Less Than $700 To Go!!
Just A Reminder
Please Don't Forget
To Donate To FR
This Quarter
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 12/08/2015 8:56:22 AM PST by VinL
Video of Cruz where the quote was taken.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU29vFYZBl4
Note: 4:45 in video.... does not sound like he was butting heads much with Trump, but supporting his own outline he just proposed.
Open borders and importing the third world regardless of religion will import Democrat voters.
We have enough of a welfare state already. Help them in their own country. We already spent billions to do so.
Thanks for the link.
YOU are the sheeple here because you believe the MSM brand image of The Donald with such total conviction.
Cool, thanks.
I like Ted Cruz, he is definitely someone you want on your side. If Trump was not in this race I would be all in for Cruz with Paul my second choice. But Cruz is not the leader Trump is. Cruz is a brilliant lawyer, he will make a fine Supreme Court justice. Or a very good VP to President Trump.
You are arguing against the obvious. Either Cruz supports banning all Muslims from entering the USA until vetting is fixed or he doesn’t.
He says that he disagrees with Trump. Trump wants to ban all Muslims from entering until vetting gets fixed.
The title of this thread is: “Ted Cruz: ‘I do not agreee’ with Trump’s Muslim moratorium”
Is the title wrong?
As for things happening here that is to the detriment to our country and the feeling that there is nothing we can do about it...I understand the frustration. We do have this election cycle. But then there is the card we all hope never has to be played but was and is a part of the foundation of this country.
The option of last resort. The 2nd amendment. Those who are “leading” this nation should be reminded of that option from time to time. They seem to have forgotten their place at times.
There is always hope.
Jedi.
I am sorry if I misunderstood your point, nor was I trying to defend the Islamic Empire. I am in fact very glad of your erudite reply, its nice to see someone who knows their stuff so to speak and is another history scholar.
I, personally, as a history graduate, buff and European, sometimes find it surprising and frankly shocking that some people here (not you) think that the post-Reconquista behaviour of the Spanish and the Inquisition in general was a positive period of history. That it was necessary and justified. I cannot ‘get my head around’ such thinking.
It is no lie to say the Jews were better tolerated by the Moors than by the Reconquistas. The Reconquista may have been a positive and necessary step, but what followed it was at times shameful. And the Inquisition(s) was/were a stain on European history. An appalling period that no decent human being can defend.
As to Islam, whilst I share everyone’s hatred of radical Islam and the fear of what we are becoming, I, as a history lover, am well aware, that like any group of people, Muslims are neither all saints nor devils. I do not susbribe to the idiotic ‘everything I needed to know about Islam I learned on 9-11’ idea. The history of Islam is one of intolerance and brutality, but it is also one of tolerance and genius. It has given us both the Moors and suicide bombers, Islamic science and Bin Laden. I have been to Spain, Southern Europe, Turkey and N Africa and seen the brilliance of Moorish/Islamic culture. Places like Granada and Moorish Spain are astounding: the art and architecture is beautiful and breathtaking. Islamc has also given us great art, literature and science (despite post 9-11 revisionism).
All this makes what Islam today has become all the more tragic. It is a faith capable to genius and beauty, yet it has degraded into hatred. I like the theory of British historian Dr David Starkey, who believes that islam is going through its own violent reformation as we did, that this is the time frame comparable to Christianity (around 1400-1500 yrs after its birth) and that Islam will pass through this turbulent time a better and less violent faith.
BTW, Thank you for the bibliography included in your post. Makes for my Christmas reading. LOL
The Crusades can be justified. The Inquisition cannot. It is an appalling stain on European history.
Historians (even hostile non-religious historians) have changed their view over the last 3 decades with the discovery of trial transcripts and other documentation.
This video just scratches the surface.
Thanks for the link. Yeah, that’s the law I was thinking of, but I just could not recall the title or what year it passed, other than that it happened before I was on the planet!
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.
The great man had a FAR more complex relationship with Islam than the recent rec-discovery of his old texts re Islam might suggest. Most of the people now quoting him have no idea and I think most would be shocked.
I am prepared to be shocked, so shock me.
He strongly considered conversion to Islam at one point, and was obsessed with the religion. An interest he clearly lost. He also was one of the prime financial backers of the Regents Park Mosque.
I don’t understand at all why he is saying this. Why do you think he is saying it?
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.