Skip to comments.The Agenda of Islam - A War Between Civilizations
Posted on 01/24/2004 2:31:12 AM PST by dennisw
The Agenda of Islam - A War Between Civilizations
Professor Moshe Sharon- Wednesday 24th Dec 2003
The war has started a long time ago between two civilizations - between the civilization based on the Bible and between the civilization based on the Koran. And this must be clear.
There is no fundamental Islam.
"Fundamentalism" is a word that came from the heart of the Christian religion. It means faith that goes by the word of the Bible. Fundamental Christianity, or going with the Bible, does not mean going around and killing people. There is no fundamental Islam. There is only Islam full stop. The question is how the Koran is interpreted.
All of a sudden we see that the greatest interpreters of Islam are politicians in the western world. They know better than all the speakers in the mosques, all those who deliver terrible sermons against anything that is either Christian or Jewish. These western politicians know that there is good Islam and bad Islam. They know even how to differentiate between the two, except that none of them know how to read a word of Arabic.
The Language of Islam
You see, so much is covered by politically correct language that, in fact, the truth has been lost. For example, when we speak about Islam in the west, we try to use our own language and terminology. We speak about Islam in terms of democracy and fundamentalism, in terms of parliamentarism and all kinds of terms, which we take from our own dictionary. One of my professors and one of the greatest orientalists in the world says that doing this is like a cricket reporter describing a cricket game in baseball terms. We cannot use for one culture or civilization the language of another. For Islam, you've got to use the language of Islam.
Driving Principles of Islam
Let me explain the principles that are driving the religion of Islam. Of course, every Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is only one God.
But it's not enough to say that there is only one God. A Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is one God and Mohammed is his prophet. These are the fundamentals of the religion that without them, one cannot be a Moslem.
But beyond that, Islam is a civilization. It is a religion that gave first and foremost a wide and unique legal system that engulfs the individual, society and nations with rules of behaviour. If you are Moslem, you have to behave according to the rules of Islam which are set down in the Koran and which are very different than the teachings of the Bible.
Let me explain the difference.
The Bible is the creation of the spirit of a nation over a very, very long period, if we talk from the point of view of the scholar, and let me remain scholarly. But there is one thing that is important in the Bible. It leads to salvation. It leads to salvation in two ways.
In Judaism, it leads to national salvation - not just a nation that wants to have a state, but a nation that wants to serve God. That's the idea behind the Hebrew text of the Bible.
The New Testament that took the Hebrew Bible moves us toward personal salvation. So we have got these two kinds of salvation, which, from time to time, meet each other.
But the key word is salvation. Personal salvation means that each individual is looked after by God, Himself, who leads a person through His word to salvation. This is the idea in the Bible, whether we are talking about the Old or the New Testament. All of the laws in the Bible, even to the minutest ones, are, in fact directed toward this fact of salvation.
Secondly, there is another point in the Bible, which is highly important. This is the idea that man was created in the image of God. Therefore, you don't just walk around and obliterate the image of God. Many people, of course, used Biblical rules and turned them upside down. History has seen a lot of massacres in the name of God and in the name of Jesus. But as religions, both Judaism and Christianity in their fundamentals speak about honouring the image of God and the hope of salvation. These are the two basic fundamentals.
The Essence of Islam
Now let's move to the essence of Islam. Islam was born with the idea that it should rule the world.
Let's look, then, at the difference between these three religions. Judaism speaks about national salvation - namely that at the end of the story, when the world becomes a better place, Israel will be in its own land, ruled by its own king and serving God. Christianity speaks about the idea that every single person in the world can be saved from his sings, while Islam speaks about ruling the world. I can quote here in Arabic, but there is no point in quoting Arabic, so let me quote a verse in English. "Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions."
The idea, then, is not that the whole world would become a Moslem world at this time, but that the whole world would be subdued under the rule of Islam.
When the Islamic empire was established in 634 AD, within seven years - 640 - the core of the empire was created. The rules that were taken from the Koran and from the tradition that was ascribed to the prophet Mohammed, were translated into a real legal system. Jews and Christians could live under Islam provided they paid poll tax and accepted Islamic superiority. Of course, they had to be humiliated. And Jews and Christians living under Islam are humiliated to this very day.
