Posted on 11/15/2002 8:52:56 PM PST by Angelus Errare
1. This self-gratifying/soliciting/praising stereotype religion of peace is ideological, and it is not refering to G_d. Even if true it would definitely support the social secular angle of relationship between people and not between the person and G_d. Peace with whom? With G_d or with deified terrorists?? Who is the target of proselytism here? Terrorists against whom we speak or the victims themselves? Love would be of course a much more apt precept, but I guess they wont disrob their 60s friends so far that they are going to claim peace and love - the two cannot coexist necessarily anyways but Islamists have taken the preponderent half of the 60s mantra.
2. Islam at the origin despises the poor and the peasant. Nowadays it has become Marxist and requests support from the Marxist defined proletarian classes.
But
3. Islamism is an illness of Islam bread within Islam, and certainly not in churches nor in secular institutions. There the author errs completely.
4. Islam may also be radical against Jews, but less so against other Islamic groups or even secuarlist "Christians", believe it or not. So radical Islam does exists in various forms that we may not believe are radical. When looking at all the Islams, all bear a radicality of some sort against one group or the other, their divergence being just that.
4. The Islam and today's Islams never submited to G_d, but rather took on to replace G_d with their own particular self promotion of knowing what G_d meant. It never was a religion based on G_d, but a cult much parallel to secular cults that promote their own definition of G_d, as a channeling invention of man. Yes, both Islam and atheists are equal to, if not, above G_d, and whatever their knowledge of G_d, they have G_d as a man invented concepts of G_d, despite contrary claims of the Islams. Moreover both groups reserve the right to use the group to proselytise, instead of letting people have the right to be silent and to be unproselytised, something only possible in G_d fearing groups, compartmentalised and sanctuarised when confederated under G_d (in a non-man-proselytising state) and believing in something - refusing to believe people with their huge conflicts of interests and definitely alienable priviledges and existences.
Yes indeed, peaceful Islam, if it exists, is a tiny minority, as Salman Rushdy's case proves.
Or you could say the Islam that is not radical to you could be radical to a Jew or a baptist. Most Islams difer in whom they radicaly target... whether it is appartheided women, blacks as slaves in Africa, whites in Farakan's black Islam and what not, the sanctuaries from one radical Islam is another radical Islam, same difference, many people understood and still understand Hitler nowadays too.
Jews never forced anyone to read the Torah and never will. Nor are the hisory books full of bloodshed you read are Mein Kampfs because they do not proselytise either. You talk about it as if it was a proselytised religion, it is not. In fact, the fact that Moses was punished was because he erroneously proselytised.
Islam is inherently unappologeticaly proselytist to the utmost, using arms of all kinds and not repent.
Inmates have been fighting "radical" inmates in the jails too. Saddam has been fighting radical Kurds too while Kurds have been fighting radical turks too and vice versa and what not. The history you promote is not objective history but proselytised bull as bad as radical islam.
Palazzi is anti-Islamic as we know the majority of Islam to be. He would most disagree with your statement since in the past he has urged muslims to learn by noting anti-islamic criticism in the West
Moses is a semi-mythological figure, probably based upon some historical person.
The same applies to Mohammed.
To argue about the personality and ethics of either figure makes about as much sense
as to discuss the virtues and failings of Spider Man or Batman.
There is a story, so I discuss the story with what it provides, and, like it or not, conclusions can be drawn. The story of Moses is one of fleeing man lead oppression from within the tribe and from without the tribe and finding the proselytism by G_d instead. Muhammad is clearly a man who had visions, not a man who lead people to relate to their G_d directly, avoiding the horrors of man lead unappologetic proselytism.
Not so.
There is only one non Arabic reference to Mohammed during his lifetime.
(If it is the same Mohammed).
All that is stated is that he was an Arab king.
...or this:
VIII/65: "O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred stedfast they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence."
...this...
VIII/12: "When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying:) I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then maim them in every limb and smite of them each finger."
I have no idea how we are going to anything about the local Imans, that's going to have to be taken care of by the muslims themselves. THEY are going to have to decide the training of their clerics, what is acceptable and what is not.
I realize different versions probably compete, with rough edges in some removed (or flat out lying) for Western consumption. I'd like a link to the version that has the translation for your quotes, as it sounds closer to reality.
Ibn Tayymia in the middle ages tried to extend the meaning to include essentially anyone who disagreed with him, including muslims that revered local saints and the like. This was an innovation and denounced as heresy in his own time; he died in prison. The Wahhabis follow many of his teachings.
The aggressive application of statements in the Koran about "unbelievers" to "peoples of the book" and non-islamicist muslims is denounced by traditional sunnis, as the original article made clear. This is indeed one of the key fronts in the fight within islam. It is enough to transform the historical nuance of the tradition into a totalitarian ideology that persecutes anyone who does not accept the ideology wholesale.
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.