Posted on 07/25/2002 5:27:33 PM PDT by RCW2001
I'm not so sure you can lay any of the effects of Islam on birthrates. Birthrates have nothing to do with the basic tenets of the religion, which go towards violence always - note that for a Muslim, there is only two ways of dealing with non-Islam: convert it or kill it. Any peaceful coexistence is seen as temporary, mostly for practical reasons.
And of course Lebanon was destroyed by Arafat and his forces, or at least they set the final destruction in motion. Note that they were Islamic forces. But things had been building up for a long time before that, and the country's Muslim population was already feuding with the rest to some degree, and they were quick to side with the Muslim attackers against their own country, if I'm not much mistaken.
The lodestar here isn't what some one person, or even faction, does. It's contained in Islam itself.
The question then becomes: is it still Islam? It is certainly not "mainstream" Islam.
The question then becomes: is it still Islam?Sure it is. All it takes to be Muslim is to be able to say that there is one God and that Mohammed is His messenger. And if you give alms, keep clean, and pray then you're good to go. Islam is not about oppressing women: on clothing, for example, the Koran asks that private areas be covered. Now if chauvinism is practiced in Arabia and the guys think that their wives should be covered from tip to toe just to keep other men from looking at them, that's their business. Nowhere does it say that women should be kept ignorant and opressed.
Funny thing, 99.8 % of all muslims would seem to think different, and include all of the fun stuff that the Muslim world seems to get its jollies from.
Which brings us back to the mainstream thing versus a (very) minority opinion.
But those of us who are relatively mature do not pick our enemies on the basis of religion, rather on the basis of other competition.
Too bad then that so many wars have had religion as the focus. So, on what basis does the Muslim world pick its enemies?
Too bad then that so many wars have had religion as the focus.Religion is just another tool that can be used in some circumstances to rally certain segments.. If it's ok to trick the enemy then why not also manipulate your own forces? That by the way was done by any list of leaders "practicing" any variety of religions.
So, on what basis does the Muslim world pick its enemies?That question shows that you prefer to stereotype. It is ambiguous and therefore cannot be answered as "simply" as it's asked. Or perhaps I could answer it by just saying that the Muslim "world" does not pick enemies, since it does not exist. You must restate your question with specific interest groups in mind (e.g. How does Saddam pick his enemies, or how does Bin Laden pick his enemies).. Do you have time?
Indeed. Especially religions that lend themselves readily to it.
That question shows that you prefer to stereotype. It is ambiguous and therefore cannot be answered as "simply" as it's asked
Nonsense. Even the Muslims themselves use a term for the "Muslim world", so don't feed me the line that there is no such thing. In fact, your answer is the ambigius thing - just as "mainstream" muslims (you know, the peaceful ones) always come off ambigious when asked what they think about the more unsavoury Islamist lines. Like Islamic expansionism, antisemitism, terrorism, suicides, and stuff like that. "We condemn/do not condemn/ whatever -- BUT!"
Now, of course Islam defines a segment of the world. It imparts certain characteristics on its adherents. I would say (but you'd obviously not agree) that it is at bottom a warrior culture, and always has been, and that it is violently expansionist. And that if you see a variation from the warrior/expansionist plank, it's so much changed that it's not Islam as we know it. Never mind your list of a handful of innocous things that make you a Muslim, there's much more to Islam than that.
Actually, your interpretation of Islam would be likely to earn you a death sentence in the more intolerant Muslim countries, which btw holds most of the Muslim population.
Easy one: Primarily they have to be Jews. Secondarily, they have to be Christians. Thrirdly, they have to be non-Muslims.
Jewish support is important to the Dems beyond just vote tallies. There is much finanical support as well.
Former Sen. Heflin (D-AL) said once (quote from memory): "The biggest support we have are from the lawyers and jews."
Yes, but Pataki is a major RINO.
Better they should for a RINO than a Dem.
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.