Mohammed Held That All the Biblical Prophets Were Moslems
Mohammed did accept the existence of all the Biblical prophets before him. However he also said that all these prophets were Moslems. Abraham was a Moslem. In fact, Adam himself was the first Moslem. Isaac and Jacob and David and Solomon and Moses and Jesus were all Moslems, and all of them had writings similar to the Koran. Therefore, world history is Islamic history because all the heroes of history were Moslems.
Furthermore, Moslems accept the fact that each of these prophets brought with him some kind of a revelation. Moses, brought the Taurat, which is the Torah, and Jesus brought the Ingeel, which is the Evangelion or Gospel - namely the New Testament.
The Bible vs. the Koran
Why then is the Bible not similar to the Koran?
Mohammed explains that the Jews and Christians forged their books. Had they not been changed and forged, they would have been identical to the Koran. But because Christians and Jews do have some truth, Islam concedes that they cannot be completely destroyed by war [for now].
Nevertheless, the laws a very clear - Jews and Christians have no rights whatsoever to independent existence. They can live under Islamic rule provided they keep to the rules that Islam promulgates for them.
Islamic Rule and Jihad
What happens if Jews and Christians don't want to live under the rules of Islam? Then Islam has to fight them and this fighting is called Jihad. Jihad means war against those people who don't want to accept the Islamic superior rule. That's jihad. They may be Jews; they may be Christians; they may be Polytheists. But since we don't have too many Polytheists left, at least not in the Middle East - their war is against the Jews and Christians.
A few days ago, I received a pamphlet that was distributed in the world by bin Laden. He calls for jihad against America as the leader of the Christian world, not because America is the supporter of Israel, but because Americans are desecrating Arabia with their filthy feet. There are Americans in Arabia were no Christians should be. In this pamphlet there is not a single word about Israel. Only that Americans are desecrating the home of the prophet.
The Koran sees the world as divided into two - one part which has come under Islamic rule and one part which is supposed to come under Islamic rule in the future. There is a division of the world which is very clear. Every single person who starts studying Islam knows it. The world is described as Dar al-Islam (the house of Islam) - that's the place where Islam rules - and the other part which is called Dar al-Harb - the house of war. Not the "house of non-Muslims," but the "house of war." It is this house of war which as to be, at the end of time, conquered. The world will continue to be in the house of war until it comes under Islamic rule.
This is the norm. Why? Because Allah says it's so in the Koran. God has sent Mohammed with the true religion in order that the truth will overcome all other religions.
Within the Islamic vision of this world, there are rules that govern the lives of the Moslems themselves, and these rules are very strict. In fundamentals, there are no differences between schools of law.
However, there are four streams of factions within Islam with differences between them concerning the minutiae of the laws. All over the Islamic world, countries have favored one or another of these schools of laws.
The strictest school of law is called Hanbali, mainly coming out of Saudi Arabia. There are no games there, no playing around with the meanings of words. If the Koran speaks about war, then it's war.
There are various perspectives in Islam with different interpretations over the centuries. There were good people that were very enlightened in Islam that tried to understand things differently. They even brought traditions from the mouth of the prophet that women and children should not be killed in war.
These more liberal streams do exist, but there is one thing that is very important for us to remember. The Hanbali school of law is extremely strict, and today this is the school that is behind most of the terrorist powers. Even if we talk about the existence of other schools of Islamic law, when we're talking about fighting against the Jews, or fighting against the Christian world led by America, it is the Hanbali school of law that is being followed.
Islam and Territory
This civilization created one very important, fundamental rule about territory. Any territory that comes under Islamic rule cannot be de-Islamized. Even if at one time or another, the [non-Moslem] enemy takes over the territory that was under Islamic rule, it is considered to be perpetually Islamic.
This is why whenever you hear about the Arab/Israeli conflict, you hear - territory, territory, territory. There are other aspects to the conflict, but territory is highly important.
The Christian civilization has not only been seen as a religious opponent, but as a dam stopping Islam from achieving its final goal for which it was created.
Islam was created to be the army of God, the army of Allah. Every single Moslem is a soldier in this army. Every single Moslem that dies in fighting for the spread of Islam is a shaheed (martyr) no matter how he dies, because - and this is very important - this is an eternal word between the two civilizations. It's not a war that stops. This was is there because it was created by Allah. Islam must be the ruler. This is a war that will not end.
Islam and Peace
Peace in Islam can exist only within the Islamic world; peace can only be between Moslem and Moslem.
With the non-Moslem world or non-Moslem opponents, there can be only one solution - a cease fire until Moslems can gain more power. It is an eternal war until the end of days. Peace can only come if the Islamic side wins.
The two civilizations can only have periods of cease-fires. And this idea of cease-fire is based on a very important historical precedent, which, incidentally, Yasser Arafat referred to when he spoke in Johannesburg after he signed the Oslo agreement with Israel.
Let me remind you that the document speaks of peace - you wouldn't believe that you are reading! You would think that you were reading some science fiction piece. I mean when you read it, you can't believe that this was signed by Israelis who are actually acquainted with Islamic policies and civilization.
A few weeks after the Oslo agreement was signed, Arafat went to Johannesburg, and in a mosque there he made a speech in which he apologized, saying, "Do you think I signed something with the Jews which is contrary to the rules of Islam?" (I have obtained a copy of Arafat's recorded speech so I heard it from his own mouth.) Arafat continued, "That's not so. I'm doing exactly what the prophet Mohammed did."
Whatever the prophet is supposed have done becomes a precedent. What Arafat was saying was, "Remember the story of Hodaybiya." The prophet had made an agreement there with the tribe of Kuraish for 10 years. But then he trained 10,000 soldiers and within two years marched on their city of Mecca. He, of course, found some kind of pretext.
Thus, in Islamic jurisdiction, it became a legal precedent which states that you are only allowed to make peace for a maximum of 10 years.
Secondly, at the first instance that you are able, you must renew the jihad [thus breaking the "peace" agreement].
In Israel, it has taken over 50 years in this country for our people to understand that they cannot speak about [permanent] peace with Moslems. It will take another 50 years for the western world to understand that they have got a state of war with the Islamic civilization that is virile and strong. This should be understood: When we talk about war and peace, we are not talking in Belgium, French, English, or German terms. We are talking about war and peace in Islamic terms.
Cease-fire as a Tactical Choice
What makes Islam accept cease-fire? Only one thing - when the enemy is too strong. It is a tactical choice.
Sometimes, he may have to agree to a cease-fire in the most humiliating conditions. It's allowed because Mohammed accepted a cease-fire under humiliating conditions. That's what Arafat said to them in Johannesburg.
When western policy makers hear these things, they answer, "What are you talking about? You are in the Middle Ages. You don't understand the mechanisms of politics."
Which mechanisms of politics? There are no mechanisms of politics where power is. And I want to tell you one thing - we haven't seen the end of it, because the minute a radical Moslem power has atomic, chemical or biological weapons, they will use it. I have no doubt about that.
Now, since we face war and we know that we cannot get more than an impermanent cease-fire, one has to ask himself what is the major component of an Israeli/Arab cease-fire. It is that the Islamic side is weak and your side is strong. The relations between Israel and the Arab world in the last 50 years since the establishment of our State has been based only on this idea, the deterrent power.
Wherever You Have Islam, You Will Have War
The reason that we have what we have in Yugoslavia and other places is because Islam succeeded into entering these countries. Wherever you have Islam, you will have war. It grows out of the attitude of Islamic civilization.
What are the poor people in the Philippines being killed for? What's happening between Pakistan and India?
Furthermore, there is another fact that must be remembered. The Islamic world has not only the attitude of open war, but there's also war by infiltration.
One of the things which the western world is not paying enough attention to is the tremendous growth of Islamic power in the western world. What happened in America and the Twin Towers is not something that came from the outside. And if America doesn't wake up, one day the Americans will find themselves in a chemical war and most likely in an atomic war - inside the U.S.
End of Days
It is highly important to understand how a civilization sees the end of days. In Christianity and in Judaism, we know exactly what is the vision of the end of days.
In Judaism, it is going to be as in Isaiah - peace between nations, not just one nation, but between all nations. People will not have any more need for weapons and nature will be changed - a beautiful end of days and the kingdom of God on earth.
Christianity goes as far as Revelation to see a day that Satan himself is obliterated. There are no more powers of evil. That's the vision.
I'm speaking now as a historian. I try to understand how Islam sees the end of days. In the end of days, Islam sees a world that is totally Moslem, completely Moslem under the rule of Islam. Complete and final victory.
