The Realities of Unchanging Islam, Part 1
Guest Posting by Ali Dashti
The author, a long-time student of Middle East politics, is a new guest author on Rossputin.com. He or she has chosen this pseudonym as a tribute to a man who, even though he was in his eighties, was tortured and killed for speaking truthfully about Mohammed and Islam. A pseudonym is regrettably necessary as the author does not care to have to listen to any prevarication by Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR. Nor does he or she wish to be burned in effigy. The necessity of this should be obvious to any Dane who has recently witnessed the rationality of the Muslim reaction to even mild criticism.
[For those of you not fully up to date on the Adbul Rahman situation, read THIS STORY from the Washington Times.]
The Muslim world seems to finally have crossed a line that riles most Americans. They want to execute a Christian. Normally that would not be a big deal here, Texans do it all the time. But in this case the crime that is so deserving of capital punishment is nothing more than being a Christian after being born Muslim.
Thousands of pages have been written about this. The masses are being roused. Heads of State are speaking out. The western world is beginning to show its outrage. And it is serious. You can tell it is because CAIR has slithered out to spin a new yarn about Islam.
Ibrahim Hooper rushed out a press release trying to show Islam as a tolerant religion. He even quoted a few texts. Interestingly he neglected in several cases to quote the whole text. He decided to leave out the parts about the unbelievers burning in hell. He also neglected the parts of the Quran that call for the killing of unbelievers in rather graphic terms.
This whole affair will probably pass. If the Afghanis have what alcoholics call “a moment of clarity” and forego executing Rahman they can probably live to oppress another day without too much ire on the part of the U.S. But if they go through with the execution the whole Muslim world may have a much larger problem. Oppressing women, killing unbelievers and running the most regressive societies on the face of the earth is the core of the Muslim world. The core tenets of the west revolve around freedom. It is even safe to say that freedom is the heart of the religion of the west. Freedom of religion is sacrosanct. This is true even of most atheists.
Over 80% of Americans consider themselves to be Christians to a greater or lesser degree. Exactly 100 percent of Americans are indoctrinated from birth in the religion of freedom. This belief is even enshrined in the First Amendment of the most sacred document of our civil religion. Freedom defines who we are.
Just as freedom define the west, the actions of Islam defines Muslims. When we see a country oppressing someone as viciously as Rahman is being oppressed in Afghanistan we search for some PC way to define it away. The multi-culti indoctrination that is so common today in America has caused us to try and impose our tolerant view upon everyone. This “tolerance” is instead of looking at them as who they really are, the way they define themselves.
If we look at the actions of Afghani Muslims as defined by Islam it is clear that they are just being themselves. THIS IS WHO MUSLIMS ARE!!! They are not a religion of peace. They are not a religion of tolerance. The Quran is not a book of peace and does not preach tolerance. It is just not there.
Muslims are very clear about who they are. They are a backward people, who create nothing, are not capable of even producing enough food to feed themselves, and yet are intent and driven on imposing their dangerous worldview upon all of humanity. Their actions make this clear. At present Muslims are killing Christians and Buddhists in Thailand in an effort to take over large parts of the countryside. If it were not for oil the world would ignore the entire Muslim world. The only time they would attract notice is when they needed to be slapped.
The west has willingly blinded themselves to the threats that the Muslim world screams out. The combination of a need for oil and the idiocy of multiculturalism have caused us to ignore and gloss over the fact that Muslims actively call for and strive for our destruction. Consider this excerpt from a sermon in a Saudi Mosque in Mecca. It was delivered September 26, 2002.
If the infidels live among the Muslims, in accordance with the conditions set out by the Prophet—there is nothing wrong with it provided they pay Jizya (a sort of tax on infidels) to the Islamic treasury. Other conditions are…that they do not renovate a church or a monastery, do not rebuild ones that were destroyed, that they feed for three days any Muslim who passes by their homes…that they rise when a Muslim wishes to sit, that they do not imitate Muslims in dress and speech, nor ride horses, nor own swords, nor arm themselves with any kind of weapon: that they do not sell wine, do not show the cross, do not ring church bells, do not raise their voices during prayer, that they shave their hair in front so as to make them more easily identifiable, do not incite anyone against the Muslims and do not strike a Muslim…If they violate these conditions they have no protection.”
The perverse multi-culturalist desire to explain away other cultures evil actions refers us to the so-called “moderate” Muslims. We are told that the fanatics are few in number but that we should appeal to the moderates. Where the hell are they? Why are the “moderate” Muslims not out there denouncing those parts of the Quran that call for killings and oppression? Why are they not out in the street burning bhurkas, demanding that women be treated fairly, with dignity and respect? Why are they not out there overthrowing the brutal despots who make up their governmental and religious leaders? It is because few if any really exist.
Islam is not so much a religion as much as it is an ideology of oppression and plunder sprinkled with a large doses of sexual abuse and humiliation. It only takes looking at the Quran and the Hadith (sayings of the Prophet) to see that there are none of the moral tenets found in any of the other world’s other major faiths. But there are multiple calls for the destruction, plunder and oppression of other people for material and sexual gain.
Maybe the death (or even the near-death) of Mr. Rahman will wake people up to the fact that Islam is not your friendly religion next door. That the Quran has nothing like the “Golden Rule”. Maybe his punishment will cause people to see that Islam is a cult of blood, fire and death. But then again, if history is any guide to the west’s ability to learn, probably not.
This is part one of a multi-part series. Next (probably Monday) we will look at statements made by very credible people about Islam over the past several hundred years. It will show that while the world has advanced on every front, Islam has not moved beyond the 7th century.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Rossputin on 03/24/06 at 03:07:00 am . Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. |
Yours truly
-
Following Obama's Economic Policies
Facebook NetworkedBlogs
XML Feeds
03/24/06 @ 11:20:25 am
Assume Americans accepted your premise that “Islam is a cult of blood, fire and death”; what lessons do you want us to learn? (I asked this honestly and not facetiously.) Most Americans already fear Muslims. The calls for tolerance come from a minority in the West, just as acts of violence come from a minority in the Islamic world. Of the almost two billion Muslims in the world, most have never acted criminally in the name of their religion. Even if they do not speak out against the violence, Muslims have broken no laws until they support, advance, or collaborate with others in such acts. Their responsibility goes no further than any other citizen on the planet. The Quran contains many hateful passages but the Bible does as well. Readers of these books must understand that these words no longer apply literally. Those who act aggressively in the name of religion (or any cause) should pay the consequences set forth by civilized society. Muslims should believe, without retribution, whatever they choose to believe, the same as Christians, Jews, or even Nazis. If they act or plan to act on the violent words in their religious teachings or incite others to do so, then and only then, the world should labor assiduously to punish the perpetrators for their crimes but not for their beliefs.
03/24/06 @ 08:36:52 pm
For a man who advocates rational thinking, you don't seem to practice what you preach. Some Muslims just like any other nation are ignorent and act like sheep. This applies to people across the planet. It is true everywhere. There are many such Christians, Jews, Budhists , etc. It is human nature. The few are able to think outside the box and question the status quo. If you wish to critisize Islam, feel free to do so with honesty. The Quran does order Muslims to fight and kill their enemies. No Muslim will deny that nor should they apologize for it. However, if you take things out of context that is like changing the whole meaning. In fact, if you take a look at the bible, it has much more violent content than the Quran does. Yet you never hear anything about that. You critisize Islam, yet no one talks about the atrocities the US army commits across the globe. Just like you say "Over 80% of Americans consider themselves to be Christians to a greater or lesser degree" So does that mean Christians are all war mongerers too? Is it fair to say that all Catholics are child molesters?
The answer is of course not. The same applies to Islam. The message is Islam is sound, practical and DENOUNCES aggression. However, it does encourage standing up for yourself.
Feel free to contact me for any clarification about the Quran.
03/24/06 @ 10:46:31 pm
Faisal,
I notice that on your blog you say, "I see no proper representation of Islam out there." Since non-Muslims do not represent Islam I take it you are saying that the 1.5 billion Muslims "out there" do not properly represent Islam. Then who does? You?
What is written in the Koran and Bible are concepts we carry around in our heads. Those books don't represent Islam and Christianity. In the real world, a religion is not represented so much by it's sacred texts as it is by the actions and attitudes of its adherents. Maybe the Bible is a more violent may be a more violent book than the Koran but the fact is that nowhere on the globe do groups of Christians in the west wish to kill people for their religious beliefs. On the contrary. "Freedom is the heart of the religion of the west. Freedom of religion is sacrosanct." On the other hand, submission to Islam is the heart of the religion of Islam.
Only in Islamic countries do governments, clerics and people in general represent Islam as the Religion of Bigotry. Islam is the greatest practitioner of gender and religious apartheid in the world today.
Can't you see how backwards and degraded the Islamic world has been made by these fundamentalist idiots?
We owe the European Renaissance in part to a Muslim philosopher, Averroes. He was celebrated in Europe, even appearing in Raphael's painting "The School of the Philosophers. But in the dar-al-Islam he was marginalized, persecuted, placed under house arrest and died in obscurity. Had the Islamic world shown the good sense then to embrace Averroes' basic premise of the separation of religion and science (ie. mosque and state) we would all be speaking Arabic today. Instead Islam rejected Freedom of Speech, Thought and Religion and began a nine century slide into oblivion.
Since so many of them vote with their feet and come here to the west, many Muslims obviously realize the west is superior to the backwater religion and culture they left behind. After all, you and I are not communicating via computer because of Islam. The technological advances we enjoy in the west were developed in spite of Islam.
03/25/06 @ 08:36:32 am
Mike,
I found your comment interesting and I thought it worth a reply.
In the first place, I’ve read several sacred scriptures from various religions – as I’m sure you have. I’ve read the Bible (OT & NT, Septuagint & Later adaptations), the Koran, the Baghavad Gita, and the Book of Mormon. The Koran stands out for a CONSISTENT theme of violence, intolerance, and hatefulness. The New Testament of the Bible and the Bahavad Gita are probably the two whose themes are the most peaceful.
I thus find your comment that “the Quran contains many hateful passages but the Bible does as well” to be very misleading. It’s hard for me to find hateful passages in the Bible, although there are some violent ones in the OT; these rise to neither the level of consistency nor the level of hate of the Koran. The NT (or the Baghavad Gita) is completely devoid of this.
And while it’s true that Christians (and Jews, and Hindus, and all human beings) have committed some ugly things against other groups (although in the case of Christians primarily against other Christians!), Muslims have been on an unending war path against all other religions since Mohammed fought his own, early battles of intolerance.
Ever been to Mount Sinai? I have. There’s an ancient Greek Orthodox monastery on top of it – been there since about the fourth century. When the scourge of Islam threatened it, the monks sent an emissary to Mecca to negotiate peaceful treatment. You know what the leaders of the nascent “religion of peace” agreed to? They would not demolish the monastery nor kill the monks if a mosque were built next to the church (on the monastery ground) and the minaret maintained at all times higher than the bell tower. But the monks counted themselves lucky – most other Christians in the area were unceremoniously slaughtered or converted at sword’s edge.
Ever read the letters from Jerusalem to Rome asking for military help when the Muslims conquered modern-day Israel? Blood curdling, mostly truthful, and the trigger for the much maligned crusades.
Your question “what lessons do you want us to learn?” is a good one, however.
I think there are several lessons that must be learned, to wit:
1. Western civilization is the basis for American and European culture and is nothing to be embarrassed or apologetic about. Immigration should be throttled to allow newcomers to adapt to it (and there’s not a problem with quotas on country of origin based on the immigrants’ ability to integrate).
2. Muslims should be free to practice their religion but when (a few, as you point out) they commit acts of violence we can’t allow cries of tolerance to cow us into making any justification of it. Rather, they need to be unambiguously condemned.
3. Fundamental Islam is (unlike Fundamental Christianity, Orthodox Catholicism, Orthodox Judaism, or Hasidic Judaism) incompatible with life in a Western democracy. There should be no problem pointing it out, even while not suppressing it. Just as there’s no problem pointing out that the KKK is an unacceptable organization even while we allow it to exist. By pointing it out, you show the emperor has no clothes and you allow the marketplace of ideas to function. If you fail to do that, you disable an important mechanism in the workings of Western democracy and undermine it just as much as terrorist acts.
4. Certain countries are clearly at war with Western culture. We need to deal with them appropriately (for instance, Syria should have been leveled for the attacks on the Danish embassy which were clearly government supported and clearly acts of war). Appeasement does not work; the Roman saying si vis pacem, para bellum is still applicable to the modern world.
