Demoting Islam's Religion Status
 

Demoting Islam's Religion Status
Martel Sobieskey
April 10, 2009

ONE THING is certain, Islam is not a religion by anything Americans believe one to be — not even close. In fact, Islam is the antithesis of what we deem to be religious. Above all, Islam is a totalitarian political machine of bloodthirsty conquest which zealously advocates the downfall of the U.S. government. Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world…” because he was 100% non-political. In extreme contrast, Mohammed and the Koran bellicosely command YOUR KINGDOM IS MY KINGDOM, surrender or die! Let’s be to the point. It is sheer madness, exceedingly irresponsible, criminally negligent, and strategically suicidal to continue granting religion status to an absolutely aggressive and implacable ideology that demands the destruction of our government and all other religions.

It is well past time the truthful facts be told about Islam. Our leadership and intelligence community have lied and lied again, referring to Islam as a religion of peace. If Islam is to be categorized as a religion — then it must be called what it truthfully is — A RELIGION OF WAR. Unfortunately our leadership has become so inept, they have chosen to be in denial of this obvious fact, and entertain fanciful notions — that by calling a “bloodthirsty tiger” a “bunny rabbit” it will magically transform into one.

This means, we now have America’s Sugar Plum Fairy National Security Policy: All of the Islamofascists can be won over by simply labeling them “friends.” How dare we even utter the word enemy. That might upset them. We now have a national security mantra: Islam is perfect! Islam is perfect! Islam is perfect!

The purpose of this article is to introduce the proposition that Islam’s religion status is undeserving, that it should never have been granted in the first place, and that its religion status should be immediately rescinded.

Why? Because Islam — whether you call it moderate, militant, main stream, traditional or radical — is a relentless foe inherently programmed to conqueror its host nation. Fail to understand this point and Islam will continue “trashing” civil liberties, shedding bloody pandemonium, wreaking havoc, litigating as warfare, demanding special privileges, and instigating anarchy until its host country suffers irreparable harm if not outright defeat. Such is the virulent modus operandi being used by Islam in England, Spain, India, France, Thailand, Holland, Bali, Lebanon, Denmark, Sweden, Philippines, Russia, America and elsewhere.

Perhaps, this is why Dr. Paul Williams, author of Dunces of Doomsday so truthfully and valiantly states in Chapter 1, Refusing to Identify the Enemy:

“The enemy is Islam. Not a fringe group within the body of believers … Not radical Islam as if a faction can be separated from the “mainstream” Islam. But Islam itself, as expressed by the life and teachings of Muhammad …”

An Impostor Religion

To put it bluntly, Islam’s religion status should be rescinded because it is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a Trojan horse, an impostor religion that has arrived on our shore with malicious intent, deathly determined to replace our constitution with the Koran, and turn America into an Islamic nation controlled by Sharia law. Robert Spencer in his excellent book, Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs, explains how so-called moderate Islam is having greater success at invading America than its counterpart, militant Islam. Shockingly, one may rightly conclude that America is now being conquered without Islam even having to fire a shot. Have we really become that docile, self-complacent and pathetic? The answer is Yes!

The Sham of Moderate Islam

Does this mean that even so-called moderate Muslims are hostile to America? It certainly does. Moderate Muslims support the conquest of America with a fervor equal to that of the militant Muslims. They cunningly play the role of the “good cop” in their good cop, bad cop charade deceiving we gullible Americans. In fact, the “two hands” of Islam aspire to choke the life out of America. One hand is called militant Muslims, the other hand is called moderate Muslims. These “two hands” work together, in their Koranically mandated asphyxiation pogrom, of strangling America into submission. This point cannot be overemphasized.

In 1974 Algerian President Boumendienne made a prophetic statement to the United Nations General Assembly:

“One day millions of men will leave the southern hemisphere of this planet to burst into the northern one. But not as friends. Because they will burst in to conquer, and they will conquer by populating it with their children. Victory will come to us from the wombs of our women.”

How accurately prophetic he was. Today, one can see no assimilation by Muslims in their host nations and they frequently exhibit open hostility, turning entire cities into Muslim enclaves which the police are reluctant to enter. In addition, their birthrate is four times the European average, creating a large cash-deficiency within the social welfare system. It is hardly an exaggeration to say Muslim immigration is like a “swarm of invading locusts,” devouring everything in their path.

