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.
Not at all. Islamics routinely try to convert people. Christians, Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Scientists... all convert, and my take on the 1st Amendment is that this is entirely permissible.
This fact, in no way, should have restricted us from defeating the ideology back in the 1940's... nor should it restrict us now.
That statement is not moronic. It is dead on right, which is why the Islamic apologists squirm when they hear it.
Forget the superficial comparisons- clothes,scimitars, beards,jackboots. That's all BS and obfuscates the point.
Islam- like Nazism- IS united by a single ideaology. WORLD DOMINATION. Both Nazism and Islam compare in the violent means their ideaology put forth to acheive that goal.
To say you were a Nazi was to say you believed in Hitler and that goal. To say you are Islamic is to be identified with the main goal of Islam- as put forth in the Koran and by its clerics- of a world subjugated by Islam.
When people say we are at war with a 'militant part' of Islam, it IS like saying ( in WW2) that we were just at war with the SS and those only wearing the uniforms. That would have been insane then, and it is insane now.
The Nazi belief system was a danger to the world. The SS was its weapon of terror.
Islam is a danger to the world. The 'militants' are its SS.
Forget the disingenuous crap about jackboots and scimitars.
We know the Islamic enemy isn't wearing scimitars and turbans- they are blending in. They are pretending. They are smiling and getting naive Americans to trust them because of it.
Just like the 9-11 terrorists did. You go right on trusting. Most of us know that the 'good Muslim' act is just as superficial- and disposable- as the turban, the scimitar and the jackboots.
My point was intended to demonstrate that Islam and Nazism are both political movements -- objectionable ones, and ones that are incompatible with Western society. You freely concede that Islam is, in part, a political movement.
And: "So what" is, in Islam, women are considered property. In Islam, leaving the religion is a capital offense. In Islam, the only allowable form of law is Islamic Law, called Sharia. In Islam, the practice of other religions is forbidden, and is an offense under Sharia.
It is incompatible with Western culture in nearly every way, yet there are those who would promote it's spread.
No fear driving my thoughts "Realism" just a view of a death cult based upon their OWN WRITTEN WORDS. To not address those written words can and will get us all in a heap of trouble.
All rhetoric aside, I just don't see why we should allow our tolerance for a plethora of valid religions to be used by a hate cult with a clearly stated directive from their own unholy book to kill or enslave all nonbelievers.
Where, in your opinion, should we draw the line between a religion and a hate cult if a demand that they kill us is not sufficient? I'll admit, on that point, I cannot be swayed.
In any other type of public discourse, if one party threatens to kill another we have laws to deal with the threats. By falsely claiming to be a religion they can grow inside their Trojan Horse until they are large enough to carry out the instructions demanded by the koran.
You know, Laz- I've read this entire thread, and many more like it, and the argument boils down to one word.
Fear.
Islam is simply too big for some to consider an enemy. If a thousand people want the US destroyed, they can handle calling them 'the enemy'; but if MILLIONS believe the same thing that's too much to absorb.
The reaction is the same all the way up to government. Millions wanting us subjugated or dead must be redefined, they must be divided into small, manageable parts.
What has happened to the American mentality since WW2? Then, knowing that there were millions of Nazis who wanted to take over the world galvanized us into a 'oh, hell no' attitude.
No one said 'Nazi citizens are ok, it's just uniformed Nazis who are shooting as us that are bad.' We consider NAZISM and all who called themselves Nazis our enemies- and we were right to do so. And we were not afraid of their numbers.
The size of Islam scares some. They refuse to deal with the idea of millions and millions of people whose belief system will destroy us.
So they redefine. They pick and choose and HOPE that the everyday Muslim will not be a threat.
This enemy is too big for some to imagine; and if they're afraid of the concept of an enemy that large they will never have the courage to actually fight it. They will surrender, as they already have.
You freely concede that Islam is, in part, a political movement.
So is Christianity or Judaism, for exactly the same reasons. I couldn't help but notice that you ignored that part of my argument.
I'm not "promoting" anything other than the First Amendment. Islam is a religion, much as you would like to pretend that it isn't, and as such is granted the exact same protections under our Constitution as any other religion.
Did these "good American Muslims " believe their book when it commands them to kill, enslave or convert the infidel? Did these "good American Muslims " believe their book when it commands them to kill any who leave the cult?
Either these "many good American Muslims" you speak of are actually good Americans but bad Muslims or they also follow the command to lie to the infidels to achieve their goals when the time is right.
Do any of us tolerate the hate speech from the KKK to the point where we want to protect it like a religion? I sure hope we don't and see no reason to offer the Trojan Horse of belief systems a free pass in this country.
I've concluded that the only sure-fire means of dealing with Islam is to invite Muslims to Christianity. Counter-Jihad is not the answer. Christianity will propagate as the Spirit of God enters their hearts and minds.
Can a good Muslim be a good American?
Do any of us tolerate the hate speech from the KKK to the point where we want to protect it like a religion?
Islam is a religion. The Consitution requires us to protect it.
It's not like the Founders hadn't heard of Islam. Had they wanted to limit the First Amendment to exclude it, they would have.
John Quincy Adams on Islam:
"In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, [.....] Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST.- TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE.... Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant ... While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men."
And yet Adams failed to tell us that Islam wasn't covered by the First Amendment.
I'm not saying we have to like it, or have to believe it. But all religions are protected by the Constitution or none are.
I'm saddened by how many people here are willing to give up the freedoms of others because they think doing so doesn't affect their freedoms.
Yours is a strange illogical analogy.
Muslims unlike the French do not hold allegiance to any nation except their ummah...the Islamic universal "nation". Those who do not except islamic ideology are lesser humans and even worse contemptible...they can be enslaved, killed, dhimmified, etc.
#2: If your belief commands you to kill anyone who leaves your organization then you fail the litmus test.
#3: If your belief demands you kill or enslave anyone who writes, draws, speaks negatively about your belief you fail the litmus test."
Those are really good questions and should be asked but not by government. The acts of said religion in question can by punished by law but you can not punish belief no matter how vile. That is what our first amendment states, once you bring in these common sense rules that you state it would be a slippery slope from there.
The Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons who come to my door go away when I politely tell them I'm not interested. They do not attach explosives to themselves and their babies for detonation in densely populated urban centers.
Are you saying you aren't clever enough to discern the difference between "Please come to my church" and "Die, infidel scum!"?
*I* am.
But I'm trying to bring 'highball' along in smaller-sized bits of information to digest.
You are probably capable of answering your own questions, but I'll offer this response anyway.
Just as it is possible to be a good Christian while veering from the various extreme bits of Biblical dogma, it is also possible for a good Muslim to reject whatever extremist bits their may be in the Koran.
I know that won't satisfy you, but that's simply the way it is. To claim otherwise is to fly in the face of real life experience. Or, you can claim that all those thousands of Americans who practice Islam -- but who reject Islamic fascism -- are actually really bad Muslims. In which case, I guess by your standard, they're good Americans!
I'm saddened by how many people here are willing to surrender to Islam by inaction -- and thusly give up ALL of our freedoms.
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.