Search My Blog

August 31, 2006

The Stand (not a book review)

I have been participating on my blogger friend's site on a discussion about Muslims/Islam etc. Andy wrote a piece entitled Us vs. Them that basically says, "Can't we all just get along?" I am drastically oversimplifying the post but please read it. Here is an excerpt:
As long as the President continues to insist that “we” are good, and therefore everything we want and do is good, and “they” are bad and everything they want and do is bad, we will continue to have slaughter.

There is no "them." There is only us.
Very Age of Aquarious, don't you think? The comments on this post have stretched into something I can only dream of on this blog and Andy gets a lot of support from his loyal readers. And this disturbs me.

I have already made quite a few posts concerning the made-up religion of Islam and the problems that religion has cause throughout the centuries. Here and Here to cite a few. If you read Andy's blog and the subsequent comments please forgive me if you have to reread soomeof what I post. I should just have this stuff readily available to cut and past, much like the liberals do with their rhetoric.

I'm all about the mindset of minding my own business. I think a lot of the world's problems would go away if people did just that. But we can't all do that because there are people in the world that have to be pain's in the asses. The followers of Islam fit that description.

That sounds very biggoted, doesn't it? How dare I have such intolerance for a religion! I have a big problem with a religion, that states in black-and-white, to conquer and kill. I have been reading the Koran for almost a year, on and off, and do not have the verses memorized as I do the Holy Bible, but I have run across these verses time and time again. I know what you're thinking-

"Yeah, but, the Bible also talks about killing unbelievers. HA! Biggot!"

I love the 'yeah, buts'. Retorts like this show this person doesn't have a clear understanding of the Bible and I am not going to digress in this post to cover it. Maybe another time.

So, how 'bout that Islam, huh? The second link above talks about all the great things Islam has contributed to society so I won't rehash that. One argument that always comes up when talking about radical Islamofacists is "What about the peaceful Muslims?"

What about them? Just because some of the followers of have been declawed of Islam's most vile practices doesn't mean everything is hunky-dorie. These are marginal players and most will not speak out against the radicals for fear of reprisals. The silence of the Muslims against their fanatic assholes is deafening.

Christians did some bad shit, to be sure. The crusades can be summed up best by George Carlin:

Crusader: Do you believe in God?

Some dude: Uh, no.

WHACK!

Crusader: Do you believe in God?

Some other dude: Yes!

Crusader: Do you believe in OUR God?

That same dude: Um, no.

WHACK!
I love the "Yeah, but[s]" for this scenario that are used to justify what the islamofacists are doing- like there isn't a statute of limitations on being an asshole. So, I guess to the people that use this excuse to justify violence, we are supposed to let every sick religion have their turn at conversion/murder? Interestingly enough, the Jihads actually predate the Crusades.

Gino says on Andy's blog:
mainstream islam today seeks to convert the world through acts of rightousness
I'm sure. But it is the mainstream media that is convering the violent Muslims. [See paragraph 9] Mainstream Islam? What does that mean anyway?
Koran chapter 9, verse 29, "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth even if they are the people of the book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and fell themselves subdued."
How do mainstream Muslims interpret that?

"Well, they do everything in the Koran except the violent parts."


Gino:
i've been told, by them, that koran needs to be taken in historical perspective, and within its context.
So, they aren't supposed to Jihad anymore? Those parts of the Koran parallel the non-practicing parts of the Old Testament that speak of going to war with non-believers? Someone needs to tell Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah about that.

"Don't exaggerate! No more than 10 percent of the Muslim population are fundamentalists." Well, call me a taxi! That means there are only 100 million Islamics who want to kill Americans ... instead of 1 billion. I don't find that very comforting.
I’m in the middle of this book called The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims. It is a bit daunting, about 700 pages or so, but so far it is really good. Pick it up for an interesting history about the spread of Islam. The Muslim names give me a headache after a while so it is taking me a bit longer than I expected to read.

It is the reflexive political correctness of many to dismiss the connection of Islam to Jihad, to refrain from naming an enemy. We named the enemy in WWII and fought back German Blitzkriegs and Japanese Kamikazi but we have had soldiers, sailors, and marines in the desert for 3 years now and still have not really named the enemy. Islam, not radical Islam, but Islam itself. That would be too crass.

Diana West has a great statement to add to the previous point:
There are many reasons why this matters, not least of which is that, without understanding the religious nature of jihad (holy war), along with its sister institution of dhimmitude (inferior status of non-Muslims under Islam), there can be no triumph over jihad and no avoiding dhimmitude. There can also be no understanding of the religiously rooted attitudes toward jihad movements among even non-violent Muslims, generally ranging from a tacit ambivalence to wild adulation.

Michael Evans chimes in with this:
The popular concept of trying to convince the American people that Islam is a religion of peace – as if this will shut down the engine of terror – is the theater of the absurd and a festival of hypocrisy. It will do just the opposite; in time, it could open the floodgates for glassy-eyed, demon-possessed human bombs (H-bombers) to roam the streets of America waiting for the most opportune moment to hit the detonator.
The truth is, this is a battle between two books (the Bible and the Quran) and two kingdoms, democracy and theocracy (Islam). Islamic fundamentalists believe that the Great Satan defeated the U.S.S.R. with their Judeo/Christian invention – democracy – and are attempting to do the same in the Middle East.

I have to pick up my in-laws in a half hour so I will end with a quote from Winston Churchill.

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."
—Sir Winston Churchill, from The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).

5 comments:

  1. His statement There is no "them." There is only us. is a Western-rationalist attempt to absorb the extra-cultural "other," and becoming as one with it find peace. This is the, "We're all on this Bus together" happy-hippy theory that Collectivists love. It's also a pretty standard Western approach that depends on the Enlightenment for its foundation, perspective, and sense of continuity even to exist. It's alien to Islam. In Islam the statement more correctly reads, There is no them, only "We" (exist). The "other" is something base and outside Islam and can be killed with impunity and gusto for it is evil and apostate, if it is not conquered and subjugated. Islam doesn't embrace dualities objectively and by absorbing them become "one" with any alternative-philosophical stuff. Those things are the things of Satan andthey're evil, it extinguishes the "other" like Listerine to bad-breath.

    As far as Biblical tales of wrath and the Crusades and such, I'd like to see one place in the New Testament where such a thing exists. Christianity is named after the guy in the first four books of the New Testament, the Old Testament was kept around to provide some context to the record-breaking divergence of opinion expressed in the New Testament, which is the basis of the faith. It's called Christianity, not Mosesianity or Solomonianity for a reason. Nowhere is Christ to be found saying, "Ok guys, rocks away! You can kill the whore in the hole now!" As Mohamed can in fact be found. Rather quite the opposite. Jesus also offers no advice on raping your enemy's women and how to subjugate a population. He lead by example, but not with a sword in his hand and prominently eschewed the violence which Islam embraces and advocates. To suggest that there's a moral equivalence is ridiculous. Mohamed didn't die for anybody's sins, not in theory or practice.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Outstanding comment, DC. the last line of your post says it all.

    You get the gold smiley face for the day.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks, I sharpened my pencil and everything! It's apparent to me that people who blame Christianity for historical excesses choose to blame the wars and politics of the 11th through 16th Century on it, rather than Kings, Barons, Feudalism or the many entrenched European cultural pathways and traditions over which Christianity was in most cases not much more than a gloss.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jesus? - Did He Really Die on the Cross? (Evidence says, NO!.)
    Bible - Is It the Word of God? (Experts say, NO!.)
    Trinity- Did Jesus or anyone teach this? (Bible says, NO!.)
    "Only Begotten Son of God"? Was this Jesus? (Bible, says - NO!).
    Are children born in original sin? (Bible says, "Yes!" - but Jesus says, "NO!")

    All this & more - internets site to compare ─░slam & Christianity:
    http://bibleislam.com

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nothing like a little spam under the guise of anonymity to make a point. You had me interested until I saw the Islam vs. Christianity link. There is no way a book can convince me Islam is "better" than my religion. Too many heads getting cut off to sway me otherwise.

    ReplyDelete