Are we at war with Islam?

[SF-TX]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

Couldn't Islam fracture into different sects just as Christianity did?

How is that working out for the Ahmadi (Ahmadiya) Muslims in Pakistan and Indonesia?

[FlagDayNCO]

Here are some snips from an article in AT that brings some further to light to our own failing to correctly label this:

Rereading some early history books concerning the centuries-long jihad on Europe, it recently occurred to me how ignorant the modern West is of its own past. The historical narrative being disseminated today bears very little resemblance to reality.

Consider some facts for a moment:

A mere decade after the birth of Islam in the 7th century, the jihad burst out of Arabia. Leaving aside all the thousands of miles of ancient lands and civilizations that were permanently conquered, today casually called the "Islamic world" -- including Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and parts of India and China -- much of Europe was also, at one time or another, conquered by the sword of Islam.

In 846 Rome was sacked and the Vatican defiled by Muslim Arab raiders; some 700 years later, in 1453, Christendom's other great basilica, Constantinople's Holy Wisdom (or Hagia Sophia) was conquered by Muslim Turks, permanently.

Nor did America escape. A few years after the formation of the United States, in 1800, American trading ships in the Mediterranean were plundered and their sailors enslaved by Muslim corsairs. The ambassador of Tripoli explained to Thomas Jefferson that it was a Muslim's "right and duty to make war upon them [non-Muslims] wherever they could be found, and to enslave as many as they could take as prisoners."

Yet this may not even be necessary. Thanks to the West's ignorance of history, Muslims are flooding Europe under the guise of "immigration," refusing to assimilate, and forming enclaves which in modern parlance are called "enclaves" or "ghettoes" but in Islamic terminology are the ribat -- frontier posts where the jihad is waged on the infidel, one way or the other.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/..._of_islam.html

[PRB]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

You are absolutely correct, IF this is a static culture. I am questioning that view of Islam as static. Are we not seeing some evidence of changes in the culture today? Doesn't GR represent an example of a Muslim that does not take the tenets of Islam literally and inappropriate today? Didn't Christianity evolve from the days of the Inquisition? Couldn't Islam fracture into different sects just as Christianity did? As I asked earlier, are we missing an opportunity here to exploit and hasten a cultural change? If we continue to view this as a binary in black or white terms doesn't that create a no-win scenario?

Not too many things that I can think of are truly static and certainly not a culture of human beings.

TJ,
Islam has not shown any major examples of evolving...on the contrary, some of the most stringent interpretations and mind sets (Wahabiism) as it relates to the Koran came about in the late 1700's early 1800's.
This form of Islam is 'pushed' by Saudi Arabia and the 'free Mosques' in the US come with a free Wahabi Imam.

[Hacksaw]

Trapper John, GR does not have even a minimal understanding of his religion, I do not think we can use him as a microcosim of modern islam. Some day he may take to heart on what has been told to him on his religion and he will read up and either go one way or the other. Islam has been static for 14 centuries, it will remain that way, it is designed to be so. Maybe my opinion on this is harsh but it is from observation and living in their countries for the last 10 years. Historically speaking, this "war" has been going on a long time

[T-Rock]

. I think I have many valid points and they are almost never answered ,so I don’t know what to write anymore

GR, how can you accept Islam if you don't agree with its tenets?

The following is Islam, but is it acceptable?

Many things cannot be done without the Caliph’s permission, however:

.

(A: though if there is no Caliph (def: o25), no permission is required
(Reliance of the Traveller)

o4.17 There is no indemnity obligatory for killing a non-muslim…
(see pgs 593-598 - The Reliance of the Traveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law)

(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.

o9.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others.

o9.8 The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians [kafirs] (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) - which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral regions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High.
(Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Pages 30-45, 588-595, 595-610).

w4.1 THE FINALITY OF THE PROPHET’S MESSAGE (from a1.5)

(2) Previously revealed religions were valid in their own eras, as is attested to by many verses of the holy Koran, but were abrogated by the universal message of islam, as is equally attested to by many verses in the Koran…

…it is unbelief (kufr) to hold that the remnant cults now bearing the names of formerly valid religions, such as “Christianity” or “Judaism,”…

(3) islam is the final religion that allah most high will never lessen or abrogate until the last day.

(Pgs. 846-848 - The Reliance of the Traveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law)

What happens for the professing kufr you may ask?

