2 posts tagged “westernism”
This is the latest of the comment battle I have been having with Talha, a Mohammedan person who has taken exception to my penchant to reveal the politically incorrect truth about Mohammedanism. The original post was The West Needs to Understand Islamist Paradigm of War.
Talha said:
if u have problem with the very point of people engaging in fighting at all, then WWII, japan, vietnam, iraq, afghanistan and iraq again, r gross violations of christianity. then u'll have to abolish the death penalty. then, saddam hussein should have lived, along with the entire hamas leadership. hitler should have lived, too.
Christians have developed a concept of what is a Just War. The theme is self-defense. Contrarily Mohammedans war to convert people to their cult, enslaved to an inferior social and civil right position or death. The death penalty is a point of argument between Christians in America for the very reasons you imply. In Europe, most nations have abolished the death penalty as punishment for heinous murderous crimes.
Yet in Middle Eastern nations and in Western Nations (if a Mohammedan can get away with it) War is still practiced according to the Mohammedan holy writings, also to mention frivolous death penalty executions for honor (whatever a Mohammedan perceives that to be) being violated, adultery, homosexuality and such are death penalty crimes. Most mysteriously to the Westerner who believes in Free Speech and Liberty, Mohammedans will execute individuals who might insult their psycho-prophet Mohammed or insult Islam in general.
To Bible believing Christians (there are actually Christians on the Left that cherry pick Biblical Scripture and morality), practices such as homosexuality and adultery are sins accepted in secularized society. Bible believing Christians believes these sins are something to be repented of or the lifestyle will face judgment in the next life.
Talha said:
but us see, sometimes it is necessary to fight in order to keep / restore peace. islam does not deal in doctrines that r unviable. u cant always turn the other cheek.
so having established the necessity for war, islam seeks to rein it in with proper standing procedures that ensure that cruelty and vengeful measures dont become the norm in war.
So you are saying Mohammedanism has something comparable to a Just War concept. That is good.
On the other hand the Islamist who says they follow the letter of the Mohammedan holy writings is NOT utilizing procedures to prevent cruelty and vengeful acts. Now days Islamists even attack their co-religionists if they fail their interpretation of Mohammedan holy writings.
Talha said:
in simplest terms, as soon as war is necessitated for a christian nation, religions has to be chucked out the window, cuz ur religion doesnt tell u wat to do in such a situation. islam, on the other hand, gives u procedures regarding war and ensures that excesses r not committed even in war.
Again Christians have the Just War concept and again Mohammedan war is brutal and savage even today in the modern world.
Talha said:
as per ur allegation of rape being allowed in islam, let me categorically state that rape is not allowed in Islam, in any circumstance. whether women be in a veil or they walk around threadbare, u cant rape them according to any islamic injunction.
back in the 600s, when women werent considered full citizens in any nation of the world (the US only gave them voting rights in the 1920s).
does rape occur in muslim nations, yes.
is there any country in the world which is completely free of rape? no.
does rape occur in america? yes.
does christianity allow rape? no.
so u see violations occur all around, which is not to say this is right. it is very, very wrong!!! but u also need to see, it is a violation, both of christianity and of islam.
In FACT the rape of fakir women is a part of the practice of humiliating fakir men. (The Fakir is the infidel or unbeliever in Mohammedanism.)
In Western Europe rape is an occurrence perpetrated on fakir women by Mohammedan males are on a scale way beyond the statistics of the rape of women by European males on European women or Mohammedan women. The statistics are so high that (at least at one time) Sweden and Norway refused to publish the statistics of Mohammedans raping European women.
The Islamic legal manual ‘Umdat al-Salik, which carries the endorsement of Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, stipulates: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” [Emphasis Mine]
Anti-Jihad scholar Robert Spencer adds: “So that they are free to become the concubines of their captors. The Qur’an permits Muslim men to have intercourse with their wives and their slave girls: “Forbidden to you are ... married women, except those whom you own as slaves” (Sura 4:23-24).” [Emphasis Mine]
More from Robert Spencer about words from the lips of Mohammed to the ears of fanatical Islamic soldiers: “After one successful battle, Muhammad tells his men, “Go and take any slave girl.” He took one for himself also. After the notorious massacre of the Jewish Qurayzah tribe, he did it again. According to his earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad “went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for [the men of Banu Qurayza] and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches.” After killing “600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900,” the Prophet of Islam took one of the widows he had just made, Rayhana bint Amr, as another concubine.
