Posted on 03/25/2006 12:34:52 PM PST by the anti-liberal
The fragile Afghan state is protected by American, British, Canadian, Australian, Italian and other troops, hundreds of whom have died. You cannot ask Americans or Britons to expend blood and treasure to build a society in which a man can be executed for his choice of religion. You cannot tell a Canadian soldier serving in Kandahar that he, as a Christian, must sacrifice his life to create a Muslim state in which his faith is a capital offense.
As always, we come back to the words of Osama bin Laden: "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse." That's really the only issue: The Islamists know our side have tanks and planes, but they have will and faith, and they reckon in a long struggle that's the better bet. Most prominent Western leaders sound way too eager to climb into the weak-horse suit and audition to play the rear end. Consider, for example, the words of the Prince of Wales, speaking a few days ago at al-Azhar University in Cairo, which makes the average Ivy League nuthouse look like a beacon of sanity. Anyway, this is what His Royal Highness had to say to 800 Islamic "scholars":
"The recent ghastly strife and anger over the Danish cartoons shows the danger that comes of our failure to listen and to respect what is precious and sacred to others. In my view, the true mark of a civilized society is the respect it pays to minorities and to strangers."
That's correct. But the reality is that our society pays enormous respect to minorities - President Bush holds a monthlong Ramadan-a-ding-dong at the White House every year. The immediate reaction to the slaughter of 9/11 by Western leaders everywhere was to visit a mosque to demonstrate their great respect for Islam. One party to this dispute is respectful to a fault: after all, to describe the violence perpetrated by Muslims over the Danish cartoons as the "recent ghastly strife" barely passes muster as effete Brit toff understatement.
Unfortunately, what's "precious and sacred" to Islam is its institutional contempt for others. In his book "Islam And The West," Bernard Lewis writes, "The primary duty of the Muslim as set forth not once but many times in the Quran is 'to command good and forbid evil.' It is not enough to do good and refrain from evil as a personal choice. It is incumbent upon Muslims also to command and forbid." Or as the Canadian columnist David Warren put it: "We take it for granted that it is wrong to kill someone for his religious beliefs. Whereas Islam holds it is wrong not to kill him." In that sense, those imams are right, and Karzai's attempts to finesse the issue are, sharia-wise, wrong.
I can understand why the president and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would rather deal with this through back channels, private assurances from their Afghan counterparts, etc. But the public rhetoric is critical, too. At some point we have to face down a culture in which not only the mob in the street but the highest judges and academics talk like crazies. Abdul Rahman embodies the question at the heart of this struggle: If Islam is a religion one can only convert to, not from, then in the long run it is a threat to every free person on the planet.
I don't think European history will serve as a guide regarding the future. I don't think they have the ability or the will to expel the Muslims. If they try it, last November's riots in France will look like like a meeting of the philatelist society in comparison.
It won't be easy, but it can be done.
In other words - carnage... heh.
Hypothetical:
The libs may have provided the noose to strangle Islam. Is Islam not a conspiracy to commit a hate crime?
heh heh heh - anti-lib shoots - he scores!
Dear Mr. Steyn,
It is, and it is.
L
Justice Jackson was in the minority on Terminiello v. Chicago.
President Rodham can bring tanks to your church and burn it down. Will she?
Islam is recognized by the United States as a legitimate religion. There are Muslim chaplains in the US military. Any legal precedent you set saving America from Muslims can be used later to save America from whatever denomination becomes unpopular.
No, it is not, unless the existence of Christian Identity theology makes Christianity a conspiracy to commit a hate crime.
Most Muslims have not read the Koran. Few of those that have take it as literally as most Christians who have recently discovered it do.
Lame answer.. because..
Not legal
Not possible
Not effective
What a stunningly wonderful story!
Hypothetical question: What if said 'religion' calls for the killing those who try to leave said 'religion', or for killing those who will not convert to said 'religion'?
Is this a 'religion'?
Is this death-cult covered by the 1st Amendment?
Islam is no more or no less a "death cult" today than it was before the Cartoon Riots or 9/11.
Since those times a lot of Christians have read English translations of Koranic verses on the internet and taken them literally.
It is worse than that, it is a conspiracy to commit genocide, and should be labeled as such...
the infowarrior
Agreed - Islam is covered today. My question - should not this question be reviewed by the Supreme Court (or Legislative Branch)? Why is a 'religion' (so-called) that calls for its adherents to kill those who leave its 'religion' and calls for the enslavement (dhimmi-ization) or death of those who don't join its gang, be protected by the First Amendment? I don't believe this level of protection was what the Founding Fathers had in mind when the Constitution was drafted.
Islam is no more or no less a "death cult" today than it was before the Cartoon Riots or 9/11.
Technically true. But as more and more islamists have begun to actually follow their 'scriptures' in the past decade - we would be burying our heads in the sand to ignore the present threat.
Since those times a lot of Christians have read English translations of Koranic verses on the internet and taken them literally.
True again (three for three). We were 'blissfully ignorant' prior to 9/11. As a Christian we understand the importance to read, study, understand (as best as we are able) and follow the inspired Word of God (the Bible). Recognizing now that Islam is based on writings that can only be described as 'satanic' in their inspiration (as evidenced by their actual testimonies) we should not walk around in a pre 9/11 haze and pretend that 'islam means peace'. Islam means death and destruction, and for a Western Republic - founded on the Bible - to believe it can peacefully coexist with islam is delusional.
We should pray for those shackled to the islamic creed - but lying to them that their's is 'The Religion of Peace' does no one good. Not us, not them.
Don't mischaracterize what I posted. Their religion is a textbook for fanaticism, subjugation, and murder. And there are no effective checks on it.
Ignore this truth at your peril.
Ask Christians in Islamic countries how "literally" rank-and-file Muslims take the Koran.
There is a Christian named Rahman in Afghanistan who can enlighten you on your foolishness. Ask him while he still has a head.
Allah: "Checkmate."
The proof is in the practice. Muslims emigrate to the west. Christians do not emigrate to Islamic countries. There is a reason for that, and it isn't because Islam and Christianity are morally equivalent in the way you suggest they are.
Canada is struggling with similar threats, as is Australia.
It will happen here in the US sooner rather than later. Keep an eye on Detroit.
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.