The Prophet Muhammad said, "No babe is born but upon Fitra (as a Muslim). It is his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Polytheist." (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6426)

a 1.5 ...a person is not morally obligated by Allah to do or refrain from anything unless the invitation of a prophet and what Allah has legislated have reached him (n:w4) ....
...."We do not punish until we send a messenger" (Koran 17:15)

c2.5 The unlawful (haram) is what the Law giver strictly forbids. Someone who commits an unlawful act deserves punishment...

(3) and unbelief (kufr), sins which put one beyond the pale of Islam (as discussed at o8.7) and neccessitate stating the Testification of faith (Shahada)...
(pgs 30-31)

o8.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representative) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed

o8.7 (2) to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one therby immediately commits unbelief:

(15) to hold that any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent:

(Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Pages 30-45, 588-595, 595-610).

http://www.amazon.com/Reliance-Trave.../dp/0915957728

[Sigaba]

If one is going to insist that a practitioner of a set of beliefs answer for the history of that set of beliefs, what is to stop others from holding us to the same level of accountability and suspicion?

For example, many Americans talk about states' rights. But how many could lay out the intellectual, political, social, military, and cultural history of that concept and its many twists and turns? Should today's advocates of states' rights be held accountable for how that belief system has impacted adversely not only this country's history, but the history of the world as well?

My point is that we take grave risks if we set standards of inquiry and conduct for other peoples without holding ourselves to a similar set of rules.

My $0.02.

[T-Rock]

. If one is going to insist that a practitioner of a set of beliefs answer for the history of that set of beliefs, what is to stop others from holding us to the same level of accountability and suspicion?

IMO, Moral relativism isn't an excuse to dismiss immoral behavior...

In Islam, the Prophet Muhammad is known as al-Insān al-Kāmil (the perfect human) and uswa hasana (an excellent model of conduct). -Sura 68:4/33:21, etc.-

It wouldn't be an issue if Muslims didn't truly believe that the Prophet Muhammad was the sacred model to emulate, not only by all Muslims, but entire mankind.

I can think of no other historical figures that have affected our modern world more negatively than those of Muhammad.

[MR2]

If standards is good, then double standards is twice as good?

[Trapper John]

I agree that the tenets of Islam are a static belief system as PRB suggests (no evidence of its evolution) and that it is designed as such. Wouldn't that, therefore, be its fatal flaw? I contend that Islam was contrived by Muhammad merely as a method for controlling people for his own personal interests. That it has been expanded to what it is today is nothing more than a tool for control by oppression. Every system that has endeavored to control people by oppression has ultimately failed. Islam will also fail. We can either hasten that end or prolong it.

In my view we are at War with Islam and Islam is at War with us and every other non-Muslim, by definition. My question is, are we approaching this the right way? History would suggest not.

To continue the fight from the perspective that I am right you are wrong and justifying our position from a historical context leads to the problem Sig points out -

If one is going to insist that a practitioner of a set of beliefs answer for the history of that set of beliefs, what is to stop others from holding us to the same level of accountability and suspicion?

There's no advancing from that position - stalemate.

I think the battlefield is the human domain. The most striking lesson I learned in SF while working with indigenous peoples (although only briefly with Muslims) is that at the core they are just like me. We aspire to the same things. That's a common ground from which we can win. (FlagDayNCO, I am honored that you picked up on that point in your signature line.)

Hacksaw, GR may not represent a microcosm of the Muslim world, I need to defer to your and PRBs experience on that one. But, he does represent a start and a point for force multiplication.

De Oppresso Liber

[98G]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

I agree that the tenets of Islam are a static belief system as PRB suggests (no evidence of its evolution) and that it is designed as such. Wouldn't that, therefore, be its fatal flaw? I contend that Islam was contrived by Muhammad merely as a method for controlling people for his own personal interests. That it has been expanded to what it is today is nothing more than a tool for control by oppression. Every system that has endeavored to control people by oppression has ultimately failed. Islam will also fail. We can either hasten that end or prolong it.

In my view we are at War with Islam and Islam is at War with us and every other non-Muslim, by definition. My question is, are we approaching this the right way? History would suggest not.

To continue the fight from the perspective that I am right you are wrong and justifying our position from a historical context leads to the problem Sig points out -



There's no advancing from that position - stalemate.

