Pat Robertson stirs up debate (Islam is not a peaceful religion)

nj.com ^ | April 02, 2003 | KRYSTAL KNAPP

[TLBSHOW]

PRINCETON BOROUGH - The Rev. Pat Robertson spoke from the lectern at Princeton University last night like it was his pulpit, calling students to stand up for their moral convictions and not be swayed by popular culture.

His hair is all gray now, he had surgery in February and is recovering from prostate cancer, but the evangelist showed no signs of wavering last night when he spoke at the invitation of a student group.

[ZULU]

"Here is the rub: It is a mistake to blame Islam (a religion 14 centuries old) for the evil that should be ascribed to militant Islam (a totalitarian ideology less than a century old). The terrorism of al Qaeda, Hamas, the Iranian government and other Islamists results from the ideas of such contemporary radicals as Osama bin Laden and Ayatollah Khomeini, not from the Koran."

This is disingenuous. Islam became the chief religion throughout a good part of the world through the use of conquest, oppression, and terror. True, Muslims "tolerated" Christians and Jews. This "toleration" meant relegation to a subclass status where the practitioners of those faiths were banned from carrying weapons, required to pay a special tax, prevented from making improvements to their houses of worship or building new ones, forbidden from having public demonstrations of faith, holding office, bring suit against a Muslim, and in other ways so suppressed that over the course of time the majority converted to Islam to escape a role in society that was degrading and oppressive and scarcely better than slavery.

The suicide bombers of the 20th century are not unique. During the existence of the Christian Crusader States in Palestine, there existed an Islamic sect called the Assassins, lead by a shadowy figure called the Old Man of the Mountain. There technique was to employ suicide killers who used poison and poisoned weapons to kill political opponents. (They were usually souped up for the job with the liberal use of Hashish, hence the name Hashashin or Assassin). Not only did they act out against the Christians, but they also committed these acts against fellow Muslims. Christians and Muslims alike found it easier to buy them off with bribes, until an Islamic ruler finally exterminated them.

Islamic military outbursts against the west were more or less constant and only really ceased when western nation states developed modern military establishments and new military technologies. Even then, periodic attacks on western Christian powers continued. Our own nation was terrorized for a time by the raids of Muslim Barbary Corsairs who would sieze American shipping in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic, holding their crews and passengers to ransom or selling them as slaves ( of course after the customary employment of Islamic barbarity on their persons). These Islamic states also treated ships of other Christian nations in a similar fashion unless those nations paid them a bribe to prevent such attacks.

It took over 500 years for the Spanish and Portuguese Christians to regain control of Iberia after it was invaded and conquered by Islamic tribesmen. It took several hundred years for the Christian powers to regain control of Sicily and southern Italy, an originally Christian area, which was overrun by Islamic conquerors. The entire Mediterranean basin, from the first outbreak of Islam in the 600-700's until the 1800's, was subject to attack by land and sea from Islamic corsairs seeking loot and slaves, operating out of north Africa and other Islamic seaports. Muslims conquered the Christianized Holy Land, Anatolia, and eventually Constantinople and the southern Balkans, forcibly converting portions of the populations there, oppressing others, and enslaving the remnants. Ever read about the Janissaries?? They were troops composed of young Christian boys who were stolen at an early age from their parents by the Ottoman Turks, converted to Islam and made into a class of slave-soldiers.

Muslims struck west again in the late middle ages in force at least twice - once against the gates of Vienna and a second time into the eastern Mediterranean where they were only arrested at the Battle of Lepanto by an allied Christian fleet.

So this author's effort to portray Islam's aggressive nature as a merely recent phenomenon are blatantly false. Islam is now and has always been, since its very inception, a violent, brutal, aggressive, intolerant creed.


The author's reference to a "mild Islam" is interesting. I have heard of Wahhabis, Sufis, Sunnis, Shiites, etc, but never "Mild Muslims". I believe this is a distinction which exists only in the mind of the author. There may be individual Muslims with a mild personality, but there is nothing mild about Islam as a religious faith.


His reference to the Mild Islam of Iberia and Sicily is equally interesting. He apparently chooses to ignore the fact that both Iberia and Sicily were originally Chrisitan and the population there was forcibly conquered and in many cases forcibly converted to Islam. His statement about the treatment of Jews under Islam being better than under Christian Europe, is unfortunately, true in some instances, but that is perhaps like saying Jews were better off living under Mussolini than Hitler.

"But the present is not typical of Islam's long history; indeed, it may be the worst era in that entire history."

Hardly. The worst was when western civilization and Christiandom was fighting the Muslims at the Battle of Tours, not far from Paris in nortern France, after their invading, pillaging, raiding, raping, and enslaving columns had overrun all of Iberia, southern France, Sicily, Southerm Italy, North Africa, the Holy Land, most of Anatolia and were knocking at the gates of Constantinople. Or perhaps when Islamic naval forces were trying to seize the entire Mediterranean from the east and an Islamic army was encamped at the gates of Vienna.

"Things can get better. But it will not be easy. That requires that Muslims tackle the huge challenge of adapting their faith to the realities of modern life."

Things can always get better. They can also always get worse. Like if a large number of fundamentalist Muslims ever appeared in western Europe and North America. As for Muslims modernizing their religion - I have seen nothing of the sort in the past or present to indicate any significant effort or movement on the part of most Muslims to do so, and I am not optomistic that they will do so in the future. But we can always pray for miracles. In the meantime, we should stay alert and keep our swords sharpened.


"In essence, the white-bearded Sufi charged that the “ideology of extremism has been spread to 80 percent of the [American] Muslim population.”

Sufism, a form of mystical Islam, is perhaps the least violent of all forms of Islam. However, as you point out, his message of non-violence has not been well received by American Muslims, for the most part adherents of Sunni Wahhabism. By the way, the Wahhabists have done a superb job of totally exterminating Sufism in Saudia Arabia, the Wahhabi stronghold and origin point. So even being a Muslim is no protection against Islamic aggression.

[unspun]

Great...another armchair Koran expert. It also says in the Bible that Christ will destroy all those who do not believe in Him, and reign over a perfect Kingdom...one where no other beliefs exist. Are we not as Christians expected to surrender our lives to His will?

There is a big big difference as it applies to human politics (notwithstanding the difference between truth and falsity). Christ's kingdom is not of this world and He assures us not only of that, but as an example for us, shows us that we are to let people have their way, about what they choose to believe, even if it is a way which will never accept him (thus death, eternal separation from God). He even let Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin have their way.

Islam is about conquest of the world, politically and militarily.

[ZULU]

If the number of Muslims in this world were as small as the number of people in "Heaven's Gate" or at Waco, they would be treated with far less deference than they are now.

Islam is not a religion, its a cult. Cult may be Constitutionally suppressed.

[wardaddy]

Bump.

[Valin]

True, Muslims "tolerated" Christians and Jews. This "toleration" meant relegation to a subclass status where the practitioners of those faiths were banned from carrying weapons, required to pay a special tax, prevented from making improvements to their houses of worship or building new ones, forbidden from having public demonstrations of faith, holding office, bring suit against a Muslim, and in other ways so suppressed that over the course of time the majority converted to Islam to escape a role in society that was degrading and oppressive and scarcely better than slavery.
You might want to look at the way Muslims were treated in europe in the middle ages. (If memory serves) They were not accorded any standing under the law.
At least according to Bernard Lewis in his book 'What went wrong?' (good book)

"But the present is not typical of Islam's long history; indeed, it may be the worst era in that entire history."

Hardly. The worst was when western civilization and Christiandom was fighting the Muslims at the Battle of Tours, not far from Paris in nortern France, after their invading, pillaging, raiding, raping, and enslaving columns had overrun all of Iberia, southern France, Sicily, Southerm Italy, North Africa, the Holy Land, most of Anatolia and were knocking at the gates of Constantinople. Or perhaps when Islamic naval forces were trying to seize the entire Mediterranean from the east and an Islamic army was encamped at the gates of Vienna.
From the point of view of Islam this is the worst of time, and has been for the last couple of hundred years. At that time the Islamic world had a much higher state of civilization than Christendom (but as the old saying goes That was then this is now)

I have seen nothing of the sort in the past or present to indicate any significant effort or movement on the part of most Muslims to do so, and I am not optomistic that they will do so in the future. But we can always pray for miracles. In the meantime, we should stay alert and keep our swords sharpened.
Now I grant you a person has to do some hunting, but they are out there. And it does give me hope. As IMO the world is just getting to small for such a large portion of the worlds population to remain mired in the 14th century.

Sufism, a form of mystical Islam, is perhaps the least violent of all forms of Islam. However, as you point out, his message of non-violence has not been well received by American Muslims, for the most part adherents of Sunni Wahhabism. By the way, the Wahhabists have done a superb job of totally exterminating Sufism in Saudia Arabia, the Wahhabi stronghold and origin point. So even being a Muslim is no protection against Islamic aggression.
Oh No was we all know Muslims are forbidden to attack other Muslims!
< /sarcam>

[Sabertooth]

Christ's kingdom is not of this world and He assures us not only of that, but as an example for us, shows us that we are to let people have their way, about what they choose to believe, even if it is a way which will never accept him (thus death, eternal separation from God). He even let Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin have their way.

Islam is about conquest of the world, politically and militarily.

No wonder people get confused, the distinction is so subtle:

Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father, while Mohammed was a heretical, murderous, plundering conqueror whose eternal reward isn't hard to guess. They're just like peas in a pod.

[unspun]

Yeah, just "great religions of the book...."

...not.

[ZULU]

"You might want to look at the way Muslims were treated in europe in the middle ages."

True. On the other hand, Islam attacked Christianity from its inception, Christianity did not attack Islam.

"From the point of view of Islam this is the worst of time, and has been for the last couple of hundred years."

True. Thanks to our modern weaponry, Muslims are frustrated at their inability to continue raping, plundering, pillaging, and oppressing unbelievers, except perhaps in Nigeria, southern Sudan, etc.

"At that time the Islamic world had a much higher state of civilization than Christendom (but as the old saying goes That was then this is now)"

Again, true. But Islam's greatest contribution to civization was transferring the knowledge of the Ancients to western Europe, not originating much themselves. Besides, if you read an old book by a Frenchman, no less, Henri Prienne, called "Mohammad and Charlemagne", Prienne postulates that the "Dark Ages" in Europe were mainly brought about by Islamic control of the sea routes of the Mediterranean through their use of corsair pirates and the Islamic seizure of Mediterranean islands like Sicily. This effectively cut western Europe off from a true source of the knowledge of the ancients - Byzantium, which the Muslims proceeded to destroy incrementally.


"As IMO the world is just getting to small for such a large portion of the worlds population to remain mired in the 14th century."

I agree with you, but my last great hope was Turkey, and when the chips were down, the Turks demonstrated that:
a) Islamic ties come first; and,
b) that old spirit of the wastes of central Asia is still alive and well in Turkey, and, as they did with the Armenians, the Turks would very much prefer to exterminate Kurds rather than reach a living accomodation with them, even if it means screwing their infidel friends the Americans.

Oh No was we all know Muslims are forbidden to attack other Muslims!
< /sarcam>

Did you ever read that among the Ottoman Turks there was no rule of succession. Consequently, when the Sultan died, there was a battle to see which of his many sons (the horney devils had many wives and concubines)would succeed the dead leader. Competitors were strangled to death with a bowstring because it was not right for a Muslim to shed the blood of another Muslim. Great folks the Turks. Ask the Kurds, Armenians and Greeks.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Islam is about conquest of the world, politically and militarily."

Bull.

The only difference between their fanatics and our fanatics is...damn! It's getting blurry.

[unspun]

Luis, I'm totally fanatical about Jesus. Like the rest of us here, I'd fight to the death to preserve your freedoms and pray doing it for your eternal security.

But if our freedoms are not threatened, I'll just pray and gently evangelize, thanks.

[unspun]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/814728/posts

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Luis, I'm totally fanatical about Jesus. Like the rest of us here..."

Keep your fanaticism to yourself, and don't speak for everyone (typical trait of fanatics everywhere).

You want to fight a Crusade?

Move to Yemen and convert the heathen.

[TLBSHOW]

Good find! and I bookmarked it too under Islam is the enemy!
....
Why, then, do our leaders continually tell us that Islam is a religion of peace? Perhaps it is easier to be politically correct than it is to tell the truth.

[unspun]

Move to Yemen and convert the heathen.

Not a bad idea, FRiend. Would you pay my stipend? (And BTW, I'll speak my mind and heart anywhere I please, this is America. And as to being a Christian and being an American, since I am one of each, I will speak for them, in each case.)

We don't need to fight a crusade, that wouldn't be right. But defending freedom against religio-political tyranny is very, very right.

Would you prefer it otherwise? Also, were you educated in public schools? Don't believe everything people have tried to indoctrinate you with, is my advise.

[unspun]

There are many Muslims that are ignorant as to the nature of their religion, just as there are many who call themselves Christian who are ignorant about the plain spoken Word of God.

The ironay is that in the former case, those people tend to be less dangerous than the adherents (while, naturally, in the latter case they have proven to be moreso). Eh?

[unspun]

irony

[Luis Gonzalez]

"It is essential that we keep channels of communication open by showing respect for people of other faiths, even if we believe their view of God is inadequate. Explaining Christ as the saving fulfillment and ultimate revelation of the same god is a natural and effective means of sharing our faith with Muslims and Jews. Insisting that they worship a different god altogether is bound to be counter-productive."

"It is possible to be tactful in our speech without compromising our witness."----Source.

Spreading the ill-informed messages that are being spread around by misguided zealots does nothing more than worsen the emotions driving this conflict.

"In the last century, America was threatened by a global communist revolution. Avoiding all-out war, we outlasted it. And we can outlast this Islamist revolution. What we must avoid is a war of faiths, a war of civilizations between Islam and America. And those who propagandize for such a war are the unwitting or willful collaborators of Osama bin Laden."---Pat Buchanan.

[kkindt]

The constitution DOES NOT protect a religion which has as one of its tenets that IF its adherents gain power they OUGHT to disallow the free practice of other religions. THE KORAN is a book in which this tenet is taught to its adherents and IF they are faithful to that religion then when they come to power they will disallow YOUR practice of your religion. The only religions protected by the constitution are those in which the bill of rights is upheld. Any religion that teaches AGAINST the bill of rights - especially the free exercise of religion clause - ought to be banned.

[kkindt]

Do you think that a religion that teaches its adherents to outlaw all other religions if the adherents gain power OUGHT to be permitted and IS permitted by our constitution?

Why protect a religion that teaches only IT may be freely practiced and that IT must become the state religion???

[unspun]

When Jesus says, "Depart from me, I never knew you." will he be talking to people who worship the same God as those He brings into his kingdom?

Better to tell the truth, than to try to found the gospel on a half truth. (And BTW, "Allah" is the name of a principle god in the ancient pantheon of the Arab lands.)

Meanwhile, we must show the utmost respect for each individual who believes otherwise. It is actually a disrespect for someone, to allow them to go into eternity believing a lie, when one knows the truth that can save him.

Also, it is a fallacy to believe we are not under attack by Islamists, who are carrying out what is written in the Koran (that if one refuses to accept the dominion of the Koran, they are to be enslaved, tortured, and killed). It is better to be forthright, especially when one is being targeted for subjection-or-genocide.