The truth about Islam.........
:
Posted on 11/19/2001 6:16:00 PM PST by sweetliberty
On the other hand, and there always seems to be another hand in all of this, we are still faced with a faction of the Islamic religion that insists on carrying on their jihad against America. And the fact of the matter remains that we have no way of knowing for sure which of those Muslims within our country really feel that way because they do not broadcast it.
Some "moderate" muslims have spoken, and continue to appear on TV and radio. Often they are highly educated, and well spoken.
But their message is shallow, and deceitful. Islam permits lying (dissembling) and is called "Al-Taqiyah." They will do this without end. It is part of the culture to lie, cheat..even your own family.
The logic pattern of these highly educated muslims ranks with a juvenile delinquent. They will obliqely justify terror (Sep. 11.."we are against this incident"; Palestinian child bombers.."these are justified..in self defense").
They cannot be reasoned with, for they are unreasonable, and devoid of western morality. Any muslim cleric who incites violence or hatred should be arrested, convicted, and jailed. If not a citizen, deported upon completion of sentence.
We must recognize the risk of going too easy on these folks. They know respect and fear of only massive power and force. They have asked for it; continue to dissemble rather than denounce their own terrorists; and sooner or later they have it coming.
So what?
There are people who worship any number of things, and they all claim that "it's really God!" I'm not buying into it, especially in the case of islam, which has been unambiguously documented as an offshoot of a moon-worshipping sect.
IOW, please stop trying to ply your brand of ecumenicism on me, as I'm not buying any of it.
Islam appears to be nothing more than a glorified "Jim Jones" sect with this pedophile Muhammad as its prophet.
Would you kindly direct me to the portion of my post that "nurtures a hatred toward Islam"?
The average Muslim doesn't go around terrorizing non-Muslims. That is a fact.
This article is a bit biased.
Allah is the Arabic word for God. Christian Arabs also call God Allah.
Nor does the "average Muslim" ringingly denounce the events of 9/11. This is cause for suspicion. They are deafening by their silence (or guilty, in some cases, by their public celebration). If they do denounce those events, it is most often with a large "but" with an explanation of why we had it coming.
The problem we have is that Islam is a religious-political system. You can't have one without the other. This statement is based both on their ideology (Koran and Hadith) and their deeds (history, recent and not-so-recent).
If not, at what point do you move Islam from the "peaceful, friendly religion" category to the "murderous tyrannical cult-of-personality totalitarian group that cloaks itself in religion" category? How many more casualties would it take? Does it matter if they are American, Filipino, Indian, Indonesian, Nigerian, or Sudanese? Because "peaceful friendly Muslims" are killing non-Muslims in all these places, and others, primarily because they are non-Muslims who want no part of this religious-political system. Nor do I.
Until I see major reform in the Muslim world, as evidenced by acts and deeds, and not empty words, I will view all Muslim with suspicion.
I agree. My point was simply an add-on. To say that the Crusades were an aberation is true, but leaves out the undisputed fact that they were the only way Europe could be unified enough to mount a counter-attack against Islamic aggression.
This would not matter, except that the Crusades are almost always presented as an example of unprovoked military aggression by Christians. The next step, of course, is to claim moral equivalence with Islamic aggression, justification for Islamic paranoia about Christians, etc.
The world hears the current Islamic aggression compared with the Christian Crusades every day. (Bin Laden refers to us as "Crusaders" just as often as "Americans".) The Crusades are used as proof of moral equivalence in the West, and as a daily war cry in Islamic nations.
In sum, to point out only that Christianity does not sanction unprovoked aggression is basically to appologize for the Crusades, plus open the door to charges of moral equivalency. The historical context of the Crusades is almost never mentioned. But when looked at in the historical context, the entire picture changes. The Moslems were the aggressors then, just as they are today.
The truth about Islam.........
:
More truth.....
:
What advanced degrees in religious studies and theology do you have to breath out accusations with such ease?
All of a sudden so many people have become experts in religion, especially of others --- religions of which they knew not a word just last summer. Shame on you. To accuse someone without a due cause is not Christian.
Go do some studying beyond plucking out a few quotes from Quran before you start throwing around judgements like that!
When people use words in a way different from ours in the privacy of their church, it has nothing to do with the rest of us; this does not make them villains.
Jon Doe, "Allah is the Arabic word for God."
And Krishna is the Hindu name for God. Would you feel comfortable praying to "Lord Krishna"? What does this have to do with what the word means to those who actually use it?
Would you feel comfortable praying to "Lord Krishna"? I would not. Noone asks us to do so; most certainly there is nothing of that sort in mystomachisturning's post.
You see nothing of that sort, I do see something of that sort. If I didn't, I wouldn't have said anything.
"When people use words in a way different from ours in the privacy of their church, it has nothing to do with the rest of us; this does not make them villains.
1. I did not say he was a villain, please don't flog that strawman here, thanks. 2. I don't care if they say that a 1939 Huppmobile is "God" -- in the "privacy of their church". However, once the claim enters the marketplace of ideas, it's fair game for challenge.
If he does not want people to challenge his claim that "Allah" is "God", then he should not make the claim in public. If he does make that claim in public, then he's very naive (not to mention thin-skinned) if he seriously believes that others won't challenge it.
He has every right to make the claim -- but he has no right to insist that it be accepted.
What I find curious is the islamist logic that seems to be at play here -- the claims of islam are presented, not for debate, but with the implicit message that they must be accepted, and anyone who doesn't accept them is out of line.
Well, I'm sorry. I don't accept them. I say that "Allah" is not "God", and I have plenty of evidence to back it up. If I'm out of line for saying that "Allah is not God", then so is anyone who insists that "Allah is God."
You can't have it otherwise, unless we're all under shariah law. And we ain't.
"And who are you to judge this a myth?"
This is a free country, Mr. Islamist-defender. He's an American, and he has the right to voice his observations.
"What advanced degrees in religious studies and theology do you have to breath out accusations with such ease?"
Get real. It doen't take degrees in aeronautical engineering and architecture to recognize the fact that your islamic friends attacked my country on 9/11.
Frankly, at this stage of the game, the onus is upon he who asserts that islam is a "peaceful religion".
All of a sudden so many people have become experts in religion, especially of others --- religions of which they knew not a word just last summer. Shame on you. To accuse someone without a due cause is not Christian."
No, shame on you. How shameful for an islamist advocate to stand in judgement of a Christian -- specifically a Christian who is being attacked for having stated the obvious.
Go do some studying beyond plucking out a few quotes from Quran before you start throwing around judgements like that!
One need study little more than a newspaper these days, to realize that islam is rife with violence.
Agreed. It is undisputed that the world has many Islamic terrorists, and that many Moslems cheer when they strike.
Because of these undisputed facts, the onus is unquestionably on Islam to prove its peaceful nature, not the other way around.
Attacking those who point out this obvious fact says something about the attacker, not the one making the observation.
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.