Perspectives: 'Sudden Jihad Syndrome' - A reason to carry firearms for self-defense

[Derek Zeanah]

TheXrayBoy:

I snipped a portion of my last post that went something like "you forgot to mention nuking Mecca, building internment camps, and flattening most of the middle east." I thought it was a cheap shot and edited it out.

It wasn't though. You sir, have a lot of hate inside of you.

 

[Art Eatman]

xrayboy, I think you're making a very common mistake:

"The stated goal of Islam is world domination and the destruction of all non muslims."

The stated goal of all missionaries of whatever religion is to proselytise such that all eventually convert to that faith. Whichever religion "wins" then dominates the world. If all convert from one faith to another, that first faith is then no longer in existence and is thus destroyed.

During my rather long lifetime I've met a fair number of missionaries who were/are Christians. They're peaceful folks, not dominating or destroying through violence. It's the same for many others, as well. But they all proselytise.

Which gets me back to the difference between your basic Islamic--who's peaceful--and the Jihadist--who's not.

Keep 'em separate.

Art

 

[TexasRifleman]

And this is where these things always end up. XXXXXXXX entertainment personality says it's so, so it's got to be, regarldless of the actual words of the Qur'an or of the history of the religion since its inception.

OK, so I hear this argument all the time, but I never see anyone post the text of the book that is in question and give an alternate explanation for what is written.

There has to be some line or 2 that can be turned one way or another, kind of like what the Anti's do to the 2A.

I haven't (and don't plan on) read the thing so let's see the original text from where this confusion stems.

I'm not talking moments in history where Islam did something good, I'm talking the specific Koran text.

Why is that?

 

[thexrayboy]

I once dated a young lady from Beirut, she was a Marionite Catholic but spoke Arabic. She grew up in the prelude to the 75 civil war in Lebanon.
I learned a great deal about the culture of her country and also about why
Muslims could not be trusted. Having grown up with Islamic believers she
knew all too well their goals and methods for spreading Islam. Even in times of peace non Muslims were in danger when around groups of Muslims.

If you do a little research on your own you can find articles written by former
Muslims. People who grew up as believers of Mohammed but have renounced their faith due to the violence it seeks. The information is available. All you need do is look for it. Many of these authors now have a price on their head for apostasy.

 

[shootinstudent]

TexasSIGman,

That is because you haven't actually read anything written by a Muslim about the Qu'ran.

I'm continually baffled by people who make these claims. Not even Osama bin Laden himself claims that the Qu'ran permits killing non-Muslims simply for being non-Muslim. The most radical of the radicals do not make this claim. The only place I've ever seen it, ever, is in english-speaking anti-Muslim press....

Which is almost certainly where you got it. Am I wrong?

 

[bogie]

So many nutjobs, so little kool-aid...

We oughta just put 'em all in little rooms, two by two. Well reinforced rooms.

Give one a grenade, and the other the pin, and see if they can work it out.

Frankly, we're more likely to see "sudden hacked off at the ol' lady so I'm gonna shoot up her workplace" syndrome, but not by a lot.

In fact, if you don't do illegal drugs and don't associate with those who do, you're a lot more likely to just witness "Let's just go to the range, and then bbq, syndrome."

Now could everyone involved here just back it up a little, and attempt to think? I know you can do it. I've seen you do it. Now act like educated adults.

 

[thexrayboy]

From a publication called Islam Undressed.

Muslim deception.

The Arabic word, "Takeyya", means "to prevent," or guard against. The principle of Al-taqiyya (also called taqiah, Al-takeyya, Al-taqiyah, or kitman) conveys the understanding that Muslims are permitted to lie as a preventive measure against anticipated harm to one's self or fellow Muslims. This principle gives Muslims the liberty to lie under circumstances that they perceive as life threatening. They can even deny the faith, if they do not mean it in their hearts. Al-taqiyya is based on the following Quranic verse:

"Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution (prevention), that ye may Guard yourselves from them (prevent them from harming you.) But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah." Surah 3: 28

According to this verse a Muslim can pretend to befriend infidels (in violation of the teachings of Islam) and even display false adherence with their unbelief to prevent them from harming Muslims. Under this concept of Taqiyya, if under the threat of force, it is legitimate for Muslims to act contrary to their faith. The devout are taught that in such circumstances the following actions are acceptable: Drinking wine and alcoholic beverages, abandoning prayers, skipping fasting during Ramadan, renouncing belief in Allah and Muhammad, kneeling in homage to a deity other than Allah, and uttering insincere oaths and covenants.

Al-taqiyya and dissimulation refer to the practice of Muslims blatantly lying to non-Muslims, but the principal goes beyond mere lying for propaganda purposes. In accordance with this license to deceive, during time of weakness the Qur'an allows Muslims to have both a declared agenda and a secret agenda. The theological principle of Taqiyya means hiding one's true beliefs and intentions to confuse ones adversaries and enable mujahedeen to operate freely amongst enemies.

 

[shootinstudent]

thexrayboy,

What reason do you have to believe that "Islam Undressed" is telling the truth, and that it's accurate?

 

[thexrayboy]

And a little more lite reading....

[/Most Muslims are familiar with the principles and concepts of Islam that justify lying in situations where they sense the need to do so. Principals taught by Muhammad such as "War is deception", "The necessities justify the forbidden", and, "If faced by two evils, choose the lesser of the two", are derived from passages in the Qur'an and the Hadith. But when confronted with writings of their own revered scholars on the subject of dishonesty, Muslims hold true to form and in the spirit of what they know is allowed, will lie about lying. An example of Islamic deception is that Muslim activists always quote the passages of the Qur'an from the early part of Mohammed's ministry while living in Mecca. These texts are peaceful and exemplify tolerance towards those that are not followers of Islam. All the while, they are fully aware that most of these passages were abrogated (cancelled and replaced) by passages that came after he migrated to Medina. Another example is in the conduct of Saudi Arabia in the war on terror. Words of support and promises of reform flow easily to Americans, but actions to date demonstrate they are only words, meant for our consumption only.

Unfortunately, passages from the Qur'an clearly reveal that lying is permitted, particularly in reference to non-believers in conflict with Muslims. It is also clear that if forced to do so, Muslims may lie under oath and can even falsely deny faith in Allah, as long as they maintain the profession of faith in their hearts. In the Qur'an, Allah says: "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness (vain) in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing." Surah 2:225. The principal also has support in the Qur'an 3:28 and 16:106.
QUOTE]

 

[TexasRifleman]

OK look, I asked for a simple thing and I get the same rhetoric.

So, I'll make it simple. I'll post some from the book and you defend the text.

Koran 17:16-17
When we decide to destroy a population, we send a definite order to them who have the good things in life and yet transgress; so that Allah's word is proved true against them: then we destroy them utterly. How many generations have we destroyed after Noah? And enough is thy Lord to note and see the Sins of his servants

Koran 8:37
In order that Allah may seperate the impure from the pure, Put All the impure ones (Non-Muslim), one on top of the another in a Heap and cast them into Hell. They will be the ones to have lost

Koran 2:8-10
In their (Non-Muslims) hearts is a disease; and Allah has increased their disease and grievous is the penalty they will incur, because they are false.

Koran 58:5
Those who resist Allah and His Messenger will be crumbled to dust, as were those before them: for we have already sent down Clear Signs and the Unbelievers will have a humiliating Penalty...

Koran 2:39
Those who reject faith (Islam) and belie our signs, They shall be Companions of the Fire and abide in it.

I'll stop for now. I have about 40 more stanzas I'd like clarification on, when you are done.

Oh, I forgot. I'm not supposed to understand the Koran am I.

Koran 17:46-47
And we put coverings over their hearts and minds, lest they should understand the Koran, and we put deafness in their ears; when you commemorate your Lord (Allah) and Him alone in the Koran

This thread is going to get locked no question, and that's probably best for THR.

