On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Travis <[email protected]> wrote: Islam is not a religion. It is a cult of hate and death. It needs to be wiped from the planet.
==== (Or reform, just as Christianity and Judaism has reformed countless times, over the course of four centuries....) > > > > > > The finest Muslim catechism of all time. An admirable summary of the > world's worst religion. I dare any Muslim to contradict any point you made. > My compliments. > > > > http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/03/the-sharia-catechism.html > > > The Sharia Catechism > > I must admit that when I first began studying Islam and its political > manifestations, I found myself puzzled and put off by the sheer foreignness > and apparent complexity of the issues—in much the same way that patriotic > Americans who supported the free market and a free society felt when > confronted (during the 1930s) with the growth and influence of the global > Communist movement. Did one really need to learn German—and the science of > economics—in order to read Karl Marx, then Russian to master the subtleties > of Leninist and Trotskyite theory? > > If you wanted to be an academic you certainly did, but the average American > who became an informed opponent of Communism was loath to dedicate so much > of his time and energy to the intimate study of worldviews he knew—on the > face of it—were incompatible with all his deepest values and the best > interests of his country. What is more, he felt he could judge a tree by its > fruits—the nature of which was clearly apparent to any honest observer (but > not to dupes <http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/12/old-dupes-and-new.html>) > from reports by escapees from Soviet Russia. Does one really need to master > the thousands of pages of bad economics and clunky, reductionist philosophy > penned by Marx and his minions to know that an economic system based on > obliterating property rights and forcing men to abandon their inherent > self-seeking was doomed to famines and tyranny? > > Surely it helped that men like Ludwig von Mises provided devastating > analyses of the flaws in Marxist theory—such as Mises' classic > essay<http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf>on how any form of socialism destroys > the price system, that elegantly > efficient method of matching human work with human wants, and can only hope > to replace it by reshaping civilization on the model of a termite colony. > But a simple knowledge of history and human nature would have pointed the > same conclusion. > > Even monasteries populated by men who have voluntarily renounced property, > progeny, and freedom of action—by embracing the Evangelical Counsels of > poverty, chastity, and obedience—have frequently failed in their mission. > The reason the world came to have so many Benedictine orders—the Cluniacs, > the Trappists, the Cistercians—is that the original ideal was so hard to > live, that monasteries quickly became corrupt, and had to give way to new > “reform” branches that promised (this time!) to really live up to St. > Benedict's Rule. Much the same story unfolded among the Franciscans and even > the Carmelites. If voluntary recruits to self-selected communities upheld by > contemplative prayer cannot reliably hold to such anti-instinctual standards > of behavior, what conceivable earthly power could enforce them on the mass > of men? Only an all-encompassing tyranny more comprehensive than any the > world had yet seen. A simple reading of *The Communist Manifesto *would > have revealed its final program: godless monasticism, enforced at the point > of a bayonet. The real essence of socialism was exposed by a wistful > socialist, George Orwell, whose depiction in *1984 *of the ideology he > called “Oligarchical > Collectivism<http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/go-goldstein.html>” > unveiled the ideology in its essence: “If you want a picture of the future, > imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.” His Ingsoc Party indeed > favors an infernal, secular parody of monasticism, opposing on principle > prosperity, eros, and liberty. Intelligent observers of Soviet policies > could—and many did—draw such conclusions. > > Likewise, honest readers of the Qur'an and other authoritative Muslim texts > can draw certain conclusions, which all the evasions and obfuscations of > pseudo-moderate Muslims (remember > Eurocommunism<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocommunism>? > Anyone? It was all the rage in respectable liberal circles while I was in > college in the 80s.) cannot obscure. Let me lay out my own no-nonsense take > on the question, in a form I'll call the Sharia Catechism: > > *What does Islam teach?** Islam teaches that it is the final revelation > from God, and the only legitimate world religion. All other faiths, or > secular world views, are either idol-worship, blasphemous parodies of Islam, > or degenerate perversions of it.* > > *When was Islam founded?** Islam was founded when Abraham made his > covenant with God. The Jews who claimed that this covenant constituted > Judaism are lying (as is their wont), and relying on faked scriptures that > their scheming ancestors crafted to suit their own ethnic aggrandizement.* > > *Where are the original scriptures recounting the history of Abraham, > Moses, and other early Muslims?* *These original scriptures no longer > exist. They were destroyed and replaced by the crafty Jews.* > > *Who was Jesus?* *Jesus (Isa) was a Muslim prophet who came as the Messiah > to recall the faithless Jews to their Muslim faith. The true accounts of his > life and message were altered beyond recognition by the scheming > Christians—who also spread the lie that he was crucified, and rose from the > dead.* > > *Where are these original Gospels? **These original Gospels were destroyed > by the early Christians (who were also, we must remember, Jews), shortly > after they were written—in order to cover up their clear predictions of the > coming of Muhammad.* > > *Will Jesus come again at the end of the world?* *Yes, Jesus will come > again to destroy Christianity, kill all the pigs in the world, and end > dhimmitude—by forcing all Christians either to convert to Islam or be killed > (like the pigs). * > > *What is the proper treatment of non-Muslims?* *When Muslims are weak, > they should practice tolerance of unbelievers, and ask for similar > tolerance. As they grow in numbers, they must harden their attitudes as > Muhammad hardened his once he commanded an army in Medina. Muslims should > spread their faith by conquest; by preaching; and by emigrating to > non-Muslim countries and demanding tolerance—then once they are strong > enough, they should impose the true faith on the government where they can. > Polytheists should then be allowed to convert or else be killed; monotheist > infidels such as Jews and Christians should be offered a third option: > Utter, willing subjection to Muslims, with their obedience binding on pain > of death. These non-believers must pay a special, heavy tax and keep quiet > about their religion, not trying to spread it.* > > *So if Jews accept their proper role as dhimmis, they are in theory > welcome in Muslim societies?* *Yes and no. In theory, yes. In practice, > no. The atrocity of Zionist control of the Muslim holy city of Jerusalem is > so great that no Jews should remain in Muslim countries. They are simply too > crafty and dangerous. * > > *Is sharia law an intrinsic part of Islam?** Yes, it is as basic to > Muslims as the Torah is to Jews and the sacraments are to Orthodox and > Catholics. It is how Muslims live out their faith in the world.* > > *Must Muslims seek to impose sharia?* *Only where it seems likely they > will succeed. Until then, they should deceive the unbelievers, as Islamic > ethics allow.* > > *What about Muslims who oppose sharia and religious discrimination?* *They > are bad > Muslims<http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/12/kreeftspencer-debate-transcript-is-the-only-good-muslim-a-bad-muslim.html>, > and they will burn in hell with all the Christians, Jews, and > idol-worshippers. But we should not say this openly until we are strong > enough throughout the West. Until then, it benefits us to highlight such > people, and claim that they are representative.* > > *What about those who oppose Islam?* *They are enemies of God who deserve > death in this life and eternal punishment in the next. However, if it helps > us fight them more effectively, we can call them “racists,” “xenophobes,” > and “Islamophobe.”* > > *What is an Islamophobe?* *An Islamophobe is someone who opposes sharia, > and is unwilling either to convert or beg for the protection of dhimmitude. > * > > *Whom should we call an Islamophobe?* *Anyone who gets in our way. * > > Posted by Roland Shirk on March 18, 2011 6:08 PM > > > > > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
