« BACK | PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Islam vs. America

By: hogan (Diary) | May 26th, 2010 at 11:05 AM |

RESIZE: AAA

Our friend, Andy McCarthy – a former Assistant United States Attorney from the Southern District of New York, and the prosecutor who brought jihadists to justice for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing – has written an outstanding book titledThe Grand Jihad – How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.

Buy it. Read it. Give it to friends. Give it to dad for Father’s Day. Read it again.

The book should serve as a wake up call to each and every one of us that the threat of Islam goes much deeper and much wider than the all-too-real threat of terrorism alone. Rather, Andy notes:

…It’s fair to say we are confronted by a horrifyingly large pool of potential terrorists. But the terrorist threat pales beside a lurking reality: the massive fundamentalist pool is churning out legions of activists who wish to end our way of life and who believe that there are plenty of avenues besides mass-murder for pursuing that goal.

Andy spells out in breathtaking detail the extent to which this is true and how the liberal left in America – led by President Obama – is complicit in allowing it to happen. From a disastrous foreign policy to the left’s consistent promotion of radical groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), as well as blind acceptance of Muslims deemed “moderate” for not actually blowing people up, Andy calls it as he sees it. His insight into the threat Islam poses to America is strikingly, but importantly, blunt – and it leaves Andy and his well written book in a class by themselves while most of the world cowers to political correctness.

With respect to the “moderate” Muslim, Andy points out:

In common parlance, someone is a “radical” Muslim only if he is a practitioner of jihadist terrorism, as if it were perfectly normal to want exactly the sharia state the terrorist wants as long as one refrains from terrorist methods in seeking it. The U.S. government, as well as our states and municipalities, clings to this connotation. At all levels – administrations of both political parties, intelligence agencies, law-enforcement, members of Congress, the federal bench, state and local authorities – officials would rather stick pins in the their eyes than grapple with the incontrovertible nexus between Islamic doctrine and the savagery committed by Muslims throughout the world for decades. We are led to believe that the only real “radicals” are the terrorists. Any other Muslim, no matter how supportive of terrorist goals, is deemed a “moderate” so long as he doesn’t seem, right this minute, to be plotting the next Armageddon.

Having begun a tour talking about the book, Andy often discusses the lunacy of the planned placement of a Mosque near Ground Zero. But, more than a “hot” political question, it is an indication of the purpose and intent of the Jihadist.

Andy expresses the idea that “[a]s Islamists see it, modern Muslims in America are surrounded by their enemies, vastly outnumbered, and incapable of mounting a realistic armored attack,” and relatedly, that “a full frontal assault on the American system would simply be crushed, but that the missionary work – jihad by sabotage – gradually eat away from within, abrading both the system and the will to preserve it.” But this is not the western notion of missionary work, he goes on:

Dawa is the missionary work by which Islam is spread. But don’t be fooled by the term “missionary.” Dawa no more resembles the Western connotation of “missionary work” than Islam resembles the Western notion of religion. Just as Islam aspires to domination rather than a place at our ecumenical table, dawa is not mere proselytism but… the key to “victory.”

We all should note that there are, of course, millions of exceptional human beings who are Muslim. Andy makes clear that his book is not an indictment of Muslims – but it is a must-read look at the force behind Islam, and the extent to which we in the west, Christian, Jew or otherwise, simply do not appreciate the threat Islam poses to America and our way of life.

Go get the book.

Tags: Islam, Jihad, Left, McCarthy, Muslim, Sabotage

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES | LOGIN TO COMMENT | REGISTER TODAY

http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/ Aziz Poonawalla

that seems to be the implication byy the statement “Dawa no more resembles the Western connotation of missionary work than Islam resembles the Western notion of religion”

I would be interested in your definition of a valid “moderate muslim”. If you consider such a thing to exist, of course.

Achance

what a Prostestant Christian would call a backslider.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/ Aziz Poonawalla

do you mean that a truly moderate muslim is one who rejects Islam?

Am I a moderate muslim?

Achance

I do know that if you truly are a Muslim, your religion authorizes, even encourages, lying to infidels in order to advance both yourself and your religion, so what you say you are really doesn’t mean much to me.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/ Aziz Poonawalla

then at least answer the first question. is a truly moderate muslim one who rejects Islam?

what would a muslim have to do to convince you of their moderate status?
Achance

to make me trust him to be truly a moderate. So much of the religion is so fundamentally incompatible with American values that one must either be unfaithful to Islam or unfaithful to America to actively practice the religion. It takes every bit of the religious tolerance incorporated in our 1st Am. and then some for us to tolerate Islam in our midst, yet the demands for our toleration of the intolerable continue.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/ Aziz Poonawalla

and i think you’d change your mind if you had any personal knowledge of the muslim American community.

But I understand your fear, and accept that I cant change it. Thanks for taking the time to engage me civilly nevertheless.

Agreeing to disagree is a honorable way to close a convo.
http://www.houston-pos.net geotex

Wow, in one response you disagreed with Achance. called him ignorat and fearful.

And, pretended to be understanding while you wer doing that.

Way to go. Where else have we seen those tactics used lately?
Achance

Andrew_D

Did you not even read his post? Of course, Islam is a religion, but it in no way resembles evolved Western concepts of religion.

Why don’t you answer his quote about the use of “Dawa,” before rushing to launch another attack?

I’ve read your thoughts in other places, and you are another example of a so-called “moderate” Muslim who would be thought to be fundamentalist in any other American religion. The fact that you do not condone violence automatically makes you moderate in your religion. Guess what? Some of us are opposed to an Islamic religious takeover by any means!

http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/ Aziz Poonawalla

i assume the reason he quoted it is because he agreed with it. and its the post author, not the book author, who wrote this post with whom i can communicate by leaving a comment.

Andrew_D

Why don’t you respond to the question on “Dawa?”

Is it because you practice it?

Are you really my enemy – just lying to my face?

http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/ Aziz Poonawalla

his quote is simply wrong. Dawa is nothing more than missionary work, equivalent to evangelism. by Christians.

Whether you engage in active dawah or passive dawah is another matter. Active dawah is like the bus thing (which I strongly disapproved of).

passive dawah – which is mainstream among muslim americans, by virtue of the immigration bias – is the theory that if you live your life as a good citizen and role model then you will attract others to Islam by virtue of that example.

Personally, I follow the most passive form – I concern myself with making sure my own faith is strong and that I am faithfully raising my kids in my cultural and religious traditions. I dont have time to worry about anyone else’s spiritual well-being, frankly.

acat

Back in the dark ages in Europe, the christian church(es) had tremendous political power, as well as – naturally – being a religion.

