BloggersBase - Comments for article Demoting Islam from Religion

By Jonathan

Sun, 12 Apr 2009 23:08:33 GMT

You are being illogical as well failing to honor each person's freedom of religion. Taken literally, the Old Testament is equally full of "Vengeance" and "Wrath" statements. Obviously, the vast majority of Christians and Jews don't act upon those vicious admonitions. Judge individual Muslims, Christians, Jews, and others by their actions and do not stigmatize whole groups based upon the crimes of a few.

By anonymous in response to Jonathan

Mon, 13 Apr 2009 00:10:40 GMT

Would you stop with the relativistic claptrap. All ideas are not created equal. Is it your position that we shouldn't stigmatize all communists because of the crimes of a few? Islam is primitive and rooted in evil. You remember what evil is, don't you?

And while we're on the subject, please explain this:

"Today, in the land where Jesus was born, was crucified, and was reborn, there is much hatred..."

By your failure to identify the Palestinians by name, and Arabs in general, I presume you think Israel shares much of the blame? And therefore, you wouldn't agree that the killing stops when the Palestinians stop killing?

Enough with the platitudes. America just demonstrated today with that captain's rescue that talk has it's limits, and that sometimes there's no substitute for killing.

By myqute in response to Jonathan

Mon, 13 Apr 2009 06:05:16 GMT

Hi Jonathan! He did say Islam is not a religion. I would give it more thought if it's...FOOD! lol :)

By myqute

Mon, 13 Apr 2009 06:22:10 GMT

Dajjal, I re-read your blog entry trying to understand what you're saying.

"Mercenary mission is at the head of my of disqualifying factors."

I agree.

"Is it possible that an unrepentant rapist founded a legitimate religion?"

That's an awful thought but it may be a truth! Who started this religion (or "non-religion" Islam)? When did he rape? Would the USA start scraping religions one by one? It remains to be seen if such things can happen by law (or by humans' will).

I have never thought about any religion as deeply as today. Your blog entries are mind-boggling but they do serve a good purpose in a way, although I also respect everyone's freedom for their choice of religion.

By Jonathan in response to myqute

Mon, 13 Apr 2009 11:26:18 GMT

myqute, My conviction is that no one has the right to decide whether someone else's belief system is a religion. I interpret the words of the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," to preclude our government from discrimination against some religions. What could be a worse discrimination against a specific belief system than to legislate that it didn't "qualify" as a religion at all.

This isn't specifically a comment about Islam. This is a comment about our American Bill of Rights and our way of life. If we were to discriminate against Muslims, who's next, Scientologists? Christian Scientists? Mormons?

By Dajjal in response to myqute

Tue, 14 Apr 2009 01:50:54 GMT

Myqute, Moe began his 'prophetic career' in 610. I do not know when the conquest of the Banu Qurayzah happened, but it was probably after 623, so the founding proceeded the rape.

Martel Sobieskey basically wrote that Islam is not a legitimate religion and should be stripped of the title. I agree with him. The post I linked to was a cross post, I believe that the original was at http://faithfreedom.org/ . Dr. Sina has many good articles there, and an excellent on line library.

I am not convinced that any other commonly practiced religions should be scraped. Islam stands out as a candidate for rejection because of its violence.

I try to write for clarity, never intending to confuse my readers. In the current post, I cited seven ayat and four ahadith, hyperlinking the citations to their sources so that you can read them in context. I urge you to follow the links. If they leave you confused, look up the ayat at qtafsir.com and read what the master qadi had to write about them.

Freedom of conscience is a good thing, a value which our founders cherished and sought to preserve. Islam does not share that value, it seeks to impose itself upon the whole human race.

The proper practice of Islam requires conquest; a minimum of one military attack in every year. How can there be a right to do that?

By Dajjal in response to Jonathan

Tue, 14 Apr 2009 01:56:15 GMT

There is a vital difference between Islam and its predecessors. Only Islam contains conquest imperatives without geographic or chronological limits. Jesus neither preached nor exemplified rape, pillage & plunder. Moe both preached and practiced them. Worse yet, he make them the keys to Paradise.

Islam is stigmatized by its intrinsic doctrines, not by the acts of a few. The acts of Moe and his companions are sunna: exemplary conduct to be emulated by all future generations of Muslims.

By Dajjal in response to anonymous

Tue, 14 Apr 2009 02:26:15 GMT

I agree that Islam has its hand on the blood valve. Islam alone will determine the extent of the slaughter. Islam could stop the killing, but won't because it is mandated by their scripture & tradition; its what they do, have always done and will always do so long as they practice Islam.

Killing is a severe action, final and irrevocable; not a measure to be taken lightly or routinely.

By Jonathan in response to Dajjal

Tue, 14 Apr 2009 07:04:37 GMT

The words of Jesus himself are consistently words of love and peace. The references to wrath and vengeance are in the Old Testament. Jesus himself specifically repudiated those older directives in Matthew 5, but some Christians ignore His words and allow the words of the Old Testament to take precedence.

By myqute in response to Dajjal

Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:32:22 GMT

Yes, you are right Dajjal. There is never a right to kill (military attack)! I had intended to visit the links earlier but was side-tracked! Dajjal, thank you again for explaining. I value what I am learning from you! :)

By myqute in response to Dajjal

Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:33:42 GMT

"Killing is a severe action, final and irrevocable; not a measure to be taken lightly or routinely."

Totally agree! :)

By Dajjal in response to Jonathan

Wed, 15 Apr 2009 05:05:33 GMT

The background of the establishment clause is the abuse of power in the mother country, various European nations and several of the colonies.

The founders wisely sought to prevent the new Federal Government from establishing any denomination as an official national church.

The free exercise clause is more problematic. By accepting the common tradition of considering Islam to be a religion, they allowed it to shade itself under the umbrella of First Amendment protection.

The founders were careless, making a fatal oversight. They did not consider the full scope of Islamic doctrine and practice. Both scripture and jurisprudence require annual attacks against disbelievers; aggressive warfare. Islamic tradition confers a license to kill, enslave, rape and plunder. Those evils are intrinsic to the practice of Islam; without them, the Muslims are in a state of sin.