Go Back   Professional Soldiers ® > At Ease > The Soapbox

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

McCarthy: Intolerant Islam
Old 08-17-2010, 18:08   #1
Thomas Paine
Guerrilla
 
Thomas Paine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home of the Free
Posts: 111
Thumbs up McCarthy: Intolerant Islam

Andrew C. McCarthy
August 17, 2010 4:00 A.M.
The Tolerant Pose
Intolerance is not just part of al-Qaeda, it is part of Islam.


Non-Muslims are barred from entering the cities of Mecca and Medina — not merely barred from building synagogues or churches, but barred, period, because their infidel feet are deemed unfit to touch the ground. This is not an al-Qaeda principle. Nor is it an “Islamist” principle. It is Islam, pure and simple.

“Truly the pagans are unclean,” instructs the Koran’s Sura 9:28, “so let them not . . . approach the Sacred Mosque.” This injunction — and there are plenty of similar ones in Islam’s scriptures — is enforced vigorously not by jihadist terrorists but by the Saudi government. And it is enforced not because of some eccentric sense of Saudi nationalism. The only law of Saudi Arabia is sharia, the law of Islam.

As Sunni scholarly commentary in the version of the Koran officially produced by the Saudi government explains, only Muslims are sufficiently “strict in cleanliness, as well as in purity of mind and heart, so that their word can be relied upon.” Thus, only they may enter the holy cities. Authoritative Shiite teaching is even more bracing. As Iraq’s “moderate” Ayatollah Ali Sistani — probably the world’s most influential Shiite cleric — has explained, the touching of non-Muslims is discouraged, because they are considered to be in the same “unclean” category as “urine, feces, semen, dead bodies, blood, dogs, pigs, alcoholic liquors, and the sweat of an animal who persistently eats [unclean things].”

These teachings are worth bearing in mind as we listen to the staunch defenses of religious liberty that have suddenly become so fashionable among proponents of the Cordoba Initiative, a planned $100 million Islamic center and mosque to be built on the hallowed ground where remains of the nearly 3,000 Americans killed by Muslim terrorists on 9/11 continue to be found. The most prominent proponent of the project, President Obama, was in high fashion Friday night, as one would expect at a White House gala in observance of Ramadan. “This is America,” he intoned, “and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.”

The president’s commitment is to a vacant abstraction, not to actual liberty. If his resolve to defend religious freedom were truly unshakable, the last thing he would endorse is the construction of a gigantic monument to intolerance in a place where bigots devastated a city they have repeatedly targeted because of the pluralism and freedom it symbolizes. You can’t aspire to religious freedom by turning a blind eye to the reality of sharia.

Saudi Arabia, the country from which 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers hailed, abides no pluralism or religious freedom. Sure, the Saudis will tell you they allow Christians, Jews, and other non-Muslims to visit their country, which is awfully big of them. Still, the regime prohibits these infidels from polluting the kingdom with their Bibles, crucifixes, and Stars of David.

Mosque proponents like the Manhattan Institute’s Josh Barro scoff at discomfiting comparisons between religious liberty in the United States and in Saudi Arabia. For them, the prospect of a mosque at Ground Zero is our “opportunity to show how we are better than Saudis.” That misses the point in two ways. First, we don’t need to show that we are better than the Saudis. We permit thousands of Muslim houses of worship in our nation, Muslims are celebrated in our public life, and our military has done more to protect and defend Muslims — including in Saudi Arabia — than any fighting force in history. Every objective person already knows that, and anybody who purports to need convincing will never be convinced.

Second and more significant, the comparison of what is permitted in Manhattan and what is permitted in Mecca is not about the Saudis: It is about Islam. Saudi Arabia does not have any law but sharia. Non-Muslims are discriminated against in the kingdom, not because that’s how the Saudis want it. They are discriminated against because that is how the Koran says it must be.

Sura 9:29, the verse of the Koran that immediately follows the commandment to exclude non-Muslims from holy sites, instructs: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the people of the Book [i.e., Jews and Christians], until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

The jizya is a poll-tax imposed on dhimmis. Those are non-Muslims permitted to live in Islamic territories. The concept is that all the world will eventually be under the thumb of sharia authorities, with dhimmis tolerated so long as they accept their subordinate legal and social status (“and feel themselves subdued”). The alternative for dhimmis is war or death.

Nevertheless, Muslims understand that this global mission cannot be completed in a day. In an Islamic country like Saudi Arabia, where they are in a position to impose sharia in full, that is exactly what they do. In other places, the degree of imposition depends on relative Islamic strength, and it increases as that strength increases. Thus, the standard Muslim position on “Palestine,” where Islamic strength is growing but not yet dominant: Muslims are to be permitted to live freely within the Jewish state, but all Jews must be purged from Palestinian territories. Again, that’s not an al-Qaeda position; it’s the mainstream Islamic view. To the extent there is a mainstream dissenting view, it is that the Jewish state should be annihilated immediately — not that the two sides should live in reciprocally tolerant harmony.

In the United States, there is no threat to religious liberty . . . except where there are high concentrations of Muslims. Not high concentrations of al-Qaeda sympathizers — high concentrations of Muslims. As Muslims have flocked to Dearborn, Mich., for example, Henry Ford’s hometown has become infamous for its support of Hezbollah. Recently, four Christian missionaries were arrested by Dearborn police for the crime of handing out copies of St. John’s gospel on a public street outside an Arab festival. The police called it disturbing the peace. But the peace was disturbed only due to the foreboding sense that Muslims might take riotous offense, because sharia forbids the preaching of religions other than Islam.

In Minneapolis, where thousands of Somalis have settled, taxpayers are being forced to support sharia-compliant mortgages and at least one Islamic charter school. Meantime, taxi drivers refuse to ferry passengers suspected of carrying alcohol, and a student in need of a dog’s assistance for medical reasons was driven from school due to threats from Muslim students against him and the animal — because sharia regards canines as unclean.

This aggression is a deliberate strategy, called “voluntary apartheid.” The idea, as explained by influential Sunni cleric Yusuf Qaradawi (the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual guide), counsels that Muslims in the West must push political leaders to indulge what he claims is their “right to live according to our faith — ideologically, legislatively, and ethically.” It is what imam Feisal Rauf means when he urges America to become more sharia-friendly by allowing “religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves, according to their laws.”

This is not the promotion of religious liberty. In America, President Obama observed, religious liberty welcomes “people of all faiths.” Contemporary Islam, by contrast, is counseling supremacism. It rips at our seams, demanding that Americans accept parallel Islamic societies, because Muslims must reject the mores of non-Islamic societies.

This same thinking undergirds Islam’s rejection of freedom of conscience, including the Koran’s prescription, in Sura 4:89, of the death penalty for those who renounce their Islamic faith (“They would have you disbelieve as they themselves have disbelieved, so that you may be all like alike. Do not befriend them. . . . If they desert you seize them and put them to death wherever you find them.”) Again, this is not an al-Qaeda doctrine. As the scholar Ibn Warraq observes, it is the interpretation shared by all classical schools of Muslim jurisprudence.

Moreover, the same theory that considers every Muslim to be a Muslim forever — whether he wants to be one or not — analogously holds that if a given inch of land has ever been under Islamic domain, it is Islam’s property in perpetuity. There is a reason Islamic maps of Palestine do not reflect the existence of Israel and that Spain is called al-Andalus.

There are Muslims who want to change this, Muslims who want to evolve their faith into the light of ecumenical tolerance, Muslims who crave true religious liberty and reject sharia’s repression. These reformist Muslims face a daunting challenge, however. The power and money in the Islamic community is in the grip of the supremacists who pressure Muslims to resist assimilating in America.

It is a challenge that the president — if he actually had an “unshakable” commitment to religious freedom — could help the reformers try to surmount. No one credibly questions the legal right of Muslim landowners to use their property in any lawful fashion. Legality is an irrelevant issue, even if the back-tracking Obama now wants to pretend it is the only one he was really talking about on Friday night. The question here is propriety.
__________________
Do not say this unfatherly expression, "Well! Give me peace in my day."
Rather a generous parent would say, "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace;"
and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty.
  Reply With Quote

Continued...
Old 08-17-2010, 18:10   #2
Thomas Paine
Guerrilla
 
Thomas Paine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home of the Free
Posts: 111
Continued...

This president, uniquely, could have framed that question in the right way. He could have called on Muslims who claim to be moderate to reject Hamas, Hezbollah, and al-Qaeda explicitly, by name and without equivocation. He could have called for them to support freedom of conscience, to support the right of Muslims to leave the faith. He could have called for Muslims to reject the second-class citizenship to which sharia condemns women and non-Muslims. He could have demanded that they accept the right of homosexuals to live without fear of persecution. He could have called for a declaration that sharia is a matter of private contemplation that has no place in the formation of public policy.

If the Ground Zero mosque were understood as standing for those values, it would be a monument worth having: A testament to the rise of a uniquely American Islam that stands foursquare against the hate-filled ideology we’re fighting, an Islam for which Americans would be proud to fight. But that’s not in the cards for a president whose idea of a symbolic gesture is a bow to the Saudi king and an open door to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The president may not have noticed, but the commitment of the Saudis and the Muslim Brotherhood to religious intolerance is utterly unshakable.

— Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, is the author, most recently, of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.


LINK:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...rew-c-mccarthy
__________________
Do not say this unfatherly expression, "Well! Give me peace in my day."
Rather a generous parent would say, "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace;"
and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty.
  Reply With Quote

Logic?
Old 08-17-2010, 21:28   #3
akv
Area Commander
 
akv's Avatar
 
akv is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 1,573
Logic?

I'm not sure I follow the logic here. I'm wondering if Mr. McCarthy is any relation to the late Senator, and what's his point? I wasn't allowed to attend a friends wedding at a Mormon temple so should I be suspicious of Mormons as well? Early Christian ceremonies, particularly "The Mysteries" IIRC were also limited to true believers.

Perhaps my scruffy looks but I've also been declined entrance into a bar in Tokyo, told point blank Japanese only. This was irritating, and economically illogical, but it's their country. Another establishment got my Yen.


Finally, If you are ever lucky enough to visit Istanbul, the Blue Mosque and Hagia Sophia are unforgettable architectural masterpieces and open to all, though "common sense" dictates as in most places of worship wear pants and be respectful if there is a service going on.
__________________
"Men Wanted: for Hazardous Journey. Small wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in case of success.” -Sir Ernest Shackleton

“A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.” –Greek proverb
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-17-2010, 21:31   #4
nmap
Area Commander
 
nmap's Avatar
 
nmap is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 2,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Paine View Post
The president may not have noticed, but the commitment of the Saudis and the Muslim Brotherhood to religious intolerance is utterly unshakable.
Bottom line, they are certain they are correct - and we give clear signals we are certain of nothing.

It seems the Saudis have spent $2 billion annually for about 30 years on propaganda for their side. We've spent little.

See the next-to-the-last paragraph at the LINK
__________________
Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero

Acronym Key:

MOO: My Opinion Only
YMMV: Your Mileage May Vary
ETF: Exchange Traded Fund


Oil Chart

30 year Treasury Bond
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2010, 04:48   #5
Thomas Paine
Guerrilla
 
Thomas Paine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home of the Free
Posts: 111
Agree NMap.

Match you that and raise you this:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ke_wrongs.html

AKV - attack the messenger? Great plan. Does reciprocity mean nothing to you?
__________________
Do not say this unfatherly expression, "Well! Give me peace in my day."
Rather a generous parent would say, "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace;"
and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty.

Last edited by Thomas Paine; 08-18-2010 at 04:50.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2010, 05:10   #6
Don
Quiet Professional
 
Don's Avatar
 
Don is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Jaw-Juh (that's "Georgia")
Posts: 895
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmap View Post
Bottom line, they are certain they are correct - and we give clear signals we are certain of nothing.
Very pithy statement...and very on-target. IMHO, we are destroying ourselves from within by not standing for something. We are a nation divided which has caused our charter/mandate/vision (dont know the precise word right now) to totally stall out. We are not moving the ball forward anymore.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2010, 06:53   #7
edoo118
Asset
 
edoo118 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 21
3 things you didn't know about Islam:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w

Actually, most of you likely already knew this, as I've read most of what the video states on this site. I just found it a well-presented video that should be shown to the defenders of the "religion of peace."
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2010, 07:14   #8
T-Rock
Area Commander
 
T-Rock's Avatar
 
T-Rock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Western NC
Posts: 1,176
Quote:
3 things you didn't know about Islam:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w
Nice - it breaks down the doctrine of "al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh" so simply even a third grader can understand it.

ETA: Interesting article from the ME forum:

Quote:
Conclusions
The issue of abrogation in Islam is critical to understanding both jihad and da'wa, the propagation of Islam. Some Muslims may preach tolerance and argue that jihad refers only to an internal, peaceful struggle to better oneself. Western commentators can convince themselves that such teachings are correct. However, for learned Muslim scholars and populist leaders, such notions are or should be risible. They recognize that, in practice, there is compulsion in Islam. They take seriously the notion that the Qur'an teaches not just tolerance among religions, but tolerance among religions on the terms of Islam. To understand the challenge of the current Islamist revival, it is crucial for non-Muslims and moderate Muslims alike to recognize that interpretation of Islamic doctrine can have two faces, and that the Medinan face may very well continue to overshadow the Meccan face for a major portion, if not the majority, of contemporary Muslim
Source > http://www.meforum.org/1754/peace-or...ation-in-islam
__________________
Logic that makes no sense…
Islam requires a Muslim to wage war against the Kafiroon.
I know someone who is Muslim and doesn't wage war against the Kafiroon.
Therefore, Islam doesn't require waging war against the Kafiroon.
(Right?) ROPMA

Islam was such a desirable creed the Fuehrer longed for it to become the official SS religion.” ~General Alexander Löhr~

Last edited by T-Rock; 08-18-2010 at 07:53. Reason: Additional info...
  Reply With Quote

Religious Reciprocity?
Old 08-18-2010, 20:48   #9
akv
Area Commander
 
akv's Avatar
 
akv is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 1,573
Religious Reciprocity?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TP
AKV - attack the messenger? Great plan. Does reciprocity mean nothing to you?
Mr. Paine,

I’m not sure if your reference to my attacking the messenger is meant to imply yourself or the cited article? If the former, surely someone of your deep conviction understands the world is full of others with varied views, as Americans we are fortunate enough to enjoy the freedom to disagree and debate. Our freedoms paid for by the service of men such as yourself, a fact not lost upon me, on topics of disagreement between us, it is just that as far as I am concerned. If the latter, my take on the article remains, laconically “where’s the beef?

We are most powerful empire in the world and our culture influences the planet, however the world is not America. We are wise to recognize the sovereignty of foreign nations, cultures, and beliefs. The gist of the McCarthy piece by my read is a simple, mechanic, and trite attempt at cultural rationalization. Simply, see we are better than the Muslims because they don’t allow non-believers into their sacred lands. Historically such rationalizations accumulate to the point of justifying nefarious outcomes.

Despite our vast cultural differences and beliefs, the fact that such non-believer exclusion from places of worship exists domestically both presently in the Mormon example, and in our past is ignored. If this exclusion is so pivotal to the sanctity of their faith, fair enough, what bearing does this have on the future outcome for Islam, or to the AQ cells and insurgents we must terminate? Islam will either reform and evolve as other faiths have or lose relevance like many a forgotten religion. Frankly, my initial take is if their message for the world is so singularly appealing, why limit access?

You bring up the notion of reciprocity, generally a reasonable expectation in human interaction, however one which seems fairly nonexistent in matters of religious salvation and faith. There is a difference between tolerance and reciprocity. Given our secular state and cultural institutions we for the most enjoy religious freedom and tolerance in the States. Religious reciprocity though? Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Hindus might allow one another in their temples/churches, but does this reciprocity extend to salvation? A Jew is allowed into Catholic Mass, though not afforded Communion, who raises a stink over this? People understand this is a ceremony reserved for Christians. Is the Haj that much more unreasonable? On the salvation level how many faiths extend salvation reciprocity benefits to non-believers? You can be a great guy and all but if you are a Hindu and have not been baptized or accept Christ as your savior, in the eyes of the church do you still get to go to heaven? It is simply a matter of faith.

A pragmatic instance of this can be found in literature specifically Life of Pi by Martel. A novel in which a young Indian boy realizing his need for faith concurrently joins a Hindu Temple, a Christian Church, and a Mosque. He dutifully attends services in all three and all is well until he runs into his priest, Imam, and Hindu holy man all in the same place with predictably lively results.

So my question again of what relevance to the GWOT is Islamic preference for limited access to their holy lands?
__________________
"Men Wanted: for Hazardous Journey. Small wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in case of success.” -Sir Ernest Shackleton

“A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.” –Greek proverb
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2010, 21:34   #10
Sigaba
Area Commander
 
Sigaba is offline
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by akv View Post
I'm not sure I follow the logic here. I'm wondering if Mr. McCarthy is any relation to the late Senator, and what's his point?
He's trying to sell books.
__________________
We will not be schooled by parking lot attendants.....
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-19-2010, 04:34   #11
Richard
Quiet Professional
 
Richard's Avatar
 
Richard is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: NorCal
Posts: 15,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba View Post
He's trying to sell books.
And himself on the speaker's circuit.
__________________
“Sometimes the Bible in the hand of one man is worse than a whisky bottle in the hand of (another)… There are just some kind of men who – who’re so busy worrying about the next world they’ve never learned to live in this one, and you can look down the street and see the results.” - To Kill A Mockingbird (Atticus Finch)

“Almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.” - Robert Heinlein
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:32.



Copyright 2004-2015 by Professional Soldiers ®
Site Designed, Maintained, & Hosted by Hilliker Technologies