Re: Re: Re: Re: An Historical Perspective on a Muslim Being Sworn into Congress on the Koran (Part II)
| Posted On: 02/01/07 04:09:57 PM |
Age 27, MD |
You state: "And many prominant American Christians (like Ann Coulter) have said the Iraq war is about making Iraqis into Christians through force."
That's the first time I've ever heard anything like that. (Except from maybe the liberal media, and then they're mostly talking about what Christians are doing to their fellow countrymen...)
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: An Historical Perspective on a Muslim Being Sworn into Congress on the Koran (Part II)
| Posted On: 01/30/07 10:47:58 PM |
Age 41, SD |
NO, not shame on me, because a true Muslim would NEVER be fighting alongside with an American. You have the Arab raced mixed up with those who are Muslim. Arab is a race, not a religion. Mohammad founded the Islam religion.
Here are deffinitions to help you understand.
Islam (s-lm, z-, slrm, z-) KEY
NOUN:
A monotheistic religion characterized by the acceptance of the doctrine of submission to God and to Muhammad as the chief and last prophet of God.
The people or nations that practice Islam; the Muslim world.
The civilization developed by the Muslim world.
Muslim (mzlm, mz-, ms-, ms-) KEY
NOUN: Muslim
also Moslem (mzlm, ms-) KEY A believer in or adherent of Islam.
A member of the Nation of Islam; a Black Muslim.
I personally know people from Pursia and Pakistan who are not Muslim nor Islam, but Christians. It would be these Middle East people who do not hold the beliefs of Islam who would die alongside Americans.
It appears you are a Muslim apologist who ignores the truth in that they wish every infidel dead (non Islams) and that you are antagonistic towards Christianity.
At any rate, I hope the both of us learned something from this.
I know I will be doing personal research on Barbary Piracy.
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: An Historical Perspective on a Muslim Being Sworn into Congress on the Koran (Part II)
| Posted On: 01/30/07 10:35:22 PM |
Age 41, SD |
I guess I need to do some studying on my own, but I doubt the soul reason was financial. After all, one can not dispute real quotes from real people. And I repeat, "and in 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson candidly asked the Ambassador from Tripoli the motivation behind their unprovoked attacks against Americans. What was the response?
The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet [Mohammed] that it was written in their Koran that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners; that is was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise. [iii]"
And as far as attacking fellow muslim ships, God fortold in the Old Testament that he would make the Arab nation a great nation, and his brothers hand would always be against his brother, and the rest of the World. This is what God had told Ishmael's mother. Sounds true, hu?
I never read Ann Coulter, and if she did say the war is about forcing Iraqis to be Christians is a bunch of hog-wash. First, that is lie of what this war is about, and one can not be forced to be a Christian. It is a conscious choice to receive Christ as Savior, something that can not be faked or forced. It is only through the Holy Spirit that a Christian can joyously that Jesus Christ is Lord and say "Abba," father.
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: An Historical Perspective on a Muslim Being Sworn into Congress on the Koran (Part II)
| Posted On: 01/30/07 10:25:48 PM |
Age 41, SD |
I guess it depends on what historian you read. Unfortunately, even with history, people tend to slant why things happened with their opinions. The little research I did said nothing of financial need to do piratry. Anyhow, one can not dispute real quotes from real people. And I repeat, "and in 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson candidly asked the Ambassador from Tripoli the motivation behind their unprovoked attacks against Americans. What was the response?
The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet [Mohammed] that it was written in their Koran that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners; that is was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise. [iii]"
I never read Ann Coulter, and if she did say the war is about forcing Iraqis to be Christians is a bunch of hog-wash.
|
Re: Re: Re: An Historical Perspective on a Muslim Being Sworn into Congress on the Koran (Part II)
| Posted On: 01/30/07 12:02:35 PM |
Age 31, ON |
And many prominant American Christians (like Ann Coulter) have said the Iraq war is about making Iraqis into Christians through force. Does that make the soldiers of "Christian America" terrorists? I'm not defending the Barbary Pirates but all historians I have ever read (including those from America who chronicled the events at the time they happened) state that the Barbary Pirates were acting on financial, not religious, motivations. Why else would they attack the shipping of fellow Muslim nations?
|
Re: Re: Re: An Historical Perspective on a Muslim Being Sworn into Congress on the Koran (Part II)
| Posted On: 01/30/07 11:56:52 AM |
Age 31, ON |
This previous post is an insult to the thousands of Muslims in the American armed forces. They are right now shedding their blood in defense of your freedom. Shame.
