Posted on 12/16/2006 1:06:03 PM PST by Urbane_Guerilla
I truly would like to discuss it with you, Jem.
This is the very crux of the matter. worshippers of mohammed feel free to say and do whatever they want, counting on the hobbled silence of the West.
This is a direct result of American slavery. Americans rightfully feel gravely ashamed by that aspect of our history.
mohammed-worshippers, who endorse slavery, take advantage of our shame and past sinfulness.
mohammed-worshippers are no more than Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons with regard to America. They understand that the race-hustle of those corrupt men is the key to keeping us silent. And they are succeeding. The race-hustle is a perfect fit with islam, an amoral con.
That is a totally speculative and unprovable pov. As far as we know, God has nothing to do with it.
And that is why our president is too cowardly to speak the truth.
He prefers his fantasy.
I could not disagree with you more.
The one word is "love," a word totally alien to islam, as opposed to any other religion whatsoever.
You are ill informed.
Christianity is based absolutely and categorically on the belief in the Resurrection.
If you do not believe in the actual, physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus, you cannot be a true Christrian.
You might be a species of Christian, but not a true Christian.
I understand and honor your sentiment. But please watch Zulu and pay attention to the Christian.
My desire to get mohammed-worshippers to reject their faith has everything to do with me. Yes, you are no doubt correct. Their rejection of their faith is very dear to me.
Your sympathy with psychopathic hatred, on the other hand, has to do with your insecurity with your own faith.
Your insecurity is why our President, a Christian, is unable to speak the truth about mohammed-worship.
He is frightened about the implications of that truth about Jesus worship.
In other words, he does not have the intellectual capacity to distinguish between the two.
Absolutely.
Brilliant men resort to the weasel word, "islamism". They are scared of speaking the truth. They are intellectual cowards.
Has anyone anywhere said, "I am an islamist"?
LOL ... of course not. I am a nazi. I am a communist. I am a socialist. I am a facist. Those are things real human beings say.
But I am an "islamiscist," or "I am an islamo-fascist"?
Ridiculous and absurd.
And our most brilliant people utter those risible things.
Somewhere on the net someone even came up with the embarrassing word, "counterjihad."
OMG ... we are defeating ourselves, when even those who understand refuse to speak the truth.
Look how intimidated many are to criticize Islam or Mohammed.
Absolutely.
Brilliant men resort to the weasel word, "islamism". They are scared of speaking the truth. They are intellectual cowards.
Has anyone anywhere said, "I am an islamist"?
LOL ... of course not. I am a nazi. I am a communist. I am a socialist. I am a facist. Those are things real human beings say.
But I am an "islamiscist," or "I am an islamo-fascist"?
Ridiculous and absurd.
And our most brilliant people utter those risible things.
Somewhere on the net someone even came up with the embarrassing word, "counterjihad."
OMG ... we are defeating ourselves, when even those who understand refuse to speak the truth.
_______
The de-construction of the English language and the fear of speaking bluntly, no matter who it offends will be the death of us all someday.
The Emperor has no clothes and everyone is afraid to say it. Something has happened to American society in the past 40 years, we are de-evolving into a soft society who lives in a fantasy world, unable to acknowledge the barbarians at the gate.
People in theoretical conversation say "I would have killed Hitler" with hindsight being 20/20.
We've got a religion full of Hitlers, how fast are we killing them? Not NEARLY fast enough.
Radical Islam and it's leaders are FAR MORE OVERT in their desire to exterminate all Jews, they even threaten to destroy America. Hey, who's on OPRAH today!
Hitler tried to keep the holocaust secret, our current enemy speaks openly about it, what's our response? Do you think Jennifer Aniston will marry Vince Vaughn?
"But please watch Zulu and pay attention to the Christian. "
Watch me?
For now, I'm going to assume that the ideological battleground is the Muslim world. I don't think most of these proposals are workable in the Muslim world. A few might have a bit more currency with the non-Muslim world, but I doubt their overall utility there. The ideological war in the West has a lot more to do with the old left/right hatreds than it does with Muslim culture.
One, the only way to convince a Jihadist he's going to hell is for another orthodox Muslim to tell him that. I don't think Ahmad al-Muj is terribly interested in the theological musings of Freepers, but he might listen to a mufti or an ayatollah with a sufficiently large pulpit. He may also listen to a family, clan, or tribal leader -- depends on how far gone he is.
Two, exploiting class-envy to deconstruct religion is a bit too Marxist for me, especially when many terrorists aren't that poor anyway. Disparities of wealth develop anywhere with sufficient wealth, it's only natural for the advantaged to amass whatever wealth they can. We need the Islamic world to reform commerce and property rights so the advantage passes from the de facto aristocracy to a meritocracy. This may be accelerated by instituting representative government while reforming Islamic education beyond the usual array of madrassas and state-sponsored bachelors' in Islamic history. It may be useful to set up American-run universities in Iraq and Afghanistan; they'd be electromagnets for terrorism, but they could train future leaders. We already do it for their military, why not their civilians?
Three, it is a point of pride to orthodox Muslims that they "protect" their women, and to Muslim women that they are more pious than poorly-dressed nonbelievers; to them, we treat our women like garbage. This is a private religious matter for most Muslims. But I agree that those societies that limit the movement of women or submit them to cruel punishments need to reform. After changes in codified law, the best way to deal with it would be to support those ulama who have liberal views regarding women, ideally through open scholarship. Think widespread reports on seventh-century Muslim women going about without veils, or how the change in the sex ratio since then has fundamentally changed marriage. Covert funding and propagandizing might get it done, but if it were uncovered, we'd lose a great deal of face.
Four, we already saw what happened when the Pope brought that idea up. It's a non-starter.
Five and six are pretty good ideas, but a soft touch is needed -- this could best be carried out by the academe, using traditions of Western rationalism (which are uncommon, but not unheard of in the Muslim world). Humanizing Muhammad and recasting the Quran as an inspired text, rather than the virtual embodiment of Allah it's become, would go a long way towards modernizing Islamic culture. It could set up a chain-reaction doing away with established fiqh ("jurisprudence") and bringing back itjihad ("reasoning" in the application of sharia to circumstances unforeseen by Muhammad).
Seven misses the mark completely, since Muslims do not worship Muhammad. Even if they did, telling them that the only way to defend their religion is with violence -- as part of a campaign to delegitimize their religion -- is probably going to provoke more violence.
Eight is another idea that Muslims won't grasp. To orthodox Muslims, Jews and Christians were always safe and happy under the Caliphate. The Crusades and the State of Israel messed things up, but their religion at its height -- the era to which they long to return -- was very tolerant. It might be useful to remind them of this fact, that they've failed in their responsibilities to their dhimmies, but accusing the religion of being inherently violent will shut down the listener and any chance of delivering a message.
Nine, Islam certainly has a concept of forgiveness, and love. (Maybe not the agape you're thinking of, though.) I don't know if it has a "golden rule," but a Muslim would counter that Western culture has no "rule of submission." You're assuming that his values are the same as your values, and that he will find wrong with his religion exactly the same things you find wrong with it. He won't.
Ten is good, but the wording is a bit polemical. (Ya think?)
Please read Mr. Gawthrop's article in the Fall 2006 issue of The Vanguard. He describes the centers of gravity, critical vulnerabilities, and seams that can be exploited in the ideological war.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
"Jews and Christians still think the Messiah has yet to come"
You might want to revise that statement a wee bit!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
How you gonna deal with people who won't listen to reason or logic?
Here are a couple of FANTASTIC sites:
http://www.livingwaters.com/good/
http://www.biblicalevangelism.com/
That is a great description of Christianity.
Have you actually read this thread?
Seriously there are bad Christians and bad Muslims/ I know a couple of Muslims (one of whom takes his breaks and goes and prays)
Are they bad .... no most will give you the shirt off their back. Do they like extremists...no they don't....do they believe in Jesus....yes they do....
This is a broad brush we are painting here.
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.