03/25/06 @ 09:16:23 am
Faisal:
First, for the record, as the original posting notes, I did not write it. However, I am in agreement with nearly all of it.
Now, to your points:
Your comments giving moral equivalence to Islam and other religions by saying that both the Quran and the Bible both have "violent content" are absolutely fallacious.
Yes, all such writings have some scenes or descriptions of violence. But not only is the Quran the only one to "order (its adherents) to fight and kill their enemies", it also defines everyone who is not muslim as an enemy.
Your statement that Islam "denounces aggression" is soundly trounced by the realities of every day news.
Even the so-called moderate muslim organizations are much more apologists for the "misunderstood" violent acts of their co-religionists than they are any moderating or criticizing force.
Now, as to your web site:
As a friend of mine likes to say, thanks for being my point.
Here are some quotes from your site:
"No wonder the US sends soldiers to kill heartlessly all over the planet."
Regarding the Danish cartoon violence: "To prove your true intentions that the west is FREE to speak. Then get those "Damn Muslims" to shut up ... Go ahead and insult the rest of the worlds nations. Practice what your preach.....Just Apologize to the Muslims and outlaw Media outlets that incite hatred."
Are you really that blinded by your religion to think this is about keeping muslims quiet? No, it's about keeping muslims from burning buildings and killing people. And for the records, the most "offensive" cartoons used by the Danish muslims to foment the violence were made up by them, and were not in the Danish press. Furthermore, some of the cartoons in the Danish press had been printed in Egyptian newspapers without any violent reaction.
You and your brethren at CAIR are a primary reason why I and other people who had no prior reason to dislike or distrust muslims or islam are coming to realize that the idea of "moderate" islam is largely a myth. We are fortunate that what seems to be the only real population of mostly non-violent muslims are those in America. Probably because they realize America is a land of freedom and opportunity, and not the Great Satan.
Again, nobody is trying to "shut muslims up". We are not hypocritical about freedom of speech. We simply will not accept violence as a reaction; arson and murder are not speech. Until there is a substantial muslim population standing up and saying that instead of leaving it to everyone else to say, no rational person will easily find any redeeming quality in islam.
03/25/06 @ 10:56:26 am
Freak,
Your points are well taken. My major issue with the author's piece was the seemingly blanket condemnation of Islam. I fear a self-fulling prophecy will occur. Peaceful Muslims may eventually become violent if fundamentalists can convince them that the West damns Islam and aims to destroy Muslims. Many Muslims feel America is attacking Islam right now in Iraq. They see their violent actions as no different than, or even in response to, our aggression. They would ask Americans to unambiguously condemn the war. To some degree, it is a matter of perspective. We see ourselves as right to go into Iraq but many others do not. This does not mean I apologize for the violent actions of Muslim terrorists nor do I support tolerance of such acts. Yet disparaging all of Islam only exacerbates the problem. As you said, "Muslims must be free to practice their religion." Beyond that, we must respond to violence and not apologize for it.
03/25/06 @ 12:14:04 pm
Mike
First of all, please do not take my words out of context either. Nor should you
misquote me. I said the bible has violent content. Here are some of it:
-----------------------------
Joshua 6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
1 Samuel 15:2 Thus saith the lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
1 Samuel 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
Joshua 10:29 Then Joshua passed from Makkedah, and all Israel with him, unto Libnah, and fought against Libnah: 10:30 And the lord delivered it also, and the king thereof, into the hand of Israel; and he smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that were therein; he let none remain in it; but did unto the king thereof as he did unto the king of Jericho.
-----------------------------
The Quran never advocates slaying a whole city/village.
Secondly, you claim that "The Koran stands out for a CONSISTENT theme of violence, intolerance, and hatefulness"
That is not true and only tells me that A: You haven't read the whole Quran. B: That you rely on biased resources to tell you what
the Quran says. Since the Quran is in classical Arabic, it is easily misinterpreted. It is also easily mistranslated. Most of the
the Egnlish translations of the Quran come from Non-Native Arabic speaking Scholars from Pakistan or India. The translations I have
seen are dependant on an 11th century interpretation of the Quran. Which of course was done by a men who are subject to error as much
as any other men.
