Five Misconceptions about Islam that could kill Democracy

Oh how I wish the Jews had been successful in that battle so many centuries ago!

I really hope people drop their PC and see this threat. You are allowed to think!

Moose

And if we do not come together as Civilized People "Todays yesterdays will be tommorows goodbyes"(Lynyrd Skynyrd).

My Grand Babies(3) will grow to know freedom,they might ask one day papaw what was it like then?Were you afraid?Can we have some money for the movies?Yes you may.

There are 16 Moslem nations in the Middle East; not one of them is Democracy.

Whenever this is stated someone inevitably retorts, "Turkey is a democracy! Iran is a democracy!"

We need to be more precise in our discourse to preempt such claims.

One hopes that Hugh, with his beautiful writng style will be given the chance to submit such essays to educate politicians!
perhaps calling the above, the Seven Pillars of the demise of Western Civilisation.

I tend to think that my fellow Christians are so afraid to appear biased that they overcompensate in the other direction. Someday I hope people will wake up and realize that there could be rational reasons for the instinct we stigmatize as "prejudice," "bias" or "discrimination." Maybe it's just "discernment."

They will. I am sure of it. But it will take even more bloodshed and deception and bald-faced hypocrisy than we have already suffered. Meanwhile, it is sad and astonishing that a member of Congress should have needed such a statement of elementary facts. If he did not know at least about the military nature of Islam and the obligation of sharia law and jihad, he did not know enough to make informed choices about foreign policy. And why did nobody on his staff brief him about such elementary facts? That is what politicians' staffs are meant to do.

I think we need an "Assault Religion Ban"
rather than an "Assault Weapons Ban" in this country.

President Bush made an incredible closed-ended statement about Islam that forces the onus on Muslims to live up to that standard by their
deeds and behavior.
It was a stroke of genius,Muslims that agreed with the speech in 2001 have no choice but to
show they are against Islamists and are willing
to purge America of those "Bad" Muslims that hijacked the Peaceful Islam from the "Good" Muslims in the USA.
CAIR and their ilk have shown that they do not
take the Terrorism threat seriously,this may be from a fore knowledge that Mosques are safe and
the overall plan by the Saudis is to keep funding
the Mosques for anti-Western rants.

The PSA for the FOX 24 show pretty well confirms that Muslims think the 9/11 speech by Bush absolves them of any guilt or connection to Islam for the slaughter of civilians that September morning in 2001. Remember one thing,Bush held Islam and Muslims to a high standard and this was to expose Muslims for their fake loyalty through "Taqiyya".

Mr.Hooper must now PROVE Islam is a faith of peace,it's not up to us to prove it isn't,so sit back a watch CAIR squirm out of the Coptic murders on the AMW show Saturday night.
When the killers turn out to be Muslims I expect another press-release from CAIR about avoiding backlash to Muslims for the actions of a few
people that weren't "True" muslims doing an un-Islamic act of violence.

ala-sux:When the killers turn out to be Muslims I expect another press-release from CAIR about avoiding backlash to Muslims for the actions of a few people that weren't "True" muslims doing and un-Islamic act of violence.

And dont forget - "The murders are taken out of context" and "This is not islam".

Tee hee.

I'm confused. I thought that Jerusalem was not mentioned in the Quran.

In the above piece, this paragraph suggests otherwise:

"The reason Mohammed was so violently anti-Jewish was because he originally saw himself as a prophet to the Jews, Christians, and pagans of Arabia. In his early reign he instructed his followers to bow down and pray to Jerusalem! The Jews of Arabia rejected him as a Hebrew prophet and he was almost killed in battle with them. He then changed the direction of prayer to Mecca."

Can someone clarify this for me?

