Posted on 02/26/2006 12:24:26 PM PST by farmer18th
From the very outset of the post 9/11 era our leaders have taken every effort to distinguish between the predominantly Muslim groups that have executed acts of terror and the faith itself, even to the point of extricating the word "crusade" from discourse and using the bully pulpit to pronounce "Islam" a "religion of peace."
For some time, a close friend of mine has been involved, almost full time, in studying the historical record of Islam, with particular concentration on Wahhabism. His conclusions are that wherever Islam exists, its adherents work, openly or clandestinely, for total control and that Islam can never "agree to disagree," that the Islamo-fascism we see so evidently around the world is the norm, not the exception. Wherever Muslims exist as a minority, they bide their time and wait for their numbers to grow. They are willing to use deception, and even the appearance of moderation, to achieve their ends. As we all have seen those "ends" are anathema to everything we hold dear as westerners: freedom of the press, freedom of conscience, the freedom to enjoy representative government. No majority Islamic state exists where religious freedom is granted the minority. Even with Iraq's new constitution, Islam is firmly established as the state religion, and a principle to which all others must be submitted, leaving the promised freedom of religion to Christians and others subject to eventual re-interpretation. Predominantly Islamic countries produce theocracies, monarchies, or strong man dictatorships. Are there exceptions?
I suppose the questions I have for Freepers, specifically, are these: Is my friend right? Can Muslims, anywhere, be trusted? President Bush has authored the "Islam is the religion of Peace" language. I don't think I've seen one Freeper post in remote agreement with that pronouncement. Are we in the business of making hopeful pronouncements and then trusting moderate Muslim majorities will emerge around the world in response? Is there any further utility in calling this a war on terror, or is there utility in calling it what many people believe it is--a war on Islam, the same war the west has been fighting for 1400 years.
IMHO, no. They can't be trusted.
Now to the question: I have a friend who is a devout muslim, a very intelligent young man; a bit selfish, but no more so than anyone else his age, and with a great deal more of an informed conscience, I would say. And yes, I would trust him.
I have wondered, unfortunately, if there are any circumstances when this man could become my mortal enemy. This is a shame, because it causes me to harbor a remote suspicion... but no more so, again, than with anyone else. He is a kind and helpful individual, outwardly exhibits good citizenship. I am concerned about the sorts of things he's buying into -- the typical New York styled America-loathing, and I wonder how that might mix with Islam...
I should add that he is from India, where, apparently, Muslims are treated as second class citizens, and so he knows something about humility.
well said for a farmer. ;) I don't know if this is true, it certainly would hold if your initial premise about Islam is correct. I will tell you, I have heard it said that Islam produces slaves to rules, and that, as we all know, is the road to death -- just think of Judaism by the time Jesus walked the earth -- look at the way the Pharisees dealt with transgressors -- it was positively inhumane.
There is a key to this, I think. I can see it, but I am not sure I can describe it in any way other than the most cursory sketch, and that is this: Mary. The intercession of Mary (my apologies if you don't see the importance of Mary to the Church).
My friend informed me, during one of our chats, that the Koran has a book about Mary in it. He knew nothing more about it (which I suppose supports your argument that a moderate Muslim is an apostate one -- and forces me to clarify the term "devout" -- he was sincere so far as he was a practicing Muslim).
In any event, I believe a holy woman, a mother's desire, would be an end to this hostility between sons. And if it is to be, I believe Mary will be the key.
True enough. But there was spiritual "warfare," if you will, involved in that as well. (Even Mary, by the way.)
A question posed for many centuries past.
My answer is "no".
Thats just me.
Of course not, and hopefully I said nothing to give the impression that I thought it was so.
I refrained from calling Muslimis "evil."
However, I have no problem calling what is done under the guise of Islam, or by some who act in the name of "Allah," evil, when it is clearly that.
My friend, on the other hand, is not such a person. However, I don't know that he would say, "I am what I am because of Islam," or "I am what I am because of the way I was raised." I suspect it's the latter.
Problem is that you could be dead several times before you get them sorted out. If I err, it will be in favor of me and mine, sorry about that Mahmood, my genes didn't get this far due to luck!
I'm refined, somewhat, my ancestors would have wasted your asses years ago, salted your fields, and stolen your women.
Just a few years ago, I would have considered a muslim friend, but, just as I once handled rattlesnakes, I've learned my lesson.
My gut answer is to say "no" because I'm not naturally inclined to trust anyone, regardless of whether they are a Muslim or not. Muslims, specifically- after 9-11, haven't done anything to earn my trust either.
What exactly have they done to earn our trust?
We can trust them to blow things up because of a cartoon, but that's the extent of it.
So far, 5 say can't trust generally, 1 says he knows one he would trust.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.