Posted on 09/19/2002 7:14:35 PM PDT by Stultis
CORRECTION: Images such as this one are what causes ordinary Americans to have a negative view of the "Religion of Peace." And, in the event that further atrocities as the one depicted above are ever visited upon us again, it is my fervent hope that Americans will indeed be incited to violence upon the adherents of the "Religion of Peace."
About the Prophet Muhammad, Robertson said: "This man was an absolute wild-eyed fanatic. He was a robber and a brigand. And to say that these terrorists distort Islam, they're carrying out Islam."
Words that bear repeating!
Muhammed was a warlord (dunno about "fanatic") who killed his enemies in battles, raided caravans for loot, and used religion to cement his leadership of his followers in Medina. He claimed to have visions where the Angel gabriel told him what to do, etc. sometimes these things were rather selfish in nature "hey, i can marry a 9-year old now". In any case, calling Islam about "peace" when its Prophet lived by the sword and was a political leader is a sick joke IMHO.
See this web site for more on challenging Islam: Answering Islam
Robertson is mostly right, but of course as fundamentalist Christian he does need to be a tad careful of 'casting stones'. bravo to FoxNews for letting this get out there though! Much more honest appraisal of Islam than we get from the PC crowd!!
And he may be right that many Muslims doent even know their own religion. Certainly the "real Muhammed" is someone obscured by history and asking the question can get you in serious trouble in the Islamic world.
Islam really isn't a rip off of Judiasm. The only thing even remotely close to it is the concept of monotheism. It has pagan origins [allah is the arabic name for 1 god, who was the greatest of the 365 gods of arabian paganism. Original name is il-Ilahi and he was the god of war, spear, and arrow], but theologically it is a heresy of Catholicism.
This is not true about Islam not being tied to Judiasm. In fact, Muhammed ripped off *all* the religions in the area, but there is greater sources from later Talmudic (Jewish) sources than anywhere else.. btw, "heresy of Catholicism" doesnt even make sense, the Christians of the region were of Syriac origin, (monphysites) even different from the orthodox Christians centered around Rome and Byzantium - the current Syrian church is neither Greek Orthodox nor Catholic btw ... as for the Quran Muhammed borrowed from every religion in the area, and sure mucked up tthe stories in most of them - from having Abraham come out of "fire" to having Jesus somehow elude getting nailed to the cross(!!!) - most christians would find the Jesus of the Quran a laughable charicature and barely recognizable.
This is according to Prof. Tisdall: Sources of the Quran
Chapter 3: " We now turn to the Jews from whom Muhammad borrowed so very much that his religion might almost be described as a heretical form of later Judaism. In Muhammad's time the Jews were not only very numerous but also very powerful in various parts of Arabia. No doubt many of them had settled in that country at different times, when fleeing from the various conquerors - Nebuchadnezzar, the successors of Alexander the Great, Pompey. Titus, Hadrian, and others who had overrun and desolated Palestine. They were especially numerous in the neighbourhood of Medina, which city they at one time held by the sword. Muhammad's time the three large Jewish tribes called Banu Quraiddhah, Banu Nadhir, and Banu Qainuqa', settled in the neighbourhood of Medina, were so powerful that Muhammad, not long after his arrival there ~n A.D. 622, made an offensive and defensive alliance with them. "
Hey, congratulations. Which one were you in the audience?
This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I wish people like Robertson weren't portrayed as a conservative leader.
Actually, I think it is EXTREMELY instructive to explain the sources of Islam and WHY it is REALLY A DIFFERENT THEOLOGY and dispute the wholly erroneous idea that the underlying religion and theology is peaceful. It is not! Even if the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful people, the Quran itself is not instructing peace only! It promises heaven (72 irgins) for believers and for those who do the 'roght things', it wants idolators to be killed and/or put under the thumb of the believers (Dhimmi concept). Our secular culture has gotten so ignorant of religion people have not a clue what is written in these "HOly Books". Well, guess what, to the Wahabbis, it is an Instruction Manual. You cant understand a computer program without reading the source code ... same with a religious zealot. Robertsons comments are helpful for understanding the true mindset of Islamic radicalism.
Wonderful. I saw you. Colmes didn't like your question.
However, on this, I agree with Pat Robertson.
Hence Islam, in its ethico-religious significance, means the "entire surrender of the will to God."
That is right! They wouldnt make headway though if they said the truth:
Which is more accurate but less useful in the PR war ... the submission for non-believers is "Dhimmi-tude" as one author put it - which is another form of submission: pay a special tax, make sure you are second-class citizens with less legal rights, dont dare proseletyze or you get the treatment the Taliban wanted to give to the US aid workers.
Seminar poster? Perhaps a mohammedan?
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.