I found this at LGF (thanks to BabbaZee)
This is an interview with Brigette Gabriel, a Lebanese Christian woman. It is 46 minutes long- but worth every minute. How many Lion's Club members know that they and Rotary Club members are marked for death by the Hamas charter? She is extremely interesting.
http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/db_video.html

I recall watching a TV show broadcast from Lebanon a couple of years ago where Lebanese Lion's Club officials had to defend the Charter from accusations made by Muslim guests regarding the Club's affiliation with Jews. The Muslim guest kept cornering the Lion's Club member, where she finally had to come out and say that when they are present at international events with Jewish members, the Lebanese don't even talk to them. She said, "we just look the other way".

I'm sure she had to say that, otherwise she would have been called a Zionist conspirator, as they call anyone who attempts to speak moderately of Israel.

I still think Pres. Bush was right to declare that the American war in response to 9/11 is not a war against Islam. He was dead right to go after OBL and Sodom Insane; he was also right to keep the olive branch extended to any Muslim takers out there.

While I hold no candle for Islam (as a Calvinist Christian, I believe that revelation ended with the "Amen" at the end of the New Testament book of Revelation [Apocalypose], and thus cannot accept Muhammad as a prophet), I am not about to throw rocks at Muslims willy-nilly. Muslim immigrants played a big role in fingering terrorists in the USA (see Steve Emerson's book); while the USA found cooperation among non-Taliban Afghans for which nothing in Afghanistan's modern history offered precedent. The Iraqi Shi'ah Muslim blogger "Sam Hammorabi" yawped louder about the Baghdad church bombings than the pope, and Daniel Pipes points out that numbers of Muslims in America were yawping for years before 9/11 that extremists were taking over.

Yes, Mr. Garza is right to point out that there are Syrian Muslim fathers who make minor sons swear an oath to kill a Jew before they die. There are also citizens of Sa'udi Arabia who have declared personal peace at least with Israelis they have met on American campuses. There is indeed a Pakistan that seems to be overwhelmingly pathological; there are also majority Muslim countries of the African Sahel where things are basically normal.

The Islamic doctrine of jihad was traditionally hedged with lots of rules and regulations that doubtlessly allow many Muslims to find modi vivendi with non-Muslims for generations; even to the point of cooperating with non-Muslims against Muslim "bad eggs".

This being said, the "Reformation of Islam" for which I pray is the mass conversion of Muslims to my religion. However, it is imperative for us Christians to show our Muslim meighbors--especially when they are experiencing a crisis of their faith--that the Gospel is a door through which they may pass rather than a club held over their heads.

Moreover, while I welcome secular liberals who oppose the present armed jihad against the USA (olive branch waved at KJ); I still can't help but note that the bogey of "Islamic fundamentalism" was invented in 1979, when the NYSlimes and Washington Compost couldn't resist the temptation to make Evangelicals, then abandoning the New Deal coalition in droves, look un-American. While the secular Left may decry Bush, it has done its two bits' worth to widen and deepen the gap now separating the USA and the Islamic world.

Yeah, the five misconceptions are spot on, can't disagree with any of it.

But I'm not sure what else Bush could have said about Islam after 9/11. He's a leader of a country, he can't always say exactly what he feels or thinks. Personally I think the "Islam is a religion of peace" public statement was deemed necessary at that time. Unfortunate, but necessary, to keep the peace during a very traumatic time. If he had instead exposed the ugly reality of Islam and its agenda, all hell could have broken loose in the US and elsewhere. There wasn't much backlash against Muslims, even as many of them disgustingly danced in the streets and said it was a good thing, that the US deserved it.

Had the public statement been different - truthful, there might have been mayhem, with innocent lives taken, as a lot of angry Americans took revenge. And some would have been really stupid about it, blindly lashing out at anybody slightly Middle-Eastern looking. Some would have taken advantage of the situation for their own agenda.

Anyway, that's my take on it. I still remember watching the horrible scenes of 9/11 that day, and thinking that the US had to strike back at whoever did this, and hard. I'm not even American and I wanted revenge. Imagine if you were American, in the US, and your leader had just said this was Islam being Islam?

I really hope people drop their PC and see this threat. You are allowed to think!

