is fitting nicely
with our bizarre unwillingness
to acknowledge it.
From Islam Watch:
In September of 2001 the President addresses the nation, identifies the enemy as the particular people involved in the attacks, and defines them by the tactics they used. He makes no declaration of war, but pledges to lead us to victory in the war he intends to wage, which, he says, will be long. He defines victory as democracy for the nations behind the attacks. A week later, he reminds us that those who practice the religion of the attackers “must feel comfortable” in America. Two months later, he invites leaders of the religion to the White House, for a prayer meeting.
The President recognized a problem, deplored it, but did not relate it to the meaning, and permanent menace, of the religion of the attackers.
To use terms such as “Terrorist”, “Extremist”, “Islamist”, “Islamofascist” and “Islamic radical” is pure folly. These terms carry no information; they don’t identify the enemy this war is against nor their ideals and goals. These terms also mislead by implying that there is some theological or ideological split within Islam over Islam’s basic principles and regulations. THERE IS NO SPLIT. Islam is and always has been a blueprint which seeks to assimilate all cultures and religions into the Arab/Islamic fold:
"These descriptions are very ugly; it is offensive and an insult to our
religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s
it”: Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey, August, 2007.
“The choices for non-Muslims delineated by Islamic law and Muhammad are
conversion, subjugation, or death”: Qur’an 9:29 (Primary) and the hadith
recorded at Sahih Muslim 4294 (secondary).
Read the whole thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment