Islamic Teaching On Infidels, after a re-reading

Vic Biorseth, http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com

(Note that I am eliminating “Contact Me” links from the entire site, due to sheer volume and limited time to devote to individual one-on-one e-mail dialogues. You may still conceal your identity, if you wish, and comment at the bottom of any page, or in the Submit an Article link.)

Some of your private "Contact Me" comments have made me look more closely at the verses I quoted in the Islam and the Jews page for surrounding context and limiting factors. And, I'm forced to admit that I overstated the case against Islam as a religion.

While it still doesn't appear to be a religion of peace, all the calls to kill us - to kill Christians and Jews - seem to be contained in a contextual requirement that is, roughly stated, so long as they make war on Islam. Which means, as some of you have argued, the Koran doesn't explicitly say to go out and kill some Christian or some Jew who is not actively making war on Islam. At the moment, I'm forced to accept that argument, although I must categorically state my non-expert status as an interpreter of, let alone one who is very familiar with, the Koran. If someone out there can find a "bloody murder" verse in it, I hope you will let me know about it, because I cannot.

Of course, this changes nothing about how Islam behaves in actual practice, as the absolutely murderous events of history, including the most recent history, prove. And, from my admittedly inexpert position, it appears that the Koran contradicts itself; early parts indicate that religion is not to be forced on anyone, while later parts demand proactively forcing Islam on the whole world.

A not insignificant part of the problem is that the whole Koran seems to be a disconnected, flow-of-consciousness sort of rambling speech. Some parts make no sense in relation to parts immediately above, and/or immediately below. There is no discernable story-line, as in most of the Bible. Perhaps, like the Psalms, it is more poetic, or perhaps even musical, and makes more sense in Arabic, where such things as rhyme and cadence and meter might add needed nuance to the words. Either something is lost in the translation to English, or it just makes no real sense, reading any section from top to bottom. Any clarifying comments you have will be most welcome.

If the Koran isn't to blame, then why are we fighting?

I still maintain that an important part of our military War On Terror deeply involves an ideological and rational and critical thinking war on Islam itself. We didn't declare this war; like World War II, it was imposed upon us from outside. Just as we are - or should be - engaged in a seemingly never ending, non-shooting, ideological war with Marxism, we simply must recognize Islam as a similarly dangerous ideology.

The public reasons given for the wanton murder of Americans on American soil range between the idiotic and the downright paranoid. Moslem leaders rail against us as "Crusaders" actively making military war on them. An obvious lie. Moslem leaders and/or spokesmen point to our recognition of and support for Israel as "proof" of our military war against Islam. And that's just plain stupid. We also recognize and give support to the Palestinians, and yet, Jews are not therefore wantonly murdering Americans in America. Yet, it appears, lots of Moslems are absolutely convinced that we are waging war on them, and have been for many, many years. Like I said: idiotic, stupid and paranoid.

So long as Islamic schools - whether Wahaabist or other - teach Moslem children to hate America and Americans and encourage youth to pledge their lives and their blood to Jihad against us, I submit that we have a vital interest in what's going on over there. So long as Moslem clerics and Moslem political leaders call for war against America, we have a vital interest in what's being said and what's being done over there. So long as any Moslems with any popular clout or political power declare themselves to be at war against us, we have a vital interest in waging that war over there. Or as much of it as possible.

As I've said before, repeatedly, the way to wage war against the committed external Jihadists is with a military scalpel, using smart technology as much as possible, and the way to wage the ideological war against Islam is by promoting and supporting Democracy and self-determination among the Moslem nations. If we were more Marxist, our strategy would be to simply kill them all. But we are not Marxist. We are a Christian people. We still predominantly operate from the basis of the old fashioned, anti-Marxian, Western ethos, which gives high priority to such concepts as Truth, and justice, and honor, and duty, and decency, and the sacredness of human life.

Now, the most committed Leftists among us, of course, deny even the concept of sacredness, and hold nothing whatsoever to be sacred. America ain't perfect. But the majority still rules, and we remain a Christian nation, whether the Marxists among us like it or not. And whether the Moslems among us like it or not.

Regarding the Mid-Term Elections, the War, and America's Future.

Today, the admittedly imperfect and sometimes inconsistent Republican Party is the Party in power, in both houses of Congress and in the White House. The Loyal Opposition is represented by the Democratic Party. I submit for your consideration the proposition that the leadership and most of the ranking and influential members of that Party are of Leftist-Marxist orientation. Now, they will refer to themselves as Centrists and/or as Liberal, and will openly deny being Leftist-Marxist. And many, perhaps most, of them don't even properly know what they are.

Historically, since Stalin and Hitler betrayed each other's secret military pacts and went to war with each other, The Left - Communism - has always confused itself with strict opposition to the Right, which they wrongly assumed to be Nazi/Fascist. Which it was not. Hitler, like Stalin, was a Marxist. He considered and described himself and his Party - the National Socialist Worker's Party - to be Marxist. Just like today's self-described Socialist university professors, he considered himself to be a Socialist, but not a Communist.