It is funny where you get your facts from about Islam. In fact if you wish to see why and how Islam have treated Christianity in the
last 14 centruies all you have to do is travel through the Middle East, India, China and parts of Africa.
All of these areas still maintain a decent number of Christians who have lived there since before Islam came to be. However, if you look at your western nations
you will see that prior to recent Immigration. Only two religions were practiced those are Christianity and Judiasm.
"Ever read the letters from Jerusalem to Rome asking for military help when the Muslims conquered modern-day Israel? Blood curdling, mostly truthful, and the trigger for the much maligned crusades."
This shows another factual error. Since the Crusades didn't take place until the 11th century. Almost 350 years after Jerusalem was conquered. Had there been any of the violence
you claim, there wouldn't be any Jewish synagogues nor Christian Churches in Modern day Israel. In fact if you read Jewish history you will see that the Jews were persicuted and violently
oppressed by Christians and there is little mention of Muslim oppression compared by that of the Christians.
Moreover, Salah Il-Deen (Salladdin) is recorded in western history books as a resonable and fair man. Despite the fact that Arabic history books and Western ones do not match in historical events.
Now of to Western Civilization and culture. First of all just because you think it is good, doesn't mean that this has to be the culture that the whole world should follow. In fact that is called
emperialism. Second of all, if you sincerely believe that the United Stated in particular advocates freedom and human rights, you are mistaken. The United States and NOT Islam is the country with most
record of casualties in the past century and have a good head start for the 21st centruy. They have a bloody history of wars starting with WWI.
Here is a link which falls short of many bombings like Libya and intervention in Lebanon.
http://americanhistory.about.com/library/timelines/bltimelineuswars.htm
All you need to do is look at that link and see that what you hate about your version of Islam is exactly what the United States is doing now. The only differenc is that in the US the can't kill and
say we love killing. They have to kill and make up an excuse for it like WMD or Communist oppression.
03/25/06 @ 01:01:20 pm
Faisal,
Where do you stand on the trial of Adbul Rahman? Do you believe executing or even punishing a person for converting to another religion has any legal or moral justification? Do you support the violence resulting from the publication of cartoons? You must either condemn or support those actions. Debating the language of the Koran and the Bible misses the point. Only the responses in the name of those books matters. Whether bombing an abortion clinic or killing a Christian convert, the act is still criminal even if a religious book supports it. Do you recognize that the acts of protesters killing because they have been insulted by a cartoon or of Muslims incarcerating a man because he has different faith are wrong?
03/25/06 @ 01:09:13 pm
Hi Ross,
First of all from the tone of your e-mail I am leaning towards the fact that you wish to have a civilizaed discussion where by both of us will learn something from the other.
I hope I have the right impression.
If you look at my first post and some of the posts in my Blog. I do not advocate what many Muslims believe in or do. I believe that Humans are like Sheep. With a few words here and
there you can take them to war, make them vote, or even donate to a certain cause. This is true for all peoples and nations. You can see it in the United States going to war with
Iraq and you can see it in the Danish Cartoon issue. Now you have to ask yourself this question, since when has Islam became of such great interest to the news media in the west?
Therefore, Muslim sheep like another other people can be rallied to do one good thing or another bad one. However, when they see US tanks and war planes bombing them and killing their
brothers what sort of reaction do you expect? This whole conflict has two sides to blame. Not just one. This is something we need to agree upon.
With that said, Muslims do not represent their religion just like the Catholic Priests molesting Children, and Israeli Soldiers shooting unarmed children don't represent theirs.
The answer is obviously since 9-11. Before that, Bin Laden was a bad boy that nothing a few Clinton Administration bombs couldn't shut him up. You need to also find out about the
history of Osama and the Taliban. You will find out that during the start of his career he was supported, trained and aided by the US to fight the Soviets. The same applies to Saddam
Hussain by the way. If you don't find that odd, and if that does't make you ask questions then I don't believe that we can have a fruitful discussion.
That is my view of the reality of the current situation. Now I shall reply to your points about the Quran.
- See some exerpts from the Bible in my previous post. Of course, I am making a point that you can find such things in all books.
- The Quran does denounce aggression watching everyday CNN doesn't imply that Quran suggests aggression. Here is one Verse:
Chapter[2] verse[190] Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not the aggressors.