There’s enough data in the bible, especially the old testament, to describe how to set up a country based on “christian” law.

Somewhere along the way, this “enlightenment” thing happened, and we’ve got a separation of church and state idea, where the church doesn’t run a government, and the government doesn’t create a church. While there’s ongoing disagreement over how high the wall between the two should be, and whether one side or the other can reach across the wall, it’s worked fairly well.

In short, the church exists separate from government, each influencing the other but neither being “in charge”.

Islam today has several parallels to pre-enlightened christianity – there’s a whole recipe for building an islamic set of law that’s even more complete than the biblical one, but because there’s no separation of the two, the “religion” is in control. This is how we get the kind of “religious council” that decides who can run for government election in Iran, or the “god-anointed mandate ” that the King of Saud has.

Islam is, therefore, a religion plus a model for – over time – taking control of an area by putting islamic law into effect.

A moderate muslim – to my mind – is one who believes that islam should stay out of government and deal strictly with ones’ role in relation to allah. To most muslims, though, such a one would be apostate – just as Martin Luther was. (note – not Martin Luther King, although there are parallels there as well)

Mew

http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/ Aziz Poonawalla

A moderate muslim – to my mind – is one who believes that islam should stay out of government and deal strictly with ones

Andrew_D

Try setting up a peaceful Christian church in a village in Eastern Turkey or Western Pakistan and see what happens to your building and congregation.

Again, do you believe and practice “Dawa?” You don’t seem to want to answer the question!

http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/ Aziz Poonawalla

the persecution of the Eastern Orthodox is horrific – but it is driven by a seccularist regime in Turkey, not a reliigious one.

And there are huge Christian communities in Pakistan as well.

as for Dawah – i replied above already
http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

Egypt and Indonesia are two states that have historically restrained ther religiosity of the government, and as the religious elements have increased their influence, persecutions have increased.

Turkey has been heading away from secularism under the current leadership, neutralizing the army’s role as protect of secularism – and correspondingly the noose has been tightening around non-Muslims in that country.

As for Pakistan, persecutions on the rise as the realm of secular government shrinks.

Or more accurately, pogroms, not persecutions.

Let me phrase the Dawah issue a bit differently: 1) do you advocate use of force to spread Islam? and 2) if not, to what extent are you willing to actively oppose those in the Muslim community who do advocate and employ force. That is, do you acquiesce while others do the dirty work, hijacking your practice of Islam in the process?

That is, at what point would you secede from the Muslim community because of the use of force for the pupose of Dawah?

acat

I believe it does.

A muslim who is interested in participating in american “separation of church and state” would, therefore, have to leave Sharia law behind.

Mew
E Pluribus Unum

Uh, no, dude.

Maybe alot. Perhaps even a majority. But nothing remotely resembling ‘nearly every single immigrant muslim to America’. We have a long and illustrious list of terrorists and wanna-be terrorists (like the major who shot up the Army base, the Fort Dix 6, like the punk that did all the sniper killings around DC) who were radicallized right here in the good old USA while attending local mosques.

I am prepared to think of you as POSSIBLY one of these moderate Muslims if you will answer some of these straightforward questions with straightforward answers. But the fact that you have jumped into this matter in the combative manner that you have suggests that you are not one of the moderates.
Marcus_Traianus

I realize the party started without me, but inquiring minds want to know? Especially since the “separation of church and state” is not a Constitutional articulation but rather a divisive leftist maxim.

And while your at it, who do you think the God is that is referred to in The US Declaration of Independence or Roger Sherman at the Constitutional Convention for that matter.

E Pluribus Unum

Dawa is (obviously) 5th column work set to the purpose of undermining the political freedoms enjoyed by the population of a target nation.

Islam (again, STUNNINGLY obviously) strives, by specific design, to take over the political control of a target nation, and force subjugation to Islam and abolishment of any other religion.

Tell me how that IN ANY WAY resembles the Western notion of religion. Tell me how that possibly comports with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

As for what you are interested in, I don’t care to humor you in any way. If you are a practicing Muslim who believes in sharia, you are in every conceivable way the enemy of America and the enemy of freedom, and the enemy of me.

Martin Knight

… I think there’s a great deal of ignorance about Islam. Not least among Muslims.

That said, for what its worth, I’m not your enemy EPU, and I don’t consider you mine.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/ Aziz Poonawalla

Martin, I’d label it some self-delusion, not ignorance – but I would stand by the assertion that you and I are representative of the non-threat, as far as muslim Americans go.

Andrew_D

Are you both 100% against the civil practice of Sharia?
acat

for discussing Islam on Red State, and for (far as i can tell) parting ways with some of the more .. aggressive practitioners of your religion.

That said, while I respect this, I am still waiting for some answers.

Sharia law makes it possible for a non-Muslim to live in an area under Muslim control without paying a “tax”, yes? That seems, to me, to be rather counter to the idea of “freedom of religion”, for any possible definition of “freedom”.

Mew
Martin Knight

It is called the Zakat – one of the five pillars of Islam, coming even before the Hajj pilgrimage to Makkah, It is compulsory in an Islamic state and is used like a usual tax, including helping the poor and needy – including non-Muslims, believe it or not.

The jizya tax for non-Muslims can be seen as being parallel to the Zakat – we can’t only have Muslims paying tax, after all. The rules are that it must not be onerous and that non-Muslims who cannot afford it would have it covered by the state – they cannot be kicked out of their homes or their towns.
acat

See, this is where either there’s a historical mis-translation or something. Zakat is a requirement, but is translated as “charitable donation” – and I know I’ve received requests to consider using Zakat to help the tsunami victims. (somehow or another, I ended up on a number of Muslim mailing lists …)

Would I be able to live in Saudi if I were to may my jizya of 10% of my income to Greenpeace? It’s a charity, so if Zakat and jizya are parallel and for the civic good, where’s the problem?

Mew
http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

Are these elaborations in the Koran or are they interpretations by Muslim leaders. If the latter, then they would seem analogous to Talmudic exposition?

However, if interpretations, then how authoritative are they, especially in the absence of a central authority with universal power. It would appear that there is widespread support for alternative, far more literalistic or abusive/repressive/militaristic interpretations and this camp also engages in actions (fatwas, etc) to shout down, repress, or even exterminate those in disagreement.

In other words, you sincerely put a benign interpretation on these texts that sound primitive to Western ears – similar to the kinds of benign explanations I hear about certain Old Testament laws or Paul’s views on women.

