I really would reccomend you learn more about Islam. The argument of Kismet is not one to be used with shiite.
MonkeeSage Registered User
Posts: 495
(4/30/02 10:52 pm) Reply
Re: Kismet
I am here to tell you my friend, it is used against anyone who believes that God knows all possible futures and what man will do, before man does it. I believes that it involves a "self-referential paradox." I have pointed out that Christians who use this type of philosophy ("Molinists"--"Middle Knowledge"), also cannot solve this paradox in their philosophy.
Premise 1: God knows all events before they actually take place.
Premise 2: God's knowledge can never be wrong.
Premise 3: Man's future acts are events which God knows.
Premise 4: God knows what man will do before He does it [from 1' & 3'].
Conclusion: Man can only do what God has known he will do [from 2' & 4'], and cannot do otherwise.
This seems to me to be the idea of Kismit in Islam. I am asking for an exact explanation of kismit, though, so I'm not trying to misrepresent anyone.
If Muslims (Sunni or other) have to accept the conclusion from the argument, then how can man be "free"? He can't be! And if he can't be free, how is he responsible? This is the same question I ask Christians. I'm not just speaking out of both sides of my mouth against Islam. Thus, it seems to me to be a valid question.
An explanation of kismit and how man can be responsible if God knows the future would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
First off, bro Monkeessage! you asked about the definition of innocent. Ok, I agree that if there is no standard definition, then anyone can create his own.
Muslims were told by Mohammed (saw) on his last pilgrimage that all of us (people) if in future are unsure about something or have questions, then we have two major sources of help. Quran and Ahlul Bayat (progeny of Mohammed, esp. the 14 infallibles). So, like bible, Quran too, needs to be explained by someone who has in-depth knowledge of it. So, throughout their lives these Imams kept telling people explicitly and implicitly that never to harm innocents. They also told who were regarded as innocent. In Quran, as I already told you, Allah says, "if they make peace with you or let you be then make peace with them". Obviously, that means killing or hurting such people is same as killing/hurting the innocents.
Also, Mohammed, when won the battles against adversaries, he always addressed his fellowmen and soldiers.
"Look! dont harm the innocents. Don't you people insult or attack the elderly people, women or children. Be warned, don't even point your sword at the enemies if they surrender to you. Do not harm anyone who
embraces Islam."
I guess the above incident clearly mark a line between who are considered innocents and who are not.
And as I told you that Jihad is a very very fragile concept. Unfortunately, some so-called muslims are just misusing its name. Jihad is suppoed to be solely for Allah's blessings. It's not Jihad if someone casts aside these sayings of Quran and Mohammed (saw). Even if during Jihad someone's personal anger overcomes him, the essence of true jihad is gone. Here is an incident that u may find interesting.
During a battle, Imam Ali (a.s) was fighting against an enemy and shortly after Ali (a.s) overpowered him and knocked him down on the ground. He had a win-win chance of killing that opponent but that guy (God forbid) spat in his (Ali's) face while Ali (a.s) was on top of him. Ali (a.s) immediately got off his chest and turned away. When asked why he did that, he told that this fight was solely for God and soon as he spat me my anger rushed to my senses and I knew if I kill him right now, it'll be out of my own detestation and anger, so before I could change my mind, I checked myself.
So, if someone committs acts of terrorism, we can, in the light of above incidents, can find out that who were the victims of that attack. Then, it'd be clear that if they fall in innocent people category or not.
9/11 is an example of that. Muslims all over the world (Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Labenon, UAE, Oman etc) .....all condemned these acts of terrorism in strong words. And even those, who committed these hineous crimes KNOW that they have been UNISLAMIC thats why they NEVER EVER respond to the comments said against them by the Muslim world. The terrorist never justified their acts from Quran. Just that one verse that I already posted in previous post. And that one too, they quoted in incompletet way. When, told them that the complete verse has an exactly opposite meanings they were helpless to justify it either from Quran or from Mohammed's (saw) life.
I hope it was clear.
About, if Allah can foresee the future then how humans can be responsible for their acts: Let's answer that question by couterasking why not ? If GOd can foresee even then, why shouldn't we held responsible ? We are responsible for whatever we do. It is not same as God makes us do it. Allah knows it does mean He makes us do it. It's a common saying in Islam : "Pray to God, for it can even change whats in your fate. And spend in the way of Allah for it can even delay your death and eliminate your miseries." So, those who do bad things and still dont get tired or still approach God for help are subject to punishment by God. This is the true essence of Kismet. The concept of fate (kismet) is very crucial. It's pre-written but CAN be changed. Atleast, in shiite, I am sure Many sunnis I know of, believe in it, too.
Hope that helped. Thanks for your patience. I know it was kinda lengthy
Take care. salam and regards,
Asad Ali.
MonkeeSage Registered User
Posts: 497
(5/1/02 2:46 am) Reply
Re: Here:
Asad Ali,
Let me clarify a few things for us.
Firstly I am a Protestant, which means I follow the historical Christian Orthodox doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which means in English "Scripture Alone." Because of this I believe every Christian can individually (by the Holy Spirit) read and understand the Scripture without any external guides and can understand the Gospel. Not every Christian can explain every passage, but the contents of all passages are so plain everywhere that they can know all the contents of all passages, even if not all the words, if you understand what I mean. I don't believe in a Pope or Magisterium of interpreters...I believe in a Biblical Church structure, where the Church subits to Scripture Alone, and not the Scripture submit to the Churches desires.
So, for me, I still don't see a very solid definition when it can change by one person who says so. If I tell you one day that you are a "good friend" and the next day you did something I don't like, so I say "you are not a good friend," and it changes that easy, because "good friend" depeds on what I make it and has no real basis. See what I mean?
I want to say also that I understand that Jihad is a hot topic now, because it has brought the fact that some Mulims have misused the name of Allah, to the public; but in fairness, the crusades and Hitler, etc. who called themselves Christian, but misused the name of Jesus, has been in the public for a long time, and it is an old argument from Muslims. So, to say it one way "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." However, I am not one who is prejudiced by this knowledge, I do not blame Islam itself for the action of those who claim to follow Islam, I judge each person according to their own deeds and try my best to not give more respect to any in judgment. So, I don't really even think we have to discuss Jihad, etc., I just want to talk about philosophy of Islam. :)
Your answer on kismit...this is basically the same answer Christians say who have that philosophy I spoke of called "Middle Knowledge"...but I do not see that it holds up when examined. If Allah knows the future and man can do something else than what Allah knows he will do, then man has made Allah's knowledge of the future change....but if it changed...doesn't that mean it was wrong? Allah knows exactly all of what man will do in future, before man does it, so when man does it, he really couldn't want to do anything else, unless Allah's knowledge of the future is wrong. See the problem? Allah doesn't know future, or man is not "free"...how else to understand it?
About Jihad, I just explained the concept cuz you asked me how can muslims tell that this person killed innocents and condemn him. I explained Jihad's concept, so that if it does not fulfill the said conditions then it's condemnable according to Islam
About Kismet, again, it does not matter if Allah knows it or not. See, a mother knows her children very well. She knows that certain child is more shy or quiet or whatever and some is more kind and emotional by heart and someone is more naughty etc. Same way God knows us and our deeds. Now, just suppose, you are that mom and you know that you have made pie and told your children not to eat from it untless permitted by you. You know that your youngest one will certainly disobey and whenever finds a chance wil go to the fridge and will steal a piece. This is precisely what happens. Now, as a mom u knew that it was going to happen and you should have made proper arrangements to keep the pie safe and ur children away from it. but still, even if you knew it, still this foresight does NOT JUSTIFY the disobedience of the youngest son. This was just a short scale example. Similarly, God's Knowledg does not entitle people to do what they will. And as said earlier, Fate is changeable. It's not like this has to happen, Period. No! praying to God, changes fate.
"Imam Hussain (a.s) [son of Imam Ali (a.s)] gave good news to a person who had come to Prophet to pry for him that he get children. Him and his wife were childless couple and Mohammed told him that he could se his fate and there was no baby for them, but as Hussain prayed for him, the fate chaged right away."
Second Example: "Jesus gave life to deads. Death is the ultimate fate but Jesus (a.s) even showed people that it could be changed. Jesus (a.s) gave health even to those people for whom there was no haelth in their (kismet) fate."
Efforts and prayers do count a lot to shape one's kismet.
Nutshell: "Allah knows everything AND man is free" cuz thats what Allah knows, that if this man is left free on his own, then...this is what he will do. So, man's freedom is not affected, at all. Furthermore, as just said, even kismet can be changed.
So, if we ask Allah for Guidance, we can certainly tame our fate, too.
Hope it helped.
salam and regards,
Asad Ali.
MonkeeSage Registered User
Posts: 500
(5/1/02 4:09 am) Reply
Re: philosophy
One difference. Asad Ali, you have overlooked a fact my friend, mom, and Imam, neither one knows all things correctly.
