Posted on 09/21/2004 1:12:34 PM PDT by DJ Taylor
When our Liberal-Left news media tell us Islam is the "Religion of Peace," and we are only threatened by a few fundamentalist Muslims, they are either attempting to mislead the American people or they are trying to appease our enemies, and it is not too difficult to determine which it is. What they could say, but do not dare, is that there are over 1.5 billion Muslims in the world and all of them can be divided into two categories, fundamentalist Muslims and moderate Muslims. A fundamentalist Muslim believes his God demands that he must either kill or convert the Infidel, and he is actively striving to obey his God. A moderate Muslim believes his God demands that he must either kill or convert the Infidel, and he has not yet had either the means or opportunity to obey his God.
Any person who would have you believe that a moderate Muslim is no different than a Catholic, Protestant, or a Buddhist has either never conducted any research into the creation and history of the Islamic faith, or he is simply trying to mislead you. Anyone knowledgeable in the basic tenets of Islam knows that it is not just a religion but an all encompassing and all controlling way of life as was Stalinist Communism. The only difference being that Stalin ruled under the threat of death, and Islam rules under the threat of death and eternal damnation.
There is no half measure in Islam. For a Muslim, the Koran is either followed to the letter or the violator is condemned to hell. There is no law but God's law, and if given a choice, a Muslim must select a government (Caliphate) ruled by the Mullahs of his faith and follow the laws (Suras) of the Koran. According to their Koran, it is the divinely ordained duty of all Muslims to fight until manmade law has been replaced by God's law, the Sharia, and Islamic law has conquered the entire world. Recent events have made it clear that Muslim immigrants do not come to this country to become Americans, follow our laws, and enjoy the freedoms our Constitution guarantees but only come to spread Islam as required of them by their Koran.
The Koran was written between the sixth and thirteenth century AD and has changed little since then. It has effectively kept its followers locked in the dark ages and now it threatens to pull the world into its abyss. Ironically, it is we who have given them the means for our own destruction through our generous payment for their oil. Instead of using this largess to pull themselves out of the dark ages, they are using it in an attempt to pull us in with them. The goal of Islamic Jihad is nothing short of the total destruction of Western Civilization.
How does a country defend its self from such a threat? Defend is the wrong term to use. The slogan "The best offense is a good defense" reflects a defeatist (read French) attitude that will only lead to the fall of a nation. There is no substitute for a good offense. When a nation is threatened, its leaders must identify the source of that threat and eliminate it. That is, after all, why we elect leaders and why we maintain our armed forces.
The threat that the United States and the civilized world now faces is Islam, but the source of this threat is Saudi Arabia and their almost unlimited financial resources. The Saudis have not only bankrolled this Islamic Jihad (holy war) that now threatens the civilized world, but they have also provided the bulk of its foot soldiers, leadership cadres and, of course, Osama bin Laden.
For over forty years, the Saudis have sent out their Fundamentalist Muslim missionaries to spread their Wahabbi sect of Islam throughout the Mid East. They have constructed and staffed countless Madrassas (boarding schools/orphanages) and have provided a free education to any male who wished to attend. These Saudi funded Madrassas currently provide their pupils with a basic education that otherwise could never be furnished by their families or by their government. In addition to a basic education, Saudi Madrassas indoctrinate their pupils in fundamentalist Islam and are also taught to hate the United States and Israel. It was from these Saudi Madrassas that all of the September 11 attackers came. But not for Saudi funding, these mad men would still be in their desert hovels, abusing their women, loving their livestock, and worshiping a God who has more in common with the Satan found in the Old Testament than he does with the Father of Jesus.
There are only three possible options in dealing with these people and diplomacy is not one of them.
1. The United States and our allies can enjoin the Muslims in their Holy War and endeavor to either kill or convert 1.5 billion Muslims.
2. The United States and our allies can seize the Saudi oil fields and freeze Saudi investments, thereby cutting off Saudi funding of Islamic terrorists.
3. The United States and our allies can do nothing, and let the situation play its self out.
The first two options will never happen. With half the U.S. population and half our government made up of “I won’t fight and you can’t make me” Liberal Democrats, no U.S. President could get congressional approval for such action. That leaves the United States, the most powerful nation in the world, impotent and unable to counter an aggressive, fanatical, well armed and well financed enemy that is determined to destroy us. Option three, to do nothing, is what we will inevitably do, and it has the potential of being the most catastrophic option of all.
Any clear thinking person can see what will in all probability happen; Muslim terrorists will eventually obtain, buy or steal one or more nuclear weapons. As soon as they have nuclear weapons in their possession, they will use them where they can do the most damage to the United States. One or more nuclear weapons, strategically placed and detonated, could cause the U.S. economy to collapse. If our economy collapses, our government could soon follow suit.
