Quote:
Originally Posted by fng13
Stobey,
I do not mean this in a disrespectful way, nor do I wish to start a religious debate, however I don't believe replacing one god for another to be much of a strategy.
As soon as one points to ones own religion as the true religion what ground has been made? The opposition also believes that they know the truth.
As TR outlined above it is the people who preach the violence as well as the weak minded who absorb it and act on it that are equally the enemy. Most religions can be perverted to justify violence against another group.
We seem to have painted ourselves into a corner with how to handle these so called religious leaders. We believe in freedom of speech and the limited role in government to censor that speech, yet we know that these clerics are using their teachings to recruit terrorists.
Do we put a microscope on them and try to pull them off the street for anything we can, for example using the IRS to target them for audits? I would like to see that but it doesn't seem to be a good answer without opening the floodgates for more government in all of our lives.
I'm sure hell will freeze over before this happens, but the only way I see this ever ending is if a couple things change.
1. The muslim world truly turns on the radicalized not just lip service and oust them from their societies.
2. The conservative Islamic nations go through an enlightenment period that emerges more western values. (I'm not saying that all western values are de facto better rather that if these places adopted more western values there would be less appetite for death and destruction. A playboy and blue jeans kind of strategy)
|
Here's the deal: The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was never intended to be a suicide pact. Islam - with its sharia law - is a complete totalitarian legal, political and social structure hiding behind the veneer of a religion. There is no separation between the religious and the political in Islam; rather Islam and Sharia constitute a comprehensive means of ordering society at every level. While it is in theory possible for an Islamic society to have different outward forms — an elective system of government, a hereditary monarchy, etc. — whatever the outward structure of the government,
Sharia is the prescribed content. It is this fact that puts Sharia into conflict with forms of government based on anything other than the Quran and the Sunnah.
As should be plain to anyone who has examined the Islamic sources, to take the violence out of Islam would require it to jettison two things: the Quran as the word of Allah and Muhammad as Allah’s prophet. In other words, to pacify Islam would require its transformation into something that it is not. The Western Christian Reformation, that is often used as an example, was an attempt (successful or not) to recover the essence of Christianity, namely, the example and teachings of Christ and the Apostles. Trying to get back to the example of Muhammad would have very different consequences. Indeed, one may say that Islam is today going through its “Reformation” with the increasing jihadist activity around the globe. Today, Muslims of the Salafi (“early generations”) school are doing exactly that in focusing on the life of Muhammad and his early successors. These reformers are known to their detractors by the derogative term "Wahhabi". Drawing their inspiration from Muhammad and the Quran, they are invariably disposed to violence. The unhappy fact is that Islam today is what it has been for fourteen centuries: violent, intolerant, and expansionary. It is folly to think that we, in the course of a few years or decades, are going to be able to change the basic world outlook of a foreign civilization. Islam’s violent nature must be accepted as a given; only then will we be able to come up with appropriate policy responses that can improve our chances of survival.
[My thanks to Gregory M. Davis -- Islam 101 on JihadWatch.org for much of the above. sft]
These so-called "radicals" are doing nothing more than going back to the quran and haddiths - to sharia - for their marching orders. Under izlam, NO "reform" is possible because the possibility to alter the quran and sharia - referred to as "ijitihad" - ended sometime in the 10th century; and anyone attempting to change sharia as it stands would be deemed an apostate and subject to the death penalty!
So there you have it. Idiotic politicians, the media and the bought-and-paid-for whores of academia deny these facts; and don't want the non-muzlim world to be aware that, while we may not be at war with izlam, izlam certainly
is at war with the rest of the civilized world. Not much of a choice left for those of us who do not wish to be martyred or live in abject dhimmitude. And make no mistake, izlam is about conquering the entire world for [their] "allah".
You might want to check out for further reference:
Robert Spencer's site:
www.jihadwatch.org
David Wood's site:
www.answeringmuslims.com
Bill Warner's video: "Why We Are Afraid, the 1400 Year Old Secret"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y
Do your homework. Your life, and the lives of those you love, may depend upon it.