Posted on 03/31/2006 10:01:53 PM PST by freedom44
" 'All Religions Other Than Islam Are Heresy': Saudi Religious Council"
So's Islam.
Is islam a religion or is it a satanic death cult?
An unreformed medieval religion and nuclear weapons are a bad mix. It was OK to be unreformed back in the 1700s, it is NOT today.
More evidence that this cult needs to be obliterated.
The true answer is closer to two/thirds, or 65% of the koran would be eliminated. Makes you think, no?
the infowarrior
And contrary to the practice of Islam under the early Caliphs.
Reciprocity ought to be demanded, and in an earlier age we would have. But the West has lost all interest in the Christians in Muslim states.
Next they'll be demanding that every Christian church in an islamic land be burned to the ground in a moderate fashion.
L
They agreed that it is obligatory to destroy any church or other heretical house of worship that was built after [the advent of] Islam, and it is forbidden to oppose the ruler in the matter of its destruction, and he must be obeyed.
Oh yea, I love the smell of moderation. I'm sure these people will be easily convinced to live side by side in peace and harmony with Jews, Christians, Buddhists....
Right after they murder all of us.
L
Can we FedEx these idiots some pigpoop?
When are you going to tire from posting stories about radicals to prove that they are not moderates?
You'll never post anything close to nine hundred individual stories, so give up.
Either that, or go do what you believe needs to be done.
Mohammed referred to Blacks as "Pugnosed Raisin Heads". (Sahih Al Bukhary vol. 1, no. 662 and vol. 9, no. 256)
You know, those guys Bush says are our 'steadfast allies in the war on terror.'
They're the highest islamic religious authority in that country. That makes them 'mainstream', not radical. They're the same 'mainstream' legally recognized religious authority as the ones in Afghanistan who wanted to tear a man into pieces for converting to Christianity.
That's mainstream islam my friend.
Now go back and reread the article. It's replete with citations from the koran. You know, the cornerstone of 'moderate islam'. Their holy book...you know.. the one that says it's ok to kill Christians and Jews.
The occasional 'moderate' you trot out is the radical. Mainstream islam says it's perfectly alright to kill anyone who disagrees with them.
Now let's review. We have the governments of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, The UAE, Afghanistan (the one we installed), Jordan, Iran, and Iraq (also the one we installed), all claiming this monstrosity known as the koran is the literal word of God himself and anyone who disagrees must be killed.
On your side you've pointed up, what, a half a dozen people living in western nations who disagree. Most of those can't leave their homes without bodyguards.
Tens of thousands of muslims in Europe have been burning and smashing things because of some cartoons yet somehow you think I'm the one who's out of touch with reality.
Talk about a disconnect...
You've managed to come up with a handful of 'moderate' muslims. I've shown tens of thousands of examples of mainstream islamic thought. I'd say I'm the one who's got the evidence on his side my friend.
L
Are all religions other than Christianity heresy?
On my side there are hundreds of millions that are doing absolutely nothing either way.
Go do something about it if you feel that strongly.
by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
January 20, 2004
"Anyone concerned with what's happening in our world ought to spend some time reading the Koran." Andy Rooney, the famed CBS commentator, gave this advice shortly after 9/11, as did plenty of others.
His suggestion makes intuitive sense, given that the terrorists themselves say they are acting on the basis of the holy scripture of Islam. Accused 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta had a Koran (sometimes spelled Qur'an) in the suitcase he had checked for his flight. His five-page document of advice for fellow hijackers instructed them to pray, ask God for guidance, and "continue to recite the Koran." Osama bin Laden often quotes the Koran to motivate and convince followers.
Witnesses report that at least one of the suicide bombers who tried to assassinate Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, last month was reading the Koran before blowing himself up. Hamas suicide videotapes routinely feature the Koran.
And lots of non-Muslims in fact have been reading the Koran. In the weeks after September 11, the book's largest publisher in the United States reported that sales had quintupled; it had to airlift copies from Great Britain to meet the demand. American bookstores reported selling more Korans than Bibles.
All this, incidentally, was music to Islamist ears. Hossam Gabri of the Islamic Society of Boston, a group tied to a terrorism funder, considers non-Muslims trying to understand the Koran "a very good development."
But reading the Koran is precisely the wrong way to go about understanding "what's happening in our world." That's because the Koran is:
Profound. One cannot pick it up and understand its meaning when nearly every sentence is the subject of annotations, commentaries, glosses, and superglosses. Such a document requires intensive study of its context, development, and rival interpretations. The U.S. Constitution offers a good analogy: its Second Amendment consists of a just 27 words ("A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed") but it is the subject of numerous book-length studies. No one coming fresh to this sentence has any idea of its implications.
Complex and contradictory. Contradictions in the text have been studied and reconciled over the centuries through extensive scholarly study. Some verses have been abrogated and replaced by others with contrary meanings. For example, verse 9:5 commands Muslims not to slay pagans until the sacred months have passed and verse 9:36 tells Muslims to fight pagans during those same months. The casual reader has no idea which of these is operational. (In fact, the latter is.)
Static: An unchanging holy scripture cannot account for change over time. If the Koran causes terrorism, then how does one explain the 1960s, when militant Islamic violence barely existed? The Koran was the same text then as now. More broadly, over a period of 14 centuries, Muslims have been inspired by the Koran to act in ways aggressive and passive, pious and not, tolerant and not. Logic demands that one look elsewhere than an immutable text to account for such shifts.
Partial: Holy books have vast importance but do not create the immediate context of action. Reading the Bible in isolation gives limited insight into the range of Jewish and Christian experiences over the millennia; likewise, Muslims have read the Koran differently over time. The admonishment for female modesty meant one thing to Egyptian feminists in the 1920s and another to their descendants today. Then, head coverings represented oppression and exclusion from public life. Today, in the words of a British newspaper headline, "Veiled is beautiful." Then, the head-covering signaled a woman not being a full human being; now, in the words of an editor at a fashion magazine, the head-covering "tells you, you're a woman. … You have to be treated as an independent mind." Reading the Koran in isolation misses this unpredictable evolution. In brief, the Koran is not a history book.
A history book, however, is a history book. Instead of the Koran, I urge anyone wanting to study militant Islam and the violence it inspires to understand such phenomena as the Wahhabi movement, the Khomeini revolution, and Al-Qaeda. Muslim history, not Islamic theology, explains how we got here and hints at what might come next.
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.