Posted on 11/26/2004 9:38:27 AM PST by quidnunc
Islamacists can be defeated by promoting a moderate version of Islam that takes the Quran seriously which the Islamacists dont.
While Islamacism is a cultural fundamentalism, it can be trumped by a movement of people who might be thought of as religiously fundamentalist. While many may consider that a step backwards, the Quran, when read literally, does not allow for the use of inhumane tactics on Christians and Jews, but only for aggressive heathen or infadels which the Quran identifies as those who do not profess a belief int he God of Abraham.
This is a spiritual war fought on a physical level. We canonly win it if we engage in the spiritual struggle as well.
But the secularists will continue to tie our hands in this respect and will advocate the use of secular science to undermine the Islamic faith, and this will not and cannot work in the long run. Western science int he popular mind has become fundamentally flwed as it is percieved as hostile to religion and the Trojan Horse for every moral degeneracy imaginable. On that basis it will always be rejected by a moral people.
Crush your enemy, Drive them before you and listen to the lamentations of their women.
The guy ought to try reading the Koran. Islam aims to dominate the world and kill anyone in the way, and authorizes any action to that end.
You obviously haven't read the Qur'an yet...or studied the life of Mohammed...
moderate Islam is the abberation, not the rule.
"that takes the Quran seriously which the Islamacists dont". This is false, The islamist practise a version of Islam that is more in tune with the islamic text than others.
"when read literally, does not allow for the use of inhumane tactics on Christians and Jews" This is false, the Islamic Text promote agression against these groups.
I would submit that the question about Islamist incoherency obtains from a larger incoherency: the incoherency of Islam itself, and Islamic culture in very general terms. Respectfully, let me ask of any Muslims reading or posting on FR: what is it that your religion actually believes? If you want to know, for example, what all Christians must believe, read the Nicene Creed. There is a very short core of work in which observant Jews believe. You can summarize Buddhism in a paragraph of a few sentences (4 truths, and the 8-fold way). And so on. I submit that the people committing atrocities in the name of Islam are justified within their own belief system, because there is essentially nothing in which Muslims believe except that there is only one God, and Mohamed is his prophet. But unlike the other religions of the world, this belief leads nowhere: it isn't a prescription for a moral life, nor a recipe for salvation. It says nothing metaphysically that could benefit an individual.
Is this the aggression you are thinking of..?
It's pretty difficult to miss the literal reading of "...kill them (non-moslems) wherever you find them.." The islamists are just obeying their koranic scriptures.
Too bad that we don't take seriously the court ruling in 1892 that essentially outlaws islam in America.
No such clash can be avoided. Could the Italians in 1480 or Vienna in 1529, or the Allies in WWI, have avoided a clash with Muslims?
The West enjoyed a respite from Islamic attacks after the collapse of the Ottamans in WWI, but it was a certainty that Islam would attack again when they acquired enough (oil) wealth.
I thought this was going to be about the other America haters, the liberals.
Whoa! This guy writes a perfectly coherent essay, making eminent sense -- until that last sentence, ostensibly the concluding nugget of truth.
But whoa! This "understanding islamism" did not seem to be his original drift. I thought he would conclude with something sensible -- like "What has caused Islamism to thrive in the modern world is the immense, politically-correct tolerance of Europe and America. Without this Mr.Rogers, JimmyCarter-esque posture, islamism could not have risen to the globe-threatening status we now are witnessing".
Clash of civilizations?
That's plural.
Thank you.
Pardon my ignorance, but what court ruling is this? I'd like to learn more about it.
Some have put forth the proposition that modern Islam has been high jacked by extremist and that the idea of defeating and or killing non-Muslims is a new and radical perversion of Islam.....not true.
General William Eaton, wrote to the US Secretary of State in 1799 reporting his dealings with the Barbary (Muslim) States:
"Taught by revelation that war with the Christians will guarantee the salvation of their souls....."
After beginning military action against Tripoli (with one of the objectives being to free Christian HOSTAGES being held for MONEY....), Eaton wrote in his journal:
"April 8th. We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Musselmen. We have a difficult undertaking:
The leader of the Muslims on 23 May of that same year offered six thousand dollars for the killing of Eaton and double the sum if alive (for slavery), and thirty dollars per head for killing Christians.
Now, doesn't all this sound VERY familiar....Islam has NOT been high jacked....it was and always will be a religion of war, conquest, slavery, and thuggery.
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.