Moose

Posted by: Moose at February 21, 2005 12:36 PM

Moose,
I think a great many of those that have these misconceptions actually see the truth about islam, but it's much cosier to deny it and pretend Bush is evil for attacking the "peaceful muslims". It's much more comforting to pretend that over a billion of this planets inhabitants aren't insane with violent, intolerant dogma.
They do this to an extent where they convince themselves that they are right, despite a nagging part of their minds telling them to study the evidence.... and this is the danger point, because those amongst them that are more niave and gullible listen to them and suck in the innaccurate garbage spewed forth by them.

I watched the Brigette Gabriel video, and it is absolutely awesome. Every American shouls see this. Everyone I know is going to see it, because I'm gonna put it on a video CD and make them watch it!!! Anyone here who has not yet watched this video please do. It's powerful and informative and a real eye opener....As a matter of fact I just joined the organization.

Rikki sez:

Moose, I think a great many of those that have these misconceptions actually see the truth about islam, but it's much cosier to deny it and pretend Bush is evil for attacking the "peaceful muslims"

Problem is that the west was totally ignorant of Islam, and sadly man (even on the Right still are), and they took their lead from Bush who stated Islam is a religion of peace

Bush didn't attack "Muslims" he wasted our blood and resources attacking an apostate Arab (Saddam) who was despised by the fundamentalists and who feared for his own sake Osama and the fundamentalists.

All he has managed to do is to stir up the hornets nest, like throwing fecal matter on the sidewalk Iraq is attracting international Jihadis, and providng local Jihadis a recruiting and training ground. In a word the invasion is counter productive, and at the end of the day all he has done is to displace a secular regime, with a Shi'ite Islamic Republic.

I would call that treason against the west.

Kepha:

Please explain to me with facts, not emotion or self justifying propaganda (the Muslims spill out propaganda as fast and furious as Fox and MSNBC, and theirs is more florid and hyperbolic than Faux and MSNBC) why Bush was correct in invading Iraq.

What do you know that I don't.

Saddam had no WMD's and the Bush administration and more importantly Israeli intelligence knew that.

He was not a military threat to anyone, GW I and the sanctions took care of that.

He had no links to Osama, in fact Osama had declared him an apostate, and Saddam was more than leary of the Islamists, as he was indeed an apostate secular leader.

I do know that Iran helped Chalabi with forging evidence to justify the invasion, and that Iran and Saudi Arabia were big winners in the invasion fiasco. (KSA was able to evict the infidel army from the soil of Islam's two holy sites, a demand of Osama and the mullahs, and it, along with the Carlyle Group - Bush family enterprise) have reaped a whirlwind of profits from oil, along with Iran and the rest of OPEC, in the aftermath of the invasion.

So what do you know that I don't know? And I know one heck of a lot about Iraq, Iran, the mid east and Islam (an ideology of Arab Imperialism).

While the secular Left may decry Bush, it has done its two bits' worth to widen and deepen the gap now separating the USA and the Islamic world.

How is that exactly, care to clarify. As a secularist myself (can't make up my mind if I'm left, right, middle or none of the above - I choose none of the above). I see no difference at all in social policy and effect between the theocratic designs of the Calvinists (aka Christian Reconstruction or Dominion Theology) and an Islamic theocracy ala Iran.

Like this for instance:

ChristianReconstructionism--arguably the driving ideology of the Christian Right in
the1990s.

The significance of the Reconstructionist movement is not its numbers, but thepower of its ideas and their surprisingly rapid acceptance. Many on the
Christian Right are unaware that they hold Reconstructionist ideas. Because asa theology it is controversial, even among evangelicals, many who are consciously influenced by it avoid the label. This furtiveness is not, however, as significant as the potency of the ideology itself. Generally, Reconstructionism seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite that
would govern by imposing their interpretation of "Biblical Law."

Reconstructionism would eliminate not only democracy but many of its manifestations, such as labor unions, civil rights laws, and public
schools.

