I'm beginning to get a sense of the idiocy Muslims' harbour. Like our secular governments being cults - what a fucking joke! And then there were some outright untruths regarding saudi practices not aligning with Islam - news flash! saudi practices are specifically aligned with Islam. Maybe you are the uninformed Muslim trying to be the sort of apologist so desperately needed... hmm?
Cult of the Muhammadenians (enjoy).
Cult of the Muhammadenians
Angola, a nation of South Africa, has officially outlawed Islam as a cult. It is the first in our history to take such an honest stand against the tyranny of Muslims who through their only source of conviction emulate the “perfect example”, that of Muhammad the prophet – an immoral deceitful war criminal who took to violent extremes in order to convert others to his following or otherwise demoralize those people who refused to accept his account of Allah's message; Basically, you had to convert or be killed, or in times of abject humiliation, non-Muslims' would be dehumanized in their home towns, made to wear identifying clothing or marks to distinguish them from Muslims and forced to pay a daily extortion tax to avoid the wrath of Muslims. This tax, the jizya, would vary in amount, was usually a considerable sum of money, and could be revoked on whim – meaning that the only option left for one who wanted to continue living – is to join Islam… The current media tells us that this isn't happening anymore however the truth has never been further from the reach of uninformed citizen. We have to be vigilant in our search for the truth. Our future existence depends on it!
The “religion of peace” is a false dictum and I'll explain why. The first directive given to the newcomer, or “revert” as Muhammad stipulates, is to read the Qur'an. Muhammad is an accepting and tolerant person albeit a kook but accepted for who he is nonetheless, however, after he established a following his oppressive nature increased accordingly and he became intolerant and eventually violently bigoted toward the people who had taken him into their city, Yathrib. Once over thrown the city was renamed Medina and deemed a holy city of Islam. Now this is relevant to us today as Muslim asylum seekers, immigrants, and illegal immigrants take it upon themselves to “reclaim” all the land in the world (as they're of the belief that all the lands of the Earth belong to Islam), and through there sheer numbers are using our democratic society to establish Islam in non-Islamic countries. The first such request is for mosque(s), as was Muhammad's first undertaking in Medina, ahead of his own homestead. From within the mosque a leader of the cult of Islam directs Muslims' on their duties in the political, social, economical, and general conduct as expected of them for the undermining of our fundamentally Judeo-Christian societal culture. The contradiction between Muhammad's message of peace and the messages of war which follow have more recently been addressed by Islamic scholars who established a rule of negation meaning that (where there is contradiction within the Qur'an) the newer statement takes precedence over the previous one. In light of the progressively violent nature of Islam, it's worth mentioning, the interested person is likely to become Muslim before understanding the true nature of Islam, and may himself propagate the peaceful nature of Islam himself. Another excellent reason why Islam has been protected from – as such – public criticism of its inherently violent nature has to do with a peculiar frame of reference unique to Islamic Muslim train of thought. The first and most significant of these is 'Logic of Dualism'. While contemporary understanding as adopted among the rest of the world's populace employ the 'Logic of Contradiction' (meaning that two contradictory statements cannot both be true), those utilizing a logic of dualism are unable to make such critical evaluations based on logical reasoning in this way. In our most formidable approach toward critical analysis of contradictory evidence within the Qur'an (as far as directly opposing Muslim argument) the statistical analysis is employed to determine for instance the percentage of truth applicable between the contradictory statements. Islam is 3% peaceful, and 97% violent, for example. Furthermore, Muslims' are forbidden by law (sharia) to question the nature of Islam, any sort of innovative or critical analysis, or even to learn from a kaffir (non-Muslim); to quote a scholar on Islam, Dr. Bill Warner, Phd: “Islam is unique in that it has its own political, legal, and education system”. He was subsequently banned from returning to that country. You can visit his site to learn more at politicalislam.com. As he subsequently remarked on the topic “I wasn't being critical of Islam … it's like saying the sky is blue. I don't know why it is, it just is!”. One more contributing factor to the suppression of Islam's violent nature, and very far from the comprehension of honest Judeo-Christian morality is what's known as “taqiyya” (among other forms of deception known as tawriya, kitman, and muruna) which is a directive of Allah to deceive unbelievers through outright lying, and by Allah, for one such purpose – to prevent unrest/conflict of differences. Clearly, if we knew the ultimate goal of Islam is to bring the entire world under its rule, and every person reluctant to “revert” heinously murdered, or that by leaving Islam, or acting in any way against those goals of Islam were literally legally punishable by death, we would certainly oppose sharia, and would likely impose much greater restrictions of the freedoms of Muslim people, as the Angola government did this year. While china already imposes reasonable restrictions on Muslim establishment, it has also announced formally “Islam is a dangerous political movement”. This was in response to a verbal attack on China's stance on Islamic influence in their own country and following those restrictions implemented on Islamic development and acceptable Muslim behaviour.
Democracy might be facilitating Islamification but it is cultural relativism which is effectively accommodating Muslims in their Islamic effort. The sociological perspective is one of the first conceptual frames of reference taught in western sociology classes. The main underlying premise is directed against the opposition of different cultures, beliefs, and inherently attitudes. The overt premise being the principled and logical perspective that such views, etc people hold have been shaped by their circumstances. Finally, that no culture is inherently better any other which brings me back to cultural relativism. On the whole, a person forms any opinion with the association of good and bad emotion to a given thing. So we could look upon war torn Saudi-Arabia and (if we're psychopathic) form a positive opinion of a war driven culture. However most of would naturally prefer peace over this wanton destruction and would therefore be of a negative opinion. What the politically correct “police” would have you believe is that there are no objective negatives just differences. The rational person would form a more concrete conclusion regarding his preferred culture which constitutes accommodating and peaceful ends. Democracy is failing us because it's incapable of addressing the issues relating to Islamification; The best government to oppose the impending threat facing so many countries now is going to be republican. Ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, and Abraham Lincoln were all respected for their republican leadership. According to the Pew Research Center, 2010, 50 of the world's countries are Muslim. That figure is likely much higher now as Muslim's were recently accounted as having a birth rate which is 4x higher than non-Muslim people. This further contributes to Islamic influence and expense on host countries of Islamic people. Russian people are reported to be avoiding reproduction and for the past 4 years (2011-2015), Muhammad has been the most common baby's name in Russia, as it has been within Islamic countries around the world. 8 out of 10 of the world's most dangerous countries are Muslim, and this figure is likely lower than it would be were non-Muslim people able to speak out against their oppressive enemy, and be heard for that matter! What confounds me most regarding the state of affairs related to terms such as racist or bigot being attributed to people opposed to Islam is the utter lack of acknowledgment that appointed Islamic leaders all around the world refer to us as their enemy, the enemy of Islam. What's become of the education of today's generation? These people believe that they're fighting against racial discrimination or bigotry directed specifically toward people who are retaliating against an agenda. It seems misinformation isn't only prominent but also propagated. These people believe they're fighting for basic freedoms but are generally unaware that they're promoting a totalitarian ideology which has at its core a legal system so strict on basic conduct that they won't even have the freedom to question what they believe anymore. This could be the fate of Australia: Forget equal rights, woman won't even be allowed in public without a man, let alone without being suffocated by converings on her entire body, nor will she have an identity anymore, she will be a possession of her husband to beat, and rape at any whim of his disapproval. For those of you believe this isn't the message of Muhammad, I will include a passage from an English translation of the Qur'an as accepted by most scholars to be the most accurate English translation, that of Syed Abul A'la Maududi. All subsequent quotes from the Qur'an will be taken from this translation.
4:34 “Men are the managers of the affairs of women because Allah has made the one superior to the other and because men spend of their wealth on women. Virtuous women are, therefore, obedient; they guard their rights carefully in their absence under the care and watch of Allah. As for those women whose defiance you have cause to fear, admonish them and keep them apart from your beds and beat them.”
Here's one of the more polite passages directing the treatment of non-Muslims. I've chosen this “polite passage in place of harsher ones because the use of the direct English translation “beat” has been properly applied (where this is often not the case in English translations of the Qur'an.
8:12-14 “And remember when your Lord was inspiring the angels with this: “I am with you: so keep the Believers steadfast. I am now going to fill the hearts of the disbeliever's with awe: so smite their necks and beat every Joint of their bodies. This is because they have opposed Allah and His Messenger: whoever opposes Allah and His Messenger, surely Allah is very severe for him in retribution. This is the punishment for you: so taste it now: and you should know that there is the torment of Hell for those who deny the Truth.”