Christians will not exist, because according to many Islamic traditions, the Moslems who are in hell will have to be replaced by somebody and they'll be replaced by the Christians.
The Jews will no longer exist, because before the coming of the end of days, there is going to be a war against the Jews where all Jews should be killed. I'm quoting now from the heart of Islamic tradition, from the books that are read by every child in school. They Jews will all be killed. They'll be running away and they'll be hiding behind trees and rocks, and on that day Allah will give mouths to the rocks and trees and they will say, "Oh Moslem come here, there is a Jew behind me, kill him." Without this, the end of days cannot come. This is a fundamental of Islam.
Is There a Possibility to End This Dance of War?
The question which we in Israel are asking ourselves is what will happen to our country? Is there a possibility to end this dance of war?
The answer is, "No. Not in the foreseeable future." What we can do is reach a situation where for a few years we may have relative quiet.
But for Islam, the establishment of the state of Israel was a reverse of Islamic history. First, Islamic territory was taken away from Islam by Jews. You know by now that this can never be accepted, not even one meter. So everyone who thinks Tel Aviv is safe is making a grave mistake. Territory, which at one time was dominated by Islamic rule, now has become non-Moslem. Non-Moslems are independent of Islamic rule; Jews have created their own independent state. It is anathema.
And (this is the worse) Israel, a non-Moslem state, is ruling over Moslems. It is unthinkable that non-Moslems should rule over Moslems.
I believe that Western civilization should hold together and support each other. Whether this will happen or not, I don't know. Israel finds itself on the front lines of this war. It needs the help of its sister civilization. It needs the help of America and Europe. It needs the help of the Christian world. One thing I am sure about, this help can be given by individual Christians who see this as the road to salvation.
Figures compiled from government and academic sources show that 930,000 Muslims attend a place of worship at least once a week, compared with 916,000 Anglicans.(More at Muslims outpace Anglicans in UK)
Muslim leaders said it was a landmark in the rise of Islam in Britain and that Muslims must receive a share of the Church of Englands privileged status.
Demographics Demographics - it's ALL about DEMOGRAPHICS . .
Demographics "There is a demographic catastrophe happening in Europe that nobody wants to talk about, that we darent bring up because we are so cagey about not offending people racially, he said. And rightly we should be. But there is a cultural thing as well. By 2020, 50% of the children in Holland under the age of 18 will be of Muslim descent. He even drew attention to the birth dearth in the West.
And dont forget, coupled with this there is this collapse of numbers, he said. Western Europeans are not having any babies. The population of Germany at the end of the century is going to be 56% of what it is now. The population of France, 52% of what it is now. The population of Italy is going to be down 7 million people.
9. Accelerate Islamic demographic growth via:
|What they're saying about "Onward Muslim Soldiers" - An expose of militant Islam.
|The FREEPERS Guide To Islamic Terror Websites - CYBERTERRORISM (And It's Sponsors)
ONWARD MUSLIM SOLDIERS BUMP!
In order for good people to survive, extremist must not be allowed to run amok, you are every bit the extremist that they are.
Call me what you may, but you will be stopped, and common sense will prevail...in spite of your best efforts.
The remainder of your post is meaningless dribble and posturing lacking substance.
Your analogy then makes every single American complicit in the murder of one million unborn children every year, as those who do oppose the genocide, are ineffectually and unable to stop it.
"I think all Americans, with their melting-pot sensibilities, would love for you to produce these millions of Moslems vehemently condemning Moslem extremism, and terrorism."
If you hide from the truth, it can't find you. I found the pictures, letters, and press releases on Muslims around the world gathering in support of America in the aftermath of 9/11, you did not because you failed to look for them.
"Your really are going to have to explain the logical somersaults you use to arrive at the notion "that all Germans pursued absolute genocide" is required to prove the German state, as a world power, actively pursued the policy. It's a matter of history."
My point is exactly the opposite, my point being that because a portion of the German people pursued "absolute genocide", it did not mean that ALL German people pursues absolute genocide, anymore than all Muslims seek to murder non-Muslims.
"I like how Daniel Pipes put it; declaring a war on terrorism in response to 911 is like declaring a war on sneak-attacks in response to Pearl Harbor."
