Political Islam
Posted by UncommonSense 10 years, 5 months ago to Politics
There is much on Dr. Bill Warner's site here to learn. I strongly encourage everyone here to read through the information & even order his stuff...I have. Dr. Warner uses islams (mohammed's) own words against them. He researched islam from a scientific point of view & ignored the 'religious' part. He leaves it up to the reader to decide if islam is a good thing for mankind or not.
SOURCE URL: http://www.politicalislam.com/
Evil can only succeed when good men stand aside.
I read an interesting article about why this period of time ended and it was fundamentalist, literal interpretation of the Koran faction vs. the non-literal, open to inquiry and reason faction and the fundamentalists won. Christianity went through a similar issue around the 3rd or 4th century, then tried a repeat during the spanish inquisition in reaction to the Reinissance and is fighting hard for a repeat in the US today, where we are suppose to take the Bible literally, which means renouncing, reason science, logic and technology
The same argument could have been made about the Japanese, the Christians of the middle ages, the Nazis. You can't change Hitler's mind, or the Popes's or Emperor but most people are followers and there are plenty of doubters who just need a lifeline. So yes, I think we can change their mind. Reagan actually did a great job of this in winning the cold war. The Irish problem looked to be totally intractable until they (Thatcher) introduced a more free market economy. Most people want to focus on their life and their families life. If Bush had demanded that Iraq (or Afghanistan) follow laws consistent with Natural Rights, the economy would have started to flourish and the average person would have become more interested in improving their life than Jihad. Instead, Bush put democracy first and ignored even the most basic values of the US, e.g., freedom of religion, freedom of the press, etc. Then we let them vote in an Islamic fundamentalist government. This is what you get under moral relativism.
I have to say yes, but the ideology didn't make the changes in your examples, although I do think people should be exposed to the philosophy of Objectivism. We sat back, as you would like us to, with the Japanese, until they bombed Pearl Harbor..and the change took place when we retaliated with the force of protecting our citizens. They knew we would destroy them if they kept their stance. I don't think Hitler ever change his mind and it took another show of force by us and others to destroy his evil. Those Islamists that want natural rights are killed if they pronounce them. Yes, I personally know some from that part of the world that came here for Freedom...they agree with Rand, they lived with it, the escaped it, they know when they hear BO open his mouth that he is talking like they heard at home and recognize it.. America has laws that follow OUR Constitution...well, not any more with this POTUS..but our courts, as in New Jersey are putting Sharia law above ours, I see no good ending :-) We are at war right now and it is right in our back yard, so I will not be a willing victim. I will however, introduce ideas to those willing to listen....
WWII can be traced on our failure to win the war of ideas in the US itself. If the US and the west had not gone through a depression there would have been much less impetuous for Japan and Germany to use war as a way to advance their goals. In addition, if the US and West had stayed stronger economically, they would have realized it was suicide.
In the present case, the war with Islam can only be won with ideas. We start by pointed out the absurdity and evilness of their ideas. But as long as we have a moral relativist as president this will not happen.
I don't believe anyone was supporting Islam or faith in any manner. It was about their immediate threat.
As Sam Adams said "It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." Most people are passive. Most people want to concentrate on their on life and their family and that is not unreasonable. I see some small brushfires. Physics in the early 1900s tried to abandon philosophy ( or at lease western philosophy consistent with science) and actually came up with results that are inconsistent with the very basis of the science of philosophy. However, I see more and more people criticizing the present direction of modern physics. I know this seems to be an obscure area, however I think it is a sort of a canary in the coal mine. Now I doubt we will see a real change in my lifetime, but I am hopeful that easily within my children's lifetime. I think it is a mistake to put too much hope in the immediate political process or popular press or Hollywood, but I think there are signs.
The goal is not to convince the impassive majority, but the irate minority or more importantly those who are interested in ideas. Unfortunately, we may not see or reap the rewards of our labors.
The original Christian faithful literally got fed to the lions or executed as heretics by the Jews or - in the case of the Copts - the Muslims. Without the Apostles to maintain the dogma, it quickly fragmented. The movement to get back to the literal elements of Christ's teachings happened during the Reformation after the printing press began to openly distribute the Bible and the clergy were no longer able to reconcile their practice with Biblical teachings.