However, the difference is the practice of history: Christianity (and to a fair extent Judaism) have created societies that reflect these advances in theology – individual rights, religious and economic freedom, private property rights, representative democracy. And over the centuries, violent conflicts between Christian groups and coercion of other groups has largely gone away in favor of persuasion.

On the other hand I do not see such lasting progress under Islam, and the clear trendline today clearly is that the more “Islamic” a nation proclaims itself, the more minorities are being oppressed and the more extreme and literalistic the legal system.

And in the U.S., the Islamic groups that are spending money and building mosques and funding groups such as CAIR seem to be the Wahabbis and other promoters of a militant and literalistic practice expert in the politics of grievance.

I would hope that those with a more benign faith and interpretative schema would prevail, but at some point I have to seriously consider whether its simply bad interpretation, or whether the foundation (i.e. the Koran) is fatally flawed.

I’m not sure which is more endangered here in the U.S. – a benign Islam, or small government conservatism.
acat

’twas not the Jews nor the Christians who created enlightened society, ’twas the enlightenment, the belief in reason rather than in the traditional ways, the old institutions. All were challenged by reason, in often conflicting ways, and society was forced to adapt.

Now, it may be true (and I’m not going to argue) that only in christian Europe, where the kings were ready to resist the church – separation of church and state – could enlightenment arise.

Your main point remains, and I’m hopeful that Martin and Aziz are representative of a form of “reformed” islam that can co-exist without co-opting.

Time will tell.

Mew

E Pluribus Unum

I am your friend as always. But if I thought that you believed in imposing sharia, I’m afraid that things would be different.
http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

Let me know if intervention is required.

Martin Knight

Andrew_D

“We all should note that there are, of course, millions of exceptional human beings who are Muslim.”

You made a great post. Leave it there. You do not have to end your statement with a qualifier that there are nice Muslim people in the world. We ALL get that. It has been pushed upon us until we can regurgitate the mantra in our sleep!

Islam in any form poses an existential threat to the United States of America. Even where so-called “moderates” exist, they provide fertile ground for a future reform movement by fundamentalists. This revival movement back to true Islam (which is always fundamental) has been the cause of the last century of terror by Muslims worldwide.

The Islamic problem is not cultural. It is not related primarily to geopolitical concerns. It cannot be appeased. When a religion states in its primary text that the end game is total and complete world domination, there is no room for ambiguity.

When Muslims are a tiny minority, they are respectful and kind. When Muslims become the majority, they persecute. Without exception.

Read Brigitte Gabriel. http://www.americancongressfortruth.com/
http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

Barring that be prepared to fight to survive when they islamists feel they are strong enough to take by force what they want.

Be prepared for more, not less, terrorism.

We’ve mostly avoided the problem of aggressive islam for hundreds of years because of geography, dealing with it only with the likes of he Barabary Pirates and trading with satraps “over there” until 9/11. Now it is an open problem for all to see if they will open their eyes to it.

Andrew_D

When we finally admit that we are fighting a war with Islam as a religion, not just a few crazed “extremists” we will be on the path to victory.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/ Aziz Poonawalla

I dont perceive you to be mine, but would like an honest statement from you of your opinion towards me.

I see you as a brother citizen, even as we disagree vehemently about politics and faith.

Andrew_D

If so, then absolutely. Do you want America to become a majority Muslim state? If so, then absolutely you are my enemy.

I will not allow my nation, my family, and my friends to wake up in a nation that hears the call of the muezzin, because the church bells have been silenced.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/ Aziz Poonawalla

and i defined that for you in my link above. I dont care what religion is the majority in America; i want NO reliigion to “dominate”. Freedom of religion is my only concern, because that is why my parents came here.
Andrew_D

I know what it is. But then you say that you want no religion to dominate. Does that hold true for Saudi Arabia? When Muslims start practicing freedom of religion in nations that they dominate, then we’ll buy into the seriousness of you a little more.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/ Aziz Poonawalla

for Saudi Arabia? its not my country.
Andrew_D

So you find no kinship with Saudi Arabia? The homeland of your religion? You will never take a pilgrimage to Mecca?

Do you not realize that your statement is anti-Quranic on so many levels it’s not even funny?

If you’re actually telling the truth, you are about the worst Muslim I’ve ever heard of!

“why should I be responsible for Saudi Arabia? its not my country”

So you have blasphemed your faith. The essence of the very truth of Islam is the future dominance of a world submitted to Allah, under the restored caliphate.

The more you post, the less credibility you have.
http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

Better to question logical inconsistencies than to extrapolate blasphemy. It takes longer, but the foundation is sounder.
Andrew_D

that is the problem, and no one can figure it out. As someone who has done significant academic research on the Islamic faith, it is astounding that he would post such a statement about Muslim brothers in Saudi Arabia. It shows either an incredible level of deceit towards us or blasphemy towards Islam.
Martin Knight

“Saudi” comes from the name of the Sa’ud family that rules that Kingdom. I owe neither Abdullah nor his family any loyalty whatsoever.

Makkah and Madinah are two entirely different issues.
Andrew_D

You do owe fellow Muslim nations loyalty. They are part of the Ummah. (nations and peoples submitted to Allah for the others)

You have a Quranic mandate to do so.

Are you actually telling me that you are American before you are Muslim? When the laws of America conflict with the laws of Islam which side wins?
Martin Knight

Monarchies have no place in Islam, in case you didn’t know. I owe Saudi Arabia no loyalty. The Qur’an mandates me to support my fellow Muslims under oppression i.e. being persecuted, attacked, etc. That’s far different from blind support of states like Saudi Arabia.

So if Saudi Arabia, Yemen or Iraq decides to attack, let’s say, Germany for no good reason, I’ll not be wearing T-shirts saying “Kill the Krauts!”

The only thing significant to me about the state of Saudi Arabia is that Makkah and Madinah are within it.
Andrew_D

I think you know very well what I mean by Muslim Nation. As far as monarchies having no place in Islam, that means virtually every Muslim nation since the time of Mohammad has been a dictatorship or monarchy. Are you opposed to the Caliphate too?

Saudi Arabia was an example of Muslim oppression against other religions, btw.
Martin Knight

PS: None of the four Caliphs (Abubakar, Umar, Uthman and Ali) were considered royalty – neither was Muhammad (SAW). None of them inherited it.

IOW, leadership in Islam (the Khalifah) is not hereditary.
acat

So, from your perspective, the Ottoman empire was not a caliphate, despite the claims of the Ottoman Emperor to be the Caliph of Islam from somewhere in the 1400s until the end of WW I?

