Posted on 03/19/2006 4:27:15 PM PST by Dark Skies
Mr. Taheri-azar's attack "has exposed not only the continuing danger of domestic terrorism but also the inability of some leaders and communities to recognize that danger and take it seriously," wrote Shannon Blosser in National Review.
The ludicrous lengths to which many in the Establishment go to avoid drawing any connection between Islamic terror and Islam itself is causing a backlash among Americans, one which is causing otherwise sensible people to overlook critically important distinctions.
The backlash was evident in the debate over the attempted acquisition by Dubai Ports World of the British firm which operates commercial terminals in some U.S. ports -- if Democratic demagoguery and Republican cowardice in the face of xenophobia can be characterized as "debate."
(Excerpt) Read more at post-gazette.com ...
In order to believe this, I would have to completely ignore the scripture of both religions. Which scripture clearly advocates the murder or forced conversion of non-adherents? Which scripture clearly does not?
There was a comparison recently done by a Swedish?? professor doing a textual comparison for the major religions.
Hands down, Islam had the most violent verses.
Sorry I can't remember the title.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1592249922
Newt Gingrich reviews Churchill's "The River War" here. (The book is online in its entirety at Project Gutenberg:
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/4943 )
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam" by Robert Spencer also does some comparison of verses. Very good read on Islam, also.
Are you saying that because there was not a scripture advocating the inquisition that killed/slaughtered, staked, burned, hung-drawn and quartered - that it must not have happened? OR must not have been perpetrated by Christians - ordered by Popes?
I don't know enough of either the Koran or the Christian Bible to be able to answer what each says. I do know enough of history to know how each were used and misused.
Biblical references to warfare are descriptive and historical, not active exhortations to murder others. From my own knowledge and from the comments of Biblical scholars, I am quite confident that you will not find such material in the Bible. Koranic references that are exhortations to mistreat and murder nonMuslims are legion. Many have been quoted on FR.
I have family who are Muslim converts and have studied Islam to some extent. I cannot claim a high level of expertise in the subject, but in my experience, truly "moderate" Muslims are largely casual, inactive Muslims.
Please don't be silly. Of course Christians have persecuted others, mostly about 400 years ago, and involving, at most several thousand deaths over the entire course of Christian history (not to diminish the cruelty of any religions persecution). On the other hand, literally millions of Christians have been martyred during the 2000 year history of the Church especially when massive waves of persecution hit the early church.
For the remainder of the point of my post, please see my more recent post, above.
Evil people, posing as true Christians, can misuse Christianity for evil ends; but its scripture and doctrine do NOT advocate such action, and good Christians do not do such things. Koranic scripture and doctrine are quite another matter.
People outside and inside the faith must certainly "ask" devout Muslims to act differently. Murderous, terroristic behavior will not be tolerated. I believe a change can and will happen, perhaps after much bloodshed.
All ten of them..
God (Allah in the case of the Muslims) sets the agenda, and not the adherants. If you can't follow the fundamentals of Islam or at least try to follow them; then get out of the religion.
I disagree. It's the interpretation of the Word of the G-d in question that sets the agenda. If not, then there would never have been any change in Church doctorine. At one time, many sects of Christianity were rather bloodthirsty, and over time, this changed. I hope that Islam is able to change as well, but it must change from within. At this time, I don't think that it will change, because they (those in charge) don't want it to change, and they're getting plenty of funding to see that it doesn't.
Mark
If Christian sects were blood thirsty, they certainly didn't get the idea from the New Testament or following the advice of Christ.
You can get bloodthirsty from a reading of the Koran and Hadiths and following the advice of Allah.
Subjugate ,convert or kill non believers. This is the interpretation I get from reading the Koran and Hadiths.
Unfortunately for us it is the same interpretation of many Muslims who take the time to read their religion. They put their life on the line for that belief , and put us in peril.
I am not worried to much about the Infidel, because time will make things clear. Especially if they can wipe out Infidel leadership in an attack. Then we will get serious about addressing this problem. Until then we will kick the problem down the road; like the Europeans have done.
As Robert Spencer put it,the other day:
Only now are Europeans realizing that their culture, their soul, has been sold by their leaders for oil, and the jihad is upon them.
It is a reality so bleak that it's no wonder that most officials prefer fantasy.
But they won't be able to maintain their comfortable illusions much longer. - tom ,
IIRC, Martin Luther, after he had read the Scriptures (which apparently were chained to the altar in certain Churches - since only the elite Priests could - in some instances - read them, they got to "interpret" them as they saw fit... or to advance their agendas.) he confronted the establishment elite of the Roman Church, and soon found himself under a "Holy Roman Fatwah" being hunted down like an animal.
Had he not been able to hide out in a freind's remote mountain castle, he probably would not have lasted long.
After Luther's open Gospel theory met the Guttenburg press, the Bible became available in the "people's language", so that the priests were no longer able to manipulate the populations and governments with their "creative interpretations" of it.
Sort of like our current "Law", always written in convoluted "Legaleze", and Lawyers/Judges, wouldn't you say?
The political dominance of the RCC went into decline after that, and people began converting to Christianity because they WANTED to, not just to keep themselves and their Families from being tortured and/or killed.
From my admittedly limited reading of History, for a while there around the various Crusades, there seems to have been precious little distinction in terms of how people were treated - especially dissidents from "the Faith" - between Muhummedean and "Christian".
People who wanted to live out their lives to a natural conclusion worshipped whatever or whoever the guy holding the sword over your neck did.
Oh, I don't think so, sparky. Care to back that one up with numbers? Iraqi military? Iraqi police? Afghani military? Add 'em all up........not even close.
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.