If our government collapses, who will seize control? It will not be an apologetic Liberal Left, but it will most likely be a revenge-crazed Right that takes control of our military and its nuclear arsenal. Very quickly, Mecca, Tehran, Riyadh and every Muslim capitol in the world could be reduced to radioactive craters. Once the bloodletting starts, who can say where it will end? Any nation that identifies its self as a possible threat to the U.S. will probably be eliminated. This could very well cause the collapse of Western Civilization and plunge the world into another Dark Age. This is such an apparent possibility that it may be why many countries now view the U.S. as a greater threat to their safety than they do Islamic terrorists. The world knows that Islamic terrorists will never be able to defeat the United States militarily, but they also know that these terrorists just might be able to awaken the beast within us, and if that ever happens, the world may be made to cringe in terror.
Muslim Jihadists may very well be successful in their attempt to destroy Western Civilization, but if and when that happens, Islam would surely have already been reduced to nothing but a dead religion practiced only in the depths of Hell.
Sweden?
If I were to bet money on which European country would be the first to adopt Islamic Law, it would be France. After all, the French Muslim population now stands at 20% and rising. This, of course, is due to an out of control immigration policy and the rapid reproduction rate within their Muslim communities.
Why would you select Sweden as the first to fall?
Can't tell you, but at this point enough to prevent another attack on this country.
It's not happening fast enough for me... or for Mrs. Armstong or Mrs. Hensley.
Jihadistan is not a country, and not all countries on this planet agree that terrorism should be eradicated, or want to lift a finger to help. As I said in my post, it's not gonna happen overnight.
Why can't something more definitive and sweeping be done?
Such as?
Much more could be done, such as massive muslim round-ups, commit thousands of more troops all over the world, invade Syria, etc. but it ain't gonna happen unless you get the EC and the UN to help, or at least sign off on it. And you know that's not gonna happen.
I see what you mean.
http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,529910,00.html
Malmo, Sweden. The police now publicly admit what many Scandinavians have known for a long time: They no longer control the situation in the nations's third largest city. It is effectively ruled by violent gangs of Muslim imigrants.
Some of the Muslims have lived in the area of Rosengard,
Malmo, for twenty years, and still don't know how to read or write Swedish.
Ambulance personnel are attacked by stones or weapons, and refuse to help anybody in the area without police escort. The immigrants also spit at them
when they come to help.
Recently, an Albanian youth was stabbed by an Arab,
and was left bleeding to death on the ground while the ambulance waited for the police to arrive. The police themselves hesitate to enter parts of their own city unless they have several patrols, and need to have guards to watch
their cars, otherwise they will be vandalized. "Something drastic has to be done, or much more blood will be spilled" says one of the locals.
Islam is more a political movement than a religion.
"If "we" refers to Americans, (and I can't read the original post, so I'm just assuming the obvious) then the poster is right. It's pretty common knowledge that a significant number of people stolen from West Africa were Muslims.
There were no Americans in the 16th and 17th centuries. The African slave traders were mostly Muslims. What you consider to be "pretty common knowledge" must be PC public school indoctrination, because it certainly isn't history. Jumping in to the debate without reading the "original post" is not helpful."
1) Don't blame me for not reading post #3. I didn't report it.
2) Whether or not there were "Americans" in the 16th and 17th centuries depends in part on your degree of loyalty to the British crown at the time, so I'll give you that. However, the importation of slaves from Africa continued through the 18th century and was in the US until 1808 and continued illegally after that (the Amistad case was 1839, if I remember correctly).
3) Many African slave traders were Muslims. Many were not. The question is not the religion of the slavers, but the religion of the slaves, and yes, it is common knowledge that many of them professed the Muslim faith and continued to practice it after being dragged across the Atlantic.
4) "What you consider to be "pretty common knowledge" must be PC public school indoctrination, because it certainly isn't history."
Prove me wrong.
4) Jumping into the debate without reading the original post isn't helpful, but you jumping into the debate and dismissing obvious facts is insulting to this forum.
And to answer your question "what Muslims were enslaved besides by fellow Muslims" Most states along the Slave Coast and the Bight of Biafra controlled slave trading with Europeans on the coast. By and large, these were not Muslim states, but sold thousands of people to the "slave castles" that can be found on modern Ghana's coast or to European ships anchored off the mouth of the Niger Delta. Foreigners (many of them from the deep interior Sahelian regions where Islam was practiced since the 10th century) made up the vast majority of those sold on the coasts, often by non-Muslims, almost always to alleged "Christians".
the_Watchman posted here ....
"I submitted this link to a couple of my Swedish friends. One of them just came back from Malmo, Sweden. They believe this article to be TRASH! They said that the author has engaged in cherry picking of news stories in order to paint a bleak picture. The problem is limited to a few neighborhoods and is similar to what would one expect in New York or Chicago."
Your credibility is not enhanced by admitting you commented on something you didn't read.
2) Whether or not there were "Americans" in the 16th and 17th centuries depends in part on your degree of loyalty to the British crown at the time, so I'll give you that.
There were no Americans then, only Indians. Loyalty to the Crown had nothing to do with citizenship. It is not possible to be a citizen of a country that doesn't exist. To insist that Americans were involved in the slave trade 200 years before America existed is to admit that personal agenda is more important than the truth.
Many African slave traders were Muslims. Many were not. The question is not the religion of the slavers, but the religion of the slaves, and yes, it is common knowledge that many of them professed the Muslim faith and continued to practice it after being dragged across the Atlantic.
