Posted on 09/19/2006 3:16:32 PM PDT by shrinkermd
If seeing Arab, Pakistani, or other “ethnic” Muslims menacingly wave their hands while lambasting the West is nothing strange, seeing homegrown, non-accented Western converts doing the same thing is. Along with John Walker Lindh, Richard Reid, Jose Padilla, and Germaine Lindsay — all Western converts to Islam and all terrorists — in the spotlight today are Abu Abdullah, the native Briton turned Muslim cleric, who makes no secret of his vitriolic hatred of the West and who was just arrested for terrorist-related charges, and Azzam “the American” (formerly Adam Gadahn), who after receiving a gracious introduction by Dr. Aymin Zawahri on an al-Qaeda video, harangued and mocked his fellow Americans into submitting to Allah.
(Excerpt) Read more at victorhanson.com ...
"Non-accented"?
What is he talking about? everyone has an accent (except me of course)
Are the result of intense self-hatred &/or hatred for Western civilization.
It is amazing that the press will vilify someone that makes an off color joke about another person, while they bend over backwards to get the human side of the story from those that call for our blood on a weekly basis.
It's because the media knows we won't behead them and they can get by with it.
AMEN! When the actions of the islamo-fascists start impacting all muslims they may get motivated to do something about the people that have "hijacked" their religion. To date, their silence on the actions of what are called 'radical muslims, their calling for the death of the Pope, their rioting and killing over Danish cartoons, and their celebrating attacks against the west (to name a few examples)lead me to believe that the problem is not islamo-fascism, but islam.
"If we are in a religious war why are the vast bulk of the forces fighting and dying on our side in this war Muslims?"
Because they are on our side. Apparently.
Good analysis, and for the most part I agree with him.
Because we are better at killing them than they are at killing us, militarily. And because they hate EACH OTHER too-so they're killing each other.
Because they hate life, civilization, and the future-and they love death.Even if they ran out of infidels to kill, they'd kill each other.
It's what Islam does.
A "religious war" does not require that all persons of those particular religions at war be actively engaged in that war.
Benedict did give offence — but no great religion should be immune from difficult questions
JOURNALISTS SHOULD NOT criticise Pope Benedict XVI for his lecture at Regensburg. He has done only what every sub-editor on the Daily Mail does every day. Confronted with a long and closely written text, he inserted a lively quote to draw attention to the argument. We all do it. Sometimes the quote causes trouble, but more often it opens up an argument that is needed.
The question is not whether the quotation from the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaeologus is offensive: it is.
The question is whether the emperor is justified in what he said. His main thrust was at least partly justified. There is a real problem about the teaching of the Koran on violence against the infidel. That existed in the 14th century, and was demonstrated on 9/11, 2001. There is every reason to discuss it. I am more afraid of silence than offence.
The Pope’s actual quotation is not just a medieval point of view. It is a common modern view; even if it seldom reaches print; it can certainly be found on the internet. “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and then you shall find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
Is it true that the Koran contains such a command, and has it influenced modern terrorists? The answers, unfortunately, are “yes” and “yes”.
The so-called Sword Verse from Chapter 9 must have been in the emperor’s mind: “So when the sacred months have passed away, Then slay the idolaters wherever you find them.
“And take them captive and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every ambush.”
This does shock many Muslims: extremists are angered by the implied criticism of those who quote it, while moderates who cannot disavow the terms of the Koran prefer more evasive interpretations. The shock it creates shows the importance of the doctrine.
One man who does not question the meaning of the verse is Osama bin Laden. His attitude is discussed at some length in Chapter 14 of an excellent new book, The Qur’an, a Biography, by Bruce Lawrence, who is the Professor of Islamic Studies at Duke University, North Carolina. Lawrence observes the use of this verse as a central argument for jihad in Bin Laden’s manifesto in 1996; that was a declaration of war against native and foreign infidels.
Lawrence makes several relevant points. Bin Laden selects only those verses that fit his message, and then cites them exclusively for his own purposes. He ignores both their original context and also the variety of historical differences between committed Muslims about how to apply their dicta. He collapses the broad spectrum of Koranic teaching into a double requirement: first to believe; and then to fight.
Lawrence also draws attention to the qualifications that surround the Sword Verse; particularly that those infidels who repent should be allowed to go free: “For God is most forgiving; most merciful.”
It is impossible to reconcile the consistent Koranic teaching that God is most merciful with suicide bombing, which is indiscriminate and murders faithfuls and infidels alike.
It is a mistake to think that all the major religions are identical: they have real differences of doctrine that have real impacts on human society. What is true, however, is that no religion shall survive for more than a generation or two unless it has a substantial element of truth in it. The diabolical cult of Nazism lasted for only one generation. It is natural for Christians of different denominations to love what they have in common without ceasing to be aware of their differences.
A Christian should also rejoice in the positive spiritual values of the other major religions. It is natural for a Christian to feel enriched by Judaism, which was the religion of Jesus; or by Platonism, the philosophy of the opening chapter of St John’s Gospel and of St Augustine. Yet Christians also find spiritual truths in Buddhism, Confucianism, Daoism, Hinduism, Sikhism and Islam itself. There is a significant link between aspects of Islamic Sufi mysticism and the Christian mystical tradition.
When one lists these religions it becomes obvious that there are two problems: violence and the influence of reason, both of which Pope Benedict identified in his lecture. Violence is a fault from which no major religion has historically been free. St Patrick’s conversion of Ireland is sometimes given as a unique example of the conversion of a nation without the loss of a single life. It is one of the great scandals that so many persecutions have taken place in the name of Jesus.
This has been more or less true of all the great religions: human beings are the most savage of beasts, and they will kill each other in any cause, however noble.
Yet nowadays Islam is the only major religion in which violence is a serious doctrinal issue. It is true that tribalised Roman Catholics and Protestants in Ireland have only recently stopped killing each other and vengeful Sikhs assassinated Indira Gandhi in India, but neither the Catholic nor the Protestant churches believe in terror; nor do the Sikhs.
A significant proportion of the Islamic community does believe that suicide bombers are martyrs carrying out a religious duty. Suicide bombing causes Islamophobia. There are varying degrees of authority and uniformity in different religions; rather low in most cases. This pluralism has its own virtues, but in Islam they are outweighed by the disadvantages. Those imams who preach al-Qaeda’s view of the duty of jihad are not required to answer to any authority, even the authority of reason. Islam has only partially experienced the modern process of enlightenment and reform, which was, after all, resisted by a number of pre-Vatican II Popes. Pope Benedict will have done Islam a service if he has started a debate within Islam and between Islam and the critics.
"If we are in a religious war why are the vast bulk of the forces fighting and dying on our side in this war Muslims?"
Is this reply "F5" on your keyboard?
Regardless, they fight on their own side, not ours.
I'm sorry, but this just doesn't seem to make any sense. Who are all these Muslims fighting and dying on "our side"?
A temporary alliance for a particular purpose, control of Iraq. In the long run, all Iraqis would be happier to see Islam rule in the USA.
Should we get ever into trouble with an Islamic insurrection here in the USA, precious few Iraqi muslims would be fighting on 'our' side.
Somewhat related probably is the simultaneous liberalization of Christian denominations. They are constantly changing (and to things most conservative minds don't like) and Islam is militantly staying the same. Moderate muslims (if they exist) are scared to make a move to center in the religion because the fanatics will kill anyone who wants anything they don't want.
The Iraqi security forces.
Bump!
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.