Allah cannot be likened to creation, can he? Mom and Imam can only make a prediction based on knowing certain things...does Allah only predict, or does he decree?
If man can do something, other than what Allah already knows and decrees he will do, then I see no freedom, man has to do what Allah knows or else Allah knows something that is untrue because man has changed it.
Not only it make Allah on the level of Iman or a mom, it says man can make the knowledge Allah has wrong by doing something other than what Allah knows. Man's action is after Allah has already known it. Take an example:
Allah knows that I will type this next letters to you:
Iesus Christus, Salvus et Domini, homona et Deus
Could I have typed anything different? If I did Allah would have known wrong, and then I would have made Allah's knowledge of the future false. I had to type it because Allah knew I would type it. You see?
I do not see how man can be free if Allah is all transcendent and knows all, including the future.
First, I do believe that God knows the outcome of the future, especially since He showed it to John, to write the Book of Revelations. And yet, man has free will to decide, it's just that God already knows what that decision will be.
All the names in the Lamb's Book of Life are already there, since God knows who will and who won't ask Jesus into their heart as their Lord and Savior.
Second, not all Muslims are denouncing the acts of Muslim terrorists. HEre is a news article:
Sheikh Tantawi Grows in Office
By Robert Spencer
April 23, 2002
George W. Bush knows that Islam is a religion of peace because Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi said so. Two months after the September 11 terrorist attacks, the President told the United Nations that Tantawi, "the Sheikh of Al-Azhar University, the world's oldest Islamic institution of higher learning, declared that terrorism is a disease, and that Islam prohibits killing innocent civilians."
Yet unfortunately for Bush and others who trumpeted Tantawi's words around the globe last winter, this sheikh whom the BBC called "the highest spiritual authority for nearly a billion Sunni Muslims" has now changed his tune. As liberals say about conservatives who start voting for big government and high taxes, Tantawi has grown in office.
The Middle East Media Research Institute reports that on April 4, an Arabic-language website connected to Al-Azhar stated that Tantawi has "demanded that the Palestinian people, of all factions, intensify the martyrdom operations [that is, suicide bombings] against the Zionist enemy, and described the martyrdom operations as the highest form of Jihad operations. He says that the young people executing them have sold Allah the most precious thing of all."
Islamic law, the good sheikh maintained, demanded the blood of non-combatants. He "emphasized that every martyrdom operation against any Israeli, including children, women, and teenagers, is a legitimate act according to [Islamic] religious law, and an Islamic commandment, until the people of Palestine regain their land and cause the cruel Israeli aggression to retreat..."
Tantawi, Bush's imam of peace, thus joins Yasir Arafat in the Hall of Fame of Islamic dissemblers. Both are extremely adept at telling the Western media what it wants to hear - and then doing likewise for the Arabic press, contradictions be damned. Like Arafat, the wily Tantawi seems to have mastered this art long before September 11. As far back as 1998, he declared that "it is every Muslim, Palestinian and Arab's right to blow himself up in the heart of Israel, an honorable death is better than a life of humiliation." This right is, in fact, a religious duty: "All religious laws have demanded the use of force against the enemy and fighting against those who stand by Israel; there is no escape from fighting, from Jihad, and from [self-] defense, and whoever refrains from such things is not a believer."
Maybe Tantawi's latest change of heart was dictated by his faith. Unfortunately for those who want to believe that pro-terrorist Islam is an aberrant form of the religion of peace, the foundational text of Islam is, well, soft on terrorism. The Qur'an, which Muslims believe to be the perfect words of Almighty God, tells believers that "when you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly" (Sura 47:4).
This is just one of the verses that may have moved Tantawi to throw in his lot with the terrorists. Others include Sura 48:29: "Muhammad is God's Apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another," and Sura 9:5: "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them."
Tantawi's switch may also have been inspired by the example of the Prophet Muhammad himself; traditions about Muhammad's words and deeds are for Muslims second in importance only to the Qur'an. According to George Washington University Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Muslims revere Muhammad as "the perfection of both the norm of the human collectivity and the human individual, the norm for the perfect social life and the prototype and guide for the individual's spiritual life."
