Posted on 03/14/2006 5:58:55 PM PST by Louisiana
Can a devout Muslim be an American patriot and a loyal citizen?
Consider this:
Theologically, no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia.
Scripturally, no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran).
Geographically, no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially, no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.
Politically, no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.
Domestically, no, because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).
Religiously, no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)
Intellectually, no, because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically, no, because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co - exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually, no, because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as our heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in the Quran's 99 excellent names.
Therefore after much study and deliberation....perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both good Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish...it's still the truth. If you find yourself intellectually in agreement with the above, perhaps you will share this with your friends. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country.
My information comes directly from a Muslim Imam speaking on matters of faith and doctrine in an official capacity.
Maybe he is lying. We can never be sure. He is, after all, a Muslim. :-)
As I'm sure you are aware, there are various sects of Islam and no one Imam can speak with authority to define Islam for all Muslims. Yes, the nutty Wahamists and other Islamofascists have some nutty ideas about Islam. That means about as much as what Fred Phelps or the Christian Identity movement say the Bible says or real Christians believe.
Maybe he is lying. We can never be sure. He is, after all, a Muslim.
It's not that difficult to tell who the nuts are. I'll agree that too many Muslims are currently listening to the nuts but they are not the only voices in the Muslim world.
I guess the mudslimes in the FBI who refused to investigate other mudslimes are not among the one or two that you know. A Trojan Horse comes to mind for some reason. Nice on the outside until they get the secret word then watch out.
The USA sould not make policy based on a handful of muslimes who, for the time being, are making nice.
Define the scope of "Christian". There have been plenty of "Christians", including clerics and the beliefs of certain sects, that have advocated lying in similar circumstances. And that's not even going into what a lot of Gnostic Christians advocated.
The Ten Commandments make it quite clear that lying is not an option.
Yet many Christians can't seem to help themselves, anyway. I think you are placing far more importance in doctrine than most people do. The Ten Commandments is like the Speed Limit -- most people see the signs but they also tend to treat it like it's optional. No, I don't think that's a good thing but that's what happens more often than not.
This is not the case with Muslims. Muslim faith and doctrine specifically permits lying. I am sorry to see that you can not distinguish the distinction.
First, not all Muslims consider that doctrine. Some radical imams certainly consider it doctrine and they deserve critique. Others don't. And not every Muslim necessarily does. Second, I don't think that what a person's religion says about a certain behavior necessarily predicts whether they exhibit that behavior or not. With respect ot Muslims, I would argue that the tribal beliefs of the Arabs do more to encourage lying than a quote by Muhammed in the Hadiths which, as I've pointed out, simply captures the situational ethics that most people around the world follow, including many Christians and Jews.
I realize that not all Muslims will avail not themselves of their Allah given opition to lie. My question is, "How can we ever know which Muslim is evocking his religious right to lie and which Muslim is not?"
And my reponse, again, is "Who can we ever know which Christian is lying and which Christian is not?" This is not a religous problem but a human problem. Bad people lie, and some even get away with it. Even if we kept every Muslim out of the United States, we'd still have problems sorting out the liars from the honest people.
The simple answer is that we can not know. The only thing we can for sure is that any devote Muslim knows that Allah has told him that lying is OK.
In specific circumstances. According to certain imams. Others disagree, just as they disagree over the meaning of "jihad" and the necessity of certain customs like head scarves. It means almost nothing in with respect to the sort of certainty you are looking for, any more than Christianity or Judaism guarantees honesty. Christians and Jews are perfectly able to justify lying, particularly in those very same circumstances, without an imam telling them that Muhammed said it's OK. How do you know if a Muslim is lying or not? You don't. How do you know if a Christian or Jew is lying or not? You don't. And plenty of Christians have managed to twist the doctrine of their faith into everything but lying or killing to stop abortions to murdering Jews in the hundreds. Based on their past behavior and what various Christian clerics have claimed Christianity justifies over the century, do you think it's fair that Jews are forever worried that religoius Christians will start murdering them?
