PDA

View Full Version : A politically correct article on Islam by an animal welfare activist...



gilgamesh
17 Aug 06,, 17:44
...NOT!!! :biggrin:

http://americandaily.com/article/15107


Islam Has Never Been Peaceful Nor Is It a Religion
By Dave Gibson (08/16/2006)

While the Christian prophet Jesus sacrificed himself for his believers, the Muslim prophet Mohammed frequently ordered his followers to sacrifice themselves for his own glory. Islam is not a religion at all, but a political movement with the goal of world domination. Islam has a very violent history and the terror now being perpetrated on the West is simply another campaign for world conquest.

The Quran orders Muslims to either enslave or kill those who refuse to worship Allah. The Muslim holy book does not teach love, but hate. Faithful Muslims are directed to kill the 'infidels.'

The following are a few of the violent passages found within the Quran:

"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you." (Sura 9:122)

"make war on the leaders of unbelief..." (Sura 9:12)

"Allah has given those that fight with their goods and their persons a higher rank than those who stay at home. He has promised all a good reward; but for richer is the recompense of those who fight for Him." (Sura 4:96)

"Believers, retaliation is decreed for you in bloodshed." (Sura 2:178)

A merchant, Mohammed became a military leader and led several campaigns against 'non-believers.' He could also be easily classified as a common thief, as he frequently raided caravans headed for Mecca.

In 624, Mohammed led a few hundred Muslim warriors in a raid on a merchant caravan. It resulted in a battle between the Meccans and the Muslims at Badr. The Muslims prevailed and took 70 prisoners who were held for ransom.

In 627, the Meccans again were defeated by the Muslims in what is known as the Battle of the Trench. Afterwards, the Muslims accused a local Jewish tribe (Banu Qurayza) of conspiring with the Meccans and subsequently attacked the Jews. Under Mohamed's direction, the defeated Jews were given mock trials and executed by their Muslim captors.

In 630, Mohammed led a force of 10,000 to seize Mecca.

By the time of his death in 632, Mohammed was regarded as a ruthless military leader and a skillful politician. Less than a century after his death, his followers had conquered Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Armenia, Syria, and most of North Africa. During the 10th century, Muslim armies conquered part of India (in what is now Pakistan).

Webster's defines religion as: 1. belief in and worship of God or Gods 2. a specific system of belief or worship built around God, a code of ethics, a philosophy of life

As I said earlier, Islam is not a religion but a plan for world domination in which conquered peoples will either submit, become slaves, or be killed. Islam is no different to Nazism or Japanese Imperialism. American Muslims do not deserve Freedom of Religion protection under the U.S. Constitution and should be viewed as potential enemies of the state.

We must no longer allow Muslims to hide behind the banner of religion. We must shut down their mosques, deport all non-citizen Muslims within this country, and consider internment for American Muslims until the end of the war. If we do not recognize the Muslim threat lurking within this nation...We can look forward to seeing more smoke rising over American cities.



Dave Gibson is a freelance writer and part-time political consultant living in Norfolk, Va. He is also a longtime volunteer with several animal welfare groups.

HistoricalDavid
17 Aug 06,, 17:48
That goes way beyond politically incorrect. It's politically tyrannical.

Bill
17 Aug 06,, 18:12
Tyrannical? Hmmm...it would help immensely.

Seems to me it's tyranny if you treat them poorly or dont release them after the fight is over.

It's just protective custody on a massive scale is all. :tongue:

gunnut
17 Aug 06,, 18:17
I guess Bush lied. He said islam is a religion of peace.

Lunatock
17 Aug 06,, 18:43
That pretty much covers the Islamists. Who pretend they are acting on behalf of Islam, but it's really world domination that drives them.

And may I add that it is remarkably similiar to what Hitler said he was motivated by, but was really after?

HistoricalDavid
18 Aug 06,, 12:53
Tyrannical? Hmmm...it would help immensely.

Seems to me it's tyranny if you treat them poorly or dont release them after the fight is over.

It's just protective custody on a massive scale is all. :tongue:

On the basis of a non-coercive act - being a Muslim. Being a Muslim and hijacking airliners - now that is covered by existing law, and being a Muslim is of secondary importance in that regard.

I think organised religion and Islam in particular is evil unless watered down heavily, but I personally like to separate the political and ethical/intellectual spheres.

Triple C
18 Aug 06,, 18:23
Islam isn't a religion of peace. Islam isn't the religion of toleration by any standard of the word. But it IS a religion.

Muslims have to prey to a deity five times a day. They have a massive legal code (sharia) based on what they percieve as Allah's words. The worship of any other deity qualifies one as an idolator in the Umma on the pains of death. Hence it does satisfy all three of Webster's definitions.

This arguement, A merchant, Mohammed . . . could also be easily classified as a common thief, as he frequently raided caravans headed for Mecca. is also problematic, since there was nothing in anyone's book against holding men for randsom from the fall of the Roman Empire right up to the pre-modern period in Europe. When Christian states fought against each other in Europe, their methods did not deviate from Muhamad's. King John II for example was held by the Black Prince in England as a hostage for ransom. It was simply a common way to make war. When Richard the Lionheart captured the city of Acre from Saladin during the Third Crusade, he also took six hundred prisoners to ensure Saladin would carry out the terms of the negotiated surrender of the city. When Richard's army was in jeopardy and the prisonders became a burden, Richard ordered them executed. Does that make Christianity a religion of hatred? When Christian Knightly Orders warred against the Ottoman Turks, they also interdicted Muslim merchantmen and caravens. Does that make the knightly orders (who I dearly love, mind you) "common theives"?


The Muslims did kill Jews on the suspicion that they were plotting against them. As did the Christians during the Crusade, the Spainards after the reconquista by the means of the inquistion, the Tzars with progoms (Eastern Orthodox count as Christians don't they?) all the way up to their fall. In fact Jews in the middle east during the crusade often side with the Muslims because at the latter's hands they had a better chance to expect leniency. Islam as a theocratic existence did (and still does) have imperial aspirations, but it did not advocate the killing of all inifidels--the destruction of polytheism and the subjectgation of other montheistic believes, yes, but not annhiliation of all none-Muslims. That was actually comparable if not superior to contemporary Christian attitudes towards Jews, who were treated as the murders of Jesus Christ and often were forcifully converted.

Islam is not much of a peaceful or tolerant religion. It's fundementalist nature combined with a holy text supposedly copied by a political-military leader as God's scribe is a huge problem for Muslims that want to make it a peaceful and tolerant religion. But it is a religion. The terrorists that fight the west believe that they are in the right and is doing God's work. That is exactly what makes them dangerous.

Bill
18 Aug 06,, 18:29
On the basis of a non-coercive act - being a Muslim. Being a Muslim and hijacking airliners - now that is covered by existing law, and being a Muslim is of secondary importance in that regard.

I think organised religion and Islam in particular is evil unless watered down heavily, but I personally like to separate the political and ethical/intellectual spheres.

It is well established law that the gov't can take someone into custody to 'protect' them.

Well....we'd be 'protecting them' from being infiltrated or threatened by terrorists. :)

HistoricalDavid
18 Aug 06,, 18:37
It is well established law that the gov't can take someone into custody to 'protect' them.

Even if you take a purely legalistic point, for how long? And from a purely realistic point of limited resources, would you 'protect' all the several million Muslims in America? Never mind the moral argument, called, "it's systematic oppression", no matter what the century, no matter what the country, no matter what the situation.


Well....we'd be 'protecting them' from being infiltrated or threatened by terrorists. :)

I'm sure they'd appreciate it. Though I also envision terror cells infiltrating and operating in(not as easily, granted) within these vast Muslim internment camps.

Bill
18 Aug 06,, 18:57
Even if you take a purely legalistic point, for how long? And from a purely realistic point of limited resources, would you 'protect' all the several million Muslims in America? Never mind the moral argument, called, "it's systematic oppression", no matter what the century, no matter what the country, no matter what the situation.

I'm sure they'd appreciate it. Though I also envision terror cells infiltrating and operating in(not as easily, granted) within these vast Muslim internment camps.

Protective custody for the masses.

For how long? Until the case made it to the supreme court and they were all ordered released.

So figure about 3, maybe 4 years...tops.

That's a pretty good sized window of action.

Ray
18 Aug 06,, 19:45
A Holy Terror?

bandwagon
18 Aug 06,, 21:56
Did any of you guys look around before posting :rolleyes:

Does the Quran sanction violence? (http://www.mediamonitors.net/elmasry31.html)

gunnut
18 Aug 06,, 22:16
Did any of you guys look around before posting :rolleyes:

Does the Quran sanction violence? (http://www.mediamonitors.net/elmasry31.html)

Irrelevant.

I don't care if the Quran or the Bible sanctions violence or not. The fact is most terrorist acts in recent memory are committed by muslims. Most ongoing warfare have something to do with muslims. Not saying all muslims are warlike and terrorists, just most terrorists and warlike people are muslims.

Name me one conflict/war going on right now that doesn't involve muslims and I can name you 5 that do.

Bill
18 Aug 06,, 22:21
Did any of you guys look around before posting :rolleyes:

Does the Quran sanction violence? (http://www.mediamonitors.net/elmasry31.html)

So do you think that one article is the arbiter of all this, or just one well meaning fellows opinion on the matter?

There are thousands and thousands of articles on this subject, going back a thousand year, and in a hundred countries.

I wonder if the army of Tours took comfort in the professed peaceful nature of Islam as they followed Charles the Hammer onto the field...or if they knew better.

I suspect they knew better.

Just as we know better...

Religion may be stupid, but it's also caused the death of more humans than all other manmade reasons combined. Until people let it go, or at least manage to practice it without feeling a need to kill one another, we will be forced to confront this stupidity. As i say, this crap has been going on for millenia.

All that changes are the names of the dead, the location of the battles, and the implements we use.

I suggest it would be extremely unwise to allow the Islamists access to the latest acutriments of war.

bandwagon
18 Aug 06,, 23:03
So do you think that one article is the arbiter of all this, or just one well meaning fellows opinion on the matter?No I don't. Thats why I thought I would post another view in this thread. Despite what you think, the prevailing interpretation amongst Muslims currently is that the Quran demands peace. But, loud and clearly, that interpretion is not universal.


Religion may be stupid, but it's also caused the death of more humans than all other manmade reasons combined. Until people let it go, or at least manage to practice it without feeling a need to kill one another, we will be forced to confront this stupidity. As i say, this crap has been going on for millenia.I agree. But more specifically, the historical wars between the Christians and Muslims is not the root cause of the current terrorism. That has its roots in the modern era.

HistoricalDavid
19 Aug 06,, 13:24
No I don't. Thats why I thought I would post another view in this thread. Despite what you think, the prevailing interpretation amongst Muslims currently is that the Quran demands peace. But, loud and clearly, that interpretion is not universal.

I'm sure most modern communists would superficially abhor the crimes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, so on, so forth.

It doesn't make the latter any less communist. Communism either produced all those many regimes because they were true offspring, or because humanity didn't know how to handle it. Either way, shouldn't ideology be held to account if it demonstrates a historically consistent failure, perhaps through self-contradiction - e.g. the Qur'an, you know I can pull up as many violent verses as you can peaceful ones - or through outright evil shenanigins, to promote peace and freedom among its followers?

After all, the Muslim-majority world has VERY few liberal-democracies, never mind terrorism.


Protective custody for the masses.

For how long? Until the case made it to the supreme court and they were all ordered released.

So figure about 3, maybe 4 years...tops.

That's a pretty good sized window of action.

The government would topple in the next election. Assuming massive riots didn't break out... etc.

And assuming you take such a intellectually passive role.

Ray
19 Aug 06,, 17:07
Bandwagon,

To be sure the Quaran, preaches violence and peace.

Peace and forgiveness towards fellow Moslems and violence and subjugation against and of Kaffirs.

I would even accept that preaching violence against anyone, in the modern emancipated environment, is socially infra dig and one should not take cognisance of what may have been written ages ago in the scripture of any religion.

However, Moslems, beyond the realm of government and society, in small groups are practising violence against what they term as Kaffirs. I am sure you cannot deny this. Further, there is no cognisable reaction from the vast majority of Moslems, except for mealy mouthed pious platitudes.

Therefore, what should the non Moslems do? Believe that Islam does not preach violence?

Indeed, if the Moslems do shun violence and is a religion of Peace, how come the Mollahs are howling their lungs out praising these terrorists openly and calling for Jihad? Now, if the majority of Moslems do not subscribe to these violent ways as they claim, then why are they visiting these Mosques which are preaching hatred and violence? If they shun these Mosques where the Mollahs are behaving like criminals, then the social boycott would indicate that genuinely the majority of the Moslems do not subscribe to terrorism. It maybe added that it is not mandatory to pray only at the Mosque.

But the majority don't socially boycott these Mosques and the Mollahs. These Mosques and madrassas have become the beehive for all types of nefarious activities in the name of religion.

Therefore, it is correct to assume that they support the violence and anyway Jihad is an important "pillar" of Islam!