Dutch Politician Geert Wilders, having suffered first-hand the “devouring” of his nation by so-called moderate Islam, unflinchingly states in his article, “The Islamization of Europe”…“There is no Moderate Islam.” The United States, like all besieged western democracies, must heed Geert Wilders' warning if they wish to protect themselves. Clearly, the safe harbor of religion status enables the “two hands” of Islam to launch clandestine raids upon their host nation, sapping its vitals from within.

A Road To Hell

The severity of the moderate Islam invasion is thoroughly understood by Islamic experts like Amil Amani. In his article, “A Bridge To 'Moderate' Islam Is In Fact a Road to Hell.” He emphatically warns there is no such thing as moderate Islam and to call it so is an oxymoron, a contradiction. Specifically he states:

“Since moderate Islam is oxymoronic, any moderacy in Islam is in fact incompatible and in conflict with essential Islam, its power structure and its controlling proponents...Islam is not personally or spiritually relevant. It is political, which is why it may never separate itself from government. Adherence is not a matter of voluntary devotion, but of the law, and violators are severely punished, including capital punishment...”

Another enlightened expert who has personally witnessed that moderate Islam is a road to hell is Brigitte Gabriel. In her book, Because They Hate, she gives a clarion call describing how the ruse of moderate Islam turned her home country of Lebanon into a “living nightmare.” She states:

“We were renowned for our hospitality, good heartedness, and generosity, just as America is known for the same qualities today. Sadly, those same qualities were the cause of our destruction...We did not realize that the intolerant Islamic side of our culture was gaining strength on the back of our western openness and pride in diversity.”

Most likely, Brigitte Gabriel would agree that providing religion status to Islam, believing mainstream Islam to be moderate, was a major contributor to the destruction of Lebanon. The key point is that so-called moderate Muslims are as fiercely intolerant as militant Muslims, but are more skillful at concealing their agenda and deceiving their host nation until the time is right for them to strike. Brigitte Gabriel tells how usually-peaceful Muslim neighbors who had befriended them for decades all of a sudden rose up to kill non-Muslims.

Murderous Intolerance

Such murderous intolerance is fully entrenched within Islam. The so-called moderates fully support these murderous attacks in their “hidden hearts,” rarely paying even lip service to the contrary. Their silence has been “deafening.” Why? Because they dare not challenge the inviolate precedents set by their prophet which would be a capital offense. For example, in 623 A.D. Mohammed was infuriated with the female poet Asma Bint Marwan for criticizing him, and sent his henchman to kill her and her five children. They ripped the infant from her breast and hacked it to pieces before her very eyes. They then made her watch the murder of her other four children, before raping and stabbing her repeatedly to death. After the butchery, Mohammed told his henchman, “You have done a service to Allah and his Messenger.”

The killing of persons who criticize Islam has never abated and perhaps is even more alive today than in the 7th century. A few years ago in the U.S. an Egyptian Christian, his wife and two children had their throats cut for challenging Islam, mistakenly believing our free speech laws would protect them. Nearly every day one hears of some gruesome murder, decapitation, or other violent crime committed by contemporary Muslims who are emulating the example of their prophet.

(Con't)
 

The Heart War

99.9% of all Muslims have a deeply-held secret agenda (wish) that Islam will conquer their host country and turn it into an Islamic nation. Such is their indelible religious conditioning. This obvious fact has been completely neglected, ignored, avoided and shunned by the leadership of western democracies to their great detriment, including America.

Fortunately we have one Islamic expert who is trying to awaken our leadership and his sleeping counterparts in the defense department and intelligence community. He is truly a “shinning star” and a person of insightful wisdom who should be promoted to the highest positions. Major Stephen Collins Coughlin has written a 333-page thesis entitled, “To Our Great Detriment.” (Read it here as a PDF document.) On pages 171-175 he provides a quote that reveals the concealed heart of so-called moderate Muslims. The Caliph (Pope) of the Ottoman empire spelled out what has always been the irrefutable law for all Muslims without exception:

“The heart war — and that is the lowest form of the war. And it is that the Muslim should believe in his heart that the infidels are enemies to him and to his religion, and that he should desire their disappearance and the destruction of their power, And no Muslim can be imagined who is not under obligation to this degree of war. Verily, all the people of the faith are under obligation to this amount without any question whatever, in whatever place they may be...”