I realize that not all Christians follow their God's law about not lying. When interacting with a devote Christian I can at least be sure that he knows God does not want to him to lie.
How do you know a Christian is devout? Do you think that the people in BTK's church thought he was a killer? How about John List? I'm sure I can name plety of others. The truth is that you can't ever know for certain what's going on in someone else's mind. You have to guess.
I've heard plenty of people complain about how crooked business people use the trappings of devout Christianity (e.g., displaying religous symbols like crosses or the fish) to take advantage of honest devout Christians. How can you tell the devout Christians from the liars?
I never said you know less about Muslims. I think you know a great deal- and like all of it.
It's your objectivity I question; for if you are not, yourself, Muslim then I think there's more than a whiff of Stockholm Syndrome in your posts.
________________________________________________
And their patriotism vs. loyalty to islam was tested how?
I am with you. I gladly share the supposed derogatory terms in this instance.
I'll keep repeating it- tho the Muslim defenders never speak to it- Why are Muslims the ONLY people we do not hold to the professed, well-established and very public tenets of their their 'religion'? We hold every other faith- and even cults- to their own doctrines and manifestos; but damned if some aren't bound and determined to divorce the Koran carrying Muslim from the Koran itself!!
By being enthusiastic supporters of GWB and the WOT, just like me.
Supporters of GWB and the WOT how? With words or did they volunteer to help the LEOs get a handle on their buds? Talk is cheap, especially if it is self-serving.
There is a fine point between being 'suspicious' of Muslims and condemning them as a group. Suspicion is a temporary stance while condemnation is more final. It's up to individual Muslims who wish to make a place for themselves in this country to prove that they are able to live within our laws and customs. Acceptance is, well, conditional.
My comment was in reference to the election of JFK, and the hyped-up fear of a Vatican run US back then. A LOT has changed since then.
I wasn't addressing what priests may be doing now. IMO, homosexuality is so rampant in the clergy that I don't consider a priest legitimate unless he is heterosexual and celibate. Otherwise, his words mean no more than any other civilians.
I don't know enough about the Mahony incident to comment; but let's try to keep the comparisons and analogies current.
Yep, talk is cheap. That's why we used the Northern Alliance to help us route the taliban. That's why we heavily rely on Jordanian, Turkish, UAE, Yemeni and other muslim intelligence agencies for the WOT. That's why one of our largest naval ports outside the US is in Dubai. That's why our soldiers can be at ease in Kurish Iraq. That's why Iraqis voted at 70% for a constitution. That's why I the most strident anti-regime Iranians live in the US. That's why there are Turkish and UAE boots on the ground in Afghanistan. That's why the USA is far more popular in Iran and Iraq than in most european countries.
I don't applaud your efforts to make this a war between the west and 1.2 billion muslims. It's much better the way it actually is.
The reason this argument fails, and reason that Islam can NEVER "head in a different direction", is because the Quran is the unchangeable (repeat for emphasis: UNCHANGEABLE) word of Allah as revealed by his one (and last) true prophet, Mohammed.
May Allah help _any_ Islamic ANYwhere that tries to rewrite the Quran.
The fact is, is that Islam is headed in precisely the direction the Quran commmand it to.
There will be no "Martin Luther of Islam".
- John
Not at all. There is quite a bit if Islam I don't like and I certainly don't like the Arab culture that often tags along with it. There is plenty I like about Japanese culture and plenty that I don't like. That's all possible unless one insists on holding an excluded middle position.
It's your objectivity I question; for if you are not, yourself, Muslim then I think there's more than a whiff of Stockholm Syndrome in your posts.