This perfect Islamic man was a man of war. He never shrank from the use of force. He ordered his enemies murdered, and assured his followers that they incurred no guilt by carrying out these orders. While Jesus rebuked his disciples for asking Him if they should call down fire from Heaven upon a disbelieving village (St. Luke 9:51-55), Muhammad several times cursed those who rejected his message. An entire Sura, or chapter, of the Qur'an is devoted to cursing Muhammad's disbelieving uncle and wife: "May the hands of Abu Lahab perish! May he himself perish! Nothing shall his wealth and gains avail him. He shall be burnt in a flaming fire, and his wife, laden with faggots, shall have a rope of fibre around her neck!" (Sura 111:1-5).
Tantawi, then, seems by embracing terrorism to have done nothing other than become more true to his faith. How many more such spiritual homecomings among Islamic "moderates" will it take for the multiculturalist establishment to admit the true nature of Islam?
Robert Spencer is an adjunct fellow with the Free Congress Foundation. He is the author of Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith, coming this summer from Encounter Books.
source:
www.aim.org/index.html
I do not post to offend anyone, just offering information. I pray we continue to discuss these issues in the Love and Peace that comes from God.
MonkeeSage Registered User
Posts: 504
(5/1/02 5:49 pm) Reply
Re: philosophy
fleshnblood:
I'm sure that you do hold to that, but I don't think the standard Evangelical answer can justify that belief. I believe that man has freedom of choice and that God ordains all things, I outlined this position in relation to the problem of evil in a thread called "Theodicy: The Problem of Evil in Apologetics" which I think is on the Lobby board, or else on Limited Atonment board.
I do not see how on the Muslim / Evangelical Christian philosophy God can know what man will do and man still have the freedom to do other than what God knows, unless you either say that man isn't really free or else God doesn't really know. Yet you know that both are true. So I am saying there is a problem because your philosophy doesn't account for your conclusions (beliefs), so in my opinion you need to rethink your philosophy.
How can God know the future and man still be free? The only way that I can see is if we take the Biblical view that God ordains all things that come to pass, either by passively allowing them (foreknowledge) or by actively causing them (Cf. both in, Acts 2:23). In other words, man has freedom of choice only when God is sovereign and ordains man's freedom of choice--only when God says "I will allow this choice, but I will not allow this one"--but if we start with man's autonomous freedom, we only have a self-referential paradox.
If God can only passively know the future then either God's knowledge of the future can be wrong (because man can change the future) or else man can't truly be free.
Exempli Gratia:
God knows Steve will eat an apple tomorrow and plans on causing Steve to choke and having an ambulance driver tell Steve about God, and Steve would become a convert. But the minute before Steve bites the apple Steve decides he doesn't really want an apple that day and throw it away and then gets mugged and killed 5 minutes later.
Now either Steve wasn't really ever able to eat the apple and was supposed to die--he wasn't "free" to eat the apple, and God's knowledge of the future was right; or, he was supposed to eat the apple, but he was "free" and didn't eat it, and so God's knowledge of the future was wrong and His plan was upset.
Don't really see any way around this dilemma when you take the route of "Middle Knowledge."
Re: Bushism
The Bible does say whoever is not for God is against God.
From which you could assume (bad word) that anyone who is not for the people of God is against the people of God.
On your example, if God knew that Steve would eat the apple, then that would be what Steve would do of his own free will. That couldn't change, or else God's knowledge would be wrong.
God, being omnipotent, would use His believers to make sure Steve hear about Him.
That's why I say, all of our actions are already known to God, even though we have the free will to decide. God just knows ahead of our decisions what we will decide.
Peace and Love to you, brother!
MonkeeSage Registered User
Posts: 516
(5/3/02 5:50 pm) Reply
Re: Bushism
I agree that God knows the future (Acts 15:18). And that man is free to choose what his heart desires.
The question is, if God just foreknows, but does not ordain or decree, how can man be free and God's knowledge be true...as far as I can see they can't both be true.
If God knows a man will do something, and then man changes his mind as he is doing it (or a split-second before he does it), then only one of these two can be the case: either that God was wrong in what He knew man would do, or else man wasn't really "free" but had to change his mind, because it was his fate.
Now, again, as I understand the Bible I believe that God ordains (decrees) everything that comes to pass and nothing is out of His control, but that He sovereignly grants men the freedom to follow their own desires.
He ordains what they will desire (passively, by allowing them to choose what they desire, if it is an evil desire), or restrains evil desires from breaking out into action (actively, by changing a heart or by providential grace).
Not even the worst sinner has sinned as much as he possibly could have every moment of his life, and it is only by God's loving restraint that they were not worse. Ted Bundy could have killed a prison guard, as well as being a seriel killer / whacko, but he didn't by God's grace.
