Conservatives Dispute Bush Portrayal of Islam as Peaceful

A very close friend of mine is an Egyptian. He called himself a Muslim when I was first getting to know him, but gradually came to denounce Islam privately, but around other Muslims he will pretend to be a Muslim. (There's a tremendous amount of peer pressure in the community). The fact is, Mohammad's teahings are NOT peaceful, and conquering the world by military force IS taught in his book, which all Muslims hold to be sacred. He himself practiced what he preached, and the Mohammadans "converted" thousands at sword-point. That's an historical fact.

It is true that probably 90% of the world's Muslims don't want to be on a jihad, and would never murder people they don't even know, or people they befriend. But Islam IS the problem. As an Israeli officer recently said, Islam is the swamp where terrorism breeds. You drain the swamp, you defeat terrorism. (Communism used to be a major breeding swamp for terrorism, but is less of a threat today, and Irish terrorists have always carefully avoided American targets. The occasional Black Panther or White Supremacist is a much smaller problem, and is probably not as big a probelm as bank robbery or serial murders). Now, there's no real way to "drain the swamp" when the swamp is the fastest growing religion in the world, is there? He does not mean that peaceful, productive citizens like my Egyptian friend (or anyone else) should be "exterminated." But he does point out that the teachings of the Koran are very clear that a Muslim is not to take a Christian or a Jew as a friend. So, what is the motivation of a devout Muslim to immigrate to America? Our immigration policy should exclude devout Muslims. If you want to be a devout Muslim, you have no legitimate reasons to emmigrate to a country with a Christian historical base and a Judeo-Christian culture. We used to have policies like this, but we are too unreasoned and PC today to use logic in making any policies. The root problem is the brainless relativism that has permeated our society.

If you want Jihad against innocents then you are no better than other who do same.

You are misusing the word Jihad.
I have never said anything like you claim and you know it. I have made my position very clear, yet you still lie about it.

Posting it here doesn't make you better,

Better than what? What are you talking about???

being a Republican doesn't make you better

I am not a Republican.

and being a Christian doesn't make you better.

Ephesians 1:3 ¶Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us ccepted in the beloved.
7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being
predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will

Instead of posting those things you ought to be reading them.

I am bored to death reading your posts and if you want to think I am or have been slamming, FReepers, Christians or anyone else for that matter, then go right ahead.

I couldn't care less. Come back when you have more to offer than scriptures you don't understand and microscopic hairs to split.

Not a rub, just a truism.

"and being a Christian doesn't make you better."

I didn't say that. Jhoffa did.

Your claims equating murders with people voicing their opinion here still stands, undefensible.

There are **many people here** either outright calling for or implying the need for a war on Islam as a whole. They are **no better than the problem** they are addressing, imo.

Get a grip. When Freepers start murdering people like the Muslim terrorist have, then your pitiful remarks will make some sense.

I agree, immigration should be for our benefit and if that is indeed the case it would appear to be at odds with what's in our best interest.

As far as the comulsory religion goes I did see that strictly prohibited in the little bit that I read, but aparently (as a previous poster pointed out) later passages render this prohibition null and void.

I didn't know this at the time of my original post and, like I said, I havent studied the Koran.. I just read a little bit and did happen to remember seeing that passage.

I remembered it because it seemed at odds with everything I had seen here about Islam.

However, I do know that he has the Constitutional right to worship peacefully and there is no moral justification for anyone to interfere with him.

That's true, and that's always been the way America is. Did you ever notice how it is the historically Christian nations that have a commitment to liberty? Is that an accident? Is it an accident that NO Islamic nation has that same commitment, or that atheistic, utopian governments have no concern for liberty?

As we were just discussing in church today, liberty is very important to Christianity because the whole point of life is to lay down your own life, and live in Christ, and serve. Forced service is not willed service, and therefore is not service at all. Thus, Christians who understand the teachings of the whole Bible at all always end up placing a great value on liberty. That's why the British gentlemen who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were so commited to liberty - they were bred in a culture that valued it. This is not the case in Islam.

Muslims should be allowed to wear head-coverings, and meet together, and eat what they want ot eat, and when, and memorize the Koran in this country. But Islam, like Communism, like Marxism, like Nazism, places no such value on the principles that have given us such unprecedented peace, prosperity, and above all, LIBERTY. Therefore, we should allow no immigrants into this country who hold to any of these philosophies. It seems obvious, to me, all emotionalism and political correctness aside.

Why don't you find a searchable Koran and prove that???

Then how do you suggest we reslve this matter?

Hmmm?

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war. "
[Ann Coulter, "This Is War", The National Review, 13 Sept 2001]

That's how we should solve this problem

Yes, as a matter of fact, I watch the news extensively, read at least three newspapers daily, and listen to talk radio all during the work day.

You are talking about a school in California, and have provided me with a link to what could not possibly be labeled as an unbiased source.

I have contacted the San Ramon Valley Herald, as well as the Byron County School Board to ask for verification on all data in the article.

I'll let you know if I receive any responses

You are exactly right.

Keep an eye on the enemy even as he tries to hide himself in the shadows of men's hearts.

One thing to remember about the Koran: Mohammad wrote some of it when he thought he was "on the side" of Christians and jews against the pagan religions of the Arabs. He thought they would side with him in what he was telling people, but when Christians and Jews told him some of his teachings were batty, he became angry at them, and started writing anti-Christian stuff like, ...Praise be to God who has never begotten a son; who has no partner in His Kingdom..." (Surah 17:111) Kind of a childish slam of Christianity, huh? But he was not a very educated man. Or this: Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:27-)

So, my point here is that Mohammad DOES seem to contradict himself, and I believe it is mostly because he turned toward Christians and Jews when they rejected him. He seemed to be a very unstable fella. There was one much like him in American history, who also started a very large, illogical cult that claims to add to the Bible, but I won't mention it by name and start another argument on this thread. But there are many paralells between the conception and founders of the two cults.

That should read "turned [HOSTILE] toward Christians and..."

No one wants to hurt your Lamonte. Lamonte is probably a capital fellow. The trouble is that Lamonte's life is centered on his religion, Islam -- a hellish fantasy that preaches conversion or death to those outside of it, and which is controlled and funded by madmen who want to destroy Western Civilization.

In this way Islam is similar to Shinto, the Japanese national nature cult, which was the guiding spirit behind their imperialist policies during World War Two. Was each individual Japanese an evil imperialist, panting for the death of Western Christians? No. My aunt wasn't, and she's as Japanese as sushi. Unfortunately for peace-loving, Shinto-following Japanese of that era, the government of Japan was ideologically committed to the doctrone of hachio ichigo, "Bringing the eight corners of the Earth under one roof" -- in other words, global Japanese dominance. In the wake of Pearl Harbor, there was no way to separate the "good" Japanese From the "Bad" ones; we had to kill them indiscriminately and keep killing them until their government was incapable of making war. This we did, using tanks and guns, and firebombs and atomic weapons. We also detained and imprisoned the Japanese-American population of our own West Coast -- not out of hatred, but out of a real fear that certain of them may have been enemy agents. Was this just? Was this fair? Was this constitutional? No -- but it was seen at the time as being necessary and prudet, and who are we to dispute that judgement in hindsight? Once the Japanese attacked us, we did not waste time trying to build a coalition, we did not waste a tear on the unjust imprisonment of the Nisei, nor did we invite leaders of the American Shinto community to the White House to celebrate any of Japan's nature festivals in the interest of fighting bigotry. We sank their fleet (including many unarmed freighters full of civilians), wiped out their island garrisons (slaughtering many innocent civilians in the process), and dropped two atom bombs and innumerable firebombs on their cities, incinerating hundreds of thousands of them, the majoroty of which were innocent civilians. This done, we then took their surrender, occupied their country, stamped out those religious and cultural traditions inimical to our own, and installed a government at bayonet-point that would act according to our liking. Did we kill, maim, and injure a lot of innocent Shinto-following Japanese in the process? Yes. Was it the right thing to do? Yes. The Japanese are better off for having lost the war, and we are better off not being dominated by the Shinto culture if Japan.

Was every German a supporter or the Final Solution? No. But we bombed them anyway, because we had no choice. Was every Russian a committed Communist? No. But we aimed ten thousand nuclear warheads at them, because we had no choice. Is every Muslim a terrorist? No. But we have to assume all of them are potential enemies, because we have no choice. The alternative is to wait until the other shoe drops, and we lose a city or three to a bomb or virus attack spread by an "innocent" Muslim who slipped thriugh the cracks.

As for Lamonte: no, I don't want him hurt or killed. As I said, he's probably a great guy. But odds are the imam at his local mosque isn't. And his imam's boss in Arabia certainly isn't. We can't simply sit around waiting for orders to travel ftom Wahhabi HQ to your neighbrhood mosque to Lamonte; if Lamonte's imam tells him he has to go blow up a schoolbus or open a canister of smallpox virus in the subway in the name of Allah, even a good guy like Lamonte is going to have a hard time saying "No".

So instead of hurting good guys like Lamonte, we should simply keep an eye on them. Every mosque in America should be bugged, watched, infiltrated, and forced to submit a list of its membership to the Homeland Security department. In the event of a terrorist attack, the Muslim population of a given area should immediately be questioned and their whereabouts and doings determined. Muslims who are proven to be spreading anti-American doctrines or encouraging other Muslims to "join the struggle against the godless West" should be arrested, tried under the sedition/treason laws already on the books, and (if convicted) imprisoned or executed. All students in the United States who are citizens of other countries should be required to register at their local police station and check in there every week. And it goes without saying that all foreigners in the United States without proper documentation should be deported at once.

Lamonte isn't the problem Lamonte's religion is the problem. Islam is a trheat to us and our way of life, and if we won't recognize that threat we deserve the fate that awaits us.