I’m curious on your take on the history of islam and, more importantly, on whether islam can evolve – as christianity has mostly done* – into something more concerned with the spiritual and less with the political.

Mew

* mostly, yes – cat knows full well there are exceptions, especially in the southeast.

Beasley Beesmeal

lopping off heads?

then we’ll talk

http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/ Aziz Poonawalla

I suppoe a civil debate is impossible.

yes, I am against beheadings. I also dont much care whether America is a majority-X state (x = insert religion of your choice) as long as the freedom of religion part remains solid. to quote the quran, “to you be your faith, to me mine”
Andrew_D

when you spread lies about the true teachings of Islam and the Koran. If you want to be taken seriously as a Muslim then tell the truth. Acknowledge the passages of the Koran that are evil. Renounce them. Make it clear that you are vehemently against Sharia. Be honest that the Islam you practice is different from almost any other form of Islam in the world. Then we’ll take you seriously.

The persecution of Christians in Turkey and Pakistan is completely driven by Muslims. The government turns a largely blind eye to their plight to avoid retaliatory attacks by Muslims. Dawa refers to the Prophet’s allowance of any deceptive act as long as it had the end result of Islamic take over.

While you’re at it, acknowledge these Quranic verses. Explain them.

“Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends.” (Surah 5:51)

“And fight with them on until there is no more persecution of oppression, and religion becomes Allah’s in its entirety…”
(Surah 8:39)

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book (Christian and Jews), until they pay the jizyah (tax) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
(Surah 9:29)

“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband’s) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whom part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance) for Allah is Most High, Great (above you all).

(Surah 4:34)

After you’ve dealt with these verses, I’ve got about two hundred more that need explanation. Then we can start on the Hadith!
conservativecrusade

with your argument is that either you are a muslim who believes his faith, or you are simply a weekend warrior.

We have weekend warriors in my faith. They live how they want year after year, claim to be Christian, show up to services on Easter and Christmas, yet openly reject every christian tenant. They will deny hell, deny the virgin birth, deny accountability to God, etc. They may claim my faith, but they are not a part of it. In order to be a christian, you MUST accept the Bible as perfect and obey it.

Same applies to the Islam faith. Either you are a muslim and believe the words of your Bible(Koran) or you pick and choose what you want to believe in just so you can feel good about being “religious” and so that you can say, “I am a muslim!”

These words in your Koran scare us and cause us to reject the notion there is a moderate muslim.

The Koran does say in a number of places that it is not good to kill but that is not the complete verse. The complete verse is “and that you shall not kill – for that is forbidden by Allah – except for a just cause.” This basic verse is found three times in the Koran.

Let’s start with verse 4:74 – “Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of Allah; whoever fights for the cause of Allah, whether he dies or triumphs, on him We shall bestow a rich recompense.” I know that evangelists do die in the field but I have not seen too many who go into the field expecting to die. But we will continue.

Let’s try verse 9:111 – “Allah has purchased from the faithful their lives and worldly goods, and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for the cause of Allah, they will slay, and be slain.” Oops, I have never known any evangelist who went out slaying or killing those to whom they were evangelizing. I believe that this proves beyond any doubt that the war Muhammad keeps talking about in the Koran has to do with actual warfare and killing. So keep in mind that these Muslim leaders were lying to you, the Muslims in the Middle East including Osama Bin Ladden are not lying to you, and that the US Muslims who have said Islam is a religion of peace have no credibility.

Verse 9:123 – “Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you.”

It should be clear that this verse commands Muslims to wage war on all non-Muslims around them. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out.

Verse 47:3 – “When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly.”

That is what I call a harsh religion. You are supposed to strike off the heads of those to whom you evangelize?

Verse 48:29 – “Muhammad is Allah’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.”

Verse 66:9 – “Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate.”

I think you would have to be an idiot to not be able to see the hostile nature and commands for the Muslims. It is clear with just these verses that the war they are commanded to wage on all non-Muslims is not evangelizing. They are commanded to fight to kill all non-Muslims including atheists, secularists, humanists, evolutionists, and all other religions but you will find that the Koran places special emphasis on killing off Jews and Christians. This is probably because of the rejection the Jews and Christians gave Muhammad. Keep in mind that I could easily have given you at least another 20 to 30 verses which are just as telling.

But don’t take my word about who the unbelievers are, take the word of Muhammad. I want you to notice that he placed special emphasis on Jews and Christians (People of the Book.) We will start with verse 5:17 – “Unbelievers are those who declare: ‘God is the Messiah, the son of Mary.’” Oops, I bet some of you blindly believed the Muslims who have been going around speaking at Christian churches saying they worship the same God we do (we already proved that to not be true), they also believe in “The Same Jesus” and even believe in Him more than we do, and that Islam and Christianity are the same religions. You should have read the Koran instead of letting the liars spoon feed you. Always remember this, it is considered a good deed for Muslims to successfully lie to their enemy. Then they go home, call you suckers, and laugh at you for being fools.
But, hey, lets not put everything on one obvious verse. Let’s look at at least a few obvious verses like verse 5:51 – “Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another.” Oops, strike two. How many more verses will it take for you to realize the US Muslims are lying to you and the Middle Eastern Muslims, including Osama Bin Ladden, are telling you the truth. I despise Osama for what he does but have to respect him for being honest, unlike the liars who have mislead many in this nation.

Verse 5:59 – “Say: ‘People of the Book, is it not that you hate us only because we believe in Allah and in what has been revealed to us and what was formerly revealed, and because most of you are evil-doers?’ Say: ‘Shall I tell you who will receive a worse reward from Allah? Those whom Allah has cursed and with whom He has been angry, transforming them into apes and swine, and those who serve the devil.” And those are the only ones who will receive a worse reward than the Jews and Christians. Doesn’t sound to me like we all have the same religion and worship the same God. Why would my God, whom I worship do that to me for worshiping Him?

I’ll give you doubting Christians who would rather believe a lying Muslim than another Christian two more examples and then we must move on. Try verse 5:72 – “Unbelievers are those that say:’God is the Messiah, the son of Mary.” and then verse 5:73 – “Unbelievers are those that say: ‘God is one of three.’”

This is probably the best verse about who the unbelievers are which includes all non-Muslims. This is actually an entire chapter titled “The Unbelievers” and includes verses 109:1-6 – “Say: ‘Unbelievers, I do not worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship. I shall never worship what you worship, nor will you ever worship what I worship. You have your own religion and I have mine.’”

Didn’t we just see them identify Christians and Jews as unbelievers and aren’t these the same people who convinced even the Pope that we worship the same God and have the same religion? These people are not liars. They are fantastic liars. Probably the best in the history of the world. They should get an academy award for acting.

Let me leave this topic with one more interesting little verse. Verse 4:101 – “The unbelievers are your inveterate foe.” If you are not a Muslim, you wont get any sleep tonight.

Next, I want you to notice what is required to be a believer or Muslim. Verse 49:15 makes this very clear. “The true believers are those that have faith in Allah and His apostle, and never doubt; and who fight with their wealth and with their persons in the cause of Allah. Such are those whose faith is true.” Please note the requirement to fight in order to be a Muslim. Muhammad makes it very clear that any one who claims to be a Muslim and refuses to fight and kill the unbelievers is not a Muslim and is branded by Muhammad as a hypocrite. Muhammad also requires all Muslims to search out and kill all hypocrites. Muhammad hated hypocrites even worse than he did Jews and Christians. Hypocrites are the worst enemy of Islam and are considered traitors. According to Muhammad, you cannot be a liberal or moderate Muslim. There are only orthodox Muslims and hypocrites. In the Koran, there are only three groups of people. These are Muslims, hypocrites, and non-Muslims.

In the Koran, Muhammad made the rift between Muslims and the rest of us so wide that they are not even permitted to be your friends. I will share three verses to show this. (For everything I show you, there are many more verses. I just don’t feel like rewriting the Koran.) Verse 3:117 – “Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people.” Verse 5:51 – “Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another.”Verse 60:13 – “Believers, do not make friends with those who have incurred the wrath of Allah.” If you are not a Muslim and you think you have a Muslim friend, you better read the Koran. According to the Koran, they are either pretending or sinning.

Please notice that the wars the Muslims are waging around the world are not just against the Christians and Jews. Several good examples of this are that the Muslims ran EVERY religion other than Islam out of Afgahnastan and are currently fighting both Hindu’s and Buddhists in India. They hate EVERYONE who is not a Muslim. Yes, they put special emphasis on Christians and Jews but their war is against the ENTIRE non-Muslim world including atheists and evolutionists.

I could go one with verses that command you to force a muslim state on the area you live, to live in jihad against all of us, and so on.

But what it boils down to is again, either you are a true Muslim who believes your Koran, hence I am your enemy, everyone on here is your enemy, and this country is your enemy, or you are a weekend muslim and an enemy of the true muslim.

Either way, the best thing we can do is not trust any of you for our own sake and health.
Martin Knight

I’m okay with it …
http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

Hello, Martin. Your voice is welcome.

I’m not asking this to you in an accusing tone because you’ve established bona fides here at RedState.

But a response like yours raises a question that is at the heart of the debate here. That is, your statement could be taken two ways I can think of:

1) As part of the debate over the death penalty under U.S. law, you are simply expressing the opinion that (a) child-rape and murder are grounds for a death sentence, and (b) you would have no problem with beheading as a method of execution for those crimes (and perhaps others).

OR

2) This statement is grounded in the conviction that God’s law, as revealed in Sharia, demands that certain crimes be punished by beheading and that the U.S. legal system must be brought into conformity with Sharia. A more extreme position would invovle denying the legitimacy of U.S. law where it deviates from Sharia or even rejecting the authority of the U.S. government because it does not adopt Sharia as the basis of our legal system.

The first is within the bounds of civic debate – but an advocate of the second has chosen to place him/herself outside of civic debate and more in the camp of sedition, it would seem.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/ Aziz Poonawalla

Ive actually touched on almost all of tehse over the course of blogging the past 7 years. I dont think i have time to revisit everything in detail youd like but you are certainly free to search my blog archives for teh relevant verses. You can find my archives at cityofbrass.blogspot.com and blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass
Beasley Beesmeal

lopping off limbs, throwing acid, religious police, whacking with sticks, stoning, treating women worse than dogs, etc, etc
Martin Knight

On lopping off limbs – scary, isn’t it? The key thing about Islamic law is that it places the premium on prevention more than punishment. Furthermore, in practice, there actually are something around 40 conditions that need to be met before you can lop off a hand. i.e. is he/she sane? Did he/she steal under duress i.e. hunger, poverty, etc? Did he/she steal to protect someone? etc.

Throwing acid; has nothing to do with Islam. I think you’ll find a lot more of it in Hindu India than Islamic nations.

Religious police: Ignorant bullies, most of them, especially in Saudi Arabia. Privacy is very important in Islam. Ideally, you can’t just stop a couple and demand proof that they’re married to each other.

Whacking with sticks (or whipping): Again, more to prevent than punish – it’s also a state-sanctioned punishment in Singapore. To be more exact, in Islam it is the punishment meted out to fornicators, and the issue with it is that it is extremely difficult to meet the threshold for incurring it.

Stoning: For adulterers – same standard of proof must be met as with whipping. Let me explain; you need 4 (including yourself) witnesses, each of whom must be of unimpeachable character. You need to call them to witness the act one at a time. They must all physically (not even via video camera) see actual vaginal penetration. And finally, you, being the person who first witnessed the act, must have the right to be where your were and looking in the direction where you saw it, i.e. you can’t just be walking by your neighbor’s house and decide to peek in and see his wife getting it on with the gardener .

Treating women worse than dogs: Not Islamic. An artifact of culture rather than Islam. The Prophet (SAW) repeatedly stated throughout his 23 years as Allah’s Messenger that there is a special place in Hell reserved for men who mistreat their wives. In fact, prior to Muhammad (SAW), the common practice in Arabia was to bury alive first-born daughters. Islam actually secured for women the right to own and manage their own property, to enter contracts and to refuse forced marriages and petition for divorce – do you know that when a woman asks for a divorce, she must be given it?

There’s a lot people think they know but don’t really about Islam. Unfortunately that applies to Muslims as well …
Andrew_D

on the Prophet who must be mentioned with a (SAW). It’s so great that Muhammad helped society by showing them that instead of burying girls alive you can marry them when they are six and try to produce offspring when they are nine.

Did you also know that if a husband says three times to his wife, “I divorce you,” he can legally throw her out?

Thanks for setting us straight on the facts!!
Martin Knight

… and see that she is not left destitute afterward, after confirmation that she is not with child. If she is pregnant, he must provide for the child. Furthermore, she gets to keep her dowry.

