Posted on 02/20/2006 7:46:11 AM PST by Dark Skies
When President Bush gave his "axis of evil" speech he went out of his way to make the world understand that it isn't a war with Islam itself that we were joining — and I say joining because the war had been started by the Jihadists decades before. And, in observance to our Western principles, that must be the correct way to view our conflagration with radical Islam.
Let's face facts, it certainly is uncomfortable to a Westerner who has been brought up on tolerance, freedom of religion, and liberty to contemplate a war against an entire religion. But are we approaching a time when Western nations won't have a choice but to target Islam itself in certain ways to keep their own people safe. The best course of action is to make public displays of Islam and certain of its practices illegal in Western nations.
So, the question becomes are we at that time now? Are we fast approaching a time when Mosques will be closed and banned? Have we come to a time when Islamic literature is turned away from our borders? Have the childish and dangerous reactions of Muslims to this cartoon in a Danish newspaper proven that Islam cannot be trusted to be a vital, peaceful, and law-abiding segment of society?
It is looking like yes is the answer to these queries.
We are already approaching this today. In Ontario they have officially outlawed Muslim Sharia law, that law that uses religious precepts to enforce moral and society codes of conduct. And Muslim "family councils" have been stopped where local community groups may supplement Canadian law with their local custom.
Several members of the John Howard administration in Australia have spoken out against Islamic clashes with Western notions of law and societal comportment many times over the last few years.
Recently Howard himself said, "I do think there is this particular complication because there is a fragment which is utterly antagonistic to our kind of society, and that is a difficulty ... You can't find any equivalent in Italian, or Greek, or Lebanese, or Chinese or Baltic immigration to Australia. There is no equivalent of raving on about jihad, but that is the major problem."
Muslims routinely destroy property, threaten death and bodily harm to those who speak out against them, and they constantly fund terrorism throughout the world. In Syria they have burnt an embassy, in Europe Muslims have been responsible for murdering people who have written out against Islam or made movies, and other forms of art. These actions are also approved by Islamic teachers (Imams) and religious leaders, not just undertaken by warped loners claiming to represent Islam quite against the will of the majority or authority.
With this ridiculous cartoon issue, we have seen that Islam has no sense of perspective. In the west parody or satire is seen as not only common, but completely harmless for the most part. And religion is not immune to parody and satire, though even in the west most people are often uncomfortable with religious satire. Usually only people filled with hate attack religion in parody and most in the West instinctively know this. As a result, most people dismiss such parody as foolishness and bad taste.
But with Muslims overreacting — in western eyes at least — to this silly cartoon issue in the way they have, it becomes nearly impossible for Westerners to view Islam as a peaceful religion, but more as a vicious hate group itself. And that perception is justified with the actions that Muslims have increasingly perpetrated over the ensuing years. So, we find that Islam presents a danger to the safety of the populace all too often. It is violent, oppressive, and reactionary.
But, what is to be done about it? We have been raised to feel that religion should be left untouched by government. Freedom of religion is at the very core of our beliefs. And this concept is an important one to uphold. So, how can we honestly and without hypocrisy begin to look toward making Islam illegal?
There is a parallel of sorts in the USA that might be used as a template for action. The Ku klux Klan.
After the Civil War ended, the KKK arose from the ashes of war as an advocacy group for the disenfranchised white voter in the south. But it quickly became a terrorist organization bent on taking out revenge on the south's newly freed black population for having lost the war. It got so bad that even one of the original organizers, C.S. Cavalry General Nathan Bedford Forrest, denounced the organization and quit it in disgust.
But as the late 1800s rolled on and the south began to re-enter the Union as full partners in government, the KKK began to lose steam and prominence. For a time it subsided. But as the 20th century neared, it re-emerged and this time became a nationwide and powerful force taking on the flavor of religious, civic and racial duty. The KKK became invested in government and claimed millions of members nation wide.
In the 1920s, however, it became too much for a liberty loving country to allow the KKK to any longer exist. In Indiana, the entire state government was scandalized by their fealty to Indiana's Klan leader who had raped and beaten his secretary on a train trip. Violence against and frequent lynching of southern blacks became so pervasive that Congress finally acted and banned the Klan. The organization collapsed never again to reclaim the power and prominence it once had.
Now, the KKK has always based its precepts on Christianity, as well as racial identity. It also reacted with violence, rallies, death threats and killing when it was threatened. It careened far away from being a mere "idea" or religious theology and became a terrorist organization. And it became a terrorist organization even though literally millions of Americans that belonged to or identified with the Klan were not themselves violent, evil, or dangerous citizens.
The leadership of the Klan supported violence. The leadership preached violence. The leadership planned and fomented it. Therefore, it had to go because it became a danger to every law-abiding citizen, whether they agreed with the racial and religious concepts the Klan espoused or not.
Islam has become the KKK of the 21st century. The sooner we awake to this truth and take steps to ban the religion, or somehow curtail its pernicious influence the better. The west is going to have to put sever restrictions on Islamic Mosques and public display of Islam. Further, devout Muslims should not be allowed to hold public office (though it certainly should not become a racial issue — sins of the father should not be visited upon the sons).
This is no religious purge as in centuries past. In the past religions were banned to be replaced by the state sponsored sect and believers of the banned religion were mistreated, tortured, unduly taxed, and terrorized. This is absolutely not the model the west would follow by banning aspects of Islam today. No religion is replacing Islam and no one is suggesting that Muslims be mistreated. But the creed to which they hold is fast becoming the most dangerous one in the world today. It is a fine line that we walk to consider banning Islam, but the safety of society is at risk not to do so.
This is not an easy conclusion at which to arrive. But if we continue to turn a blind eye to the danger that Islam presents to the west, we are signing our own death warrants.
The KKK was put down in the USA and made powerless for the same reason. Communism was destroyed for the same reason, as well. Islam is a danger to the world.
Unfortunately, it is just that simple.
Boris nails closed this discussion with a brief, but concise posting.
The West is confronting an enemy unlike any other it has faced before in history. Islam will use our own "freedoms of the West" to grow within our nations and culture, and when strong enough will turn itself against us, in the same way that a cancer uses one's body to grow within before it metastacizes (sp?) and overwhelms it.
Look what is going on in Europe now.
To defeat Islam, we will have no choice but to step [hopefully temporarily] "beyond the Constitutional bounds" that we have historically permitted within this country (in particular) and in The West (in general). That means restrictions upon ALL Muslims: those who are devout, and those who [apparently] are not, because NONE can be trusted with the precepts of the West, so long as they retain any (emphasis: ANY) devotion to Islam, whether as a religion (which it pretends to be) or a nationalistic/cult (which it is).
In the end, there will be no other way. I say this not because I relish what must be done; rather, there will simply be no other choice, if we wish to survive. And I want to survive, and my culture and hertiage, as well.
Islam, through writings of the Quran itself (the unchangeable word of Mohammed) makes plain _its_ intent to conquer the world. Does ANYone reading this posting believe otherwise?
Think of it this way: to come to America, and to truly BE an American, one must foreswear any and all allegiances to foreign nationality, governments, or powers. But, because Islam is something _more than_ a religion - an entire way of life that determines behavior in the secular, material world as well as the "world to come" - it, too, must be regarded as something "foreign", and dangerous, on Western soil. (As an aside, how openly were avowed Nazis treated in America during World War II?) And so long as one _remains_ an Islamic, unwilling to forsake it for the belief and behavior systems of the West, Islamics simply cannot be trusted on Western soil.
There have been some previous postings by others who have said, in so many words, "if we root out and get rid of the TERRORISTS, we will win". So long as they continue to believe this in their hearts, they cannot even begin to join in the discussion here, because "The War On Terrorism" is in itself a misnomer, a euphemism.
The "war" _is not_ against terrorism.
It is against US.
I know which side I want to win, and I will accept what's necessary to win it. In this case, for better, or for worse, our end (or will it be _theirs_?) is justified by the means. And our end is simple: the survival of The West.
Which side do YOU wish to win?
- John
wvobiwan: The difference is that Islam has been corrupted to higher degree than any other...How so? One needs only to look back at the examples of mohammed himself, the "al insan al kamil" (the "perfect man") whom muslims are to emulate.
His murderous raids against his own Quresh tribe, slavery, genocide, pedophilia (Aisha), rape, forced marriages (Safiyah, Juwairiyah) and consent to murder (Abu Afak), are recorded in islamic texts for all to read.
Not only was mohammed venerated for his actions, so were his immediate followers and his "companions" who served him in his own lifetime. The Salafi movement was all about a return to pure islam as preached and practiced by mohammed himself, and rejecting later innovations ("bidah") as impure.
Its important to understand not only what is written in the koran and hadeeth, but to read the examples of his companions and successor and the is a concepts in islam of "fiqh" and "Maruf" which is roughly translated as "consensus of the the ummah (islamic community)." This is the reason why islamic scholars and muftis do not only quote justification for islamic jurisprudence from the sura and sunnahs, but also quote many examples of historical deeds of the "companions of the prophet," including the great caliphs and their generals so the lay muslim can understand what is "good' and what is "bad." Sometimes I have the feeling that a cluless apologist is going to tell me dawah and promoting sharia law has nothing to do with islam and is not one of its cornerstones.
Muslims to this day pass down tales thru the generations about mohammeds great generals, Khalid ibn al Walid and Amr ibn al As who waged offensive wars for islamic expansion under mohammed and his immediate successors.
We also can not ignore the concept of "Maruf" (consensus) or the many islamic leaders who followed in mohammeds footsteps, such as Saladin, and the islamic general Tarik who drove his armies so far into Christian Spain in the early part of the 8th Century that by the year 715 islamic hoardes had captured vast tracks of its land and began to press into France until stopped at Tours by Charles Martel. All this predates the Crusades (which were called to halt such islamic aggression) by centuries.
Dark skies: If you honestly believe that islam has been corrupted... you and I must agree to disagree. Also, many devout muslims would disagree with your statement.Agree DS.
Yeah. I despair ever catching up...
It was the energy behind the cartoon uproar. Had we killed them, or bombed them or hated them, it would have fed them and their delusions....
If we win this war, part of the credit will have to be given to a Danish cartoonist. C.S. Lewis knew, the Dane knew, and now we know.
"The First Amendment prohibits this."
The first amendment does not protect terrorist organizations and enemies that are trying to take over the US.
Dresden. Tokyo. We burned as many people as the Nazis did in those two raids.
Was it worth it? I think so. The alternative would be worse.
Simple question for you:
Do you agree with sharia, and should it be allowed?
I'm very comfortable with that.
If only they would.
"We can't lose sight of the fact that most......."
Nevil??? I thought you had died decades ago??
We can't lose sight of the fact that most...that most people in the US still have their head in the sand and believe that most muslims do not endorse terrorism.
Unfortunately, many people who wrap themselves in a holier than thou pose have no problem shredding the Constitution under "certain" circumstances. Then again, without them it might not be crystal clear what a phony person is.
There was a case here in Houston a few years ago of a Jewish guy who was killed by his former Muslim buddy, Muhammed Ali Al-Ayyad, after his "buddy" had a big Post 9-11 "faith awakening". He was killed with a knife, that almost succeeded in decapitating him. I guess "almost" is not the same as "actually" decapitating, but is close.
How emotional it is---aren't conservatives supposed to be the masters of logical, unemotional debate??
Yeah. I learned a new (and foreign to me) emotion on 9/11.
"Do you agree with sharia, and should it be allowed?
"
I do not agree with sharia law. Your second question is a little more complicated, though? Allowed where? Allowed in Iraq? Dubai? Here?
Not here. Our laws come from our system of government, not from any religion. I don't see sharia law happening in the USA.
As for Iraq or Dubai, that's not for me to decide. Those are sovereign nations.
That site is worthy of its own thread. Unbelievable. The world our children will be living in. The 'Campaign 2036' link is frightening...the candidates aren't who you think they are.
Our laws come from our system of government.
Are you even in the USA?
I meant become as emotional and hate driven as them.
The issue of war is one thing. Irrational vitriol is another (not you, just some).
Emphatically. No more Muslims allowed in the U.S. They are a clear and present danger to western civilization and our way of life. Ban them.
Apparently. I don't necessarily advocate this. Just the ones who preach for the violent overthrow of Western Civilization.
If they want to go one-on-one in the battlefield of ideas, I have no problem with that.
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.