Happy fantasies vs unpleasant realities about Islam

Here's an excellent analysis of Islam through the ages and now. It is one of the best I have seen.

Dr. Durie lives in Australia and is a life-long adherent to the Anglican religion. He focuses on Islam as it is -- violent and demanding the submission of everyone -- not peaceful and accommodating of others -- as multiculturalists want to believe and to convince others to believe.

Until our citizens, media, "foreign policy" savants and political "leaders" cease their insufferable political correctness, comprehend the realities of Islam and behave in accordance with those realities, our chances of restoring and retaining our freedoms will continue to decline. So will Western civilization.

The “submissive” part bothers me, but it probably appeals to a lot of people in different cultures. Imagine wanting to have no control over your life, no decision-making responsibilities, etc. Everything is told to you and interpreted for you by the system. You don’t need to be a critical thinker, and you don’t even have to read.

No wonder the libs love it so much!

BINGO!

You hit the nail right on the head. This is why certain easily identified types of people are, under certain conditions, susceptible to the appeal of mass movements; of every kind, differences in ideology between mass movements does not really seem to matter - the movements being literally interchangeable.

Their appeal is as an escape from liberty, from individual responsibility. Their appeal is self-annihilation.

Hitler understood this, openly stating that the best recruits for his own movement came from among membership of competing movements.

The propensity for self-sacrifice, according to Eric Hoffer, is the most common characteristic among those most likely to respond to the appeal of a mass movement.

ISLAM, RELIGION OF PEACE, TRUTH VS MYTH

ISLAM IN 1570

BEHEADING IS THE TRADITIONAL M.O. UNDER ISLAM..

THE CONQUEST OF CYPRUS AND THE HEROES AND MARTYRS OF FAMAGUSTA

The Turks came on with 70,000 men, including their shock troops, the praetorian guard of the sultan, the Janissaries — Christian youths taken as taxation from their families, trained up in the art of war, converted to Islam, and given the power of the sword and the possibility of advancement.

The Catholic defenders of Cyprus were frightfully outnumbered — by about 7 to 1 — but then again, the Knights of Malta had faced even stiffer odds. The two key points in Cyprus were Nicosia and Famagusta. The city of Nicosia held out for nearly seven weeks. Finally, reduced to 500 soldiers, it surrendered, expecting the civilians to be spared, even as the Christian troops were enslaved.

Instead, the Muslim attackers butchered every Christian they could find — 20,000 victims, murdered regardless of rank, sex, or age, save perhaps for 1,000 women and children who would be sold as slaves. The Muslims knew something about commerce, too, and those with an eye for harem-flesh tried to spare the most valuable Europeans.

That left the former Crusader fortress of Famagusta as the only defensible point on the island. Inspired by the Turks’ display of severed Venetian heads from Nicosia, the Christian soldiers put up a stiff defense and were at one point resupplied by gallant Venetian sailors.

The Muslim Ottomans have conquered Cyprus, an Island that belonged to the Republic of Venice, but the second most important city, Famagusta, resisted the brutal siege by the Turks. Men, women and children fought valiantly.

In August 1571, after ten months of resistance, the Venetian commander Marco Antonio Bragadino, forced by hunger, enter negotiations with the Turks. Terms were agreed: The garrison would be exiled, the people spared. The troops were disarmed and boarded transports — and then they and their commanders were slaughtered. But for Marco Antonio, the Mohammedans reserved a special torture. He was not killed immediately. Instead, his nose and ears were severed, and, as T. C. F. Hopkins has it in Confrontation at Lepanto:

He was pilloried in Famagusta and dragged around the Ottoman camp in nothing but a loincloth and a donkey’s saddle and made to kiss the ground in front of Lala Mustapha’s tent. The Ottoman soldiers were encouraged to throw garbage and excrement on him, and to mock his misery, and to pull hairs from his beard . . . Lala Mustapha himself came out to spit on the Venetian and to empty his chamber pot over the old man’s head . . .

And even that was not the end of it. Marco Antonio — still, for the moment, alive — was flayed, skinned like a trophy, and then his corpse was stuffed and sent to the sultan, who had the prize stored in a warehouse of other human trophies — a slave prison.

ISLAM IN THE XXI CENTURY

MUSLIMS MASSACRE CHRISTIANS IN NIGERIA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ahz3BEhkyho

WHO ARE NIGERIA’S BOKO HARAM?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VN_7A3mNKg&feature=player_detailpage

Those who maintain that understanding jihad as a holy war constitutes a sort of deviation from the true Islamic tradition are therefore not telling the truth, and history sadly demonstrates that violence has characterized Islam since its origin, and that Mohammed himself systematically.

But the biggest difference between Christianity and Islam concerns the crucial issue of understanding the human person. This is shown by the fact that many Islamic countries have not accepted the declaration of human rights promulgated by the United Nations in 1948, or have done so with the reservation of excluding the norms that conflict with Qur’anic law which means practically all of them.

In Islamic tradition, in fact, the concept of the equality of all human beings does not exist, nor does, in consequence, the concept of the dignity of every human life. Sharia is founded upon a threefold inequality: between man and woman, between Muslim and non-Muslim, and between freeman and slave.

Islam is destined to remain unchanged in the future, as it has been until now, the only possible outcome is a difficult coexistence with those who do not belong to the Muslim community: in an Islamic country, in fact, the non-Muslim must submit to the Islamic system, if he does not wish to live in a situation of substantial intolerance.

Likewise, on account of this all-embracing conception of religion and political authority, the Muslim will have great difficulty in adapting to the civil laws in non-Islamic countries, seeing them as something foreign to his upbringing and to the dictates of his religion. Perhaps one should ask oneself if the well-attested difficulties persons coming from the Islamic world have with integrating into the social and cultural life of the West are not explained in part by this problematic situation.

We must also recognize the natural right of every society to defend its own cultural, religious, and political identity. It seems to me that this is precisely what Pius V did.
(Christianity and Islam in History by Monsignor Walter Brandmüller, president of the Vatican Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences.)

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.