Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Please help me debunk this Islam hate article.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-04 10:24 AM
Original message
Please help me debunk this Islam hate article.
Edited on Fri May-28-04 10:37 AM by Quixote1818
The following article was sent to me by a right wing nutcase. I am most interested in disproving the part about how evil the Muslim religion's roots are. Now I know the Muslim religion has a bloody track record but I am tired of fundamentalist Christians trying to put Christianity above Islam. My belief is that the more these two religions fight over which one is LESS bloody then the less chance these crazy ideas will actually happen. I am worried too many fundamentalists are believing this propoganda and it will escilate things just as the War in Iraq has and WWIII will start. Any links ideas and facts to debunk this would be a real help. I think it's real important we nip stuff like this in the bud. Thanks

PS Anyone who want to respond to the person who posted this can post at: http://pub6.bravenet.com/forum/438486553/show/317556/2
It's a discussion forum. The more people who post over their perhaps the more he will question the article.


Here is an analysis and history of Islam's thrust in the world by Larry Abraham, editor of "Insider Report" 1/29/2004.

THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS AND THE GREAT CALIPHATE

The war against terror did not begin on September 11, 2001, nor will it end with the peaceful transition to civilian authority in Iraq, whenever that may be. In fact, Iraq is but a footnote in the bigger context of
this encounter, but an important one none-the-less.

This war is what the Jihadists themselves are calling the "Third Great Jihad". They are operating within the framework of a time line which reaches back to the very creation of Islam in the seventh century and are presently attempting to recreate the dynamics which gave rise to the religion in the first two hundred years of its existence.

No religion in history grew as fast, in its infancy, and the reasons for the initial growth of Islam are not hard to explain when you understand what the world was like at the time of Muhammad's death in 632 AD. Remember that the Western Roman Empire was in ruins and the Eastern Empire, based in Constantinople, was trying desperately to keep the power of its early grandeur while transitioning to Christianity as a de facto state religion.

The costs to the average person were large as he was being required to meet the constantly rising taxes levied by the state along with the tithes coerced by the "Christian" Church.

What Islam offered was the "carrot or the sword". If you became a convert, your taxes were immediately eliminated, as was your tithe. If you didn't, you faced death. The choice was not hard for most to make, unless you were a very devoted martyr in the making. At the beginning, even the theology was not too hard for most to swallow, considering that both Jewry and Christianity were given their due by the Prophet. There is but one God-Allah, and Muhammad is His Prophet, as was Jesus, and the pre-Christian Jewish prophets of the Torah (Old Testament). Both were called "children of the book"- the book being the Koran, which replaced both the Old and New Testaments for former Christians and Jews. With this practical approach to spreading the "word" Islam grew like wild-fire, reaching out from the Saudi Arabian Peninsula in all directions.

This early growth is what the Muslims call the "First" great Jihad and it met with little resistance until Charles Martel of France, the father of Charlemagne, stopped them in the battle of Tours in France in 732 AD after they had firmly established Islam on the Iberian Peninsula. This first onslaught against the West continued in various forms and at various times until Islam was finally driven out of Spain in 1492 at the battle of Granada.

The "Second great jihad" came with the Ottoman Turks. This empire succeeded in bringing about the downfall of Constantinople as a Christian stronghold and an end to Roman hegemony in all of its forms. The Ottoman Empire was Islam's most successful expansion of territory even though the religion itself had fractured into warring sects and bitter rivalries with each claiming the ultimate truths in "the ways of the Prophet". By 1683 the Ottomans had suffered a series of defeats on both land and sea and the final, unsuccessful attempt to capture Vienna set the stage for the collapse of any further territorial ambitions and Islam shrunk into various sheikhdoms, emir dominated principalities, and roving tribes of nomads.

However, by this time a growing anti-western sentiment, blaming its internal failures on anyone but themselves, was taking hold and setting the stage for a new revival known as Wahhabism, a sect which came into full bloom under the House of Saud on the Arabian Peninsula shortly before the onset of WWI.

It is this Wahhabi version of Islam which has infected the religion itself, now finding adherents in almost all branches and sects, especially the Shiites. Wahhabiism calls for the complete and total
rejection or destruction of anything and everything which is not based in the original teachings of The Prophet and finds its most glaring practice in the policies of the Afghani Taliban or the Shiite practices of the late Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. Its Ali Pasha (Field Marshall) is now known as Osama bin Laden, the leader of the "Third Jihad", who is Wahhabi, as were his 9/11 attack teams, 18 of which were also Saudi.

The strategy for this "holy war" did not begin with the planning of the destruction of the World Trade Center. It began with the toppling of the Shah of Iran back in the late 1970's. With his plans and programs to "westernize" his country, along with his close ties to the U.S. and subdued acceptance of the State of Israel, the Shah was the soft target. Remember "America Held Hostage"? Thanks, in large part to the disastrous policies of the Jimmy Carter State Department, the revolution was set into motion, the Shah was deposed, his armed forces scattered or murdered and stage one was complete. The Third Jihad now had a base of operations and the oil wealth to support its grand design or what they call the "Great Caliphate".

What this design calls for is the replacement of all secular leadership in any country with Muslim majorities. This would include, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, all the Emirates, Sudan, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Malaysia, Indonesia and finally what they call the "occupied territory" - Israel.

As a part of this strategy, forces of the jihad will infiltrate governments and the military as a prelude to taking control, once the secular leadership is ousted or assassinated. Such was the case in
Lebanon leading to the Syrian occupation and in Egypt with the murder of Anwar Sadat, along with the multiple attempts on the lives of Hussein in Jordan, Mubarak of Egypt and Musharraf in Pakistan. Pakistan is a particular prize because of its nuclear weapons. (Please note al Qaeda called for the Islamic-militant overthrow of Musharraf in Pakistan on March 25, (just yesterday.)

The long-range strategy of the Third Jihad counts on three strategic goals. First, the U.S. withdrawing from the region just as it did in Southeast Asia, following Vietnam. Second, taking control of the oil
wealth in the Muslim countries, which would be upwards to 75% of known reserves; third, using nuclear weapons or other WMDs to annihilate Israel. A further outcome of successfully achieving these objectives would be to place the United Nations as the sole arbiter in East/West negotiations and paralyze western resistance, leading to total withdrawal from all Islamic dominated countries.

Evidence of the Bush Administration awareness of this plan is found in the events immediately following the 9/11 attack. The administration's first move was to shore up Pakistan and Egypt, believing that these two would be the next targets for al Qaeda, while Americans focused on the disaster in New York. The administration also knew that the most important objective was to send a loud and clear message that the U.S. was in the region to stay, not only to shore up our allies but to send a message to the Jihadists. The attack on Afghanistan was necessary to break-up a secure al Qaeda base of operations and put their leadership on the run or in prison.

The war in Iraq also met a very strategic necessity in that no one knew how much collaboration existed between Saddam Hussein and the master planners of the Third Jihad or Hussein's willingness to hand off WMDs to terrorist groups including the PLO in Israel. What was known were serious indications of on-going collaboration as Saddam funneled money to families of suicide bombers attacking the Israelis and others in Kuwait. What the U.S. needed to establish was a significant base of operations smack dab in the middle of the Islamic world, in a location which effectively cut it in half. Iraq was the ideal target for this and a host of other strategic reasons.

Leadership of various anti-American groups both here and abroad understood the vital nature of the Bush initiative and thus launched their demonstrations, world-wide, to "Stop The War". Failing this, they also laid plans to build a political campaign inside the country, with the War in Iraq as a plebiscite.

Should George W. Bush be defeated in November we could expect to see the dominoes start to fall in the secular Islamic countries and The Clash of Civilizations, predicted several years ago by Samuel Huntington, would then become a life changing event in all of our lives.

What surprised the Jihadists following the 9/11 attack was how American sentiment mobilized around the president and a profound sense of patriotism spread across the country. They were not expecting this reaction, based on what had happened in the past, nor were they expecting the determined resolve of the President himself. I also believe this is one of the reasons we have not had any further attacks within our borders. They are content to wait, just as one of their tactical mentors;
V.I. Lenin admonished..."two steps forward, one step back".

A couple additional events serve as valuable footnotes to the current circumstances we face: the destruction of the human assets factor of the CIA during the Carter presidency, presided over by the late Senator Frank Church.

Lastly, we should not expect to see any meaningful cooperation from Western Europe, especially the French. Since failing to protect their own interests in Algeria (by turning the country over to the first of the Arab terrorists, Ammad Ben Bella), the country itself is now occupied by Islamic immigrants totaling twenty percent of the population.

We are in the battle of our lives, a battle which will go on for many years, possibly even generations. If we fail to understand what we are facing or falter in the challenge of "knowing our enemy" the results will be catastrophic. Imagine a world where al Qaeda regimes control 75% of the world's oil, have at their disposal nuclear weapons, legions of willing suicide soldiers, and our national survival is dependent on the good graces of Kofi Annan and the United Nations.

There is one final footnote which may be the scariest of all. Either none of the Democrats currently leading the drive to their party's nomination are aware of the facts of the Great Caliphate and Third Jihad or they do know and they don't care so long as their power lust is satisfied. But, I can guarantee you one thing for sure: some of their most ardent supporters are aware of this and will do anything they can to bring it about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
neuvocat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-04 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
1. First of all, never accept any arguments like that
Edited on Fri May-28-04 10:36 AM by neuvocat
without links for proof. Remember, these people often (almost always) lie to prove their point.

Also remember that Bush himself tried to say that Christians and Mulims worship the same god. Even the most non-religious of democrats knows better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beware the Beast Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-04 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
2. Couple things in the first few paragraphs alone:
Edited on Fri May-28-04 10:32 AM by Beware the Beast Man
1. His history of the Early Middle ages is terrible. By 632 the Western Roman Empire was already 2 centuries gone, while the Eastern "Byzantine" Empire, at that stage, was at the dawn of its greatest age.
2. He uses the word "Jewry." The only folks I've ever heard use this word are anti-Semites. It invokes some sort of conjuring on the part of the Jewish people. This should be a red flag immediately.
3. i cant continue on without the aid of a couple history texts, but from those first few paragraphs, I can tell the guy is completely full of shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-04 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. 'Jewry' doesn't have to to anti-semitical
you can find plenty of uses of it on Israeli sites. It normally means the Jewish community - it's used in the article to mean the religion, but my dictionary gives that as a standard meaning too.

Here's a reference to Muslim states taxing non-Muslims (and Muslim-only taxes) - which shows that the 'carrot or sword' stuff is wrong (though it does say that polytheists were at risk of death, according to the Koran. That certainly didn't happen in India, where Muslim rulers let their Hindu subjects worship freely; maybe it's a reference to the polytheists of the Mecca and Medina area? Can any Muslims clarify this?)

http://www.understanding-islam.com/re/e-039.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RafterMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-04 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
3. This bit is historically untrue
Edited on Fri May-28-04 10:34 AM by RafterMan
"What Islam offered was the "carrot or the sword". If you became a convert, your taxes were immediately eliminated, as was your tithe. If you didn't, you faced death."

What happened was that you had to pay an extra tax to the muslims if you didn't convert.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beware the Beast Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-04 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Good point-
In some places, Muslim leaders were much more tolerant of other religious beliefs- at a price.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troublemaker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-04 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Seconded
The early Moslems simply didn't convert people through violence and they were far more tolerant of internal populations of Jews and Christians than either of those groups were to Moslems in countries they controlled.

That's no defense of *modern* Islam, of course. The world's standards of tolerance have advanced while Islam has remained somewhat frozen in time so what was once progressive has become deeply repressive just by standing still.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbieinok Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-04 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #3
11. 'Charlemagne converted the Saxons' (hist texts) = be baptized or be killed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-04 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
4. well it`s not to far
off the mark-one extreme religous sect fighting another-which leaves the rest of us in the middle. the saudi`s brand of islam is no where close to the teachings of islam as are the extreme fundmental christians in this country and others. the problem is that both religions should rid themselves of these extremes and live the this century not 1600-2000+ years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigbillhaywood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-04 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
7. Here goes...
1. "What Islam offered was the "carrot or the sword". If you became a convert, your taxes were immediately eliminated, as was your tithe. If you didn't, you faced death."

--Christians and Jews did not face conversion or death, as they were considered "people of the book", not "infidels"; they were required to pay a tax however.

2. "The "Second great jihad" came with the Ottoman Turks."

-- Not really. Although Islam was important to Ottoman government, it operated in a more or less secular manner. The point of Ottoman expansion was ordinary material imperialism which had very little to do with religious conversion (especially since most of the conquered territory, besides the Balkans, was already Muslim)

3. Christianity spread through force as well.

4. V.I. Lenin is one of the jihadists "tactical mentors"? Fucking nonsense from people who see everything as a godless Commie conspiracy. Lenin rejected individual acts of terror outright. And if all they mean is that some Islamic fundamentalists with political parties are taking notes from Lenin on organizational discipline-- well, so did lots of people from Mussolini to contemporary Republican luminary Grover Norquist.

5. You should tell the asshole who sent you this to fuck off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-04 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
9. At Muhammad's death in 632 and for 300 years Christain were majority in
Edited on Fri May-28-04 11:25 AM by papau
the areas where he had taking control.

The great converters took a long time to work to get even a majority of the population converted and those forces of conversion were the obvious sincerity, and most important, the economic laws - no tax - allowed to build, work anywhere - , the no social dumping on you, and the inability under the law of Christains and Jews to try to convert folks, and the actual death penality for changing your mind after conversion to Islam!.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-04 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
10. Here was my response to the guy. Thanks for your suggestions.
I will probably use some of your suggestions again when he writes back.


Wilmer,
Even if the history is true (which I doubt because I can't seem to find anything on the web that portrays the rise of the Muslim religion in this way outside of radical right wing websites or fundamentalist Christian websites) the basic premise of the article is absolutly insain. First of all a study just came out that said the War in Iraq has made the war on terror worse. It's helped al-Quada recruit thousands more terrorists. Second of all it's wrong about how tough Bush is going to be considering the fact that our military is giving up on all the battles against the radical Muslims in Iraq. We have suspended all our offensives against that one Cleric (Al Coder or what ever his name is). Even Bush now sees that aggression is not the answer with these radicals or else he is more worried about his poll numbers and wants Iraq to seem less bloody around election time. So much for Bush not paying attention to polls and being sugh a tough guy.

The bottom line is both the Christian and the Muslim religions have bloody track records. If you and other fundamentalist Christians want to keep building the hate against the Muslim religion rather than try to bring peace then perhaps we are headed to WWIII. But just remember if we do end up in another world war it won't be because of me it will be because of people like you and the guy who wrote that article who are trying to create a rift between Christians and Muslims. I won't be a part of this hate and barbaric childish bickering. This is the 21st Century it's time to act like adults. We can attack the Muslims like that absolutely stupid article does or we can reach out our hands to the innocent Muslims and work for peace. I plan to work for peace but still hope our Government goes after ONLY the radical Muslims. The guilty ones who actually attacked us.
Email: Quixote1818@aol.com

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 08th 2024, 03:40 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC