Posted on 09/08/2004 5:43:45 AM PDT by LTCJ
... With me now to take a closer look at Muslim reaction to Beslan, Fouad Ajami, director of Middle East studies at Johns Hopkins University.
...
ZAHN: Let me pose that question.
...
ZAHN: Is there something fundamentally wrong with Muslim society that continues to spawn these terrorists?
AJAMI: Well, I think this is a question that's haunting ordinary Muslims. ... Ben Wedeman has done a good job giving you a sense of the responses in the Muslim world.
And there was this editorial in one of the leading papers in the Arab world, "Al Asharq Al-Awsat," where a very thoughtful Saudi commentator basically probed the question that you have put forth. Is there something wrong in the modern condition of Islam today? Is there something wrong in the Arab world itself?
ZAHN: Is there?
AJAMI: And I think there is something ... the one answer is to say, Islam is innocent of all this. The other answer is to say, well, look, we have to look very carefully at the conditions of modern Muslims today.
And that's what Sam Huntington once said when he described what he called the bloody borders of the Islamic world, that wherever Islam rubs up against other civilizations, there seems to be trouble. There is something problematic in the Muslim world today, which is the rise of these new preachers. They're not religious. They're actually terrorists...
unless Muslims, mainstream Muslims, ordinary Muslims, establishment Muslims, scholars, rulers, intellectuals and journalists, reclaim the faith, this faith, it has become an instrument of radicalism.
ZAHN: But what evidence have you seen that would suggest that any of those subsets you're talking about are willing to do that? ...
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Obviously a rhetorical question!
It is not the act of broadcasting to a million Muslims that necessarily casts it as mainstream. Rather, it the response of the million, or lack thereof, that does.
I think I can safely speak for the civilized world in saying that so far the response has been less than encouraging.
Qur’an 9:5 “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”
I don't think it's really repression but lack of self-discipline and any kind of self-control. Their inability to wait for sexual gratification and seeing sex in everything is just like their inability to train an army or any kind of military. They are jealous and envious of the success of other ideologies but lack the ability to prepare themselves for success. They can never go up against Western armies but must find unarmed civilians -- preferably children to shoot.
The question makes it sound like there was nothing wrong with ( Spread ALLAH BY THE SWORD) CLASSICAL Muslimism
Islam's highest morality seems to deal with control of women's sex organs, and control of how women dress. The "dress" of choice for this kinky religion is to make women look like moving piles of dog poop.
Beyond control of women's sex organs, praying every few hours, and a sick obsession with murder and rape, there is no religion.
These monsters can shoot an 8 year old in the back, rape 6 year olds (boys and girls) and feel moral. They feel moral because their women's heads are covered. Or their arms are covered, or they're covered in black and look like dog poop. Somehow, they believe, women's fashions allow them to be killer/losers.
And they think God doesn't notice their evil. Doesn't notice because they believe, a woman's covered bodies blinds God. But they are wrong. God sees them. God sees the rapist with the child. And God hates their sin.
Oh, yeah, radical Islamist don't get along with anyone else on the planet -- including each other. All terrorist acts are committed by Islamist and almost every war involves them.
This was a depressing show - Zahn trawling Mohammedan websites for any evidence there might be one Moslem in the world who is outraged - a reporter interviewing people asking their opinions in one of the Arab dictatorships, pretending these people could freely give their views: Zahn seems like a very confused person, the only reason I watched it is due to travel don't have access to Fox news.
Now we get to the heart of the matter...
Now there is an understatement.
Now there is an understatement.
However, she asked the question. To the best of my knowledge, it hasn't been asked that directly on Fox. I would be pleased to hear evidence to the contrary from someone.
Here's what the Bible says about Ishmael, the patriarch of the Arabs. Note especially verses 11-12.
Genesis 16: 1 Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian maidservant named Hagar; 2 so she said to Abram, "The LORD has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family through her."
Abram agreed to what Sarai said. 3 So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. 4 He slept with Hagar, and she conceived.
When she knew she was pregnant, she began to despise her mistress. 5 Then Sarai said to Abram, "You are responsible for the wrong I am suffering. I put my servant in your arms, and now that she knows she is pregnant, she despises me. May the LORD judge between you and me."
6 "Your servant is in your hands," Abram said. "Do with her whatever you think best." Then Sarai mistreated Hagar; so she fled from her.
7 The angel of the LORD found Hagar near a spring in the desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur. 8 And he said, "Hagar, servant of Sarai, where have you come from, and where are you going?"
"I'm running away from my mistress Sarai," she answered.
9 Then the angel of the LORD told her, "Go back to your mistress and submit to her." 10 The angel added, "I will so increase your descendants that they will be too numerous to count."
11 The angel of the LORD also said to her:
"You are now with child
and you will have a son.
You shall name him Ishmael,
for the LORD has heard of your misery.
12 He will be a wild donkey of a man;
his hand will be against everyone
and everyone's hand against him,
and he will live in hostility
toward all his brothers."
13 She gave this name to the LORD who spoke to her: "You are the God who sees me," for she said, "I have now seen the One who sees me." 14 That is why the well was called Beer Lahai Roi ; it is still there, between Kadesh and Bered.
15 So Hagar bore Abram a son, and Abram gave the name Ishmael to the son she had borne. 16 Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael.
I would call these statements concerning Islam "nuanced". Just like John "F stands for flip-flop" Kerry.
Agree totally agree..
I was referring to the origin of islum.
The islum terrorist scum of today are way beyond the pale of anything human.
Yes.
Next question.
This one is scary. With this ideology they could justify a nuke detonation on their own soil or close by (Israel).
Is there something fundamentally wrong with a rabid dog? The only difference being that a rabid dog isn't responsible for its actions, and eventually dies of its own accord. We can't count on such a happy outcome with islam.
YES.
next question?
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.