Nevertheless, the great Socialist thinker most often quoted by him and by them would be none other than Karl Marx. And, I'm sorry, but Karl Marx didn't write any great Socialist theory; what he wrote was the Communist Manifesto. He considered Socialism a mere stepping stone, an evolutionary phase on the way to achieving Communist Utopia. These people - our Left - are, for the most part, steeped in Marxism, they have accepted and embraced all of Marx's truly stupid, fatally flawed social and economic theories, and, whether they are smart enough to even recognize the fact or not, they are, philosophically speaking, Communists.

So, if the Right is not Nazi-Fascist, then, what is it? Anti-Marxist. The position that opposes government growth, government encroachment on individual liberty, government interference with the private sector, private property and free markets.

All historical variants of Marxism sought absolute, totalitarian government power over everything; over all people, resources, territory, property. Communism simply took it; Nazism fiercely controlled it; in both cases, the government owned it. All power was centralized in the Party, in the one case, and the State, in the other. The only real differences between Communist Russia and Nazi Germany involved the personalities and proclivities of the dictators of the moment. In both cases there were bureaucrats with the power to say shut up and get on the cattle car, and there were rulers with the power to say do as I say or I'll have you killed. Both provided classic examples of the corrupting influence of such power, at the lower levels, and of the absolute ruthless nature of the men at the top, who ultimately seized political power once it was concentrated and centralized enough to be seized.

Current politics of the Dems.

Today's Dems want to take care of you. They constantly seek to raise taxes for "Social" reasons and for all sorts of social programs. They seek to grow the government, and to spread it's control into virtually all aspects of life in America, from education to health care to industry to smoking to speech to religion to - well, everything. Seemingly every aspect of life is subject to either legislation or unrepresentative regulation with the full force of law. Speech is restricted by "hate" laws; religion is restricted by tax laws; even education is restricted by government edict.

You can measure your freedom by counting the number of laws.

Every single problem you or I encounter in life is not necessarily solely resolvable by a new law. In a fee society there has to be some sphere of private endeavor beyond the reach of the government. The important thing is what Tocqueville recorded so long ago: America is a great nation because her people are good; when America's people are no longer a good people, America will no longer be great. What made us great then, and what makes us great now, is the motive to align ourselves with Divine Will. Voluntarily. Not by law. We are a good people because of our overwhelming majority adherence to the Western Culture Judeo-Christian guiding ethos

Marxist nations need lots and lots of laws, because in Marxist nations God has been outlawed, along with His ethos. People are good only to stay within the law and not be punished, and they are good only while Big Brother and the cops are watching.

What scares me about today's Dems in this upcoming election is their obvious love of bigger government, and their obvious badness, as all Jews and Christians recognize it. They always appear to have an ulterior political motive; they always seem to promote nonsense as if it were truth.

Just look at how Republicans caught in some scandal are treated by the Dems, by the SLIMC, by their own Party, and by the law, and then look at those severe penalties, and compare them to the ramifications of any Democrat caught in any scandal.

We have the Murderer of Chappaquiddick safe and untouched in his seat of power, beloved and protected by his Party, pointing an accusing finger at Republicans.

We have ex-President Billary Clinton, revered and fawned over by all Dems, safe and untouched, legally or politically, and exempted even from charges involving forcible rape.

We have Nancy Pelosi, referring to the GOP as a culture of corruption even as she is exonerated by an adoring SLIMC and her Party of her illegal campaign funds usages.

We have Clintonista Sandy Berger caught smuggling national secret documents in his pants in order to destroy evidence of other Clinton scandals, and suffering no legal ill effects whatsoever.

We have Cap'n Planet Algore with his Red Chinese military's political donations to the Clinton campaign given through a supposed Buddhist monastery, and favorable treatment by the SLIMC, the Dems and the law. Gee, what a surprise.

And, look at their treatment of truth, and the seeming ulterior political motives involved. Look at Cap'n Planet Algore's global warming hype, and his claim that only he, and larger government, and maybe some Hollywood Celebrocrats, and all of TTRSTF in his hip pocket can solve the problem for us poor ignorant hicks. Did you know he was pro-life before he was pro-choice? Don't be surprised; before the global warming scare, there was a global cooling scare. Newsweek recommended, in 1975, a project to scatter soot across the arctic ice cap to aid in melting it, to save us from something or other related to their predicted oncoming ice age.

We have the disgusting liar John Kerry, and all of the disgusting lies he told about Vietnam veterans, for the TV cameras and for the Democratic Congressional "Hearing" he was "testifying" before. These are the still-standing filthy lies that launched his political career within the Democratic Party. No legal or political ramifications there; the Dems love him. After all, he's one of them.

We have campaign ads by celebrities like Michael J. Fox lying to the public about the opposition position on embryonic stem cell research. What the opposition opposes, very strictly, is embryonic stem cell research, not any other forms of stem cell research. Fox said they opposed all stem cell research; a clear falsehood. And, incidentally, embryonic stem cell research is the sole form of stem cell research that shows absolutely no promise for any cure of anything whatsoever. To be fair, Michael J. Fox might not be purely politically motivated in doing this false political attack ad. He could really be that stupid.

Ask the legally protected and unregulated abortion industry, abortionists, NARAL and Planned Parenthood which Party they own. I mean support.

Ask crud-entertainers like Howard Stern, Jerry Springer, M-TV, Sex In The City and so forth which Party they own. I mean support.

Ask homosexual action groups which Party they own. I mean support.

Ask Hef and Flynt and pornographers everywhere in America which Party they own. I mean support.

Ask the Red Chinese military which Party the own. I mean support.

Dem strategic plan for the War On Terror.

First of all, they don't believe we're at war. The dominant Dem position seems to be that these are all crimes that need to be adjudicated in the courts, see? This may be the underlying reason that, as Ann Coulter has pointed out better than I ever could, there is absolutely no part of the War On Terror that the Democratic Party is ready to support.

If the Dems win, we all lose.

If there is anything that worries me more than that simple fact, it is the Democratic Party's absolute determination to do whatever it takes to keep the Supreme Court in the Leftist-Marxist hip pocket of the Party. No nominee will ever be allowed to get through to the Court without Leftist-Marxist Dem pre-approval. They desperately need "interpreters" of words that aren't even there to keep making unrepresentative and unlegislated new law to further restrict the people and to further demoralize and further secularize the public square and people.

I have said elsewhere, multiple times, that the Dems, the Courts, the SLIMC and Hollywood are gradually turning us into practical atheists. A practical atheist is one who, while possibly still believing in God, goes about the living of 90% of his life exactly as if he were an actual atheist. The less one practices his faith, the less faith he will have; eventually he will become an atheist.

It is possible for you to lose your faith by default.

You are called to be a thinking Catholic, or a thinking Protestant, or a thinking Jew. We are all called to do good critical thinking. Our faith calls us to not only quietly have faith, but to proactively live it.

How did it ever come to pass that our government imposes the religion of atheism upon us against our will, and suppresses our Constitutional right to free and open religious expression? A future article will address court cases in which the court identified secular humanism as a religion, and atheism as a religion. It now seeks to legally impose them upon us, despite our existing religions, which it increasingly restricts and censors.

Don't let these screwballs take over either house of Congress.

Think about it.

May you please God, and may you live forever.

Reference Material

Return to Web Site Log (Blog) page

Return to HOME PAGE

Build/Host/Maintain Your Own Personal Website using SBI! (Advertisement)

Date: Wed Jun 22 20:34:45 2011
From: Patricia Cole
Email:
Location: Kansas
Comment:

I am a Christian however i have been looking into Islam for some time now. I find that if you have not read the WHOLE Koranic scriptures thoroughly you will not understand the context properly. I have nearly finished having them transcribed by a freelance agent and there seems to be a vast amount of scientific truths in the Koran and I am quite certain of its authenticity as a holy scripture. Sometimes the truth is hard to swallow but I think the problem is not that the Koran and Islam are bad, but the Moslems who follow Islam incorrectly are the evil ones. Therefore i put it to you to read through the Koran and tell me what you think.

Date: Thu Jun 23 05:40:55 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Patricia:

Good luck in your effort to understand the context; in my view there is no context. The whole Koran in one big long list of “sayings” within which “context” may only be found within a range of about a dozen or so of them, or less, before it launches itself in an entirely new and unrelated direction.

I don’t know why you wasted your money on transcription, since English versions are easily available, for example, right here.

Show me even one of these “scientific truths” that you found in the Koran.

How, exactly, are you certain of the Koran’s authenticity as Holy Scripture?

The important thing regarding the external or lesser Jihad is this: Moslems are instructed by the Koran to make war against us, and everyone, until no religion exists on earth except Islam (2:139; 8:39; 9:29).

The “peaceful” verses toward Jews and Christians are all early in the Koran, before Mohammed fled from Mecca to Medina. The “war” verses are all after the flight and the birth of Islam as a recognized religion. There are many, many Koranic verses that directly contradict each other. Moslem clerics and Koranic scholars will tell you that whatever Mohammed said last always supersedes and abrogates whatever he might have said earlier. That means that the war verses stand, and the peace verses have been abrogated by later verses.

These instructions to make war on the world are considered by Moslems to be the irreformable words of Allah spoken through the lips of his prophet Mohammed. There is to be one religion, one law, one government.

Show me how Islam is anything other than a religion of war.

Regards,

Vic

Please note the language and tone already established in this Website. This is not the place to stack up vulgar one-liners and crude rejoinders. While you may support, oppose or introduce any position or argument, your comments must meet our standards of logical rigor and of civil discourse. We will not participate in trading insults, and we will not tolerate participants trading insults with each other. Participants should not be thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to defend their arguments when challenged. If you don’t really have a coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t embarrass yourself. If you have something serious to contribute to the conversation, please keep it civil. We apologize to religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say these things.