The concept of an Islamic "reformation" is interesting, but without the introduction of original material which contradicts what currently exists in the Qu'ran, I fear that such a "reformation" is only going to revert back to literalism. And there isn't anything in the Qu'ran to encourage me to believe that outcome is going to be a boon to freedom or tolerance.
There might have been some wiggle room if there was a clear line of succession, but this is why there are branches of Islam (mainly Sunni and Shia) because they individually claim the mantle of authority to lead Islam in general. It's the main reason Iran and Iraq fought each other for thirty years and one of the main sources of animus for the terrorists from Iran who kept attacking the Americans and Iraqis after the US invaded. It's just generational sibling rivalry that has been going on for 1500+ years.
The Salem "witch" trials were absolutely wrong on many levels. The perpetrators used the public fear of the devil to persecute and execute their own neighbors so they could steal their land.
http://www.biblestudyauthor.com/early_ch...
Do you know what the Spaniards had to do, to get the muzzies who didn't want to move near the end of their re-conquest? Yep, use the exact same tactics as was done on them. The point is that the Spaniards mainly did what they did to take their country back & less about Christianity. It also about the $$. Yes, the Vatican was losing out of a lot of cash thanks the muzzies raking in the hoard.
So, before you start blaming Christianity for all the violence that occurred during the Inquisition and the Crusades, consider the facts I have given.
Oh, the Salem witch trials. It had nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with a couple of girls who saw some pompous local government jackarses doing something they shouldn't have been doing in the first place. I'm sick of Christianity being the blame. It's old. Personally, I think you know better.
Any "Christian" who kills someone else and PROCLAIMS (like the muzzies do ~ for 'allah') their doing it in the name of Jesus, is NOT a Christian at all. Now, if you'd like to fully engage in this, let's do this on a separate post about the 'evils' of Christianity. Yes, I know you'll gravitate to the Crusades, on the behalf of the muzzies. Oh the horror.
You want to ascribe the worst of those who claim they are doing something in the name of religion for all of those who are of that religion.
I hate to hear him on car radio news sound bites. I will turn the radio off, count to ten and start cussing if he is still on talking--usually he's done by then. When he is on TV, I will say, "I see your lips moving!" and act the same way.
Worse, he will never be gone. Obummer plans to retire in a Washington D.C. home ,having moved his lips that it has to do with his girls' education.
Yeah. Right.
Should O = 0 have a successor who tries to overturn Obamacare, for example, just watch all of his media flunkies crowd his front door to receive his televised whines. .
I foresee myself quoting Charlie Brown: "AURGH!"
"CREDENTIALS Former Tennessee State University physics professor; author of Sharia Law for Non-Muslims (2010; under the pen name Bill Warner).
SUMMARY French has no formal training or background in law, Islam or Shariah law — which in any case is not an established legal code, as the book title implies, but a fluid concept subject to a wide range of interpretations and applications. He garnered attention recently by leading the opposition to a proposed mosque in Murfreesboro, Tenn."
Across the world masses of the bearded are raucously demanding Sharia. Arguments are loud, angry and supported by raised fists, knives and hidden bombs.
I had thought the barbaric and uncouth want to impose the violence and cruelty clearly stated in Islamic texts.
I am now informed that all they want is 'a fluid concept subject to a wide range of interpretations and applications.'
Some Christians and Jews kill others in the name of their religion or culture or other reasons YET we do not blame ALL Christians and Jews for those actions.
Reading information about Islam,the Koran etc from Islamic scholars gives you a different viewpoint.
I know exactly your point of view on islam, why? Because I once thought the exact same thing ~ in 1995. Then, in 1996, in a stunning example of arrogance and stupidity, I VOLUNTEERED to go and live in an Islamic country for two, hellish long years while I served in the USAF. Without the bankster, bought-and-paid-for American Main Stream Media to preserve my ignorance on islam, I got exposed to what islam is REALLY all about, on a daily basis: REPRESSION and SEXUAL DEVIANCY/IMMATURITY.
Now, what I going to tell you will piss you off most likely. Why? Because that’s how I felt once I started asking questions about what I was seeing versus what I was indoctrinated with in the U.S. about islam. I felt lied to, manipulated & basically was a fool. I realized I had to start educating myself on what islam is about. But before we go on any further, a few ground rules:
This “debate” or discussion is about islam/mohammed. In my experience debating people on islam, whenever the topic starts towards something that is obviously embarrassing or hard to ignore/cover up, the usual tactic of either a muslim or dhymmi is to spin the conversation back around about Christianity, usually OCD about what events occurred during the Crusades & thus avoiding the touchy subject with islam. You won’t get me to fall into that lame trap. If you want to talk about Christianity, we can do that in a SEPARATE post, but not on this one. We will stay on topic.
For the purpose of THIS discussion, we will be discussing ISLAM. I will however, have to bring up some things in the Bible, simply because EVERYTHING in the KORAN traces it’s way in some form or another BACK to the Bible, and the huge misconceptions and misunderstanding and in a few cases, outright false beliefs that mohammed had about certain events & people in the Old & New Testament. If you thought you could get away from the Bible when dealing with islam, you were wrong.
Next, before anyone can say ‘islam is the pure form, it is perfect, etc’, one must have knowledge of BOTH the Koran, Sura, & Haddiths AS WELL AS the Bible so as to compare one to the other. After all, mohammed claims to have been the last of the prophets, so if you believe mohammed, then you believe that he knew EVERYTHING in the Bible, since he was a ‘prophet’.
In an interesting twist, I love the reactions I get whenever I say mohammed was Jewish. Why? Well, he said he was the last prophet in a long line of prophets, and all the prophets of the Old Testament were? (drum roll?) Jewish. Getting dizzy yet? I’m taking mohammed at his word on this, so no one can point & say ‘hey, he claimed….’ No. I’m simply repeating what mohammed himself claims. If you have problem with it, then it really means you have a problem with mohammed. And that means you are putting your life in danger.
Now onto refuting your comments:
#6 said: “Not all Muslims are demanding Sharia law, the overwhelming majority (95%+) of Islamic believers are peaceful and believe in the peaceful teaching of the Koran NOT violent excerpts taken out of context by the radical nut cases.”
This first part of this sentence up to the comma, is hilarious, IMO. Why? Well, let’s talk about Sharia Law. But first, it is important for me to remind you of something I believe most people make the mistake of doing when thinking about islam ~ I made the same mistake back in ’95.
THERE IS NOTHING IN ISLAM THAT IS ‘OPTIONAL’. YOU (the muslim) WILL DO, WILL AGREE TO WHAT MOHAMMED DID AND SAID. IF YOU (the muslim) ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO DISAGREE WITH THE PROPHET, THAT MAKES YOU AN APOSTATE OF ISLAM AND THE PUNISHMENT IS DEATH. (unless you admit you are mistaken and acknowledge the OBLIGATORY requirement) ~ Reliance of the Traveller f1.3, page 109. Yes, number 6, I have the verifiable, THE Authoritative Manual on Sharia Law in my house and I’m using it as I type this. If you don’t have a copy, I suggest you get one so you know what you’re in for.
Sharia Law got its beginning by mohammed when he settled in Medina and started the 2nd phase (& bloodiest…the form that remains to this day) of islam. (The “peaceful” islam didn’t work out, as mohammed discovered, but violence & intimidation does & thus, Medina)
After he build a house for himself and mosque for his followers, he set about consolidating his power. He began by writing a charter which was to serve as the law of Medina ~ the law was based on TWO different sets of rules: one for muzzies and the other, for kaffirs or non-muslims or in another way: EVERYBODY, regardless of where they lived. Can you guess what these rules were to become known as? Yes, Sharia Law. (The Story of Mohammed. Islam Unveiled. By Harry Richardson, Chapter 5, page 13.)
You are implying that muzzies have an OPTION for implementing Sharia Law. Number 6, What other law do you think Islamic countries have besides Sharia? Seriously man.
Your comment on “peaceful muslims” is also somewhat entertaining. I could go about this in two ways: I could speak at length about the time-proven 1400-year history of how islam (starting in Mecca) starts out small (in a country where the opposing force is overwhelming & thus could easily wipe out the very small population of muzzies) & then over the course of several decades, (can’t remember the percentage of the population when they turn) they then suddenly turn course & become violent & take over the country. Actually, somebody can authoritatively speak on that, because SHE WITNESSED IT HAPPEN TO HER AND HER COUNTRY: They Must Be Stopped by Brigitte Gabriel.
No, instead, let’s talk about Nazi Germany. Do you believe that every single German citizen was full of evil and wanted to kill? I’ll bet you don’t. I don’t believe they were like that either. But why then, could they NOT stop Hitler and his army of destruction? Were they not the MAJORITY? I’ll tell you why: because they were IRRELEVANT. My point here is: DID THEY HAVE A LEGAL PRECEDENT IN WHICH TO REIN IN THE MINORITY NAZI REGIME? Answer: NOPE.
What does this have to do with the ‘peaceful’ muzzies? Does any of them have a (they are muslims, they HAVE to follow Sharia Law) Sharia Law legal authority to NOT SUPPORT the violent COMMANDS given to them by mohammed? What do you think, given what I have provided to you?
You need to find out what Civilization Jihad is all about. It is nothing new.
And now onto other things you said: “Some Christians and Jews kill others in the name of their religion or culture or other reasons YET we do not blame ALL Christians and Jews for those actions.”
Number 6, I’ll send you $1000 if you can tell me the Book & verse in the KJV of the New Testament WHERE Jesus Christ tells his followers that they can kill in His Name. No joke.
Finally, Number6 said: “Reading information about Islam,the Koran etc from Islamic scholars gives you a different viewpoint.” Did you do your research on Al-Taqiyya and Taqiyya Kitmon? If not, you need to, I’m not going to spoon feed you.
I don’t need to consult ANY muslim on islam. I only need to understand mohammed. Why? If you know mohammed, what he did and what he said, then you know islam.
Now for some other little interesting nuggets of information about what the Bible says versus what mohammed says about the same topic.
In the Old Testament, the Garden of Eden was on Earth. Mohammed says it was in heaven. Which one do YOU believe? If you’re an atheist, why then, are you even involved in this discussion? You would be an unbeliever, and according to muslim tradition YOU would be the FIRST to die. At least Christians are given a choice to submit.
In the Old Testament, the Ark was 300 cubits long, width was 50 cubits and the height was 30 cubits. Mohammed said the Ark was a little over 600 feet long, 200 feet wide and about 75 feet high AND it had SAILS. Ok, so before you answer this one, you need to consider one fact:
The dimensions of the Ark follow a specific ratio (no, I don’t know what it is) that all ships even today follow that make them float. Given the dimensions given by mohammed, do you believe such a ship would float? Anyways, who do you believe? The Bible or mohammed.
Finally, in the Old Testament, Cain killed Abel because he was jealous of God’s favor for Abel. Mohammed said it was because Cain wanted Abel’s wife (which was in fact Abel’s sister, yes, in islam incest is ok) because his wife was prettier than the wife Cain had. Now, who do you believe?
I could go on, but I think this is enough for now. Do your own research and if you don’t want to be lied to, don’t ask a muslim. You’ve been warned.
"No, instead, let’s talk about Nazi Germany. Do you believe that every single German citizen was full of evil and wanted to kill? I’ll bet you don’t. I don’t believe they were like that either. But why then, could they NOT stop Hitler and his army of destruction? Were they not the MAJORITY? I’ll tell you why: because they were IRRELEVANT. My point here is: DID THEY HAVE A LEGAL PRECEDENT IN WHICH TO REIN IN THE MINORITY NAZI REGIME? Answer: NOPE." In the case of Islam I agree, but I think the Germans had legal standing but stood aside.
Regarding the Nazi's and German's. I think you may have forgot; the German public were DISARMED. There was nothing they could do to stop it.
But there was a German constitution and they didn't stop it when they had guns and they didn't demand that their leaders live up to the constitution.
You have your opinion form living in A country during your service (thank you for that). My experience comes form dealing with many countries and individuals over the years. Mine totally differ from yours.
Since JC does not allow followers to "kill in his name", why do so many want to kill Muslims because of their beliefs? (Harem in the bible.) As you know there are many passages in the old Testament about violence and your $1000 means nothing to me.
Religious aggression and the killing of civilians is irjaf (not jihad as commonly quoted, which is defensive in nature ONLY) and condemns the perpetrator to hell in Islam.
Your interpretation of information comes from sources that are only negative to Islam. Thank you for your "warning".
#6, what conspiracies are you referring to? what's happening in Europe is fast happening in the US. Muslim communities where there are significantly higher violent crimes against women than in other communities. here is from the fbi's website:
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/public...
about halfway into it, they quote a member of a muslim community in GB, who is frustrated with the questioning of anti-terrorist police. His response is to ask that they build a relationship before discussing sensitive issues like terrorism. which is very telling to me. If the FBI knocked on my door and said what do you know about terrorism in your community, I would say quickly, NOTHING. I don't need any relationship-building before revealing more-because I wouldn't know more. here's another one:
http://publicintelligence.net/ufouo-fbi-...
now, I'll admit, somewhat ridiculous because they stress several times there has been no credible evidence-but are they sending bulletins out like this about Catholic or Protestant groups if someone was to burn a few bibles? We do not live in Iraq after all, but the US. well, I don't live in the US, but this seems crazy to me that these extremists have such far reach and they are protected in their communities and mosques.
Regarding MSM control, I recco you check out who the top anchor's of all the network's belong to. Council on Foreign Relations ~ a policy arm of the Rockefellers that got it's start in 1919. If you haven't read any of Gary Allen's books, I strongly recommend you take the time and read them. It is an education that the Establishment does not want you or anyone else to know. If any of the information wasn't true, you can bet Mr. Allen would have been sued ~ he never was.
" the overwhelming majority (95%+) of Islamic believers are peaceful and believe in the peaceful teaching of the Koran NOT violent excerpts taken out of context by the radical nut cases. "
Five percent of 1.5 billion is 75 million, a number sufficient to justify concern even if the number turns out much lower.
The 95%+ There are many people who describe themselves as Muslims who are civilized, are they standing up to the fanatics? Yes, but such are very few. Fact is, unfortunately, they are irrelevant - see dbh earlier.
What do the 95%+ really believe? Perhaps all they are guilty of is following custom and family ties instead of thinking, a common sin, sometimes unknowingly giving money to charities that buy weapons. As said, they do not matter having no influence.
Why do they not emphasize the peaceful passages of the holy texts? This is the self imposed task of our mass media and political class who harangue us -ad nauseum- about the religion of peace.
The claim that the violent passages are taken out of context and the peaceful ones are the true intent is as valid in logic as the reverse.
However, there is a rule, where there is a contradiction the latter shall prevail. The violent passages predominate in the later verses, written when M was in charge and expanding, the peaceful passages were written when he had few followers and was in danger. The educated imans know the rule, and they know the sequence, it is not the same sequence of the Koran verses.
There are many violent and unwholesome passages in the Bible- quite so. This is not an argument about anything:
1. in the Bible the violence is descriptive- what happened, in the Koran it is proscriptive - this is what you must do. (there are one or two exceptions).
2. Christians and Jews, apart from fundamentalists who are socially insignificant, change opinions and customs reviewing against how they see the basics and indeed the values generally accepted around them. Islam cannot change- this is the seal of the prophet.
and a comment about ship design-
the ratio of length to width of ships is set to balance between speed, power needed to propel, and stability.
And I would just add that if they are not willing to stand up against this "minority" who are perverting the so-called "religion of peace", they are irrelevant in the discussion. Not voting is in and of itself a vote.
I congratulate you on being able to read Arabic to read the Koran and not a biased translation.Unfortunately I have had to read translations that I believe to be unbiased.
I probably have traveled more than you and know Islamic people from many parts of the world. The brutality and intolerance in Iran is NOT ALL of Islam, just ban example of the worst.
There is a great book called "Radical: My Journey Out of Islamist Extremism" by Maajid Nawazth it may help YOU modify your beliefs against 1.5 billion followers of Islam.
And yes, I have met many Muslims who I don't believe would go and behead people, but the problem is that they are silent. They do not speak up. Try looking for a Facebook page for non-violent Islam. How about a fatwa from Islamic clerics that jihad is not acceptable?
Want to know one of the most compelling tales I read? It is the story of a man who spent twenty years in an Iranian jail because he converted to Christianity.
I would also note that it is not the people themselves that I object to, but the ideology. You'll never get me to believe that freedom comes by the sword.
https://www.facebook.com/MaajidNawazFanP...
From clerics on the Concept of Jihad and the statement it is an offensive Holy War :
"WHAT JIHAD IS NOT
Jihad is not a violent concept.
Jihad is not a declaration of war against other religions. It is worth noting that the Koran specifically refers to Jews and Christians as "people of the book" who should be protected and respected. All three faiths worship the same God. Allah is just the Arabic word for God, and is used by Christian Arabs as well as Muslims.
Military action in the name of Islam has not been common in the history of Islam. Scholars says most calls for violent jihad are not sanctioned by Islam. "
http://islamicsupremecouncil.org/underst...
http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/part...
&
The claim that "Military action in the name of Islam has not been common in the history of Islam" is simply nonsense. Mohammed himself forced the conversion of city after city in the region, and the entirety of the advance of the Islamic faith is one long story of persecution and bloodshed. The Arabs were first. Coptic Christians were slaughtered en masse. The Ottomans had their sights set on Eastern Europe until the Venitians and a few others destroyed an invading armada. Who were the original pirates of the 1800's who were raiding US shipping merchants and whose engagement led to the original Marines anthem line "to the shores of Tripoli"? That would be Islam again. The FBI's current list of terrorist organizations is dominated by Islamic groups. Then there are the recent regional conflicts created in Serbia/Bosnia, Israel, Sri Lanka, India, Africa, the Phillippines, and even Western China. Even Iran and Iraq went at it for thirty years over religious differences.
Again, are there Muslims who don't ascribe to violence? Certainly. But your arguments of the "peacefulness" of that religion are drowned out by the cries of 1600+ years of history. I will happily change my opinions - as soon as they all put down their weapons and renounce violence. I wish you success in that endeavor, but you'll pardon me for not holding my breath...
The USA "Intelligence Community" information on worldwide terrorism is more accurate : http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Intel...
Read "Jefferson's Quaran" t truly understand the founders and your shot at the pirates etc. As an Irish Catholic, I can tell you that the discussions with Protestants has not been altogether friendly through the decades.
We can look at over 2000 years of "peaceful" Christian warring as well. (The Inquisitions come to mind.)
My point is not that there are not Islamic nuts. My point is not all Moslems are radicals just like not all Catholic are pedophiles.
As to the list of terrorist groups, here's the one I refer to (the official government one), and 18 of the top twenty are Islamic groups:
http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/...
For the last time, if you want to persuade me that Islam is a religion of peace, SHOW ME. The recent beheadings here in the US aren't helping your cause one bit.
Ok, I'll just agree with you: Problems and violence of the world are because of Islam, Christianity is the answer and Jesus Christ is the savior and all your "facts" are from unbiased, factual, un-opinionated sources.
Your base assertion was that Islam is a peaceful religion. I produced a counter argument that not only the history, but the doctrine directly contradict your claim in refutation of your assertion. In support of your argument, you bring up individual editorials and articles which repeat your assertion. I applauded those individuals for their stances, but noted that the vast majority of action not only does not confirm your hypothesis, but directly contradicts it. It is not hate, but simple debate. It is test and observation.
And I would note that I haven't disagreed with you that the majority of Muslims are NOT extremists (the CIA estimates between 15% and 25% BTW). But when you are talking about 1.5 billion people (the more common figure is about 1.2 billion BTW), that is a LOT of nut-jobs - somewhere between 225 and 375 MILLION (according to your numbers)! That means that out of any group of Muslims, between 1 in seven and 1 in 4 is a radical! I don't know of any other philosophy or religion on earth with that kind of propensity for violence, do you? Well, I guess there's socialism...
A curious comment. Are there beheading s by Catholics and Jews that I missed in the media?
Its about entertainment not facts on BOTH sides. The Islamists are destroying the image of the religion, just as the Inquisitors did and the Zionists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo...