Posted on 04/26/2005 7:55:09 AM PDT by jan in Colorado
What steps should Western border agencies take to defend their homelands from harm by Islamists?
In the case of non-citizens, the answer is simple: Don't let Islamists in. Exclude not just potential terrorists but also anyone who supports the totalitarian goals of radical Islam. Just as civilized countries did not welcome fascists in the early 1940s (or communists a decade later), they need not welcome Islamists today.
But what about one's own citizens who cross the border? They could be leaving to fight for the Taliban or returning from a course on terrorism techniques. Or perhaps they studied with enemies of the West who incited them to sabotage or sedition. Clearly, the authorities should take steps to find out more about their activities, especially given the dangerous jihadi culture already in place in many Western countries, including Canada.
This question arose in late December 2004, after a three-day Islamist conference, "Reviving the Islamic Spirit," took place in Toronto. The event, boasting a host of high-profile Islamist speakers such as Bilal Philips, Zaid Shakir, Siraj Wahhaj, and Hamza Yusuf, alarmed the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), America's new border agency..
Excerpt... Read more at http://www.JewishWorldReview.com
(Excerpt) Read more at JewishWorldReview.com ...
Forgot to reiterate one thing - the number is quite plausible (given 500,000 Italians enlisted as you mention) if you mark the fact that I noted specifically "the US ARMY" as opposed to the more generic "US ARMED FORCES"...
Again, I am deferring to having heard this cited on PBS.
A.A.C.
ummmm
That would have been the 12th of never. Most of the "anti Catholic/anti-"Papist" hysteria in the US stemmed from groups of recently arrived immigrants (mainly N. European) who had such a chip on their shoulder when they arrived on the eastern shores. "Gangs of New York" by Martin Scorcese, though horrifically violent and foulmouthed (and fictionalized in some passages) provides a fair insight of this, vis-a-vis the split between "Prods" and Catholics from Ireland.
Strongly anti-Catholic sentiment in the US did exist, but it really never originated from, nor took firm root in, the mainstream of our society.
A.A.C.
Thanks. We had a little of that in Oz, twixt the Protestant English gentry and the predominantly catholic Irish felons...but we don't have Hollywood, so I guess we forgot!
And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves. And He said to them, "It is written, My House shall be called a house of prayer; but you are making it a robbers den." Matthew 21:12-13
OK Gondring,here is the written account of Jesus in the temple. What exactly is your question about it?
The fact that Jesus was angry? Yes, He was angry and He let the people involved know it!
Of course, He also told the apostles to buy swords.
And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one." Luke 22:36 They said, "Lord look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "That is enough."Luke 22:38
This conversation happened right before Jesus prayed and was arrested. I couldn't find any instructions where Jesus told them to use the swords, in fact when a disciple cut the ear off of the slave of the high priest, Jesus said to stop and Jesus reattached the ear!
Slight change of subject...
So Gondring,since Jesus told the disciples to carry swords (be armed), does that give the 2nd amendment even more credibility?
I'm not defending Islam.
What I'm defending is the right of American citizens to be secure from being detained and fingerprinted based only on their religion, legal activities, etc., without so much as even probable cause being given.
If so-called "conservatives" can't understand the danger in that, I fear for our Constitution and America itself. When did it become acceptable for the government to single out citizens who have not been charged with a crime, based mainly on their religion? And if anyone says "September 11, 2001," then it seems the terrorists are winning to some extent.
What happened to American (and Australian) optimism, defiance, and independence? Why are we so willing to sell out our hard-fought protections for some short-term false sense of security (I note that nobody has explained clearly--on TTTWD or this one--how fingerprinting these travelers would have made us safe)?
The arguments about what Islam is or isn't are not my point of dispute--even if Islam is Satanism, the fact is that the strongest fight against it is to maintain our own strength--our own strong Constitution and personal protections/rights.
I daresay that anyone who thinks "a democratic republic that protects its' citizens rights" is a weaker nation than "one that maintains internal security with an intrusive government" is at the wrong website.
Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.
- Benjamin Franklin
Hey MI - good to see you again - any news from your end you can share with us ?
"So Gondring,since Jesus told the disciples to carry swords (be armed), does that give the 2nd amendment even more credibility?"
Hope so, since I believe that was the most effective man-carried military weapon at the time !
Hi, good to see you also.
Nothing new on this end. It's still as screwed up as ever.
You have a point there.
Hmmm...I wonder what the anti-gun crowd would use as an argument against carrying swords?
" It's still as screwed up as ever. "
Don't let'em grind you down - we need guys like you there to keep the internal and external threats to our government in line.
Typical leftists response. Remember the 3rd Terrorists? The bulletin for an Arab man that was recalled by the CLinton Administration because they feared a backlash against those peaceful Muslims.
Was the Oklahoma City bombing the silver bullet that could have prevented 9-11?
"This is perhaps the worst case of misinformation and pandering I have ever seen in this case," McCauley said of Davis' meeting with Specter. "Davis' theories were dismissed long ago for very good reasons."
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200210%5CNAT20021030a.html
The fact is there was a third Arab suspect, and McVeigh was a Muslim sympathizer!
"Wow you relay on Arlen Spector and the representives of McVeigh as info?"
Nope, I just don't believe most of the giant conspiracy authors who want you to believe that basically everyone in the government knows about this, but is keeping their mouth shut.
This woman seems to have less support then the UFO nuts.
http://www.san.beck.org/AB11-AugustineandRome.html
"Augustine found Christ persecuting when Jesus expelled merchants from the temple with a whip. Vincentius, an old friend of Augustine from Carthage and a leader in the Donatist sect of Rogatists, was shocked that the Hippo bishop favored using state power to quell Donatists in order to force them into the Catholic church. Augustine argued that Paul was struck blind on the Damascus road and that Elijah killed false prophets. Many Donatists were joining the Catholic unity because they feared the imperial edicts. He also referred to the parable of the banquet in Luke 14 when later guests were compelled to come."
Here are others OKC Bombing Linked to al-Qaida
Oh wait NewsMax is conservative, and liberals like you only listen to the MSM! According to you Bill Clinton was not corrupt and did not cover anything up. Only what the MSM says is accurate!
According to those freepers who watched it and reported this "expose" live - it was a big yawn...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1385666/posts
Which is probably why your link goes to the buildup to the show, not after show reports.
http://answering-islam.org.uk/index.html
Muslim apologists frequently quote Matthew 10:34, which mentions a sword, drawing a parallel between Christianity and Islam: Jesus and Muhammad both endorse jihad, so why would Christians today complain about it in Islam? However, this parallel is deadly flawed.
To explain more effectively how the two "Founders" differ, this article follows a particular method of exegesis (detailed analysis of a text). First, the historical context of the two verses is explained, so their meaning can be made clear. Second, the literary context—the verses surrounding the two targeted verses—is quoted or summarized, so we do not look at the two verses in isolation. Third, we discuss any important elements within the verses, such as key words. Finally, we will then be in a position to contrast the two verses at the end of the article, applying them to today.
We take Quran 9:123 as our counter-verse to Matthew 10:34 because, as we will see, both share the context of family relations.
9:123 "O you who believe, fight those of the unbelievers near you and let them see how harsh you can be. Know that Allah is with the righteous." (Fakhry’s translation)
The historical context of this verse takes place after a military expedition in early 630, so it is late in Muhammad’s life (he dies of a fever in AD 632). Some scholars regard Sura 9 as the last sura (chapter) to be revealed from on high. Therefore, it sets many policies for Muslims today, and is often interpreted as abrogating or canceling previous verses, even peaceful ones. During the military expedition, Muhammad led a large army of 30,000 soldiers to the northern city of Tabuk in order to confront the Byzantine Christians. This is clearly a Muslim Crusade, centuries before the European Crusades. The Byzantines failed to show up, so Muhammad’s Crusade was fruitless, except he managed to extort a tax from northern tribes for the "privilege" of living under Islam, that is, for not being attacked again. After the Muslims returned, Muhammad scolded the "hypocrites" who had stayed behind and failed to support him. Then he turns to those people who stirred up strife in the community by expressing doubt in Muhammad’s revelations; they needed to be silenced. This latter groups is whom he attacks in 9:123—the "unbelievers." He may wage war on them, without flinching.
Another aspect of the historical context should be considered. Muhammad urges his fighters forward in order to kill the unbelievers, even if the latter belong to the fighters’ own family, as seen in the words "near you" in v. 123, which may imply a relational nearness as well as a geographical one. Be that as it may, the Muslim commentator S. Abdul A’la Maududi informs us:
The Command [to fight] has been repeated at [the] end [of Sura 9] in order to impress on the Muslims the importance of the matter and to urge them to do Jihad and crush these internal enemies, without paying the least regard to the racial, family, and social relations that had been proving a binding force with them.
