Polygamy (religious) and Anarchy (political)
Posted on 08/26/2011 2:21:14 PM PDT by IbJensen
Obama said at the latest White House Iftar dinner:
Like so many faiths, Islam has always been part of our American family, and Muslim Americans have long contributed to the strength and character of our country, in all walks of life.
These words have no basis in fact. Islam is not part of our civilization because its foundational principles are opposite to ours. Our civilization is built on the foundation of critical thought (how we think) and the Golden Rule (ethics). Islam is built on submission (authoritative thought) and ethical dualism.
» If you like this article, please subscribe to our daily newsletter
Let’s compare the principles, of these different thought systems, starting with authoritative thought and critical thought. Critical thought (also: analytic thought, scientific thought) is the necessary reasoning or intellectual basis for our culture of democracy. Critical thought is objective--no matter who does the work, they get the same results. It is fact-based, uses cause and effect, and is intellectual, not emotional. Critical thought’s tie into morals is that you don’t lie or cheat about data.
Let’s look at some authoritative reasoning. Authoritative reasoning is based on expert opinion and asserts it truth by power. It is so, because the Establishment says it is so.
The Meccan Koran, the early Koran, has one new idea—Mohammed is the prophet of Allah. (The ideas found in the Koran are derivative.) The proof of Mohammed’s prophecy is repetition of “Mohammed is the prophet” and what happens if you don’t accept that. The reasoning is circular—Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, because Allah says so. (Actually, the archangel of Allah says so.) How do we know what Allah says? Mohammed tells us what Allah says.
The Koran of Medina (the later Koran) contains one new idea—if you don’t believe that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, then you can be murdered in jihad. If you are not persuaded, then you can be eliminated. Now that is authoritative reasoning.
More on authoritative reasoning can be found in the Sharia. The Sharia says that apostasy (leaving Islam) is a capital offense. And what entails apostasy?
• To be sarcastic about Allah or any verse in the Koran • To deny the consensus of the Islamic scholars • To deny that Islam is to be the world’s only religion • To be sarcastic about Sharia
And people say that Islam just needs to be reformed. Good luck on dealing the authoritative rules of thought and reform. It is not that you are wrong, you are dead wrong. Want more examples of authoritative thought? Try Salman Rushdie, the author of the Satanic Verses, a novel. Islam’s reaction to the novel was a death fatwa. When the Mohammed cartoons were published, people died in riots.
So far in America what happens if you differ with Establishment thought about Islam, you are called names, such as bigot or hater, and insulted as a punishment. However, the Establishment keeps flirting with the expanded versions of hate speech being criminalized. Hate speech is speech that the Establishment doesn’t like.
Critical thought does not deal with punishment, just cause and effect along with Aristotelian logic. If you lose an argument under the rules of critical thought, you have had a learning experience, not a life threatening experience. Nor do insults and threats play a part in critical thought.
Now to ethics, the Golden Rule is that we should treat ALL others as we would be treated. This is a unitary ethic, one rule for all peoples. Islam does not see it that way. Islam has one set of ethics for the Muslim and another set for the Kafir. The Hadith and the Koran are very clear that a Muslim is a brother to all other Muslims. A Muslim is a brother to any Muslim before he is the brother to any member of his Kafir blood family.
Look at Mohammed’s ethics. Mohammed is the divine human prototype, the perfect man, as it says in 91 Koranic verses. How did Mohammed treat his neighbor? In Medina he gave neighboring tribes the chance to become to submit to Islam. If they did not, he attacked them. Submit or die--no Golden Rule.
Mohammed repeatedly said that Muslims should lie to Kafirs if it would advance Islam—pure ethical dualism. Here we have the hadith:
Bukhari 5,59,369 Mohammed asked, “Who will kill Ka’b, the enemy of Allah and Mohammed?” Bin Maslama rose and responded, “O Mohammed! Would it please you if I killed him?” Mohammed answered, “Yes.” Bin Maslama then said, “Give me permission to deceive him with lies so that my plot will succeed.” Mohammed replied, “You may speak falsely to him.”…
Our Constitution’s Bill of Rights is an expansion on the Golden Rule. We eliminated slavery based on the Golden Rule. Do we live up to the Golden Rule on every occasion? No, but that does not diminish its guidance, because we can use the Golden Rule to criticize those that fail to meet it.
To sum it all up: our civilization is based on the principles of the Golden Rule and critical thought. Islam is based on dualistic ethics and authoritative thought. There is no compromise between the opposites of the Golden Rule and dualistic ethics. There is no half-way between authoritative thought and critical thought. Islam’s principle of submission means that only active resistance can let us survive.
We have a 1400 year history of the interaction between Islam and Kafir nations. The data matches the theory. Centuries after Islam enters the culture the host culture is annihilated--see Turkey. There is no compatibility between Islam and us. Islam is not now, nor can it ever be, a part of our civilization. It is the final goal of Islam to annihilate all Kafir civilizations. Its first stage of--we are just like you, only different—should be seen for what it is. No amount of preaching by apologists can change Islam’s political doctrine and history.
They haven't contributed anything to the strength and character of our country, but have proven themselves to be perverted and treacherous.
Begone. And take the illiterate Mexicans with you.
Well, we do have to give the Muslims credit for that “shores of Tripoli” line in the Marine Corps hymn..................
Islam is incompatible with democracy and civilization.
Fixed it.
In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador to Britain.PostThe Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote to appease.
During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.
In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."
For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.
This explains and differentiates between islam and our judeo/christian belief system.
I think it is important for us to understand especially when 0dumbo and now the media are pandering so hard to muslims.
Very important
Thank you for posting this
Wikipedia is consistent with giving islam credit for things they took as ‘booty’ from conquests. The only source I’ve read that does so in such a blatant fashion. It’s interesting and disturbing watching history be rewritten in my lifetime. Much of what is considered civilized(freedom,democracy, womens’ rights,etc.) , they are against. The ‘won’ got it wrong as usual.
I think he meant ‘Francis Joseph’ not Charles. Charles
became Emperor in 1916.
He is to be congragulated on his timing. My grandfather
was also a 1912 immigrant from the Hapsburg realm (in Slovakia) and came over to avoid service in the K.u.K.
armed forces.
Islam Is Not Part of Civilization
Amen, but don’t lump “illiterate” Mexicans in with the jihadists. They’re illiterate because they attended U. S. public schools.
Islam is a war plan.
And, as I hate being reminded, the concept of zero (no pun).
Our shameless Congress understands but does not care.
It ignores the relentless islamization of the country and rather passes a muslim country to their children than bring this out in the open.
They’re kicking the can down the road that leads to the country’s destruction.
OBAMA is not a part of our civilisation.
His Father was a Muslim, His Stepdaddy was a Muslim, His Mother was a Hippy Communist.
He went to school in Indonesia and studied under Muslims.
What he did back in Hawaii I cannot say because it is hidden,we do know he attended an expensive school, but we don’t know who paid for it.
We know he smoked dope because he said so.
We don’t know how he got into college, who paid for it, what his grades were, his thesis, or much of anything
We know he went to Michigane and met a terrorist, Bill Ayers, and a criminal, Tony Rezco, but we don’t know much else.
We know he tricked his way into the Michigan State Senate and found a way to be elected United States Senator by pimping on the opponent about him swapping his wife. We know he seldom voted other than Present, and we know when he became President he seemed clean and spoke well if it was written down for him. He didnt know Chit from Chinola but that didnt seem to matter as long as he was black enough to claim ethnicity.
So far everything he has touched has turned to Chit, but that doesn’t matter either as long as he can still claim that black ethnicity.
We know the Media sucks up to him and will continue to do so as long as he can claim that black ethnicity.
I'd recommend it, for a look at Islam from someone who has lived it. It will give you a much better understanding both of Islam and of the dangers of "multiculturalism."
The book is her memoir, and I found some parts of it a bit slow; other parts can be difficult to read. She most decidedly puts to rest the "Islam is a religion of peace" nonsense.
I found her perspective on 9/11 particularly interesting: "This is Islam." It does not sound as if she would argue with anyone who makes the statement "All I need to know about Islam I learned on 9/11."
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, as of the writing of the book, professed herself to be atheist and was living under constant threats of death
What Muslim-American has contributed the most to American society?
The most prominent Muslim I can come up with is Muhammad Ali. Despite being a fan of Ali at the time, the more I find out about Muhammad Ali, the more I wish Joe Frazier would have kicked his butt all three times they fought.
Obama does not go to church, celebrate Christmas or Easter or Hannuka or Chinese New Year, but never misses a Muzzie holiday...
Anyone ever see him eat a bacon cheeseburger or a pork roast? Each year he takes vacation to coincice with Ramadan...
What’s a person to think?
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.