Emerging victorious in another battle, according to a generally accepted Islamic tradition, Muhammad’s men present him with an ethical question: “We took women captives, and we wanted to do ‘azl [coitus interruptus] with them.” Muhammad told them: “It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection.’” When Muhammad says “it is better that you should not do it,” he’s referring to coitus interruptus, not to raping their captives. He takes that for granted.” [Emphasis Mine]
Now to some of us who are not up on their Latin, coitus interruptus is defined as: “Coitus interruptus is a Latin term meaning interrupted intercourse. It is the clinical term for the withdrawal method of contraception, which is when a male withdraws his penis from his female partner prior to ejaculating.” [Emphasis Mine]
Talha I have to highly disagree with you that rape is not part of the cultural practice of Mohammedans toward women who are not Mohammedans.
[Source on Mohammedan rape: Rape: Nothing to do with Islam?]
Victor Davis Hanson surmises America has two choices concerning Iraq and Afghanistan:
1. … [W]e can withdraw ground troops and return to punitive and conventional bombing - tit-for-tat retaliation for each attack in the future. That way, the United States stays distant and smacks the jihadists on their home bases below. Few Americans die; terrorists sometimes do. The bored media stay more concentrated on the terrorists' provocations, not on our standoff response from 30,000 feet in the clouds.
2. American forces, at great danger, can continue to change the political and economic structure of the Middle East in hopes of fostering constitutional governments that might curb terrorism for generations. This current engagement demands our soldiers fight jihadists on their vicious turf, but by our humanitarian rules. For this, we must pay the ensuing human and materiel price - all broadcast live on the evening news. (Hanson)
Basically Hanson is saying one path is easy but could lead to increased antagonism from Islamofascist terrorists. The other path is hard yet if successful, could lead to further American soldiers dieing but aiding in a transformation of an economic poverty structure wrapped around despotic rule.
The first option is of little gamble and risk yet would perpetuate a hatred of the West and continued Islamofascist influence toward Mohammedans accepting the radical version preached by Wahhabists and Twelver Shi’ites. My opinion this road will eventually lead to a global confrontation that Mohammedans cannot win due to resources, however they will be able to exact great devastation as the result of oil acquired money buying WMD capabilities.
The second path is directly abhorrent to the politically correct Left in both Europe and America, as well as a growing amount of pro-Arab Republicans. Why? It requires a gamble of long term blood, money and resources that may or may not succeed. I personally am leaning to the opinion that Western Democratic principles cannot even be accepted by a so-called moderate Mohammedanism. The absolute revulsion of anything not Mohammedan is a superiority complex programmed into their religious/civic ideology from the days of their so-called prophet.
I think the West should embark on a path that the Third World certainly would call imperialism. That is to force a form of democracy on the Middle East that Mohammedanism could live with even though it would still be repugnant to the West. A Mohammedan democracy would be a theocratic democracy in which women and non-Mohammedans would suffer a second or sub class status. However there would be a rule of law. This is the compromise the West should embark on political experimentation.
Then there is the issue of Mohammedan immigration to the West. Again, this is not a politically correct solution; however it is solution that has worked in the past to protect European culture. Mohammedans should be welcome in the West as long as they do not expect to be treated differently than Western Culture. I say Western Culture because Europe currently is more secular and humanistic and America is more religious with a leaning toward (gag) secular humanism.
Secular Humanism is as much unacceptable to Mohammedan thought as it is to the Christian Right in America. Sharia Law cannot be accepted as one rule for Mohammedans in the West while the West continues with its Western Heritage of Liberty and Rights. Eventually the West would fall to pieces into a Dark Age of lawlessness as Westerners became fed up with Mohammedans and visa-a-versa.
Sounds harsh huh? I do not about you but I am not willing to give up special privileges to Mohammedans in my nation at the hurt of my Christian heritage. And though a Secular Humanist does not see it now because of a pathetic politically correct passivism, I doubt the Left is willing to give up the agenda of a humanistic society. If the West wakes up, the Slanted Right and The Slanted Left actually have a mutual enemy: it is radical Mohammedanism.
