Is Islam really a religion of Peace?
In Islam, one of the five pillars of faith is the Shahadah. It is recited during prayer 5 times a day, and is enough to demonstrate that someone has 'come to the faith' or is 'of the faith.'
Jews and Christians are merely 'People of the Book,' and though Muhammad made clear that 'the Book' was pure and untainted, they certainly don't believe that now. And in spite of the Bible's untainted-ness-- in Muhammad's day, at least --it is clear that Islam places Muhammad above Jesus.
So let's compare Jesus' last words to His disciples to the average message of Muhammad to his disciples...
Jesus--
Muhammad--
A close reading of Surah 2 will tell you all you need to know about how confused Muslims are-- because of how confused Muhammad was --and we all know who the author of confusion is.
Another interesting source of information is here. Specifically points 4, 5 and 16...
So if the bible at the time of Muhammad was considered the true and accurate word of God, and Revelation marks the completion of God's revelation for mankind, why does Muhammad claim that God has given him a new revelation; one that he must preach to the people? God's revelation to mankind was and is complete in the book of Revelation. Period. Muhammad was duped by someone other than God, and the Qur'an therefore is actually the word of Satan. Not God.
I have no doubt that many many Muslims desire to live in peace with the world, but these Muslims all deny Allah by wishing such, and are therefore not good Muslims. Yet it is not these Muslims that worry me and every other common-sense driven westerner.
UPDATE I: Adding to the list of points from the USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts linked above...
So, on the one hand Muhammad is to be honored by having his name always mentioned with Allah, but on the other he is not to be praised as Christians praise Jesus. One of two things is going on here...
1) Muhammad knows he is not divine as was Jesus and fears God enough to not want to be praised as Christians praise the right and true son of God, or
2) Muhammad is saying that Christians are wrong to praise Jesus the way they do because Jesus was just a man, not the son of God, and Muhammad does not wish his disciple to fall into error-- As the Christians have.
UPDATE II: To forestall any objections as to what the Qur'an has to say about the Bible, here's an interesting article. Here's another article from the Muslim perspective, but consider honestly how these two contradict each other. One is obviously true, the other obviously not.
"There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet"
Jews and Christians are merely 'People of the Book,' and though Muhammad made clear that 'the Book' was pure and untainted, they certainly don't believe that now. And in spite of the Bible's untainted-ness-- in Muhammad's day, at least --it is clear that Islam places Muhammad above Jesus.
So let's compare Jesus' last words to His disciples to the average message of Muhammad to his disciples...
Jesus--
But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.Jesus sent his disciples out into the world to be a witness, not to war and kill.
Muhammad--
"Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you."In other words, 'Allah has ordained you for war, whether you like it or not.'
A close reading of Surah 2 will tell you all you need to know about how confused Muslims are-- because of how confused Muhammad was --and we all know who the author of confusion is.
Another interesting source of information is here. Specifically points 4, 5 and 16...
4. The (Shahadah) of Allah, the Exalted, is implemented by His Word and His Action, and His Support for His Messenger by victory, miracles, and various proofs that what he brought forth is the Pure Truth.
5. La ilaha illa Allah (There is no god but Allah) is the formula of Tawhid (Oneness) which all Messengers (peace be upon them all) agreed upon, rather it is the essence of their messages, and every Messenger made it the opening of his message and its pillar, as our Prophet (peace be upon him) said:
"I was ordered to fight people until they say La ilaha illa Allah, and if they say it, then they protect their blood and their property from me except for its dues, and Allah, The Almighty, The Supreme, will judge them." (Al-Bukhari and Muslim)
16. The Sunnah is the second source which Muslims must turn to in all their daily affairs after the Qur'an. Allah, The Exalted, confirmed that in the Qur'an as He said:
"Allah revealed unto you (Muhammad) the Scripture and Wisdom, and taught you that which you knew not." (an-Nissa' 4/113)
The Wisdom here referred to, means the Sunnah.
And He said:
"Our Lord! And raise up in their (the Arabs) midst a messenger from among them who shall recite unto them Your Revelations, and shall instruct them in the Scripture and in Wisdom..." (al-Baqarah 2/129) [Emphasis mine]
So if the bible at the time of Muhammad was considered the true and accurate word of God, and Revelation marks the completion of God's revelation for mankind, why does Muhammad claim that God has given him a new revelation; one that he must preach to the people? God's revelation to mankind was and is complete in the book of Revelation. Period. Muhammad was duped by someone other than God, and the Qur'an therefore is actually the word of Satan. Not God.
I have no doubt that many many Muslims desire to live in peace with the world, but these Muslims all deny Allah by wishing such, and are therefore not good Muslims. Yet it is not these Muslims that worry me and every other common-sense driven westerner.
UPDATE I: Adding to the list of points from the USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts linked above...
6. And making the shahadah (testimony) for the Messenger (peace be upon him) of the Risalah (Message) and the 'Ubudiyah (Servitude to Allah and worshiping Him) connected with the Testimony of the Oneness of Allah, to indicate that both of them must be mentioned together, and no one of them takes the place of the other, for this they were connected in adhan (the call for prayers) and at-tashahhud (the testimony). Some people interpreted the verse,
"And We exalted your name." (al-Inshirah 94/4) as: "Whenever I am mentioned you will be mentioned with Me."
[...]
Also, in the sound hadith, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said:
"Do not praise me as the Christians praised The Son of Mary (Jesus), indeed, I am only a human being, so, say; 'The 'Abd of Allah and His Messenger'."
So, on the one hand Muhammad is to be honored by having his name always mentioned with Allah, but on the other he is not to be praised as Christians praise Jesus. One of two things is going on here...
1) Muhammad knows he is not divine as was Jesus and fears God enough to not want to be praised as Christians praise the right and true son of God, or
2) Muhammad is saying that Christians are wrong to praise Jesus the way they do because Jesus was just a man, not the son of God, and Muhammad does not wish his disciple to fall into error-- As the Christians have.
UPDATE II: To forestall any objections as to what the Qur'an has to say about the Bible, here's an interesting article. Here's another article from the Muslim perspective, but consider honestly how these two contradict each other. One is obviously true, the other obviously not.
from the mind of... Eric | 10:28 AM
39 Comments:
And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them...
Deuteronomy 7:16
My point here would not be that God really tells us in the Bible to go around killing people and having no pity upon them, but that you can pick verses out that seem to suggest that.
Neither is my point to say that Islam is a religion of peace.
My point is that there are Muslims and Christians who advocate violence-as-solution in various circumstances and there are Muslims and Christians who believe in working for peace in more peaceable manner.
I don't know the numbers of each, I don't know of anyone who does. I DO know that at least one global survey I've read indicated that only 5% of Muslims believed in terrorism as an acceptable way to deal with problems.
From what I read from Muslims, they don't tend to see the Qu'ran as advocating random violence, even if there are some verses that seem to indicate that (just as there are plenty of bloodthirsty verses in the Bible). Violence is NOT central to normal Islamic teaching.
And again, I'd ask us not to bear false witness.
I'm comparing the words of Jesus to the words of Muhammad. Please leave Deuteronomy out of it. It has no bearing here.
"I DO know that at least one global survey I've read indicated that only 5% of Muslims believed in terrorism as an acceptable way to deal with problems."
If that survey were accurate and Islam is indeed a religion of peace, then the 95%ers would be rising up to put their mis-guided brethren down!
Islam is a religion of oppression and extreme violence--the data...or lack thereof... proves it!
Did 95% of the Christian right rise up to put down Eric Rudolph, a Christian terrorist?
No- to quote Wikipedia:
"It is thought that Rudolph had the assistance of sympathizers while evading capture. Some in the area were vocal in support of him. Two country music songs were written about him and a locally top-selling T-shirt read: "Run Rudolph Run." Many Christian Identity adherents are outspoken in their support of Rudolph; the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish civil rights group, notes that "extremist chatter on the Internet has praised Rudolph as 'a hero' and some followers of hate groups are calling for further acts of violence to be modeled after the bombings he is accused of committing."
Religious killers come in all denominations.
I'd say that 95% of Christian CONDEMNED Eric Rudolph and would have refused to aid him in his flight from justice, Sol.
Unlike the 95% of Islamists who not only stay silent, but also accomodate the 5%!
Think things through, Dude!
What you're suggesting is that the vast majority of Christains condoned his actions when the very quotation from WIKI you produced supports the fact that ONLY A FEW supported him.
Look at Isalm and its actions towards its 5%!
It's historically CLEAR that at least the vast majority of the Islamist's 95% DO support the 5%.
Twist things however you want in your quest to distort reality, Sol. But the facts--TRUTH will always be there to prove you wrong!
Strawman--I've been accused by the left of using strawman arguments (ones that can easily be proven if I cared to list examples) by those who RELY on strawman arguments (ones that can easily be proven to be strawman arguments) to support their positions.
Read that, Dan?
Dang, I've missed you Daddio!
;)
"If that survey were accurate and Islam is indeed a religion of peace, then the 95%ers would be rising up to put their mis-guided brethren down!"
Actually, on 9/12, I'd say that 95% of the world was with us, condemning the terrorism of 9/11.
Then Bush starting talking about a "crusade" against "islamofascists" and invaded a muslim country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and then we supported Israel bombing the hell out of Lebanese citizens and, well, people are reluctant to side with someone that seems intent on wiping them out.
Perception, D.
Some Muslims DO condemn terrorism. But Bush is making the terrorists into martyrs and their cause just by his language and by his actions and that makes Muslims reluctant to side with Bush.
Was Eric Rudolph a Christian?
Timothy McVeigh was a Christian? Really?
The difference between being a Christian and being a Muslim, generally speaking, is that Christians are born again, spiritually, into the family of God, whereas Muslims are born into their faith. Not everyone who calls themself a Christian is a Christian, but can the same be said for Muslims?
Besides which, the invoking of McVeigh and Rudolph point to a mind willing to excuse whatever false religion Christians choose to speak out against. Any genuine Christian would tell you that Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph were NOT Christian, regardless of any claims they may have made, or were made for them by Liberal Media.
And Dan, with respect, I have not bore false witness on anyone in my post. In point of fact, it is Muhammad who has borne false witness. If you actually took the time to read the Qur'an you'd find more mentions of violence and injustice than you would peace and Justice. Which only makes true the verse, "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways"
I will happily join you in defending Muslims who reject violence, despite the fact that their religion is suffused with it, but I will not see the truth of what Islam is, as bearing false witness. the fact is, Islam is a false religion. If I call it such, I have told the truth.
Truth... Not false witness.
Back to Solomon-- See if you can debate the issue raised in the post itself without resorting to baseless and pointless arguments... Namely, McVeigh and Rudolph-- They are neither relevant nor valid arguments here. The subject is Muhammad and Islam, not individual terrorists like Muhammad Atta, Bin Laden, Yasser Arafat, Sheikh Nasrallah, Maumoud Ahmadinejad.....yada, yada, yada....
"Unlike the 95% of Islamists who not only stay silent, but also accomodate the 5%!"
Right on, Daddio. My point exactly.
Let's all pray for and support those willing to go into Muslim countries to spread the Gospel. Many of the people who live under the yolk of Islam yearn for somethig better. But let's not let down our guard simply because not all Muslims desire to kill us. Our guard is up because of the 5-10% who do!
Lastly, if Islam is such a great peaceful religion, can anyone name me one Muslim country where people are yearning to get in to live that great and wonderful Muslim life? Why are so many Muslims looking to move to western nations? Could it be they seek to escape oppression? Sadly, too many of the 5-10% who want to spread Islam at the barrel of a gun are also emigrating to the west.
Which is why we choose to keep our guard up.
Get real, people! Islam is about Submission to the will of Allah, not peace, and certainly not to God Almighty. Which is why it's a good thing that missionaries are trying to bring the lost trapped in Islam to the light, knowledge and salvation that is found ONLY in Christ.
It's all George Bush's fault, right, Dan?
GAWD!
Islam supports its most radical factions because George Bush is a bad guy, Right, Dan?
GAWD!
Good points about Rudolph and Mcveigh, EL!
And my point remains: many professed Christians defended Rudolph simply because he was himself a professed Christian who bombed abortion clinics, gay nightclubs, and the Olympics to protest US policies on abortions and homosexuality. I don't remember hearing anyone on the Christian Right denouncing Rudolph at the time.
What I'm trying to say is not that Christians are bad. It's that there's plenty of violence and hypocricy to go around, and if you want to tar the image of all of Islam based on the actions of a minority of muslims, the same can be done from the other side.
There are undoubtedly far more violent Muslim extremists in the world today than violent Christian extremists. During the golden age of Islam and the dark ages of Christianity, the opposite was true. Both religions have inspired their share of bloodshed by misguided followers throughout history.
"I don't remember hearing anyone on the Christian Right denouncing Rudolph at the time."
You obviously weren't listening. It was loud and clear in every Christian circle I stuck my nose into.
"...and if you want to tar the image of all of Islam based on the actions of a minority of muslims..."
Islam's image is tarred by the very fact that it is a false religion. Every terrorist threat we hear about today is being plotted or executed by the 'peaceful' adherents of Islam, and the remaining 'peaceful' Muslims aren't doing enough to speak out against it. More often than not you'll find them dancing in the streets or holding protest signs declaring those who insult Islam should have their heads cut off. Tell me... Where can you find the equal to that in Christendom?
"During the golden age of Islam and the dark ages of Christianity, the opposite was true."
You're a poor student of history. Islam invaded Europe in an effort to subjugate all the world beneath the boot of Muhammad and his Idol, the false god, Allah. They made it as far as Austria in the east and France in the south before they were repelled. Atrocities occurred on both sides, no doubt, but to say 'the opposite was true' is, in fact, false. Nice try though.
"I don't remember hearing anyone on the Christian Right denouncing Rudolph at the time."
I do! I remember pastors--including Falwell and other fundamentalists--making a point to go on the news-shows and talk-show circuit to denounce his actions. I remember it VERY clearly!
Get your facts straight, Sol. Besides--I did not support his actions nor do I support any such actions today.
Like EL said: Try again!
"...and if you want to tar the image of all of Islam based on the actions of a minority of muslims..."
They are tarring their own image by condoning and accomodating the violence, Sol. And by not sending out their mullahs and clerics to reassure the world of their peaceful nature! It ain't happening--I must assume they are partners in crime!
C,mon, Man!
Only 5% of Muslims think terrorism is acceptable? Thank again...
Muslim Thinking
"You obviously weren't listening. It was loud and clear in every Christian circle I stuck my nose into."
And could it be perhaps that you haven't heard Muslims criticizing terrorism, just as Solomon didn't hear Christians criticizing Rudolph? Just a little possible?
On a bit of a tangent...
I wonder if this same debate is going on in reverse in Arabic... or Persian... maybe in Egypt or Morocco or Iran... with some wimp saying "not all Christians are like that" and questioning whether it's really such a good idea for Iran to get the bomb.
And others saying "what do you mean? They slaughtered us by the thousands in the Crusades! They have troops in half of our countries! Christians invaded Iraq at the beginning of the 20th Century claiming to be liberators and now they're in there again! And in Afghanistan! And they support brutal regimes as long as they're friendly to the USA! Of course all Christians want to kill Muslims and rule the middle East! We had a democratically elected prime minister in Iran and the CIA overthrew him and installed a dictator! These people can't be trusted!"
And the guy keeps saying "no, really, I understand how you feel, but it just looks that way! I know some Christians and they're actually nice people! The Bible has some nasty parts, but mostly it's about love! They just feel threatened by terrorists and are acting totally understandably, even if some of their actions are wrong. Look, I'm not condoning their actions, but I don't blame them for being freaked out by Ahmadinejad. He's crazy! He's giving us all a bad name."
I know just how that geeky guy feels...
Thank you Solomon. Nicely said.
and no, that's not sarcasm
Along that same line-- False religion is in eye, and heart, of the beholder. One truth remains incontrovertable in the face of it... we'll all who's right and who's not in the end. For myself, I have no reason to believe I'm wrong... and I'm sure muslims feel the same way.
Dan-- I'll concede that point, but it's hard to dismiss all those images of men dancing in the street, the firing of weapons for joy, the ululation of women, and children jostling one another to smile for the cameras. It's hard to dismiss protest marches here and abroad where the signs and placards read "Death to unbelievers" "Off with their heads for Insulting Islam". It's hard to dismiss the body of Theo van Gogh laying dead in the street. What other images, what other speeches made by Muslim leaders, has Media given us by which to judge otherwise?
Except THEY are threatening the US and Israel with annihilation while all we want to do is live in relative peace and allow them to do the same as long as they do not threaten us.
THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE!
Dan, I watch several news outlets daily. I have not heard more than TWO Muslims and NO leaders of the faith condemn the actions of Iran, Hezbollah, or Al-Quaeda.
I stand by my statement and challenge you to prove that a majority of Muslims truly condemn the acts of the terrorists who claim to represent the faith!
I'll be waiting for you proof. Mind you--my beard-hair is already graying so don't take too long compiling your database of proof!
A reasonable person can gleen more from what ISN'T being said by Muslims than what is--that's plain, undeniable fact!
Our State Dept:
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/
display.html?p=washfile-english&y=
2005&m=December&x=20051212123121ndyblehs0.
7161066&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html
CAIR:
href="http://www.cair-net.org/html/
911statements.html
Asia Times report:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/
GH05Ak02.html
Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
content/article/2005/07/27/AR2005072702082.
html
I could go on and on...That last article's topic is "US Muslim Scholars to Forbid Terrorism"
So could you if you just do a search on the topic, listen to what Muslims are saying.
Oh, I SEE! To hear condemnation from the terrorist adoring Muslim world, we have to go ask--right?
Do go on and on, Dan. Add to your very inadequate reprsentation of Islam as a whole.
I'll be waiting. You proven nothing.
CAIR !?!
CAIR Labels Israel a Terrorist State
CAIR: Anything But the Truth
The Truth Abour CAIR and Terrorism
So, you don't like CAIR. Regardless, they area Muslim organization that has criticized terrorism. Along with many, many others. Y'all claimed that the muslim community has been silent on terrorism and that is not the fact. I'd think you'd at least acknowledge that at least some lip service has been paid by Muslims against terrorism.
Lip service is ALL the Islamic community has paid!
Lip service ain't Sheeee-it!
I could go pull up a dozen CAIR stories that indicate the organization's support for terrorist organizations like Hezbollah.
But I won't. I know the proof is there. I won't waste my time because I know the truth will be dismissed as usual.
I had a minute to kill and in this brief time I found the following at Middle East Quarterly:
SPRING 2006 • VOLUME XIII: NUMBER 2
CAIR: Islamists Fooling the Establishment
by Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha
Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2006
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), headquartered in Washington, is perhaps the best-known and most controversial Muslim organization in North America. CAIR presents itself as an advocate for Muslims' civil rights and the spokesman for American Muslims. "We are similar to a Muslim NAACP," says its communications director, Ibrahim Hooper. Its official mission—"to enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding"—suggests nothing problematic.
Starting with a single office in 1994, CAIR now claims thirty-one affiliates, including a branch in Canada, with more steadily being added. In addition to its grand national headquarters in Washington, it has impressive offices in other cities; the New York office, for example, is housed in the 19-story Interchurch Center located on Manhattan's Riverside Drive.
But there is another side to CAIR that has alarmed many people in positions to know. The Department of Homeland Security refuses to deal with it. Senator Charles Schumer (Democrat, New York) describes it as an organization "which we know has ties to terrorism." Senator Dick Durbin (Democrat, Illinois) observes that CAIR is "unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations with groups that are suspect." Steven Pomerantz, the FBI's former chief of counterterrorism, notes that "CAIR, its leaders, and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups." The family of John P. O'Neill, Sr., the former FBI counterterrorism chief who perished at the World Trade Center, named CAIR in a lawsuit as having "been part of the criminal conspiracy of radical Islamic terrorism" responsible for the September 11 atrocities. Counterterrorism expert Steven Emerson calls it "a radical fundamentalist front group for Hamas."
Heck, Dan--even your liberal Democratic heroes call CAIR a supporter of terrorism!
"Except THEY are threatening the US and Israel with annihilation while all we want to do is live in relative peace and allow them to do the same as long as they do not threaten us."
Do you see how they might see it differently, D.Dad?
Imagine if history had played out differently, and the U.S. was relatively backward compared to a technologically advanced Middle East. Iran is the richest country in the world and has a military budget larger than all others combined. They have military bases and troops in almost every country in our hemisphere. They've invaded Canada and Mexico-one with good reason, the other because of mistaken (or fabricated, some say) intelligence about WMD's. They occupy both countries and have troops on our borders. We are saturated with news stories of Iranians torturing and humiliating Canadians.
In such a situation, could a fiery anti-Muslim candidate with nuclear ambitions win the presidency in the US?
In such a situation, would international threats against the US be met with defiance?
Would some in the US want to strike at the heart of the Islamic world, in hopes of driving the infidel out of our region?
I'm sure you wouldn't support blowing up their cities even in such an extreme scenario. But would you concede some misguided Americans might?
I meant troops or bases...
Also forgot to say: China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia are the only permanent members of the UN security council.
The 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council are the United States, Great Britain, France, the Soviet Union [aka Russia], and China. But then your list is obviously tailored to support your hypothetical.
As to said hypothetical: Isn't it a bit pointless to suggest it since it has no bearing whatsoever on present conditions in THIS universe? Granted, it's illustrative in that it shows how perceptions could change given different circumstances, but the hypothetical you offer does nothing to advance the debate, or address the issues raised therein. In short, it is profitless.
It's also a diversion-- A deception --designed to draw attention away from what's real; what's actually happening. I don't believe this is your intent, but there are certainly others out there who would love nothing better than to divert America's attention from what is really going on in the world. And to say Iraq is NOT a legitimate front in the War of Terror has not been paying attention to what the other side has been saying.
Looking at the world and where it is headed, who wouldn't want peace? The question I pose-- another diversion, admittedly --is: What must we sacrifice to have peace? For no peace comes without sacrifice. What will make the Jihadis stop their Global War of Freedom?
What if America promised to genuinely convert to Islam, put all our women in burqas, and institute Sharia Law. Would that do the trick? What if we also took the war mongers Bush, Rumsfeld, et al, and publically executed them, would that satisfy the Imams and Jihadis? Would they then end their Global War on Freedom? Of course they would. The question you need to ask yourself [That every American needs to ask themselves] is: Are we willing to pay that high a price? Can you imagine Lindsey Lohan, Paris Hilton, Susan Sarandon, Hillary Clinton, or Helen Thomas all wearing burqas? What Hollywood or Washington socialite would agree to such? [The image of Helen Thomas in a burqa just struck me as frighteningly funny...]
A diversion to be sure, but this is the Jihadis' ultimate goal-- It is written in the Qur'an, and for Muslims it's Gospel! --and whether they represent only 5 or 10% of the Muslim world is irrelevant. The remaining 90-95% are doing nothing substantive to stop it.
Therefore we must.
As painful as sticking it out may ultimately be, what other HONEST choice is there?
As to the question posed in this post's title... "No, Islam is NOT a religion of peace." NO honest read of the Qur'an would show it to be.
All due respect, most Muslims couldn't care less if our women wear burquas or not.
It is fear and anger that drives the attacks.
I'm not condoning or excusing anything. But we must understand our enemy. Saying this is a "war on freedom" is silly.
Many terrorist attacks in Iraq are against different Muslim factions- as much political as religious.
Kurds are Muslims, yet they love the USA. They're much more likely to attack other political groups they feel threatened by.
I'm not sure what you mean by "stick it out." But obviously Bush's invasion of Iraq hasn't made us any safer. He handed Al Queda the best recruiting tool they could have asked for, and weakened our hand with Iran.
We need new thinking. From all sides, including conservative. Here's a good example of a sober assessment by Reagan's secretary of the Navy. He leaves the empty slogans of Bush behind.
Maybe if Bush had listened to other voices before, we wouldn't be in this mess so deep. Maybe he should start listening now.
"If, if, if, if, if, if..."
What are we going to do now?
NOW!.
As to "anger and fear," aside from anger, what did the jihadis fear when they killed Israeli athletes in Munich? What did the jihadis fear when they tossed wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer over the side of the Achille Lauro? What did the jihadis fear when they killed 230+ marines in their barracks? What did the jihadis fear when they shot children in the back at Beslan? What did the jihadis fear in 1979 when they took over the American Embassy in Iran? What did jihadis fear when they blew up Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie Scotland? What did jihadis fear when they tried to blow up the WTC... the first time? What did jihadis fear when they successfully destroyed the twin towers and a corner of the Pentagon flying weapons of mass destruction on 9-11? What did jihadis fear when they captured a single Israeli soldier and spirited him away to Gaza? What did jihadis fear when they captured two more and carted them off to Lebanon? What did jihadis fear when they attacked tourists in Egypt spraying automatic weapons fire into.... you guessed it... Tourists? What did jihadis fear when they attacked two Indonesian Christian school girls and beheaded them? What did the Jihadis fear? What? What? What?
WHAT?
Evil is evil-- I don't care who performs it. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop rationalizing [Defending] the evil suffused in the false bastard religion of Islam.
I'm not rationalizing (read: condoning). I'm trying to get into their heads so we can defeat their ideology.
In that case please forgive the outburst.
My own take on 'Defeating Ideologies':
"The only way to kill an idea is to replace it with another idea."
--Me
Amen, and amen, and amen, brother El. Preach that kind of gospel!
Nice. Survival of the fittest, eh?
;)
And to expound:
"The only way to kill an idea is to replace it with another idea."
You're right. If we try to blast the few Muslims who embrace terrorism (and those around them), we will only spread the disease, not end it. If, on the other hand, we befriend Muslims, show them better ways, demonstrate that we are not above the law ourselves, not engaging in evil ourselves, that we only want to stop "bad guys" not invade sovereign nations, THIS is how we begin the process of idea replacement.
We know that no number of blasts and bombs and deaths would ever kill our ideals, rather they'd only reinforce them and strengthen our resolve against the attackers.
We must act in wisdom, not in weapons, to stop terrorism.
Acting with wisdom would be to recognize that time is not on our side; the enemy is growing and on the march. Acting with wisdom would also necessitate recognizing that ideas require time to take root.
Thanks to the Democratic Party and Liberal Ideals we wouldn't be negotiating from a position of strength, and the enemy knows it. The West has no stomach for 'The Hard Thing.' And the enemy knows it.
Again, it's not the 90-95% percent we need to be worried about. It's not the 90-95% that's trying to destroy western civilization. But until that 90-95% rises up in defiance of the 5-10, the West has no choice but to do it for them.
Let's plant Wal Marts, Burger Kings, Olive Gardens, Targets, and Comcast Offices all across their ruined landscapes. Let's take radical hatred and indoctrination out of their thrid-world classrooms, and teach science, history, math, and communication skills. Let's give what remains a sense of hope for life beyond the squallor of a sixth century mindset. Then let's send in our missionaries, and give them the assurance of salvation they DON'T have in Islam... Bet you didn't know that about Islam. They have no assurance that they will enter into heaven. Only a martyr is ushered, guaranteed, into paradise. Hence, the rush of volunteers to blow themselves up in crowded falafel restaurants. For all their strict adherence and devotion to Allah, they have no sure hope of going to heaven when they die. It all depends of the capriciousness of a god who isn't God. So yes, let's send in our missionaries, but AFTER.
If we don't defend ourselves. If we don't act to prevent their victory over the West, we will have the blood of untold millions on our hands. And not just Western blood, but the blood of Muslims who will inevitably suffer beneath the oppressive yolk of the Mullahs and Ayatollahs... Oh, but wait... that's already happening, isn't it?
Can we skip the Wal Mart-Burger King-Olive Garden part?
;)
Post a Comment
<< Home