thought being Catholic would be an insurmountable barrier to the White House.  0bviously, JFK’s win proved it was not.  And now it seems, I don’t know, silly or crazy, to think that anyone was even concerned.  But they were.  Catholicism and potential ties to the Vatican were feared.  Unnecessarily.  It leaves me sad to think that in the last 40+ years instead of becoming more enlightened we’ve just switched up which religion we slander.  Brown eloquently and accurately points out that, “we've all been too quick to accept the idea that calling someone Muslim is a slur.”

I consider one of the best hours of television to be the West Wing episode that followed 9/11.  It was simple, yet profound.  When I hear ‘Muslim’ or ‘Arab’ so casually used and accepted as a means to diminish or malign I think of the mess hall scene.  The White House has been attacked and is in lockdown.  Josh and Donna are left to entertain a group of touring teens who are trying to understand the events of the day.  Josh explains to his room full of students (and a home audience of xenophobes) that radical Muslims who support jihad against America, or Islamic extremists, are to Islam as the KKK is to Christianity.  Meaning, they are both fringe elements. 

Now, I don’t know any KKK members (that I’m aware of!) but I know a heck of a lot of Christians and I wonder, how would you feel, if every time someone referred to you as a Christian, the implication was that you might be a Klan member?  I know it’s an absurd idea, but so is the implication that being Muslim is an automatic link terrorism.

Sigh.

Yeah, yeah, I know.  Obama is Christian, not Muslim.  But, so what if he were?

It seems that the "politically correct" thing to do lately is to accept just about anything without real knowledge and thought if the crowd is caught up in its frenzy. There are major differences in how we think, as Americans, and how Muslims think.

Consider the Following about Muslims:

1. Their allegiance is to Allah, the moon God of Arabia.
2. No other religion is accepted by their Allah except Islam (Quran, Koran 2:256).
   
3. Their allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam (the core beliefs that shape Muslim thought, deed and society) and the Quran.
4. Their allegiance is to Mecca, the most holy city in Islam, to which they turn in prayer five times a day.
5. Islam forbids making friends with Christians or Jews.
6. Men are instructed to marry many Women and have a right to beat them when they disobey (Quran 4:34).
   
7. They must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.
   
8. We declare "one nation under God" when we speak of the United States of America; the Christian's God is loving and kind. Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father in the Quran's 99 excellent names.
9. They cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and they believe the Bible to be corrupt.
   
10. Islam, Muhammad (prophet of Islam), and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
    

Muslims obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans based upon what we know about their beliefs. This needs to be understood because our country and future are at stake. There is, and always has been a Religious war and it is much bigger than we know and understand.

The Muslims have said they will destroy us from within. Having a Muslim president would seem to be a huge advance to that goal. If Obama is a Muslim, he will have access to our national confidential and security secrets? Are we sure we want to gamble our lives and country?

I know all of you including me have different opinions about these two churches. We are taught by our parents, our school teacher, and our congregation that our existing faith is the true religion and all others are wide of the mark. Probably the reason why we are experiencing wars between these two dominant creeds is because followers of Christianity and Islam are being trained that their faith is superior with that of the other. In fact, no church leader will ever give up their beliefs in favor of other religion because doing so is a manifestation of a weak belief, a weak faith, and a weak congregation. Also, such action will work against the two fundamentals of a church's existence…trust and conviction.

I really have second thoughts writing this article because analyzing a religion is considered a taboo for many church leaders. Religion is like a law that must be followed and should not be questioned. But I cannot stop my mind from asking why these religions are allowing their believers to wage war with each other just to protect their church? Is it not that religion should promote peace not war? Love rather than hate? But why are these churches allowing this? Why are they allowing killings of innocent people just for the sake of protecting their faith?

The solution to any conflicts between different parties requires certain level of compromise. Meaning, all parties involved in the conflict must be ready to give-up some of their convictions in order to meet half-way and to see point of views eye to eye. Are both churches ready for such compromise? Probably not.

Ever since the uproar of the Danish cartoon fiasco in 2005, there has been a constant debate about the understanding of freedom of speech. Published in the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, the reaction towards the caricatures of the Muslim's Prophet Muhammad was either peaceful protest or violent remonstration from the Muslim world. Danish and Norwegian embassies were burnt in Syria and Beirut, and foreign ministries from eleven Islamic countries demanded an apology from the Danish Government, which were denied on the grounds that the government did not have any control whatsoever on the media and/or newspaper publications. Twenty-three of the thirty-one polled cartoonists agreed to make caricatures of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad. Supporters of the cartoons justified their right to exercise freedom of speech, whereas critics claimed that it was an act of intolerable blasphemous insult to the religion of Islam.

Robert Spencer, a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law, in his article Cartoon Rage vs. Freedom of Speech, stresses the importance of the literal meaning of the word “free.” He believes in upholding the essence of freedom, and is against the boundaries and limitations placed on the expression. In his article, he quotes,

Freedom of speech encompasses precisely the freedom to annoy, to ridicule, and to offend. If it doesn't, it is hollow. The instant that any person or ideology is considered off-limits for critical examination and even ridicule, freedom of speech has been replaced by an ideological straitjacket. (Spencer, Cartoon Rage vs Freedom of Speech)

The fact that the cartoons were re-printed and published all over Europe demonstrates the unwillingness of the Western point of view to make any special preference over a certain ideology-secular or religious.

The Muslim world is not opposed to the idea of freedom of speech, but they are cautious as to what boundaries are to be placed upon the much-debated ideology of the term. When speaking the mind freely, one should not transgress the limits that are strongly felt but that are invisible to human. However, humans are bound to make mistakes that can either be irreversible or rectified, but the efforts in attempting to be mindful and respectful of other people counts a lot. Surely, there were people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike who would agree with Mohammad Al-Shaibani from Kuwait's Al-Qabas daily who wrote “Such freedom becomes racism and a breach of human rights.”

Many Muslims strongly condemn the acts of those Muslims who were responsible for the catastrophic events that followed the publication, but even though Jyllands-Postan issued an apology letter at the end of January 2006, it was not what the Muslims were expecting. The response from the Danish newspaper was as follows,

In our opinion, the 12 drawings were sober. They were not intended to be offensive, nor were they at variance with Danish law, but they have indisputably offended many Muslims for which we apologize.

Even though an apology was manifested, the rage continued, because the apology was written insincerely.

Not only did Muslims condemn the Danish newspaper's publication; many Christians, Jews, and non-Muslims alike attacked the issue as being an insensitive act of blasphemy against the Muslims. I believe that the Jyllands-Postan, and all other publications who has published similar works,should stand up and apologize for every rude and satirical remark they have made, not only about Islam but about Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, and other religions. According to a British newspaper columnist, freedom of speech is one thing, but “absolute freedom” is a sign of newborn savages.

The boy from my tenth grade class used his best discretion to fulfill his obligation of completing the exam. Perhaps it was for the best that he chose not to write anything at all; similarly, it is probably best not to say anything at all if we fear we might hurt or anger someone. The Danish cartoons were insensitive, offensive, and insulting to a great number of people, particularly the Muslims. The question is not “should they have done it,” but it is “what should they have done about it?” My method is pretty simple: Be mindful of how you articulate yourself when talking to a single individual or a large gathering because there can be severe consequences; consequences that the rest of the world has to endure when innocent victims are killed. It would benefit us all if we took this right of freedom of speech as a privilege rather than a mere tool.

So what's the problem now? For many outsiders looking in, and Turkey's military elite it's the AKP party. Describing itself as conservative (in a religious sense) yet able to keep “church” separate from “state” the AKP party to Turkish military elite is simply a reincarnation of a now banned political party that was too “Islamic” and anti-secular. Even with its many critics the AKP party managed to snag two victories but this year they've come under fire. Leading the opposition against the AKP party is Mr. Abdurrahman Yalcinkaya, Turkey's chief prosecutor at the Court of Appeal. Mr. Yalcinkaya sees the AKP party as a threat to all that the Turkish Republics founding father, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, stood for and created.

What does this mean? Possibly political instability. Something no one want's to welcome especially with the ongoing problems with Kurdish fighters and the recent bombing in Istanbul that killed 17 people and wounded 150 others. To make matters worse economic problems may be looming in the future for the Turkish economy. If the party is banned foreign investors could start packing up. Whatever the outcome, the AKP party will be sure to have their supporters behind them.

Our neighbors or allies will be sacrificed to achieve this goal. They are being tortured and murdered daily just for being friendly to the United States. Their cities are being bombed and their citizens killed just to remind them that by befriending America they must pay with their own lives. It is a ruthless form of blackmail.

It is common knowledge that giving in to blackmail only encourages more of the same. The initial blackmailers will simply increase their demands and copycats will follow in their foot steps. The circle of terror and heartbreak will remain unbroken. There is a terrible price to pay when the blackmailers demands are not met. Innocent people will die. There seems to be no certain way of combating this horror except through compromise. This is a position that many people in Washington have taken and I submit it is a fatal position.

Most of the rational peoples of the world recognize peace through diplomacy. The key word is rational. We are not dealing with rational people when it comes to radical Muslims however. This is not just my understanding or personal views on Islamic doctrine. They have openly and re- peatedly warned us that unless we convert to Islamic religious beliefs and lifestyles, they will simply kill all of us! Their militant leaders have been crying loudly for the masses to rise up and kill the infidels without exception and mercy for years now. Well, guess what.

They are doing it! Indeed, if the United States of America continues to pursue peace through diplomacy with them, or fails to answer with force against political blackmail, the death toll of the innocents will be staggering. I am not a hater of the Arab race or any race that embraces Islam. I am just a man that takes their threats seriously. I merely believe what they have been saying for years now. Their holy vows demand that we as Christians, must convert, or they will kill us....There is no grey area or compromise in their demands. I also believe that even if we complied, we would always be closet Christians and our futures would be short and violent.

There are many nations now unable to fight militant Islamic factions by themselves. If their government falls to radical Islam, mass murder of their citizens will make the holocaust seem like a day at the beach. You only have to look at recent history in Irag and Afghanistan. They are more than capable of killing entire Arab families for just befriending Americans. They have no respect for life unless it's Islamic and radical Islamic at the core... I remember when 9-11 happened and the anger of Americans demanded justice and a swift response from our military. Our president warned us it would take years for reprisals and armed campaigns against Islamic terrorists to be effective and substantial. We listened but we didn't hear. The political climate changed and the media did their normal and disgraceful hatchet job on Bush and we the Americans, the amnesiacs, the ever, never faithful, were soon calling our President, a war monger.

The call for arms was demanded and met. Yes, there were lies and deception coming out of Washington concerning the war, but our troops were committed and they are dying for us. They are heros and they are fighting a just war. The only force that radical Muslims recognize and adhere to is armed force. They are (holy warriors), killing innocent people and children in the name of Allah. Well, I am a Christian, and my God would never condone murder, terror, and slaughtering children in his name. The two religions do have one thing in common. It is the name of God. The Muslims call him Allah, and we call him God. We are alike in name only. I have to say at this point, there are more decent, moral, and humane Muslims, than the radical factions by far. There are many indecent,immoral, and decadent Christians also. The difference lies in the fact that the latter has not declared a holy war on all Muslims and other cultures that do not share their religious beliefs.

However, I must address an issue that has left me ashamed, humiliated, and even broken-hearted. It is one of the pit falls or side effects from fighting a guerrilla type of war. It is not like the Great World Wars where there are well defined battlefields, uniformed soldiers, and even docu- mented rules for engagement and ethics. The war in Irag and Afghanistan has been cloaked in covert and dark operations, dependent upon intelligence and interrogation methods, rather than clear, military targets our soldiers were trained for.

The issue I'm speaking of is the treatment of prisoners by regimes from both sides. More specifically, our treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, and Abu Ghraid in Irag. When I saw the recent reports on these matters, I knew we had made mistakes that left the entire world incredulous and angry over our treatment of our Arab prisoners. I will explore these issues in part two of “ The World's Big Brother”.

There has been much talk of restoring of the Islamic Caliphate which once stretched from the Atlantic Ocean to the heart of Asia. This issue is often treated as if central to the cause of the modern movement of true Islam. It is implied that as these lands were once under the guidance of the perfect justice of Islam, they should fall under its guidance again. However, such an approach is limiting to the Islamic movement; it excludes the possibility of a foundation of a global Caliphate free from the despotism of the rule of men and their false systems of belief, free from the oppression that typifies all that is not Islam. For once a Caliphate such as that which is hearkened for by many is restored, a tension will exist between the true equality and justice of the lands under the dominion of Islam and the false equality and justice that reside without its borders. This is not a situation which can be tolerated. Not only will this perpetuate the underserved suffering resulting from the oppressive nature of the ignorant barbarism of the world of infidels, but it will perpetuate the existence of the possibility of the dilution of the perfect Islamic system with non-Islamic ideas.

Neither of these factors can be ignored. The former - that of the suffering caused by servitude of some men to others - is ably demonstrated by the capitalist West, whilst the latter is able demonstrated by the collapse of the original Caliphate, under the influence of that which existed outside its borders. Therefore, if a situation were to arise where only as part of the world were to fall under truly Islamic rule, the suffering caused by “servitude to men” would only be eliminated in certain areas, and wouldn't necessarily be eliminated permanently. It is therefore necessary to ensure that there is nothing that resides outside the borders of the Islamic world; in other words, there must be no borders to the Islamic world, as it must encompass the entire world. However, it is not realistic to assume that the entire world can at once be brought under the just dominion of Islam; a Caliphate similar to that which existed in the past must be established as a vanguard for the establishment of the global Caliphate. The key difference between the new Caliphate (in its incomplete state, i.e. before it encompasses the world) and the old is that is must be recognised as a means to an end, and not the final limit to the propagation of Islamic justice in the world. Thus will the world be permanently free from the suffering caused by “servitude to men.”

Islam is perfectly suited to acting as a vanguard for establishing a global system, as it is natural for Islam to play the role of leaders of mankind. This is evident from the society formed by the Prophet Muhammad, upon whom be peace, and his Companions, which was unequalled by its contemporaries in terms of social justice and geopolitical expansion. There are great parallels between the situation of Muhammad, upon whom be peace, and the situation of true Islam in the modern world; the greatest of these is that between the worlds of then and now. Before Muhammad, upon whom be peace, revealed the true word of God, there existed nothing but ignorance and primitive barbarism; there was no system comparable to Islam in terms if its perfect social justice. Now, there is no truly Islamic society (although truly Islamic ideas and movements do exist) and nothing exists but ignorant barbarism. This is because no society lives under Shariah law whilst truly venerating God. In other words, those societies which cite God as constitutionally sovereign and claim to abide by His law are not truly Islamic as they allow some individuals to wield power over others. In the words of ash-shaheed Sayyid Qutb, any society that “transfers to man one of the greatest attribute of God, namely sovereignty, and makes some men lords over others” cannot be described as anything but barbaric. As it was the duty of the Prophet to lead the world out of this abhorrent state, it must be the duty of modern Islam to lead the world out of its decadence and into a state where every individual can be truly equal before God. This is the Golden Path to Justice.

In order to do this, ash-shaheed Sayyid Qutb compelled us thus: “Islamic belief should at once materialise into a practical movement.” As it currently stands, this movement is employing a single and largely ineffective tactic, which is generally labelled as “terrorism.” The acts of terror tend to be aimed against separate institutions and governments, against small groups of individuals rather than the masses; they may be indirectly aimed at the masses, but the indirect results of acts of terror are counterproductive for the movement, Islam is regularly misrepresented; qualifying the label “terrorist” with the description “Islamic” is now perceived as tautological. Although the Crusader-Zionist Alliance claims to be waging a “war on terror,” pre-emptive strikes have been aimed at Islamic “terrorists” and civilians alike, but not, for example, at ETA or the pIRA. The character of Islam has hence been transformed in the opinion of the masses to a distinctly negative one; they are now perceived as “the enemy.” If the movement aims to propagate the Islamic faith throughout the world of barbarism it is making its task harder by giving the West cause to promote a negative image of Islam. The use of terror is highly unsuitable as a tactic; if the masses fear Islam, they will not be in a position to rationally accept its perfect justness. Therefore, another strategy must be employed if the Golden Path to the establishment of a global Islamic Caliphate is to be negotiated.

The efforts of the global struggle must be concentrated in one area; instead of undertaking a number of smaller strikes over a large area, a single massive strike must be made at the heart of the world of the ignorant barbarians. The dissipation of the previous attacks has limited their effect in reducing the dominance of barbarism; the attacks on New York, London and Madrid have not weakened the grip of the barbarian systems upon these States, nor of the barbarian grip on the West. The attitude of these victim states has been to treat these acts of terror as temporary setbacks in their onward march. This cannot be allowed to occur if the modern Islamic movement is to succeed in its goal. The setback must be a permanent one; an institution must be destroyed; a State must be overthrown; a direct strike must be carried out against the way of life of the ignorant barbarians.

The question of against which State or institution this strike should be levelled revolves around the factors of the potential ease of victory, logistics and the effect of a successful strike on the world of the infidels. It would be easy, for example, to overthrow a sub-Saharan republic and establish a truly Islamic society. However, there may be little local support for this; a widespread lack of education may prevent the perfect justice of Islam from being accepted as the most rational solution; the greatest problem in this case, however, is that it would not be a strike at the very heart of the ignorant barbarism of the infidels. In terms of this factor, the greatest possible strike would be the removal of the US government and the creation of an Islamic society within its lands, but this would prove logistically impossible in the immediate future. The UK government is a perfect target for an Islamic coup d'état. It is a key part of the Crusader-Zionist Alliance, meaning that its defeat will be a strike at the very heart of the infidels. The movement has already carried out two attacks in London, and there is much support for the movement's cause in the UK. The combination with the existent support already in place, with the human and material resources currently at the disposal of the global movement, provides the greatest chance for success. This will be the first step on the Golden Path to justice.

The overthrowing of a corrupt infidel power which seeks only to maintain its position as lord over the people - a position to which it has no right - and its replacement with perfect justice and equality will demonstrate the power of the Islamic faith and its social manifestation. In the words of ash-shaheed Qutb, “the growth of the Muslim community, including its ideas, morals, education and training was due to its belief…[which] derives its power from the simple and clear truth on which it stands.” There will be automatic comparison between the State which exploited, alienated and impeded the freedom of its people, and the Islamic one, where no individual is forced to submit to another, where no individual may be exploited by another for personal material gain. If an infidel were to make this comparison, their rationality would lead them to the Islamic faith, with its just and equal society based upon God's perfect law. The potential for the Islamic faith to inspire others is evident from the current strategy of terrorism, with acts of martyrdom inspiring further acts of martyrdom. The power of faith must be utilised to guide the world on the Golden Path to the establishment of a global Caliphate; once a strike has been levelled against the world of the infidel, the expansion of the Caliphate is inevitable.

The time has come for the true Muslims of the world to unite and, God willing, launch a deadly strike against the infidel.

Today many lambaste the idea that there can be peace between these groups due to what is occurring in Occupied Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and many other regions. Wherever the United States administration sees fit to create discord and division, you will find death and destruction. Yet when we look at the crystallization of ideas that brought about a system that complemented the best of humanity, we should yearn to replicate that era. Many would criticize this idea because of the nonexistence of these types of societies today however if we carefully research what forces destroyed these societies we will find that it is akin to what we see happening among the Muslims today. We need to try and revive that idea that made Andalus prosper. The Iberian Peninsula under the rule of Muslims emphasized the Islamic way of life.

In November 2004 the United States government decided, without the consent of the Iraqi government, that the construction of a wall 12 foot high and three miles long was needed to separate differing factions in Iraq. The thought was that it would quell the violence that has been occurring there since the occupation by coalition forces. But this is not the first barricade constructed and probably wont be the last. Unfortunately the old idea of divide and conquer is at play in Iraq. The Shia, Sunni and Kurds are Muslims and the violence is being labeled sectarian but the cause is relevant to the occupation. Occupation has wrought what we are witnessing today. Occupation takes away from a people their dignity, identity and freedom. The freedom to choose ones leader and the freedom to be governed according to a defined set of ideas is central to any society. When that is obstructed by an outside entity, as is so with the American contingent in Iraq, rebellion is bound to occur. Additionally, the occupying force enlists members of the host country to join them in their effort to control the masses and the end result is chaos and increased violence.

This same idea of occupation was the crux of the downfall of Andalus and the literal genocide of a people. Andalus was composed of the historic cities of Seville, Granada and Cordoba. The Roman Catholic Church wanted the land and made plans to extinguish the population, Muslim and Jewish alike. The Spanish Inquisition was born. The war plan was to create a system whereby they could instill a sense of fear into a portion of the society and cause some members to assist them in the quest to conquer Andalus. First those Muslims who were sincere in their faith were subject to public trials. Their fate lied in either renouncing their belief in Islam and converting to Christianity or dying a humiliating public death which entailed having to wear the clothing of a heretic and being burned at the stake. Muslims literally had to go under ground to practice their religion. This was also the case with Judaism. Homes were occupied and families were destroyed. Those who assisted the occupying force were looked upon with disdain by the majority population and a resistance movement was formed.

Resistance is what is occurring in Iraq today. Walls do nothing but divide and create a sense of entrapment and despair. Saddam Hussein is dead and history will continue to tell his story but the people of Iraq can not be made to pay for his ruthlessness.

The death of over 650,000 Iraqis and close to 3,300 American military personnel by the end of 2004 does not signify victory. Preserving life by ending the occupation is the only way to reclaim our moral high ground and take the lead toward reestablishing world peace.

Andalus exemplified that ideal for nine centuries and has yet to be replicated any where on this earth.

Today, these two people groups are filled with resentment and hatred for each other in the Middle East. Additionally, in 1948, when Israel displaced those who already were settled in the land that Israel now occupies, it only increased the feelings of hostility. The conflict was mostly restricted to the local area around Israel until after the 1967 and 1973 battles that ended with Israel occupying even more Middle East real estate.

It had become apparent that the defeat of Israel in straight head-to-head battles was not likely to be a short term possibility. Various terrorists groups began to emerge with violence in other parts of the world. Most of these claimed to either be a part of the Middle East groups or to be working with them. The terror acts were directed at places and people who were friends and allies of Israel. These attacks ranged from hijacking ships to planes; bombing cars, trains, and public places; and culminated with the attacks on 9/11. It is likely that they are not over.

The Qur'an espouses the spread of Islam even with violence in some circumstances. This has been interpreted by the more radical Muslims as an endorsement for creating strife in other parts of the world. This has resulted in a lot of the problems in various African nations. While not all African violence can be attributed to this, much of it can. This is especially true in lands where there are strong Muslim and Christian cultures existing in close proximity.

Israel is sometimes at the heart of certain terrorist activities. Most of this is blamed on efforts at self-defense against the Arab nations and extremists. However, some Israelis resent the existence of the Islamic nations that surround them as much as the Muslims resent Israel. Because of this, extremists from Israel work to keep the fires hot by doing acts of terrorism against Muslims and Palestinians in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world.