A note from Radarsite: Following 9/11, in order to try to discover for myself the true nature of this purported Religion of Peace, whose ardent followers had just been responsible for the worst attack ever to take place on American soil, I began to research Islam. I started by reading the Qur'an, at the painfully slow rate of 5 hate-filled pages a day. It soon became apparent that this revered Book of Peace had more in common with Mein Kampf than with the New Testament. In fact, there were many similarities between the two. Both were filled with violence and threats of violence, both shared an arrogant contempt for those who dared to disagree with their authors, both advocated for the complete and utter subjection of all unbelievers, and sought an eventual worldwide hegemony.Both are difficult books to endure. And basically for the same reasons: incessant redundancy, awkward literary style and structure, an annoying tendency to digress and wander off subject; and, although both books were written by undeniably powerful and charismatic leaders, both displayed a fundamental lack of basic literary ability.
However, for me, the most difficult part of the laborious challenge of the Qur'an was in wading through page after page of the incessant and obsessive hatred and violence -- by this author's count, of the 434 total pages in my Penguin Classics version of the Qur'an, 288 pages contained some form of usually quite graphic violence, invariable directed against the unbeliever or the apostate.
For me, the question had been resolved. Resolved by the power of unquestionable numbers. 288/434. No longer could anyone ever convince me that the Qur'an is a Book of Peace, that had merely been misinterpreted. Numbers don't lie, people do.
However, as our recent unfortunate national divide so clearly demonstrates, many of us are still in a quandary about Islam and the Qur'an. We are still confused, still attempting to equate Islam with other religions. We still hold out hope that those Moderate Muslims can get in there and perform the necessary surgery and cut the malignant cancer of extremism from the suffering body of Islam.
The following excellent article from Jihad Du Jour, I believe, presents us with one of the clearest and most irrefutable arguments against this kind of comforting delusion. Only by understanding the true nature of our enemy do we have a chance of defeating him. -- rg
cross posted from Jihad Du Jour.com
http://jihadidujour.blogspot.com/
There are deluded Jews and Christians who believe that the barbaric attacks against non-Muslims and even fellow Muslims alike throughout the world are being perpetrated by members of a small, extreme, perverted brand of Islam and that "true" Islam is probably just like modern Christianity or Judaism; that all that is needed is for moderate Muslims to take back their religion from the radicals. Then there are the deluded Jews and Christians who have actually read the Quran for themselves and realize that the barbarity of Muslim terror we see today is indeed rooted in the very essence of Islam and argue that we must not condemn the religion when all that is needed is for Islam to go through a reformation and modernization as Christianity and Judaism has done.
But an expert in religion disagrees:
The QandO Blog, 11 Jan 2006, Pope says Islam can’t reformThere are Muslims who believe that Islam can reform but they too are deluded:
Now Pope Benedict XVI has let it be known that he does not believe Islam can reform. This we learn from the transcript of a January 5 US radio interview with one of Benedict's students and friends, Father Joseph Fessio, SJ, the provost of Ave Maria University in Naples, Florida, posted on the Asia Times Online forum by a sharp-eyed reader. For the pope to refute the fundamental premise of US policy is news of inestimable strategic importance, yet a Google News scan reveals that not a single media outlet has taken notice of what Fessio told interviewer Hugh Hewitt last week. No matter: still and small as Benedict's voice might be, it carries further than earthquake and whirlwind.
Then there is the website Muslims Against Sharia who argue that the Quran is not the literal word of Allah; that Islam, in its present form, is not compatible with principles of freedom and democracy; that Muslims must remove all the evil passages from Islamic religious texts; that there is no one religion that is superior to another; that Sharia Law must be abolished; that Seventh Century practices such as stoning, cutting off body parts, marrying and/or having sex with children or animals must be condemned; and hundreds of other suggestions to make Islam more like Christianity or Judaism.FaithFreedom.org Why Can't Islam be Reformed?
This is the position of many modern Muslims, including Irshad Manji the author of “What Is Wrong with Islam, Today”. A great number of Muslims realize there is something wrong with Islam, but they erroneously believe the problem can be solved through the miracle of reinterpretation; and that they can keep the Quran and believe in Muhammad but somehow do the opposite of what he did and said and still call themselves Muslims....You ask: "Can Islam be reformed?" No, it can't! To reform Islam you have to first get rid of Muhammad and second get rid of the Quran. You have to take out a great portion of that book which is violent. The rest is nonsense and absurdity. But this you can't do, because you have no authority to do such a thing. Muhammad said that he has perfected his religion (Q. 5:3). How can you improve something, which is perfect? You can't change the Quran. You can't reform it. All you can do is to reinterpret and, for example pretend, "slay the unbelievers wherever you find them" means something else.