 

[shootinstudent]

Not to be nit-picky...but how seriously can you take a writer who claims to be exposing a complicated theology written in arabic, when this writer doesn't know the difference between "prinicpal" and "principle"? (see last line in above text)

 

[thexrayboy]

Somewhere along the line we as rational persons must decide whether to believe Muslims as to the meaning and intent of the Quran or whether to believe secular language experts who have translated the Quran and its
writings. If we listen to the Muslims they tell us what the Quran says about
taking over the world is not true. I believe they are lying to us. The Quran gives them that option. I choose to believe the secular interpretations and take them as written. If you choose to believe Islam that is your choice. If I am wrong then I offended some Muslims. BFD. If those who believe Islams
explanations are wrong then the outcome can be the destruction of freedom.

Which is the rational choice.

Arguments and discussions about religion invariably end up in emotional battles about beliefs. A theological belief
can neither be proved nor disproved. The question should not be what did Mohammed intend or not intend. That is subjective.
What is not is the actions of Mohammeds followers.

 

[bogie]

Campers, one can take quotations out of context from just about any source, and make it appear to be the next great evil.

Bottom line: We all started in the same place. And now we have, quite literally, some warring factions. But we've got a LOT more people who'd just rather all coexist peacefully.

Now, which group are YOU in?

 

[JWarren]

I've been reading this thread since it opened, but there was no way I felt I should comment here. Frankly, even with a gun-related theme, I'd rather see this thread closed. Religion--especially in the context of our current world situation-- is a hot-bed subject. Furthermore, it is a discussion where the participants have varying degrees of understanding or experience. That's a recipe for disaster.

I want to be completely forthcoming here. I've been-- at times-- very open-minded about things. At times, I've been very close-minded. I have had very limited experience with Islam as a whole-- but the two most personal experiences have been negative. During the events of 9/11, I lived in FL. At the time I was dating a Syrian Muslim college professor. I won't get into the details of it, but the event of 9/11 uncovered her satisfaction that the USA got "what we had coming." During that same period of time, my friend and co-worker who was a Muslim from Tanzania abruptly asked for an emergency 1 month leave to return to Tanzania 5 days before the attacks of 9/11. He never returned

Out of a VERY limited pool of experience, I had two situations where I was either appauled at the attitude, or suspicious of possibly involvement (remember, the 9/11 hijackers lived in FL for a period of time.) A knee-jerk analysis of this could conclude that there was a significant threat among US muslims.

I will admit that this has affected me from time to time since these events.

However...

I have a neighbor (the business beside my office) who is Muslim-- which is rather unusual in rural south MS.) I've had the pleasure of talking to him on a wide variety of points over the last several years. I've even met his wife and beautiful little girls. What does this mean to my stereotype? I can't believe-- and have no reason to believe-- that this smiling man (he always has a smile) is a cold-blooded killer.

Even prior to posting this post, I read practically every post Derek has made in this forum. I'd challenge anyone to find anything out of line in his posts. You are FAR more likely to find somewhere that *I've* said something out of line. I don't know Derek at all--except from posts he has made on here. Because I DID read through his posts, I can tell you that I've seen a person who is polite, knowledgable on the things he posts about, WILLING to help others, and tolerant of opposing points of view. Frankly, I wish I could demonstate those characteristics more often. Anyone that wants to toss around stereotypes should really consider this:

THR is a diverse community. We have Christians, Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, and (enter religion here) on this board. We have people from a wide variety of ethnic origin here. We have people from a wide range of social realities and perspectives here. Since Derek DOES own this little red wagon, that probably does speak a LOT about tolerence. Kinda flies in the face of a stereotype or two, in my opinion.

Derek, I am not sucking up to you as administrator of this board. I love THR, and visit every day. Frankly, if I felt that I HAD to suck up to anyone, I believe my love for this board would fade instantly. What I am doing is being completely honest with myself and this community-- and giving credit where credit is due.


The fact that we all can take The HIGH ROAD here speaks a lot about human nature, and possibly gives us a little faith in it.


John

 

[shootinstudent]

TexasSigMan,

Sure

Koran 17:16-17

This one is obvious from the quote itself. It's God saying that he alone decides who to destroy, and that he will do it if you disobey him, like he did to the people around Noah. How on earth does that relate to this topic?

