We Were Wondering What Jihad Cindy Would Pull (McKinney Alert)

Neil Boortz.com ^ | 08-21-02 | Neal Boortz

[Illbay]

Read again. I DID direct it at Boortz, not at you personally.

[Illbay]

You mean it's a religion of pieces?

If you like. It has many different sects, some of whom are the antithesis of the Jihadistanis, such as the Sufi.

[clintonh8r]

And which sects have publicly, emphatically and unequivocally condemned murder, anti-semitism, jihad and Islamic dominance?

[h.a. cherev]

Okay, supposing you're right--and this is a stupidly simple-minded statement, since "Islam" isn't a single "it"; there are many varieties and streams of Islam--

Question: It is my understanding that the goal of Islam...all Islam....is to propogate their faith and make the entire world Islamic. Am I wrong? If not, then isn't the original statement correct - that Islam IS out to dominate the world?

what do you propose to do about it beyond "recognizing it", Boortz?

That's a very good question.

Take the millions of Muslims we have living here in the U.S., many of them naturalized and natural-born citizens. Do you want concentration camps? Forced de-programming? Government schooling that teaches them to rebel against their parents' religious instruction?

Good questions. But what about the opposite point of view? Assume for the moment that Islam IS out to "dominate the world" and the millions of Muslims living in the US have, as their religious goal, domination of our culture and it's subsequent modification to an Islamic one. At what point do we recognize this and what possible action could be taken?

What? All you bigots

Name calling undermines the legitimacy of your point. You should apologize.

who continue to scream about how an entire RELIGION is bent on world domination

Isn't it? And isn't Christianity also bent on world domination? Don't both faiths feel that there is no salvation other than through their religion?

never seem to give a cogent, reasoned answer (not surprising since hysterical and rabid people seldom sound reasonable no matter what they are trying to convey).

Hmmm....

[h.a. cherev]

The Nation of Islam is, like Wahabbism and other "fundamentalist" movements, a bastardized form of Islam.

Why "bastardized"? How do you know they are bastardized forms? Are you an Islamic scholar? Have you read the Koran?

Radical fundamentalism has existed in pretty much every religion at one time or another.

Really? I'm not that well read. Can you provide examples, especially of radical fundamentalist Hindus, Budhists, Taoists, etc.? Or are you generalizing to support your contention that these "streams" of Islam are "radical"?

Those who chose to justify their outrageous crimes by holding up the Qu'ran--or the Bible, in the case of the religious wars and pogroms in Europe from the Middle Ages to the Early Modern era--are evil. As they are upon us in our age, they must be destroyed by us.

Now I'm confused. Exactly who should be destroyed. Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam? Hamas? Al Queda? Whatever group is murdering Hindus?

But I utterly, wholely refuse to look with suspicion at my neighbors down the street, who are Muslim, because of the acts of these others.

That is your choice. You seem to condemn others who choose differently. Obviously, you can do what you want. I wonder whether you have any hope that you can persuade them to your point of view using the tactic of "moral superiority"? Or are you just condemning them so that you will feel morally superior yourself?

That way lies madness.

Hmmmm.....recently, an Islamic school opened not to far from me. Of course, the paper reported that the Principal decried violence in general and the attacks against America specifically as being contrary to Islam. Now, is it madness to question whether or not he was being completely honest? I guess it boils down to "racial profiling". Is there ever a point where it will morally correct to suspect our Muslim neighbors? And at what point is action to be taken? What action would that be?