On the other hand, he was only able to be a seriel killer because God allowed it, to His own purpose (Pro. 16:4). God doesn't enjoy the sin, He allows it for His ends, and His purpose in allowing it is never the same as the person he allows to commit it, and so all are responsible for their own sinful choices before God.
The difference between this view and the one I am rejecting is that this view sees God as ordaining all things, and nothing being beyond His control, and allows for human freedom and responsibility; the other sees God as passively watching all things, and must either give up the idea of human freedom or of God's ability to have knowledge of the future--reducing Him to "predicting" what will happen under X circumstance (and thus becomes something like what Clarke Pinnock presents called "Open Theism" or to "Process Theology").
First off, sorry for late response. My finals start next week and I may not be here on forum 4 a while. Plz! pray for my good grades, thanks.
Ok! I know that the concept of KISMET is confusing and very deep. I am wondering, isn't it that the concept of KISMET exists in Christianity as well ? cuz what I know is that Christians believe the same thing that Allah/God knows everything, past, present and future. And man is free to do what he wishes, yet, God knows all! Isn't that true, also ?
Thank you!
ma'salam
Asad Ali
MonkeeSage Registered User
Posts: 525
(5/4/02 7:11 pm) Reply
Re: Let's make it clear !!!!!
Some Christians argue the position that says that God only knows everything, but doesn't decree everything, and that man is absolutely free, but I believe that view has the same problem as Islam, how can God know and man be free? It makes God wrong in His knowledge, or not really free, etc. or man is not absolutely free.
Put the problem another way: when does God know what man will do? If man can always change his mind before he does anything, then when does God know what he will do? God has to simply predict what man will do and could be wrong but has to wait til man makes the final choice to see what happens, or else the man couldn't really change his mind at any time.
The whole thing just doesn't make any sense to me. I happen to follow a different Christian philosophy, which I believes preserves God's freedom and knowledge, as well as man's freedom.
You are in the same boat as some Christians...I'm just rocking your boat ;)
Re: Let's make it clear !!!!!
As a Christian, if we truly follow God and Jesus, and are led by the Holy Spirit, then we voluntarily forfeit our free will and do as the Holy Spirit leads us to do.
That is one exception I can see, if there are others I just don't know.
God, knowing all, would know the final result of a man's decision, thus eliminating the possibility of saying "what if the man changed his mind at the last second".
God would know it. Just as God knows who will and won't have their names in the Lamb's Book of Life.
Peace and Love of Jesus to all of you!
MonkeeSage Registered User
Posts: 534
(5/9/02 4:09 am) Reply
Re: Let's make it clear !!!!!
fleshnblood:
That's just the point ;)
Let me try to state it differently; if man can only do what God already knows that he will then we can't say that he had the ability to do anything other than he did.
Now most Muslims I have spoken with and modern Evangelical Christians use "free will" in the Greek philosophical sense--to mean "total ability" and "freedom of choice" as one and the same idea (which is what my position would reject).
But, this being the case, then how can man be said to have "free will" when he doesn't have the ability to do anything other than what God already knows he will do?
This is why it is a problem for Roman Catholics and others who have adopted the Aristotelian view of "free will" [or "free agency"], and why so much ink was spilled by Thomas Aquinas, Louis de Molina, etc., etc., on the issue.
I don't see how Muslims or Evangelicals can get around this, unless they are willing to redefine "free will" apart from "ability."
That is, are willing to adopt the Biblical definition of freedom in relation to the inherent nature of a person...but that of course would have some drastic implications of both of those theologies, as far as little old me can tell.
If man has an inherently evil nature, and isn't neutral and has the moral inability to really want to be different than he is, and if he does half-way want to change doesn't find the power to do so for any period of time, then man needs a redeemer who can change his very nature--he needs to be changed by the grace of God; so the freedom is still, in an ultimate sense, in God's election, not in man's will--so both modern Evangelicalism and Islam would have to wrestle with the issue of God's justice and election.
Theology is really all interrelated, if you ask me, you can't look at any one part without being lead to look at others and the whole should make a single unit of understanding about man, God and the world. We may still be working through our theology, but the point is always, in my humble opinion, that we need to be working through it (as Christians) and growing in our understanding of the Word.
To Muslims I would say it means you still have a lot to work out in your own theology before you engage in criticizing the Christian position.
Actually, nobody criticized Christians doctrine of KISMET. Someone else from the forum requested to explain the concept of KISMET from islamic viewpoint. [Aww! again, somebody was sleeping during the class ]
Anyhow, on the concept of Kismet, Alhamdolillah, we stand clear and understand it. Our Quran tells us,
There is "Lauh-e-Mahfooz" (sacred book/board where everything is written) and Allah can and does erase and change the text on it (depending on the acts/duas of the humans).
Is Islam Evil? I read this today...
Islam's Threat to the West
Wes Vernon, NewsMax.com
Thursday, May 9, 2002
WASHINGTON – "We do believe Islam is at war with the Christian West.” With that comment, Paul Weyrich and William S. Lind have broken through a taboo in the entire discussion of the war on terrorism.
Those who say the threat comes only from "Islamic fundamentalism” or "Islamic extremism” miss the whole point of the terrorist attacks, Weyrich and Lind argue. In fact, those who believe the terrorist enemy is confined only to a few fanatics "misportray the nature of Islam itself.”
"War against the unbeliever is as central a doctrine and practice of Islam as the Virgin birth, the Trinity and Christ’s resurrection are central to Christianity,” declares the Free Congress booklet.
The study promises to stir up a new debate as to the very nature of the threat the U.S. is fighting. Among its findings:
Islam is simply "a religion of war." You may protest that your Islamic neighbor down the street could not possibly be a threat. Free Congress says you should bear in mind that "there are lax Islamics.” Or to put it another way, the peaceful individual Muslims are out of step with their religion. They are outsiders looking in.
The two principle sources of Islamic belief "ooze war and blood.”
The Koran includes such wording as defining war as "a religious obligation for the faithful” … "fight and slay the pagans,” meaning non-Muslims … "the punishment of those who wage war against God and his Apostle.”
The Hadith, a collection of sayings from Mohammed, quotes him as saying there is no deed "which equals Jihad" in reward … that "a single endeavour [of fighting] in Allah’s cause in the forenoon or in the afternoon is better than the world and whatever is in it" … that the only satisfaction a martyr could derive from coming back to earth would be "so that he may by martyred ten times because of the dignity he receives [from Allah]" … "Know that Paradise is under the shade of swords.” … that "exposing their [non-Muslim] women and children to danger” is justified because as "the prophet replied, ‘They are from them.'”
Presumably, that would explain present-day suicide bombings that kill innocents here and elsewhere.
Weyrich and Lind trace the violent history of Islam to Mohammed himself.
Mohammed Like 'a Mafia Don'
"Not only did he personally wage war,” they note, "he repeatedly called for ‘hits’ on anyone he did not like, in the manner of a mafia don.” For example:
"The apostle Mohammed said, ‘Kill any Jew that falls into your power.’ Thereupon Muhayyisa leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him.”
Nobel literature prize winner Elias Cannetti has defined Islam as "a religion of war – literally a killer belief.”
"Islam has made war on Christendom and Christians since it first swept out of Arabia to conquer much of the Christian Mediterranian world,” the Free Congress study finds.
And then, a brief synopsis of history bringing us up to the present day:
"As recently as 1683, the armies of Islam were besieging Vienna. After about 300 years on the strategic defensive, Islam has recently resumed the strategic offensive. It is now expanding outward in every direction: down both coasts of Africa, east through the South China Sea toward Australia, north into both eastern and western Europe, and west into the United States where the fastest growing religion is Islam. As has been true throughout its history, the expansion of Islam is not peaceful. More Christians are being martyred today than at the height of the Roman persecutions, and most of them are dying at the hands of Islam. Christendom is in peril.”
Quite simply, Weyrich and Lind view the present-day terrorism as an extension of a religious war. Islam, they explain, divides the world into two portions; the Dar al Islam, the world of Islam, and the Dar al Harb, the world of war. Peace is possible only within the world of Islam.
Islam is on the cutting edge of the new kind of warfare that does not involve easily identifiable nations or governments. Rather, there is a war of cultures, occurring not just "over there” but on American soil, a trend Free Congress says was observable "long before September 11.”
Re: I read this today ?
I believe that Islam is a violent religion, therefore it is evil.
I do not see the Muslims offering love to the Israelis.
I do not see the Muslims condemning the acts of terrorism.
I do not see the Muslim clergy reprimanding these terrorists for going against the Islamic faith.
I believe that Islam basically condemns itself by it's actions, or it's lack of actions.
Peace!
~The greatest test of courage on earth is to bear defeat without losing heart.~
Many sunnis I know of, believe in it, too.
Re: philosophy
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies