What one author says about the Muslim "religion"

[Gottle_of_Geer]

He says further on:

"Islamism is a 21st century poltical project drvien by seventh-century idealogy. That’s a potent combination of ancient and modern. In Europe and North America, incendiary imams, - uneducated and knowing barely a word of the language spoken by the society in which they life - have nevertheless done a grand job at re-primitivizing second and third generation Western Muslims.

Not all of them, of course, but how many does it have to be to become a problem?"

It’s as much a religion as Catholicism is. That it’s “political” does not change this - in fact, it puts one in mind of the Papacy of the 12th-17th centuries, which at various times engaged in military exploits (a Papal army was sent to Ireland in the 1640s), not to mention even less pastoral activities, such as fomenting rebellion & political assassination (Pius V & Gregory XIII come to mind). As for the countless political manoeuvres of the Papacy as one Italian principality among others, it was such entanglements that helped to bring about the Reformation: the Papacy had become so secularised, partly by those entanglements, that it had no spiritual authority left; it had frittered it all away. Julius II was as much a man of war as a bishop.​

And what other Church is also in part a sovereign state ? Popes are like Dalai Lamas: they are priest-kings. Is that good for religion ? I really we may be allowed to think not The USA solution, that separates Church & State, is far better, but it was anathema to the Church for a very long time, until Vatican 2. Until then, the rightness & desirability of uniting the two, & the enormous wrongness of separating them, had been taught by Pope after Pope.

Muslims believe as fervently in the unity of Islam as Christians do in that of the Church; their politics is not politics at all - it’s an expression of religion. The Church for a long time did not separate the two even conceptually - that is also the Muslim outlook. The conceptual distinction would have been unintelligible to most generations of Christians; as it would to Jews before the Exile.

 

[Agabriel]

what is ME?

Sorry that I didn’t get back right away - ME is short for ‘Middle East’. SOrry, I assume everyone knows that and I should not assume that because not everyone has been discussing this subject all the time.

 

[Agabriel]

one of the scariest things about this “religion” is that it is a stumblingblock to those who are outside of any organized religion… un-Christianized, etc… They see the zealous-ness of the Christians and then the zealousness of the Islamists… and they equate them in their minds … think they are not all that different… and see the danger (as well they should) of fanaticism… In some people’s minds, well… they just want to have nothing to do with either “extreme”…

I’ve been called a fanatic but i am a fanatic who believes in non - violence … who belives in Love One Another… and if that is fanatical, i guess i’m guilty as charged…

but the Muslims… well, you know…

You got it. But, I also believe in personal responsibility. A person should do some research into the religion BEFORE they either change to it, or join it, if they weren’t born into it. If they were born into it then there is a time, as an adult, where one choses to follow the base teachings willingly. And even Muslims, I don’t care how much we call them brainwashed, make a decision in their lives to accept what is so blatently wrong and to twist it into something that is good.

Anyway, in the end - it is all up to God to judge us all. And there are no excuses in front of God. I write this because of all the excuses I have read, and heard, from Muslims. They can give them to me - and others - but to God, they better realize that there is no more excuse that will work.

 

[Agabriel]

It’s as much a religion as Catholicism is. That it’s “political” does not change this - in fact, it puts one in mind of the Papacy of the 12th-17th centuries, which at various times engaged in military exploits (a Papal army was sent to Ireland in the 1640s), not to mention even less pastoral activities, such as fomenting rebellion & political assassination (Pius V & Gregory XIII come to mind). As for the countless political manoeuvres of the Papacy as one Italian principality among others, it was such entanglements that helped to bring about the Reformation: the Papacy had become so secularised, partly by those entanglements, that it had no spiritual authority left; it had frittered it all away. Julius II was as much a man of war as a bishop.​

And what other Church is also in part a sovereign state ? Popes are like Dalai Lamas: they are priest-kings. Is that good for religion ? I really we may be allowed to think not The USA solution, that separates Church & State, is far better, but it was anathema to the Church for a very long time, until Vatican 2. Until then, the rightness & desirability of uniting the two, & the enormous wrongness of separating them, had been taught by Pope after Pope.

Muslims believe as fervently in the unity of Islam as Christians do in that of the Church; their politics is not politics at all - it’s an expression of religion. The Church for a long time did not separate the two even conceptually - that is also the Muslim outlook. The conceptual distinction would have been unintelligible to most generations of Christians; as it would to Jews before the Exile.

And when did the 12th - 17th Centuries exist? OH! A Very long time ago!! And if you look at the base teachings the people who you are trying to excuse (without giving any specifics, only generalization) were not following the base teachings.

And in Islam - politics IS following the base teachings of Muhammed. So is killing, deceiving, enslaving, etc - all things that are reasons why Muslims won’t stop them.

Before Vatican II, there was only one Catholic President - Kennedy. And he almost didn’t get elected for just that reason - being a Catholic. What was closely tied to America was ‘Christianity and Judaism’ and their morales. NOT Islam (thank God) or else we would be under sharia laws - the worst laws on this globe. There are NO rights for women to even vote to change them and they get 1/2 the rights of a man and even less if they are killed and their men say it was due to family honor. And there is NO rights for anyone else who is not a Muslim. And less even if one is a slave in their lands.

To keep trying to compare Christianity, the USA, etc to Islam is a neverending task for you, it seems. but, it falls flat. And it falls flat because you keep skimming over the basic teachings of both. Muhammed taught that death and subjugation, deception, and treating anyone who didn’t believe in his agenda was less than human and therefore ok to do as he wished, while Jesus taught that we should forgive others, love others, and treat others with respect.

And that is why when they enter our lands there is no problem for them to make a way of life here. And it is why it is not that way if we moved to their lands. We would have to accept subjugation, humiliation and possible persecution/death under their laws.

 

[distracted]

It’s as much a religion as Catholicism is. That it’s “political” does not change this - .​

right…

and if a person’s religion tells him to blow people to bits “for God”

well, that’s just their religion…

 

[distracted]

Sorry that I didn’t get back right away - ME is short for ‘Middle East’. SOrry, I assume everyone knows that and I should not assume that because not everyone has been discussing this subject all the time.

thanks…

yeah… i kinda like to know something on the subject before i discuss it “all the time”…

have to say i’ve been studying many things… but don’t know much on the history of Israel (modern)… but i’m gettin there…

those &^^% jihadists got me interested… in learning more about such things…

 

[distracted]

And that is why when they enter our lands there is no problem for them to make a way of life here. And it is why it is not that way if we moved to their lands. We would have to accept subjugation, humiliation and possible persecution/death under their laws.

this is a good point that i hadn’t thought of… We can’t go to their coiuntry and be accepted… allowed to practice Christainity freely… and yet they think they can come here and get all the bennies of being American without being American!!!

this makes me sick…

and its also interesting that you are not Catholic and yet you see things the way most Catholics SHOULD… but as you know… not everyone who calls himself Catholic really is…

If 54% of “Ctholics” voted for Mr. Pro-Abort… ( a statistic i tend to doubt)… then at least 54% of “Catholics” are not Catholics… not by MY definition…

but then Jesus did say the road was narrow…

 

[Eleve]

this is a good point that i hadn’t thought of… We can’t go to their coiuntry and be accepted… allowed to practice Christainity freely… and yet they think they can come here and get all the bennies of being American without being American!!!

Are you suggesting that we persecute Muslims on account of religious persecution in their native countries?

If 54% of “Ctholics” voted for Mr. Pro-Abort… ( a statistic i tend to doubt)… then at least 54% of “Catholics” are not Catholics… not by MY definition…

A minute ago you were talking about free practice of Christianity; now you want to kick out half of your Church. Who gave you the authority to decide who is Catholic, anyway?

 

[distracted]

Are you suggesting that we persecute Muslims on account of religious persecution in their native countries?

A minute ago you were talking about free practice of Christianity; now you want to kick out half of your Church. Who gave you the authority to decide who is Catholic, anyway?

I’m not going to lower myself to respond to this…

 

[ferdie]

Are you suggesting that we persecute Muslims on account of religious persecution in their native countries?

I don’t think he is even implying that.

 

[distracted]

I don’t think he is even implying that.

yeah… and if you are referring to distracted…

poster probably knows that…

 

[Eleve]

I don’t think he is even implying that.

It seems to be strongly implied to me: “yet they think they can come here and get all the bennies of being American without being American!!!”

The words I have underlined to me seem to indicate a dislike for tolerance. First, the “yet” implies that our religious tolerance of one country’s people should be contingent upon that country’s tolerance of our people. The “think” implies that Muslim and Middle-Eastern immigrants are wrong, and that they should not be given civil rights. The final underlined phrase suggests either that immigrants should not be allowed to gain American citizenship (quite an ironic stance for a Catholic, given our America’s poor record toward them) or that non-citizens should not be given civil rights — which, besides being abominable, is what you think is not implied.

As for you, distracted: this is indeed a forum, and you posted with full knowledge that there was a reply button just below your post. If you feel that you would be “lowering yourself” by responding to criticism, perhaps a blog with no comment system would suit you better.

 

[distracted]

It
The words I have underlined to me seem to indicate a dislike for tolerance. er.

i admit it…

I am intolerant.

intolerant of oppression, intolerant of people who think God wants them to kill innocent people…

intolerant of people who run planes into skyscrapers and kill thousands of people they don’t even know…

intolerant of people who tolerate this kind of behavior…

 

[Eleve]

I am glad to see that we have some common ground, then. I, too, detest oppression, and I certainly detest the massacre of innocents. If anyone believes that he or she has a divine call to murder, then I also think that we should take it seriously so long as it is a bona fide threat. But I do not think that any of these flaws can be generalized for the vast majority of Muslims. Looking at our country specifically, there are over two million Muslims in the United States, and how many of them have ever tried to fly a plane into a building? How many of them have committed murder on account of their religion? If such things happened even once a year, the media would never put it down; we can only conclude that, all possible readings of the Qur’an aside, the vast, vast majority of Muslims believe in peace and tolerance.

As for the more widespread oppression in heavily Islamic countries, I think that we must understand two things: first, that oppression is a sociological phenomenon that is not produced solely by religion, and, second, that oppression — of people of color, of women, of LGBT people, of the disabled, and of various others — exists across cultures, and certainly in our own. It may be that in this case we are truly looking past a speck to remove a plank, but so long as we tolerate that speck we cannot really claim to be “intolerant of people who tolerate” oppression.

 

[ferdie]

As for the more widespread oppression in heavily Islamic countries, I think that we must understand two things: first, that oppression is a sociological phenomenon that is not produced solely by religion,.

True, but religion plays a big part in their oppression of the minorities.

and, second, that oppression — of people of color, of women, of LGBT people, of the disabled, and of various others — exists across cultures, and certainly in our own.

True again, but in our case we have the protection of the law from these kind of oppression, while in some heavily Islamic countries the law favors the Muslim majority.

 

[Eleve]

True, but religion plays a big part in their oppression of the minorities.

So? Religion is often used as a tool by the powerful to justify and otherwise implement oppression. This has been the case for Christianity often enough, as well. That does not mean that the individuals who practice that religion — especially those who are fleeing the den of oppression — have the desire or the capacity to export the oppression elsewhere.

True again, but in our case we have the protection of the law from these kind of oppression, while in some heavily Islamic countries the law favors the Muslim majority.

First of all, you cannot pretend like our (heavily Christian) country does not still have oppressive laws and extralegal social practices. Secondly, the fact that many countries that continue legal discrimination have Muslim majorities does not mean that Muslims or Islam are the ones responsible. It is the state that implements legal discrimination; why should the religion bear the blame when the state is the direct aggressor?

 

[ferdie]

=Eleve;5298687]So? Religion is often used as a tool by the powerful to justify and otherwise implement oppression.

And we see that in some Islamic countries.

This has been the case for Christianity often enough, as well

.
Which Christian doctrines did Christianity used recently in oppressing the minorities?

That does not mean that the individuals who practice that religion — especially those who are fleeing the den of oppression — have the desire or the capacity to export the oppression elsewhere

. True, it doesn’t mean that, and I do not support that point.

First of all, you cannot pretend like our (heavily Christian) country does not still have oppressive laws and extralegal social practices.

What oppressive laws do you have in mind? So far the only one I can think of is abortion.

Secondly, the fact that many countries that continue legal discrimination have Muslim majorities does not mean that Muslims or Islam are the ones responsible. It is the state that implements legal discrimination; why should the religion bear the blame when the state is the direct aggressor?

Who elect the leaders who implement legal discrimination? Where do they get the legal
basis for this oppressive law?

 

[Eleve]

The story of Phinehas has been used to condemn mixed-race marriage; the “curse of Ham” has justified racism; various passages from Old and New Testament alike were used to support slavery; in modern times, gay men and women are denied the freedom to marry and raise children. The modern consensus abhors much of this history, but at least some Christians have had both the will and the way to implement oppression that they justified through their religious beliefs.

Who elect the leaders who implement legal discrimination? Where do they get the legal
basis for this oppressive law?

In the oppressive Middle Eastern countries that we’re talking about, there aren’t too many people doing any electing.

 

[Agabriel]

this is a good point that i hadn’t thought of… We can’t go to their coiuntry and be accepted… allowed to practice Christainity freely… and yet they think they can come here and get all the bennies of being American without being American!!!

this makes me sick…

and its also interesting that you are not Catholic and yet you see things the way most Catholics SHOULD… but as you know… not everyone who calls himself Catholic really is…

If 54% of “Ctholics” voted for Mr. Pro-Abort… ( a statistic i tend to doubt)… then at least 54% of “Catholics” are not Catholics… not by MY definition…

but then Jesus did say the road was narrow…

A heck of a lot of Christians, overall, had to have voted for him and that tells me a lot too. It is a disgusting number to think about.

 

[Agabriel]

I am glad to see that we have some common ground, then. I, too, detest oppression, and I certainly detest the massacre of innocents. If anyone believes that he or she has a divine call to murder, then I also think that we should take it seriously so long as it is a bona fide threat. But I do not think that any of these flaws can be generalized for the vast majority of Muslims. Looking at our country specifically, there are over two million Muslims in the United States, and how many of them have ever tried to fly a plane into a building? How many of them have committed murder on account of their religion? If such things happened even once a year, the media would never put it down; we can only conclude that, all possible readings of the Qur’an aside, the vast, vast majority of Muslims believe in peace and tolerance.

As for the more widespread oppression in heavily Islamic countries, I think that we must understand two things: first, that oppression is a sociological phenomenon that is not produced solely by religion, and, second, that oppression — of people of color, of women, of LGBT people, of the disabled, and of various others — exists across cultures, and certainly in our own. It may be that in this case we are truly looking past a speck to remove a plank, but so long as we tolerate that speck we cannot really claim to be “intolerant of people who tolerate” oppression.

When you have Sharia laws that give no right of vote to non-Muslims to change them, and even Muslim women cannot change them - then you have laws that are the problem and Muslims take those laws with them wherever they go. It controls them in every aspect of their lives - socially, politically, religiously, and even going to the bathroom. They consider themselves the ‘umma’ and a citizen of whatever country they are of as secondary.

I think you should find out about what you are defending before defending it. Unless you are afraid to admit that you are a Muslim (?).

There is nothing wrong with realizing all of this. It just makes us aware and you better believe that they will be going after our laws like they go after them elsewhere and get them installed. England has sharia laws now established as part of its laws - that was a recent development due to their ignorance of Sharia laws. Tolerating intolerance is not toleration at all - it is stupidity.