Posted on 11/27/2002 4:29:06 PM PST by goldstategop
Inasmuch as liberals are demanding that Americans ritualistically proclaim, "Islam is a religion of peace," Muslims might do their part by not killing people all the time.
Recently, the Religion of Peace suffered a PR setback when Muslims in Nigeria welcomed the Miss World beauty pageant by slaughtering Christians in the street and burning churches to the ground. At last count, more than 200 people were dead, hundreds more were injured and thousands were left without homes. Also, the Nigerian contestant's chances of winning "Miss Congeniality" were dashed.
Leaping at the one chance they had to attract positive press to their country and perhaps begin the process of dragging themselves out of the 13th century, Nigerian Muslims instead chose to hack innocent people to death with machetes in the name of Allah. Pageant officials pulled up stakes and took the show to London. At least the Christian-carving faithful can sleep at night knowing they've secured a place for themselves in heaven alongside Mohamed Atta.
One can assume the director of the Nigerian Department of Tourism isn't too pleased. Winning the pageant site had been an uphill battle from the beginning. Some of the more closed-minded Miss World participants had already begun carping about the upcoming stoning of a Nigerian woman, in accordance with Islamic sharia law.
The president of Nigeria, Olusegun Obasanjo, tried to downplay the Muslims' murderous rampage by cheerfully explaining: "The beauty queens should not feel that they are the cause of the violence. It could happen at any time irresponsible journalism is committed against Islam." Well, that's a relief.
It seems an article in a Nigerian newspaper had mused that the Prophet Muhammad "would probably have chosen a wife" from among the Miss World contestants. This upset the practitioners of the Religion of Peace, whose polygamous prophet preferred his wives a little younger – one was 6 years old.
They expressed their displeasure with the article by bludgeoning, stabbing and burning Christians to death. In one part of Nigeria, enforcers of the Religion of Peace commanded that Muslims kill Isioma Daniel, the authoress of the blasphemy. (Overheard at Miss World contest: "Does this make me look fatwa?")
The New York Times can't bear to think that their little darlings – angry, violent Muslims – could be at fault in this melee. That makes no sense because Islam is a Religion of Peace. So the Times reviewed the facts, processed it through the PC prism, and spat out the headline: "Religious Violence in Nigeria Drives Out Miss World Event." According to the Times, rampaging Muslims pouring out of mosques to kill Christians and torch churches resulted from "the tinderbox of religious passions in the country."
Islam is peaceful, but religion causes violence. Pay no attention to the fact that the most bloodthirsty cult in the 20th century was an atheistic sect known as communism. But that was not "true communism," just as Muslim terrorists are not practicing "true Islam." The ironic thing is, liberals would hate Muslims who practiced only "true Islam." Without the terrorism, Muslims would just be another group of "anti-choice" fanatics.
But these are the good Muslims – the Mumia Muslims, not the Jerry Falwell Muslims. The police step in to try to quell violent Muslims and the Times reports this as "fighting between Christians and Muslims." Ah, the cycle of violence.
It would be as if a conservative newspaper, with no basis in fact, referred to all murderers as "environmentalists." Environmentalists Fly Planes Into World Trade Center; Environmentalists Rape Woman In Central Park.
Winning "Best in Show" was the Times' headline on an article about the Christian missionary shot dead in Lebanon by a Muslim: "Killing Underscores Enmity of Evangelists and Muslims." This is like referring to the enmity between a woman and her rapist. She hates him, he hates her. It's a cycle of violence! Except the funny thing about the Christians is, they still love the Muslims.
The Muslims' main beef with the Christians was that they "destroy the fighting spirit of the children, especially of the Palestinian youth, by teaching them not to fight the Jews, for the Palestinians to forgive the Jews and leave them Jerusalem." No new data are capable of shaking the Times' faith that Islam is a religion of peace and Christians, as a general matter, deserve to be shot.
The Times seemed to agree the Muslims had a point with the evangelical. In a news analysis, the Times said the missionaries claimed they were merely exposing people to Jesus Christ. "But," the Times charged in a "j'accuse" tone, "a somewhat more direct goal emerges amid the Web site postings." They were asking for it. (On the bright side, at least this means the Times is holding the gun innocent in this one instance.) The Christians were caught red-handed committing irresponsible Web postings against Islam.
Fortunately, Christians do not rip out people's entrails in response to irresponsible journalism committed against Christianity.
WOW! I got compared to ANN COULTER!!! watch my head swell! lol!
e.g., chopped off heads, hands, feet, fingers, toes, ears, noses, tongues, vaginas, wienies, etc., etc., etc.
It isn't much different than the ideological war going on here between conservatives and liberals. Thank god only words are being exchanged here.
The liberals are after the 2nd amendment, so that when they DO try to rob us of our freedoms there is nothing to fight back with. They will have all the guns and will not be afraid to use them to their own ends. (Hey, CLintoon who LOATHES the military wasn't afraid to bomb Sudan to cover and distract from his foibles back at home...)
Ohhhhhmmmmmmm....
Islam is a peaceful and loving religion.....
Ohhhhmmmmmmm......
Also he started out as a Christian and probably has some left over influence from that.
I beg to differ. Gazillions of photons are bombarding me at this very moment from this post alone.
I can understand thatsentiment though, if those Muslims are unwilling to say anything. I would not be willing to very much trust a 'liberal Muslim' until he is brave enough to stand up for what's right. That is not to say I cannot treat them with love and respect at the same time, until such time as he makes a stand one way or another.
The thing is, with Islam, Muslims can lie all they want to an infidel, in order to gain the upper hand. This will always raise red flags in my mind until their actions convince me otherwise.
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.