Posted on 09/03/2014 12:30:48 PM PDT by markomalley
A “moderate” muslim is one that is not yet in the majority!
“I believe that the Shariah is the best way of life,” he also said. “I believe that one day Shariah will come to America and the rest of the world.”
... He then contended that there is no such thing as “radical” Islam.
“There is no such thing as a radical or moderate form of Islam,” he said. “You know, a woman is either pregnant or not pregnant. If you abide by Islam, and you follow what is in the Koran and the traditions of the prophet — then, quite frankly, you’d never find anything that I say which does not have Islamic basis.”
Radical islam - there is no such thing as “radical” Islam.
Excellent article — explains a lot.
The Protestant movement destroyed the unity of Christianity, and Luther was actually a great fan of Islam and one of his causes was polygamy because he felt his wife couldn’t service him properly. Since he died of extreme constipation, I’d say he had a lot of personal problems for which his wife was not responsible.
There were already changes going on in the Church aimed at reining in some of the more bizarre things that had established themselves, in many cases because some areas had been overrun by Islam and they had no bishops. The bishop is the teacher of his diocese.
In any case, Islam cannot be changed in any way, because it is utterly controlled by its scriptures, a combination of Mohammed’s writings and some early interpretations of them. And Islam has no power structure..it vaguely goes through, in one group, the descendants of Mohammed’s daughter, and in the other, through a cousin. So there’s no central point through which one can deal with it.
Another great article from Daniel Greenfield.
Ping.
Virtually all Western heads of state rushed off to pray at mosques immediately following 9/11 BARF BARF BARF BARF BARF
Yours was pulled as a duplicate, but I’m pinging you to this one as a courtesy so you can ping your list.
This is one of Greenfield’s best by far. While I appreciate his erudite writing, at times he is too smart for the rest of us. This article strikes straight to the heart in plain, repetitive language. Too bad no liberal would admit one word as true.
It is of course, only a racist diatribe against Pax Islama, the only true peace since the seventh century.
I understand the policy. I trust humblegunner had a hand in this.
No, this one was just posted first.
Got it. Thanks for the heads up.
I’ll restate Greenfield’s point: there are many believers in moderate Islam. Unfortunately none of them are Muslims.
Amen.
I don’t like Putin, but he’s your basic Russian nationalist. So he’s at least partially rational, and has some objectives that can be dealt with.
Islam wants total submission of everybody, throughout the world, to an insane law that would enslave us all and crush the West, modern civilization and Christianity. There’s a difference.
“There is no such thing as moderate Islam. There is only Islam” Former President of Eqypt.
Know it and believe it.
——The Protestant movement destroyed the unity of Christianity-——
You say that like before Luther the Church was unified....
You might want to check your history...
The excesses of human nature and the inevitable corruption that comes with too much power concentrated in the hands of a few in Rome destroyed the unity of the church. Selling indulgences and oppressing people to pay for the construction of the Vatican destroyed the truth of the Gospel. Luther wanted to reform the church, not destroy it.
Unlike Catholicism, the Reform movement never had and still has no central leader. It had then and continues to have greater and lesser leaders, teachers and witnesses who give testimony and live their conscience, worldwide. But the Reform church does not depend on Kings or Popes for organization.
Luther was not the sole cause of the Reform movement, any more than Obama is the sole arbiter of U.S. government, although he might like to be. Luther did not excommunicate himself. Many died in the wars that broke out over the struggle for power between the HRE, the Vatican, and the various crowned heads of Europe. Over the centuries, however, the "competition" between the three branches of Christianity (Orthodox, Catholic and Reform) has meant that all branches of the church have made improvements and have adopted many of each other's ideas over time.
It's rather churlish to take to FR to spread anti-Protestant "trutherism", just as it is churlish of non-Catholics to use FR to spread anti-Catholism. How does snarking about Luther's wife and his illnesses (one of which was Meuniere's disease, another was seizures) have to do with the eventual development of the core beliefs of the various Reform churches, which were winnowed by many Reform theologians in the 16th century, leaving out some of the musings the prolific Luther sketched out in favor of his Large and Small Cathechisms that crystallized the essence of a personal approach to worship, conscience, prayer, church and family leadership, and which formed major philosophical underpinnings to the Enlightenment, which in turn eventually gave birth to American project of freedom?
For the record, Benjamin Franklin had so many kidney stones he had to do headstands in order to pee. Abraham Lincoln had depression. George Washington had wooden false teeth, and never fathered any children that we know of. All of us fall short of the glory of God.
The Church was unified - except for the ebb and flow of mostly politically motivated difficulties between the Eastern and Western Church. The Latin Church survived better. If the Eastern Church had kept after things like Arianism and its related heresies, there would never have been an Islam.
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.