If somehow one could actually change one letter of a book whose wording letter for letter was fixed by no one but Allah, and dutifully followed the advice of Muslims Against Sharia and actually purged Islam of all of its barbarity then we would have in our hands a slim book with the Title "The Quran" and a sole, blank page bound in leather.
But this would not be enough, the other leg of Islam, the Sunnah is the second source of Islamic jurisprudence without which one cannot practice Islam. The Sunnah: the way of the prophet, his sayings, deeds, etc. One could compare these two legs of Islam to Christianity: the Quran, or the word of God, is like the Old Testament, and the Sunnah, or the deeds and sayings of Mohammed, are like the Gospels: the sayings and deeds of Jesus.
But while the deeds and sayings of Jesus are of humility, love, and peace, the deeds and sayings of Mohammed are of narcissism, hate, and military conquest. While the message of Jesus is "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone," the message of Mohammed is "Stone all those who disbelieve." No, I'm afraid that all of the Sunnah must be purged as well.
"But," you may protest, "if we remove all the evil from the Quran and excise all that is vile in the Sunnah, then there will be nothing left to follow in Islam!"Precisely.As to what happens to Muslims who try to practice even the slightest deviation from the absolute written word of Allah:
Reuters, 28 Apr 2008, Hardliners torch "heretical" Indonesian mosque-police
Hundreds of hardline Indonesian Muslims burnt a mosque early on Monday belonging to a sect that has been branded heretical by most Muslims, police said.The attack in West Java's Sukabumi district came after a government team recommended this month the Ahmadiyya sect be banned because its teachings deviate from the central tenets of Islam.I believe that the government in Indonesia has a perfect right to ban a religious group because its teachings deviate from the central tenets of Islam. I believe we in America and Europe should follow their example and likewise ban all of Islam because its teachings deviate from the central tenets of modern civilization.
Cross-Posted at Planck's Constant
A final note: It would be great sin of omission on the part of Radarsite to post an article such as this without acknowledging the tireless efforts of our good friend and Islamic scholar Ben from A Newt One, who has been proclaiming these same warnings of the enormous dangers that this cult of Islam presents to the West. Hopefully our present and future leaders will come to these same conclusions and protect our vulnerable nation from this evil onslaught. We shall see...
Voted by Fox News at GOP Hub
.jpg)
.jpg)
.BMP)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
There are very few moderates in Islam. They have to deny most of the teachings of Mohammad and the Koran. In doing so, they risk death by their fellow Muslim.
ReplyDeleteThe US Constitution protects the free exercise of religion. Any religion. And since it is established that Islam is a religion it is protected. The government cannot legally force its practitioners to reform or change their faith. Nor can the government deny Muslims the right to their religion. Again the Founding Fathers were smart in this. They knew all too well the dangers in the state interfering in religious matters.
A change in the Constitution as you proposed about a week ago would be the answer. Now try and get it passed. It wouldn't even get out of committee. The PC Cops would pounce on it in a New York Minute.
I don't see how the West can legislate against Islam. As long as the media is pro-Islam and anti-Judeo-Christian ideals the West has no chance. If 9/11 and 7/7, the Cole and Embassy bombings hasn't awoken the West, especially the US to the dangers of Islam, what will?
I can't see any solution that would work. And it scares me. I'd be one of the first they would put up against the wall.
President Bush constantly lies about the nature of Islam and the identity of the enemy behind 09/11/01. Obama said he will stand by the Muslims if things turn bad. McCain said he admires Islam.
ReplyDeleteIn effect, we have deceivers, not leaders.
The educational system and mass media are stacked against us.
It is necessary that knowledge of the truth be propagated and that the informed citizens be aroused and organized to apply pressure on those we elect.
Our blogs are a start. But sooner or later this effort must extend into the three dimensional real world.
What's to stop you from joining the UAC, ACT For America, Fire Society, CVF, etc?
What's to stop you from sending The Prophet of Doom, The Legacy of Jihad, and similar books by Pipes, Spencer and others as gifts?
What's to stop you from putting an anti Islamic bumper sticker on your car and passing out informative fliers?
If you won't do it, who will?
Have you considered presenting a copy of the Koran & Bukhari to the Pastor of your church? There is a seven volume library on my web site. You can easily burn it onto a CD and pass it out. Any recipient with a Windows computer can read the Koran, hadith & Tafsir. One of those books lists the worst of the Koran & Hadith in concentrated form, with the fluff & obfuscation removed.
My site also has fliers you can print and distribute. There are Powerpoint presentations you can send as email attachments.
I have the Myth vs Fact series running on four blogs. I have republished Know Thine Enemy at Multiply and others have cross posted it to their blogs. The 28th amdt. proposal is stirring lively discussions at Vox and Multiply.
Much of the information you have seen in my comments and blog posts is included in my fliers. You can print & fold them and have them ready to pass out when an opportunity arises. You cal drop them in restaurant booths, taxis and bus seats. You could put a few in the literature rack at your church.
The sooner we get started, the sooner we will reach our objective. Take the first step tomorrow.
Ben I said this about a week ago. The trouble with the net is that we are scattered.
ReplyDeleteMy rabbi has read the Koran & Bukhari and encourages us to read them (I'm reading it again for the 3rd time). We plan counter protests and attend them, but while the Muslims can get 1000 people together for a protest, we can only manage a few hundred, and we are all Jewish. Thus we are called racists and Islamaphobics, but the Muslim's anti-Semitic posters and rhetoric are cheered and applauded.
Don't you know? We who are fighting this war have very few allies. On the internet, we speak, we comfort each other, but when it comes to getting up off of the chair, we don't.
Great article Roger...
ReplyDeleteI cannot add to what the others already say...fidalis and Ben...but I will re-emphasize the fact that we don't get up off our chairs. I think that some day Americans are going to wake up and realize that some changes to our Constitution will be a necessity...you may not be able to change Islam but the Constitution you may...
Findalis, the American Revolution began with a minority, roughly 1/3 favored it. It began with a handful of activists.
ReplyDeleteGet your Rabbi to hold a meeting, discuss the issue and seek a consensus. Ask each one willing to act to poll his family, friends and associates to see if any are informed or interested and willing to take part. Form a local network, communicating by email. Recruit new activists. Meet with other congregations and get them involved.
If your Rabbi is involved in an interfaith group, he could seek support from the Christians.
ACT For America, CVF, UAC & Fire Society are organizing and mobilizing. The UAC has a very active forum for exchanging news and strategy.
"Time, patience and perseverence accomplish all things." "He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved."
Great article and Findalis and Ben are correct. Our government continues to make nice with the ROP. Shame on them.
ReplyDeleteDebbie Hamilton
Right Truth
.. another " gem" Roger.. Well done
ReplyDeleteJohnson -- Once again I can only agree with part of what you write.
ReplyDeleteI for one feel that Christianity has been under siege for quite a while in this country and has been all but banned from the public square. And, contrary to what you describe as the Right's effective suppression of gay rights, I think that must of us feel inundated and overwhelmed by aggressive gay rights activism -- in our legal system, our media, our schools, and in our nervous, guarded, PC monitored everyday speech. We are subjected to gays French kissing on television and in our movies, and our innocent young children are being taught the inherent values of the gay life in their schools.
I'm sorry, Johnson, but although we may agree on the dangers of Islam, our views of present day America are almost exactly opposite from one another. And I feel little sympathy for your complaints. Quite the contrary: in my view, the way things are going, they are only getting worse for our traditional American values.
By becoming more and more non-judgmental, we are losing our moral compass and our strength of character. And, a Democratic victory in this fateful upcoming election could signal the fatal shot.
I enjoy reading this blog because of its well written commentary on issues often not addressed by the mainstream media.
ReplyDeleteI consider myself a techno progressive transhumanist. Fiercely pro-scientific progress, fiercely pro-American.
I embrace technological change and I want the US to remain #1 in terms of military, scientific, and political pre-eminence, because the US is the best hope for a free and just world. I also think the US constitution is the most perfect document for the establishment of a free society.
At the same time, I'm fiercely anti-Islamic because their views on religious minority rights, scientific progress, secularism, and womens/gay rights all represent backward steps for humanity.
I'm also skeptical of the left because of their intrinsic desire not to use generalizations about 'oppressed' groups paralyzes them to the realities of the world. And because their simultaneous defense of Islam and gay rights strikes me as bizarre.
My comments on race and IQ are part of a belief that some of the world's problems can have biological roots (ie resentments and inequality between ethnic groups a result of genetic IQ differences) and cannot be solved until we recognize the underlying biological challenges that we face.
Nevertheless, I hope you don't mind my comments. I think there is actually much that we have in common but those issues fail to come up.
You're an interesting person Johnson. No, I don't mind your comments at all. I welcome different points of view. Although I disagree with some of what you have said here, you have always been a gentleman and you have always stated you case clearly. It does seem as though we agree on most of the major issues. Keep commenting. It makes the discussion that much more interesting.
ReplyDeleterg
An exceptionlly concise breakdown, Roger.
ReplyDeleteYou made a poignant observation,
" Then there is the website Muslims Against Sharia who argue that the Quran is not the literal word of Allah; that Islam, in its present form, is not compatible with principles of freedom and democracy; that Muslims must remove all the evil passages from Islamic religious texts; that there is no one religion that is superior to another; that Sharia Law must be abolished; that Seventh Century practices such as stoning, cutting off body parts, marrying and/or having sex with children or animals must be condemned; and hundreds of other suggestions to make Islam more like Christianity or Judaism."
To which I comment, then why Islam at all?
I remember when the Catholic Theologian, Richard McBrien, an advisor to Vatican II, wrote, "Do We Need the Church?"
John Cardinal Wright commented, "A more fundamental question is, do we need Richard McBrien?"
Could several billion souls each look into their individual souls and look at their world and say, "Do I need Islam?"
As to the media, I'll only offer the quote,
""In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." — George Orwell
Again, Roger, nice treatment.
Yet again we are compelled to parrot the following observation from a REAL prophet - Sir Winston Churchill - 109 years ago!
ReplyDelete"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."
- Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).
Thank you Charlie.
ReplyDeleteAnd Shawmut -- I think perhaps this posting was a little confusing and if so I apologize for that. This was a cross posting from Jihad Du Jour. Although the beginning comments are mine, the paragraphs that you quoted are from Jihad Du Jour.
Regardless, I think we'd all agree, it's the message that counts. Thanks again for your kind words.
rg
With regard to Johnson’s original argument:
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. Constitution does not insure, nor has it ever insured, a 100% secular society. Johnson might like to review "Exploring Constitutional Conflicts" at: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm
“Two clauses of the First Amendment concern the relationship of government to religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. . . Although the clauses were intended by the framers to serve common values, there is some tension between the two. . . . At an absolute minimum, the Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion, such as existed in many other countries at the time of the nation's founding. It is far less clear whether the Establishment Clause was also intended to prevent the federal government from supporting Christianity in general. . .”
Yes! These clauses were intended by the framers to serve “common values,” and those “common values” were and still are to the largest extent Judo-Christian values.
With regard to “the right wing, . . . constantly advocating the insertion of Christianity into American life and have been blocking gay rights.” Johnson has put the cart before the horse. The cornerstone of the foundation of America is based entirely on Judeo-Christians values. Revisionist history can’t wash with conservatives largely because, unlike Kool-aid drinkers, we are cognizant of our nation’s history!
Homosexual acts have traditionally been deemed a sin against nature by Christianity. Christianity doesn’t deny basic human rights for homosexuals and has always welcomed non-practicing homosexuals into the fold. In recent years, however, most mainline denominations and a growing number of Evangelical churches have tried to come to terms with the issue of homosexual acts. Currently there are a number of left-leaning denominations that have bent to secular political pressure and are now ordaining active homosexuals. Traditional Christians believe, however, that marriage should be limited to that sacred bond between one man and one woman. Christian belief and practice does not, however, preclude the secular option for homosexuals to redress the federal government for similar co-habitation benefits.
Thank you Faultline. Informed and profound, as usual.
ReplyDeleteI have long believed the U.S. constitution should be amended to discount religions that purport to worship evil. Not any loose nefarious interpretation of evil, but real violent, deadly evil. Satan worship and religions that include the violence encouraged in the 'holy scriptures' of the Qu'ran are automatically included in this description. I think that is better than specifying one religion in our current concerns as I've seen some bloggers suggest. This way it deals with the entire mindset and not just one of the big fires.
ReplyDeleteGood point Judge Bob. I'd go for that.
ReplyDeleteThe only problem of course is that once again we run into that same old problem of semantics: What defines pornography? What -- or who -- defines Evil? Is Evil, like Beauty, only in the eyes of the beholder? I believe that Islam is evil incarnate, and so do a lot of others around here; but could we ever put that into law? I certainly would love to see it. But I don't think we have the will to actually do it. Not yet anyway.
I am as concerned about the right to my freedom of religion as anybody. But I think the vast majority of us can draw a line at violence or inciting to violence and with the injection of a the prerequisite that interpreting that to mean anything else, ie. illegal behavior, anti-behaviors stances such as anti-homosexual not including incitement to violence is never to be applied.
ReplyDeletePlease those non-judgmentalists over to my blog. I am anxious to deal with them.
ReplyDeletehttp://judgeright.vox.com
start by reading my profile.
You've been visited by a member of the VOX community, led here by a link in a cross post. See:
ReplyDeletehttp://hansgruen.vox.com/library/post/why-islam-cannot-reform-by-roger-w-gardner.html
Our mutual friend Snooper also has a presence there.
I was originally on blogspot and still have an old set of work there, but have abandoned it due to Google's anti-Christian bias. I was indeed led here by Hans cross post. I owe thanks to Ben and Hans for wonderful input to the community. This site also has a great deal to offer. Thanks for the article.
ReplyDeleteThank you Bob, and welcome to Radarsite. And thanks to Hans too.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete"You cannot read the Quran and think you can understand its context and social settings. Unless you are an Arab. Books like hadiths and Tafseers are even more difficult to understand for the non-Arab."
ReplyDeleteNow that's a load of Horse Hockey. It's like saying "Only an Muslim can fully translate Arabic." And of course the DoD and State bought this lie.
You don't need to be Muslim to understand the Koran. I understand it very well and find it a rambling book of inconsistencies and lies. It contradicts itself so many times that for a person to actually follow everything in the book, they would have to do double-think every minute of the day.
Anonymous is wrong. Islam says it's a religion of peace, but screams for war in page after page. Islam demands that it conquers the world and yet we mistake this, for it is a spiritual conquering. Shall we ask the people who live under Shar'ia law as Dhimmis how peaceful Islam is. People in Uzbekistan where a Christian's daughter (13) was gang raped, the authorities don't even consider it a crime. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Persecution/Default.aspx?id=111710
Or in England a woman was raped by a Muslim Immigrant. http://www.pendletoday.co.uk/nelsonnews/Nelson-man-charged-over-rape.4068063.jp
Or the Horror that Somalia is becoming because of Islam. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article3908867.ece
Or the cases of fraud and theft that the Muslim community is doing in the US. http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/05/on_mothers_day.html
Just 4 examples, a small sample, but these are just from today.
Finally and somewhat reluctantly Radarsite has decided to no longer allow "Anonymous" commenters. If I can post here -- and elsewhere -- under my real name, you can at least use a pseudonym when commenting here.
ReplyDeleteAlso -- if your intent in commenting here at Radarsite is to defend Islam or to extol its virtues, you have definitely come to the wrong place.
Radarsite's main reason d'etre is to help defeat this evil and ruthless enemy, not to engage in gentlemanly debates with them. If you are looking for 'fair and balanced' treatment of this blood-soaked Religion of Peace, you won't find it here.
Lastly, to my friend Findalis -- your points, as usual, are right on target. Thanks again for you intelligent participation.
rg
Now you know why I won't allow Anonymous postings. If one doesn't have the courage to at least use a pseudonym when posting, then one is a coward.
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous's spew is fecal matter. 3:7 informs us that Allah's commands are contained in clear verses. Ibn Kathir's tafsir of that verse tells us that those clear verses are to be believed and carried out.
ReplyDeleteThe commands contained in 8:39, 8:60, 9:29 & 47:4 are absolutely unmistakable. They are confirmed by several ahadith and by Ibn Kathir's tafsir. Those documents form a clearly congruent pattern which displays the reality of Islam.
The Noble Qur'an translated by Hilali & Khan and published by the King Fahad Complex for Printing the Noble Qur'an has copious translator's notes which make it's meaning abundantly clear. See the notes to 2:190 which is found here:
http://www.qurancomplex.com/Quran/Targama/Targama.asp?nSora= 2&l=eng&nAya= 190# 2_ 190
It is unwise to accept anyone's claims at face value. Always dig into authentic sources for verification. My web site contains links to those sources for your convenience.