By the way, saying it just once (or twice) is enough. Saying it three times makes it irrevocable unless she (genuinely) marries someone else. In actual fact, each “I divorce you” is counted as a separate divorce. The rule is that after 3 divorces, even over decades, the marriage is considered dissolved for good – unless she marries (genuinely) again and is once again single due to divorce or death.

This was actually a law established by Caliph Umar – to curb the rate of divorces – after Muhammad’s (SAW) death. Some men were divorcing their wives on a weekly basis because of minor issues and getting back with them a day (or maybe even minutes) later. The women complained, fed up. Umar dealt with it – and as one of the four Caliphs, his word carries the force of law in the Ummah. The threat of losing the woman forever settled the men down rather quickly.

PS: The Prophet (SAW) emphasized that of the things Allah has allowed, it is divorce that he hates, and so he has warned all Muslims to avoid it at all costs unless there is no other way for the married couple to settle their differences.

So a man who divorces his wife just like that, for no legitimate reason, and then kicks her out without any concern for her upkeep, is sure to face Allah’s wrath for not only his cruelty but for breaking his covenant (and violating an Amanah) with Allah.

Like I said, ignorance is Islam’s worst enemy.
Beasley Beesmeal

Islam is getting a bum rap?

I wish the millions of your brethren would stand up and denounce this twisted version that we witness
Andrew_D

But I refer you to the main point of my post which I requote, “It
Martin Knight

And yes, you are an Islamic illiterate.
Andrew_D

Because you know me. Right!

I believe that you’re the one who wrote the monarchy has no place in Islam. Are you actually serious? Are you actually putting these words out on RedState? Unbelievable!

I get it though. It’s all smoke and mirrors. What we call monarchy is simply the rule of Allah.

You can throw out your Arabic slogan. Nice and polite of you by the way. Very pan-Arabic. I am happy to leave you to your religion, and me to mine. The problem is, you have implied on this forum that you would be happy if America accepts Sharia by choice. Of course, that would require mass reversion wouldn’t it?
Martin Knight

I believe that you
http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/ Aziz Poonawalla

to you be your religion, to me mine.
http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

This was a response to Martin.

But essentially I was trying was to get past the intellectual words (or a flurry of Koranic verses) to find out how committed you were to promoting “minimal passive Dawah” as a normative lifestyle vs. it being a private interpretation that premits you to acquiesce in your coreligionists violent or coercive actions and you get a free ride.

Not looking for a theological debate here, but a question about consistency in action, which is more to what RedState is primarily about.
Andrew_D

I’m not going to spend precious time researching your blog. I do know what the Quran teaches. I know what school of Islam you are a part of. I know that you advocate Sharia. You are a not a terrorist, but you are a Muslim using the well-worn arguments of the past to convince Christians that “Islam is peaceful.” Islam is peaceful only to the extent that one submits to its mandates. You know that.

What makes us angry about a guy like you is the way you use subterfuge to mask the realities of the Islamic world under a guise of peaceful rhetoric. Quit defending yourself. We know what you are. We know why you are here, and why you posted on this thread in the first place.

The West will not submit to the rule of Islam. We do not want your culture, religion, or philosophy. We are Judeo-Christian and secular in mindset. You can live among us and keep quiet. But Islam will never have an equal voice in America. The problem with your religion is that you don’t get equality. You are either an aggressive minority or an oppressive majority. You know no bounds.
acat

I’d like you to clarify one thing.

I don’t read where you have a problem with Muslims who would be willing to live under a secular government.

Rather, there’s a concern that the secular government would, eventually, be replaced by Sharia law, which immediately makes all non-Muslims into something approaching second class citizens – as is happening right now in Turkey.

Being something of a history scholar, I’ve seen quite enough theocratic societies to know humans may start out with good intentions, but they always – especially when doing things in the name of one god or another, just .. fail. Badly.

In every human government, there’s always abuse, there’s always corruption. Under a theocracy, there’s one less route of challenge to this corruption, one less appeal for justice, one less angel of mercy, and a lot less ability to debate – because the religious leaders and the state are the same – very few religious leader can shame a state leader, and no state leader is going to work against his religious-leader peers, and all of the above can point to their holy books as a justification for their continued hypocrisy.

Sharia is an inferior design. In fact, that sentence is a good example of the inherent design flaw. Making such a criticism about a divinely inspired thing is automatically offensive. It’s in the koran, it must be right, but I say it isn’t. Is that a religious problem, or a political one?

Mew
CincoSolas_del_Bronx

If any of the pro-Christian advocates in this thread–and other current ones on, for example, mosque building–are real, if distant, heirs of the Reformation, their arguments reach ironic heights of ignorance about your point concerning theocracies.

One of the secondary restorations of the Reformation was the growing awareness of the need to recover the pre-Constantinian, sola Scriptura-rooted Two Kingdoms model of spiritual and temporal government, taking what of Augustine’s City of God withstood biblical scrutiny and filling in gaps occasioned by 1200 or more years of historical exigencies. Calvin took it a bit further than Luther and the Independents further than Calvin. As the redemptive-historical hermeunetic was sharpened and the systematics of a covenantal soteriology hammered out, confidence grew that not only is Jesus Christ Lord over a Christian, but errant, prince, but that He exercises equal dominion over the completely non-Christian prince as well. The implications of this–though long in realization–have been huge. It sometimes took several generations, as my forbears, the New England Puritans, found when the misapplied Halfway Covenant starting dimming the shine of the city on the hill. The lurches away from State Church–such a difficult move, so fraught with the insecurity of leaving the status quo, but so necessary for the preservation of the Gospel, can be traced in thumbnail through the chapters on the Civil Magistrate as Westminster is recast in Savoy, and as Savoy in recast in London Baptist, and then as Westminster is retooled for use on American soil.

Whoever wins the argument about the orthodoxy of the Founders’ Christian faith–and I’ve heard good research on it being on the low side–it is quite apparent that none of them, nor their heirs for generations to come, could have imagined that a non-Christian religion would ascend to the point of serious political influence. Their genius, though, is even more apparent in their handling of the Establishment Clause, because while it provides protection for non-Christian minorities, it does the same in the event of a Christian minority.

Irony, did I say? The site is bulging with folks who, apparently having forgotten who rules all the princes of this world, seem to want the government to discern when one religious group is not liking another religious group’s choice or style or location of worship building, and to enforce extra-Constitutional action in the situation. How … liberal … of them.

