Posted on 11/18/2015 8:12:10 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Ok, let's get down to brass tacks.
How long has the Islam religion been around and have they always been so hateful and violent (like so many of them are today)?
I believe they claim to be direct descendants of Abraham but I also believe that Abraham was a favorite of our one true Judeo-Christian God, and was the father or grandfather of the Jewish and Christian religions.
I have a hard time believing that our loving Judeo-Christian God is also the Islam God, Allah, whose Muslim followers seem to be so misplaced.
Haven't the warlike Muslim tribes fanned out and violently conquered every nation in their 1400 year path of conquest?
Did God command them to conquer and dominate the entire world? Did he command them to demand infidels to submit, convert or die?
Who and what are these people and who is Allah?
This Muslim violence seems to have been going on worldwide for at least 1400 years.
Could it be that Islam IS the enemy (despite Obama's many denials)?
Oops, coming back to your comment. Almost missed an important point.
Mohammed appeared long after Christ was crucified and then rose from the dead.
Was any of this “God testing the angels” re: Mohamed, etc actually prophesied in the bible?
But what's changed in recent years is International Globalist Leaders no longer expect assimilation from these cultures, where they adapt to the countries culture...rather that they ‘integrate’...have their own cultures “along side�€ the countries culture.
When you listen to political leaders speak it's now always about ‘Integration’.....for the most part they have stopped using the word ‘assimulate’....and it's another good way to discern ‘who’ or not is in the globalist loop by what word they use.
This is also why you see No go areas in places where Muslims are.....where Shariah law is indeed along side of the global governance.... Obama doesn't see any rule of law except the one coming...International Law...and he's setting this nation to accept that.
Velly intellesting.
What the Koran teaches is completely incompatible with the constitution. Therefore being a moose-limb should immediately disqualify one from being allowed entry as an immigrant.
I was talking to our preacher about all of the gods in the Bible (Baal, etc.) and asked him “But if there is just one God (the Christian God - The Creator) these other gods are just fake?”
“Oh no! They are real gods - but ‘false’ gods in the sense that they are not the truth. They are gods created by Satan.”
Yep...here and in other Western countries.... this refugee movement is all about just that......it’s also why it won’t be stopped.
Yep...here and in other Western countries.... this refugee movement is all about just that......it’s also why it won’t be stopped.
Bttt
Now that’s interesting. Doesn’t sound like something that would fit under our constitution at all?
And I seem to remember some judges and possibly justices discussing the idea of allowing Sharia law into our justice system? How could that possibly work? And how could any constitution defending judge possibly believe that it’s feasible? Or even desirable? Wouldn’t that be impeachable if any actually tried it?
Neither Smith nor Hubbard killed people who would convert, nor did they start wars to take over a state or this nation.
Thank you for that post. And by not wiping them out, the Jews screwed up and ended up with the Temple and most of Israel destroyed and taken to Babylon.
Most Muslims don’t understand what the Koran actually says....so when Westerners appear to know more about their book then they do they you as an enemy because you shouldn’t know more then they do....thus they go on the defensive every time.
It’s very difficult to speak with a Muslim unacquainted with what the koran says....he’s humiliated easily under normal circumstances...but when we speak with them regarding their beliefs they have no recourse but to divert because they don’t know the Koran.....they must save face absolutely.
There are vastly different interpretations of what Sharia is. Unlike the Jewish law it's not specific and clear. Some parts (some of the most brutal and barbaric) are, but certainly not all. Over the centuries various Islamic scholars have interpreted it differently.
Because Islam sees Mohammed as the ideal man, his actions are to be emulated. Mohammed was a violent, abusive man who didn't deal with it very well when he didn't get what he wanted. Reframing his actions can only go so far.
Jim, Islam has been entirely consistent for 1400 years. For all that time, they have openly declared their tyranny, and their intent to kill or enslave every disbeliever on the planet. Then, they went out and attempted to do just that. They are consistent. They mean what they say. And they’re still pursuing their same goals, unchanged for 1400 years, today.
Their Koran is consistent - lie to unbelievers, stalk unbelievers, kidnap, torture and murder unbelievers. There is no love in the Koran, just domination and hatred. Muslims follow that. They reject the fundamental principles of the American Consititution. They reject the Christian and humanistic philosophy underlying Western Civilization. They reject the philosophies of Greece, Rome, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment. They set about to destroy every vestige of Western Civilization, every monument, building, park, artwork, memorial, and government. They kill men, women and children, often barbarically, and these acts are fully supported by the Koran. They enslave and butcher women especially. They are at war, to the death, with the entire world. And they admit it all, and laugh about it, and celebrate it.
