Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (17551)	11/5/2002 12:56:44 PM
From: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck	Respond to of 23908

OPRAH’S CRASH COURSE program "Islam 101", which aired on October 5, still has me reeling. In Oprah’s interview with Queen Rania of Jordan, the Queen affirmed that Islam "doesn't impose anything" on people. Professor Akbar Ahmed, meanwhile, who is a former Pakistani Ambassador to Great Britain and is now the Chair of Islamic Studies at American University in Washington D.C., stated that the terrorist attacks are, "Not Islam, because Islam clearly says that the killing of one innocent life is like killing all of humanity. It is just not allowed in Islam." On another part of the show, the statement was made that, "Muslims do not think that there is a non-Islamic world out there that we have to conquer. That is not the concept in Islam. Our job is to get to know one another, and the more we do that the better off we are." Oprah did not challenge any of these remarks. So, um, Islam "doesn’t impose anything" on people? I can’t help from wondering: what would happen to a woman in a country like Iran or Afghanistan who, let’s say, just felt like taking her veil or burqa off – and did so? What would happen to a Muslim in one of these countries who just decided to make it public knowledge that he/she didn’t feel like being a Muslim anymore? This isn’t really a brain-stormer. The teachings of Islam are not just ethical guidelines; they are binding laws with severe punishments attached to them – especially under Islamic states. These punishments range from public whipping to chopping off of body parts to beheading. Let’s not overlook the foundation of this reality: in the Qur’an, Surah 9:12 instructs that a Muslim apostate must be killed. In other words, Queen Rania is right: Islam doesn’t impose anything on anyone; the little catch is that everyone living under an Islamic state just better follow the rules, that’s all. According to the Qur’an, there shouldn't be another religion besides Islam in an Islamic country (let alone anywhere else in the world). That’s why Surah 3:85 states that: "If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him." That’s why Surah 2:193 instructs that there should be no separation between Church and State. And that’s why Surah 4:59 teaches that there should be no opposition party either. Sounds like a really fun place to live doesn’t it? I am fascinated by the statement made on Oprah that, "Our [the Muslims’] job is to get to know one another [people of other faiths], and the more we do that the better off we are." Is this why the Qur’an tells its faithful (i.e. Surah 5:54) that Muslims must not take Jews or Christians for friends? I am even more intrigued with the statement that, "Muslims do not think that there is a non-Islamic world out there that we have to conquer." Is this why the Qur’an instructs Muslims to attack and kill non-Muslims as a means of achieving world hegemony under Islam? Is that why Surah 9:5 tells the faithful: "When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters [non-Muslims] wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them." Islam views the world as divided between the House of Peace (Dar es Salaam), which is Islamic, and the House of War (Dar el-Harb), which is non-Islamic. World peace, according to Islam, is achieved only when the world is subjected to Dar es Salaam. I guess it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why Muslims have a little bit of a problem creating a democracy, let alone living peacefully with non-Muslims. In Uganda, Idi Amin slaughtered 300,000 of his own people, mostly Christians. Why did he do this? Hint: the genocide occurred only after Amin embraced Islam. At the start of World War I, Muslim Turks massacred over 1.5 million Armenian Christians. Why? Hint: It’s the same reason the Muslim government in Khartoum has killed two million Christians and animists since imposing Islamic law nationwide in Sudan in 1993. So what Islam are Queen Rania and Professor Ahmed referring to? Is there another Islam I haven’t heard about? Or are Rania and Ahmed basically hinting to us that we shouldn’t take history – or the Qur’an – too seriously? Don’t get me wrong, I think Oprah’s "Islam 101" scored very high points in theatrical quality. It’s just that in the context of integrity, it might have left something to be desired. Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's associate editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Soviet Studies. He is the author of 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist and of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union (McGill-Queens University Press, 2002) Email him at jglazov@rogers.com.

To: zonder who wrote (17551)	11/5/2002 1:08:01 PM
From: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck	Respond to of 23908

