Posted on 08/11/2006 6:36:37 AM PDT by Agent Smith
I ask my fellow freepers indulgence for this vanity, because I believe it is too important to be buried in the back of the forum.
Can a good Muslim be a good American? I sent that question to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years.
The following is his reply:
Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia.
Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)
Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran).
Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.
Politically - no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America, the great Satan.
Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).
Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually - no. Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.
Therefore after much study and deliberation...perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish...it's still the truth. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. The war is bigger than most Americans know or understand.
Try as you might to say otherwise, the internment is H I S T O R Y, and nothing you or I can say or do, is going to change the fact.
Of course. I never suggested anything different. But we must learn from history.
though viewed from todays pc world is considered wrong
Are you counting Ronald Reagan in that?
Should another such internment become necessary, it will be for the good of the Republic as the previous one was.
It was neither necessary, nor for the good of the Republic. It was a shameful period in our country's history, an example of what abuses can happen when people are willing to trade the freedom of others for the promise of more security. Easy to give up somebody else's rights, isn't it?
Good! What is it? Where does it come from?
It's only theocratic if that standard is a specific set of religious strictures.
I think you're still misunderstanding the definition of "theocracy" which refers to a government that is (or at least claims to be) directly founded by and immediately governed by the Deity. That's a far cry from individual citizens of a Republic applying their various religious and philosophical beliefs to inform their actions as Citizens.
doing so being a test of faith and those who fail being unfit to call themselves Christians.
If someone is going to claim a particular religion or philosophy, he should act accordingly. Ted Kennedy and John Kerry are exemplars of failure in this regard.
What determines what is a matter for persuasion and what is a matter for legislation?
I first look to the example of Christ, and of the Apostles, who never attempted to legislate their teachings or faith. I look further to the historical examples of Confessional States, and see a bad example.
Which Sura in particular backs up what you're saying? What makes Allah so different, different to the point of being the equivalent of some pagan object like a pink bunny rabbit? If Allah is not the God of Abraham, then who is he?
I'd say someone needs to study comparative religion.
What practicing muslim would even think of nuking Portland, they are on the same side.
Has anyone ever called you a complete idiot before. If not, let me be the first.
PS: I mean that in the nicest possible way :).
You got to be kidding. The United States is the most stable, powerful, wealthy, influential, and protected nation on the planet. We may be a big target but survival doesn't seem to be a problem at this point in time. This hysteria is not helpful or constructive.
Why the idiot remark?
I am not aware of such studies.
No, I am not.
"our national survival is on the line"
You got to be kidding. The United States is the most stable, powerful, wealthy, influential, and protected nation on the planet. We may be a big target but survival doesn't seem to be a problem at this point in time. This hysteria is not helpful or constructive.
But it is very good at scaring people into throwing away their freedoms.
Most are probably black Americans who have converted.
I do have a problem with that, actually. If there is any hesitation in my plan, it centers around that. We cannot wage a war on a tactic (terrorism). So I would suspect we would need to wage a war against ALL Islam.
Welcome to FR, by the way.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying we ARE doing that.
It is just that there are people who SAY we should do that. We haven't done any of those things (although I do know of some isolated incidents where our troops called in fire on mosques...from what I heard, there was not a big outcry because it was evident even to the neutral Iraqis in the area what was happening)
I agree we have been very tolerant. I understand people who think we should be more forceful, but...I disagree.
As most immigrants who have spent big chunks of their lives trying to get to America legally, it is the idea of what America stands for that is powerful and attractive...not flattenicating by our falling bombs. (I did make that word up...:)
Start with the Golden Rule.
I think you're still misunderstanding the definition of "theocracy" which refers to a government that is (or at least claims to be) directly founded by and immediately governed by the Deity. That's a far cry from individual citizens of a Republic applying their various religious and philosophical beliefs to inform their actions as Citizens.
That's the first definition. Two were provided. Any particular reason my "understanding" of the term is only going to be measured by one, but not the other?
If someone is going to claim a particular religion or philosophy, he should act accordingly. Ted Kennedy and John Kerry are exemplars of failure in this regard.
I think you're probably right, but I also think that ultimately that's a matter between them and God.
I first look to the example of Christ, and of the Apostles, who never attempted to legislate their teachings or faith. I look further to the historical examples of Confessional States, and see a bad example.
Can you "metaphorically" take you Bible into the ballot box and not be doing exactly that, either directly or indirectly?
Google "Abrahamic Religions" if you'd actually like to learn something. Its Friday and I don't have any more time for newbie rants.
I do have a problem with that, actually. If there is any hesitation in my plan, it centers around that. We cannot wage a war on a tactic (terrorism). So I would suspect we would need to wage a war against ALL Islam.
So you admit we cannot "win" the War as presently constituted, and the only way to win is declare war on a major religion?
And yet you're willing to set the Constitution aside until then?
And be responsible for the biggest bloodbath in the history of the planet. Yeah there's a word for that, GENOSIDE!
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.