The sentiment may be valid but the comparison is not. The KKK was started as a cultural and political movement and not a religious one. They were never crusaders fighting off infidels for the sake of God. They can claim Christianity all they want, but they have never been able to actually site any religious Christian doctrine that supports the killing of blacks, especially black Christians which at the height of the Klan's power that was their primary target.
The KKK in its entire history has only clung onto Christianity in a lip-service way, and if you have actually ever listened to, or seen a recording of their rallies they really don't even broach the subject of God or spirituality. In their recruitment spiels they go on about cultural erosion, immigration, etc. It is all extreme conservatism, and is all political, not religious.
Like other groups, such as the IRA, they are (or were) terrorists that happened to be Christian. The KKK, IRA and others were never attempting to spread Christianity, and were never attempting to stop a threat to Christianities further existence.
Islamic extremists for one, are not subverting their religion. Islam is comprised of more holy texts than just the Qur'an, which most people don't seem to be aware of. In addition to the Qur'an, there is the biography of Mohammad, and the Hadith which are the sayings and doings of Mohammad as recorded by those close to him in life. There is also the Fiqh which are the recorded expansions of Shari'a; essentially the Shari'a version of Judicial review, with the ruling of the Shari'a courts are used as a precedent for interpretation.
Out of these expanded holy texts that are required, especially in any fundamentalist school of thought are the biography, and the Hadith. The Qur'an promotes a quality of character that is its own Sunni school of thought (although it is widely practiced in Shia as well) called Salifism. Salifism basically prescribes the concept that the Mohammad (as well as some other ancient Muslim figures) are exemplars of behavior. In particular Mohammad, a man of his times, a 7th century Bedouin chief and raider, is the 'perfect man' and all should emulate him as closely as possible.
So, when these Islamic "extremists" actually do commit violent acts, like cutting off the heads of infidels that would not listen to the words of the Prophet, they are not subverting their religion for the purpose of politics like the KKK are. They are in fact, acting as Mohammad did, when he decapitated dissenters and Jews in Medina and elsewhere. They are following an example that Mohammad set forth.
Of course, not all Muslims believe in a Jihadist philosophy. According to a recent poll only about 7.5% of them do (which is unfortunately 91 million Jihadist or Jihadist sympathizers world wide). However, belief aside the reason you will not find many 'moderate' Muslims calling down their Brothers is because they know, that although they don't personally find it morally right or would not personally engage in Jihadist activity, that those Muslims that do are often justified in doing so because their interpretation of their religion is valid.
It is a fallacy of Western media that we claim that this religion was hijacked. I see news reports quite frequently with Muslims and none-Muslims alike saying that Islam does not permit things such as suicide bombings. Unfortunately, the most prominent Imams from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq a massive congregations of Islamic Imams and Shari'a Jurists in Pakistan, as well as well as various other independent Sunni Imams including many very prominent ones all say otherwise. Paradise is in the shade of swords. A Muslim warrior will be granted paradise if he dies fighting even if against overwhelming odds where he cannot win. Suicide bombing is permitted. It is the modern day technological equivalent of a single Muslim warrior charging into an army of Infidels to take down a few before he himself is struck down.
Civilians are not civilians. They are occupying soldiers. The Qur'an states that Allah gave the world to the Muslims, so all territory, is Muslim territory. Infidels must convert, die or for Christians and Jews submit to Shari'a law as second class citizens under Muslim rulership. Refusing to take one of these options makes you an occupational force on Muslim land, and there for fare game for Muslim warriors to target you. This one isn't quite as popular as the condoning of suicide bombing, but obviously present enough for these kinds of attacks to take place across the globe in areas that were never Muslim territory and still grant those suicide bombers and terrorists with the adoration of the Shahid, or martyr.
The religion was not hijacked at all. It is just that many 'moderates' including the Saudi royal family, are comfortable and prefer comfort to war. Jihad is a hard road and most people in their right mind would not choose to live as Usama Bin Laden, especially ones coming from great wealth as he does. On top of that, Muslim leaders throughout the Middle East gain financial benefits from being allied to Western powers and making war with them would be self destructive to that comfort. That doesn't mean that these people are the true bearers of the religious identity of Islam. It just means that they are more or less like every other person of faith on the globe that compromises their religious fundaments for the conveniences and comforts of modern life.