Women would be generally relegated to hearth and home. Insufficiently Christian men would be denied citizenship, perhaps executed. So severe is this theocracy that it would extend capital punishment beyond such crimes as kidnapping, rape, and murder to include, among other things, blasphemy, heresy, adultery, and homosexuality.

The preferred method of execution is (according to Rushdoony's son in law Gary North) stoning, which is a family affair (stones are cheap) but beheading and burning at the stake are also options.

Hmmm, no difference there than between the Iranians is their? In fact according to this site if they take over, the government of the United States would be run by biblical law and not Judicial Laws. It would be similar to living in Iran under the Iatollah. They plan to take over by using the ballot box to elect Christian Reconstructionists who will not necessarily tell the REAL story.

So what do you offer as an alternative to the Mullahcracy Kepha? Nothing as far as I can see, more of the same o same o.

Ok Kepha,

Let's try this. First of all, the gut-less wonders of the world -- the UN --- would have let Saddam continue ignoring the resolutions and continue to make a mockery of the idea of an International body sanctioning a rouge state. Next, of course was that we knew the French Germans Russians etc etc. were corrupt and were never going to give up their under the table transactions ... third, so what if no weapons of mass destruction weren't found? The American people would never had gone along with invading Iraq with out a compelling argument because they are too ignorant about what is really going on in this world, and too busy driving their SUVs and sipping Starbuck's iced coffee. Perhaps those weapons were there, perhaps they weren't. If we are going to defend ourselves against the Islamist ideology that Saddam was supporting even though he never would have allowed it to take over in Iraq and displace him, we would have to find a country in the Middle East to liberate do what we can to encourage a democracy. I Bush screwed up royally in the aftermath of the fall of Bagdad, but like Powell said, you invade it you own it, so we have to keep at it and hopefully, inspite of the bad decisions, the good will prevail... The Iraqi people deserve liberation. They now have a chance at directing their own affairs. It is a country with a fertile land base which is necessary for any country to be truly stable in the long run. This is a resource most countries of the Middle East don't have. A successful change toward a free and democratic country in the middle of the Middle East will do more to liberate the remaining countries dominated by monarchies, fundamentalist clerics or both. Countries that have populations full of angry poor oppressed masses. The masses from which the jihadists recruit promising them jihad will save them from their miserable lives. The human rights violations within those countries are beyond most US citizen's comprehension. Therefore, a strategic move on Iraq against a despot (no argument from any on that is there?) and brutal dictator, that if successful, would establish a free nation and threaten the Islamist dictatorships in the region is a calculated risk worth taking. Worth taking because the Islamo-fascists want to replace the current democracies of the world with what they "know" to be correct vision (from the Holy Qur'an of course)
for the rest of us "sinners" so to speak. And they want to use the oppressed masses in the existing totalitarian Islamic countries for their soldiers. We are at war, communities across America especially University campuses are consistently the recipients of ICNA, ISNA, Muslim Student Association and CAIR dog and pony show's featuring such wonderful men as Imam Siraj Wahhaj lecturing about how Muslims need to "unify" and that the "brotherhood" of Islam is so important (code for Muslim Brotherhood ideology) and that Muslims "must search for the truth" and the "truth is in the words of the Qur'an" and revealed by the Prophet (PBUH) etc, etc. and then of course we have those speakers who they ship in from the UK like Yvonne Ridley who is a very angry ex-drinker who gets her few minutes of fame by sigining the praises of the old Afghan Taliban regime, calling for the destruction of Israel, and supporting the Palestinian Intifada including the murderous suicide bombers. Mind you, one can protest and object to the treatment of Palestinian civilians without embracing murderers and denying that the Jews have just as much right to Palestine as the Palestinians.. afterall... the Jews were there before Islamic armies conquered the Levant at the battle of Yarmuk in 636AD. We need a change in the regimes in the entire Middle East that will bring democracy of some kind and free the people there from the regimes that horde the weath and jail dissidents. It is a matter of our national security. And if you think that American Democracy is just going to be here forever, without any sacrific on the part of Americans today or in the future, you are deluded. We are free because we fought for that freedom in the past and generations have never been born because their fathers died on battle fields in the revolutionary war, the civil war, WWII and the many other wars fought for and by this country. I don't want any fundamentalist Christian or any Muslim undermining democracy so they can establish some political-religious regime.

