"Open Doors and Open Windows. Silence About War With Islam"

ChronWatch ^ | Feb.25, 2003 | Robert Klein Engler

[GirlShortstop]

I am going to take selective verses from the Old Testament, and make the case that Christianity is every bit as violent and intolerant as the Koran.

Wow, things become clearer.  Given a vote, I would ask that you pass on this "threat" Luis.   In fact, pointing directly at your response above, I get a sense that your spirituality comes from ingurgitating what mohammedans assert and distort.  Consequently, this would explain the vitriolic criticism that you direct towards anyone who supplies truthful information on FR relating to Islam.  Contrary to what you seem to steadfastly assert, we are not best served when we put our head in the sand.          Violence in the Bible and the Qur'an

[Morrigan]

"You will find Orthodox Jews who live the same way, and some Christians as well. This does not make them threats, or their religions threats."

You are absolutely right on that point. I don't find Orthodox Jews or Christians to be threats. It is all in the interpretation, and Jews and Christians aren't known to become bloodthirsty when interpreting their religion in different ways. Some Muslims do. That is an important difference.

You mentioned Turkey, India, and Indonesia. Most of the Muslims I have talked to about Turkey think it is a joke. They think Turkey's mostly secular government is not Islamic, and that most Turkish Muslims are not real Muslims. Of course, this is not the opinion of every Muslim on earth. Just the opinion of the majority I have talked to.

As I understand it, there have been plenty of skirmishes between Indian Muslims and Hindus. Indonesian Muslims don't think much of Americans right now, either, for two reasons as I understand--the impending war in Iraq and the new INS regulation requiring male Muslims from certain countries to register.

Also, it depends on what flavor of Muslim you are talking about. Sufi Muslims are the most peaceful and tolerant. However, they are regarded by the rest as "bad" Muslims. As far as I know, most Muslims are of Sunni persuasion. Saddam is a Sunni Muslim (but Osama called even Saddam an infidel, so I am not sure how much it matters!lol).

Wahhabism, the flavor brought to us by our lovely Saudi friends, is the extreme kind, and this is the kind that we in the U.S. need to look out for. Especially since it is so widespread in the U.S.

Now, as far as Muslims are concerned, I am not one of those people that want them rounded into camps or gassed by the thousands. That isn't what I am saying at all. At this point I am unsure of the motivations of the Muslims not only in America, but in other countries as well. Until I can be sure that my Muslim neighbor isn't going to lob a grenade through my living room window, I am not going to be inviting any of them over for dinner, you know? I think that the Sufi Muslims are the ones that need to take control of the situation, but will they be strong enough? Right now I think that many Muslims are turning to more strict (and yes, violent) interpretations of their faith due to the rapidly changing times. Where does that put us?

I don't have any answers for you. Are all Muslims bad? I don't know. Are all Muslims good? I don't know. Are they in-between? Couldn't tell ya. Yet, anyway. All we can really do right now is encourage Muslims like the Sufis, help them establish as much control over Islamic happenings as they can, and protect each other in the interim.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Child.

One of the requirements for debating topics with me, is a reading proficiency at least equal to that of a normal High School undergrad, and it seems that you are quite lacking in that regard. Perhaps it would be best if you limited yourself to threads discussing monumental issues such as your top ten favorite movies, or what song happens to be running through your mind this moment in time.

Now, if you are about to take issue with the insulting tone of my response thus far, I would suggest that you initiated this contact with myself, that you did it in an immature manner, and because of it, are quite deserving of a good tongue lashing.

There’s nothing clear in your head. You are not even grasping the most basic point of this discussion thus far, one that I may add, you were neither invited to participate in, nor do you seem capable of maintaining with any sort of maturity.

There was no "threat" issued by me at any level, I am simply debating a point with another member of this forum, it's what we do here. I suggested, as anyone with any level of reading competence can plainly see, that the parsing of verses out of any book, including The Bible or The Koran, is a ridiculous way to ascertain its contents. And I suggested that one could do the very same thing with The Old Testament, and even The New Testament as what is being done here with The Koran.

My spirituality comes from a place deep inside myself, a place where I believe The Father set a thirst in all of us, a thirst only abated by long, cool drinks of truth undiluted, and poured by one’s own hand, not by the hand of even apparently well-meaning others. God told Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit from the forbidden tree; the voice of another led them to perdition, I will not allow myself to be led by others, I think for myself.

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”---John 8:32

As for my alleged “vitriolic criticism towards anyone who supplies truthful information on FR relating to Islam”, I say to you that your post is a fine example of unwarranted vitriolic criticism towards a person digging for the truth. That’s what I am doing while you do Internet searches of articles supporting your limited point of view.

Islamic clerics and scholars have studied The Koran for hundreds of years, and have great differences in their opinions as to the meaning of the words it contains, you and the rest of the “scholars” in FR, have it all figured out, without ever having actually read more than a few passages. Passages hand-fed to you by others.

The people most interested in starting a worldwide cultural-religious war between civilizations are Islamic fundamentalist terrorists; they seek to slow down the advance of western civilization into their world, a world they control by means of hatred, and fear. They know that the diffusion of western ideals will erase their hold on the populace, and they mean to stop that at all costs.

This is not a war of religions, this is a war against a very real enemy who is attempting to hide himself behind religion, the troops that will fight this enemy will include people of many beliefs, and even some with none. They may even include American Muslims. They will not be fighting ideas; they will be fighting men of flesh and blood.

The enemy is seeking to extract a reaction from us that will inflame the as of yet dormant Muslim masses, and the rhetoric of people like yourself and the rest of the “Islam is the enemy” crowd here, is feeding his dream, and endangering our troops. Any and all people, who have a desire for a war of religions should pack their bags and go preach the message of Our Lord Jesus Christ on a street corner in Kuwait, or elsewhere in the world of Islam.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Oh, I see.

Christians only quote The Old Testament when wanting to condemn homosexuals, otherwise, it doesn’t apply to modern Christianity.

After parsing the Koran, now you wish me to ignore the first half of The Bible when trying to make the argument that any book, parsed, can be made to appear as something other than what it is?

Get my point?

[Luis Gonzalez]

So, when discussing The Koran, you quote the Sunnah, and want me to refrain from quoting the Old Testament when discussing Christianity?

That's rather two-faced of you.

[SauronOfMordor]

re: Old Testament vs New: the New Testament replaces the Old Testamant in matters of any philosophical conflict between them. The New Testament is about forgiveness and not doing harm to your fellow man, regardless of whether he's Christian, Jew, Muslim or worships Cthulhu

The Koran, OTOH, is composed of passages from the earlier Medina stage, and the latter Meccan stage of Mohammod's life. The more peaceful Medinan passages have been held to be superceded by the more warlike, chronologically later, Meccan passages by Islamic authorities

The relevant issue is: what is Islam about as preached by those clerics regarded as authoritative by the Islamic community

[Luis Gonzalez]

No, the relevant issue is Islam, as preached by the radical Saudi-funded Wahabbi's, and their connection to bin Laden.

I'm trying to keep focused on just WHO planned, and carried out the attacks on 9/11.

All you guys are into discussing the ideological aspects of one religion against another.

Let the troops do their work and wipe the earth clean of terrorists and their supporters, do not inflate the mess by adding the sorts of emotions that involve themselves into a religious war.

[SauronOfMordor]

So, when discussing The Koran, you quote the Sunnah, and want me to refrain from quoting the Old Testament when discussing Christianity? That's rather two-faced of you.

The Sunnah is the account of the words and actions of Mohammod, as related by his companions. It post-dates the Koran, and is used by most Islamic authorities to clarify and expand upon the Koran, much like the Talmud is used by Jews to expand upon the Torah (what Christians call the Old Testament), and how the later books of the New Testament are used to expand upon the fundamental message of the Gospels.

The key point here is that, for Christians, the New Testament supercedes the Old Testament.

[SauronOfMordor]

I'm trying to keep focused on just WHO planned, and carried out the attacks on 9/11. All you guys are into discussing the ideological aspects of one religion against another.

This discussion would not be happening if the wider Islamic community had seen fit to plainly condemn the 9/11 attack without equivocation. They did not. The big problem is the widespread (in my view, dominant) attitude among Muslims that they may not condemn fellow Muslims for acts committed against non-Muslims.

Bin Laden openly claims to speak for Muslims. The lack of disavowal by Muslim spokespeople gives implicit consent to bin Laden's claim.

I would doubt that more than 1% of the residents of Hiroshima in 1945 had directly taken part in acts of violence against Americans. That fact did not save them.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"This discussion would not be happening if the wider Islamic community had seen fit to plainly condemn the 9/11 attack without equivocation."

Why don't you do a simple Google search and astound yourself at the media blackout on the condemnation.

[Torie]

It is a pity that we don't have one single poster that is worth a damn on the Muslim religion, and can give a balanced view one can trust. That is not a slam on FR. There seem to be few out there anywhere. I have yet to find one in fact that meets my criteria. I am not saying there isn't; I'm saying I haven't found a voice with the knowledge and the pitch that resonates with me.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I guess I'm not rocking your boat either, am I?

[Torie]

LOL. You are a very bright man, and knowledgable on so many topics, but no, I don't consider you an authoritative voice on Islam. Join the club; it has so many members.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I know I'm not, I was just busting your chops.

I just have this underlying sense that we are all being manipulated.

It is as if this was the anti-thesis of the Buchanan doctrine brought to life...the west is not dying, it's spreading into the Middle east, and the traditional Islamic power elite fear it.

I think that they see the encroaching western ideals and culture as their enemy, because fundamentalist Islam can't survive western hedonism.

They are afraid that in a westernized Islam the role of the Mosques will be similar to the role of churches in the west, a place where people go to practice their religious sacraments before returning to the secular world.

In order to maintain power, they must demonize the culture, and make Muslims believe that we are the enemy.

And what better way to make that happen than via a major terrorist attack on the US mainland, and then telling the whole world that it was done in the name of Allah?

BTW, have you noticed that while we have been busy watching the whole war with Iraq thing play itself out on television, two MAJOR oil producing nations on OUR hemisphere have fallen under the control of communists?

Venezuela and Brazil...Colombia will fall soon.

[Torie]

I define communism in my mind where the last real election held was longer ago than the terms of office legally prescribed. So I don't think the term fits as I define it. It may well be that some of these countries going left will generate valuable empirical lessons. The French socialist party ceased really being socialist as soon as its policies collapsed since France wasn't willing to go the economic autarky route. And hard left policies require a regime of economic autarky to really fit the bill.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Chavez has already "modified" the Venezuelan constitution to remain in power longer than allowed.

He "nationalized" the oil fields, and now controls the media outlets.

Textbook Castro-communist.

[Torie]

Well he would have to get very authoritarian with a totalitarian edge to survive the economic implosion. I just don't see in this day and age the Castro virus being very contagious. But I am not an expert on this one either.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Would having your personal body guards shoot protesters outside your presidential palace be authoritorian enough for you?

How about having the leaders of the oppsition arrested for the crime of being the leaders of the opposition?

[Torie]

A demonstrably corrupt and phony election would impress me more as to the point we are discussing. One of the joys of modern technology, is that it is harder for power centers to control information. That may in fact be its most efficacious application.

[nunya bidness]

Do you realize that while we have all been glued to the television, trying to keep up with the latest news out of the Middle East, a far greater amount of crude oil has fallen into the hands of international communism, than the oil produced by Iraq?

Some of us have been paying attention to both situations. In the case of Iraq the output is dependent on the restoration of the wells, pipelines and terminals. In Venezuela the situation is more dependent on the political climate. The infrastructure there is intact.

What's consistent in the US position is that we have been led around the world chasing the Communists in securing our energy needs. In fact our current situation in the ME is specifically tied to fear of the Soviets developing the region. Hence the support of the guys like SH when it served our purpose. And don't forget the Iranians.

What's inconsistent is the threat of Communism has led to a hamfisted response on our part to the real emerging problem in the region: rampant nationalism of the energy sector.

In this case I believe the US will finally form a consistent approach by establishing a beachhead in Iraq. How we deal with the region after we go in will dictate the success.

If we confront nationalism as an affront to our foreign policy through our corporate interests and at the same time allow self-determination we will succeed. If we just prop up another dictator in a short-term fix we'll be back again or they'll show up here again.

In order to secure future peace a model of prosperity needs to be installed and at the same time belligerance needs to be dealt with in a measured fashion against state sponsors of terrorism. Unfortunately, this includes Israel. And there's the rub.