These are easily researched facts. They are not in dispute, which is why liberals and Muslims around the world seek to silence them, or criminalize them, from being pointed out. Muslims are killers, and proud of it. Their religious observances are only one part of a multi-faceted totalitarian governmental system, which they intend to impose upon the entire planet. Those are the facts.
So the real question is, why is there any question that they are the enemies of civilization? What aspect of their belief system is not supported by murder? Where do they ever support human freedom? Where?
Answer: they don’t. Muslims are the enemies of non-Muslims. That is their faith, and they are entirely, completely, open and honest about it. Then, obeying their teachings to lie about themselves, they claims they are “moderate.” But Islam describes no moderates. There are no moderates in the Koran. Which means, there are no moderate Muslims. Muslims lie about wanting non-Muslims dead, because lying about that is part of Islam. And obviously, getting their victims to believe their lies renders them conflicted and turns them against each other, and therefore helps Muslims to kill them by rendering them confused and defenseless.
So how on earth are they NOT “the enemy”?
When Sarah could not conceive children; she gave her handmaiden, Hagar (an Egyptian) to her husband, in order that they might have a family.
You have to understand that in that day, slaves of a household were considered “owned” by the household .. and subject to obey.
Hagar conceived and bore Ishmael. However, Hagar was under the impression that her son would be the heir of Abraham. However, in that day, slave children were not considered to be part of the inheritance. The real heir would receive ALL when the father died. The reason was .. it was that person’s responsibility to support the entire family.
The law at that time said that the “first born son” was to inherit all when the father died.
Because Hagar did not understand her (and her son’s) place in the family, she became rude, arrogant and downright hateful to Sarah.
Then, Sarah (by the grace of GOD) conceived - and she bore a son, Isaac. Isaac was the child GOD had promised; thus Isaac was the proper heir of all Abraham’s possessions. This was the law, because Sarah and Abraham were in a marriage covenant, making Isaac the true heir.
After the birth of Isaac, when Hagar realized her son was not the heir, she became more and more of a problem to Sarah, and Ishmael became really hateful to Isaac. Finally, Sarah received permission from Abraham to put Hagar and her son out of the camp.
So, what a lot of people don’t understand (including the Arab Nations), is that Ishmael had NO RIGHTS TO THE INHERITANCE. And .. they’ve been fighting over it all these many thousands of years. It’s also the reason why the Arabs HATE ISRAEL .. and believe they have been deprived of their inheritance. Only Egypt has understood their connection to Abraham (since Hagar was Egyptian), and Ishmael as her heir, does have a connection to Abraham .. but Ishmael is still not THE TRUE HEIR.
And .. to add a little flavor to the story, I have always wondered if the Arabic nations HATRED of women (thus requiring them to be covered from head to toe) came as a result of Abraham and his two sons. Did they hate Sarah because she threw both Hagar and Ishmael out of the camp ..?? Or, did Ishmael’s hatred of his mother come about as a result of his mother’s inability to obtain the inheritance for her son ..??
Anyway, Isaac is the true heir - and the land where Israel now lives, as well as many thousands more acres of land, was what GOD gave to Israel. The Arabic nations have always believed that they were entitled to that land .. and you can see how they have crowded all around Israel, hoping some day to push Israel into the sea .. and they will have the land for themselves.
To sum it up: This whole battle between the Arabs and the Israelis is nothing more than a dispute between the families of two HALF brothers, over ownership of the same land.
I’ll be interested to know your comments.
True! Although the Mormans did have plenty of minor shooting battles with their neighbors that didn’t like them. And wasn’t it the Scientology guys that left snakes in mailboxes as a warning? (Oh - for the simple days of yore!)
Thanks. Looks like a great source.
Mark
In a 2001 public radio interview, Obama said the Constitution was a “charter of negative liberties,†full of constraints imposed upon us by our Founding Fathers. Yes, he swore with an oath to protect and defend it...but he never had intentions of doing so....Obamacare is a perfect example when he changed it five times without congressional approval.
He does not recognize our political system as it's set up.... he does not accept the limitations that the Constitution places on his actions....and we sure can't know what limitations, if any, he does accept!
I see. Good quibble.
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.