Skip to comments.Muslim: current Arabic regimes are fascist! Theocracy contradicts with Islam
Posted on 05/09/2012 2:20:31 AM PDT by se99tp
There is not one Islam. This statement leads us to the question: what Islam predominates? Judging from what we can see in Arab countries, we can say that most of them are fascist, dictatorship, monarchies and autocracies. Some of them were radicalized by theocrats like in the case of Iran or Afganistan under the rule of Taliban. However most of Muslim countries are run by secular dictators like Assad in Syria, Mubarak in Egypt before his fall, Saddam Hussain in Iraq or monarchs in Gulf States. In many ways they have fueled radical Islam.... that Quran is open for interpretation for every Muslim. Because we do not have real clergy in Islam. Islamic clerics created system I call pseudo-clergy. Quran does not empower any clergy. It was development of Islamic tradition. Quran does not impose any mediator between man and God. Imam means a teacher and not a leader.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianconceptsdaily.com ...
I'm curious as to know which place exactly it was that they coexisted peacefully in Central Europe (what countries they are today). Did they live in a same country, or it was more detente situation?
It was in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth that existed long before British Commonwealth. The Tatars who at first fought with Poles signed agreement of peaceful coexistance. The other type of Islamic group calls itself Karaim, which is interesting mixture of Islamic(Turkish) and Hebrew culture. There is Karaim’s minority in Lithuania. Unfortunately however even remnaants of Tatars from Central Europe are being radicalized by Saudi teachers. Dr Jasser is right.
Being “moderate” Muslims is technically sinful backsliding that lasts only until a fundamentalist (fascist) minister arrives to set you straight—you see, reason is stalked by the mortal sin of dissenting from even the most ridiculous and anachronistic babblings of the prophet.
When the most evil among you is given the most power by the faith you all share—the impossibility of reform keeps everyone of you in a bubble of suspicion by the civilized world.
Thank you for the explanation. I learn something today.
But only if you actually agree with those who are radicalizing Islam. These are not my words, just read dr Jasser. I believe he understands the average Muslim’s way of thinking. They have to guess why, for instance, nothing like the PayPal protocol was created by Arabic industry. They have to understand that their civilization somehow stopped around Middle Ages. Don’t you think?
He/she is an infidel is always in the back of the Muslims mind as much as he/she is white is to the black person's brain—and unlike the he/she is not saved in the back of the Christian's brain, there is potential for violence as a result—speaking generally that is.. (Of course it wasn't always so for Christendom)
And radical Muslims and racist so-called “civil rights” leaders want to keep it that way.
There is a reason there is no islamic democracy, that reason is islam itself (and no Turkey is not a real democracy when the army is called in to keep it one whenever islam starts taking power in the government.
The reason for the co-existence of muslims and Christians for times in history is because there are always times the Christians fought back and either lost, kicked them out or were so horrific to them in war (example...Vlad the Impaler) they retreated for a while.....it never lasts. It can never last because islam demands they defeat and subjugate all others and sticking your head in the sand on that subject does not change the teachings in islam.
I will never get the total blindness some people have to islam when all you have to do is read to understand islam's evil. There is no excuse for the religion between the killing it calls for, the slavery of women and children and the absolute misery history has shown the people of islamic countries have lived in and under through out history and today.
It is the last killing religion that the West has for some reason not wiped out....like it did all the rest.
Everybody’s missing the point.
LITERACY amongst Muzzies is the problem, here.
As long as nobody Islamic can read, Muzzies can believe and act like normal folk (even Christians!), but when they ACTUALLY READ what’s in their book it all goes to hell.
Muzziedom is simply incompatable with anything. Minus another religion to hate—they’ll simply fight each other.
That Muslims and Christians peacefully co-existed in Central Europe from the 15th to 19th centuries would have been quite a surprise to those who actually lived back then.
The Cossacks, Poles, Russians, Lithuanians, Tatars and Turks fought dozens of wars during this period. To be fair, these wars by no means always split up into Christian vs. Moslem groups. Often one of the Christian groups would ally with one of the Muslim groups against other Christians. In particular, the Catholic Poles vs. Orthodox Russians often had as bitter religious relations as the Christians and Muslims.
For much of this period, the Tatars raided every year or so far into Poland and Ukraine, even into Russia, in what was called “the harvest of the steppe.” These gigantic raids had the taking of slaves as the prime objective, though other plunder obviously wasn’t turned down.
Slaving was a way of life and the primary economic engine of the Tatar khanate. They were the land-based Barbary pirates of the Black Sea.
I was talking about Lithuanian-Polish Commenwealth. These wars were tactical they were not religious. They had not terrorist character. Muslims were not fighting because of religion. They were not using religious slogans. I am sorry you missed the point completely. We are not talking about a war but religious war. In that sense these communities have been living in peace in the period emphasized by me. Read please, if you can, God’s Playground by Norman Davies.
You need to read the whole interview. Dr Jasser is discussing also this problem. He really answers your question.
I think there are plenty of young Muslims who would rather build their own Dubai than be trained dogs in Baghdad or Damascus. The rise of Islamism is in no way inevitable and, ironically, it might be Chinese investment rather than American military force that deals it the harshest blow.
Could it be that during those centuries they were "peaceful" because they realized they would be exterminated if they caused too much trouble?
For several hundred years the Tatars raided almost yearly deep into Ukraine, Muscovy, Poland, Lithuania and the Danubian area.
These raids were launched specifically against Christian peoples, which the Muslim Tatars viewed, in agreement with Muslim orthodoxy, as their legitimate prey.
You may not consider this terrorism, but I suspect the people most affected would have disagreed. Estimates vary wildly, but range upwards of 3M captured and sold into slavery, with many no doubt killed in the process not included in these numbers.
The Tatars themselves considered their raids to be jihad. Modern terrorists consider what they do to be jihad.
Since the harvesting of the steppe was aimed intentionally at civilians, not with the goal of defeating armies or conquering territory, it seems to me to pretty clearly meet most of the criteria for what we today call terrorism.
To the best of my knowledge Tatars had political motives. They did not spread jihad. And definitely they werent terrorists. These were normal territorial wars. Calling to fight against christians had different conotations than today. Yes, it was violence as every war is. But these were periods of formation of states in that region. I would like to repeat that overall experience in Eastern Europe of coexistance with Muslims is not negative. Central and Eastern Europeans were not oppresing them but to the contrary trying to help them be educated and merge into the society. I think we can compare early period of wars to the time of maturing. However today there is no excuse to come back to such primitive culture. The problem is, this is dr Jasser point as I understand it, that radicals are trying to have renewal of this Middle Ages practice. But not everyone is radical. Bernard Lewis makes good distinction between them and moderates.
I don’t claim to be an expert on the history of the region.
However, I think any society basing its economy on slave raids into neighboring areas can be legitimately called terroristic, though that is projecting today’s categories back into the past, which is inherently problematic.
Zuhdi Jasser is to Islam what Martin Luther was to Christianity.
I think we should all pray for his safety.
He is a big proponent of “separating mosque and state” and this has made him a LOT of enemies of the radical ROPers.
Brigitte Gabriel of “ACT! for America” - who fights against Sharia and Political Islam in the USA - also partners with Dr. Zuhdi Jasser and his group of Muslims in the “American Islamic Forum for Democracy”.
Dr. Jasser is backed by Congressman Peter King (who is holding the hearings in the House of Representatives on the “Radicalization of Muslims in America”. And Newt Gingrich, who wants to put forth a Federal Law - outlawing the use of Sharia in the courts - backs Dr. Jasser.
You’ll also find Dr. Jasser backed on Geert Wilders page on Facebook ...
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.