Ok Kepha,

Let's try this. First of all, the gut-less wonders of the world -- the UN --- would have let Saddam continue ignoring the resolutions and continue to make a mockery of the idea of an International body sanctioning a outlaw state. Next, of course was that we knew the French Germans Russians and the noble UN etc etc. were corrupt and were never going to give up their under the table transactions ... third, so what if no weapons of mass destruction were found? The American people would never had gone along with invading Iraq with out a compelling argument because they are too ignorant about what is really going on in this world, and too busy driving their SUVs and sipping Starbuck's iced coffee. Perhaps those weapons were there, perhaps they weren't. If we are going to defend ourselves against an Islamist ideology that Saddam was supporting even though he never would have allowed it to take over in Iraq and displace him, we would have to find a country in the Middle East to liberate and do what we could to encourage democracy.Bush screwed up royally in the aftermath of the fall of Baghdad,بغداد but like Powell said, you invade it -- you own it, so we have to keep at it and hopefully, inspite of the bad decisions, the good will prevail... The Iraqi people deserve liberation. They now have a chance at directing their own affairs. It is a country with a fertile land base which is necessary for any country to be truly stable in the long run. This is a resource most countries of the Middle East don't have. A successful change toward a free and democratic country in the middle of the Middle East will do more to liberate the remaining countries dominated by monarchies, fundamentalist clerics or both. Countries that have populations full of angry poor oppressed masses. The masses from which the jihadists recruit promising them jihad will save them from their miserable lives. The human rights violations within those countries are beyond most US citizen's comprehension. Therefore, a strategic move on Iraq against a despot (no argument from any on that is there?) and brutal dictator, that if successful, would establish a free nation and threaten the Islamist dictatorships in the region. This is a calculated risk worth taking because the Islamo-fascists want to replace the current democracies of the world with what they "know" to be correct vision (from the Holy Qur'an of course)
for the rest of us "sinners" so to speak. And they want to use the oppressed masses in the existing totalitarian Islamic countries for their soldiers. We are at war, communities across America especially University campuses are consistently the recipients of ICNA, ISNA, Muslim Student Association and CAIR dog and pony show's (funded by Islamist Saudi funds) featuring such wonderful men as Imam Siraj Wahhaj(Brooklyn) lecturing about how the Muslims of the Nation of Islam are not Muslims, that Muslims need to "unify" and that the "brotherhood" of Islam is so important (code for Muslim Brotherhood ideology) and that Muslims "must search for the truth" and the "truth is in the words of the Qur'an" (literal words) and revealed by the Prophet (PBUH) etc, etc. and then of course we have those speakers who they ship in from the UK like Yvonne Ridley who is a very angry tabloid writer who gets her few minutes of fame by singing the praises of the old Afghan Taliban regime, calling for the destruction of Israel, and supporting the Palestinian Intifada including the murderous suicide bombers. Mind you, one can protest and object to the treatment of Palestinian civilians without embracing murderers, and denying that the Jews have just as much right to Palestine as the Palestinians.. afterall... the Jews were there before Islamic armies conquered the Levant at the battle of Yarmuk in 636AD. We need a change in the regimes in the entire Middle East that will bring democracy of some kind and free the people there from the regimes that horde the weath and jail, torture and kill dissidents, and refuse women basic human rights, and attack and murder Christians, Jews and "not the right kind of Muslims". It is a matter of our national security. And if you think that American Democracy is just going to be here forever, without any sacrifice on the part of Americans today or in the future, you are deluded. We are free because of the blood shed for that freedom in the past that denied whole generations from being born because their fathers died on battle fields in the revolutionary war, the civil war, WWII and the many other wars fought for and by this country. I don't want any fundamentalist Christian or any Muslim undermining democracy so they can establish some political-religious regime. Do you? And if you don't, what is your plan to keep that from happening?

Greetings,

Im an ideological muslim revivalist, I would like to contribute to the discussions here upon this site, to provide a more varied and in depth debate about the issues raised here. Since there is so much to discuss here on this site, I would like to set the record straight regarding Jihad.

Jihad is the foreign policy of an Islamic state where fighting is one of the means of spreading the ideology. Diplomacy, Intellectual challenge and 'ideological influence by example of its application' are other means used in foriegn policy of spreading the ideology.

Like the America uses Military means to maintain the status quo of its political and economic dominance:

"The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas."

[Thomas Friedman, NY Times columnist - RESIST newsletter, September 2000, p4]

But Jihad is used to make the ideology of Islam be implemented over others with the express intention of eliminating opression, injustice and the inequity of systems which produce and reinforce poverty amongst people.
Because Islam is the only ideology where its purpose its not self benefit or greed but of the genuine elevation and enlightenment of mankind such that it brings real peace and stability.

I know they are alot of comments and misinterpretation about how islam treats it inhabitants but the simple fact of the matter is, my country (algeria) along with others still have people retaining their islam (en masse) even when all semblance of Islamic authority is passed. The portuguese (of which I share half my background with) remember the islamic civilisation as with fondness and awe. The indonesians converted to islam en masse just with the interaction of their society with our traders and merchants, the Islamic economic system was experienced by them- convincing them of Islams justice and enlightenment.
Other examples abound, the Mongols who conquered the islamic lands in the east only themselves to be conquered by Islam (i.e. the became muslims upon witnessing the islamic civilisation).
Another blatant example was the composition of an army of 80% marionite chrisitians who fought alongside muslims to repel the crusaders!

The Quranic ayat is taken out of context due to the nature of the translation you read, 'feeling subdued' means they accept the soverignty of islam upon them in their societal interactions.
This is similar to saying that all new citizens of america (who emigrate) should feel part of the society they are in and do not resist integration and thus they should interact others based upon the ideas america up holds which is Freedom and secularism.

Islam gave the best minority rights ever experience by a minority then and since, what country grants minorities their own laws to govern their own societal interactions?
Yes, the Dhimmi's had to pay a citizenship tax (1.5% on excess wealth) but this was only on men of working age and they payed it as a waiver to obligatory military service. Muslims pay 2.5% (on excess wealth) more tax then Dhimmi's and have to enter into military training to fight to protect all the citizens of an islamic state (muslim or otherwise!). So who has the more hardship in an islamic state?

Let us compare again with the motives that capitalism has for its foriegn policy objectives:

"The problem is that the good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas reserves where there are democratic governments."

Dick Cheney, Bush's Vice President at a 1996 energy conference

"There was never a plan to leave Iraq because there is no intention to leave Iraq. We (the Americans) are currently building 14 bases there. Dick Cheney can't imagine giving up that oil. The military can't imagine giving up those bases. That's why they can't come up with a plan to leave."

Chalmers Johnson, author of Sorrows of Empire, in LA Weekly, July 6 2004

"If war aims are stated which seem to be solely concerned with Anglo-American imperialism, they will offer little to people in the rest of the world. The interests of other peoples should be stressed. This would have a better propaganda effect."

Private memo from The Council of Foreign Relations to the US State Department, 1941

Isnt this to be expected from capitalism?,isnt it the ideology about maximising personal gratification as a means to achieve happiness?
Self-centeredness, greed, selfishness are just a few of many low level motivations capitalism has given individuals as a purpose to their life.

I sincerely hope we can enter this discussion of mutually understanding and comparing ideas for the purpose of attaining the truth.

I welcome all questions, replies and challenges, thanks for reading.

Salam
Abdul