Prediction

Permit me to make a grim prediction: Any country that continues to provide religion status to Islam, believing that moderate Muslims will save the day, has been “sucker-punched” and is guaranteed to suffer great havoc and disruptive chaos. The proof is undeniable. Look at the mayhem Islam has inflicted upon all western democracies over the past 20 years. The self-destructive formula is simple: Provide religion status to the sham of moderate Islam and your country will suffer great devastation.

Never before in human history has a nation’s leadership and intelligence community been so easily duped, confounded, played for fools, infiltrated and manipulated by enemy propagandists and apologists. Our leadership has become so pusillanimous in the face of Islamic bullying and brow-beating, they have become their lackeys, aiding and abetting the invasion of the very nation they are suppose to protect. The situation is critical. The demoting of Islam’s religion status will turn the tide and send a clear-cut message to Islam that the dust of Allah is no longer befogging our vision, enabling them to conqueror us.

http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2009/0...on-status.html

Martel Sobieskey has 36 years research experience in the field of religious conditioning and its relationship to warfare. He is greatly alarmed that American politicians, military commanders, educators, journalists, intelligence analysts, security and police personnel have failed to comprehend the deeply entrenched jihadist conditioning inherent in all of Islam — moderates included.

Sir,

I have to wonder if people had the same view of the Catholic Church in the past? It can't be denied that the Church was as involved in Politics as Islam is. Heck the Pope used to rule over half the world. Just curious as to your thoughts, and idea on comparison.

Who is considered the example to follow in Christianity?
(HINT: WWJD?)

Who is the "al-insan al-kamil" (perfect man) in islam?
(HINT: He's a mass-murderer, a pedophile, a rapist, a polygamist, a thief, and a terrorist among other things)

Sir,
So the fact that the Catholic Church did plenty of evil in their time in order to maintain their control over their political empire is of no consequence to you? They sure as heck weren't practicing WWJD during the Crusades or the Inquisition. They practiced plenty of mass murder in their time, there are plenty instances of pedophilia to discuss if you would like, Popes at one time were allowed to marry, and have more than one wife, so we can talk polygamy as well.

So which is worse, to acknowledge the teaching of a just and good man, and ignore them because they do not fit into your aspirations for political control, or your personal wants and desires. Or to follow in the footsteps of an unjust man and do as he does?

To me, knowing what is just and good, and casting it aside for your own personal selfish desires, when you have the qunitessential perfect man to follow may just be worse.

I find the premise of the author that Islam should not be considered a religion for the sole reason that it calls for the distruction of the USA to be laughable at best. Didn't Christianity, at one time, rally for the destruction of the USSR and its communist, ungodlike ways? Does the author discuss this? How are the two different?

Comparative religion is fine, but with a difference in time of 1,000 to 500 years, it is not so fine.

Crusades were defensive in nature. Historically, islam has ONLY been beaten back by military action.

and in Christianity pedophilia is not religious doctrine - it's a sin.

Worship Satan if you like. Just keep that shit to yourself.

If you say so.

Really? Aren't you in the military?

Didn't you swear an oath to "...protect and defend the Constitution against ALL ENEMIES, foreign AND domestic..."?

I didn't swear an oath to protect Communism. Just our beloved Constitution - and by default our very way of life.

Read more here:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Your thoughts on my religious preferences are noted.

I took an oath just like you did. I wonder what you views are of other members of our United States Armed Forces who practice Islam?

With all due respect, it is obvious that you and I can not discuss this subject in a manner befitting two Lieutenant Colonels in the Armed Forces, so this will be my last post on the subject.

Doesn't it create a conflict of interest?

How do they answer the question "What is the Supreme law of the land?"

The Constitution? or Sharia?

Logically - it might be argued that those who actually practice Islam hold a much broader system of beliefs than some would like to believe. :confused:

True religion is the life we lead, not the creed we profess.
- Fred Hoyle

And so it goes...;)

AFChic,

If I can make an observation here.

CHRISTIANITY vs CATHOLICISM
The Catholic Church did many things wrong, but it did those things contrary to the very scripture that gave it its authority. It took the reformation to set that straight.

MODERATE vs MILITANT ISLAM
For Muslims to be moderate they must ignore what their sacred text says, the same sacred text that gives them authority to do what they do.

