Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Islam Is No Religion We Know

Religion of Peace? Islam's War Against the World -- Gregory M. Davis

The mistake Westerners make when they think about Islam is that they impose their own views of religion onto something decidedly outside Western tradition. Because violence done in the name of God is "extreme" from a Western/Christian point of view, they imagine that it must be so from an Islamic one. But unlike Christianity, which recognizes a separate sphere for secular politics ("Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's"), Islam has never distinguished between faith and power. While Christianity is doctrinally concerned primarily with the salvation of souls, Islam seeks to remake the world in its image. According to orthodox Islam, Sharia law – the codified commandments of the Quran and precedents of the Prophet Muhammad – is the only legitimate basis of government. Islam is in fact an expansionary social and political system more akin to National Socialism (NAZI - Indi) and Communism than any "religion" familiar to Westerners. Islamic politics is inevitably an all-or-nothing affair in which the stakes are salvation or damnation and the aim is to not to beat one’s opponent at the polls but to destroy him – literally as well as politically.
As more and more research is done into the nature of Islam, the more objectionable and odious it's naked truth becomes. Islam is not a religion as most of the world's people religion. It is a perversion and abomination, a theory and practice of sheer, raw earthly power. "Religion of Peace?" is a book that every leader of the free world should read - must read - if they intend to remain free.

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.


gen said...

So true. These fallen away Christians of the West retain a twisted bit of christianity that causes them to tolerate everything to their detriment. It is a self-loathing and self-defeating "charity" that defers to all non-western ideas.

atheling2 said...

Excellent post!

Gen is right. Fallen away Christian Europe cannot fight Islam:

"When a religious scheme is shattered, it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful."

Hence the weakness of Europe.

atheling2 said...

ooops, that was GK Chesterton!

Indigo Red said...

Europe is making progress to save themselves. It doesn't look like it on a daily basis, but over the long term Europeans will once again determine their own future free from invading foreign religious fanatics.

atheling2 said...

I wish I had your optimism.

mudkitty said...

So, what IS a TRUE Christian? Is it someone who has to agree with you?

atheling2 said...

What is your point, mudkitty? Spreading mud? Or do you suffer from dyslexia and it's really dumkitty?

If you have to go to someone's blog and ask what real Christianity is then you've got problems. Grow up first, then maybe you might be able to make some sensible and intelligent comments.

Indigo Red said...

Well, mudkitty, that is an excellent question. What is a TRUE Christian?

I guess that depends on what the meaning of "true" is. The words true and tree are joined at the root, etymologically speaking. In Old English, the words looked and sounded much more alike than they do now: "tree" was trow and "true" was trowe. The first of these comes from the Germanic noun *trewam; the second, from the adjective *treuwaz. Both these Germanic words ultimately go back to an Indo-European root *deru- or *dreu-, appearing in derivatives referring to wood and, by extension, firmness. Truth may be thought of as something firm; so too can certain bonds between people, like trust, another derivative of the same root. A slightly different form of the root, *dru-, appears in the word druid, a type of ancient Celtic priest; his name is etymologically *dru-wid-, or "strong seer."

Then there is the meaning of Christian. As an adjective:

-Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

-Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.

As a noun:
-One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

-One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

With that we can ask, "Who is a Christian?" That would obviously be anyone who believes Jesus to be the Son of God. However, Jesus was a Jew and remained so right to the end saying he did not come to change the law, but to fulfill it. He claimed to be the Son of Man and only acquiest when questioned by Pilate if He was the Son of God ("I Am who you say I Am" was what Jesus said, which was a tricky thing to say as "I Am who I Am" was the identity God gave to when Moses asked for God's name.) Christians came later as a result of the preachings of Paul ne Saul. But that is niggling. Of course Jesus was a Christian because he did follow his own teachings. To do otherwise, Jesus would be a hypocrit and we would not remember Him today.

Second question:
"Is it someone who has to agree with you?"
No, not necessarily. As an example, atheling2 and I agree on many things. We do disagree on the existence of any kind of god or God. We also disagree on the Holy nature of Jesus. For me, there is no God to believe or disbelieve, therefore Jesus cannot be the Son of God, however, Jesus can be the Messiah and Savior as those two attributes can be independent of Godliness. He was the messenger (Messiah) of a philosophy that can (and has) saved the lives of millions who wish to believe and practice what He taught. Atheling2 is a Christian in the fullness of that identity, while I am a Christian in the sense that I follow the teachings of a very earthly Jesus.

Do people have to agree with me? Only smart people agree with m, and only smart people are my friends. But isn't that the criteria we all use?

atheling2 said...

LOL, Indigo...

Her head is probably spinning right now!

Indigo Red said...

Probably something like the girl in The Exorcist.

atheling2 said...

Spews vomit too.

mudkitty said...

What true Christian sentiments you are all directing at me. I'm sure Christ would aprove. Not!

In case you guys don't know, but in a formal debate, you lose points when you engage in adhominem.

atheling2 said...

You like that word, don't you?

You come to this site and other sites (where I've heard you've been banned) and you attack people there and make sarcastic remarks and then you complain when people hit back? What a crybaby!

mudkitty said...

