Too often one encounters people who believe that "all religions teach the same thing." I find this sort of thinking reductionist at best, and lacking in spiritual insight. As an example, Buddhism believes that man becomes god himself if he becomes enlightened enough. Judaism, on the other hand looks at God as the all powerful creator of everything that exists. Man can never become God, but God can, if he so chooses, accept certain men, based not on their works, but on their faith. Christianity proposes that all men may become the sons of the living God if they have faith in Jesus, and truly believe. Through God's great grace and love for his creature, man, Christians dare to call upon Him as "Father." This is a profoundly different idea than the religion proposed in the Koran, in which man must submit. Christianity's "perfect example" is Jesus, who was a servant to all mankind, eventually suffering a torturous death, taking the punishment each man deserves on Himself, for the salvation of mankind. For this reason Jesus was called the Son of God, and the Christ, the Savior of Mankind. Hence Christians pray to God in the name of Jesus Christ. Islams "perfect example" is a lusty womanizer, pedophile, warlord, who healed no one, spread his religion by terrorizing anyone who would not immediately accept it. The Christian God wants us to love him and have a relationship with him. Islam's Allah demands you submit. So you perhaps see some slight differences there?
Selwyn Duke's article ttoday at American Thinker is entitled Why the Establishment Can't Grasp the Nature of Islam . Duke introduces his topic with these paragraphs:
The media and effete powers-that-be have been twisting themselves into Halal pretzels Islamsplainin’, rationalizing how a given Muslim terrorist attack isn’t really “Islamic” or isn’t significant. These contortions can become quite ridiculous, such as suggesting that recent Allahu Akbar-shouting Munich shooter Ali Sonboly might somehow have had “right-wing” motives because, among his violent passions, was an interest in Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik.
A more common (un)intellectual contortion is the minimizing tactic of claiming, as is politically correct authorities’ wont, that a given jihadist attacker “has no ties to IS” (the Islamic State), as if there’s nothing to see here if a man doesn’t provide notarized evidence of allegiance to the boogeyman du jour. Yet this is much as if we’d claimed during the Cold War that a Marxist terrorist attack wasn’t really a Marxist™ terrorist attack because we couldn’t find a connection to the Soviet Union. The issue and problem wasn’t primarily the Soviet Union but communism (Marxism birthed the USSR, not the other way around), an evil ideology that wreaks havoc wherever it takes hold. Likewise, the IS didn’t birth Islam; Islam birthed the IS.Various people have been mislead to believe that since not ALL Muslims are waging violent jihad, that somehow Islam is the "religion of peace." But anyone who has studied ISIS tactics, or those of the Taliban, will quickly note that fellow Muslims are more often the target of these groups ire than are Christians, Jews, and other assorted religions. As it turns out:
Yet there’s more to understanding Muslim violence. A comprehensive German study of 45,000 immigrant youths, reported in 2010, found that while increasing religiosity among the Christian youths made them less violent, increasing religiosity among the Muslim youths actually made them more violent. Not more violent “if they join Islamic State” — but more violent, period. And while the study authors had their own, mostly politically correct explanations, I think I know a major reason why.
Becoming serious about a faith and digging into it generally means getting closer to its actual teachings. A lukewarm cradle Catholic may have little knowledge of even the Bible, but a devout one will likely have read that and the Church’s catechism. Likewise, an indifferent nominal Muslim (you know, the kind they call “moderate”) may not know much of the Koran, nine percent of which is devoted to political violence. Yet a pious Muslim may scour that book — and more. He may also imbibe the remaining 84 percent of the Islamic canon, the two books known as the Hadith and Sira.
And, respectively, 21 percent and 67 percent of their texts are devoted to political violence.
That’s what you call a full dose. Also note that while access to these two more obscure Islamic canonical texts was once limited, the Internet age places them at everyone’s fingertips. Couple this with the violent preaching of immigrant Imams, and that Muslims consider violent warlord Mohammed “The Perfect Man” and thus the ultimate role model, and the German study’s findings are no mystery. Speaking of mysteries, though, the true effect of Islam will remain one unless we delve further — and break ourselves of certain misconceptions common to our times.If one merely reads the newspaper, or listens to the nightly news reports on the television, one gets a disconnected presentation of events. These can seem random, disconnected, events out of the blue. The value of news magazines is in their more in-depth reporting, tying various pieces of the random events together to form a picture. One such picture is the one proposed by Eileen F. Toplansky, also at the American Thinker today, in a blog post entitled: Is there a backstory about Khizr Khan and Donald Trump?
As it turns out, there is.
But is there even more to the story about Khizr Khan? According to Theodore Shoebat and Walid Shoebat, Mr. Khizr Muazzam Khan is a promoter of Islamic sharia law and a co-founder of the Journal of Contemporary Issues in Muslim Law (sharia). In fact, in the past, Khizr Khan has shown "his appreciation for an icon of the Muslim Brotherhood" by the name of Said Ramadan, who "wrote material for the Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia, an organization that has been promoting Islamic revivalism and indoctrination to recruit young people in Malaysia to jihadism." Mr. Said Ramadan was the son-in-law of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood including Ahmad Bahefzallah, the boss of Huma Abedin (Hillary Clinton's aide)[.]"With the background Toplansky has provided, it looks more and more as if Mr. Khan's performance at the DNC convention was indeed a plant designed to get Mr. Trump to make exactly the sort of statement that he indeed made. But looking at the bigger picture, at least Mr. Trump has shown no tendencies to allow Sharia to supplant the Constitution. The Democrats themselves look more and more like a party of fruits and nuts (for a sampling see the trangendered issues, the gay issue, the planned parenthood abortion issue, the current problem with showing ID for voting, but nothing else), led by a criminal gang, supported by the useful idiots of the press, and looking to prey on the rest of us. How any normal, red blooded American can seriously associate with these people is anyone's guess.
Mr. Trump has his faults, to be sure, but they don't (so far) extend to actual treason, and he is not an unindicted crime boss.