I would love for one of the above commenters to instruct me in how the faith once for all delivered to the saints–under a far more oppressive theocratic state than most of us have seen–requires Christians to regard Muslims as enemies to be outvoted rather than as neighbors to be served and instructed in the gospel of Jesus Christ.
acat

CincoSolas – that’s a huge dose of “geekspeak”. I mean that you’re using terms (hermeneutic, “Two Kingdoms model”, etc.) without defining them for the common Joe Sixpack, so somebody who hasn’t “learned the language” can follow along. That’s part of the reason I wrote the section on history of theocracies the way I did. .. one never knows who ones’ audience is.

I would point out one assumption I consider dangerous. The average current westerner doesn’t much want a theocracy. There are certainly some christians who do*, but they are not now in the majority.

The wisdom of the founders in protecting religious minorities only applies, though, so long as a majority wish to protect those minorities. Once a majority who want their theocracy exist, all bets are off.

Mew

* and I have to confess that it’s fun for me to throw up examples from past “christian” theocracies to see if they really want what they say they want… usually, they just look confused.
CincoSolas_del_Bronx

some untranslated, to be called on using terms that cobblers and milkmaids alike could have heard at church in the relatively recent past; moreso when referential resources are but a few keystrokes and clicks away.

Having raised an ESL special-needs child and catechised many men likely to have been recently incarcerated or on the street, I at least attempt to discern levels of vocabulary and translate as necessary. (I can’t recall the source but I have always found true the assessment “if you can’t find words to explain the essence of something to a 5-year-old, you may not understand it yourself as well as you thought”).

The reason for the theological geekspeak here was simply my considering you as the entire audience, and assuming, apparently incorrectly, that your expertise in at least one aspect of theological history would have made you conversant with the terms. After reading your later assessment of the perceived divergence of Jesus and Paul* I at least now have a better sense of where you are not standing and withdraw my assumption.

To the point. Pre-Constantinian and Post-Reformation Christians have found–if progressively and imperfectly–biblical justification for keeping the governments of church and state distinct: in Reformation circles this is a derivative of (at least one form of) the Two Kingdoms model, which stresses the obsolescence of statutes unique to the ceremonial and civil codes–not the moral–of the Mosaic covenant following their fulfillment in Christ.

With the decay of expositional preaching, the American evangelical’s basis for the model has moved from doctrinal–the church cannot rule the country without compromising the Gospel, and the country cannot rule the church without compromising civic order–to a vague political comfort that the First Amendment seems to work pretty well to keep us from ending up like medieval Europe. While an apparent Christian majority remained, embers of theonomistic longing would occasionally burst into flame: prayer in schools! capital punishment for blasphemy and adultery! but even then it was known that you never pull it off politically.

Now that it is clear that conservative Christians are barely recognizable as a political bloc–the rightness of which needs a diary of its own before I die–the would-be theonomists are unsurprisingly nervous to be getting a taste of their own medicine, and are responding, sadly, by calling for political action to effect a return to The Way Things Were–ie, before other minorities wanted to put up a temple or mosque. There were times that one would have heard calls for prayer, for increased evangelization, for training in apologetics and discernment of doctrinal error. for public debates**. But to many that’s not where the real power lies.

* While I assume you know that your statement downthread is rooted in liberal Protestant higher criticism, I have heard the same argument–Jesus was cool, but Paul came and messed everything up–heavily used in a street debate by a local NOI apologist

** it can be done quite well, as here: The Bible and the Qur’an: A Muslim-Christian Dialogue
Andrew_D

The West established a cultural tradition that has evolved into a separation of church and state. Jesus built a religion that existed inside the Roman Empire. It was not a political entity but a spiritual one. From the early beginnings of Islam, the political component has played a major role. When you deal with Islam you deal with a culture that has not only combined the political with the religious, but has even mixed them to the point that they are inseparable.
acat

While Jesus founded a religion, it was Saul (later known as Paul) who was most responsible for its’ early spread. I think this is an unimportant distinction for our purposes, but it does explain some of what came after….

There have been a number of “church as government” experiments that christians have tried over the centuries. There were most definitely drives to merge christianity with the political – each of the post-Roman European States, early on, had Crown-sponsored churches – resulting in a very religious overtone to a number of otherwise political wars.

It is very important to confront the log in ones’ own eye, or the warts on ones’ own family tree, after all.

Mew
Andrew_D

The history of the Christian Church after the fall of the Roman Empire has some terrible passages. However, Paul’s theology was, like Jesus’ firmly rooted in spiritual concepts. The idea of a present kingdom was a concept developed and expanded by the Roman Church in the turbulent aftermath of Rome’s fall to the barbarians. The Papacy filled a power vacuum.

The Middle Ages saw a horrific expansion of this theocratic power. Since the Reformation, however, the Church worldwide has seen a steady devolution (especially because of the Enlightenment) that has returned Christianity back to its more primitive ideas of spiritual peace.

I fully acknowledge the “warts” of the Christian religion. The religious wars have been fought. I want no part of a theocracy, and I think that I stand firmly with most Christians worldwide when I say that. We are proud of the secular, and religiously tolerant system that we have built in America.

It’s time that Islam confronted its warts. That’s the issue here.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/ Aziz Poonawalla

I do know what the Quran teaches. I know what school of Islam you are a part of. I know that you advocate Sharia.

I’m afraid you have shown to know nothing about any of these things, despite my and Martin’s patient attempts to explain it to you and provide you with references. I certainly doubt you’ve “studied” Islam much beyond reading about it via posts like this at RedState or at Hot Air. You certainly know nothing about me.

I will now withdraw from this conversation.
Andrew_D

it doesn’t matter what you say. I’ve attended Friday prayers. I’ve read the Quran. I’ve spent much time in conversation with Muslims both in and outside of the Middle East.

I understand that I am dealing in you with a unique type of Muslim that exists largely only in the democratic West. You have made compromises and adjustments in your faith that are rejected by traditional Muslim scholars. Maybe you are trying to lead a reformation of Islam. Great for you! Your understanding of your own faith is curious however. You have either denied central tenets of faith, minimized them to suit your own sensibilities, or you simply choose to not discuss them to avoid offending Unbelievers.

Christians have forced each other for centuries to bare the darkest secrets of their faith. We have debated, argued, revised, added, and subtracted. Much of what has passed for Christianity has faded away or been rejected outright. Muslims have yet to engage in a similar debate. Maybe you are trying to have that debate. If so, then don’t take it personally when Americans rise up in anger at the construction of a mosque close to the 9/11 site. Islam has a long history of image-based mosque building. You know that. It is a statement to the world. Instead, join us in calling for sensitivity to the American nation.