Note that is the same verse which is commanding the Muslims to fight. Only they should fight in rightousness.
- Moderate Muslims in the west will apologize for several reasons: A- They face persecution otherwise. B- They have personal interests in the west. C- They have Western beliefs.
Had they any power to change, they would make that change. Only the fact that they are living in the west means that their voices will not be heard.
- I believe myself to be a True Muslim. Not a moderate one. I don't believe that Islam has a message that spans a spectrum. If Muslims span this spectrum from Bin Laden's to
Muslims moderates, that doesn't mean that Islam represents any of them. I believe that Islam is a message from God.
- "You and your brethren at CAIR" interesting comment. I am an indipendant. I state my position in my blog. I don't belong to any school of though out there. Neither to CAIR whom
I believe to be forming their own view of Islam starting with Western values being a good thing. On the other side are the Wahabies who have their own interpretation of Islam that
no one is allowed to argue.
- My blog is not preaching anything to Westerners. Its main audience is other Muslims. I wish to correct what I don't see as right within people who share my faith. In fact you can
find a lot of content there that critisizes Muslims.
You are misquoting me again. You can't just take quotes out of context. This is like what the Western Media does with a story to brain wash people and set them up for the upcoming
conflict. The whole point about the Cartoon post is to prove that Western media has its bounderies as well. Mind you
I am one of those Muslims who didn't care about the Cartoons. Those who wish to seek the truth about Islam while being objective will find it worthy of their search. While those
who are filled with hate will always be filled with hate and the Cartoons really won't change history about Mohammad. Nor will those Cartoons change the message of Islam nor even
touch God. He is beyong all of what man can do.
03/25/06 @ 01:13:31 pm
Faisal:
My guess is that "The Freak" probably has read the Koran. In any case, whether or not you want to agree that it stands for "consistent" violence, it is clear that its loudest supporters outside the US do.
Again, your comments prove another point which shows you to be using religion as a basis for your anti-Americanism and unthinking support for Islam.
On the latter point, even your quotes from the Bible talk about battles or attacks that happened and became part of the story. This is NOT the same as a writing which encourages ongoing violence against everyone who is not a believer. Your examples of violence in the bible only serve to prove the point of The Freak and others who note that Islam is a religion of violence. Even peaceful people have violent times in their histories. But the history of Islam is absolutely full of it, and the loudest voices of Islam in the Middle East (and Europe) today call for still more.
And then your comments about America: The comment that somehow we should be apologetic for participating in WWI (or almost any other war we've been in) is laughable. The only thing the US did wrong in WWI was wait to long to get involved. Our help was needed to keep aggressive and tyrannical regimes from destroying or taking over the lives of millions of people. Same for WWII. Rather than somehow twist logic to say that the people we killed there were innocent (as the 9/11 victims and other victims of muslim violence usually are), we should at least consider that the proper response to Islam may be similar to what the proper response to Hitler ended up being after appeasement didn't work.
I love your comments, Faisal...truly. They show exactly the problem with so-called "moderate" muslims: You, CAIR, and others make irrational comparisons to keep Islam from looking bad but the illogic is so plain that your arguments fail.
03/25/06 @ 01:19:08 pm
Mike,
I follow True Islam because I believe it to be the ultimate truth. Therefore, there are things that I learn from the Quran even though they might not have been part of my belief prior. It is also worth noting that the reason I believed in the Quran is because it presented what I believe to be a solution and a way of life.
That was to explain to you why I have to debate the Quran.
Now to answer your questions:
No I don't believe that a man should be forced to believe in anything he doesn't believe in. This defies the purpose. Forcing this man or any other believe in Islam doesn't mean he would be a Muslims. He will only be a Muslim out of fear. Which is not what God wishes. Otherwise, God is able to force all of Humanity to believe.
This is the position of the Quran on this subject.
As for the Cartoons, please read my posts on that issue to understand where I stand.
03/25/06 @ 01:19:36 pm
That's a mixture of bait & switch and red herrings Faisal.
First, I said there was violence in the Bible (I specifically referenced the OT) so that fact that you are able to cite some of it is irrelevant.
Second, I read the Koran in its entirety. I did not read it in Classical Arabic, as you correctly surmised. But your suggestion that "most" translations are misleading is hard to believe. You care to cite some accurate translation? Your mere dismissal of those who've read a translation that you don't believe accurate may be satisfying but it fails to advance your cause.
Third, I provided an example of a church that survived the Muslim onslaught in Egypt, so pointing out that some enclaves of Judaism or Christianity survived North Africa or the Middle East is hardly an argument against the brutal treatment adherents to these faiths received. Nor does the occasional enlightened ruler (which, in the case of Salladdin is not as settled in the Western histories as you might think) reverse a trend. North Africa, Middle East, Turkey, Greece & the Balkans, Spain, Sicily....the tune was always the same even if the ethnicities (on both sides) changed.
You are, I'm sure, aware that prior to the first crusade Christianity had been in battle with Islam through much of the Mediterranean basin. The Crusades were a continuation of hostilities.
Fourth, I did not argue that the entire world should adopt Western Civilization. I merely stated (correctly) that it is the culture of Europe and America (yes, even South America as this area was colonized by mostly Spanish and Portuguese). That is a fact. I'm a Western man and I'm rather attached to my culture so you can understand my desire to defend it. I don't care if other countries buy into it or not, unless they begin to threaten it. If a foreign government arranges for attacks on one of my embassies -- that is clearly an act of war.
Fifth, you appear to condemn the United States which I'd hardly raised in my posting (it turns out I'm a European who immigrated to the US). This seems to imply you have an agenda other than refuting my comments.
Finally, you did not address any of the four conclusions at the end of my comment, which leads me to conclude were never interested in addressing the real issues.
03/25/06 @ 01:37:31 pm
Ross,
Apparently I am mistaken. You don't show any signs of rational thinking. You allow your hate to dictate your responce.
You guess about "Freak" is exactly that a GUESS. As for using religion or not. I am defending my religion against biased Media. The reason I have listed the US wars is not to get into politics but to counter his argument about Western Civilization and its advocacy of Peace and Freedom.
I am not a moderate Muslim, nor do I claim to be.
"On the latter point, even your quotes from the Bible talk about battles or attacks that happened and became part of the story. This is NOT the same as a writing which encourages ongoing violence against everyone who is not a believer."
My answer to you again is:
" 1 Samuel 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."
Since I don't see an open minded discussion here, this will be my last post.
03/25/06 @ 02:44:34 pm
Faisal,
You last sentence in your last post is telling. The previous commentators did not agree with you ergo, they were not open minded.
An interesting note about your choice of arguments regarding the Old Testement. Those who Isreal fought and destroyed under divine guidance were chosen for distruction for specific reasons. Those reasons are spelled out. There is no blanket order to kill unbelievers. NONE. The Koran is unique in this.
It is disingenuous to compare the bible to the koran. Jesus says in multiple place that "Whoever does not believe you, leave them and shake the dust from your feet." Mohammed on the other hand say to kill them and steal their stuff and rape their women. The rape part being in the Hadith of course. Koran 9:29 spells it out. Fight them until they pay a tax or are subded and then take their stuff. In fact Mohammed was so greedy he claimed that Allah gave him on fifth of the booty from their conquests.
Do you see a disturbing trend here? It seems clear. Subdue them until they pay a tax or just kill them and take their stuff.
When can we expect modern muslims to renounce the calls for violence and theft found in the koran? When can we expect moderate muslims to treat women as equals and with kindness and respect? It this too much to expect?
03/25/06 @ 03:12:05 pm
One of my most memorable discussions in LA ended with my friend saying, "If you believe that, I can't even discuss this with you." Faisal, defend your position if you can, but don't accuse others of not being "open minded" just because they disagree with you.
03/25/06 @ 07:38:27 pm
Faisal,
It's too bad you had to quit the debate just because you were in the minority. You sure showed me how "open mindedness" works.
For the record, my "guess" about the Freak was not actually a guess. I knew he had read the Koran.
Finally, regarding "biased western media", in my view it is biased in your favor. If that's not biased enough for you, then you should keep working, (yes, like your brethren at CAIR) for even more outlandish propaganda, telling the world that Islam is a religion of peace when history repeatedly shows that it simply not true.
If you want to accuse people of not having an "open minded" discussion, you best do it looking in a mirror.