What difference does it make that there are so many nice Muslims? Well, some of the nicest people I have ever met were Muslims. They must be appreciated for the fine human beings they are. Yet, their goodness cannot save their ideology. It cannot save who Mohammed was, for he was a violent, bloodied warrior. From the grave he encourages not just an "eye for an eye" or the segregation of Muslims from inferior non-believers. No, from the grave, his and Allah's words and deeds encourage, command, even demand that Muslims offensively spread their ideology and treat non-believers as third class citizens or garbage to be destroyed. The Muslims we love do not follow these edicts because of the goodness in their hearts, (as well as because their doctrine, in its unique "Mecca/Medina" duplicity, says they can be peaceful for a time). But, so many other Muslims do obey the call to violence. Most Germans who joined Nazi party were nice and never hurt anyone, but the ideas behind Naziism were still evil.
Pick your Creator over the eons: Yahweh, Jesus, Confucius, Buddha; they neither committed nor commanded violence toward others. Mohammed killed 100s & commanded more subjugating and killing of non-believers for eternity until all on Earth worship Allah, i. e. god as he defined it (The deceiver, Q 3:54, who hates unbelievers, Q 30:45). In verse Q 3:45, some argue that the word is not deceiver, but planner. That "If this is for a good purpose, it is good; and if this is for a bad purpose, it is bad." However, the ends do not justify the means (a typical Islamic principle) and the arabic word makr still carries "secretive" overtones. More important, there are many other verses about the benefits of deceitfulness in the Trilogy.
1600 years ago, every major religious group around world had adopted a peaceful creator or prophet. Then came the violent supremacist haters of unbelievers, Mo & Allah ruining earth. The biggest problem for Islam is not just its violence, but it duplicity. Islam has two things to say about everything except its own supremacy. Each Muslim picks the truth that works in the moment: Mecca/peace or Medina/violence. Thus, they get to play God. It's blasphemous.
In many ways, Islam can be summarized as follows: 1) "I am righteous, you are not. I make temporary alliances with lesser infidels to kill greater infidels, then reassess those earlier alliances," and 2) The scales of justice: "If I kill one person, it is very bad...but if I also save two people's lives, I will still go to paradise." So much for aspiring to perfection, peace and God's gracious accepting love. Too much judgment. Too much focus on offensive politics. if Muslims do not like the violence, they should reject Mohammed and his "Jihad in the way of Allah." To those who learn of Mohammed's violence and do not reject him, know you are contributing to the problem and you will be dealt with by the non-Islamist world accordingly.
Thursday, April 21, 2016
Saturday, April 16, 2016
Huff Post & Khan: Truth About Islam
In "The Media Owes Us The Truth About #Islam", huff.to/22pegj5, Ahmed Khan tries to make the case that Islam is peace and the journalists are liars for not telling the singular truth. The problem is that Islam has two things to say about so many things, the Meccan (peaceful) and the Medinan (more frequently violent). How can the truth be one thing when both are true? And that is the real problem.
People need a singular, peaceful vision as a sacred guide. All people (Muslims, Christians, Atheists, Buddhists, etc.) are capable of great good and horrific evil. They seem to be affected on the margins by what they hold as sacred and holy in their minds. Why would the world be accepting of the only prophet who was violent and sanctioned violence in Medina, even if he also did and said peaceful things? Even Hitler did some good things. That does not make his ideas good! Showing that there were some Germans who joined the Nazi party, but were peaceful and did not like the killing of Jews does not prove that Hitler and the Nazis were good. And, importantly, violence by Muslims against other Muslims does not offer any supportive argument for Islam either. To me, it just proves the point that the violent Islamists seem to have the moral high groud in Islamic faith because the text supports what they do. So do Mohammed's actions.
Common people cannot jump through such complicated interpretational hoops to prove Islam is peaceful when the simple text seems so clearly violent. Peace-loving Muslims need to understand this. Remaing part of Islam and trying to save it is like being a German and trying to save the Nazi party: by staying with it, you become part of the problem when you should be part of the solution.
People need a singular, peaceful vision as a sacred guide. All people (Muslims, Christians, Atheists, Buddhists, etc.) are capable of great good and horrific evil. They seem to be affected on the margins by what they hold as sacred and holy in their minds. Why would the world be accepting of the only prophet who was violent and sanctioned violence in Medina, even if he also did and said peaceful things? Even Hitler did some good things. That does not make his ideas good! Showing that there were some Germans who joined the Nazi party, but were peaceful and did not like the killing of Jews does not prove that Hitler and the Nazis were good. And, importantly, violence by Muslims against other Muslims does not offer any supportive argument for Islam either. To me, it just proves the point that the violent Islamists seem to have the moral high groud in Islamic faith because the text supports what they do. So do Mohammed's actions.
Common people cannot jump through such complicated interpretational hoops to prove Islam is peaceful when the simple text seems so clearly violent. Peace-loving Muslims need to understand this. Remaing part of Islam and trying to save it is like being a German and trying to save the Nazi party: by staying with it, you become part of the problem when you should be part of the solution.
Friday, March 25, 2016
Islamophobe-a-phobia
The fear of Islam seen throughout our planet is a logical response to decades of Islam's increasingly violent religious bigotry compounded by so many people's inability to understand, accept, and address the issue. Fear of Islamophobia is causing those who do not understand Islam to defend it and even attack those who do not like the violence Islam successfully creates.
Muslims are the ones on the offense, especially since the re-formation of the Califate in 2014 by ISIS. To assert that millions of people are errant Islamophobes is labelling, exceedingly arrogant, dangerous, and either uneducated or deceitful.
Muslims are the ones on the offense, especially since the re-formation of the Califate in 2014 by ISIS. To assert that millions of people are errant Islamophobes is labelling, exceedingly arrogant, dangerous, and either uneducated or deceitful.
If you have not read the trilogy of Islam, surely you must. Otherwise, you have absolutely no business forming any opinion on the world's biggest problem. Plainly, these books are disgustingly violent, bigoted, and duplicitous, as was Mohammed who the books say was the perfect Mulim and must be imitated.
Islam is not a race or a person. It is a set of ideas. Muslims do not define Islam. Islam is defined by the words of the Quran and the Sunnah. Islam defines what it is to be a Muslim. If you are not a Muslim and you find the violence prescribed throughout the Islamic trilogy offensive and non-pluralistic, then stop defending or apologizing for it. If you are a Muslim and you do not like what you read in the Quran and Sunnah, find a new path and a new prophet. To continue the charade that you are a Muslim when you do not like the violence prescribed by Islam and exemplified by Mohammed is to be part of the world's biggest problem. To remain a Muslim or sympathetic with Islam is to show either ignorance or malicious intent.
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
The Responsible Choice for Muslims
Does it make sense to belong to the only major group of people in world history commanded to imitate a violent prophet who proscribed violence toward non-believers? It is a testimony to the goodness in people that so many Muslims are peaceful and wonderful persons, especially in light of the violent and not-so-wonderful example set by Mohammed whom the Quoran commands Muslims to imitate 91 different times.
It is every Muslim's responsibility to read their doctrine: the Quoran, Hadith, and Sira, and ask themselves, "Is Mohammed really the ideal person I wish to aspire to be like more than any other?" If not, perhaps you should find another doctrine and/or prophet. If so, remain with Islam; the world will know what you aspire to deep within.
So, what will it be? Wait! Before you answer and take true responsibility for your choice, have you really read them?
It is every Muslim's responsibility to read their doctrine: the Quoran, Hadith, and Sira, and ask themselves, "Is Mohammed really the ideal person I wish to aspire to be like more than any other?" If not, perhaps you should find another doctrine and/or prophet. If so, remain with Islam; the world will know what you aspire to deep within.
So, what will it be? Wait! Before you answer and take true responsibility for your choice, have you really read them?
Saturday, March 19, 2016
My Ideal Presidential Candidate
My Ideal Presidential Candidate
The choices for president this election year are disturbingly weak. Each seems confused in some way, with one or more aspects of their approach and personality being deeply wrong. The problem is not that the country needs someone with a new or old vision of what to do or the charisma to force those ideas through. America does not need a king or tyrant. What the U.S. needs is a leader who will remind us of who we are and who will patiently but forcefully encourage our elected leaders to govern.
With that said, my ideal candidate will run on the following platform:
1. Stop pulling power into the office of president and away from the states and Congress. Go to Congress and push them, unceasingly, to do their jobs. Encourage them in every way to find common ground, to simplify government for the people...to legislate. If Congress refuses to act responsibly then go to the governors of the states to ask them if they want this responsibility in their hands through constitutional amendments. With all that encouragement to legislate, then if Congress still cannot act responsibly, for example on immigration reform, healthcare, or education, maybe a supermajority of states would like to take that authority down to the state level through a constitutional amendment. The federal government would cede those powers and move to a role of facilitator, encouraging incubation of ideas and policies at the state level, as well as helping states to form coalitions to work together when their policies are consistent with one another.
2. Stop picking on the Muslims (Donald!), but be more clear that there is a problem with the written doctrine of Islam and Sharia law (all the rest of you!). Islam is an idea, not a person. It's writings are truly, and widely, contrary to our constitution and cannot be tolerated in the United States. As painful as it is to admit, Islam, as a doctrine and as a nation that follows its word, is at war with us. How to address the politics of Islam is one topic in great need of attention from a united and purposeful Congress.
3. Lift up the American people! Whether you liked Ronald Reagan or not, there is no denying that Americans deeply enjoyed and vigorously responded to his reminders that the hard work, imagination and ingenuity of everyday Americans has always been what made our nation successful. Americans deserve to be reminded of this regularly. Since he left office, our nation's focus has been more on identifying victim groups who need more help. We have become a nation of victims looking for more benefits and rights for our own victim-groups. Surely there are real victims, as there are those who are physically or mentally unable to work. It seems that, today, these people do not get as much support as they should because what resources we have to give are shared among so many who are not so put upon, but actually could be proud, working contributors to our nation's success. To tempt those able-bodied and able-minded people to seek faceless federal handouts instead of building local relationships with individuals who would encourage them to work and contribute is to play a part in stealing their dignity.
So that is it. Encourage the American system of governance to work the way it was intended, begin a discussion about the problematic ideas in Islam and what to do about them, and restore the American people by reminding them that their joy and their nation's success will come from contributing, not from taking.
So who is the candidate that will say these things AND truly pursue them once in office? Is it too late for someone in the running to adjust their message?
The choices for president this election year are disturbingly weak. Each seems confused in some way, with one or more aspects of their approach and personality being deeply wrong. The problem is not that the country needs someone with a new or old vision of what to do or the charisma to force those ideas through. America does not need a king or tyrant. What the U.S. needs is a leader who will remind us of who we are and who will patiently but forcefully encourage our elected leaders to govern.
With that said, my ideal candidate will run on the following platform:
1. Stop pulling power into the office of president and away from the states and Congress. Go to Congress and push them, unceasingly, to do their jobs. Encourage them in every way to find common ground, to simplify government for the people...to legislate. If Congress refuses to act responsibly then go to the governors of the states to ask them if they want this responsibility in their hands through constitutional amendments. With all that encouragement to legislate, then if Congress still cannot act responsibly, for example on immigration reform, healthcare, or education, maybe a supermajority of states would like to take that authority down to the state level through a constitutional amendment. The federal government would cede those powers and move to a role of facilitator, encouraging incubation of ideas and policies at the state level, as well as helping states to form coalitions to work together when their policies are consistent with one another.
2. Stop picking on the Muslims (Donald!), but be more clear that there is a problem with the written doctrine of Islam and Sharia law (all the rest of you!). Islam is an idea, not a person. It's writings are truly, and widely, contrary to our constitution and cannot be tolerated in the United States. As painful as it is to admit, Islam, as a doctrine and as a nation that follows its word, is at war with us. How to address the politics of Islam is one topic in great need of attention from a united and purposeful Congress.
3. Lift up the American people! Whether you liked Ronald Reagan or not, there is no denying that Americans deeply enjoyed and vigorously responded to his reminders that the hard work, imagination and ingenuity of everyday Americans has always been what made our nation successful. Americans deserve to be reminded of this regularly. Since he left office, our nation's focus has been more on identifying victim groups who need more help. We have become a nation of victims looking for more benefits and rights for our own victim-groups. Surely there are real victims, as there are those who are physically or mentally unable to work. It seems that, today, these people do not get as much support as they should because what resources we have to give are shared among so many who are not so put upon, but actually could be proud, working contributors to our nation's success. To tempt those able-bodied and able-minded people to seek faceless federal handouts instead of building local relationships with individuals who would encourage them to work and contribute is to play a part in stealing their dignity.
So that is it. Encourage the American system of governance to work the way it was intended, begin a discussion about the problematic ideas in Islam and what to do about them, and restore the American people by reminding them that their joy and their nation's success will come from contributing, not from taking.
So who is the candidate that will say these things AND truly pursue them once in office? Is it too late for someone in the running to adjust their message?
Monday, February 15, 2016
Sharia and the OIC: The Curse that Keeps on Taking
A clear and true statement regarding the Organization for Islamic Cooperation by the brave and admirable Deborah Weiss of www.vigilancenow.org.
See her quick video and share:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka4CFacEe1A
Read her book here:
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/OIC_Free_Speech_Jihad.pdf
And, most importantly, do something about it. Get involved with an organization in an effort to confront the monster that is political Islam. It is not just America, the West, or Christians and Jews who must wake up and become informed. It is all who do not want to live exactly as Mohammed did. The Islamic doctrine is "The Curse that Keeps on Taking." Generation after generation. There are hundreds of millions of people who subscribe to a clear and simple interpretation of the Islamic text who want the barbaric Sharia and Islam imposed on the world. Sharia has a thousand camel's noses that it can stick into the tents of pluralism and freedom of speech. It is happening all around you today.
Though this is a battle of ideas, eventually violence will be required to deal with the proponents of Sharia because violence and lies are divinely sanctioned throughout Islam's doctrine. For true Islam, the end of advancing Islam justifies any means. It must be seen for what it is. It must be stopped.
Ban Islam.
See her quick video and share:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka4CFacEe1A
Read her book here:
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/OIC_Free_Speech_Jihad.pdf
And, most importantly, do something about it. Get involved with an organization in an effort to confront the monster that is political Islam. It is not just America, the West, or Christians and Jews who must wake up and become informed. It is all who do not want to live exactly as Mohammed did. The Islamic doctrine is "The Curse that Keeps on Taking." Generation after generation. There are hundreds of millions of people who subscribe to a clear and simple interpretation of the Islamic text who want the barbaric Sharia and Islam imposed on the world. Sharia has a thousand camel's noses that it can stick into the tents of pluralism and freedom of speech. It is happening all around you today.
Though this is a battle of ideas, eventually violence will be required to deal with the proponents of Sharia because violence and lies are divinely sanctioned throughout Islam's doctrine. For true Islam, the end of advancing Islam justifies any means. It must be seen for what it is. It must be stopped.
Ban Islam.
Religious Discrimination at the Supreme Court
Broken down on religious lines, today's Supreme Court has members from just two religions, both of which had been historically underrepresented on the highest court: Roman Catholics and Jews. There are now five Roman Catholics (63%) currently serving on the court (Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor, and Clarence Thomas) and three Jews (37%) (Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagen). Antonin Scalia was a Roman Catholic.
A Religous Landscape Study by the Pew Center shows that the United States is 21% Roman Catholic and 2% Jewish. What about the 46% who identify as protestant? Nothing in this branch of government for them! And to think that most of the founding fathers were protestants, and the form of government they chose for their new country was primarily shaped by the political activities of John Calvin. Calvin was a primary leader of the Protestant Reformation, helping individuals claim rights and demand representation in a world where the pope and monarchs competed for dictatorial powers.
Of course Scalia's replacement will be pivotal, but let's take a moment to look at this from a point of view different from whether Scalia was, and his replacement will be, conservative or liberal. Religious affiliation shapes how each of us approaches authority. Although Roman Catholic beliefs clearly fall within the Christian tradition, their doctrine is more cozy with powerful central authority than protestants whose very existence manifested from the desire to limit such centralized powers over the individual. Is it any wonder that we drift toward greater federal powers over the rights of states and individuals?
It is outrageous that 46% of our population, those who founded and structured our system of governance, would have no representation on its highest court. Protestants must loudly insist on and demand representation in the Supreme Court of the United Sates of America.
The way things are going, Obama will appoint a Muslim (1% of our population) or sympathiser with that cause (which is contra-constitutional in so many ways) and they will be approved. To not approve such a nominee would be religious discrimination, and nobody would want that, right?
A Religous Landscape Study by the Pew Center shows that the United States is 21% Roman Catholic and 2% Jewish. What about the 46% who identify as protestant? Nothing in this branch of government for them! And to think that most of the founding fathers were protestants, and the form of government they chose for their new country was primarily shaped by the political activities of John Calvin. Calvin was a primary leader of the Protestant Reformation, helping individuals claim rights and demand representation in a world where the pope and monarchs competed for dictatorial powers.
Of course Scalia's replacement will be pivotal, but let's take a moment to look at this from a point of view different from whether Scalia was, and his replacement will be, conservative or liberal. Religious affiliation shapes how each of us approaches authority. Although Roman Catholic beliefs clearly fall within the Christian tradition, their doctrine is more cozy with powerful central authority than protestants whose very existence manifested from the desire to limit such centralized powers over the individual. Is it any wonder that we drift toward greater federal powers over the rights of states and individuals?
It is outrageous that 46% of our population, those who founded and structured our system of governance, would have no representation on its highest court. Protestants must loudly insist on and demand representation in the Supreme Court of the United Sates of America.
The way things are going, Obama will appoint a Muslim (1% of our population) or sympathiser with that cause (which is contra-constitutional in so many ways) and they will be approved. To not approve such a nominee would be religious discrimination, and nobody would want that, right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)