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: An Historical Perspective on a Muslim Being Sworn into Congress on the Koran (Part II)
| Posted On: 01/27/07 08:46:06 AM |
Age 31, ON |
Hold on here. Let's not start calling names. How is anyone who disagrees with you either a "knucklehead or a Muslim"? Asking whether there is a difference between Christianity and the American Dream is a legitimate one. If there is no difference then a non-Christian cannot be a legitimate citizen of the USA. This is clearly not the case. Or perhaps one cannot be a Christian without subscribing to the American Dream. But this is clearly untrue given the vast number of Christians who do not live in the USA. So why is a person who asks about the difference between Christianity and the American Dream a "knucklehead or a Muslim"?
|
Re: Re: An Historical Perspective on a Muslim Being Sworn into Congress on the Koran (Part II)
| Posted On: 01/25/07 09:41:29 AM |
Age 41, SD |
It is me again,
I understand why he used the term "terrorist", since their reasoning for their "war" on the seas was justified by their Koran, so the "Terrorist actions today with the World Trade Center and all the actions around the world are justified by the same Koran.
In 1784, Congress authorized American diplomats John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson to negotiate with the Muslim terrorists. [ii] Negotiations proceeded, and in 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson candidly asked the Ambassador from Tripoli the motivation behind their unprovoked attacks against Americans. What was the response?
The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet [Mohammed] that it was written in their Koran that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners; that is was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise. [iii]
|
Re: Re: Re: An Historical Perspective on a Muslim Being Sworn into Congress on the Koran (Part II)
| Posted On: 01/25/07 01:35:31 AM |
Age 51, GA |
Are you a knucklehead or a muslim? To me it's pretty much one and the same. Do you like the idea of getting down and praying towards Mecca five times a day? These people are badly deceived, and do not know that Christ is the only way to heaven. 72 virgins, what a sick joke, you'd almost think it was thought up by a teen-aged prankster. Sober up son, they don't like infidels, especially liberal ones... slit throats aren't pretty.
|
Re: Re: Re: An Historical Perspective on a Muslim Being Sworn into Congress on the Koran (Part II)
| Posted On: 01/24/07 11:32:48 PM |
Age 42, MO |
No one said anything about electing him as official, the problem is swearing him in on the Koran. Is he loyal to that book? If so, that is scary to me because of the potential threat that could carry to the American way of life. If you haven't noticed, the Muslims,not all but in general, hate us and want to destroy us.
|
Re: Re: An Historical Perspective on a Muslim Being Sworn into Congress on the Koran (Part II)
| Posted On: 01/24/07 11:27:33 PM |
Age 47, MO |
You are right in your basic assertion that many Americans are ignorant of the Muslim threat. However, a better metaphor would be that too many Americans are sitting on their "left behinds" with their noses in a book or video that regurgitates the same old weasely vague predictions of an imminent rapture. "Soon" is one of many words that rapture speculators use as weasel words. Too many Americans act as if rapture predicting is more important than voting intelligently.
|
Re: An Historical Perspective on a Muslim Being Sworn into Congress on the Koran (Part II)
| Posted On: 01/24/07 11:10:56 PM |
Age 42, MO |
Great article! The Koran is a dangerous book if taken litteraly, in wich many times it is, as we see with the radical Muslims. How we can sit back and see an American Official be sworn in on a Koran is beyond me. Especially when we can see how those, maybe not all, that follow the Koran want to destroy America as we know it. I think that the majority of the population that paid any attention to it really was not comfortable with it. I agree with the others, our melting pot is not melting, but there is alot of contention stirring.
|
Re: Re: An Historical Perspective on a Muslim Being Sworn into Congress on the Koran (Part II)
| Posted On: 01/24/07 10:18:29 PM |
Age 41, SD |
I see where you are comming from, and I dissagree with what both sides have done, and two wrongs don't make a right.
One thing you fail to point out is, that thousands of Americans shed their blood to free the slaves during the civil war. Excuse me, but I doubt very much that in this life time or the next to come that a Muslim would be willing to die to set an American free. Their belief in the false Koran will make sure of that.
It is the Belief in the Bible that the Christian President Lincoln saw that slavery was wrong, and his life was taken because of it.
|
Re: Re: An Historical Perspective on a Muslim Being Sworn into Congress on the Koran (Part II)
| Posted On: 01/24/07 08:48:04 PM |
Age 63, OH |
POW'S - Are you kidding me. The Barbary terrorists did not attack war ships. Attacking innocent defenseless people is not war. These men were cowards just like the Muslim terrorists who kill innocent women and babies are cowards today. But I suppose that a puny god who needs men to defend him does not inspire much bravery.
|
Re: Re: An Historical Perspective on a Muslim Being Sworn into Congress on the Koran (Part II)
| Posted On: 01/24/07 08:36:29 PM |
Age 63, OH |
I can not see why anyone would defend in anyway the Barbary Pirates or the Barbary terrorists. You may not want to call them terrorists but I will. They were both pirates and terrorists. Do you really think that the sailors taken and made slaves owned slaves. No that was the rich plantation owners like Jefferson who owned slaves. Jefferson was despicable; he did not free his own son from slavery on Jefferson's death. I have never seen more hypocrisy than the words penned by Jefferson on his memorial: "I don't want to bring tyranny to any man's mind". He sure brought tyranny to the mind and body of his own son. He was able to write lovely sounding words but was not able to even be a decent man, but was the worst of cowards. His memorial is a disgrace at our nations capital and should be torn down. The slave owners in America did not take the slaves into captivity. That was done by their Muslim and Animist black brothers. How does evil men in America owning slaves that were sold by their Muslim brothers justify the same evil Muslims taking more slaves of innocent men.
|
Re: An Historical Perspective on a Muslim Being Sworn into Congress on the Koran (Part II)
| Posted On: 01/24/07 06:17:59 PM |
Age 31, ON |
While otherwise well written, Mr. Barton is being disingenuious by using the term "terrorist" to describe the military forces of the Barbary nations. He acknowledges that these forces are virtually always called the "Barbary pirates," as they should be. Terrorists use violence to further ideological goals. The Barbary nations were using force or the threat of force for monetary gain. That is piracy, not terrorism.
One other point of interest involved the slave trade in captured Americans. What I wonder is the difference between American POW's sold into slavery or ransomed, and Muslim or Animist Africans from countries not at war with America captured and sold as slaves?
|
Re: Re: An Historical Perspective on a Muslim Being Sworn into Congress on the Koran (Part II)
| Posted On: 01/24/07 01:36:35 PM |
Age 25, WA |
Since there seems to be some positioning that indicates the American Dream and Christianity are synonymous, can someone please clarify WHAT the "Dream" is?
The idea that a Moslem should NOT be elected to Congress descecrates the Constitution. First, it belittles the voting public's decision to elect Rep. Ellison; second, it signifies that the concept of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a selective phrase reserved only for those who are Christian. Are we suddenly deciding that we're only a Christian nation if we supposedly vote in favor of legislation that "supports" godly principles?
Your logic is circular. Either we're a "Christian" nation imposing imperialist principles on its citizens, or we're a de facto Christian nation depending on how people vote.
|
Re: An Historical Perspective on a Muslim Being Sworn into Congress on the Koran (Part II)
| Posted On: 01/24/07 10:04:46 AM |
Age 39, VA |
Wonderfuly written. What you will never hear from most in the news. This should be posted on every new paper in the country. But, alas, we as sheep are led to the slaughter by our own, who blindly believe that if we only play nice the bad people will go away and leave us alone.
|
Re: An Historical Perspective on a Muslim Being Sworn into Congress on the Koran (Part II)
| Posted On: 01/24/07 09:20:18 AM |
Age 40, MI |
How disappointing that this elected official, having never researched the back ground on the Koran owned by Thomas Jefferson, would use it or even could use it to be sworn in to office.
First and foremost, I am a Patriotic American, saved by the grace of God through Jesus Christ.
I pray that My fellow Americans will see the world coming against us, to destroy us; and not just offer to sharpen the blade to be used on us.
Nehemiah when rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem, admonished the men to build with one hand and keep your weapon in the other.
And when you hear the trumpet, come to that point prepared for war, and God will do battle. America please keep vigil with us.
Thank you David Barton, for showing us God's hand in America's history.
Roland Szukhent
|
Re: An Historical Perspective on a Muslim Being Sworn into Congress on the Koran (Part II)
| Posted On: 01/24/07 09:06:50 AM |
Age 59, FL |
The major unanswered question that remains is: How could Americans elect a muslim? Are we so disconnected from our antecedants that we have lost all national identity? I grew up with the "melting pot" analogy, and still believe it to be true. Using that anology - a lot is going into the pot - but nothing is melting together. Or maybe it would be better to look at our moto "E pluribus unum" - "out of mamy, one" It seems like we now have changed the meaning to "Out of many - many!" Everything that erudite historians like David Barton read and say makes me want to put on ash and sack cloth - as I mourn the growing disintegration of the end of the American dream.
|
|
|
|
|
