Article

2004-08-20 Olde Tyme Religion

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2004-08-20 11:43|| || Front Page|| [11129 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 ISLAM 101 - The (real) 5 Pillars of Islam:

#1: "World peace, according to Islamic teaching, "is reached only with the conversion or submission of all mankind to Islam."
Â
#2: "When Muslims disseminate Islam through violent means, that is not war (harb), as that word only describes the use of force by non-Muslims. Islamic wars are acts of "opening" the world to Islam. "Those who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them."
Â
#3: "Simply by the act of existing, the entire non-Islamic world is equated with war. That is why Muslims call it the Dar al-Harb, the Realm of War."

#4: "Yet when Muslims wage jihad, they are doing it to bring about the peace of universal Islam. So whatever Muslims do, is by definition peace, and whatever infidels do, is by definition war. "

#5: "This explains, by the way, why "moderate" Muslims almost never admit that Muslim terrorists are terrorists. It is because jihad itself is not war, but a way of pursuing peace."

"By such manipulations of language and such massive double standards, Islam reveals itself as a closed system that precludes any critical thought about itself, as well as any fair and honest dealings with non-Muslims."

Well--now we know, don't we. No wonder there's no reasoning with them.

Hats off to "Moslems" who stand up to this totalitarian b-s.

Posted by ex-lib 2004-08-20 12:39:26 PM|| 2004-08-20 12:39:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Ok, I know that I, like alot of people around here, tend to get a little carried away when it comes to venting my anger at stupisity that is islam, but I have my limits about what to do about it here in the West.

My number one rule is that we should never sacrifice our own principles in order to defeat islam. For me, that would be the same as converting if I would do to some muslim what I would hate for them to do to me. Besides, I have faith in the power and creativity of both the Christian faith and of Western civilization to be able to arrive at an effective solution to the threat of islam without having to do things which we find shameful and inhumane.

For that reason, I have a big problem with FrontPage Magazine in general and I rarely read it. But specifically I have a real problem with the "plan" in this article mostly because it is getting awfully close to "final solution" territory.

It isn't anything obvious, but then it never begins that way, does it? Final solutions are always the end product of a slow moral slide, a gradual wearing down of tolerance, a gradual introduction of ideas that would be immediately rejected if they were advanced all at once etc.

To me this article is something like what you would find at the beginning of such a slide and so I reject its conclusions on that basis alone.

But this guy's plan also has many practical defects. Almost too many to account for, but #1 would have to be, what about the millions of muslims in the West who are citizens both natural born and naturalized? Wouldn't one have to come up with a solution for these folks? The only possible way would be to oppress them here or forcibly uproot them and send them to muslim countries. Do we seriously expect that they would leave voluntarily?

This leads to a related problem. If this group did not leave on its own and we did not force them to leave, then they would still have more children than the other Westerners and they would still be able to spread their religion to others. What then. Camps? Curtailment of free speech? What else?

Surely, our values are strong enough to win over islam without having to sacrifice them in the process. We need to go back to the drawing board anytime some mentions deportations. That should be a total non-starter and it must be countered quickly in no uncertain terms by anyone with any human decency and common sense.

The only thing I agreed with him on was about sharply curtailing immigration from muslim areas. But frankly that wouldn't amount to much, I'm afraid. Still every if little bit counts then this is a good plan. We do have every right to regulate who comes to our country to live and we should definitely bar anyone who subscribes to a religious law over our own laws. Since there is no separating islamic "law" from islamic religius practice, then muslims can stay home. We don't want them here trying to worm sharia into our legal system little by little until we have two laws in this country and whole areas of our nation where our law does not apply. That is only part of what they plan for us in their own version of the final solution for us and we should not take it lying down by any means.

Posted by peggy 2004-08-20 12:40:23 PM|| 2004-08-20 12:40:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 How can Auster's comments be rejected on the basis of being something akin to the final solution because his words reflect a "slow moral slide?" Lawrence Auster is Jewish, for heavens sake, hardly a person who'd promote a "final solution."

If you are worried about the "slow moral slide" leading to another Holocaust, then you should be worried about MTV or the ACLU not Lawrence Auster.

That being said, I would criticize Auster's argument because it's so impractical. We cannot deport people on the basis of their religion. We can limit immigration generally and we can implement a policy of quotas of immigrants from source nations instead of using the patently stupid family re-unification policy that's currently in place, thanks to Swimmer. But deportation for the religion an immigrant practises is legally untenable and so it causes me to see a huge gap of realityspeak in Auster's remedial arguments.

Posted by rex 2004-08-20 1:46:54 PM|| 2004-08-20 1:46:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 rex,

I did not equate Auster's comments with the Final Solution. I believe that I said that his article is like something you might find at the beginning of a moral slidewhich could result in a final solution type of reaction.

Just because he is Jewish means that he couldn't possibly advocate such a thing? How exactly does being Jewish make him immune? Aren't all human beings capable of doing the wrong thing and of justifying it to themselves? Couldn't a Jewish person simply convince himself that his plan is different from Hitlers even though it too involves deportations? How is uprooting people from their homes and businesses and sending them home to places which are unprepared to accomdate them economically not potentially devastating to them? Can a person not die in a refugee camp, or of poverty? What if their nations refuse to assimiltate them and pack them into camps like Jordan did in the West Bank? So what if they are not killed en masse? Deportation for no other reason than religious affiliation is stillinhumane. Because it is less inhumane doesn't make it better. Being a little inhumane is like being a little pregnant in my book. We can't possibly claim any superiority to islam if we start to be at all like them. They are the ones who believe its ok to do the wrong thing for the right reasons. We should know better than that.

Posted by peggy 2004-08-20 2:46:36 PM|| 2004-08-20 2:46:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Rex--

I don't think Auster is Jewish, by the way.

Posted by BMN 2004-08-20 2:57:42 PM|| 2004-08-20 2:57:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Actually. I did Auster some injustice. He only seems to be advocating deportation of some muslims based on their being here illegally or if they are radicals etc. He is just saying that lawbreakers and inciters be deported and I can't disagree with him on that. He is not talking revoking visas of law abiding muslims.

However, my opinion of his article remains unchanged. His ultimate goal is to empty the west of muslims to the greatest extent possible. My concerns remain the same. What happens when the first plan doesn't succeed in getting most of them to leave? Wouldn't it be a natural next step be to try something more severe? When the deportation of undesirables doesn't really lessen the threat (there can't be that many to make much of a difference) will revoking the visas of other muslims start to make more and more sense? Those here on visas would be a much more significant part of the muslim population.

That is why I say that we should reject a plan like this out of hand on moral reasons more than practical ones. We can't have decreasing the muslim population as our goal because the flip side of that is that their numbers are the problem. Its just a more subtle way of saying that muslim people living in the west is the problem here. Where does that end?

This guy has definitely opened the door for us to come to that nasty conclusion. Read his article a couple of times and see if that is not his ultimate point ie anyone who believes in islam is part of the threat we are facing so we must first get rid of them and then fence them into their own countries. How will this kind of thinking not lead to eventually to mass deporatations?

Posted by peggy 2004-08-20 3:28:28 PM|| 2004-08-20 3:28:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Rather long but well worth reading.

Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-08-20 4:33:01 PM|| 2004-08-20 4:33:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 While Auster succintly identifies the political nature of the Islamic beast, he still comes off the rails towards the end.

As an example of the effects I'm talking about, the democratic reform of Muslim societies requires their partial or complete secularization. But if the secularization of Muslim societies becomes a guiding principle of our foreign policy, that would inevitably lead us to secularize our own society as well, which is the very last thing we need.

Am I missing something here? The last time I checked, America was, and still is, a secular nation. The only alternative I see Auster making noise about is theocracy and that is an evil indentically equal to Islamism.

Moreover, this containment of the Muslim peoples can be accomplished without violating their dignity and essence as Muslims. If we sought literally to suppress and destroy Islam, we could be justly accused of practicing cultural genocide. But if we simply contain the Muslims in their historic lands where they can have no power over us, that would not be harming them, even under the terms of their own religion.

This is patently ridiculous. A substantial portion of prior American foreign policy involved exactly this sort of "containment." It would in no way prevent the breeding up of terrorism exactly as we have seen it happen. Islamic nations would simply learn to cease overt support of terrorism, take it all underground, and thereby make it even more difficult to identify or combat.

Restricting immigration from all terrorist nations and deportation of all criminal or illegal aliens (regardless of origin) is reasonable.

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-20 9:25:43 PM|| 2004-08-20 9:25:43 PM|| Front Page Top

00:15 Sarah Girl
10:52 Shipman
07:31 rkb
03:02 rex
02:58 .com
02:53 Zhang Fei
02:51 Zhang Fei
02:46 .com
02:33 Super Hose
02:26 Super Hose
02:17 rex
02:10 .com
02:09 Trolling for Allan
01:55 Zenster
01:28 .com
01:26 True German Ally
01:24 .com
01:17 True German Ally
01:16 .com
01:15 .com
01:13 Lucky
01:12 True German Ally
01:11 rex
01:04 .com