The passage to follow 8:14 orders Muslims against turning their back to the unbelievers when in battle except as a strategy, or to join another Muslim military force. You may have heard that the Qur'an isn't the only “holy” Islamic text – that there's a “trilogy”. All three, in fact, are accounts of the abhorrent Muhammad. The Qur'an is Muhammad's words (as he was illiterate, he had scribes transcribe the text for him – one of whom was so fed up and abandoned the tiresome project), there's the Hadith which is the accounts of Muhammad following traditions of the time – basically attests to those traditions being ethical practices, and then there is the Sera which are accounts of Muhammad's life of which there are many due to documentation by recorded personal accounts of Muhammad. The Sera are a large part of the conflict between Shia and Sunnu Muslims in the Middle East. Some are generally accepted by both groups others aren't generally accepted by either. Both, however, agree upon jihad.
The definition of jihad differs depending on whether you're a Muslim or not. Between Muslims', jihad is defined as “the personal struggle against sin” which is the definition the general population accepts to be definitive of jihad among the majority of Muslims. The definition of jihad applicable to non-Muslims is as follows: “the war against the unbelievers”. This is significantly offensive toward our way of life (or lives for that matter), and deserves to be made public knowledge. We've been declared enemies of Islam, yet we're told to accommodate the substantial requests of Muslim people throughout the western world. Is this a sign that Islam can't be engaged in war, or that the leaders in government don't have the spine to take on the task of declaring Islam separate from the views of their national identity, that we're more prepared to surrender without a fight and more prepared to adopt Islam as our personal “religion”; are we no longer willing to go to war to defend our freedoms and national identity? I'd like to think a majority in Australia will vote against support of Islam but I know that's only a pipe dream. Most simply don't have the time to investigate Islam, are unwilling to, or even reluctant to question Islam which is a direct result of the actions taken by Muslim people to silence, or otherwise suppress negative opinion of Islam (as they do indeed between themselves, even disallowing mediocre challenges), and the boycotting of such personal enquiry through media intervention, and the gullibility of westerners in our assumption that a person “of the faith” would never lie regarding the nature of their so-called religion. Such is the COA for Muslims' the world over. We're too busy collapsing on idealistic appreciation of our accomplished attitudes regarding politically correct cultural relativism, and false assumption of cultural awareness – that we respect other cultures, is obviously a false dichotomy from the opposing cultural favoritism we currently enjoy. As the latter takes precedence in the way we enjoy our privileges as a granted and ignore the outcries of those who implore them to consider those undesirable aspects of a culture which decries itself on the oppressed heap we associate with those who actually represent the oppressed. This is psychological warfare we're engaged in but most are like ostriches with their heads in the sand unwilling to acknowledge our status as an enemy, too soft to consider that our country would ever become the war stricken dust bowl of so many Islamic countries. It's almost unfathomable to me, as well, as I appreciate our multicultural nature of inclusiveness as much as the next modern Australian citizen, yet recognize now how such an attitude toward a hostile alien invasion simply fails. Muslim's are not going to deviate from the teachings of the Qur'an without leaving Islam entirely (or being rejected by Muslim's everywhere for “apostasy”, or leaving Islam). The fact of the matter is: Muslims do not believe Muhammad wrote the Qur'an but that it was written by Allah, who keeps a copy of the Qur'an in heaven, and that only the Qur'an is the perfect truth according to Allah (for everything Allah say's is the truth), and yet “Allah is the greatest deceiver.”
8:30-37 “It is worth-while to remember the time when those who rejected the Truth, were making plots against you to capture you or to slay you or to exile you. They were plotting their plots and Allah was devising His schemes: and Allah's schemes are most effective of all. When Our Revelations were recited to them, they said, “Well, we have heard: if we will, we also can fabricate such things: for these are the same ancient tales which have been told again and again by the former people.” And recall also to mind the thing they said, “O God! If it is the Truth sent down by Thee, rain down stones on us from the heavens or send down any other painful torment on us. At that time Allah would not send down any torment on them for you dwelt in their midst nor does Allah chastise people while they are asking His forgiveness. But now there is no reason why He should not send a torment on them, when they are barring the way to the Masjid-i-Haram whereas they are not its lawful guardians. Indeed, the Godfearing people alone can be its lawful guardians, but most people do not know this. And what is their “prayer” near the House of Allah? It is nothing but whistling and clapping of hands. So now take the chastisement and taste the torment in requital for your persistent denial of the Truth. Those who have denied the Truth spend their wealth in blocking the Way of Allah, and will on spending still more of it. But in the end, these very efforts of theirs will become a cause of their regret: then they will be overcome, and the disbelievers shall be gathered and driven towards Hell; so that Allah may separate the filthy from the pure and gather together every sort of filth and then throw the whole heap into Hell: these are indeed the real losers.”
The Arabic word Islam means submission and Muslim means one who submits. Now, as I've already told you, the Qur'an is a book of rules forbidding and compelling Muslim behaviour and these vary depending on the Muslim's situation. This is far different to other religions but I think western intellectuals might see Islam as a sort of kindred spirit in its outwardly appearance like the theocracy our modern society was once itself – I'd like to add that I'm not disputing Islam's infancy as a developing society (one where religion is the head of the state, and government), but that the prevalence of political jurisdiction and metering out punishments for disobeying or failing to implement those rules separate Islam from our own way, once more, as being equivalent by today's standards a resemblance of a fascist ideology, or a cult, as the adherents (Muslims) believe non-Muslim people should be subject to its laws, subsequent punishments and whose right to life is non-existent except for the mercies afforded by the collector of Islam's regularly fluctuating extortion penalty the option for which can be removed at any time without notice (of course) and there would leave only one possibility for survival – if afforded them – to convert to Islam which they then cannot leave under the penalty of an even worse death than having been killed prior to becoming Muslim. To be completely honest, in considering the backward state of Islamic society in the Middle East when considering the duration in which Islam has so totally dominated their populace (any wonder why), and in terms of being without the separation of government and religion but instead ascribing the punishments to be carried out from the Qur'an as the official law of the Islamic country it is my opinion that the Middle East has remained backward and endured due to both the constant war on its people and the deterrent factors of such war stricken areas of would be contributors. It isn't a misfortune of the many Muslim's who are involved in such war but more significantly the misfortune of those whom Muslim's impose such war themselves.
Copyright TruthWorthy, 2015. All rights reserved.
Cult of the Muhammadenians (enjoy).
Cult of the Muhammadenians
Angola, a nation of South Africa, has officially outlawed Islam as a cult. It is the first in our history to take such an honest stand against the tyranny of Muslims who through their only source of conviction emulate the “perfect example”, that of Muhammad the prophet – an immoral deceitful war criminal who took to violent extremes in order to convert others to his following or otherwise demoralize those people who refused to accept his account of Allah's message; Basically, you had to convert or be killed, or in times of abject humiliation, non-Muslims' would be dehumanized in their home towns, made to wear identifying clothing or marks to distinguish them from Muslims and forced to pay a daily extortion tax to avoid the wrath of Muslims. This tax, the jizya, would vary in amount, was usually a considerable sum of money, and could be revoked on whim – meaning that the only option left for one who wanted to continue living – is to join Islam… The current media tells us that this isn't happening anymore however the truth has never been further from the reach of uninformed citizen. We have to be vigilant in our search for the truth. Our future existence depends on it!
The “religion of peace” is a false dictum and I'll explain why. The first directive given to the newcomer, or “revert” as Muhammad stipulates, is to read the Qur'an. Muhammad is an accepting and tolerant person albeit a kook but accepted for who he is nonetheless, however, after he established a following his oppressive nature increased accordingly and he became intolerant and eventually violently bigoted toward the people who had taken him into their city, Yathrib. Once over thrown the city was renamed Medina and deemed a holy city of Islam. Now this is relevant to us today as Muslim asylum seekers, immigrants, and illegal immigrants take it upon themselves to “reclaim” all the land in the world (as they're of the belief that all the lands of the Earth belong to Islam), and through there sheer numbers are using our democratic society to establish Islam in non-Islamic countries. The first such request is for mosque(s), as was Muhammad's first undertaking in Medina, ahead of his own homestead. From within the mosque a leader of the cult of Islam directs Muslims' on their duties in the political, social, economical, and general conduct as expected of them for the undermining of our fundamentally Judeo-Christian societal culture. The contradiction between Muhammad's message of peace and the messages of war which follow have more recently been addressed by Islamic scholars who established a rule of negation meaning that (where there is contradiction within the Qur'an) the newer statement takes precedence over the previous one. In light of the progressively violent nature of Islam, it's worth mentioning, the interested person is likely to become Muslim before understanding the true nature of Islam, and may himself propagate the peaceful nature of Islam himself. Another excellent reason why Islam has been protected from – as such – public criticism of its inherently violent nature has to do with a peculiar frame of reference unique to Islamic Muslim train of thought. The first and most significant of these is 'Logic of Dualism'. While contemporary understanding as adopted among the rest of the world's populace employ the 'Logic of Contradiction' (meaning that two contradictory statements cannot both be true), those utilizing a logic of dualism are unable to make such critical evaluations based on logical reasoning in this way. In our most formidable approach toward critical analysis of contradictory evidence within the Qur'an (as far as directly opposing Muslim argument) the statistical analysis is employed to determine for instance the percentage of truth applicable between the contradictory statements. Islam is 3% peaceful, and 97% violent, for example. Furthermore, Muslims' are forbidden by law (sharia) to question the nature of Islam, any sort of innovative or critical analysis, or even to learn from a kaffir (non-Muslim); to quote a scholar on Islam, Dr. Bill Warner, Phd: “Islam is unique in that it has its own political, legal, and education system”. He was subsequently banned from returning to that country. You can visit his site to learn more at politicalislam.com. As he subsequently remarked on the topic “I wasn't being critical of Islam … it's like saying the sky is blue. I don't know why it is, it just is!”. One more contributing factor to the suppression of Islam's violent nature, and very far from the comprehension of honest Judeo-Christian morality is what's known as “taqiyya” (among other forms of deception known as tawriya, kitman, and muruna) which is a directive of Allah to deceive unbelievers through outright lying, and by Allah, for one such purpose – to prevent unrest/conflict of differences. Clearly, if we knew the ultimate goal of Islam is to bring the entire world under its rule, and every person reluctant to “revert” heinously murdered, or that by leaving Islam, or acting in any way against those goals of Islam were literally legally punishable by death, we would certainly oppose sharia, and would likely impose much greater restrictions of the freedoms of Muslim people, as the Angola government did this year. While china already imposes reasonable restrictions on Muslim establishment, it has also announced formally “Islam is a dangerous political movement”. This was in response to a verbal attack on China's stance on Islamic influence in their own country and following those restrictions implemented on Islamic development and acceptable Muslim behaviour.
Democracy might be facilitating Islamification but it is cultural relativism which is effectively accommodating Muslims in their Islamic effort. The sociological perspective is one of the first conceptual frames of reference taught in western sociology classes. The main underlying premise is directed against the opposition of different cultures, beliefs, and inherently attitudes. The overt premise being the principled and logical perspective that such views, etc people hold have been shaped by their circumstances. Finally, that no culture is inherently better any other which brings me back to cultural relativism. On the whole, a person forms any opinion with the association of good and bad emotion to a given thing. So we could look upon war torn Saudi-Arabia and (if we're psychopathic) form a positive opinion of a war driven culture. However most of would naturally prefer peace over this wanton destruction and would therefore be of a negative opinion. What the politically correct “police” would have you believe is that there are no objective negatives just differences. The rational person would form a more concrete conclusion regarding his preferred culture which constitutes accommodating and peaceful ends. Democracy is failing us because it's incapable of addressing the issues relating to Islamification; The best government to oppose the impending threat facing so many countries now is going to be republican. Ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, and Abraham Lincoln were all respected for their republican leadership. According to the Pew Research Center, 2010, 50 of the world's countries are Muslim. That figure is likely much higher now as Muslim's were recently accounted as having a birth rate which is 4x higher than non-Muslim people. This further contributes to Islamic influence and expense on host countries of Islamic people. Russian people are reported to be avoiding reproduction and for the past 4 years (2011-2015), Muhammad has been the most common baby's name in Russia, as it has been within Islamic countries around the world. 8 out of 10 of the world's most dangerous countries are Muslim, and this figure is likely lower than it would be were non-Muslim people able to speak out against their oppressive enemy, and be heard for that matter! What confounds me most regarding the state of affairs related to terms such as racist or bigot being attributed to people opposed to Islam is the utter lack of acknowledgment that appointed Islamic leaders all around the world refer to us as their enemy, the enemy of Islam. What's become of the education of today's generation? These people believe that they're fighting against racial discrimination or bigotry directed specifically toward people who are retaliating against an agenda. It seems misinformation isn't only prominent but also propagated. These people believe they're fighting for basic freedoms but are generally unaware that they're promoting a totalitarian ideology which has at its core a legal system so strict on basic conduct that they won't even have the freedom to question what they believe anymore. This could be the fate of Australia: Forget equal rights, woman won't even be allowed in public without a man, let alone without being suffocated by converings on her entire body, nor will she have an identity anymore, she will be a possession of her husband to beat, and rape at any whim of his disapproval. For those of you believe this isn't the message of Muhammad, I will include a passage from an English translation of the Qur'an as accepted by most scholars to be the most accurate English translation, that of Syed Abul A'la Maududi. All subsequent quotes from the Qur'an will be taken from this translation.
4:34 “Men are the managers of the affairs of women because Allah has made the one superior to the other and because men spend of their wealth on women. Virtuous women are, therefore, obedient; they guard their rights carefully in their absence under the care and watch of Allah. As for those women whose defiance you have cause to fear, admonish them and keep them apart from your beds and beat them.”
Here's one of the more polite passages directing the treatment of non-Muslims. I've chosen this “polite passage in place of harsher ones because the use of the direct English translation “beat” has been properly applied (where this is often not the case in English translations of the Qur'an.
8:12-14 “And remember when your Lord was inspiring the angels with this: “I am with you: so keep the Believers steadfast. I am now going to fill the hearts of the disbeliever's with awe: so smite their necks and beat every Joint of their bodies. This is because they have opposed Allah and His Messenger: whoever opposes Allah and His Messenger, surely Allah is very severe for him in retribution. This is the punishment for you: so taste it now: and you should know that there is the torment of Hell for those who deny the Truth.”
The passage to follow 8:14 orders Muslims against turning their back to the unbelievers when in battle except as a strategy, or to join another Muslim military force. You may have heard that the Qur'an isn't the only “holy” Islamic text – that there's a “trilogy”. All three, in fact, are accounts of the abhorrent Muhammad. The Qur'an is Muhammad's words (as he was illiterate, he had scribes transcribe the text for him – one of whom was so fed up and abandoned the tiresome project), there's the Hadith which is the accounts of Muhammad following traditions of the time – basically attests to those traditions being ethical practices, and then there is the Sera which are accounts of Muhammad's life of which there are many due to documentation by recorded personal accounts of Muhammad. The Sera are a large part of the conflict between Shia and Sunnu Muslims in the Middle East. Some are generally accepted by both groups others aren't generally accepted by either. Both, however, agree upon jihad.
The definition of jihad differs depending on whether you're a Muslim or not. Between Muslims', jihad is defined as “the personal struggle against sin” which is the definition the general population accepts to be definitive of jihad among the majority of Muslims. The definition of jihad applicable to non-Muslims is as follows: “the war against the unbelievers”. This is significantly offensive toward our way of life (or lives for that matter), and deserves to be made public knowledge. We've been declared enemies of Islam, yet we're told to accommodate the substantial requests of Muslim people throughout the western world. Is this a sign that Islam can't be engaged in war, or that the leaders in government don't have the spine to take on the task of declaring Islam separate from the views of their national identity, that we're more prepared to surrender without a fight and more prepared to adopt Islam as our personal “religion”; are we no longer willing to go to war to defend our freedoms and national identity? I'd like to think a majority in Australia will vote against support of Islam but I know that's only a pipe dream. Most simply don't have the time to investigate Islam, are unwilling to, or even reluctant to question Islam which is a direct result of the actions taken by Muslim people to silence, or otherwise suppress negative opinion of Islam (as they do indeed between themselves, even disallowing mediocre challenges), and the boycotting of such personal enquiry through media intervention, and the gullibility of westerners in our assumption that a person “of the faith” would never lie regarding the nature of their so-called religion. Such is the COA for Muslims' the world over. We're too busy collapsing on idealistic appreciation of our accomplished attitudes regarding politically correct cultural relativism, and false assumption of cultural awareness – that we respect other cultures, is obviously a false dichotomy from the opposing cultural favoritism we currently enjoy. As the latter takes precedence in the way we enjoy our privileges as a granted and ignore the outcries of those who implore them to consider those undesirable aspects of a culture which decries itself on the oppressed heap we associate with those who actually represent the oppressed. This is psychological warfare we're engaged in but most are like ostriches with their heads in the sand unwilling to acknowledge our status as an enemy, too soft to consider that our country would ever become the war stricken dust bowl of so many Islamic countries. It's almost unfathomable to me, as well, as I appreciate our multicultural nature of inclusiveness as much as the next modern Australian citizen, yet recognize now how such an attitude toward a hostile alien invasion simply fails. Muslim's are not going to deviate from the teachings of the Qur'an without leaving Islam entirely (or being rejected by Muslim's everywhere for “apostasy”, or leaving Islam). The fact of the matter is: Muslims do not believe Muhammad wrote the Qur'an but that it was written by Allah, who keeps a copy of the Qur'an in heaven, and that only the Qur'an is the perfect truth according to Allah (for everything Allah say's is the truth), and yet “Allah is the greatest deceiver.”
8:30-37 “It is worth-while to remember the time when those who rejected the Truth, were making plots against you to capture you or to slay you or to exile you. They were plotting their plots and Allah was devising His schemes: and Allah's schemes are most effective of all. When Our Revelations were recited to them, they said, “Well, we have heard: if we will, we also can fabricate such things: for these are the same ancient tales which have been told again and again by the former people.” And recall also to mind the thing they said, “O God! If it is the Truth sent down by Thee, rain down stones on us from the heavens or send down any other painful torment on us. At that time Allah would not send down any torment on them for you dwelt in their midst nor does Allah chastise people while they are asking His forgiveness. But now there is no reason why He should not send a torment on them, when they are barring the way to the Masjid-i-Haram whereas they are not its lawful guardians. Indeed, the Godfearing people alone can be its lawful guardians, but most people do not know this. And what is their “prayer” near the House of Allah? It is nothing but whistling and clapping of hands. So now take the chastisement and taste the torment in requital for your persistent denial of the Truth. Those who have denied the Truth spend their wealth in blocking the Way of Allah, and will on spending still more of it. But in the end, these very efforts of theirs will become a cause of their regret: then they will be overcome, and the disbelievers shall be gathered and driven towards Hell; so that Allah may separate the filthy from the pure and gather together every sort of filth and then throw the whole heap into Hell: these are indeed the real losers.”
The Arabic word Islam means submission and Muslim means one who submits. Now, as I've already told you, the Qur'an is a book of rules forbidding and compelling Muslim behaviour and these vary depending on the Muslim's situation. This is far different to other religions but I think western intellectuals might see Islam as a sort of kindred spirit in its outwardly appearance like the theocracy our modern society was once itself – I'd like to add that I'm not disputing Islam's infancy as a developing society (one where religion is the head of the state, and government), but that the prevalence of political jurisdiction and metering out punishments for disobeying or failing to implement those rules separate Islam from our own way, once more, as being equivalent by today's standards a resemblance of a fascist ideology, or a cult, as the adherents (Muslims) believe non-Muslim people should be subject to its laws, subsequent punishments and whose right to life is non-existent except for the mercies afforded by the collector of Islam's regularly fluctuating extortion penalty the option for which can be removed at any time without notice (of course) and there would leave only one possibility for survival – if afforded them – to convert to Islam which they then cannot leave under the penalty of an even worse death than having been killed prior to becoming Muslim. To be completely honest, in considering the backward state of Islamic society in the Middle East when considering the duration in which Islam has so totally dominated their populace (any wonder why), and in terms of being without the separation of government and religion but instead ascribing the punishments to be carried out from the Qur'an as the official law of the Islamic country it is my opinion that the Middle East has remained backward and endured due to both the constant war on its people and the deterrent factors of such war stricken areas of would be contributors. It isn't a misfortune of the many Muslim's who are involved in such war but more significantly the misfortune of those whom Muslim's impose such war themselves.
Copyright TruthWorthy, 2015. All rights reserved.
Coming soon: Banner image-link to new anti-islam forum.
