.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Saturday, August 18, 2007

God, Allah - Fanatic Islam Incrementalism

I never cease to be amazed at how willing sheeple are to turn over, bend over and submit to the wishes of Radical Islamists.

We had the Danish cartoons which resulted in fanatical Muslims rioting.

We had Pope Benedict merely quote 14th century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus which resulted in fanatical Muslims attacking churches, comparing the Pope to Hitler and killing a 65-year old Italian nun in Somalia.

Ah...such are the actions of those who claim to be part of "The Religion of Peace."

"Insult the Religion of Peace and we will kill and harm you," is more like the message.

(All emphasis mine).

Now we have a Catholic Bishop in the Netherlands who is suggesting we should "call God Allah," in an attempt to reach out to Islam:

    A proposal by a Roman Catholic bishop in the Netherlands that people of all faiths refer to God as "Allah" is not sitting well with the Catholic community.

    Tiny Muskens, an outgoing bishop who is retiring in a few weeks from the southern diocese of Breda, said God doesn't care what he is called.

    "Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn't we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? ... What does God care what we call him? It is our problem," Muskens told Dutch television.

    "I'm sure his intentions are good but his theology needs a little fine-tuning," said Father Jonathan Morris, a Roman Catholic priest based in Rome. Morris, a news analyst for FOX News Channel, also called the idea impractical.

    "Words and names mean things," Morris said. "Referring to God as Allah means something."

    Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington, D.C.-based Islamic civil liberties and advocacy group, backs the idea as a way to help interfaith understanding.

    "It reinforces the fact that Muslims, Christians and Jews all worship the same God," Hooper told FOX News.com. "I don't think the name is as important as the belief in God and following God's moral principles. I think that's true for all faiths."

    Christians who are Arabic speakers speak of Allah when they speak of God, Hooper added.

    "There's not a theological leap to make on the part of Christians," Hooper said.

    The Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago supports the idea.

    “I think it will open up doors,” said Janaan Hashim, a spokeswoman for the group representing more than 400,000 Muslim Americans in the Chicago area. “Language is a man-made limitation. I think what God cares about is how we fulfill our purpose in life.”

    The nation’s largest Catholic civil rights group says Catholics won't get behind the proposal.

I am not surprised, nor should anyone be, that Ibrahim Hooper thinks calling God Allah is a grand idea. Heck, he probably thinks beheading disbelievers of Islam is a grand idea. I wonder...I wonder...has Hooper made it a point to loudly and vociferously denounce the acts of violence committed in the name of Islam? Maybe he has, but I haven't run across such reports. And I'm not surprised that the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago supports the idea any more than I was not surprised that the Danish cartoons or the statement made by the Pope were met with VIOLENCE FROM RADICAL MUSLIMS!

This God - Allah issue is so interesting and so sad on so many levels that I cannot begin to scratch the surface.

The Netherlands is where Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was murdered in 2004 by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch - Moroccan Islamist who, according to reports, enjoyed amputee fetishism and necrophilia [and] became virtually ecstatic when he watched snuff films. Well, what's a little amputee fetishism, necrophilia and snuff films for anyone who is a member of The Religion of Peace? I'm sure God Allah will waive those transgressions as well as the Van Gogh murder.

The world is witnessing religious and cultural tidal waves in the crimes perpetrated by those who believe in, and practice, radical Islam. The answer to these atrocities appears to be a continuing effort to appease members of radical Islam. This can only be defined as folly.

Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Freedom Party, has called for the banning of The Koran from the Netherlands:

    He wrote in a letter to the daily Volkskrant that the Quran was a "fascist" book that incited people to violence.

    In his letter Wilders' wants "to make it a crime to use the Koran in mosques and at home."

    "Ban this wretched book", Freedom Party's leader declared. "Send a signal...to Islamists that the Quran can never, ever be used in our country as an "excuse or inspiration" for violence".

    "Islamists are seeking to establish a pure Islamic society governed under extremely harsh interpretation of Islam. From Islamism preferred apocalyptic millennial echo of other ideology, Fascism. Islamism is a totalitarian, utopian, violent and like Fascism - expansionist movement." This is a quote of some figures from another country, Canada.

    According to an editorial article in the Ottawa Citizen Newspaper dated June 5 2006, which defines Islam: "Koran is a guide to fascism and expansionism - collection of Islamist thoughts, and those who believe in it are not Muslims, they are Islamists."

    According to the Koran, as Ottawa Citizen explains, "Islam is not just a religion is a way of life. (Al Imran, 3:19). Lifestyle never limited home or private life. It covers all aspects of life, private and public. The Koran emphasizes that if someone wants another way of life than Islam, it will never be accepted by them (3:85).

    According to the Citizen, that is an Islamism.

    Thus, a Muslim who believes and fully accepts the Holy Writ, as required by the Koran and not takes the Islam "as only a religion" and that is an "Islamist ". He the enemy of the "civilization", "freedom" and "democracy" against whom and a total war declared.

    But Islam is really "not just a religion." The Koran clearly states to the believers:

    "To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way." (5:48)

I hope Wilders has a lot of bodyguards, lest he be met by the same fate of Theo Van Gogh.

Religion - any religion - that resorts to fanaticism, violence, intimidation and murder against those who choose not to believe what they preach ceases to become a religion and instead becomes a cult, a sect.

It's sad that I have to write what I'm about to say, but what I wrote here does not, in any way, apply to all those who practice Islam. The majority of people who practice Islam are peaceful and law-abiding people who have no qualms with other's religious practice or those who are non-believers; atheists.

Peaceful Muslims have got to understand that by not speaking out against those who besmirch their religion - those who kill and maim in the name of Islam - are an abomination on humanity. Civilized countries will not stand for this violence, appeasement is not going to be an option afforded to those who practice radical Islam. They may think that others will submit to them, and some indeed may. But this is the minority percentage of people. The majority will fight and oppose special favors granted to Islam, favors that are not extended to any other religion. The majority will fight these savages and meet violence with violence, not because of religion, but for freedom.


Informational and factual references used in the above:
Muslim cartoon fury claims lives, BBC - February 6, 2006
Pope's Remarks enrage Muslims, MSNBC - September 16, 2006
Pope's Remarks on Islam, Violence Spur Anger, NPR - September 15, 2006
Italian Nun Shot Dead by Somali Gunmen, Doctors Say, AP - September 18, 2006


Okay. I see what you're saying. Let me add this:

The majority of people in the Islamic world live in ancient lands, historically subjugated by theo-military-monarchic oligarchies. They have not what we Americans had in a vast empty continent free to make up the rules as we went along. Remember, the Islamic world is going through now what we Westerners went through hundreds of years ago. Like I always say - if they had airplanes 1000 years ago, European Christian zealots would have been flying them into the minarets of Mecca.

So, we can't realistically expect the people of the Islamic world to be able to suddenly cast off the yoke of millenia of history and rid the world of Islamic terrorism. It is the Holy Grail of the terrorists, after all, to bring back the great Caliphate of yore, only this time from Morocco to Indonesia - sort of like that old Christian goal of a Holy Land that spread from Spain to Palestine. For the down-trodden common people, that sounds pretty nice. That's why, for example, most all these terrorist group operate local community outreach and services, even schools and hospitals. The terrorists are promising the common people a better life for the future, for whatever that's worth.

The only thing that can bring an end to Islamic radicalism is the uplifting of the common people of Islamic world. I know, I know, 'terrorists are middle to upper-middle class, educated, young people,' but for the common people to turn on them they have to see that life would be better without them. It seems pretty simple, and rather easy, to me. But somehow we got it into our heads that it's big, complicated, scary, and worth war. I just don't see it that way. The greatwest weapon of change in the American arsenal is not and never was the military - it was the Dollar. To see today's conservatives destroy the dollar while putting all the load on the military strikes me as insanely stupid.

Do you agree?

Well, I agree with some of what you write and disagree with other parts.

"if they had airplanes 1000 years ago, European Christian zealots would have been flying them into the minarets of Mecca."

The best answer to that is strong "maybe", countered by an equally strong "maybe not". The Christian crusades, if that's what you are referring to, was also a response to radical Islam back then, hellbent to "convert" non Muslims to Islam. We see the same today.

Radical Islam's mission is to convert or kill the non-believers. I don't see how we fight that with "the dollar", especially when past sanction against countries sponsoring Islamic terrorists will get their funding from other, sympathetic countries.
There is something inherently wrong at the core of Islam and the Koran. I truly believe this. I do believe there are peaceful Muslims who have no intention of harming others, but they are very few in number.

I believe when confronted, the majority of Muslims would choose Islam and it's teachings over the freedom and democracy of Western nations. I could always be wrong.
I, as a student of history, must disagree in the most strongest of terms with your estimation of the Caliphate as "radical Islam." The empires of the classical Islamic world were quite tolerant and the subjugated peoples were genrally happier and more peaceful under their rule than in Dark Ages Europe. Jews, Christians, and the many converts of the Balkans, were far happier and certainly better off under Islamic rule than they were under the "Christian" royal fuedalists of Europe.

As for the dollar, what I meant was that smart diplomatic, international, economic, political relations can accomplish a lot more than brute force. Look at it this way - the smart rich guy can accomplish more than the dumb brute - even against other dumb brutes. You're an American, DD. You shouldn't fear these lowly thugs.

Well whatever you do, just don't fart in a mosque. That kind of thing may fly in a church, but float one in a mosque and you'll lose your freaking head.

Hey JMJ. Nice to hear from you again. I see you're still sticking up for the downtrodden. Good on you. I'll let you in on a little secret. You want to watch out for the Zionists. Next to the New World Orderlies, they're some real bad actors. Hah.
Hi Debbie - I don't think you are wrong in saying the majority of Muslims would choose Islam. I don't think a majority of them would choose violence over those who practice another religion or choose to not believe. And I could be wrong on that too. Thanks for visiting and commenting, as always & take care!
JMJ-I have not studied "empires of the classical Islamic world" but you've given me a task to bone up on.

Ideally, I don't know that subjugated people are "happier" than free people. They may claim that to outsiders because they fear repercussion if the speak otherwise, like the many Iraqis who privately and secrety despised Saddam Hussein but outwardly pretended to idoloize him.

I don't disagree that financial sanctions work to a point, but then - placating North Korea by Madeleine Albright for instance - it only does so much and then comes back to haunt.

"The Koran emphasizes that if someone wants another way of life than Islam, it will never be accepted by them (3:85)."

I find the above pretty disturbing. Considering the Left paints the "Religious Right" with such contempt, accusing them of "pushing" their beliefs onto others, yet afraid to make similarly strong statements about radical Islamists.

I don't think Christians killed anyone over the Piss Christ or Virgin Mary with elephant dung "art" exhibitions, but we do know that radical Islam has killed because of cartoons depicting Mohammad and what the Pope said.

I'm glad you called radical Islamists "lowly thugs". I don't fear them, I want them removed from the possibilities of hurting and killing others. How we remove them is up for debate. I do not necessarily mean killing or jailing them all. However, I don't think paying them (as we've granted financial incentives to other terrorist groups in the past - under both political parties) is the answer either.

Thanks for visiting and commenting JMJ.
Post a Comment

<< Home

eXTReMe Tracker

Web Site Traffic Counters
Alabama Internet

Listed on BlogShares

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

This site uses photographs and material from other sources in strict
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.

Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.