I've listened to Daniel Pipes, and he and I are in absolute agreement on one thing, the enemy is Islamic extremism, he uses the term Islamist to differentiate the extremists from the other 90%+ of Muslims around the world, and Pipes has no more of a clue on what course of action to take, other than the one being taken today, he also acknowledges that the problem is not Islam, but the way it is being interpreted by extremists currently.
From Pipes website:
"If the Koran causes terrorism, then how does one explain the 1960s, when militant Islamic violence barely existed? The Koran was the same text then as now. More broadly, over a period of 14 centuries, Muslims have been inspired by the Koran to act in ways aggressive and passive, pious and not, tolerant and not. Logic demands that one look elsewhere than an immutable text to account for such shifts"
That "elsewhere" takes you directly to the House of Saud, and the rise of Wahabbism.
Funny that you should offer up communism, a war that we won without having to frontally engage an enemy, but was defeated by the power of ideas.
Same situation here.
papertyger is a perfect name for you.
England's primary industries are socialized.
Healthcare, transportation, energy.
I find very few better examples of socialism around.
"reading the Koran is precisely the wrong way to go about understanding "what's happening in our world." That's because the Koran is:
Complex and contradictory. Contradictions in the text have been studied and reconciled over the centuries through extensive scholarly study. Some verses have been abrogated and replaced by others with contrary meanings. For example, verse 9:5 commands Muslims not to slay pagans until the sacred months have passed and verse 9:36 tells Muslims to fight pagans during those same months. The casual reader has no idea which of these is operational. (In fact, the latter is.)
Static: An unchanging holy scripture cannot account for change over time. If the Koran causes terrorism, then how does one explain the 1960s, when militant Islamic violence barely existed? The Koran was the same text then as now. More broadly, over a period of 14 centuries, Muslims have been inspired by the Koran to act in ways aggressive and passive, pious and not, tolerant and not. Logic demands that one look elsewhere than an immutable text to account for such shifts.
Partial: Holy books have vast importance but do not create the immediate context of action. Reading the Bible in isolation gives limited insight into the range of Jewish and Christian experiences over the millennia; likewise, Muslims have read the Koran differently over time. The admonishment for female modesty meant one thing to Egyptian feminists in the 1920s and another to their descendants today. Then, head coverings represented oppression and exclusion from public life. Today, in the words of a British newspaper headline, "Veiled is beautiful." Then, the head-covering signaled a woman not being a full human being; now, in the words of an editor at a fashion magazine, the head-covering "tells you, you're a woman. You have to be treated as an independent mind." Reading the Koran in isolation misses this unpredictable evolution. In brief, the Koran is not a history book." -- Daniel Pipes
"ISLAM IS EVIL." That's the message a U.S. Secret Service agent illicitly left on an Islamic prayer calendar on July 18 as he was raiding a suspected al Qaeda operative in Dearborn, Mich.
His crude graffito sums up a point of view increasingly heard since 9/11 in the United States. It's also one that is troubling and wrong.
Here is the rub: It is a mistake to blame Islam (a religion 14 centuries old) for the evil that should be ascribed to militant Islam (a totalitarian ideology less than a century old). The terrorism of al Qaeda, Hamas, the Iranian government and other Islamists results from the ideas of such contemporary radicals as Osama bin Laden and Ayatollah Khomeini, not from the Koran.
To which you might respond: But bin Laden and Khomeini get their ideas from the Koran. And they are only continuing a pattern of Muslim aggression that is centuries old.
Not exactly. Let's look closer at both points:
* Aggressive Islam: The Koran and other authoritative Islamic scriptures do contain incitements against non-Muslims. The eminent historian Paul Johnson, for example, cites two Koranic verses: "Strongest among men in enmity to the Believers will you find the Jews and Pagans" (Sura 5, verse 85) and "Then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them. And seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them." (9:5).
* Aggressive Muslims: Fourteen centuries of Islam have witnessed a long history of Muslims engaged in jihad (holy war) to expand the area under Islamic rule, from the early conquests of the caliphs to what Samuel Huntington terms Islam's "bloody borders" today.
Yes, these points are accurate. But they are one side of the story.
* Mild Islam: Like other sacred writings, the Koran can be mined for quotes to support opposing arguments. In this case, Karen Armstrong, a bestselling apologist for Islam, quotes two gentler passages from the Koran: "There must be no coercion in matters of faith!" (2:256) and "O people! We have formed you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another." (49:13).
