Posted on 06/11/2012 2:17:39 AM PDT by Olog-hai
In pointing out recently that Geert Wilders confounds Americans with his fearless clarity, one of the incidents I had in mind was an interview he sat for in May with The Daily Caller's Jamie Weinstein. …
The interview starts off smoothly enough with Geert Wilders' basic story and goals for his book Marked for Death: Islam's War Against the West and Me. Geert goes on to explain why Islam "should not be compared so much with other religions like Christianity or Judaism" but rather "to other totalitarian ideologies like Communism and Fascism. If we acknowledge that fact then you don’t have to treat it like a religion and a lot of problems can be solved far more –"
This a provocative and instructive point but Weinstein cuts him off, deflecting conversation to Israel, which doesn't have a more ardent supporter than Wilders ("Israel is a canary in the coal mine...a beacon of light in total darkness.. I believe we should all support Israel … in this "jihad against us all". …), to Islam and, at Weinstein's cue, Muslims. …
Geert states his basic position: that he has nothing against people, that the majority of Muslims in our society are law-abiding. He makes the distinction, à la Ibn Warraq, that there are moderate people who are Muslim, but, getting back to the concrete subject at hand, there is no moderate Islam. "Don't let anybody fool you who says Islam can be moderated," Wilders says. "There are not two Islams; there is only the Islam of the Koran, the Islam of the life of Mohammed, and the Islam of sharia law." …
(Excerpt) Read more at brusselsjournal.com ...
I question the intelligence of anyone spouting the “Moderate Islam” garbage. The Koran says what it says and it is not ambiguous about it. “Oh Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come kill him” is not some coded message of love. Nor is “Kill thee Infidel wherever you find him”.
Logically, to accept that there are two Islams, one would have to agree there are two Roman Catholicisms with two Popes. One following the Bible and one not. There is one Pope. There is one Roman Catholicism. There is one Islam.
A “moderate’ Muslim is one who would not kill the Jew behind the rock or the Infidel. And since that would be a violation of clear Islamic teaching, that person would be an Infidel by definition. “Moderate Muslim” is a contradiction in terminology. It simply cannot exist by definition. As such, people using the term and promoting it should be corrected with fact and not EVER allowed to spout a clear lie.
Make them explain logically how a person promoting a clear violation of a teaching can be an adherent/proponent of that teaching.
I’ve come to a conclusion similar to Geert’s. Islam is a misogynistic totalitarian political system that uses religion as a beard and as a means of control of the masses. I am for a Constitutional Amendment delisting Islam as a religion due 1A protections.
Beyond that, see tagline.
Seeking moderate islam is as big a waste of time as looking for the clean end of the turd.
I would wear it proudly in the Constitution State. Did you make this or can I buy it?
Is keeping an official list of religions a legitimate function of the federal government?
Which I am not proposing.
Nice straw man.
No, keeping a list of religions is not a function of the federal government but keeping a list of terrorist groups is required.
Please to note my tagline & make any additions to the target list. May I suggest the Aswan High Dam?
I’ve got a couple of these, which I alternate with Rush’s GITMO cap. Make the libs nuts!
https://www.lifelibertyetc.com/ProductImages/Hats/Infidel-Hats/ede6990b-ce2a-4ed1-9b4e-9d240145c107
Liberals are willing to turn a blind eye to the evils inherent to Islam because they found that they can use Islamic practices to combat Judeao-Christian practices.
Yes. Unless you are okay with not validating the tax exempt status of those organizations.
“Geert states his basic position: that he has nothing against people, that the majority of Muslims in our society are law-abiding.”
On the surface the author is right and that is the problem, because of the very nature of Islam. The surface of Islam is best known through its doctrine of taqiyya, or deception.
The problem with concluding that the majority of Muslims are “law abiding”, is that the law of Islam is that when they live in the House of War (countries where Sharia is not yet in force), they are to posture and live in general compliance with local laws and customs. However, every Muslim knows that that the instant they achieve sufficient strength, then they must be fully faithful Muslims.
Part of being a fully faithful Muslim is obeying the Sharia law that demands they kill any apostate. Further, this law claims that anyone who has ever been born a Muslim cannot leave Islam without being liable for execution.
The problem is not how “moderate” Muslims may genuinely want to behave when they are in the west, it is the change in attitude that Islam expects and demands in certain circumstances. Contrast this to Christianity, where the more closely a Christian studies the teachings of Jesus, the more they understand the commitment to having peaceful relations with others.
One of the most easily seen examples of the truth about moderate Muslims is when we see a moderate commit an honor killing and then be defended by his surviving family members. In their minds, yes they are all being “law abiding”. And that is exactly the problem. Which law?
It is the only conclusion supported by the facts. Islam is a military, judicial, economic, social and political ideology of absolute domination with a false religious veneer to infect the simple and the foolish. It is more virulent and pestilential than National Socialism and demands butchery and moral travesty of its adherents. It obliterates the progress of the Enlightment and is an immediate existential threat to the West.
And with the exception of a few intolerable idiots, the countless thousands of United States military personnel who have seen the blood and murder of Islam up close are a future domestic political force to be reckoned with. The Lindberghs and Kennedys of today will inevitably give way to the Pattons and MacArthurs of the near future.
Our civilization will either foreclose kinetically on Dar al Islam or be destroyed with nuclear suicide.
It is a great strategic gift that Islam believes Obama to be representative of America’s committment to survival. That error provides opportunity to achieve reactive surprise; although I regretfully anticipate the loss of several American cities first.
That would be a strawman arguement had you not said “..deleteing them from the list...”. Since you did, it was merely a question.
James Madison himself asserted that the First Amendment does not protect sedition masquerading as religion!
izlam’s goal is to overthrow the Constitution and impose sharia law; that's a pretty clear statement of “sedition.”
The single biggest mistake Wilders and everyone else makes about Islam is looking past it’s founder. You can’t separate a philosopher from his philosophy and a founder from his movement, it is him; he is it. Mohammed was a murdering, demon obsessed pedophile who today would be every bit the wanted criminal Osama bin Laden was. It’s where bin Laden and all j would worship a monster like Mohammed are evil too and the sooner this garbage about ‘’good Muslims’’ is dispelled than maybe there will be hope that Westerners will finally understand there is no such thing as a ‘’good Saracen’’(Muslim).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.