Posted on 02/23/2002 8:15:48 AM PST by MadIvan
From over privileged guilt ridden leftists on college campuses to left leaning media to portentous gasbags in world governments, we hear a steady droning that Islam means “peace” and that it is a nonviolent religion practiced by millions around the world.
Mixed with these proclamations that Islam is peace, we are deluged on a daily basis with news accounts of deaths and horror inflicted on other people of faiths by practitioners of this acclaimed “peaceful” faith. The images and sounds from the news are emotionally gripping, powerful and horrific.
The screens and headlines shout one event after another until we are numb from disbelief … from kidnapping and murder of tourists in the Philippines to the shock of September 11, 2001 to videotaped executions of hostage reporter Daniel Pearl to street gangs in the Palestinian Authority gleefully bathing in the blood of dead Israeli soldiers.
We continue to hear cries of “jihad” from the street. We find ourselves dumbfounded to learn Islamic worshipers enter mosques to pray, and depart with shouts they are ready to kill for the glory of Allah.
What to believe about Islam and its practitioners? I suggest we examine some facts and try to reach some conclusions.
First, let’s start with the impression that the word “Islam” means “peace.” A little research quickly uncovers this is incorrect. The translated Arabic word ‘Islam’ means `submission' or ‘surrender’. The Arabic word ‘salaam’, a close linguistic cousin to the Hebrew ‘shalom” means peace
Second, history shows Muhammad used to send letters to the kings and leaders of the surrounding countries and tribes, inviting them to surrender to his authority and to believe in him as the messenger of Allah. He always ended his letters with the following message … `surrender and you will be safe', or in other words, `surrender or face death'.
Conversion at the point of a sword certainly begs the question of exactly where is the `peace' in all of it. Is it considered “peace” to threaten to kill other people, do away with their customs, and dominate them by whatever means possible? I think not, and thus, a historical review of Islam reveals it to be merely a successful means of conquest and expansion of religious creed but also secular political power.
To the faithful, this is an acceptable means of spreading their faith as well their influence. It also explains its rapid growth throughout the world over the last 5 centuries. A religion that was established by violence and still believes in violence as a chief tenet to growth is not a religion of peace – not by any stretch of the imagination.
Third, through reading secular history and even the Islamic holy books themselves, we find sufficient anecdotal evidence that without violence and conquest, Islam might not have survived.
“But, but, but, how can this be?” you might be asked by people who hadn’t heard this on the Nightly News With Tom Brokaw.
Examining the wars of Al-Riddah (the wars against the apostates) yields powerful verification to support this supposition. This series of conflicts began almost immediately after the death of the prophet Muhammad.
It’s a long story. However, the capsulated version goes like this - after the disappearance of Muhammad the conquered peoples, who have been forced to embrace Islam, refused to pay, imposed religious taxes and revolted.
The first Caliph, Abu-Bakr, knew without tax money he could not sustain his empire. He ordered his army to fight the apostates and after 2 years won out over the rebellious tribes. To justify the massive bloodshed, Abu-Bakr based his claim were necessary to preserve the faith and even went so far as to say he had been instructed by both Allah and the prophet messenger Muhammad to do so.
Thus, we see the beginnings of the religion and state being one using whatever means necessary to survive.
Fourth, the Qur’an itself is full of messages of peace, love, justice, harmony and oneness with the fellow man, but only if that man is Islamic. For all other peoples and nations, the message appearing throughout the Qur’an is clear and consistent – find the nonbeliever, get him to convert or kill him.
One example -
" But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.” - Qur'an, 9:5
Conclusions - A religion of peace? Not from a historical perspective regarding its inception. Not from the tactics it used to develop. Not from its own religious text. Not from modern-day examples of real world practices of its followers, and clerics.
Islam is not a religion founded on peace, and its followers today have not done enough to stem the violent sects. Further, Islam is long overdue for a renaissance that can make it religion of peace and in harmony with the world of today.
What does it mean for us today?
The rate of these attacks appears to be increasing and all done by Islamics who are described by leftist apologists as mere “fringe” elements. I believe it bears pointing out these “fringe” actions bear a striking similarity to the birth of the Islamic movement, and appears to be continuing the tactics of centuries ago to gain converts or eliminate competing beliefs.
It is not an exaggeration to state Islam has a goal of dominating all other religions, as well as eliminating offensive Western style democracies. This objective has remained unchanged since the prophet messenger Muhammad demanded conversion or death.
Does this mean all Muslims are violent? No, not at all.
Many Muslims, like almost all mankind, wish to live in peace and leave their neighbors alone. However, in current times, we see the overwhelming majority of religious related attacks done by Islamics against Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Jews and Buddhists around the world.
Most American Muslims, and indeed other populations of Muslims around the world, appear to be lying low. This is unsettling to the Western world as we are unclear whether or not they merely wish to avoid controversy or whether they are merely unsure which side to cheer.
Many Westerners are wondering aloud if the lack of a strong opposition Muslim voice to terror campaigns as well as mere lip service to anti-terror activities raises one alarming concern.
If the notion of these terrorist actions done by “fringe elements” is in error, are we looking at the revitalization of an Islamic crusade began centuries before.
