Life under Shari'a

Submitted by Kendra (United States), Dec 29, 2006 at 04:05

It continues to astound me that most of the world does not see or understand the importance of this issue. They continue to call all those that do understand war-mongerers and racists-- even when confronted with those that have suffered under Islamic Jihad or regimes, such as Brigitte Gabriel-- or even those that have left Islam under threats of death-- such as Walid Shoebat.

I keep wondering if those in the present administration are planning to do what they need to do? Will they take out Ahmadinejad? Is the president going to wait with the hope that another Republican government will be voted in and be able to do what needs to be done? Is Bush laying low because he believes if he acts right now, the Republicans are doomed for the next Presidential election? Or, did he lose his spine in the face of world opinion/the Left's opinion? Are they planning something right now we're unaware of?

As much as the Leftists are self-haters, America-haters, etc., do they patronize the Islamists so much that they dismiss them as unable to achieve their stated goals? Do they think it's just rhetoric on the Islamists' part? They seem to hold Islam in esteem- so I'm not sure where this belief would come from. Or, are they really just like William Blum-- and believe that America deserves to be taken down a few notches? If this is the case, are they so absolutely the opposite of what they believe themselves to be that they'd be willing to sacrifice thousands-- maybe millions-- more Americans-- their own families and friends?

And, why are most Jews, in particular, blind when it comes to this issue? Professing to love Israel, hate that Ahmadinejad held the holocaust conference, why are they so reluctant to see this issue for what it is-- an existential battle?

Virgil H. Goode Jr was brave to say what he said the other day, but even he missed the defining issue. He needed to state that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and that Islam is antithetical to these principles. He needed to state that every country that uses the Koran as its foundational book lacks the freedoms we possess in the U.S.

Lastly, Keith Ellison's remarks in Dearborn are typical Islamic double-speak. One doesn't really know the thoughts behind the comments, but they were cryptic enough to cause grave concern, I think. He said, "You can't back down. You can't chicken out. You can't be afraid. You got to have faith in Allah, and you've got to stand up and be a real Muslim," Don't they have to stand up and be real Americans? Don't they have to stand up and speak out against terrorism, against the murder of innocents, against Islamism?

The Koran actually permits lying to further the spread of Islam. If the lie would benefit Islam, then, according to Muhammed, the lie is beneficial. If this is the case, it doesn't really matter what Ellison takes his oath with. It would be completely hypocritical to take the oath on the bible if he doesn't believe it, and taking the oath over the Koran just means he will follow those laws over the laws of the United States.

What people need to remember is that in the West, morality is anything that tends to promote or enhance life (even if we disagree on a few issues). Anything that tends to impede life or cause life to cease is generally considered immoral.

In Islam, morality is anything that tends to spread or further Islam. Anything that tends to impede the spread of Islam is considered immoral.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".