And your documented source for this is? Where are the descendants of these muslim slaves? Where are the mosques they built? I smell a Dan Rather here.
Prove me wrong.
The burden of proof is on the new fairy tale. You made the incredible assertions, back them up. In order to earn the right to be believed, one first has to earn the right to be heard. Are you Louis Farrakhan?
2) "There were no Americans then, only Indians. Loyalty to the Crown had nothing to do with citizenship. It is not possible to be a citizen of a country that doesn't exist. To insist that Americans were involved in the slave trade 200 years before America existed is to admit that personal agenda is more important than the truth."
Americans most certainly existed before 1776, perhaps as settlers, perhaps as colonists, but certainly they were there. Crown subjects in the American colonies were known as "American colonists" and often just "Americans". To suggest that the word had no meaning before the United States of America's independence is ridiculous.
3) "New fairy tale?" Hardly. If my credibility if not enhanced by admitting I commented on something that I COULDN'T read, your credibility is questioned by the fact that you DIDN'T read (or even do a Google search for) anything about Muslims slaves in America.
Many Muslism claimed outwardly to convert to Christianity but maintained their faith. Others lived openly as Muslims, althouth their children or grandchildren converted to Christianity. It is incontrovertable, however, that they were taken from Africa as Muslims and came to these shores as Muslims.
Here are some books you can read. If you smell a Dan Rather, it will take a little more work to disprove all of these.
Alford, Terry. Prince among Slaves: The Story of an African Prince Sold in the American South. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977
Austin, Allan. African Muslims in Antebellum America: A Sourcebook. New York: Garland Publishing Inc., 1984 (2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 1997)
Cornelius, Janet Duitsman. When I Can Read My Title Clear: Literacy, Slavery and Religion in the Antebellum South. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1992
Diouf, Sylviane. Servants of Allah: African Muslims Enslaved in the Americas. New York: New York University Press, 1998.
Dwight, Theodore. "Condition and Character of Negroes in Africa." In The People of Africa: A Series of Papers on their Character, Condition, and Future Prospects, edited by Henry Schieffelin New York: A.D.F. Randolf, 1871
Freyre, Gilberto. The Masters and the Slaves. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986
Michael A. Gomez. Exchanging Our Country Marks: The Transformation of African Identities in the Colonial and Antebellum South. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998.
Michael Johnson, "Runaway Slaves and the Slave Communities in South Carolina, 1799 to 1830," William and Mary Quarterly 38, 3 (July, 1981): 437
Judy, Ronald A.T. Disforming the American Canon: African-Arabic Slave Narratives and the Vernacular.
Koszegi, Michael A. and J. Gordon Melton. Islam in North America: A Sourcebook.
Reis, Joao Jose. Slave Rebellion in Brazil: The Muslim Uprising of 1835 in Bahia. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1993
3) I am making factual assertions, not incredible ones. Your claim that not a single Muslim was enslaved in West Africa -- a region with a thousand-year history of Islam -- and sent to America in 350 years of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade is incredible and, frankly, an insult to American history. Are you an Europhile that dismisses the United States as "a country without history"?
Any thoughtful person who knows history and religion would be anti-Islam. Along with Communism, Naziism, and the Black Death, Islam has been responsible for more death and destruction on the face of the planet than just about anything else since the last asteroid impact. Islam was started by predators. It has spread by predation. It has lived off the decaying corpses of the civilizations it has destroyed. It is a vast, ancient sea of corruption, oppression, fanaticism, and ignorance lapping up against the shores of the present, kept alive by the fortuitous accident of living above huge reserves of petroleum.
1) I did answer the question. If you want specific names, I can't give them to you. I can tell you that two of the major slaving regions of West Africa that sent people to the Americas were ruled by non-Muslim leaders who controlled the slave trade in their countries.
2) How am I making this up? Can you fake this?
Are you John Kerry or just one of his staffers? That claim was not made. When you are losing the argument, just make things up. You've got egg on your face and we'll let the readers judge for themselves.
bttt
You did say that my assertion that there were Muslim slaves in America was "incredible" and a "fairy tale" which leads me and other literate people to conclude that you don't believe there were Muslim slaves in the US.
Also, you quoted me out of context (by citing half a sentence that SHOULD end with the clause "and shipped to the United States") when YOU were losing the argument. I gave you a list of historical sources backing up my statements and then you try to turn the discussion by misrepresenting how I represented your claims.
If what I'm saying is wrong, please let me know and show me some evidence why the presence of Muslims slaves of West African origin is such a "fairy tale" when it is indeed a historical fact.
I'm sure the readers are judging for themselves and I'm sure they side with me and my well-documented claim over your dismissal of the facts. Moral relativism is bad, but your historical revisionism is appaling, especially when you try to pass the blame to the person following objective standards in this argument.
"historical sources"
my mistake, please read it "historical studies" in its place.
For historical sources, you could look at the slave narrative of 'Umar ibn Sayyid, written in Arabic in early 19th Century North Carolina.
That's not entirely true. There were plenty of Arab slavers, too. After all, "abed" means both "black" and "slave" in Arabic. This didn't happen by chance.
save
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.