Name one person here who I've attacked individually? You can't. I attack ideas and ideology.

I'm not complaining, btw - I'm just pointing it out. You're the one complaining, Antthing. Just reread your post and check out your tone.

Indigo Red said...


This is not a formal debate. One can say whatever damn stupid thing one wants. Strident and repetitious arguments with no purpose beyond baiting I hold to be grounds for deletion. Comments I find to be wildly stupid, I will delete the comment as though it never existed. Now, a wildly stupid, but creative comment I will retain for comedic purposes. I will delete until the miscreant just goes away. I delete comments that use the word "adhominem" just because, and those that have "Not!" at the end of what is suppossed to be an ever so clever sentence.

Since you have apparently forgotten, I am an atheist. I am not bound by any Christian rules of Robert. As Tim and I pointed out at Christ Matters, you have no idea what Jesus said. Besides, if you are so sure of what Christ would or would not approve, why don't you just come out and say you've come again. (Yes, there is a sarcastic pun there.)

"Name one person here who I've attacked individually? You can't." Maybe you can't, but I certainly can because you then go on to say, "I'm not complaining, btw - I'm just pointing it out. You're the one complaining, Antthing." (note: it sould be - "Name one person WHOM I've attacked..." or, better, just leave out who/whom because the sentence flows better: "Name one person I've attacked individually." See? Much better.) A2's remark, "What a crybaby!" is an observation. She and others have seen the behavior and she (A2, in this case) is pointing it out in the hope the behavior will cease; atheling2 is trying to help, I'm sure.

ANTTHING?! If name-calling or name - mangling is not an individual attack (aggress, assail, assault, beset, fall on or upon, go at, have at, sail into, storm, strike. Informal: light into, pitch into), then I don't know what is and neither does Mr.Funk, Mr.Wagnal, Mr.Webster, Mr.Roget, or Mr.New College.

"Atheling" is a good name denoting an Anglol-Saxon nobleman, especially an heir to the throne.

Calmly and knowledgably, answer this: what the hell kind of stupid name is "mudkitty"? Now that is an attack. One can even "hear" the obnoxious tone.

Want to try out the delete button? Or shall we play nice to a somewhat reasonable degree by staying with the subject at hand which is this:

1) Is Islam a religion as Western Civilzation has come to know religion? (Western civilization because that is MY frame of reference and this is MY blog.)

2) Or is Islam something akin to religion, but different requiring the West to re-evaluate our concept of Islam and the nature of the enemy we face in the 21st Century?

3) Or should we re-evaluate what a religion is as a US Circuit Court has done by ruling Atheism to be a religion - Atheist Religion, now there is an oxymoron.

atheling2 said...


Indigo, I've never seen you wallop a moonbat before!

Indigo Red said...

Well, if that a wollop be, then this is a kangaroo court!

Truthfully, mudkitty is one moonbat that does cause me to think and defend my own positions. There have been others, even John (flush) for a brief time, and a clown from Lisbon. Both got strident and baiting and met the delete button until they went away - kind of like the Billy Mummy charactor on the Twilight Zone.

And she brings up my hit score! So thanks, mudkitty. Like John Kerry, you're just what Carl Rove ordered.

atheling2 said...

You know, I ignored mudkitty's comments until she made a snide remark about a photo of some of our soldiers praying in Iraq. That did it. So yes, I lit into her. And yes, my "tone" is sarcastic and rude. She deserves it.

As for her invoking Christian principles when I attack her, what a HYPOCRITE! You think you can come here and insult our troops, insult your host and insult his guests and expect us to "turn the cheek"? What cowards you liberals are! You only troll these sites and wrongly criticize conservatives and Christians thinking they cannot strike back. Well you're wrong, moonbat.

I despise people like you. I have nothing but contempt and derision for you and your type. Your adolescent preenings, filled with childish anger towards your parent nation only reflects how self absorbed with masturbatory emotions and resentments you are, with little real effective contact with the checks and balances of reality.

So, I promise you, I will slap you every time you poke your spiteful, malicious little face here or any other site I visit.

atheling2 said...


Really? You're an atheist? If there was no God there would be no atheists! ;)

mudkitty said...


mudkitty said...

A2 - do you know what tautology is?

Indigo Red said...

Mudkitty said;

Yes, and you have failed - "F".

mudkitty also said:
"A2 - do you know what tautology is?"

More importantly, do you know you are tautological. And tiresome, too?

mudkitty said...

Actually, it's A2 who was being tautolgical. But thanks for looking it up.

Are you down with the way A2 speaks to your posters, regarless of their political pursuasion?

Indigo Red said...

I don't have to look up words. The tautologaliztion of America has been going on for a long time. It's just alot easier to spot, because by nature, the arguments are simpler, ill-thought out, ending where they began being their own proof.

Do you watch "Survivor"? The first people voted off the island are always the annoying folk.

I tend to agree with A2 far more often than I disagree. It's that bird of a feather thing, but there is the problem of the first egg. No matter, A2 is good egg.