If so, what will “moderate” Muslims do when they hear the louder calls to join with their brothers in jihad? After all, these “moderate” Muslims are keenly aware any Muslim who fails to heed the call to avenge his brothers, in the long run, will be marked as a traitor and hunted down like dogs.
Will the “moderates” seek elimination of this “fringe” and try to change their faith to become more in tune with modern society? Or are they going to choose war, and the renunciation of Western civilization concepts like democracy and freedom while embracing the religious fanatical tyranny embodied by the Taliban?
There are no quick easy answers. These questions are merely like a storm in the distance. Something to keep in mind as well as to keep an eye on as time and events continue to unfold.
I appreciate having this quote from the Koran. Thanks.
Oh, for crying out loud, don't be thick-headed. You know what I meant.
I am not quite willing to condemn all Muslims, but am not giving Islam a free pass on being a "peaceful religion."
That's irrelevant. The vast majority of Germans were Christian, and it is THEY who allowed the Nazis to come to power, whatever their ultimate goal might have been. Nearly all of the German High Command, and the general officers, commissioned officers and enlisted men were Christians.
It was CHRISTIANS who persecuted the Jews in Germany and elsewhere in Europe for hundreds of centuries, and that persecution was based on Christian myths and prejudices.
This notion that "Hitler was a pagan" conveniently ignores the complicity of millions of Christians in what happend just sixty years ago.
Other than your admission that you were "somewhere in the middle on this" no I don't know what you meant.
Try being a little clearer next time.
Evil only triumphs when good men sit by and do nothing.
Given my in-laws escaped Germany during WW2 and actually LIVED that piece of history and *know* what it was all about, everytime one of you side-line quarterbacks comment on "what really caused WW2" without knowing what you're talking about, it really gets on my nerves.
WW2 was as much about getting out from under the economic persecution and overwhelming debt that was thrust upon Germany after WW1 as it was about singling out one group as being responsible for that "debt." Since the lie/perception during WW2 that was created by the Nazi's was that "Jews owned everything" and were somehow responsible for the daily misery that many Germans lived under, they were the scapegoats.
If you cannot appreciate this very fundamental difference, I would suggest you visit the many beautiful but sad war cemetaries scattered across Western Europe. Populated for the most part by Christian Allied soldiers. Died to stop the spread of Christianity? The absurdity of the statement indicates the absurdity of your argument.
Yes, and that culture of war died off at least over 2500 years ago.
That wasn't my point, and I suspect you know it. Rather my point is that it is just as ridiculous to lay the radical Islamist movement at the feet of "all Islam" as it would be to blame Christianity because Christian Germany allowed Hitler's rise.
What you people will not admit is that the picture is much, much more complex than you're trying to paint. I have no doubt there is a considerable amount of popular support for bin Laden, but I cannot believe it is universal.
You speak as if Islam happened a year ago. The fact is, it has been around for about 1,300 years. If "all Islam" was hell-bent on the destruction or forced conversion of all non-Muslims, it would have happened by now, or they would have been destroyed. Yes, some of that happened, but it also happened that Europeans under the guise of the Crusades and totally supported by the Roman Pope carved out chunks of the "Holy Land" for Crusader kingdoms, killing pretty much anyone who was not a European--including Christians and Jews as well as Muslims--in the process. So what? That was then, and evil as it was it does not describe "all of Christianity."
(Not quite as incredibly stupid as the attempted analogy between Andrea Yates and Osama, but close).
Sorry, that wasn't me, must have been someone else.
The Nazi Party's view of the Jews was also well-known, but that wasn't considered a big deal because the Jew had been Central and Eastern Europe's straw-man for centuries.
These things are a matter of record, not of conjecture.
The Islamic religious community produces murderous thugs.
Therefore, we have to fight against religious communities.
Yes, and that culture of war died off at least over 2500 years ago.My point exactly.
The West experienced the Enlightment; the world of Islam never did and it seems increasingly likely it won't for the forseeable future.
Rather my point is that it is just as ridiculous to lay the radical Islamist movement at the feet of "all Islam" as it would be to blame Christianity because Christian Germany allowed Hitler's rise.There is ample evidence that the Islamists enjoy very widespread support over the whole of the Muslim world.
There was widespread rejoicing over 9/11 among Muslims worldwide, including right here in the U.S.
Thomas Friedman in today's NY Times reports that in Saudi Arabia doctors and nurses — professionals and not the rabble of the 'Arab Street' — openly celebrated 9/11.
So I believe that Islamism does have to be laid at the feet of all Islam since Muslim voices speaking out against it are few and far between and they seem to be widely ignored by their co-religionists.
The fact is, it has been around for about 1,300 years. If "all Islam" was hell-bent on the destruction or forced conversion of all non-Muslims, it would have happened by now.They tried and damn near succeeded.
Had the Ottomans not been stopped at the gates of Vienna the whole of Europe would have been converted to Islam.
And by the way, the Crusades were a reaction to Muslim attacks on Christianity, not an unprovoked aggression against peacefulMuslims by bloodthirsty Christians.
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.