Koran 8:37

"Non-Muslim" is the anti-Muslim website's insertion, not the text. Again, this is speaking of how God will judge the good from the bad in the end...what's the relevance? This exactly what the gospels say also...so I don't see the point.

Koran 2:8-10

Again, basic theology. People who disobey God are punished by God. Exactly the same as Jesus on the mount. I don't see the relevance of this either.

Koran 17:46-47

Correctly predicting that not everyone will become Muslim and that not everyone obeys God.

You didn't post a single verse that even on its face commanded violence. Instead, you posted a bunch of verses that replicate the teachings of the Christian gospel: that God judges good and bad, and punishes the bad.

 

[thexrayboy]

Not even Osama bin Laden himself claims that the Qu'ran permits killing non-Muslims simply for being non-Muslim.

First must come the offer to convert to Islam, if the offer is refused......

However if a muslim does something to offend me I cannot react violently and use God or some belief system as my rationale.
If I offend a muslim and he tries to kill me it is an acceptable act as I have offended Islam. That is the heart of the matter.
For us violence should not be used unless unavoidable. For Islam violence is an acceptable tool to be used even when
no physical harm was done, merely an offense to a diety.

 

[shootinstudent]

thexrayboy,

No, that's not what the kooky bin ladenites say either.

 

[bogie]

Guys, there are people from just about ANY religion who wanna go out and kill folks in the name of their religion.

I have a term for those folks:

Nutjob.

Now can we get back to figuring out WHY we need to carry firearms for defense? I mean, I could have a Sudden Keeley Hazell Syndrome happen to me, but it sure isn't all that likely...

 

[thexrayboy]

From the horses mouth so to speak...

http://muslim-responses.com/Islam_on_Lying/Islam_on_Lying_

So as you can see, Muslims are allowed to only lie during battle, essentially in war.

If we are not at war with these people than it's a damn good imitation and according to this iman lying during battle, while at war is permissible.

I have heard lots of talk about this source, that source, this quote, that quote. And yes it is hard to take at face value
what we read on the internet. It is too difficult to establish veracity, but I have heard first hand from persons who lived
in the middle east the goals of Islam. These were persons of Christian faith, persons who were Arab in culture but not Muslim in belief. Persons who emigrated away from their homes and
business to America in order to stay alive. To a person they all described how Islam seeks to rule with an iron hand any and
all that come under its sway.

 

[Cato the Younger]

we must not lump all members of a group togeather

"we have got to destroy the 'gun culture'"
"we will hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy"
these are absolutist quotes from those who would take away our Second Amendment rights. All of us on the board would, I assume, reject drawing a link between illegal and legal uses of guns, as some have, by painting the gun culture as inclusive of both the parent taking his or her child out plinking with a .22 and a hoodlum robbing a convenience store. This situation, while not gun related, presents a similar issue- yes, there are individuals of the Muslim faith who wish to do harm to non-Muslims. However, I have dealt with few Muslims, and yes, some of them may have disdain for America. However, many others are patriotic Americans/ good people in general. While it is important to be ready to thwart all terrorist attacks, from whatever quarter they come from, to paint with such a broad brush is inappropriate. Even if 99% of some group is your sworn enemy, and 1% loves you, there is still that good 1%- thus the group as a whole cannot be derided for being wicked. We must judge men as individuals, not as groups, or we risk creating the very monster we fight against in regard to the "gun culture" sterotype- racist rednecks/criminals are the only ones who use guns- i.e. "guns r' bad." Especially if we wish to expand the base of those who embrace the RKBA, we need to be reaching out, not closing in upon ourselves.

 

[TexasRifleman]

we must not lump all members of a group togeather

I don't think anyone is saying all Muslims are going to do horrible nasty things.

What I am saying is that the religion itself seems from all appearances and readings I can find to proport violence to the extreme and the article that kicked off the posting gave some real life examples where this has occurred.

That those things happened is not up for debate.

That they are directly connected to Islam is up for debate but that debate probably does not need to occur on The High Road.

Again, I'm really hoping this is locked soon. It does not need to be here.

 

[thexrayboy]

Again, I'm really hoping this is locked soon. It does not need to be here.

Whether or not this subject belongs on THR is a good question. However this subject needs to be dealt with and understood by free Americans. If not here somewhere, for to ignore it is to empower those who would enslave us. Just
like the anti 2A forces who seek to divide us and conquer us. Just as there are persons who do not mean us harm but nonetheless
want to disarm us, there are persons of Islamic faith who do not seek violence yet support a belief that engenders violence.
An individual my not be evil but if that individual supports a faith, a political party or a belief that is harmful to me than that
person is a problem. Not to be hated or harmed necessarily but certainly not to be ignored as harmless either.

 

[bogie]

Guys, for that matter, there's a lot of Bad Craziness in the old testament - i mean, human sacrifice? Let's be serious... And I'm not even gonna go into Revelations... One can take virtually ANYTHING and twist it into hate. Heck - look at Bambi... Thumper actually symbolizes the desire of vegans to stomp mankind into submission.

COME ON!

The fact of the matter is that Pratt, in my opinion, has stepped rather forcefully upon a rather sensitive, and doubtless quite important to him, appendage.

 

[MatthewVanitas]

thexrayboy,

Please tell us, how did you come to "truly understand Islam" such that you know what it teaches better than Muslims do?

Wikipedia!

Well, that and impartial scholarly sites such as muslimevil.org, prophetofdoom.com, etc.

I actually read a few pages of "Prophet of Doom", and admit that it does make many valid points, but discounted it entirely when I found glaring errors. Namely, the section where the PoD author mentions how a man can claim innocence from rape by serving as his own witness (if witnesses to the alleged crime are lacking). The PoD author left out the _very_ next verse, saying a woman could counter his claim of innocence by serving as her own witness as well. That's pretty blatant pick-and-choose, and casts doubt on whatever valid quotations of Quran and Hadith the author chooses.

I am by no means a religious scholar, and I figured the above out in a matter of minutes.

-MV

 

[Derek Zeanah]

I don't have any interest in responding to 60 separate points, thanks (no longer in college debate). I'll respond to your first two though, as I have in previous posts on this topic.

Your first quote is actually fairly straight forward. Let's look at it in context:

[15] Whoever chooses to follow the right path, follows it but for his own good; and whoever goes astray, goes but astray to his own hurt; and no bearer of burden shall be made to bear another's burden.
Moreover, we would never chastise any community for the wrong they may do ere we have sent an apostle to them. [16] But when this has been done, and it is our will to destroy a community, we convey our last warning to those of its people who have lost themselves entirely in the pursuit of pleasures; and if they continue to act sinfully, the sentence of doom passed on the community takes effect, and we break it to smithereens.
[17] And how many generation have been thus destroyed after the time of Noah!

Now, pretend this isn't the Pagan God Allah we're talking about here, and assume instead it's the God of Abraham -- back when he was still mean and did things like hurl fire and brimstone and turn people into pillars of salt, or kill all the firstborn of a community (including lots of innocent kids).

Is this something that, in your mind, doesn't fit in with the Old Testament?

Now, on to number 2:

[36]Behold, those who are bent on denying the truth are spending their riches in order to turn others away from the path of God; and they will go on spending them until they become a source of intense regret for them; and then they will be overcome!
And those who until their death have denied the truth shall be gathered unto hell, [37] so they god might separate the bad from the good, and join the bad with one another, and link them all together within his condemnation, and then place them in hell. Thus they are the lost!
[38] tell those were bent on denying the truth that if they desist, all that is past shall be forgiven them; but if they revert to their wrongdoing and, let them remember what happened to like of them in times gone by.

Now, I'm no biblical or Qur'anic scholar, but this sounds to me like "if'n you're gonna be naughty for your whole life, then you're gonna get punished once you die. You (and those like you) will be gathered together and separated from the righteous God-fearing types, and thrown into Hell to burn forever."

Again, seems fairly straigtforward. Surprising what a good translation, taken in context, will do. By the way the best I've found is The Message of THE QUR'AN, Translated and Explained by Muhammad Asad.