Quote:
Originally Posted by Stobey
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. |
While I can agree with most of what you said regarding the modern sects of Islam and the fact that the religion at its core as written is very violent.
However, I would argue most people don't follow their own religions to the letter.
Having said that If you were directly responding to my post I think you may have missed what I meant by enlightenment.
I was talking about the "age of enlightenment" or "age of reason" which began in the 17th century. Where the populace moved away from traditional beliefs and began to be more receptive to new ideas. Leading to the emergence of modern science.
This has taken place much more recently as then the 10th century. Take a look at pictures from Kabul from the 1960's and 70's. Girls in skirts walking around, with the right to vote and freedom of speech. Granted the ultra-conservative Muslims were not in power, but it shows that the general populace was not against this.
I was not talking about the "reformation" period which took place in the Christian church.
To say that it is not possible for Islamic nations to change or not live and die by sharia law is plainly false. There are many nations with large concentrations or predominately Muslim populaces that either have not adopted sharia law at all, or have a mix of sharia and other laws.
All I am suggesting here is if we can encourage the Muslim world to continue on into the modern age, rather than slip back into an ultra-conservative head chopping murder fest, we will all be better off. I believe we have a much better chance of doing that then we do of converting 1 billion Muslims to Christianity.
Furthermore, with regards to the 1st amendment discussion, I am not in so much fear of Islam here at home that I am willing to sacrifice any more of my freedoms in the name of safety.
I apologize if I have derailed this thread.