October 2001, Volume XXIV, Number 10 Archbishop Giuseppe Bernardini I have been living in Turkey for the past 42 years, a 99.9% Muslim country, and I have been the Archbishop of Izmir - Asia Minor - for the past 16 years. The theme of my intervention is therefore obvious: the problem of Islam in Europe today and in the future. I thank Bishop Pelâtre, who already spoke about this theme in this prestigious assembly, dispensing me therefore of a long examination and relative interpretations. My intervention is to make a humble request of the Holy Father, above all. To be brief and clear, first I will mention three cases that, due to their provenance, I believe to be true: 1) During an official meeting on Islamic-Christian dialogue, an authoritative Muslim person, speaking to the Christians participating, at one point said very calmly and assuredly: "Thanks to your democratic laws we will invade you; thanks to our religious laws we will dominate you." This is to be believed because the "domination" has already begun with the "petro-dollars" used not to create work in the poor North African or Middle Eastern countries, but to build mosques and cultural centers in Christian countries with Islamic immigrants, including Rome, the center of Christianity. How can we fail to see in all this a clear programme of expansion and reconquest? 2) During another Islamic-Christian meeting, always organized by Christians, a Christian participant publicly asked the Muslims present why they did not organize at least one meeting of this kind. The Muslim authority present answered in the following words: "Why should we? You have nothing to teach us and we have nothing to learn." A dialogue between deaf persons? It is a fact that terms such as "dialogue," "justice," "reciprocity," or concepts such as "rights of man" and "democracy" have a completely different meaning for Muslims than for us. But I believe that by now this is recognized and admitted by all. 3) In a Catholic monastery in Jerusalem there was-and perhaps still is-a Muslim Arab servant. A kind and honest person, he was respected greatly by the religious, who in turn were respected by him. One day, he sadly told them: "Our leaders have met and have decided that all the 'infidels' must be killed, but do not be afraid because I will kill you without making you suffer." We are all aware that we must distinguish between the fanatic and violent minority from the tranquil and honest majority, but the latter, at an order given in the name of Allah or the Koran, will always march in unity and without hesitation. Anyway, history teaches us that determined minorities always manage to impose themselves on reluctant and silent majorities. It would be naive to underestimate or, worse yet, smile at the three cases I have mentioned; I feel that their dramatic teaching must be considered seriously. This is not pessimism on my part, despite the appearance. The Christian cannot be pessimistic because Christ is risen and alive; He is God, unlike any other prophet or one claiming to be such. The final victory will be Christ's, but God's times can be long, and often are. He is patient and waits for the conversion of sinners: in the meantime He invites the Church to organize herself and to work to hasten the coming of His kingdom. And now I would like to make a serious proposal to the Holy Father: to organize as soon as possible, if not a Synod, at least a symposium of Bishops and those engaged in the pastoral care of immigrants, particularly Islamic immigrants, and open to the Reformed and Orthodox Churches. Its organization could be entrusted to the CCEE [Consilium Conferentiarum Episcoporum Europae-Council Conference of European Bishops], which has had a great deal of experience in this matter, in collaboration with the KEK [Konferenz Europdischer Kirchen-Conference of European Churches]. The symposium could be useful to study in a collegial way the problem of the Islamic individuals in Christian countries, and thus find a common strategy to face it and resolve it in a Christian and objective way. We must agree on the principles, even if their application will vary depending on the places and the persons. Nothing is worse than disagreement on principles! I end this exhortation suggested to me by experience: do not allow Muslims ever to use a Catholic church for their worship, because in their eyes this would be the surest proof of our apostasy. His Excellency Bernardini, Archbishop of Smyrna (Izmir) in Turkey, gave this presentation to the Bishops' Synod held at Rome on October 26, 1999. These remarks appeared in L'Osservatore Romano (Nov. 17, 1999)

To: zonder who wrote (17551)	11/5/2002 1:10:28 PM
From: lorne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

zonder. You said..." I would be very interested to hear what rational reasoning, if any, you can give to support your belief that I support Muslim terrorists. Or any other terrorists. Or Muslims in general."..... OK how about this where you said....." Try to understand that it was not the religion of Islam, and not even Muslims in general that attacked WTC. It was a terrorist organization. And their reason for attacking it was NOT their religion, but their aggravation with US foreign policies as it affected them. They attacked the US and not another Christian country, and I believe there is a reason for that. Message 18196418 Why do you make up excuses for muslim murderers? All of the murderers were islam terrorist. Correct? you said..." It was a terrorist organization." It was a muslim terrorist organization...go ahead you can say it....MUSLIM TERRORISTS. you said..." Sept 11 was not "disrespect by Muslims" and it is not an excuse for you to hate them all. Try to understand that those Bad People were religious nutcases and not all Muslims are pyromaniac fremen. ".... All those bad people were MUSLIM religious nut cases. If I were to look back at past post of yours over the last year or so I may find more where it appears you support muslim terrorist. To me making up all sorts of excuses for muslim murderers is a form of support for their actions. Now I don't know if anyone else here thinks that way but I do and at this time I see no reason to think otherwise. You said...." and it is not an excuse for you to hate them all. "...... And this....." You obviously know next to nothing on a culture you hate."...... I challenge you to show me where I have ever said or indicated that I hate islam or muslims. If you can not do this I suggest you apologize for making a mistake so at least anyone who may read here will at least know that you are not a liar.