It is clear, then, that Muslims should not pay even "the least regard to the ... family ... relations," a "binding force" that had encumbered the expansion of Islam. Muslims have been ordered, therefore, to fight their family members in a physical way, in other words, to hit them with sharp swords. Why does Muhammad order this? According to Maududi, it is to "crush these internal enemies."
The literary context of 9:123 shows strife with those refusing to support or even opposing Muhammad. For example, in verse 121 Muhammad complains that the hypocrites do not spend any money in Allah’s cause (code for fighting), so Allah will recompense them accordingly. Next, Muhammad instructs his troops in verse 122 that not all Muslims should go out on a campaign of jihad, but some should stay behind to teach Islam, so they may warn people to beware of evil. Finally, in the verses after 9:123 Muhammad condemns the unbelievers for mocking his revelations. Thus, the literary context does not consist of peace and friendship with Muhammad’s opponents, and that is why he goes on the warpath and to deal with them harshly in 9:123.
The elements within 9:123, the third step in our exegetical method, yield two hard truths. First, Muhammad uses the Arabic word qital (three-consonant root is q-t-l), which always means physically fighting and killing and warring—no other meaning is available. This word is usually stronger than jihad (three consonant root is j-h-d), which Muhammad uses in 9:73, a companion verse to 9:123:
9:73 "O Prophet, fight [j-h-d] the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be stern with them. Their abode is Hell, and what a terrible fate!" (Fakhry)
Thus, jihad and qital can barely be distinguished, since the means (swords) and the goal (submission or death) of fighting are the same in both verses. These two verses alone should lay to rest forever the frequent claim that jihad means only a spiritual struggle against sin in the soul. Second, not only does Muhammad say that his jihadists should fight the unbelievers (and hypocrites in verse 73), but the Muslim warriors should do so harshly or sternly. This lends a severity to the verse which is difficult to take in—along with the eternal fate of the unbelievers, which is very, very often stated in the Quran in exactly the same way as verse 73 states it—short and quick and severe.
We turn now to Matthew 10:34.
Many Muslims assert that Jesus either wielded a physical sword, or he endorsed a holy war, of sorts. Thus, he is not different from Muhammad—and the latter prophet is better than Jesus. They say this to defend tacitly their prophet from any accusation of violence. But this is completely wrong.
Matt. 10:34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword."
The historical context, we should recall, is Jewish culture, as Jesus ministers to his own people. He sends out the twelve disciples to the "lost sheep of Israel," not yet to the gentiles, who will be reached after the Resurrection. It is not surprising, historically speaking, that he would spread his word by proclamation to his own, by Jewish disciples. Second, he predicts that some towns may not receive the disciples and that the authorities may put them on trial and flog them. In that eventuality, they should shake the dust off their feet, pray for them, and flee to another city (not attack the people or the authorities, which Muhammad does to his Meccan persecutors). Third, it is only natural that first-century Jews may not understand this new sect or "Jesus movement" (as sociologists of the New Testament call it), so they resist it. Does this mean, then, that Jesus calls for a jihad with a physical, military sword against his fellow Jews—say, against his own family who wanted to take custody of him because they thought he was "out of his mind" (Mark 3:21)?
These cultural facts explain the literary context, which shows division among family members. The literary context must be quoted in full to explain the meaning of "sword" in Matthew 10:34 (bold print):
32 "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. 34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household [Micah 7:6]
37 Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."
The one key element in this lengthy passage is the word "sword," and its meaning is now clear. It indicates that following Jesus in his original Jewish society may not bring peace to a family, but may "split" it up, the precise function of a metaphorical sword. Are his disciples ready for that? This kind of spiritual sword invisibly severs a man from his father, and daughter from her mother, and so on (Micah 7:6). It is only natural that Matthew, the traditional author of the most Jewish of the Gospels, would include a pericope (a unit or section) like 10:32-39. Given Jesus’ own family resistance early on (they later came around), it is only natural he would say that no matter what the cost, one must follow him to the end, even if it means giving up one’s family. But this applies only if the family rejects the new convert, not if the family accepts him in his new faith; he must not reject them because the whole point of Jesus’ advent is to win as many people to his side as possible, even if this divides the world in two, but never violently.
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.