IN-SHORT
Christians need to follow their scripture to be good
Muslims need to IGNORE their scripture to be good. They must ignore what their prophet told them to do, ignore the prophet and his writings that give them the very authority they have in the first place…

And that is the fundamental difference, and the fundamental flaw.

Also....

Christ preached the winning of souls and damn the politics
Mohammad preached the winning of politics (land) and damn the souls.

Scimitar

It seems to me that all religions are founded on the fear of the many and the cleverness of the few.*

And so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

* with apologies to Stendahl.

Having recently done some additional reading on the topic, I am convinced that anyone who strictly follows the Koran is probably a threat. The question is whether there are groups of muslims who don't follow the literal requirements of the religion.

There are many examples of religious commandments that are not followed by adherents to a religion. Most Jews, for example, do not keep kosher or follow various other laws set forth in the Torah. There is some pretty over-the-top stuff in the Torah IIRC (it's been quite a while), but most Jews just ignore that stuff and focus on other things. Contrary as it may be to what the religious writings say, many people take a "modern" or reformed view of their religion and pick which parts of it they want to practice, ignoring the rest.

I am curious if anyone has any views on the foregoing. AF Chic?

I am with RL on this, Islam demands Muslims to follow the path of the Prophet.

I would say, that is not a peaceful, tolerant or friendly way to live. As with a lot of believers or people who follow some faith, their observances is never 100% to the rules of that religion. (good news)

I have friends who are Muslims, if they lived in a Islamic country where Shariah law was the law of the land, they would have serious problems.

The good news, is that Islam is changing. In Turkey the clerics are looking at the Hadiths and reviewing them. Who knows maybe a more tolerant Islam is in the making. It is doable for a number of reasons, one is the Qur'an, it is not the original copy or translation. So one could argue that it was abrogated. Just as the Turkish clerics claiming that the Hadiths have been/possibly altered. There are seven different readers of the Qur'an. The word reader is used, because it is Haram (a sin) for a Muslim to alter the interpretation of the Qur'an

If Islam was to challenged on a religious status, I doubt it would be a blanket statement that covers all of Islam, maybe more on a specific sect or even a finer delineation, a specific Mosque.

I might be wrong here, but wasn't there a similar concern with JFK as technically as a Catholic he had to answer to the law of the church over the law of the land?

Scimitar

Do you think JFK was a good Catholic who followed the Ten Commandments and the teachings of the Church?

TR

Good point and sorry that was a bit of a unintentional hijack, back in my lane.

S

Respectfully, with comments like the above how can anyone take Sobiesky seriously? Islam is definitely a challenge we have to face. Barring the psychic ability to know what millions of people are thinking, it seems discussions here fall into two camps on the topic.

1) Islam is static and thus different from any other religion, impervious to any evolution, it has always been this way it will always be this way.

2) Islam is dangerous and must be dealt with, but like any religion it is composed of people. People can diminish or force the evolution of any political or religious entity, especially with the emergence of strong leaders.

If I were in camp one I would be very worried, since this argument taken to fruition equates Islam and thus “99.9% of all Muslims” according to Mr. Sobiesky as an eternally static non sentient hostile mass, very similar to a malignant tumor. There is no negotiating with or influencing a tumor, it must be destroyed either surgically or irradiated. So basically if Islam is such we are not safe until we kill every Islamic man, woman, and child. Moral questions aside, I believe we have the weapons to do so, Genghis Khan, Stalin, or the Nazis may have had the will to do this, America will never do this. So if this camp is correct we are in a lot of trouble because if you haven’t the will to use a weapon, you don’t have the weapon. If you are in camp one what is the solution if you aren’t willing to simply “exterminate the brutes”?

People have brought up the point Christianity was quite capable of barbarism over time, citing the Inquisition, heretics, burning people at the stake, with trials and the suppression of art, etc. The counter argument here is yes but Christianity went through this stuff ages ago, Islam hasn’t evolved. Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were Christian nations who plunged the world into a war that killed millions only 70 years ago. Take the Holocaust for example, six million plus Jews lost their lives. Were their murderers Nazi’s or Christians, the answer is both. At the same time the King of Denmark also a Christian ordered all Danes to wear yellow stars under occupation to protect their Jews. So is this an inconsistency in Christianity or is it simply the age old separation between good and evil in men? What is the logic in saying Sadaam Hussein was just another evil Muslim leader (he was never particularly religious), but Hitler was just an evil despot, conveniently ignoring his faith.

Perhaps it’s that human beings are herd animals who need to be led, and the West has on the whole been blessed with better leaders of late, men like our founding fathers, Churchill or Reagan. You only have to watch an old Nazi movies reel or endure an Obama rally to see the power of a charismatic leader. ( No I’m not equating the two). I also saw the argument made the Crusades were defensive in nature. If British and French Knights are fighting Saracens in Normandy I buy this, how is it defensive if Jerusalem is the battlefield? Was this truly a Holy War or war for land, resources, and power as usual. Islam needs to be confronted on several planes, it has glaring vulnerabilities, there seems to be little in it for women, and its fundamentalist nature focused on the past ignores quality of life advances.

Americans in 1944 were saying the Japanese were feudal radical zealots who wouldn’t surrender, used suicide attacks, and lived by an ancient and rigid code. Look at the Japanese now; they are a modern liberal democracy and economic power that has outlawed war in their constitution. People will change if it’s to their benefit, especially if led.

Not a good comparison, do you believe that would be the case today if they had not been "brutally" conquered? :munchin

Good points. That is one of my problems with many of the fundamentalist Christian Churches, or heck any church for that matter. They pick and choose the texts from the Bible they are going to follow, and ignore the ones that don't conform to their way of thinking. For instance, and I am paraphrasing obviously, In the same verse of Timothy that homosexuality is discussed as being a sin, it also discusses the wearing of mixed fabrics as a sin. It also discusses how women cutting their hair is a sin, etc etc. Many only focus on the homosexuality piece, and ignore the rest.

For those that follow their church's teaching to the letter of the law, on one hand I say good on you, you have faith and I applaud that. On the other hand I find it to be unrealistic, and for those that stumble, I have to wonder what kind of guilt comes from that, and how does that effect the individual, their family, their community. None of us are perfect, and God expects us to stumble, but I have been raised with a kind and compassionate God, not a spiteful, wrathful one. There is a difference, I believe, in guilt factor that comes with that, and how you go about redeeming yourself.

I have taken a lot of classes on other religions, and I have found there is much to admire about many of them. There are many teachings out there, that regardless of the fact that I am Catholic, doesn't mean I can't take a Hindu teaching, or a Buddhist teaching, or a Jewish teaching into my life. Does that make me a bad Catholic? Many would say yes. But does it make me a better person, some would say maybe so. Which is more important.

I think the main problem with any religion, is the belief that they are right and everyone else is wrong. The belief that only a certain group are going to make it to heaven. The belief that if one strays they are going to hell.

I think the questions we should all be asking ourselves is: "Can't we all just get along?":p

You are absolutely correct we made them submit. Islam has the same vulnerability, why reinvent the wheel?. We went in to Japan removed the toxic leadership, installed new leadership and pumped them full of US culture, The Japanese adult generation of the time probably just grudgingly submitted, too late for them, but the kids and grandkids bought fully in to liberal democracy, Mcdonalds, MTV and blue jeans.

Let the Liberals whine about exporting our culture, the tactic is sound and proven, the Roman Empire did the same thing. I don't want to see US troops die for nothing which is why Iraq is key, if a decade from now Iraq is a stable democracy the Islamic world will change. Personally I think it will come from women, half the population, in my opinion the "have nots" of Islam, if they they see a chance for the freedoms and equality of a modern state, they will embrace it and foster these idea in the youth and future. Radical Islam as any fundamentalist religion longs for the past, it is outmoded and knows it, which is why I believe it is so savage. I don't agree with everything we did in Iraq, but I think we were just starting to stabilize the country and let our culture seep in when we have decided to leave. I suppose I'm in the minority who feels we should stay a decade if need be. If Iraq is a stable democracy in the future, history may be kinder to President Bush than the present.

About the same time, we also thought the world was flat. Some of us move on. You continue to mix apples and oranges that are centuries apart. Not a good argument in my opinion.

There are many events in human history that were stupid, most have left them behind, islam does not.

I always wondered how we would ever replace Communism - seems as if it was an easier task than I thought it to be.

And so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02

I kind of wish you would stick to Islam. Some of your general comments about other religions are incorrect. Not all religions does hell. Not all religions are linear in their thinking (The Greek way), etc. What was done or the mistakes long ago maybe worth exploring but in a different discussion. This is now, Islam is the 'religion' that is being used by tangos to justify their barbarism.

Is it the religion or the misuse of religion that leads to terrorism? If it is the religion, then what actions should we take, or if it is specific sect of Islam or specific Mosque/Clerics.

From my limited understanding of US Law, it would be very difficult to impossible to remove the religious status of Islam. From what I remember from cults, the cults are not abolished the individual members are held responsible for any crimes. I think that would the method employed against the tangos.

I think that a cogent point we seem to be missing here is that we are a nation of (primarily) Christians. We are NOT a Christian nation. Our founding fathers saw to that. A representational democratic government of elected civilians, operating under a constitution guaranteeing our freedoms, and under the rule of secular law, passed by an elected Congress and judged by educated jurists, form the basis of our laws. I can build a mosque or a temple in virtually any place I wish in the U.S. Minority religions are tolerated, and are protected by the law. Religious figures hold no official role in government. The Pope, heads of Protestant faiths, imams, mullahs, rabbis, etc. have no role in the rule of this nation. There are many bad Christians. But Christianity itself is not bad.

On the other side of the coin, most Islamic nations are the antithesis of that. There, religion takes precedence over government, law, common sense, etc. There are very few majority Islamic nations where religion is not the dominant factor in governance, law, and societal interaction. They are almost all de facto theocracies. The only exceptions I can think of have been the dictatorships held together by military power and secret police. Religious officials are the real power in Islamic nations, whether they are overtly or covertly doing so. Islamic rulers serve at the whim of the religious leaders. As for progress, where are the modern Islamic scientists? Is A.Q. Khan the best they can do? What benefits to the planet have been made by the Muslims in the last 500 years? What Muslim nation sets the standard of living for the global community? Islam trumps law, constitutions, democracy, and election results itself. If an Islamic religious leader orders a follower to violate civil or criminal law, even to do harm to fellow Muslims, it must be obeyed as Allah's will. Under Islam, women are chattel property and 2nd class citizens, non-Muslims are 3rd class, or less, Jews are sub-human, the law is the one laid down by the founder of the religion 1400 years ago, and bestiality, pedophilia, sodomy, murder, rape, slavery, etc. are supported by religious doctrine. IMHO, Islam, is a seriously flawed religion, one that dogmatically disallows peaceful coexistence with any other faiths, except as an Islamic caliphate. If you believe otherwise, go to one of the majority Muslim "nations" and perform some missionary work. Build a church. Hand out Bibles. Reality check. See what happens.

TR

Even further than mixing Apples and Oranges....

It's mixing SHEEP with WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING.

Good point, Sir. Anyone who disagrees should check out Voice of the Martyrs. Christians are routinely attacked, imprisoned, and beheaded; churches are burned; and Christian children are abducted for the sex slave trade.

http://www.persecution.com/public/newsroom.aspx

Regarding the transgressions of Catholics in the past (which, as had been noted earlier, were gross departures from the central tenets of the faith, not strict adherence to them), should parents that used illegal drugs, engaged in premarital sex, cheated on exams, drove drunk or committed some other illegal/immoral act stand by and allow their children to do the same?

Warrior Mentor:
Afchic does not worship Satan. I've seen her in Mass.
When she approached the door, no gargoyles toppled from the roof. When she dipped her finger in the Holy Water font, it did not boil. At Holy Communion, the Lay Eucharistic Minister did not turn into a pillar of salt.
I hope this clears things up so we can return to a logical discussion of this subject.

All well said,

And you have driven home the point of the thread which essentially is
"What IS the 'Islamic' variable exactly?" and "How should we interact with it strategically?"

Let’s lay down some facts here.
1) Europe WILL BE Muslim demographically and politically in 20-40 years, even Europe is starting to wake up and realize that. As a 31 yr old I fully expect the west to become a minority well before I die.
2) Islam as it stands today and sees it self today has at its very core the scriptural authority AND THE MANDATE to wipe you and me off the planet. This is fact people.
3) For the Islamic world to not continue to flow in that direction it needs to pull away from the intense gravity of it's own sacred text, one that very very clearly states that every good Muslims job is to wipe you and me off the planet.

So....in 20-40 years Islam will have the power geographically (Europe) and economically (oil) as well as the scriptural authority nay mandate to destroy or Judeo-Christian ethic, which weather you like it or not IS the basis to “our very way of life” that our boys (and girls) are bravely dying for in the box and elsewhere.

Now, can Islam change the way it sees it's self and interprets its sacred text in a significant enough way so that we can stop having to seeing it as a fundamental threat to our Judeo-Christian world view?

Sure it can. But I think the question that we need to ask is can it make that change quick enough?

Christianity made that change only because a signifcant number of its members where able to sit down and say, "Hey the scripture doesn't say that, it very clearly says this, you (the church leadership) have been misinterpreting it due to blindness brought about by political power. So we have the authority of scripture to change Christianity, and I will stand on that authority and take action" Martin Luther butchered and paraphrased.

On what basis can moderate Islam make a stand? It’s scripture says we should be wiped off the planet, is moderate Islam going to say "Hey I know scripture says to kill them all, but based on the authority of my desire to be a nice guy I am going to stand against you my brother and probably die for me belief"

The Christian reformation of total political control to no political control actually took around 800 years, Islam is about 400 years into that process and the second 400 years is a hell of a lot harder then the first.

Do you really think Islam can squeeze the rest of that change which took Christianity 400 years into 40 years and with the added handicap of basing that change on wanting to be a nice guy where as Christianity based it’s change on the authority of its scripture.

Like I stated earlier, for a Muslim to be good (read plural) they must ignore their scripture, for a Christian to be good they must listen to their scripture. Pluralism actually is “Biblical”. (P.S. Ultra Pluralism isn’t)

We are dealing with a religion (and therefore a people) who’s sacred text fundamentally wants to wipe us of the planet. Like any of the major religions it finds its authority in its sacred text.

It can not change in time, its minority militancy has the authority of its holy scriptures backing them up and they have the will to die for it, its moderacy has no real authority backing it up and certainly doesn't have the will to die for that belief.

In 40 years Islam will be the World Super Power with the cultural and political agenda of converting you or killing you and it can't make that giant leap from thinking about changing (where some of it is right now) to actually fully changing in 40 years.

Good thread…

Scimitar

I don't think our battle is with Muslims I think it is with Islam, surely not every Mulsim out there has it in for me and I do think the author takes it too far.

But at the end of the day if a moderate Muslim even a lapsed Muslim was told cross over to us and live or stay with them and die...

I predict we possibly may see a schisim in the US Mulsim population due to the protection afforded them but we ain't gonna see it in the ME of Nth Aftrica or the coming European Islamic Republic.

The hardliners will rule the politics becuase this is how Islam works, it ain't gonna change quick enough and these hardliners have the backing of their cultural authority - the Koran.


AFchic,

I think your point is right though re: picking and choosing scripture, but your example is way off.

Now I don't see the point in getting into religious debate as this thread is about how we should see and interact with Islam but...

A) 1 Tim 1:9-10 = Homosexuality = sin
B) 1 Tim 2:9-10 = Woman should focus on building their character not how sexually desirably they are.

1) 'A & B' are not the same verse or even paragraph
2) 'B' encourages a woman to focus on building character not on building how sexually desirable she is and discusses how that principle is to be outworked in Timothy’s culture and time.

Today it would be different rules but the same principle. Most parents honestly wouldn't want to see their 16 year old daughter wearing her low riders with her G-string showing just below her lower back tattoo while wearing a crop top and a tongue ring. You get my point? "Multi layer mixed clothing with braided hair was the same as this in that culture."

Scimitar

Thanks Dozer. That's good to know. I can be terse at times.

My inciteful words were actually meant to be insightful.

My point was that I don't care who other people worship.
It becomes an issue when they try to force their religion on me.

It wasn't meant as a personal attack.

FOOTNOTE/DIGRESSION: Interestingly Saul Alinsky's book has three quotes in the opening pages. The 3rd is from Alinsky - praising SATAN...

Know anybody who's been advocating Alinsky's methods lately? :confused:

Incredible - it appears to me that the average person today is about as credulous as was the average person in the Middle Ages. :eek:

And so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Obamas been advocating Alinsky since he first started in local chicago politics...?

Scimitar's Question
 

I’m not sure the above can be labeled facts, but for arguments sake lets say they represent accurate trends. For the record I think our nation’s enemies and terrorists need to be terminated with extreme violence and prejudice, the terror threat is real, and won’t be solved by negotiating or sitting around holding hands singing Kumbaya, so I’m grateful for our troops.

Respectfully however if the question is how do we deal with Islam as a whole, the danger is giving into the fearful perception that Islam instead of being subject to human nature is a mindless killing automation like the Borg or the Terminator. (Forgive the Sci-Fi references.)

For example let’s say this trend of rapid Islamic population growth in Europe is your concern, this is quite valid, but also quite an opportunity for the West, if you believe as I do that Islam is extremely vulnerable on the issue of gender. If you are in range, so are they. Islamic immigrant children should be forced to attend public school like any other kid, no veils, no special treatment, just education to the world at large, this is the key.

Culture is defined as learned and shared behavior. People are the sum of their experiences and their environment. Eddie Murphy the comedian had a routine years ago where he was tired of materialistic American women. In the skit he goes to Africa to find some rural bride with a bone in her nose, and brings her back to the States until assimilated a few years later she says “BLEEP You Eddie, I want half !”

I detest Hillary Clinton, but could you imagine her reaction to an Afghan man telling her, ok woman, from now on you are my property and servant, no education, no rights, no career, you have to wear this burka and be covered at all times, I will beat, take and kill you as I please. Now go make me a kebab before I sell you for 3 goats?

Now some 10 year old girl from an isolated village in Afghanistan would probably accept this fate as the way of the world. There are no other sources of input or education, no one to inform her it is possible to have rights/freedoms in a western liberal state, or protect her, so nothing to disturb the status quo here for ages.

That same little girl Muslim raised in France or England will see the world quite differently if given an education, and while she may remain Muslim she will reject the fundamental trappings of the past as a raw deal, freedom is the most addictive drug. If Islam were impervious to this there would be no female doctor’s, lawyers, or engineers in secular Turkey. I’ve been there, the place is not perfect, but they still consider themselves Muslims who still pray 5 times a day, they however separate religion from state which is the goal. Even if this little girl’s parents stifle this thought, teens rebel and with her own eyes she would see other little girls and the freedoms they enjoy. 40 years is a long time, even if this little girl doesn’t embrace freedom and thus force an evolution in Islam, will her kids be more or less likely to? My point is human beings are social creatures and inevitable culture exchange ensues with interaction. If we play our cards right Muslim immigrants in Europe will be equally subject to modern Western influence. So the strategy is educate and expose them to freedom. It’s actually much easier in Europe. If we also have to go into Afghanistan and kill all of the Taliban fighters in a region, that’s probably a good idea, but then improve the civilians' quality of life, and most importantly educate the children so you aren’t fighting the same war 30 years later. The danger is Liberal laws where these immigrant communities aren’t forced to assimilate.

http://www.prb.org/Articles/2008/mus...urope.aspx?p=1

There are other sources for this information also.

All is not lost yet...

Another crack in the theologically prohibitive wall of Islamic interpretation...???:confused:

And so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

FWIW...that is how I read and understood it.

Haven't you heard about taqqiya? Or hud'na? The commands in the Qur'an to soften you enemies heart. No disrespect whatsoever mam, I'm not sure what surah contains this but an internet search will prove this to you. Researching Islam is a very un-PC topic.

A discussion of Islam is a difficult and complex subject. Adding other faiths in the discussion will only complicate and probably make a reasonable discussion impossible.

I have explored and listened to this topic for almost 8 years with other who are very knowledgeable about Islam. I think there are other "religions" out there are that are more way out on a limb in the world of being a negative influence on the world. The benefit is that, the numbers of people who follow those religions are few in comparison.


We have Islam with approximately 850 million to one billion members. They are in many sects and various degrees of observance of the faith. I think the concept of demoting Islam's religious status is a legal issue. From my limited view, this maybe something that can not be legally done. Generally our laws deal with specific people for specific actions. As long as they do not violate the laws of the land, as zany as we think them to be, they are legally GTG.

I think part of the legal issues would be the complexity of defining Islam as a non-religion. One consideration what ever definitions that are developed all other religions would be subject to them too.

I know we have laws that can deal with "outlawish" type groups, such as gang laws. Certain elements must be fulfilled and when they are a gang can be dealt with as a group, rather than dealing with the individual members.

It would a good read to have one of our Legal experts chime in on this topic. As far as my limited understanding of the law, I don't think demoting Islam's religion status is legally possible.