Every time I hear the 'misinterpreted' or 'hijacked' mantra I can just imagine some jackass saying "I don't know who this Ratzinger guy is, but he doesn't seem to know anything about Catholicism. I'll stick to Jon Stewart and Chris Mathews for my religious commentary." Unfortunately for that critical jackass, just like our news anchors, average joe on the street and politicians that Ratzinger guy is Pope and evidently does in fact know something about Catholicism. On the other side of the coin, when hundreds of Mullahs and Imams are telling me one thing about Islam and the white, western, corporate news is telling me another, I am going to take the word of the Imam about Islam.
I don't know if the quote can be attributed to anyone, or if it is even true, but it has been passed around for a long time now in my neck of the woods as something said by a Holocaust survivor.
"If someone says they are going to kill you, you should believe them." Sound advice regardless if it is fabricated or factual.
Religious zealots carrying out terrorist attacks to perpetuate an oppressive religious ideology and back up their actions with actual textual interpretations of their religion also backed up by independent non-Jihadist Imams and Jurists is not the same as the KKK. There really is no ideological similarity.
For the most part, the men on the ground. The actual foot soldiers of Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, Al Qaeda, The Taliban are not fighting a political war. They are fighting a holy war. That is to say, they fight a holy war for a religion that does not separate politics from religion anyway. Still, the point stands. The fighting and dying is for Allah, not for the sake of Shari'a, and all of its glory. Shari'a must be because Allah says it must be. It is not being fought for, based on any empirical analysis that says that this is the best system to use for mankind.
The KKK fights for a strictly white, or Apartheid America based on bigoted politics, not because they asked themselves "What Would Jesus Do?" It should also be noted that the KKK accepts non-Christians. I think you would be hard pressed to find your way into Hamas, or Al Qaeda if you said you were an atheist. You won't have any problem becoming a "Knight" in the KKK even as an open and admitted atheist. Again, outside of the outward representation, they are not a religious organization.
Quoted from the Klan's website...
WHAT IS OUR GOAL ?
POLITICAL POWER
They mention 'divine providence' of the founders of the Klan, but in the entire mission statement of the Klan, no mention of religion is to be found. It is politics, politics, politics all the way. Of course, that doesn't really do anything to make the KKK's goals not despicable, but certainly less ingrained as that most Klansmen do not believe that their afterlife and the worth of their soul in the eyes of God is based upon being racist bastards. This is distinctly different from radical Islamists.
The only radical Christian organization that permits violence that I can think of is Army of God which are a radical anti-abortion group that thinks it has a solemn duty to protect life by killing people. Of course, the majority of the Christian world, even fundamentalists that are pro-life hardliners, still haven't figured out the whole 'killing people saves lives' ideology. It is also obviously not a very big, or very active movement in that I don't know of many people that would forgo a trip into an abortion clinic and just decide to have the baby because they might be killed by terrorists. Unfortunately you are probably in more danger of Islamic terrorists using a tube station as a pregnant women on the way to the clinic or abortion doctor than you are from terrorists that are specifically targeting you for death and harassment.
And no one please bring up the Crusades. It was 800 years ago, and doesn't compare to ongoing terrorism in the modern world. 800 years ago, western Europeans were still largely illiterate barbarians. More importantly, historically, the Crusades ended in the 13th century with the fall of Christian occupied Jerusalem to Muslim forces. Muslim ports and trade route towns from Europe to Asia and Africa were occupied by Christian forces for three more centuries after the end of the Crusades. So, did these bankrupt Christian Kings send the armies of their then overpopulated countries to secure the Holy Land, or were they there to secure the Silk Road, after the Byzantium trade routes were cut off by war? Historically, it seems like that road and those ports were a much bigger deal than the place of Jesus' ministry and execution, just looking at the dates.
A good person to check out, Christian or not, if you can find translations of him is Father Zakaria Botros. He is a Coptic priest and does an evangelical television show from out of Egypt that broadcasts across a lot of the Middle East. He is very well educated about Islam, and challenges a lot of these antiquated Islamic notions especially the ones that present embarrassing faces such as the passages that relate to the treatment of women and the taking of slaves for labor or extra-marital sex. There are some translated videos of his show on youtube as well as some rebuttals. Far too often the most learned Islamic Clerics are unable to rebut him and it shows once again that these Wahabbis, and Salafis are not misinterpreting, or hijacking anything. More importantly, Father Botros sticks strictly to the texts and tenets of Islam and doesn't get terribly derogatory towards Muslim people. He is also strictly spiritual and doesn't delve into politics. He is an actual priest, not a politician in a robe like so many so called spiritual leaders are in the East and West.
With the current political climate I expect more of his work to be translated into English and become available on western, in particular American markets. If any viewpoint can be trusted it is that of a man that lives in a Muslim country instead of our "Religion of Peace (*cough*Peace to those that convert*cough*) spouting politicians and mainstream media correspondents.
Feel free to check out some of the works of Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Taslima Nasrin, the latter two having published books. They are all women that come from a Muslim background and have become critics of it later in life. Well worth the read. Again, people who know better than your Western politicians and news anchors.
Despite death threats made against these outspoken women, they remain alive, because they are mindful of the danger they are in for their apostasy and their criticism. The late Benazir Bhutto said she felt safe from the Paki Islamic extremists(perhaps the better term would be over confident in retrospect) because it was against the Qur'an to kill a woman. No disrespect to the dead intended, but this is often the price paid by those who ignore the problem instead of confronting it. She couldn't be a critic of Islam, and be a Muslim, regardless of the actions of her 'brothers' that ultimately killed her. Such a thing seems almost impossible even from 'moderate' Muslims such as Bhutto, and unfortunately for the world there doesn't seem to be a place for such heresy in Islam.
The Qur'an is the uncreated word of Allah, outside of time for all eternity, always relevant, always to be submitted to, regardless of how the times change.
For the record, I am an atheist, not a Christian, so if anyone is planning on attacking me on the basis of Christian history and theology, I'm giving you advanced warning not to waste your breath on me based on that played out Tu Quoque fallacy.
reply
share
clynningram
16 years ago
Good post scion9
Jihadwatch.org has great articles and links that explain what is happening to the western world.
Tu Quoque=Two wrongs don't make a right (Is this correct)
reply
share
scion9
16 years ago
"Tu quoque, fili mi?" is one of several versions of the reported last words of Caesar upon seeing his Marcus Junius Brutus among the conspirators coming to kill him. It is a Latin translation of a Greek proverb that was popular in Rome, and literally means "You too, my son?"
"Tu quoque" by contrast literally just means "you too", and the Tu Quoque fallacy is a type of ad hominem, where a debater avoids actually attacking the argument.
The way it is used is actually usually to support the concept that two wrongs do indeed make a right. It is used a lot by apologists for terrorists and terrorist organizations.
Any time someone is critical of Islam, or the beliefs of its most radical followers apologists frequently attack fundamentalists Christians like Jehovah's Witnesses' views on modern medicine, or the most radical parts of the Bible, like Leviticus as a defense against those they are trying to justify. Unfortunately for them, no logical mind works this way.
"But Christians..."
"But the Bible says..."
Yes, I think those things are also bad and shouldn't be practiced. You still haven't successfully attacked the argument.
Regardless, even if I did believe in those things and was Jehovah's Witness, or Zionist Israeli, it doesn't mean that my argument or logic would be inherently wrong.
reply
share
clynningram
16 years ago
I thought Caesar said Et Tu Brute for you to brutus or and you brutus. Both are latin maybe one is formal and the other informal.
To quoque also can mean tit for tat and also pot calling the kettle black.
Damn scion you are making me try to remember all my high school lessons (lol)
I told my sister beware for the Ides of march are upon you and she looked at me like "WTF are you talking about" her birthday is March 15 Caesar's deathday.
Yes those apologist for Islam are always trying to attack the crusades as an excuse for modern terrorism.
reply
share
thorondun
16 years ago
Another Crusade sounds like a great idea to me. It really does. Only this time, we take their terms and make them our own - we ignore Average Ahmed 'cause he wants nothing to do with the zealots; therefore he's not really a Muslim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_generation_warfare#Coping_with_4GW ). Of course, the "true" ones would probably pose as happy, peaceful kuffar, but fortunately for us, they'd have to conduct attacks; the infidels aren't going to kill themselves!
Priority targets would include madrasahs located in the Waziristan region of Pakistan and those pesky little on-the-go al-Qaeda training camps. No more Red Mosque-style sieges; instead, the joint gets a JDAM-rigged Mk 77 dropped right on it. KA-BOOM!
"'Peace, love, dope!' NOW GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE!"
reply
share
16 years ago
[deleted]
thorondun
16 years ago
goy, I think you missed my point.
To the fanatics, every so-called Muslim who isn't one of their own is not really a Muslim. What I suggested was that we use that same line of thinking to our advantage by doing the same on a more positive note: that is, the fanatics are the only true Muslims, therefore Islam is evil, and the folks who just want to wake up in the morning and prostrate themselves toward Mecca aren't, so we don't harm them. If and when we blow up a mosque, we do so only when we know there are real Muslims (fanatics) inside with no one else. We fight the inevitable backlash by teaching - with obvious difficulty - the outraged "believers" that none of them are actual Muslims, thus, they have no right being angry at us. "That was their holy site, not yours!" We make a very careful distinction.
To put this in the simplest way possible:
Extremists = true Muslims = enemy
Moderates = apostates = friend (into whose heads we put the difference)
I hope you get it now.
"'Peace, love, dope!' NOW GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE!"
reply
share
16 years ago
[deleted]
thorondun
16 years ago
...Yeah. It is a dumb idea.
"'Peace, love, dope!' NOW GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE!"
reply
share
Rvrgm
16 years ago
"-Just looking at Holy Scriptures, Islam is far more accepting of other races and women than Judaism or Christianity. " -from Qman000
WOW! I have rarely come across a post as ignorant as this! I'm racking my brain trying to come up with a passage in the Bible that matches the one from the koran about beating your wife if she displeases you . . . nope, can't come up with one! Oh, wait - there is that whole passage in Proverbs 31 that praises women who are able to work hard for their home and families . . . oh wait, that's praise, not degradation . . . let's see, I know there is one somewhere . . . oh yeah, the part where it says God created man male AND female, thus giving women equal worth to men . . . no, wait, that's equality of women, not degradation . . . hmmm, gotta be in there somewhere . . . let's see, there is the parts where Paul praises all the women who work hard on behalf of the church . . . no, that would be honoring the contributions of women, hardly equal to the islamic notion that a woman showing her face publicly is an abomination.
Nope, sorry . . . can't quite find anything in the Bible to suggest women are inferior to men.
As for the races - let's see - I know the Bible hates all non-whites . . . let's see, there is that passage about taking salvation to Jerusalem, then Judea and Samaria, then the entire world . . . no, wait, that would be suggesting the entire world could be saved . . . well, Jesus said He died for ALL mankind . . . no, wait, again the suggestion that the entire world be blessed in Christ . . . well gosh, I just KNOW the Bible hates all non-whites, doesn't it? Hmm . . . well, guess not, though the koran does detail under what circumstances you can kill men from other countries, namely when they do not accept the koran . . . hmmm . . .
Yes, I am quite certain it is the Bible that hates women and all other races, not the koran . . . I KNOW it! I just can't find a single verse in either text to support that assertion, but I still just KNOW it!!
reply
share
naimakhalid
16 years ago
Ok i want to say that as far as i know it doesnt say in the Quran that you can beat your wife if she displeases you, on the contrary men are like guardians over women. In the Quran it also talks about men and women being equal. Below is a copy and paste i done which explains their equality. Islam recognises that such equality does not mean that men and women are the same. It notes their different physical and emotional strengths and in view of this sets out their key roles in life. The roles are therefore not a question of superiority or inferiority, but a question of natural capacity and proper functioning.
For example men have been assigned the duty to work and provide for their family and women have been assigned the role of motherhood and of looking after the household.
Islam places equal importance on both and also stresses that the roles are not exclusive nor inflexible. This does not mean that women cannot work or serve society or that men have no duties or responsibilities for their children or for their household.
It is interesting to note that where women choose to work the money they earn is theirs and the husband has no right over it, whereas a husband must provide financially for the whole family.
All of this is in direct contrast to the status of women before the advent of Islam
The concept of the veil is that Islam stresses the relationship between body and mind. In covering the body one shields the heart from impurities. Men are instructed to restrain or avert their eyes from women, and women are expected to wear loose outer garments and to cover their heads and bosoms.
The ultimate goal of veiling is righteousness of the heart.
The purpose of hijab (veiling) in Islam is primarily to inspire modesty in both men and women. Women are admonished in the Holy Qur’an to cover their heads and to pull their coverings over their bosoms. Men are instructed in the Holy Qur’an to lower their gazes.
There is no law in Islam that punishes a woman for not wearing a veil and according to Islamic law a man has no jurisdiction in forcing a woman to wear a veil or hijab. He can, if he has some authority over a woman (as a husband or father or brother) admonish, request, and in the case of a father to require it of his daughter, but absolutely no right in actively forcing a woman to adopt the hijab. However women are strongly advised to veil themselves as appropriate to maintain their honour and dignity.
Perhaps the view that the veil inhibits freedom and equality is a reaction to the original Biblical edict where St. Paul teaches
‘For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the Glory of the man. For man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.’ (1 Corinthians, 11:7-10).
According to St. Paul the veil is a sign of man's authority over her. It is possible that St. Paul’s pronouncements may have led many in the West to see the veil as a symbol of inferiority, subservience and degradation. In contrast, the veil in Islam signifies modesty as well as serving as a means of protection
As for the different races in Islam, islam has nothing against any race, and no a muslim is not allowed to kill anyone from any race, there is only 1 circumstance under which you can kill someone and that is when he is not allowing you to practice your religion AND thereatens your life. Other than during the Holy Propehts time thats never happened. Neither 9/11 or 7/7 was an example of this. Also if muslims do have a holy war certain rules have to be adhered to including:
Civilians who are not fighting against Muslims are not to be attacked or killed at all.
Crops or other sources of food and water and cattle or other animals are not to be destroyed.
Hospitals, orphanages and other places of safety and refuge are not to be destroyed.
Mosques, churches, synagogues or other places of worship are not to be destroyed.
Women, children, old and disabled are to be left untouched.
If the aggressor stops the aggression or offers a treaty it should be accepted and the fighting stopped forthwith.
Fleeing oppressors need not be pursued to any unnecessary length and should be allowed to return to their home.
Prisoners of War should be treated with respect and their basic needs be fulfilled and they should be freed or ransomed as soon as possible after the battle
So a muslim has no right to kill anyone who doesnt accept Quran or Islam. Saying all this, i dont agree that Christianity or Judism are any less accepting of other races or women than Islam.
If you have any more questions please check ouhis website http://www.ahmadiyya.org.uk/FAQ/
And also i wanna say that if any person says hes a muslim and preaches about killing people then hes not a muslim.
reply
share
SEVEREcritic
15 years ago
i agree with most of what you said. the thing is, yes, it's not so "hijacked" as people would have you believe, but what you see on TV is not what most muslims are like. i am not here to defend them. hell i'm against them most of the time, but it's like being in a southern state pre-civil war (i guess). the 'clergy' or islam is so ___ed up that they would have everyone believe that it's okay to kill random people. and when they people they are addressing have lived in fear from generations before and have no education whatsoever, they take what they're told as FACT. not something they can think about, but FACT. it does not even occur to them that maybe, just maybe killing people, infidel or not, is bad cos they're "just infidels". plus, tell a guy making less than a dollar a day that if he blows himself up he'll get all that he wants in the afterlife and the first thing he'll say is "how many pounds of explosives should i use?"
then you have people like Zakir Naik lauded as a "hero for the cause of Islam". disgusting. it's people like him that make muslims seem even worse. i would rather have terrorists run amok than have people like naik and his minions going around telling people that they're "intelligent" muslims.
also, relating to cartoons and such. the danish cartoon controversy thing for instance. i believe that now there's a "islamophobia-phobia". by which i mean people have to really watch what they say in case they're called islamophobic. WHY is that? were the cartoons bad? ABSOLUTELY. they were not funny, and just showed the guy's ingnorance and poor taste. should it be banned or should embassies be burned for it? NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT. if islam is soooo perfect, why are they so afraid of people being critical of it? if a muslim drew a cartoon of muhammed and they got angry, i get it. if a non-muslim does - well - your rules DO NOT apply. they can say and draw whatever the hell they want. anyone with half a brain knows the difference between light-hearted and well-intentioned comedy and a racist joke. if they don't they're either a bigot or a fanatic, and those two are so similar to each other it defines irony.
laziest guy on God's good earth? ME!
reply
share