I'm not a Muslim and have no Stockholm Syndrome. Why can't you just accept the simple truth, which is that I know some decent, peaceful, and trustworthy Muslims and would prefer not to see them persecuted for being something they aren't. I have plenty of decent Jewish friends, too, and would defend them against baseless anti-semitism but that doesn't mean I want to convert to Judaism nor does it mean that I've been brainwashed by the Elders of Zion.
Of course if you want me to play the "let's make a psychological diagnosis on the basis of a few Internet posts" game, I could wonder if the extremely anti-Muslim people here aren't suffering from a little bit of a projection problem since they seem to be exhibiting much of the same sort of "us against them" and "by any means necessary" extremism that they accuse Muslims of. And I find a great deal of irony in people telling me how much better Christians are, doctrinally, than Muslims while they forget to love their neighbor, turn the other cheek, judge not, and so forth, all of which are part of Christian doctrine.
As others have posted above in this thread, in some cases, they are serving in the military in the Middle East. Is that good enough for you?
If you have a problem with the Muslim faith, by all means bring them up. I'm personally not claiming that Free Republic should be a Muslim criticism free zone. But that's not the same thing as claiming that Muslims can't possibly be patriotic based on what the most extreme followers of that religion say, do, and claim their faith says.
We hold every other faith- and even cults- to their own doctrines and manifestos; but damned if some aren't bound and determined to divorce the Koran carrying Muslim from the Koran itself!!
Spend less time looking at the Koran and more time looking at the Muslim carrying it. That will tell you more about whether they are good or evil than the Koran will, just as carrying a Bible does not make someone honest, trustworthy, or good. I have plenty of problems with a variety of religions from a theological basis, some of them quite mainstream. But I'm ultimately concerned about whether they are good neighbors or not. That's not something one can reliably determine just by looking at their holy book or professed faith.
According to Muslim belief, the Quran was revealed to Muhammed in a series of revelations and was carried verbally for quite some time. Recent finds reveal evidence that it first existed as fragmentary writings which were compiled and possibly redacted by the editors who compiled the standard Quran. As the anti-Islam ex-Muslims on the web sites referenced above will point out, the Quran as written does contain obvious errors in the form of contradictions, impossible events, and simply bad Arabic language usage. Muslims have two choice if they want to face those facts. They can blame those errors on God, the angel who spoke to Muhammed for God, Muhammed, those who heard Muhammed, those who remembered the verses, those who wrote them down, or those who collected the standard version of the Quran (the other option is, of course, denial that these things exist). Christians and Jews face the same issues with the Bible.
In that context, it's possible for Muslims who are willing to recognize the textual problems to sustain a belief in that errors were introduced somewhere past Muhammed and that where the Quran says really goofy things, they can be blamed on the times, bad editing, or whatever. Christians and Jews do the same thing with the Bible in practice.
May Allah help _any_ Islamic ANYwhere that tries to rewrite the Quran.
It's not a matter of trying to rewrite the Quran. It's a matter of how literally it's take and how perfect one considers the specific text to be. What makes Fundamentalist Christians Fundamentalists is that they take the Bible literally and many consider it just as perfect as the Muslims consider the Quran -- as a revelation from God. Yet there remain plenty of other Christians who read the Bible much less literally and much more selectively. That the Fundamentalists think they are wrong and think they are bad Christians or insist that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God does not change the fact that many Christians don't see it that way.
The fact is, is that Islam is headed in precisely the direction the Quran commmand it to.
If it heads in the direction that the radicals are pushing it, I don't think it has a future. The Israelis have something like 100-200 nuclear weapons and I don't think they are afraid to use them. At that point, the question may become how Islam survives or if Islam can survive the nuking of Mecca the same way that Judaism survived the double destruction of their Temple and the loss of the Ark.
There will be no "Martin Luther of Islam".
There already have been. Take a look at Suffism, for example. There are also quasi-Islamic religions like the Druze and I think even the Sikhs have some Islamic elements in their religion. It's convenient to think of Islam as a monolith but it's no more a monolith than Christianity or Judaism.
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.