| Skybird |
02-20-09 06:44 AM |
Islam is a conquering, totalitarian, fundamentalist ideology by theology and content. In that way, the theological mainstream is totalitarian and fundamentalist by content. Whether or not all people calling themselves "Muslim" follow that from A to Z, is something different. BUT: the overwhelming majority of them does not actively try and engage in giving the public another impression than that they silently do tolerate that. The very prominent majority actively hinders cooperation with officials to identify radical elements hiding in their middle. Practically all Muslim associations and organization I know of in Germany in Britain do like that by their policy. They do nothing and not enough to hinder "extremists" from speaking in their names. They actively reject integration on a large scale. The younger the generation, the stronger the tendency for Islamic orthodoxy, and demanding Sharia ruling over western constitutions - this is a simple fact from several sociological surveys of recent years now.
Over 90% of Islamic immigrants traditionally vote left, that is the simple reason why especially the left is so Islam-friendly, and tries to establish policies bringing more of these left voters to Europe. and that is the reason why these people vote left: they serve the goal of Islam to spread and to take over. Once Islam does not need the support of these left politicians anymore, they metaphorically will end like the left and communist allies of the revolution ended en masse in Iran after Khomeini was safe in power: hanging from telephone poles.
Integration and adaptation is against Islamic law, as is apostasy. It only recommends to live by the formal rules of foreign places as long as Islam is not strong enough to take them over. It even allows to lie and cheat to hide the Islamic nature, if Islam can only survive by that. But the Islamic cause and identity never is to be given up. Because Islam does not want to live in coexistence, and so it does not allow anything that could question or watering down its identity. It wants to take over and claims that to be the goal of evolution. It also claims that it is unavoidable. In all western nations - in ALL! - Islam claims special rights and a special status for itself that is not being called for by any other religion, and not by Judaism, even not by our most native religious heritage: the Christian churches anymore. But Islam thanks it is a special case, and has a right to claim more. I tell you: once it got that, it will not be satisfied, but will claim more. and more. and more. It is a religious demand that it cannot escape. Islamising all world is the most primary duty of Islam, and every male Muslim. Read that again: it is a duty, an obligation. A Muslim not helping in that, is violating some of the most basic demands of his faith. that demand is so nonnegotiable that even Muslims having adapted to western standards usually are not in full awareness of it. That everything must become Islamic - is non-negotiable.
Muhammad ordered and waged over 70 wars during the few years between his move to Medina, and his death. He wanted to form an empire, basing on an army and a community that was strong by not being in doubt, not criticizing, and having no remorse whatever. POWER BY UNCOMPROMISED, ADAMANT UNITY; BEING ENFORCED BY EVERY MEANS NECESSARY TO REACH IT. Thus the formulation of religious claims, silencing critics by threatening them with death for heresy. Thus the totalitarian unforgivingness against apostates, and doubt. Thus the claim that there cannot be peace before the last enemy has been wiped off the earth, or has been turned into a Muslim. enemy means: not being Muslim. We have seen the same pattern under so many other tyrants and dictators, in so many other evil regimes and wars. While the Curran says to save the innocents from killing, it also says that by the mere fact that they are not Muslim, infidels must not be seen as innocents (=it is a sin to resist Islam, and wanting to resist Islam is almost unimaginable anyway, since it is Allah's will, the goal of evolution, and unavoidable anyway). There are so many "buts" in the Quran that so often get overseen. Tolerance for infidels of the book - but only when they accept to live in shame and systematic, obligatory discrimination by Muslim population, giving up basic rights that Muslims enjoy. Suicide is forbidden for Muslims in Islam - but if an attack on infidels is demanding the self-killing of the attacking person, it is okay. Always be aware of the "buts".
Fly with the crows, get shot with the crows. Some things do not go well together. There is nothing like a liberal Stalinist. Or a democratic Nazi. these would be terms that mean nothing, are illusory, are meaningless, are nuts, hollow and crazy. Thinking to bring the thinking taught in Quran and Sharia (and that is the only basis worth to be called the basis of Islam, whether you like and understand that, or not) into a form that it can be brought into congruence with Western constitutions and Western values, also is such a folly.
For Islam the motto of the most famous German sea-pirate there ever was, Klaus störtebeker (haunting the Baltic sea during the time of the Hanse), is matching perfectly: "Niemandes Freund, aller Welt's Feind" (Nobody's friend, all world's enemy).
Tribesman, with every paragraph you type you only reveal how little you know about the inner nature and the origin of Islam, it's thinking, the way it develops it's self-justification, and it's history as well. You only base on what you wish it to be. And that is something that - although not existing in that form - would be something that the rest of the world could handle and live with, if it WOULD exist. But it doesn't. Maybe in some individual's mind, but not i the mind of the wide masses. And the exceptions from the rule - must accept the critical question why, if they really have seen through the malice of Islamic message, nevertheless care for being seen as Islamic and want to be called that. If I would claim that Nazism is bad, and that I want to live by democratic rules, nevertheless insist on being called "Herr Obergauleiter", and would greet you with a straight right arm, and would not fight, maybe even actively support against Nazi ideas - what would you think? That I am a liberal democrat as I claim? Hardly. There are apostates from Islam indeed, often they live in fear, and under threats to their health and life. Islam demands the killing of apostates, as a disciplinary measure to keep the masses in line and to not allow doubts raising their heads that could weakening the Ummah or start asking critical questions about Islam. However, there are also those people who indeed leave Islam, and turn their backs on it, and who challenge it, try to make the public aware of the threat. There are the women standing up against their families and giving everything up. These are courageous people, people who needed to flee, and hoping for something better when coming to us and living with us. And then they meet people like you and see with frustration that people like you try to invite into our society and establish in our countries what they have fled from and tried to escape. they must feel - and do feel - left alone, betrayed. They believed the promises of our constitutions - and then must experience this ultimate treachery.
Stop debating, stop fighting - before you do not understand what it is you are fighting for, or against. So far you give the impression to just follow populist catch-slogans you snapped up. As long as you do not understand that Islam is truly extreme and unforgiving in it's mainstream theology - that I have seen in several Muslim countries to be the ruling dogma of the ordinary man indeed - you have not understand anything important about Islam indeed. You just postulate in explicit denial of Islam what you think, in your imagination, it should be so that everything could become good.
But it isn't that. You need to understand the Islamic understanding of peace. It often is said that Islam means peace, but Islam has a different understanding of that term. Peace is when the house of war (the infidels) do not exist anymore, and has been brought down, so that it can no more bring war to the house of Islam: which means as long as there is something that is not Islamic, by it's existence alone it already puts into question Islam's claim to be all and everything, and thus there is a conflict between what Islam wants to be, and the reality. Result: conflict, and the bringing down of the questioning item. When everything is Islamic: THEN you have peace in Islamic understanding. Not before. Please compare this to what I said on the evolution of man in Islamic understanding in the long quote I have posted above. If you hear a distant bell ringing a melody about Nazi supremacism and the inevitability Herrenrasse, then you hear right. Mind you that Hitler admired Islam and wished that Nationalsocialism would only be as strong and ruthless as Muhammad has ordered his followers to be.
|
