Dangerous assumptions!

Submitted by Noah Wilk (United States), Jan 3, 2007 at 02:33

Freidman, you're making some very dangerous assumptions, I'm afraid. You wrote:

"I keep on reading respectable comments from Muslims here who are nothing like the neo-Nazis one reads throughout the cyberspace, yet they are insisting that the world will be Islamized. Pipes says that non-violence is the road to victory for Islam. But if Islam prevails through peace, why does Pipes present that in terms of doom?"

First, you have to understand that Muslims are compelled to lie in the defense of Islam. Their religion actually demands that they lie to non-Muslims. Can you name me one single Islamic country...just one out of the entire world...where the people living under Islamic law are happy, prosperous, and free? There are none. Look also at every country where Muslims emigrate in large numbers, and see the violence that inevitably erupts from them. Britain, Spain, Denmark, America...where are they not causing trouble, even when they slipped in under the pretense of "peaceful immigration"?

Islam cannot prevail through peace, because Islam does not understand the word "peace". The very word means "submission", ie everyone must submit to that psychotic death cult or die. What on the surface may appear to be "peaceful" immigration is just another weapon in Islam's arsenal. You simply cannot trust a cult that worships death, that believes its divine duty is to force the entire world to submit to its atrocities, and whose "holy" book tells them to lie to us in order to achieve their goals.

You wrote:

"What would be so bad if peace rules the world?'

No, but to expect peace from Islam is like...well, let's just say the day that happens, I will get struck by lighting and win the lottery in two different states, all on the same day! That's how likely it is.

And this part makes no sense to me:

"Perhaps the greatest threat is that Muslims will be both peaceful and intolerant of those with a different religion."

That's an oxymoron. How can you be peaceful with others and at the same time intolerant of them? Islam's intolerance sits at the very core if its being. Intolerance is an indivisible part of Islam. And it is precisely that intolerance that is their ultimate impediment to peaceful co-existence. They do not believe that any other religion (or lack therof!) can be tolerated and that all non-Muslims must be subjugated or killed. It is impossible to be both peaceful and intolerant at the same time, hence Islam can never become peaceful.

Next, you wrote:

"In Europe, however, I don't see what would be wrong. Europeans are generally morally bankrupt, so Islam would be better than no religion. If you would worry that Islam would hinder its economic and scientific devlopment, I think secularism can do the same thing with falling birthrates and nihilism."

Name a country in Europe that offers less hope, less freedom, less tolerance, less happiness, less opportunity, than any Islamic country. Yes, the Europeans are having a tough time and they're becoming more confused by the day. But where would you rather live? Great Britain or Saudi Arabia? Norway or Iran? France or Iraq? Sweden or Sudan? I fail to see how you can honestly claim that it would be better to live under a suppresive, intolerant death cult where you can be executed for failing to say your afternoon prayers than it would be to live in a free society.

Islam is not better than no religion. Few if any western countries are theocracies, and yet they offer the most religious freedom and tolerance, the most of all freedoms, the most happiness, the most opportunity. On the other hand, the most oppressive countries are usually theocracies. Islam is a prime example of this.

Next, you wrote:

"Also, there are a few religious Jews and Christians pose a hindrance to economic and scientific development, even if not as great a number as the Muslims."

This is a non-issue. Israel is mainly Jewish and America is 80% Christian, and you see no lack of economic or scientific development. Who was the first country to put a man on the moon?

This part also puzzles me:

"I think that if Muslims remain democratic"

Time out! "Remain" democratic? When did they ever become democratic? Even when they get to vote, they vote in terror groups who institute Sharia law. That's not democracy. Democracy is and always will be a foreign concept to these people.

Next, you ask a question that's already been answered around the world:

"than their growth won't be dangerous. That means those who want to remain to their own religious convictions can and that the government will respect people's human rights and women. We'll see what happens in Iraq."

We don't need to wait and see. We freed Afghanistan from the Taliban and when they got to vote, what happened? They got Sharia law, and a few months back were about to execute a man for the "crime" of converting from Islam to Christianity! What happened in the Palestinian territories? They got to vote, and they voted in Hamas, a terrorist group that wants to insitute Sharia law. And the Iraqi constitution (that's a joke!) clearly states that no law may contradict Islam and that Islam is the religion of the state.

So much for democracy in the middle east!

I do agree with you though, on one issue:

"As of now, though, I don't think we have to worry about Muslims being too peaceful'

Understatement of the century! :-)

---

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".