Posted on 03/25/2016 9:20:35 AM PDT by Kaslin
They do and are refining it.
What I get a hoot out of is people like Obama saying ISIS is not Islamic.
First of all Nimrod, it has “Islamic” in it’s name the ISLAMIC STATE...secondly Al Bhagdadi the head poohbah of ISIS (ISIL) or whatever you want to call it is an intellectual with a PhD in Islamic Studies from University of Baghdad...the idea a western non islam is saying this is not what you believe would be like an athiest arguing with the Pope that he is not catholic
They have been trying to kill us 622 AD and they will continue to do so and probably will suceed in many places because the ignorance of liberal mind paradigms.
Freegards
LEX
They sure are.
That's not completely true. They are only at war with nonbelievers and those that do not practice a pure form of Islam. Oh, wait, I guess that is all mankind. Never mind.
Were the Brussels brothers "radical" last year? 3 years ago? How about the Tsarnaevs before Boston? How many bombers-in-waiting are there that are considered "moderate" right now until they aren't? None of them have ever been "radical" until they were so this war against "radical islam" is basically a war against an enemy that doesn't exist. How can one ever win that?
Western muslims practice a bastardized more peaceful form of islam. Also they don’t have the numbers to destroy us, yet.
Any person with their head screwed on straight knows islam is a war plan.
This begs a question, who am I to question how someone practices their own religion? All I know is what I read in the books that Muslims declare to be holy to them. I read that their deity demands that they strike at “unbelievers” and destroy them. I read that this deity requires those who follow it to issue Three Demands: convert, submit or die.
It seems to me that many followers of this deity are in denial about how violent it demands Muslims to be. It seems to me that most Muslims are just slackers who cannot bring themselves to fully obey what is plain for anyone to read.
In fact this is exactly why Sayyid Qutb was such a dangerous man in Egypt. He was one of the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood and was so effective with his writings that he was able to help many slacker Muslims to see clearly what their deity demanded or else they would not get to “paradise”.
You can read all this for yourself. Qutb’s most effective book, Milestones, is available in English and in PDF:
http://majalla.org/books/2005/qutb-nilestone.pdf
see chapter 4, Jihad in the Cause of God.
It is for this and other writings that the Egyptian government considered him to be so dangerous.
Actually that is not true. The Quran was revealed to Muhammad over a 22 year period. The early parts were peaceful when he was in Mecca preaching his message. But he faced opposition there so he went to Medina where he built an army and eventually went back and conquered Mecca. Somewhere in there Islam changed from a spiritual religion to a revolution (political movement).
Over 50% of the Quran talks about Jihad. So it is true when they say that Islam was hijacked by radicals, they just don't realize that happened back in 622AD, and the guy that did it was Muhammad.
Someone posted about a book a couple of weeks ago as a really good book on Islam, “Islam and Terrorism” by Mark Gabriel, a former Islamic scholar. They were right, it is a really good book and an easy read. Highly recommend.
The definitive book on militant Islam is ‘Clash of Civilizations’/Samuel Huntington; a world ranking scholar from Harvard. His succinct phrase “blood on the borders”, captures the historic relationship between Muslim and non-Muslim nations.
Islam, a fanatical, intolerant and static cult, is incapable of change. As a result there is no outlet for dissent or variety; which produces its systemic violence. And this has been so since day one.
I will check it out. Thanks
Huntington's Clash of Civilizations and Who Are We are two of the most important political books written in the past quarter century. His books cover a lot more ground than just militant Islam, they put the whole conflict between the western and Third World and the issue of mass immigration into the correct perspective.
I'm amazed that ultra-politically correct Harvard didn't find some excuse to deny or revoke Huntington's tenure during his life. Normally the only "conservatives" Harvard tolerates are the "respectable" and politically correct kind, meaning some economic libertarians in their Business School and perhaps some foreign policy neoconservatives.
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.