Print

Print


Antony Alexander wrote:

> I believe, religious renewal - the toxic elements
> of culture will be voluntarily abandoned without
> having to kill large numbers of people.

_________________________________________________

source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabriel-rotello/46-are-negative-about-
is_b_17061.html

Muslim societies would sometimes liberalize, loosen their
puritanical strictures, become tolerant, and then face
violent "revolutions from below" in which angry reformers
would arise to drag society back to the fierce Islam of
the earliest years. In that sense, Khomeini's Shiite
revolution, and today's resurgence of militant Sunni
orthodoxy, are just modern incarnations of something that
has happened time and again.

_________________________________________________

According to Osama bin Laden the attacks will stop
when we convert to Islam, ditch our constitution,
abolish banks, alcohol, gambling, and pictures of
women, jail homosexuals, and sign the Kyoto climate
change treaty. Details:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?
xml=/news/2005/11/17/wladen17.xml

_________________________________________________

source:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060207_reality_islam/

...Anyone who imagines that terrestrial concerns account
for Muslim terrorism must answer questions of the
following sort: Where are the Tibetan Buddhist suicide
bombers? The Tibetans have suffered an occupation far
more brutal, and far more cynical, than any that Britain,
the United States, or Israel have ever imposed upon the
Muslim world. Where are the throngs of Tibetans ready
to perpetrate suicidal atrocities against Chinese
noncombatants? They do not exist. What is the
difference that makes the difference? The difference lies
in the specific tenets of Islam. This is not to say that
Buddhism could not help inspire suicidal violence. It
can, and it has (Japan, World War II). But this concedes
absolutely nothing to the apologists for Islam. As a
Buddhist, one has to work extremely hard to justify
such barbarism. One need not work nearly so hard as a
Muslim. If you doubt whether the comparison is valid,
ask yourself where the Palestinian Christian suicide
bombers are. Palestinian Christians also suffer the
indignity of the Israeli occupation. This is practically a
science experiment: take the same people, speaking
the same language, put them in the same horrendous
circumstance, but give them slightly different religious
beliefs--and then watch what happens. What happens
is, they behave differently...

The only future devout Muslims can envisage — as Muslims
— is one in which all infidels have been converted to
Islam, politically subjugated, or killed. The tenets of
Islam simply do not admit of anything but a temporary
sharing of power with the “enemies of God.” Devout Muslims
can have no doubt about the reality of Paradise or about
the efficacy of martyrdom as a means of getting there.
Nor can they question the wisdom and reasonableness of
killing people for what amount to theological grievances.
In Islam, it is the moderate who is left to split hairs,
because the basic thrust of the doctrine is undeniable:
convert, subjugate, or kill unbelievers; kill apostates;
and conquer the world.