In your faith tradition (a very small one within Islam) you have a history of some amount of liberalism. However, you still advocate for Sharia, and you yourself have compared the bikini to the burkha calling them equal symbols of female oppression. When you are an example of liberal Islam, it makes very clear that we do not want your religion in this country. Of course, you have complete liberty to exercise your faith here. The Constitution gives you that freedom. You are not American first, however. You are Muslim first, and you demand an equality (or supremacy) that will never exist.

You paint a picture of Islam that is simply not real in the world. You have mainstream beliefs somewhat. But then again, I can’t believe that I’m actually mainstreaming a guy who calls the bikini a symbol of female oppression.
Achance
hickorystick

I’t number 1. Nothing Martin has written would indicate otherwise. Take R H Thomson’s advice, and go hunting with a rifle instead of a shotgun.
This Aziz character is different. He speaks in tones of moderation, but is very sneaky. He is clearly a leftist subversive, but from a cosmopolitan area in the middle east, of a very mixed historical rule. What was really funny, was when he quoted a Jewish female psychologist to Art, as he cut and ran. The psychologist would say that to John Carlson after having her head handed to her in a debate. It’s a lefty’s way of saying, now that I lost, let’s call it a draw. Typical Jihad (of the mind) tactics.
Martin Knight

I will lose no sleep if child-rapists, first degree murderers, murderer-rapists are made to pay for their crimes by beheading.

On the second point, here’s my position, if Sharia is to be made the law of the land in America, it has to be with Americans’ freely given consent.

Surah Al-Kaffirun (The Unbelievers) is one of the last 10 Surahs of the Qur’an – the ones the average Muslim is expected to know by heart. It is the chapter of the Qur’an recommended to be recited during the second raka’a of the superogatory Shafa’i prayer. It’s last verse is; “You Have Your Religion And I Have Mine.”

So that’s how I see things with regard to religion. Muhammad (SAW) never forced conversion at the point of the sword so I consider those who purport to do so to be far worse enemies of Islam than those people who attack Islam on the web. Why? They turn more people away from it than bring people to it.

Every Islamic scholar I’ve asked confirmed to me that converting one person to Islam is more rewarded by Allah than killing 10,000 enemies of Islam on the battlefield in a *legitimate* Jihad (and the rules for waging a Jihad are remarkably stringent).

Like during the Holy Prophet’s time, Islam’s greatest enemy remains ignorance.
eburke

I’ve noticed that you always follow the name “Muhammad” with a paranthetical (SAW). What does that stand for and what is it’s purpose? Does it have something to do with the ‘holiness’ of his name for a Muslim?

Thanks for the ‘cultural enlightment’.
Martin Knight

Meaning “May Allah’s Peace And Blessings Be Upon Him.”

It was the Prophet’s (SAW) request that members of his Ummah say this upon hearing or mentioning his name so that Allah may continue to be pleased with him.

It’s a mark of his humility – even he did not take Allah’s blessings for granted.
eburke
myron_j_poltroonian

Thanks for clearing that up. I was wondering what a violent, slasher type of movie had to do with Allah and/or Mohammed. (“Oh doctor Freud, how I wish you were otherwise employed.”) I, being an unreconstructed American, still prefer my language ( American English) be spoken and written in my country. That’s why, when referring To NerObama (Peace Be Upon Him), I use my native language. I also insist that a word starting with the letter “Q” be followed by a “u” in all cases; that the Koran is still the preferred spelling of the holy book of Islam and that, to the English speaking people, Munchen will always be “Munich”, even if I was stationed there at one time.

justfedup

I listened to Andy McCarthy on Levin’s show yesterday. Simply fascinating. Are there “moderate muslims” or are they just the second string awaiting their chance at jihad. Are “moderate” Muslims are just waiting & cheering for the day “Sharia Law” is shoved down our throat? If Islam is a religion of peace, why does public discussion or criticism of “the prophet”, result in death threats while the ” moderates” remain quiet. America is fighting 2 unspoken wars. One against the “left” & their reconquista allies. The other against the “left” & their Islamic allies.
gfwarhol

accepted the premise that Islam is a religion. It is far more a political ideology with religious overtones. As long as our leaders consider it a religion, they will never be able to properly deal with it!

There are two kinds of Muslims; jihadists, and potential jihadists!
tlwinslow

Islam from day one was not about being just another religious choice, but about total superiority of Muslims over non-Muslims, to be achieved by conversion, force, fear, and violence, whatever it takes. The ultimate goal is for all of mankind to submit to Islamic Sharia that controls all aspects of life. Sharia and the U.S. Constitution are like two scorpions in a bottle, only one can remain, so it’s sad we have an Islam history ignoramus president who thinks the U.S. isn’t at war with Islam but only al-Qaida, like a hydra doesn’t have a hundred heads. Don’t be an Islam history ignoramus in the Internet Age when you can master all the key facts free anytime online with the Historyscoper. To get started click http://go.to/islamhistory
myron_j_poltroonian

How about this. Instead of “Nation Building”, after throwing out their terrorist supporting regimes in the Middle East and/or the so called “Tribal Areas”, let us try (preemptive) “Nation Renaming”. Yes! Lets let them be known as “NukeStan” (pronounced: Nuke’-Es-Stan), only until or unless they change their evil ways, of course. Two or three examples should be enough. If not, then reduce to molten glass those places they hold most dear.

Achance

winsomlosesome

I will never, ever, submit to a “religion” that teaches its men that women they’re not married to, as well as dogs and pigs, are unclean and that if a man touches either he will go to hell unless he goes through a cleansing ritual, or whatever the hell they have to do. I once offered my hand to a Moslim male who acted as though I had pointed a blow torch at him. He acted the same way with my friendly dog.

How is it that Moslims can force human beings to wear tents in public, or mutilate their little girls so they’ll never enjoy sex, if it’s not interpreted that way from the Quran? THAT is an insult to and crime against all womankind!

Building the mosque at Ground Zero is sympolic of triumph of terrorists over innocent people — terrorists who believed they would be with 72 virgins for eternity for commiting mass murder. BTW, did anybody ever wonder how the virgins would like that deal? Oh, I forgot. Nine-year olds wouldn’t have much choice in the matter, would they?

I’ll insist they saw my head off before I submit to such a brutalally oppressive “religion”.

Andrew_D

If we let the moderates win, the radicals will follow. They always do.

melmel

Collective consciousness and the unity of the Muslim world is taking place before our eyes, and it is progressing at full speed. Its danger to others is not yet fully understood, but when it is, the need for survival will overcome the tenderness of compassion.

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Islam vs. America

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL