Posted on 11/13/2002 3:35:07 AM PST by kattracks
(CNSNews.com) - President Bush wasted no time, following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, in exonerating Islam and reminding Americans that the violence had been committed by freedom haters. Islam, the religion the terrorists claimed to represent while carrying out their attacks, actually stood for peace, the president insisted.
Fourteen months after the attacks, the 19 hijacker/terrorists are still considered heroes by certain elements of the Islamic community around the world.
A would-be shoe bomber, Richard Reid, and an alleged would-be dirty bomber, Jose Padilla, have seen their attack plans foiled in the U.S. since Sept. 11, 2001. But the accused Beltway Sniper, John Muhammad, and his alleged teenaged accomplice John Malvo, are believed responsible for a multi-state shooting spree that culminated in the killings of ten people in the Washington, D.C., region, before they were captured.
Reid, Padilla, Muhammad and Malvo all had one thing in common - a devotion to Islam.
Robert Spencer, author of Islam Unveiled and an adjunct fellow at the conservative think tank Free Congress Foundation, believes Islam's theological foundation is creating many of today's terrorists and would-be terrorists.
Spencer's book takes a critical look at the religion of Islam, its holy book, The Koran, its prophet Muhammad and concludes that the religion is producing violent behavior in a significant numbers of its adherents.
"The religious motivation [for terrorism] is paramount for millions of these people and if we don't recognize that, we are going to be ill equipped in the face of what we are up against," Spencer told CNSNews.com.
Spencer believes the U.S. is not prepared to fight a war on terrorism because the nation fails to understand the true nature of Islam.
"[Our leaders] are intent on insisting that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, when it has everything to do with Islam," Spencer said.
"When you are in a conflict and you don't know the true nature of your opponent, you are at a tremendous disadvantage," he added.
According to Spencer the "mainstream interpretation" of the religion of Islam is responsible for violent behavior because the text of the Koran has many passages inciting followers to violence.
"When the Koran says, 'Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them,' the extremists can point to that and many other verses of that kind and say: 'Look, this is what the religion teaches,'" Spencer said.
Moderate Muslims are "in the unfortunate position of saying: 'No that is not actually what it means,'" and can be "easily portrayed by extremists as being the disloyal party, the ones that don't take the Koran seriously," he added.
Moderates have a difficult time explaining away verses that incite violence because Islam teaches that the Koran was dictated word for word by Allah (God), according to Spencer.
"Muslims teach the Koran is the literal words of God in a stronger sense than Christianity believes the Bible is the word of God ... the Koran is more than inspired, it is dictated, it is actually God speaking. There is no human element," Spencer said.
"The moderates who might be fighting against Islam's dark side, have the disadvantage of having to go against the plain words of the text of the Koran," he said.
"There is no theological or geographical or denominational or any other kind of firewall between extremist Islam and moderate Islam," he added.
'Religion of Peace'
Islamic scholars and Muslim advocates dispute Spencer's research and the premise of his book.
Michael Young, editor of Islam For Today, rejects the notion that the religion of Islam is to blame for terrorist activities.
"Islam promotes itself first and foremost as a religion of peace ... Islam spread throughout Southeast Asia and Africa entirely by peaceful means," Young told CNSNews.com.
Young believes many people mistakenly believe Islam is a violent religion because of the "local culture" of some Muslim nations.
"Very often when Islam is in society for so long, people fail to distinguish between what is Islam and what is their own local culture," Young explained.
Young did concede however, "There are vocal people within in Muslim community who do harbor Taliban sympathies."
'Defamatory attacks on Islam'
Ibrahim Hooper, communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), was more blunt in defending Islam from charges that it encourages terrorism.
"When people of other faiths commit crimes or violent acts, people don't generalize to the whole faith, but when a Muslim commits a violent act, somehow it is an indictment to their entire faith," Hooper told CNSNews.com.
"Muslims occasionally do bad things, so do Jews, so do Christians, so do Hindus, so do Martians," he added.
Hooper believes that since the Sept. 11 terror attacks, there has been "a new cottage industry of defamatory attacks on Islam."
"If you want to make a buck now, attack Islam," Hooper said. "When it is done to Christianity or Judaism, people in authority object. When it is done to Islam, it gets a pass," he added.
Young believes Islam's tarnished image among some Westerners is the result of some Muslim followers misinterpreting passages of the Koran, something that could happen in any religion, he said.
"If you are intent on committing a violent act, you can always find some religious text that smashes the heads of babies against rocks. If you choose to interpret in a certain way, you will find what you are looking for," Young said.
But Spencer, agreeing that many religions of the world have inspired violence among its adherents, believes Islam is by far the most culpable.
"There is no doubt that Christians and Jews and everybody else bearing every other name of every other religion have done terrible things, but that doesn't mean that every religious text is equal in capacity to inspire that kind of thing," Spencer said.
According to Spencer, the Koran takes the "Seventh Century warrior," Muhammad, and "canonize[s] him as the supreme example of human behavior."
"So that instead of being a Seventh Century warfare pattern that we ought not to follow, [Muhammad] becomes the model for how we should always behave. So this is the defect, this is the difficulty," Spencer said.
'Political Correctness'
Larry Johnson, a former CIA and State Department officer and counter terrorism expert, believes media and government officials are not dealing forthright with the threat of Islamic terrorists, because there is a "bit of political correctness still running afoot."
"We like to portray as a nation, Islam as a religion of peace, and it really isn't," Johnson said.
"As it is widely practiced, [Islam] doesn't encourage peace and it encourages violence, Part of that is that it has not had its own version of The Reformation. It is stuck in Middle Ages as Christianity or Judaism once was," he added.
"[Moderates] do not represent the majority thought in the Muslim world. They are very much on the defensive," Johnson said.
Johnson believes the radical Islam movement is the greatest national security threat facing the U.S.
"There is no other significant threat confronting us ... it gives people a reason to do what they do and to take risks and make sacrifices," Johnson said.
Johnson thinks a modern "crusade" may be necessary to battle Islam.
"I think George Bush was right when he called for a crusade, but it's not a crusade of Christians against Islam, as was a hallmark of the first Crusades. This is a crusade of [modern societies] versus a medieval thought process," Johnson said.
'50,000 Muslim Men'
In order to fight what he sees as a growing Islamic threat, Spencer proposes that the U.S. impose strict immigration limits on Muslims entering the U.S.
"Why were 50,000 Muslim men admitted to the country from Muslim countries since September 11?" he asked. When are we going to start being sane about immigration law?"
Spencer would also like to see mosques monitored by law enforcement for anti-American sentiment and any inciting of violence, ideas Hooper finds offensive.
"I live here too. I don't want to be attacked, but battling terrorists and defaming Islam are two different things," Hooper countered.
Spencer is not optimistic the U.S. will take the security threat of Islam seriously.
"Everyone is so afraid of being called a racist that they are afraid to take measures that are necessary to defend oneself," Spencer said.
E-mail a news tip to Marc Morano.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
I think this is partly a distorted attempt to be "fair" and partly real confusion about how to deal with this ancient enemy of the West (and of Christians, Jews and even Hindus everywhere).
We are more or less prepared to fight the modern "isms" but not for a resurgence of an enemy that has, since its birth, been trying to conquer or kill anyone who refuses to accept it. One of Spencer's excellent points was that there is no such thing as "moderate" Islam, and that the "moderates" are, sadly, the ones who are out of step with Islam, because it is violent in its scriptures and from its very earliest years.
If I recall correctly, Mohammed fought 70+ battles - and only one of them was defensive.
In truth, their society, with respect to religion has not matured enough to coexist in a free society. Their growth rate in the US is truly alarming. If a majority, or a significant number, they will be much more of a problem, they religion simply is counter to the basic tenants of this country’s founding. It seems, we can thank the feel good politicians of the 60’s, including the Kennedys / Democrats for this sorry state of immigration – and the blight it has created.
This past September, Hillsdale College (Michigan) held a seminar on the topic, “How to Think About Islam.” Nine guest speakers, both Islamic and non-Islamic, and several faculty members offered divergent views on several questions about radical Islam, terrorism, etc.. A flyer for this seminar somehow found its way to my mailbag here at work. A disturbing comment made by one of the professors really caught my attention: To renew itself, Islam must resume its pilgrimage. All the world will be better for it.
I think it's going to be a long ride. They're not going to stop until every one of us either converts to Islam or dies.
Meaning: Islam has historically been left (i.e., put itself) in one desert after another. To find fresh oases, out of which it has not yet sucked its children's welfare, it now covets the wealth of the West. They may make enemies, but they're clever (they'll blaze the trail by killing and maiming dozens for each martyr--i.e., act cowardly), and they've got god on their side.
HF
On the other hand, the Quran contains EXPLICIT language that COMMANDS violence by Muslims against non-Muslims, to spread their faith and or other reasons. People who call themselves "Muslims" and who have employed violence in the name of their religion are doing so in OBEDIENCE of Islamic scriptural commands.
This is a significant difference. The medieval "Christian crusaders", it can be argued, were being disobedient to their faith. The modern Islamic terrorists are being obedient to their faith. Thus, it is legitimate to focus on Islam itself as the issue.
Actually, it's quite instructive to compare the Old Testament with the New Testament. The Sermon on the Mount is a devastating line-by-line refutation of Moses's ministry, and, as such, is one of the secondary reasons the Rabbis loath Jesus to this day.
No, what they actually have on their side is the Prince of Lies, the old deceiver, the leader of the Jenn, Lucifer. How shrewd of him to disguise himself as a counterfeit of the angels serving the one and true God, and thus to lead billions astray. How shrewd of him to use a fraudulent "prophet" to mislead billions away from Christ. How shrewd of him to use a violent, profane man to start a violent, profane religion that wages war against the true religion founded by the Prince of Peace.
Islamic terrorists are violent, hateful people because they are faithful followers of a violent, hateful religion founded by a violent, hateful man through the inspiration of a violent, hateful Satan.
When someone claims that "Islam is a religion of peace" I am reminded of what was said of the ancient Romans: "They created a desert and called it 'peace'".
You bet, I'm sure it's only recently that Muslims in Africa (the Sudan, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast etc) and Southeast Asia (the Philippines, Indonesia etc) have resorted to violence to get their point across. </ sarcasm >
Often, diplomacy consists of saying "nice doggie!" to a snarling mongrel, whilst looking for a rock. Hopefully I'm not just whistling in the dark."
I concur...
We should assume that behind closed doors Dubya has been counseled that ALL Islam is indeed diametrically opposed to ALL non-Islamic culture and religion, thus it's believers a genuine threat inside America every day of the week. Whatever we see or hear on TV from Dubya is pure show to "let sleeping dogs lie" -- for now.
Even worse-- when you're in a conflict and don't know yourself.
At least Bush doesn't have that problem.
Actually, it depends on what you mean by "new testament" and "Christian." If you are talking about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, then what you have said is correct. However, there are are an enormous number of people who call themselves "Christians," but who would be more accurately called "Tarsusians," or "Paulines" [after Saul of Tarsus, or Paul, or whatever you want to call him]. I get in arguments with them all the time here at FR, and, while I try to make the standard points as a matter of duty, I've come to realize that, in general, it's just a big waste of time to try to talk any sense into them.
There are some really ugly proto-Marxist aspects of the post-Christian books of the New Testament.
It shouldn't be too difficult. Islam has been illegal in the US since 1892.
Too bad we are too "politically correct" and "tolerant" to act on it.
The last sentence is of course a lie, as the genocidal means including slavery and what not is used by Islam to spread. Then again he does admit this religion "of peace" is a salesman's solicitation, unappologetic proselytism, if not outright ideologically insulting the intelligence, very close to terrorism inherently.
I make no distinction between the four cannonical gospels and the other cannonical books of the NT, including those authored by Paul. I stand by my assertion that you will not find in ANY of these a command that genuine followers of and believers in Jesus Christ are to employ force for the purposes of propagating their religion. In fact, the ONLY justification found there for ANYONE to employ ANY force is with regard to legitimate governmental authorities in fulfillment to protect the innocent, preserve the peace, and maintain a just social order.
If you think that you have found verses that prove otherwise, I invite you to share them with us.
98% of the world's Muslims give the remainder a bad name.
The Crusaders were fighting a defensive war against mohammedan aggression. They were attempting to defend Christians in Europe and the Near East against oppression. They, unfortunately, weren't successful.
Certainly there are no commandments in any part of the New Testament which bear any resemblance to Mohammed's commandment to seize them and kill them wheresoever ye find them [Medina Suras, Chapter of Women]. However, there are some passages in the post-Christian books of the New Testament that are, for all intents and purposes, Marxist in their approach to private property rights [and I've often wondered whether this is why so many Catholics vote Socialist].
If by "Marxist" you imply an advocacy that the government confiscate and control all property, I would again challenge you to provide us with specific verses. I do find many verses throughout the New Testament exhorting and commending VOLUNTARY charitable giving, but that is most certainly NOT the same thing as Marxism. Indeed, if you actually read Marx you would find that he had nothing but contempt for such.
Yes, but let's be clear here. It was not so much that there was scriptural warrant for individual Christians on their own initiative, or for the church as an ecclesiastical body, to undertake the liberation of Christian victims of Islamic aggression. There is no such scriptural warrant. What there IS scriptural warrant for is for governments to protect the innocent from aggression, and if necessary to wage just war to do this. The Christians in the Middle East became victims of Islamic aggression in the first place and in large part due to the failure of their governing authorities to do what they were supposed to do (per scriptural warrant) to defend them. The case for other governments to later intervene in their behalf, roll back the Islamic aggression, and liberate the oppressed Christians, is less clear, but perhaps could be made on the basis of a just war ethic. But the ONLY scriptural warrant for such an action is if the action is initiated by GOVERNMENTS, and is entirely a GOVERNMENTAL action. Christians can certainly support and participate in such an action, but because they are citizens, not so much because they are Christian.
It was the failure to properly define the line of authority between the church and the state that was at the root of whatever problems occured with the Crusades. This, at its root, was due to a failure both of people running the church and people running the government to obey the clear teachings of scripture, which gets back to my original point: Any criticism of the behavior of Christians during the crusades must be based on the fact that such behavior was out of DISOBEDIENCE to the scriptures, rather than out of obedience to any scriptural commands.
By George, I think he's got it!
It was the failure to properly define the line of authority between the church and the state
That "line" was fuzzy indeed a millennium ago. I agree, though, that the failures of the Crusades were in large part a result of "DISOBEDIENCE to the scriptures", and forgetting the nature of the mission.
Just for the record, can you post a listing of these 24 conflicts, their region, and the 2 identified as not being Islamically-induced?
I, and doubtless others, would appreciate such a listing.
Thanks in advance!
CA....
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Many people believe islam is a violent religion because islamics are perpetrating unspeakable acts of terrorism around the world, even killing each other over disagreements! DUH! They then compound the felony by either celebrating in the streets after such acts, or by standing silent and not condemning same, loudly and publically! Lack of condemnation = support and approval!!
If anyone thinks islam is about anything other than hate and death, then they are not observing the actions of islam, and they are ignoring the resounding silence (lack of widespread condemnation) of muslims with respect to terrorist acts. Islam is its own worst enemy - islam is sowing hate and death, all by itself (no outside help), because the koran tells it to, and it WILL reap what it sows!
Stay vigilent, stay armed and never trust a muslim!
Excuse me? Did we miss the whole conquest of Christian North Africa and Asia Minor thing? Or Sudan and Nigeria? Guess all the violence of Central and SW asia doesn't matter...aka not mentioned above.
Islamic persecution of non Muslims in
Indonesia
Lebanon
Turkey
Syria
Egypt
Sudan
Pakistan
Eritera
Somalia
Afghanistan
Islamic minority unrest...racial instability
America
Britian
France
Italy
Germany
Canada
Australia
South Africa
That's a rough list anyways.
Muslim invaders to India slaughters thousands of Buddhist monks because they were infidels. These monks did not fight. They were responsible for the demise of Buddhism in India. It flourished elsewthere in S.E. Asia and E. Asia but in India, it was gone.
The Acts of the Apostles
004:031 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were
assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy
Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.
004:032 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and
of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things
which he possessed was his own; but they had all things
common.
004:033 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the
resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them
all.
004:034 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as
were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the
prices of the things that were sold,
004:035 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was
made unto every man according as he had need.
004:036 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which
is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and
of the country of Cyprus,
004:037 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at
the apostles' feet.
005:001 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold
a possession,
005:002 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to
it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles'
feet.
005:003 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to
lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of
the land?
005:004 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was
sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived
this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but
unto God.
005:005 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the
ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these
things.
005:006 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out,
and buried him.
005:007 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his
wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
005:008 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land
for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
005:009 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed
together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of
them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall
carry thee out.
005:010 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the
ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and,
carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.
005:011 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as
heard these things.
005:012 And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders
wrought among the people...
If by "Marxist" you imply an advocacy that the government confiscate and control all property, I would again challenge you to provide us with specific verses.Technically speaking, Peter is not acting as a government official in these passages, but there is a strong implication that Peter used either his own strength of will, or maybe The Holy Ghost Itself, to shame and humiliate Ananias and his wife unto their deaths, simply because their oblation failed to satisfy him.
Keep in mind that this is the same Peter who betrayed Jesus thrice as often as did Judas; furthermore, Judas was warned in only very general terms that he would betray his master, while Peter was warned in the most explicit of terms.
I know of no passage in the Christian books of the New Testament in which Jesus causes the mortal death of a living man [although he certainly goes to great lengths to warn of the possibility of immortal death, which is to say, the withholding of immortal life]. The mistake that is made by almost all people who call themselves Jews and Christians is in assuming that the men whose lives are depicted in the Bible are good and decent men. King David was a wicked, evil, iniquitous man. Simon-Peter was a wicked, evil, iniquitous man. Saul-Paul of Tarsus was a wicked, evil, iniquitous man.
The Old Testament is a history of the evil, wickedness, and iniquity of the Hebrew people. The post-Christian chapters of the New Testament are a history of the evil, wickedness, and iniquity of men who called themselves Christians.
Compare The Communist Manifesto and The Critique of the Gotha Program:
004:032 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and
of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things
which he possessed was his own; but they had all things
common.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents
of land to public purposes.
4. Confiscation of the property...
5. Centralisation of credit...
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by
the State...
004:034 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as
were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the
prices of the things that were sold...
10. Free education for all children in public schools.
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs - Critique of the Gotha Program
004:035 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was
made unto every man according as he had need.
1. Abolition of property...
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
4. Confiscation of the property...
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs - Critique of the Gotha Program
A crusade is in the end just another species of war. Plenty of polytheists, nontheists and atheists (the Mongols, the Huns, the Romans, the Incas, the Aztecs, Stalin, modern Sri Lankan Sinhalese Buddhists, etc.), have engaged in wars of conquest to spread or preserve their own rule. I can't see any reason why that would be morally any less abhorrent than going to war for God.
That you suppose that "monotheism" is disproportionately responsible for war strikes me as odd. To see that, conduct the following thought experiment: would the wars that you fault monotheism for not have happened if all men had to fight over was treasure and things of this world? I suspect they would have. And perhaps monotheistic lands where peace was relatively common for many centuries would themselves have been more violent without it. Wars happened before there was monotheism, and happen now where it is absent.
I grant that monotheism's strands' claims of exclusivity and the associated problems are real enough, but only on an other-things-equal basis. And other things are not equal. The monotheistic religions have also codified and hence gone a great distance toward establishing behavior most of us regard as moral (the Golden Rule, etc.) The only reason slavery, a normal condition of humanity since settlement began, is in retreat is because monotheists (Christians in this case) declared it a violation of the dignity of all men that was commanded by God - a sin, in other words. The spread of science has arguably always been most dramatic in monotheistic societies, because of the imperative people feel to understand God's creation.
To declare monotheism some sort of problem we would have to think carefully about both the sins and achievements of man, both when monotheism is present and when it is absent. You have only thought, it seems to me, about one of those combinations. Your conclusion is a normal sort of Type II error.
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.