I think the battlefield is the human domain. The most striking lesson I learned in SF while working with indigenous peoples (although only briefly with Muslims) is that at the core they are just like me. We aspire to the same things. That's a common ground from which we can win.
De Oppresso Liber

In my mind, we prolong it by challenging it in a manner, as Sigaba pointed out, few of our own could effectively argue. There are about 1.6 billion Muslims, or 23% of the world’s population, making Islam the second-largest religion. So we can argue that they must all read more and then convert or be terrorists... or we can try and co-opt the moderate muslims to separate from the extremists as they keep their cultural identity. There are areas of differences. They seem a better starting point than getting 800 million people not only literate (the current estimate of non-literate muslims) but also well-read and versed in their religion. Statistically, not even the literate will be as well read in Islam as some members of this site. Here is an except from Pew Research.

The world’s 1.6 billion Muslims are united in their belief in God and the Prophet Muhammad and are bound together by such religious practices as fasting during the holy month of Ramadan and almsgiving to assist people in need. But they have widely differing views about many other aspects of their faith, including how important religion is to their lives, who counts as a Muslim and what practices are acceptable in Islam, according to a worldwide survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life.

The survey, which involved more than 38,000 face-to-face interviews in over 80 languages, finds that in addition to the widespread conviction that there is only one God and that Muhammad is His Prophet, large percentages of Muslims around the world share other articles of faith, including belief in angels, heaven, hell and fate (or predestination). While there is broad agreement on the core tenets of Islam, however, Muslims across the 39 countries and territories surveyed differ significantly in their levels of religious commitment, openness to multiple interpretations of their faith and acceptance of various sects and movements.

...

Generational differences are also apparent. Across the Middle East and North Africa, for example, Muslims 35 and older tend to place greater emphasis on religion and to exhibit higher levels of religious commitment than do Muslims between the ages of 18 and 34. In all seven countries surveyed in the region, older Muslims are more likely to report that they attend mosque, read the Quran (also spelled Koran) on a daily basis and pray multiple times each day. Outside of the Middle East and North Africa, the generational differences are not as sharp. And the survey finds that in one country – Russia – the general pattern is reversed and younger Muslims are significantly more observant than their elders.

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/08/09/t...utive-summary/

Reading the full report, there seems to be logical places to start. Something I recall about divide and... IMHO, it certainly points out (within the full report) a potential for a force multiplier strategy.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

My point is that we take grave risks if we set standards of inquiry and conduct for other peoples without holding ourselves to a similar set of rules.

My $0.02.

Along the lines of an exemption from Obamacare for Congress and the unions?

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by 98G

....There are about 1.6 billion Muslims, or 23% of the world’s population, making Islam the second-largest religion....

I think the biggest problem is that a significant portion of those 1.6 billion muslims are never going to stop killing in the name of allah until there is only one religion, for 100% of the population of the planet.

Whether we are at war or not is irrelevant. They are, and will be for the forseeable future.

Personally, I am not sure that there is anything we can do about it, other than to try and stop them where we can.

Maybe a muslim Martin Luther will emerge. Unfortunately, he will be considered an apostate by the true believers.

TR

[PRB]

"If one is going to insist that a practitioner of a set of beliefs answer for the history of that set of beliefs, what is to stop others from holding us to the same level of accountability and suspicion?"

Every comment I've made regarding Islam is in reference to its practice today....I only reference its 'history' because that history is as valid today as it was in its time...there is no difference in Islamic jurisprudence.
Muhammad is basically 'worshipped' as the most perfect man and his example is to be emulated......there are no provisions for allowing for antiquity.
David Pearl had his head cut off because Muhammad designated that method of slaughter for captured enemies. The Islamists refer to the Hadith, Sira and Koran when committing ritual murder so as to be 'correct'.
Islamic law is not an abstract.
It is written as to what hand you wipe your ass with, how you blow your nose, if you fart during prayer that prayer is abrogated.
Sharia is drawn from Muhammad's actions/example and law giving.
That a woman is worth half of a man...in court. That it takes 4 witnesses to confirm a rape occurred etc. etc......
This is not some abstract relationship between you and allah....it is a lock step eyes right.

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Maybe a muslim Martin Luther will emerge. Unfortunately, he will be considered an apostate by the true believers.

TR

I was thinking the same thing. Martin Luther was considered an apostate in his day. Didn't stop him.

[MR2]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Maybe a muslim Martin Luther will emerge. Unfortunately, he will be considered an apostate by the true believers.

TR

Sounds like a good premise for a new Phoenix Program. A Thirty Years War would par things down to a more manageable Crusade.