* Mild Muslims: There have been occasions of Muslim moderation and tolerance, such as those in long-ago Sicily and Spain. And in one telling example, Mark R. Cohen notes that "The Jews of Islam, especially during the formative and classical centuries (up to the 13th century), experienced much less persecution than did the Jews of Christendom."
In other words, Islam's scriptures and history show variation.
At present, admittedly, it is hard to recall the positive side, at a moment when backwardness, resentment, extremism and violence prevail in so much of the Muslim world. But the present is not typical of Islam's long history; indeed, it may be the worst era in that entire history.
Things can get better. But it will not be easy. That requires that Muslims tackle the huge challenge of adapting their faith to the realities of modern life.
What does that mean in practical terms? Here are some examples:
Five hundred years ago, Jews, Christians and Muslims agreed that owning slaves was acceptable but paying interest on money was not. After bitter, protracted debates, Jews and Christians changed their minds. Today, no Jewish or Christian body endorses slavery or has religious qualms about paying reasonable interest.
Muslims, in contrast, still think the old way. Slavery still exists in a host of majority-Muslim countries (especially Sudan and Mauritania, also Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) and it is a taboo subject. To enable pious Muslims to avoid interest, an Islamic financial industry worth an estimated $150 billion has developed.
The challenge ahead is clear: Muslims must emulate their fellow monotheists by modernizing their religion with regard to slavery, interest and much else. No more fighting jihad to impose Muslim rule. No more endorsement of suicide terrorism. No more second-class citizenship for non-Muslims.
No more death penalty for adultery or "honor" killings of women. No more death sentences for blasphemy or apostasy.
Rather than rail on about Islam's alleged "evil," it behooves everyone - Muslim and non-Muslim alike - to help modernize this civilization.
That is the ultimate message of 9/11. It is much deeper and more ambitious than Western governments presently seem to realize.
Don't put words in my mouth, debate what I said, fabricating arguments is a sure sign of having "no game" left in you.
Once again, you attribute a stance to me that I've never taken...you're getting quite desperate here, if you are going to disagree with me, then at least have the courtesy of disagreeing with something that I have actually said.
It seems that Daniel Pipes disagrees with you as well.
Daniel Pipes is in an official capacity. He's director of the Peace Institute. Not only that, but even his own kindly position is decried as being genocidal by CAIR and AMC, and their likes -- simply because he accuses them of not being moderate.
You asked me to disagree with particulars, so I am:
You are the enemy, right along with Islamic extremists.
Why is demanding that moderates be counted either as being with us or against us a threat to you? You can say you disagree and why, but why call me the enemy? Sometimes people get angry at those who want to kill them, Luis. To me you sound like you want to dampen that anger. That's fine, you're trying to show the face of reason and logic. I'm not feeling very logical about this problem. But why call me the enemy?
You will not be allowed to involve the 90% of the world's Muslims and Christians who haven't the slightest desire to involve themselves in a "war of religions" to turn this planet into a massive slaughterhouse of religious warfare.
You're assuming I want that. I'm just saying that I doubt that we will gain an advantage by trying not to offend the Muslims. I also disagree with you about the issue of Muslim moderate eschatology. It's more of a problem than you think, and there is plenty of scholarship to back up that claim. I also disagree that the Christians or the Judaists are the problem here. You know the word "reform" because you were raised in a Christian culture. It means something here. You can only dream of it reforming in the east. I'm just saying I hope it happens but I don't think I'm going to bet on it. What then?
You will be stopped from doing that, as Islamic extremist will be stopped from doing the same, you both have the same goal in mind.
I still don't know what you're talking about here, so it's hard to respond. I have the survival of my people in mind, and I'm beyond the point where I can trust that moderate Islam will solve our problems. It seems the burden of proof is on them and on you in that case. I'm saying I don't feel safe. You're demanding that I do behave as if I am safe, and I do not accept your demand. My conclusion requires that I state that we are not safe, and that we must be prepared to accept the results of that failure. If you feel safe, then enjoy it! Why waste you're time trying to make me feel safer?
I don't give a rat's ass about your "newcomer to this land" crap, I am on this land, and I have every right and privilege that you enjoy, the only exception being the fact that I am not allowed to be president. This land is my children's land, and I will protect them from the narrow point of view exhibited by you, regardless of who you yearn to engage in a war of religions, the only possible outcome of such a war being the situation we witness in Israel daily.
First of all, I have no interest in a war of religions. Second, you're again saying that you feel safer from the threat of global warfare if you avoid riling up the moderates and tilting the battle toward a global scale. That tells me a lot. You're afraid, too. You know that if those people get angrier (as if that could be possible) then your children could be at risk. You have a strategy to feel safe. Good for you. It may not work. Then what? In any case, you are a newcomer. I doubt your sincerity, and I'm free to do that. I don't think you've sacrificed much for this country. I think you're pumped full of love and sunshine about all religions getting along with each other in the land of Oz. That's great, but the experiment is falling apart. Certain aspects of it are probably going to change now. I'm sorry if you're unahppy -- your party of love and reconcilliation is failing to materialize. The west needs to learn one thing and learn it quickly: there can be no tolerance for intolerance. If anything, that's just a matter of recollection. We saw it with WWII and the Germans and Japanese. Of course we're being accused of stupendous inhumanity now because we used incindiary and nuclear bombs on populations that were totally sworn to our destruction. Maybe you'd care to join in with the cacaphony of hate?
In order for good people to survive, extremist must not be allowed to run amok, you are every bit the extremist that they are.
Spoken like a true appeaser. You're unhappy that I'm more militant than you are, so you blame me for the war.
Call me what you may, but you will be stopped, and common sense will prevail...in spite of your best efforts.
Stopped from what? Pointing out that just minding my own business as a free thinking member of a democratic society that refuses to convert to Islam may one day become a liability if I don't point out to my fellow citizens that the end of our freedoms may be near if we don't act? I'm sorry, but I'm not singing Kumbaya anymore, Luis.
Are you suggesting that Pipes had foreknowledge of his upcoming appointment, and thus, slanted his views accordingly?
"Why is demanding that moderates be counted either as being with us or against us a threat to you?"
I am growing quite tired of this practice of yours of pissing on my leg, then telling me that it's raining.
You responded to my arguments, by insulting me, and "reminding me" that I should be mindful of my place in this nation as a "newcomer".
"I might remind you that you are a newcomer to this land. You are here reaping the benefits of sacrifice and zealous blows to the enemies of freedom dealt by my people for more than 350 years."
Kiss my ass.
You then called me a traitor.
Kiss my ass.
You throw the word "reconquista" in to once again, remind me of my place, not realizing that the word "reconquista" originated in Spain, and described the taking back of Spanish lands conquered by Muslims.
Along the way, you have been so damned full of yourself, that you have failed to notice that you actually have no disagreement with me.
However, in light of your insulting tone, your calling me a traitor, and your need to remind me to "mind my place", for my unforgivable temerity at being uppity enough to believe that I too can exercise my right to free speech, I called you for what you are...kit and kin to Islamic extremists, every bit as intolerant of dissenting voices as you accuse them of being, and every bit as dangerous.
"Are you sure you're not making the mistake your forebears did when they allowed themselves to be conquered in the first place?"
I'm not even making the mistake of mistaking you for an intelligent individual any longer.
Interestingly enough, you left your statements stand, leading me to believe that indeed, you A) consider the exercise of an individual's First Amendment rights to be treason, and B) you believe that I should not get so uppity as to forget "my place", and attempt to rise above my station in relation to real Americans.
Well, real Americans don't behave in the manner that you behave, real Americans believe in the America of Ronald Reagan, and America where "anyone, from any corner of the world, can come to live in the United States and become an American."..."become an American", not by accident of birth, but as a result of a desire to be free; so I became an American, and along the way, I gained a deep understanding of just how wrong your thought process is.
I also have the advantage of having actually seen just how wrong this thought process of yours can lead a people, by way of living through the fall of my native country (albeit as a very young man) to a despot, who disguising himself as a fighter for freedom and against evil, instead raised evil as a standard. He was aided and abetted by people such as yourself, who failed to recognize the deeper evil behind his intentions. I see the deeper evil behind extreme Islam's intentions, as I see people such as yourself aiding in abetting them by fanning the fires of civilizational strife.
The truth of the matter is that militant Islam is a new movement among Muslims, that it continues to be a minority within the Islamic world community, and that your "wait and see" attitude of standing by idly while Muslims solve their own problem is diametrically opposite to the actual solution to the issue. We are not the first victims of Muslim extremism, moderate Muslims, the vast majority of the adherents, are, and in order to eradicate the growth of Islams, we need to be deeply involved in helping the moderates succeed.
I do not adhere to the notion of standing by and waiting for them to solve the problems within their culture, because I believe, like Edmund Burke believed, that "all that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."...good men will prevail, on their side and on ours, in spite of your best efforts.
So, you go right ahead and do nothing...I will continue to do something; and the molds seem to fit each one of us perfectly.
He defined both:
The old "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" is an example of Socialism as Marx defined it.
"What is the difference between communism and socialism?"
According to Marx, socialism is a stage on the way to communism, which is the more advanced stage of humyn organization not yet achieved in China or the Soviet Union, even according to Lenin, Stalin and Mao.
According to Marx, under socialism we have a dictatorship of the proletariat which is a government organized for the defense of survival "rights." Also, distribution goes by the principle "from each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her work."
Under communism, according to Marx, the government disappears and there is economic cooperation as well. The principle of distribution becomes "from each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her need."
Socialists and communists existed before Marx. Marx is the single most-respected authority and reference point, but the words "socialism" and "communism" still have various shades and applications, because of the diversity amongst those calling themselves "communist" and "socialist."
Many calling themselves socialist would like to stop with the nationalization of the means of production and not move on to communism. They also often oppose the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in the name of democracy. For example, they supported the imperialist World War I, because the majorities of their countries supported it, while we Marxist-Leninists found World War I anathema to the proletariat, against survival "rights."
Since World War I, there has been a very large split between many calling themselves "socialist" and those calling themselves "communist;" however, to make matters more complicated there are socialists found who would not support World War I today and there are "communists" who would favor doing whatever the majority wants. There are also "social-democrats" who want reforms to imitate the results of socialism while keeping capitalism.
verse 9.5: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
verse 9.36: Surely the number of months with Allah is twelve months in Allah's ordinance since the day when He created the heavens and the earth, of these four being sacred; that is the right reckoning; therefore be not unjust to yourselves regarding them, and fight the polytheists all together as they fight you all together; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).
I see no contradiction between the plain text of the two verses. In the first is a command to fight the "polytheists" (and I assume a Catholic who believes in the Trinity would qualify) after the "sacred months". The passage does not prohibit fighting them during the months, just mandates fighting after the months. The second verse tells Muslims to maintain unity in the fight.
Islamic doctrine is to feign peaceful intentions while weak, and strike as soon as the Muslims are strong. The Islamists didn't have much in the way of funding until OPEC managed to get oil prices up in the 70's
Translation: "Outsiders cannot understand our sacred writings. So stop pointing out embarassing passages which reveal our true intentions, and just listen to our PR"
Which is what you're doing here.
Religion of Submission bump.
Do you write speeches for Wesley Clark?
Korea. Vietnam. Proxy wars in Afghanistan and Nicaragua. The list goes on.
The war against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ended when we forced them to spend so much money on armaments that their economy finally collapsed.
The only "idea" factor that created victory, is that a market economy is much more productive than a command economy. They could not keep up.
The war against radical Islam will be won when we collapse the economies of Saudi and the rest to the point where they can no longer fund actions against us
These were all proxy wars, all despots using communism as a tool to further their intentions.
Islam is a faith, unless you win the ideological battle, the war will never end.
In the absence of a reasoned response, you resort to "Your mother wears Army boots"?
That is why brave Chechen "freedom" fighters talked (in breaks between conquering hospitals and hunting for slaves in neighboring territories) about "liberation of whole Russia". That is why Muslims also must "liberate" Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria, Armenia, Georgia, Spain and India.
IMHO, this is the key in the long run. On the positive side, such things as opening up schools in Afghanistan, e.g., is a step in the right direction. What I don't see are efforts to shut down hate-preachers & their mosques en masse. I realize it's a delicate balance regarding free speech, but I don't think we even have the personnel available and working (such as translators or moles) to be listening in to see who's who & what's what. Or do we?
As Jerry Pournelle puts it: "Ideology counts. But it does its counting with a sword".
Military victory gives the ideological adherents the sense that they are on the correct side. Humiliating and complete defeat makes them question ideological infallibility
Which "Christian world"? The same one which is gaving help to Muslims against Serbs and cheered Islamists in Chechnya? And where was the Israel when Serbs where under attack?