The Myth of Moderate Islam

Propelled the instinct for survival to compell Islam to forge various alliances, with the infidels both during World War II and the Cold War (aka WWIII). Such alliances, however, being proscribed by Islam as a matter of doctrine, was necessarily both inconvenient and transient.

The Allies' (i.e., US, UK & France) pact with Stalinist Soviet Union was of a similar ilk; pulling to an uncomfortable embrace otherwise mortal adversaries. It was Patton's genius to have recognized and acknowledged that danger even in the heat of battle.

Like all marriages of convenience, however, the pact is dissolved once the adversity is gone. So while everyone is obsessed with the pursuit of happiness, mostly in the form of decadent materialism and moral torpitude, the proscriptions of the doctrine are brought to the fore.

It might be stretching the reliance on hope over experience to credit Liberal Ideology to have invented Global Warming as an overriding planetary danger so once again doctrinal differences can be considered minor and postphonable to safer periods of planetary bliss when the polar bears are no longer in danger of being washed away and off to oblivion.

Alas Global Warming has become a religion adopted by various governments, including most ominously the attempt to establish a Global Government.

So the moral categorical question of the era is: can Global Warming protect us from the battle cry "Allahu Akhbar"?

cf, http://townhall.com/columnists/Column2.aspx?UrlTitle=medic alizing_mass_murder&ns=CharlesKrauthammer&dt=11/13/2009&pag e=full&comments=true&submitted=true

Margaret: Beware painting with the proverbial broad brush. Timothy McVeigh, to my knowledge, have not been reported to have triumphantly invoked "Allahu Akhbar."

I have first hand knowledge of Catholics who went to church when they were Baptised, when the took First Communion, and then at their Funeral. The point to be remembered is that in any religion, amongst the adherents, there are extremists (orthodox) and there are nominalists.

The crucial difference when and where Islam is concerned, is any by the books practice of the religion is lethal to the non-Moslems. That is just what the "good book" prescribes.

Compare that with the lapses respecting Christian dogma: the most extreme I have known is the practice of self-flagellation and emulating the crucification as a ritual of religious obeisance to Christ.

That is not exactly an efficient nor effective vehicle for ethnic or religious cleansing!

cf, http://townhall.com/columnists/Column2.aspx?UrlTitle=medic alizing_mass_murder&ns=CharlesKrauthammer&dt=11/13/2009&pag e=full&comments=true&submitted=true&submitted=true

"That doesn't mean most Muslims subscribe to jihad, but it does mean the problem is exclusively Muslim."

Likewise, some Catholics DON'T subscribe to confession as an effective and required means of atonement for your sins. There are even catholics who don't subscribe to the notion of sin. But those who do are not harmful to the non-catholics.

Jihad, on the other hand, is part of the doctrine of Islam. So a Muslim does not subscribe to jihad until he runs amok and starts killing infidels, to the familiar refrain of "Allahu Akhbar."

Amok, incidentally is the Malay (e.g., Tagalog, Bahasa Indonesia, etc.) word for Jihadist. Juramentado is the Bisaya equivalent of the term. It is derived from Spanish and means one who disavowed all worldly pursuits and pledged his life and soul exclusively to killing infidels.

The point to be emphasized is that seeds of jihad is integral to the doctrine of Islam. So if we should have faith in our doubts, who should get the benefit of the doubt? The doctrine or the person? You may safely give it to the person only to the extent that you are sure the person is free of the doctrine. Else you do it at your own peril.

Cf, http://townhall.com/columnists/Column2.aspx?UrlTitle=terro rism_or_tragedy&ns=BillOReilly&dt=11/14/2009&page=full&comm ents=true&submitted=true

As bitter as it may be. Islam is the culprit. Islam is anything but a religion of peace. Violence is at the very core of Islam. Violence is institutionalized in the Muslim’s holy book, the Quran, in many suras:

Qur'an:9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."

Qur'an:9:112 "The Believers fight in Allah's cause; they slay and are slain, kill and are killed."
. . .
And the Quran is considered by Muslims as the word-for-word literal edicts of the Muslims’ god, Allah.



Right from the start, violence served as the engine of Islam under the command and supervision of Muhammad himself. For one, the Prophet’s son-in-law cousin, Ali, was titled the Commander of the Faithful for his unsurpassed feats of butchery. Ali with the assistance of one or two of his thugs, beheaded some seven hundred captives, most of them Jews, in only one day.

More at, http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/imani/2009/11132009.ht m