Fanatical Islam

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
User avatar
Oldemandalton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Oldemandalton »

InfoWarrior;
1. We are allied with Al Qaeda minions as they unwittingly do our bidding. Biggest glaring contradiction where the mainstream Neo-Con's can't seem to comprehend. Carefully read and click on ALL the links in the article I posted above AND watch the Hilary Clinton video.
I agree that many of the Republican/Conservative pundits on TV and Radio might not know the past relationships we have had with the Muslim Brotherhood and other evil organizations. All throughout the history of the US we have often followed the old saw “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” to find that it has a tendency to back fire in our face with disastrous results. I liken this to an enemy setting a fire in his neighbour’s field. If he’s not careful it could spread to his own field.
If you check the genesis of all of the Muslim terrorist organizations in the world today you will find the Muslim Brotherhood there everytime.
InfoWarrior;
2. You didn't watch the video of Wesley Clark, did you?
Yes. I’ve seen it before. I would not be surprised if he was telling the truth OR exaggerating. The Pentagon has contingency plans for hundreds of scenarios. Maybe someone was up late reading and found the “let’s take over the Middle East volume” and said “hey this sounds cool!” :))

If we would have gone independent on oil back in the 70s after the Arab Oil Embargo as we had planned then all of this would be moot. Of course this is the grand plan of Master Mahan and Satan. So here we sit with us and the West depends on ME oil, a fanatical Islamic movement born in the 1920s and now all grown up, Israel surrounded by enemies bent on their destruction, and Iran soon to have nuclear weapons. This is not a coincidence.
InfoWarrior;
3. Your quote about "good men doing nothing".... I'm confused. You certainly applied it to your desire to have the "Responsibility to Protect". You then, seemingly, go on to criticize the doctrine "Responsibility to Protect" as I read your comment that these wars are unrighteous. You also interchangeably use this reasoning to degrade Ron Paul's constitutional foreign policy, but then liken it to the rise of dictators overseas... you really aren't making any sense here. Can you clarify?
Sorry to confuse, InfoWarrior. I was applying the Edmund Burke quote to Hitler’s rise to power whom his neighbour’s, the Europeans, had an obligation to stop when they had a chance in the 30s. That could have saved millions of lives. Same thing can be said about Ahmadinejad and Khomeini’s Iran. We could have stopped them years ago when they first began their nuke program but as in the 30s no one had the ….. ‘manhood’ to do it. Israel did it twice to Iraqi and Syrian nuke sites when they were just emerging with no problem. Each year it becomes more dangerous to the point where we sit now. As I said before Israel has been put into a no win position, on purpose. They will have to try and take out the enrichment facilities and take the blame for the consequences.

Libya and Syria should be the responsibility of their neighbours and the Arab League not NATO or the West. The "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine allows the UN to get involved.

Ron Paul just swings too far even beyond the Founding Fathers. They didn’t require a ‘declaration of war’ for many military actions, I.E. the Barbary Wars for one example. Also the involvement in the internal affairs of other countries, I.E Monroe Doctrine.

BTW, I am sure glad France of 1778 was not run by a ‘Ron Paul’, otherwise we would still be an English colony. ;)
InfoWarrior;
4. They aren't doing all this just through the judicial branch. They're doing it on every aspect of daily life you can think of off the top of your head. This ONE aspect of religious in-fighting that you are focusing on, (like a laser), is merely just one of the thousands of fronts they are using to divide and conquer. It is meant as a distraction in the big picture.
Yes Islamic terrorism is a part of the big picture. Go here for a few more:
http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/03/07/fro ... nnections/
InfoWarrior;
5. If you don't think the Muslim Brotherhood is controlled by western entities, you're fooling yourself. Read the links I posted about that again. Again, it makes no sense that we could have Muslim Brotherhood operatives in the WH without our intelligence agencies knowing about it.
You need to re-read them InfoWarrior. They don’t say CONTROL but cooperation. We know what the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood are. What is the goal of the Obama Whitehouse? As if we both don’t know the answer to that one. :(
InfoWarrior;
6. You say that it is unrighteous for the U.S. to fight wars in Libya, Syria, and Africa etc. You don't want preemptive war. Ok, so tell me why you aren't a Ron Paul supporter again?!?!?

From another post:

Have Trouble With Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy?
Yes.
Ron Paul believes that ‘Flawed’ US Policies Led To 9/11. Our "troops overseas aggravate our enemies, motivate our enemies."
“I don’t see Islam as our enemy,” Paul said. “I see that motivation is occupation and those who hate us and would like to kill us, they are motivated by our invasion of their land, the support of their dictators that they hate.”

The birth of the modern Jihadist’s movement began in the 1920s and Bin Laden, who organized and financed al Qaeda in the beginning, planned to go after the USA soon after their victory over Russia in Afghanistan in 1989. This has nothing to do with any flawed policies of America’s past. Ron Paul does not understand that there are evil men in the world today who want to destroy and kill for a cause greater than just one country. Thus he is naïve about the intentions of Jihadists. He assumes the only motivation for the Jihadists’ hatred for America is our meddling into their affairs overseas and do not take into account the millennial long belief of fanatical Muslims in the spreading of their religion through jihad, the desire for the rebirth of an Islamic Caliphate and End Times beliefs of the fanatical ‘twelvers’ of Iran.

Ron Paul and his followers are myopic and see America as the center of all that is wrong in the world and do not understand that evil exists and uses the error of others to pass the evil they do to them. Hitler blamed the excesses of the Treaty of Versailles Germany signed after WW I to come to power, become a fascist dictator, and Conquer Europe. He used those errors as an excuse for the millions that died in WW II for his own ambitions. The Jihadists main goal is a Caliphate, the destruction of Israel, and the spread of Islam as a religion and government to the entire world. America, Israel and the West are impediments to that goal.

Paul opposed the war in Afghanistan and the ‘Authorization for Military Force’ but voted for the resolution anyway because he was afraid of the backlash from his constituents.

Al Qaeda attacked the US from Afghanistan and was being protected by the Taliban. As Thomas Jefferson and James Madison did in the Barbary Wars we were within our constitution rights to go into Afghanistan after the terrorists (we should have left long before now though). Paul is naïve to believe we could use mercenaries (Letters of Marque and Reprisal) to go after the thousands of al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan instead of our own military as Jefferson and Madison did.

Argued that we shouldn’t have fought Hitler in WWII.

Germany declared war on the U.S. and Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Even with the couple of days advanced warning we had, the Japanese would have still launched their attack. On the same day of Pearl Harbor, Japanese forces attacked the British colony of Hong Kong, they invaded the Philippines, invaded Thailand from bases in French Indochina, and invaded Malaya. We could not have avoided WW II and should have helped the world defeat fascism as we did. This is a naïve belief of Dr. Paul and his supporters.

Ron Paul rejects a U.N. agency report that indicates Iran is within months of developing nuclear weaponry, calling it “war propaganda.”

This is where Ron Paul’s naivite is dangerous to America, Israel and every other country in the Middle East. The evidence is overwhelming that Iran is building nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles to put them on, as I have shown in the many sources in my past posts. Paul and his supporters can keep their heads in the sand and refuse to believe these facts. Calling them “war propaganda” does not make them false, it only shows his ignorance and naiveté on the subject which is dangerous in a Commander in Chief.

Ron Paul says he would remove the U.S. sanctions on Iran.

So Dr Paul wants to stop one of the only non-military deterrents against Iran’s building Nuclear weapons? How about the charge that we supported and built up Hitler before WW II by giving him loans, technology, and trading with Germany? This is a hypocritical stance I have noticed among many Ron Paul supporters. IMO I don’t think we should give loans and trade to ANY of our enemies including Iran.

Dr. Paul blames America for Iran’s efforts to go nuclear.
Chris Wallace asked Paul how he would persuade Iran not to build a nuclear weapon. He replied, "Well, maybe offering friendship to them. I mean, didn't we talk to the Soviets, didn't we talk to the Chinese?"

First off I thought Iran had no intentions of building nuclear weapons!?

Why do they want one?

1.Ever since the Iranian Islamic Revolution they have become the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world and has been exporting their radical form of Islam to Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Algeria, Egypt, and Turkey beside the terrorists groups they fund in Europe and elsewhere. With a nuclear umbrella Iran can realize its goal without fear of interference to” defeat the West, achieve leadership of the Arab world, and assert control across the Middle East”. See IRAN'S “SECOND” ISLAMIC REVOLUTION.

2. Rid the world of the “Little Satan”, Israel, and gain the praise and accolades of all Muslims worldwide and thus become the world leader of the Islamic world and the Caliphate they wish to help build.

3. Take out the “great Satan”. I am sure if they could figure a way to get nuclear weapons into one or more of our cities without it being traced back to them they would do it.

“Yeah, there are some radicals, but they don’t come here to kill us because we’re free and prosperous. … They come here and want to do us harm because we’re bombing them.”

This shows Dr. Paul’s penchant for ‘blame America first’. If he bothered to study the history of the Islamic terrorists and of the Jihadi’s movement he will realize that there goals have nothing to do with our “bombing them”. The Fanatical Islamists just use that as a red herring for the gullible and naïve. If you want to find out the real reason for the terrorism we face today and the Jihadi Movement follow this path; Ottoman Empire, Wahhabism, Muslim Brotherhood, the Hojjatieh Society and New Caliphate.

Hint, go to sources which quote the Jihadis themselves.

Ron Paul is “anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all.”

This contradicts all of the prophesies and God’s promises to the Jews that they would settle the Holy Land in the Last days.

Rep. Ron Paul told Don Imus on his show that Israel was "preventing food and medicine from going into Gaza. And that 'people that are starving' then compared the living conditions in Gaza as 'almost like in concentration camps.'"

Dr. Paul is wrong again. Food and medicine comes in, it is the war making material that is kept out. Hamas even rejected the supplies which Israel took off the ‘Gaza flotilla’ and trucked in. Israel has said repeatedly that any humanitarian supplies are welcomed to come by land but that’s not what Hamas wants. They want to smuggle arms on ships entering Gazan waters.


InfoWarrior;
7. Any major military action in Iran will undoubtedly start WW3. The answer here is de-escalation. Any interference by foreign countries in the ME is considered escalation (including the U.S., Russia, China, etc.)
I agree. De-escalation would be great. As I said before all Iran has to do is live up to the agreements it has signed, stop enriching uranium beyond what they need for nuclear power, be transparent, stop threatening Israel and the US with destruction and tell the world that Israel has a right to exist. Why hasn’t this taken place? It doesn’t cost them a cent, they’ll save money from not needing huge bunkers for their enrichment sites, have the embargoes lifted and be able to join the peaceful nations of the world.
InfoWarrior;
8. On Glenn Beck today, he said it's a catch 22. You act in the ME, you lose. You don't act in the ME, you lose. Why then, wouldn't you (or Glenn) support Ron Paul's constitutional foreign policy? At least you'll be on the side that didn't throw the first punch to start WW3.
We are playing a Grand Champion in Chess. It's checkmate in two moves, what do you do? :(

Israel has to protect their people. They will do it without our help because Obama will not give it. They have been at ‘war’ with Iran for decades, have HUMINT/ SIGINT/ OSINT telling them Iran is building ICBMs and nuclear warheads, and can translate the Farsi the Iranian leaders use in describing their intentions toward their long-time foe, Israel. They KNOW what will happen if they do nothing. They are not sure what may happen if they DO strike Iran. They have to hope for the best case scenario and try like heck to avoid the worst case scenario. That will depend on what the major powers do after Israel hits the enrichment facilities.

User avatar
InfoWarrior82
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10861
Location: "There are 15 on the earth today, you can trust them completely." -President Nelson (Jan 2022)

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by InfoWarrior82 »

OldemanDalton, I think we can agree to disagree with 99.9% of the content of the discussion. You know where I stand on most of these issues and we even agree on most of them, but the one thing that I must make clear and take a firm stand on is this:

No preemptive war. Period.

Iran will either do as the MSM is telling us they will do-- which is to develop nukes and use them. Or they won't. I think it's highly probable that we will not avoid war with Iran in the end. I also think we will end up being the ones to strike first (or Israel.)

I'm sure that you are aware of all the scriptures and the words of our past/current prophets and apostles on what our foreign policy positions should be, so I will not repost them here. I'm going to go ahead and stick to their admonitions. Their words ring true and the Spirit confirms it to me.

User avatar
Book of Ruth
captain of 100
Posts: 264

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Book of Ruth »

Infowarrior, I completely agree with you on the preemptive war. Absolutely NOT. We are not to be the agressors, that is made clear throughout the scriptures.

The thing I agree with OMD about is on the view of Islam as a religion that desires to be "the" religion, through force, that will dominate the world specifically denying Jesus Christ as the Son of God.

We should not preemptively strike, but we should know that we will have to defend ourselves on our own soil over testimony of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, most American's will think that this war is over oil or money, but Satan is really behind it, and his real agenda is destroying those who believe in Jesus Christ.
Last edited by Book of Ruth on March 17th, 2012, 1:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ktg
captain of 100
Posts: 840

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by ktg »

Book of Ruth wrote:Infowarrior, I completely agree with you on the preemptive war. Absolutely NOT. We are not to be the agressors, that is made clear throughout the scriptures.

The thing I agree with OMD about is on is the view of Islam as a religion that desires to be the religion, through force, that will dominate the world specifically denying Jesus Christ as the Son of God.

We should not preemptively strike, but we should know that we will have to defend ourselves on our own soil over testimony of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, most American's will think that this war is over oil or money, but Satan is really behind it, and his real agenda is destroying those who believe in Jesus Christ.
Agreed.

“Our counsel, then, is to the Latter-day Saints who can truthfully take this oath, there is no reason that we know of in the Gospel, or in any of the revelations of God, which prevents you from doing so. You owe it to yourselves; you owe it to your posterity; you owe it to those of your co-religionists who, by this law, are robbed worse than even many of yourselves, of their rights under the Constitution; you owe it to humanity everywhere; you owe it to that free and constitutional form of government, which has been bequeathed to you through the precious sacrifices of many of your forefathers — to do all in your power to maintain religious liberty and free, republican government in these mountains, and to preserve every constitutional right intact, and not to allow, either through supineness or indifference, or any feeling of resentment or indignation because of wrongs inflicted upon you, any right or privilege to be wrested from you. . . . Then having done this, and everything else in your power to preserve constitutional government and full religious freedom in the land, you can safely trust the Lord for the rest. He has promised to fight your battles. . . .” – John Taylor, An Address to the Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 5-6; also in MFP 2:346

The question is do you trust in the arm of the Lord or man? Note, we're instructed to 'preserve constitutional government and full religious freedom', then the Lord will take care of the rest.

User avatar
Oldemandalton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Oldemandalton »

I hear where you’re coming from InfoWarrior. I believe we agree more than disagree. Yes if we attack Iranian nuclear weapons sites it would be a pre-emptive attack. If Israel does, it would not be. It would just be their opening up a new front in the Iranian-Israeli War which has been going on for 3 decades in which Iran has had all of the advantages of the war in that all of the dying and destruction has been in someone else’s country. http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/the ... sraeli-war

To see if I myself would act in a pre-emptive manner against an enemy I only came up with one scenario where I would. As I, my wife and kids were walking down a deserted street we came upon 4 armed men with guns drawn. They then in an obviously aggressive manner say they want to rape my wife and kill me and my kids all the while spreading out to encircle us with weapons aimed at us. I would not hesitate to drawn my 1911 and stop as many as I could before I was shot myself. This would be a “pre-emptive” attack. Sorry InfoWarrior, Ruth, and ktg I would not wait to be shot first or watch as they raped my wife before I drew my weapon. Now would I do the same if I was across the street watching another family being accosted in like manner? Would I shoot before the father was killed or his wife or one of his kids?

BTW I don’t think Obama will attack Iran but wait until Israel does.

User avatar
Fairminded
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1956

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Fairminded »

Oldemandalton wrote:I hear where you’re coming from InfoWarrior. I believe we agree more than disagree. Yes if we attack Iranian nuclear weapons sites it would be a pre-emptive attack. If Israel does, it would not be. It would just be their opening up a new front in the Iranian-Israeli War which has been going on for 3 decades in which Iran has had all of the advantages of the war in that all of the dying and destruction has been in someone else’s country. http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/the ... sraeli-war

To see if I myself would act in a pre-emptive manner against an enemy I only came up with one scenario where I would. As I, my wife and kids were walking down a deserted street we came upon 4 armed men with guns drawn. They then in an obviously aggressive manner say they want to rape my wife and kill me and my kids all the while spreading out to encircle us with weapons aimed at us. I would not hesitate to drawn my 1911 and stop as many as I could before I was shot myself. This would be a “pre-emptive” attack. Sorry InfoWarrior, Ruth, and ktg I would not wait to be shot first or watch as they raped my wife before I drew my weapon. Now would I do the same if I was across the street watching another family being accosted in like manner? Would I shoot before the father was killed or his wife or one of his kids?

BTW I don’t think Obama will attack Iran but wait until Israel does.
I sometimes wonder, OMD, if you actually understand what preemptive means.

In the scenario you provided, from a legal standpoint pointing a loaded gun at someone constitutes assault. Under the law, it is perfectly legal to defend yourself from someone pointing a gun at you.

In order for your actions to be preemptive, the scenario would have to change a little. Instead of being openly aggressive as you suggest, the four men would simply be carrying guns in holsters at their waist, perhaps looking at you funny. If you were to then assume that because they were armed they were going to come and kill you and rape your wife, so you drew your own gun and shot them dead, THAT would be preemptive.

As to your talk of Israel being justified in invading Iran, that's complete BS. Even were the two countries openly at war as you suggest, and have been for years, using wartime as a justification for committing atrocities is flimsy. There are plenty of instances in the Book of Mormon where the Lamanites invaded the Nephites and the two peoples were at war, and the Nephites could've ended the war by invading the Lamanites. AT NO TIME were they encouraged to do so by the godly men who led them. In fact, they were warned that if they did invade the Lamanites God would deliver the Nephites into the hands of their enemies.

There is no time at which invading another country is justified, by the scriptures or by the words of modern day prophets. God will fight your battles for you if you're fighting in defense of your lands and loved ones. If you attack someone else in their lands, he will deliver you into the hands of your enemy. Plain and simple.

User avatar
AussieOi
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6137
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by AussieOi »

Oldemandalton wrote:I hear where you’re coming from InfoWarrior. I believe we agree more than disagree. Yes if we attack Iranian nuclear weapons sites it would be a pre-emptive attack. If Israel does, it would not be. It would just be their opening up a new front in the Iranian-Israeli War which has been going on for 3 decades in which Iran has had all of the advantages of the war in that all of the dying and destruction has been in someone else’s country. http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/the ... sraeli-war

To see if I myself would act in a pre-emptive manner against an enemy I only came up with one scenario where I would. As I, my wife and kids were walking down a deserted street we came upon 4 armed men with guns drawn. They then in an obviously aggressive manner say they want to rape my wife and kill me and my kids all the while spreading out to encircle us with weapons aimed at us. I would not hesitate to drawn my 1911 and stop as many as I could before I was shot myself. This would be a “pre-emptive” attack. Sorry InfoWarrior, Ruth, and ktg I would not wait to be shot first or watch as they raped my wife before I drew my weapon. Now would I do the same if I was across the street watching another family being accosted in like manner? Would I shoot before the father was killed or his wife or one of his kids?

BTW I don’t think Obama will attack Iran but wait until Israel does.

well you and I agree on nothing old man

Typical idiotic statement by a warmongering “Christian” American
What a tragic attempt to justify the slaughter of more innocents. Is that the best you could come up with? A domestic self-defence natural law protective measure? Dear me you are clutching at straws.
You can put your fairy land scenario to rest, we don’t buy it.
Here is what you have been proposing in post after post in thread after thread for month after month

YOU are the bully. YOU walk around and kill people and rape their wives and children, and steal their house and car.
YOU own the guns
YOU are the ONLY person ever to have fired a gun, twice, killing hundreds of thousands of innocents
You recently went and murdered his neighbour, and his family.
You did it because you said he was trying to get a gun like yours, so you had to use yours to protect yourself. You did that, and dropped bombs in shock and awe on the very innocent, women, children. Of course you found no guns, there never were any, apart from the ones you sold him 20 years earlier when you armed him to use them on his neighbour
Now you are going after the neighbour,. Because he_might_obtain a gun like yours
So you will go and kill his children to show him that your heart is owned by Satan.
What’s worse is you belong to a religion that says if anyone has a gun and comes for you, GOD will look after you
AND it says if you go up to THEIR land, YOU will lose.

How clear is that
It even says NO WAR unless god tells his prophet

And you need Obama to protect you from an insignificant threat a million miles away who has never threatened you?

Unflippingbelievable

God help your country if it is full of people with this attitude

User avatar
Oldemandalton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Oldemandalton »

Fairminded
I sometimes wonder, OMD, if you actually understand what preemptive means.

In the scenario you provided, from a legal standpoint pointing a loaded gun at someone constitutes assault. Under the law, it is perfectly legal to defend yourself from someone pointing a gun at you.

In order for your actions to be preemptive, the scenario would have to change a little. Instead of being openly aggressive as you suggest, the four men would simply be carrying guns in holsters at their waist, perhaps looking at you funny. If you were to then assume that because they were armed they were going to come and kill you and rape your wife, so you drew your own gun and shot them dead, THAT would be preemptive.
Fairminded I was trying to think of a scenario where I personally would shoot first, a pre-emptive action, before waiting for the enemy to strike, shoot, the first blow as a more defensive posture would require. If they just stood there and threatened me with their weapons put away I personally would not draw down on them or even threaten them in any way but either turn around and walk away or cross the street. I was just trying to imagine how I as an individual would shoot first. Any other circumstances as laid out in my above post I would not pre-emptively shoot first.

As to your talk of Israel being justified in invading Iran, that's complete BS.
I agree that it would be BS, Fairminded. I have never heard of either Israel or any other Western power threatening to invade Iran. That would be very foolish if they did. An air strike on Iran’s nuclear weapons site is quite a bit different than an invasion.
Even were the two countries openly at war as you suggest, and have been for years, using wartime as a justification for committing atrocities is flimsy.
Taking out Iran’s nuclear weapon facilities is an atrocity? :-\
There are plenty of instances in the Book of Mormon where the Lamanites invaded the Nephites and the two peoples were at war, and the Nephites could've ended the war by invading the Lamanites. AT NO TIME were they encouraged to do so by the godly men who led them. In fact, they were warned that if they did invade the Lamanites God would deliver the Nephites into the hands of their enemies.
As I said Israel does not want to invade Iran. They would be fools to do so. I hope no one else plans on doing so either.
There is no time at which invading another country is justified, by the scriptures or by the words of modern day prophets. God will fight your battles for you if you're fighting in defense of your lands and loved ones. If you attack someone else in their lands, he will deliver you into the hands of your enemy. Plain and simple.
Fairminded, during WW II we invaded North Africa, Sicily, Italy, France, Germany, Solomon Islands, Gilbert Islands, Marshall Islands, Marianas Islands, Iwo Jima, Okinawa and the Philippines. Were we justified in invading these countries?

D-Day was an invasion of another country and in my mind justified. Prior to D-Day, the areal bombings of bridges, rail lines and weapon and fuel depots were not an invasion but also justified. By June of 1944 the Allies and Axis had been at war for years. Bombing strategic military and manufacturing targets is not an invasion but is necessary in bringing a war to an end. Israel bombing Iranian uranium enrichment sites is not an invasion but is a strategic move to keep the Iran-Israeli War conventional.

User avatar
Oldemandalton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Oldemandalton »

An interesting conversion story:





Former Islamic Terrorist Discusses Jihad & His Dramatic Conversion to Christianity

Posted on March 14, 2012 at 7:14pm by Billy Hallowell

Image
Former terrorist Kamal Saleem

This week, CBN’s Erick Stakelbeck sat down with former Islamic terrorist Kamal Saleem to discuss his troubled past and his conversion to Christianity.
Saleem, who formerly embraced jihad, was raised in Lebanon and worked with terror leaders before renouncing his activities and turning away from a life of violence. Among those he collaborated with: the Muslim Brotherhood, Saddam Hussein, and Yasser Arafat.

Stakelbeck has more about Saleem’s intriguing story:http://blogs.cbn.com/stakelbeckonterror ... hrist.aspx

As a young man, he came to America with the goal of helping to destroy the country from within. Instead, he ended up becoming a Christian and leaving his old life behind, a journey he describes in his powerful book, “The Blood of Lambs.”

Today, Saleem devotes his life to warning about the Islamic jihadist threat and sharing his testimony of faith in Christ.

In a sit-down interview, Saleem discussed radical Islam and the horrific ideals he was indoctrinated to embrace by his own parents. When he was seven, he says he “became intimate” with the Muslim Brotherhood. Additionally, Saleem shared his conversion story and the events that led to his transition from Islam to Christianity.

Saleem says he remembers the Lord speaking directly to him as he first recognized the error of his ways.

“You are my warrior, you are not their warrior,” he remembers hearing God tell him.

“My Lord, my Lord I will live and die for you,” he responded to the Lord.

But God, he says, told him that dying for him was unnecessary.

Watch Saleem recap his fascinating story, below:


User avatar
AussieOi
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6137
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by AussieOi »

it was a world war you peanut

User avatar
Oldemandalton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Oldemandalton »

Over the weekend a brave Jihadist went to a Jewish school in France and killed three children ages 3, 6, and 8 and a Rabbi who was father to two of the kids. The freedom fighter for Islam said he killed the children because of the death of Palestinian children. This illustrates the point I have often made that while terrorists and jihadists target children, the IDF/USA targets the terrorists who hide behind their own children and families in the hope that the Israeli/USA military won’t target them. If they do and get killed they then get to die for the cause and their dead bodies are made into props for propaganda purposes.





4 dead in shooting at Jewish school in France

By GIL SHEFLER


Gunman opens fire outside Toulouse school before fleeing scene on scooter; teacher and two of his children among dead.

Image
By Courtesy Ozer Hatorah website

A gunman opened fire at a crowd of parents and children outside a Jewish school in Toulouse, France on Monday morning, killing four people.

Eyewitnesses said the unknown assailant drove up to the Ozar Hatorah school's entrance on a black scooter around 8:00 a.m. and fired at the gatherers with a heavy-calibre firearm and a pistol.

Yonathan Sandler, a 30-year-old teacher from Jerusalem; his two children Aryeh, 6, and Gavriel, 3; and 8-year-old Miriam Monstango, the daughter of the school's principle, died in the attack and several others were wounded.

"I saw two people dead in front of the school, an adult and a child... Inside, it was a vision of horror, the bodies of two small children," a distraught father whose child attends the school told RTL radio.

"I did not find my son, apparently he fled when he saw what happened. How can they attack something as sacred as a school, attack children only sixty centimeters tall?"

Police shut the city down looking for the gunman who fled the scene of the crime.

French Interior Minister Claude Gueant ordered increased security at Jewish schools throughout the country and President Nicolas Sarkozy was en route to the southern French city to oversee the police investigation.

Gil Taieb, a vice president of the CRIF, France's Jewish umbrella group, told The Jerusalem Post he had no doubt the attack was a hate crime.

"For someone to locate this school in a place like Toulouse means he knew what he was doing," Taieb said. "He went there to kill Jews."

Taieb said the community was in a state of shock.

"There are occasional anti-Semitic attacks but they are small, nothing like this," he said. "We haven't had something like this in at least ten years."

The attack on the Jewish school may be linked to two other mysterious shootings that have taken place in southern France over the past week .

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said there were striking similarities between the shooting at the Jewish school Monday and the killing of three soldiers earlier this month in two separate incidents.

"We are struck by the similarities between the modus operandi of today's drama and those last week even if we have to wait to have more elements from the police to confirm this hypothesis," Sarkozy said.

Speaking from Toulouse, he said that one of the soldiers killed in the earlier incidents had been of Caribbean origin and the other two Muslims.

Last week an off duty French soldier was shot dead by a motorcyclist in Toulouse.

On Thursday three French soldiers in uniform were shot by an unknown man at a shopping mall in Montauban, 50 kilometers north of Toulouse. Two of them later died of their wounds.

French police said similar ammunition was used in both shootings.

Some 500,000 Jews live in France, which has the world's third largest Jewish community.

Rabbi Avraham Weill, the chief rabbi of Toulouse, said there was no warning that the community, which numbers about 20,000, might be targeted.

"There was nothing, no phone call, no warning, " he said over the phone from France.

Weill said his top priority was to comfort the families of the victims and prepare the bodies for burial.

The shooting was the single worst act of violence against Jews in France since 1982, when six people were killed and 22 wounded in a grenade attack carried out by Palestinians on a Jewish restaurant in Paris.

The most recent anti-Semitic murder occurred in 2006 when Ilan Halimi was kidnapped and killed by a gang in Paris in a crime that had racist overtones.


Image
Hamas terrorist prepares to launch a rocket in the midst of civilians


Image

User avatar
InfoWarrior82
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10861
Location: "There are 15 on the earth today, you can trust them completely." -President Nelson (Jan 2022)

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by InfoWarrior82 »

http://www.infowars.com/french-terror-a ... alse-flag/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

French Terror Attack: All the Hallmarks of an Intelligence Psy-op and False Flag

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
March 21, 2012

Mohammed Merah, the suspect in the killing of seven people outside a Jewish school in Toulouse, France, fits the pattern of an al-Qaeda intelligence asset. According to the BBC, he was on the radar of French authorities because of visits he made to Afghanistan and the “militant stronghold” of Waziristan in Pakistan.

More specifically, Merah was handled by France’s DCRI intelligence service “for years,” according to Claude Guéant, the interior minister.

Merah, a French citizen of Algerian origin, was arrested on December 19, 2007, and was sentenced to three years in jail for planting bombs in the southern province of Kandahar in Afghanistan.

In April of 2011, the United States admitted it has operated secret military prisons in Afghanistan where suspected terrorists are held and interrogated without charges.

The notorious Bagram airbase detention center is operated by the Joint Special Operations Command and the DIA’s Defense Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence Center (DCHC).

The DCHC “will be responsible for developing an ‘offensive counterintelligence operations’… capability for the Department of Defense, which may entail efforts to penetrate, deceive and disable foreign intelligence activities directed against U.S. forces,” Secrecy News reported in 2008 after the government announced the creation of DCHC.

The Pentagon and the CIA specialize in creating terrorists as part of a so-called covert and unconventional war doctrine dating back to the end of the Second World War (see Michael McClintock’s Instruments of Statecraft: U.S. Guerilla Warfare, Counterinsurgency, and Counterterrorism, 1940-1990 for an in-depth examination).




Although virtually ignored by the corporate media, it is an established fact that the CIA and Pakistani intelligence created what is now known as al-Qaeda out of the remnants of the Afghan mujahideen following the CIA’s covert three billion dollar war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

It was the so-called Safari Club – organized under the CIA and with the participation of intelligence agencies in France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and (under the Shah) Iran – that ramped up the largely contrived threat of international terrorism prior to and during the CIA’s manufactured war in Afghanistan (see Peter Dale Scott, Launching the U.S. Terror War: the CIA, 9/11, Afghanistan, and Central Asia).

Intelligence agencies have specialized in the covert – and not so covert – creation of terrorists which are then used to provide a cynical raison d’être for launching military intervention around the world and also providing a pretext to build and expand a domestic surveillance police state.

A textbook example of this process is the Christmas Day, 2009, underwear bomber fiasco – subsequently exposed as a false flag event – that was exploited to push for installing dangerous radiation-emitting naked body porno scanners at U.S. airports.

The fact Mohammed Merah was in the custody of the Joint Special Operations Command in Afghanistan – and his supposed jail break at the Sarposa Prison was reportedly orchestrated by the Taliban (also cretaed by the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI) – certainly raises questions about the attack in France, where a national election will soon be held.

The Telegraph reports that the attacks of the supposedly al-Qaeda connected Merah will play into the election bid of National Front candidate Marine Le Pen, who is unlikely to ever become the president of France.




It has, however, provided Nicholas Sarkozy with a pretext to put the southern part of the nation on high alert and cancel the campaigns of presidential contenders. Sarkozy stands to benefit from the terror attacks and play the role of a strong leader during a national crisis.

“In the short term it is likely that President Nicolas Sarkozy will benefit. Very quickly he took charge. He rushed to the scene. He suspended his campaign. He spoke as the president of the republic,” writes Gavin Hewitt for the BBC.

Related:

Al-Qaeda 100% Pentagon Run

BREAKING: Kurt Haskell Exposes Government False Flag

Hillary Clinton Admits US and Al-Qaeda On Same Side in Syria

Operation During Underwear Bomber Sentencing

The Rise and Fall of Al-Qaeda: Debunking the Terrorism Narrative

Israel, U.S. Exploit False Flag Attacks to Ramp Up Propaganda Campaign

Notorious Double Agent Gadahn Apologizes for al-Qaeda Murders

Syrian Girl: Why al-Qaeda is al-CIA-da

U.S. and Israel Set Stage for False Flag and Iran Attack

Tarpley on Libya Rebels: A CIA Secret Army of al-Qaeda Terrorists

US Intel Director Prepares Public for False Flag Event

Evidence Shows Norway Terror Attack a False Flag

‘West plans false flag ops in Syria’

Gladio reprise: More False Flag Operations

User avatar
AussieOi
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6137
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by AussieOi »

should I put up a few pages about that Christian nutter in Finland who shot up 70kids?

how about the christian USsoldier who murdered more kids in afghanistan?

User avatar
Oldemandalton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Oldemandalton »

Here is an interesting article by an Iranian-American on the views of his compatriots living here in the US, on the current regime in Iran.




The Diaspora's Conscience

Does the National Iranian American Council have a moral obligation to speak out against the ayatollahs?

BY PETER KOHANLOO, SOHRAB AHMARI |FEBRUARY 1, 2012

Image

In the epic poem The Book of Kings, the 11th-century Iranian bard Ferdowsi warns of how "Unrighteous thought and the turn of days / Combine to seal one's fate." Ferdowsi's verse expresses the ethical injunction, deeply ingrained in Persian culture, to speak truthfully in times of personal and collective crisis. Today, as the clerical regime in Tehran grows ever more repressive at home and defiant abroad, Iranian-Americans have a special responsibility to speak out clearly on the moral stakes at the heart of the U.S.-Iran conflict.

Unfortunately, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) -- the most visible organization claiming to represent the community -- has never fulfilled this duty. By cynically exploiting Iranian-Americans' deepest fears and by misrepresenting the community's true aspirations, NIAC promotes an Iran policy agenda that shortchanges both Iranians and Americans.

Consider NIAC research director Reza Marashi's recent Foreign Policy article explaining why Iranian-Americans, in contrast with their Iraqi counterparts, are "so keen on dialogue with the mullahs who rule Iran." The first thing to note about this argument is that it is based on false premises. Reflecting on his own limited personal experiences, Marashi argues that though they "deeply resent the Iranian regime, [Iranian-Americans] prefer U.S. policies that emphasize engagement and de-escalation."

Widely available survey data belie these anecdotal findings. A 2011 Zogby poll commissioned by the Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans (PAAIA), a nonpartisan organization that refrains from taking positions on foreign-policy issues, asked Iranian-Americans to identify their two top priorities for U.S. policy toward Iran. An overwhelming majority (63 percent) chose "promotion of human rights and democracy," while 30 percent chose "promoting regime change." In contrast, only 14 percent identified "preventing an American military strike against Iran" as one of their top two priorities. Yet Marashi and his NIAC colleagues have spent most of the last decade raising funds by instilling anxiety among members about the latter.

Marashi also distorts Iranian-Americans' ultimate vision for their homeland, claiming that they "strongly prefer to use the rule of law to alter … the Iranian government's behavior." Marashi's clever choice of words here masks the reality on the ground in Iran, where there is no rule of law as such to accommodate meaningful reforms. As Marashi himself concedes, opposition figures within the Iranian establishment repeatedly sought, throughout the 1990s and during the 2009 presidential election, to liberalize the regime. They failed. Perhaps that's why the Zogby/PAAIA poll found that 67 percent believe that "Iran should be a secular democracy," while only 6 percent believe that "any form of an 'Islamic Republic' would work well in Iran."

To suppress Iranian-Americans' overwhelming appetite for fundamental change in Iran, Marashi resorts to scaremongering. Evoking "the ghosts of America's neoconservative past," he predicts the rise of a new generation of Ahmed Chalabi-style exile politicians eager to lead "foreign armies into the motherland." Marashi thus frames the hundreds of thousands of Iranian-Americans who prefer a more robust U.S. policy toward the Khomeinist regime as national turncoats and opportunists. These smear tactics reveal Marashi's lack of moral imagination. Rather than pursuing policies that would empower a generation of Iranian (and Iranian-American) Vaclav Havels and Aung San Suu Kyis, he is bent on intimidating the community.

NIAC's own political vision is decidedly ayatollah-friendly. Since its founding in 2002, NIAC has consistently endeavored to shield the Iranian regime from Western sanctions and other forms of pressure. Prior to the 2009 post-election uprising, for example, NIAC rarely spoke out on the issue of human rights in Iran and, indeed, repeatedly sought to defund U.S. government programs for promoting democratization there.

Asked at a Middle East Policy Council forum in 2008 about the organization's reluctance to address human rights issues, NIAC President Trita Parsi responded: "NIAC is not a human rights organization. That's not our expertise." NIAC also notably opposed listing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps -- the military force that created Hezbollah and is the central lever in the mullahs' vast repressive apparatus -- as a foreign terrorist organization.

Today, the organization continues to advocate against sanctions capable of shifting the mullahs' nuclear calculus. Any significant red lines and credible U.S. deterrents backing them, its leaders insist, are counterproductive to peaceful coexistence with the regime. What's more, NIAC immediately smears any Iranian-Americans who dare to publicly diverge from its line as "neoconservative" warmongers and supporters of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, the bizarre terrorist cult that helped lead the 1979 uprising against the shah but was violently crushed by Khomeinist forces in the revolution's aftermath.

Yet, as the recent signing of broad-based U.S. sanctions on Iran's banking sector and the imposition of a European oil embargo demonstrate, the international community is coming around to the view held by the vast majority of Iranian-Americans all along: There is no peaceful coexistence with the repressive theocrats. NIAC has utterly failed to advance its legislative objectives; the U.S. Senate vote on sanctioning Iran's central bank passed 100-to-0, over NIAC's vociferous opposition. Despite remarkable access to the media, NIAC is an increasingly unrepresentative voice of the Iranian-American community.

As self-appointed ombudsmen, Marashi and his colleagues have a duty to reflect the actual values of their constituents. The statistics are clear: Iranians in the diaspora seek not to substitute President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government with a slightly more accountable one, but to uproot the current theocratic regime in its entirety. Iranian-Americans, sophisticated as they are, may differ on how exactly to achieve that aim. But no amount of obfuscation and alarmism will alter the will of the community. At this eleventh hour, NIAC's leaders must change course rather than drive their organization into further irrelevance.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... e?page=0,0

User avatar
AussieOi
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6137
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by AussieOi »

well that settles it

the iranian govt need to resign for sure now

User avatar
Fairminded
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1956

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Fairminded »

Here's an interesting fact about Iranian-Americans. They're not Iranians, they're AMERICANS. What gives them the right to say how another country operates, or the moral grounds to approve or disapprove of a war to topple that country's government?

moving2zion
captain of 100
Posts: 550

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by moving2zion »

SwissMrs&Pitchfire wrote:
Arabs live within the borders of Israel. Why can’t Jews live within the borders of a future Palestinian state, SwissMrs&Pitchfire?
Because they do it by force. Honestly what Jew would do it without force? They have antagonized a hornets nest and now they stand there with a stick whacking instead of just pulling back and letting them cool off.
After having lived over there twice now from my own experience I would say that no backing down by the Israelis is going to "cool down a hornets nest". Just look at what is happening in Egypt. The muslim brotherhood is already running the country into the ground. Iran fights its proxy wars through Hezbollah. We will see the Iranians sneak a nuclear missile into either the Gaza strip, Egypt or another, muslim country seeking to join the new caliphate and it will be launched into Israel. Iran will do it, but it will be blamed on and executed by extremist elements like the muslim brotherhood or Hizbollah.

User avatar
Oldemandalton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Oldemandalton »

12 Christians in Iran await verdicts after Easter Sunday apostasy trial

By Lisa Daftari
Published April 11, 2012
FoxNews.com


Image
11 of 12 Christians who stood trial in Iran on Easter Sunday with a family member and their attorney.

Twelve Christians stood trial Easter Sunday in Iran, where they were called “apostates” in a courtroom and tried on multiple charges, according to sources close to Iran’s Christian community.

The Christians had been acquitted on the same charges, including “crimes against the order,” a year ago in Bandar Anzali, a city on the Caspian Sea. The group was first arrested when authorities found them drinking wine while taking communion, according to sources.

“It ultimately illustrates that being a Christian is illegal in Iran. No matter how clear or how open a pastor and a church may be, Christians are being brought to trial just for being Christian,” said Jason DeMars, director of the Present Truth Ministries advocacy group who is in daily contact with the Evangelical Christian community in Iran.

No verdict has yet been issued in the case.

The attorney for the group, prominent human rights advocate Mohammad Ali Dadkhah -- who also represents Youcef Nadarkhani, the Iranian Christian pastor charged with apostasy and sentenced to death for leaving Islam and converting to Christianity -- was not able to attend Sunday’s court appearance, according to sources who said his flight from Tehran was fogged in. The 12 represented themselves to the judge.

"Their defense was that they were performing religious rituals that are protected by law," DeMars said.

Though the Iranian constitution grants protection to religious minorities born into religions, such as Christians, Zoroastrians and Jews, over the last year and a half individuals in these minority communities have reported increased pressure and clashes with government officials and Revolutionary Guards as their influence continues to mount throughout the country.

But converting, or more specifically, the act of turning from Islam, can be punishable by death. To leave the Islamic faith or to attempt to convert others away from the faith warrants capital punishment under Shariah Law.

Among the 12 are community leader the Rev. Matthias Haghnejad and his wife, Anahita Khadeimi. The others are Mahmoud Khosh-Hal and his wife, Hava Saadetmend, Amir Goldoust, Mina Goldoust, Zhaina Bahremand, Fatemah Modir-Nouri, Mehrdad Habibzade, Milad Radef, Behzad Taalipasand and Amin Pishkar.

They stood trial in a court in Rasht, the same province where Nadarkhani was charged and has been held for more than two years.
This latest crackdown comes as a surprise since Iran’s regime had scaled back after coming under international pressure regarding the case of Nadarkhani over the last few months.

Nadarkhani, now 34, converted to Christianity at 19 and came under the regime’s radar a few times as a result of his participation in his church and Christian community. He was arrested once and released and then arrested again in 2009 and found guilty of apostasy.

The court gave Nadarkhani a chance to recant and return to Islam, but he refused. In February, he was sentenced to death, and the news of this verdict brought about heavy international backlash against the regime.

As advocacy groups across the globe continue to petition for his release, Nadarkhani is being held in prison and the execution order still remains.

This most recent probe on Iran’s Christian community and subsequent trial on the Easter holiday come as the Christian community, particularly those converted from Islam, reports a surge in government retaliation coinciding with a growing popularity in conversions to Christianity.

“There are a lot of people who are disgruntled with the government and many for comfort and peace in their lives are turning to Christianity. That’s a threat to the regime,” DeMars said. “The more people who turn from Islam, the fewer people the regime has on its side.”

Presently, there are more than 100,000 Evangelical Christians in Iran, according to conservative estimates. Many believe that number is significantly higher, as there is no accurate way to account for underground churches.


http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/04/11 ... latestnews

User avatar
gr8ideas
captain of 100
Posts: 272

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by gr8ideas »

[quote="Oldemandalton"]Over the weekend a brave Jihadist went to a Jewish school in France and killed three children ages 3, 6, and 8 and a Rabbi who was father to two of the kids. The freedom fighter for Islam said he killed the children because of the death of Palestinian children. This illustrates the point I have often made that while terrorists and jihadists target children, the IDF/USA targets the terrorists who hide behind their own children and families in the hope that the Israeli/USA military won’t target them. If they do and get killed they then get to die for the cause and their dead bodies are made into props for propaganda purposes.

Clearly the problems which we face are far more complex than what some people on this forum care to consider. Prophets of God in Old Testament and Book of Mormon times faced many situations where our simplistic current morays would not fit the situation.
Alma 43:29
29 And now, as Moroni knew the intention of the Lamanites, that it was their intention to destroy their brethren, or to subject them and bring them into bondage that they might establish a kingdom unto themselves over all the land;
Alma 43:30
30 And he also knowing that it was the only desire of the Nephites to preserve their lands, and their liberty, and their church, therefore he thought it no sin that he should defend them by stratagem; therefore, he found by his spies which course the Lamanites were to take.

As a general rule I believe that a Pre-emptive strike should not be our policy, but what if Nephi had acted as some would advise? He would still be waiting for the Lord to cut off Laban's head. Were Joshua's trumpets a pre-emptive strike or just following the voice of the spirit to his prophet? I believe that using the "God will fight our battles" argument only works if we are in a situation where God tells us by the voice of the Holy Ghost that now is the time not to fight ( as with the sons of Ammon). Personally, I like the idea of being able to sit on the sidelines and watch as the wicked destroy the wicked but if the Prophet says "son" "I want you to be part of the 500 soldiers the government need to go to California", that I will say yes, I'll be enlisted til the conflict is ore. I do believe that I will defer my final decision in the matter until I'm asked, however, and the Spirit confirms. I believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not just and that Shock and Awe was awful but I would spill my own blood to protect Israel's right to exist as a nation and people, and I believe what the radical Islamists say is what they will do. The War in Heaven continues on earth.

User avatar
Oldemandalton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2226
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Fanatical Islam

Post by Oldemandalton »

A great example of a Muslim who can live with other religions without animosity. Wish we had more like Mustapha El Akkari. :)



BYU Hawaii’s First Non-Mormon Student President Credits Mormons for Making Him a Better Muslim

Posted on April 23, 2012 at 7:32am by Billy Hallowell

Image
Mustapha el Akkari (Image Credit: BYU Hawaii)

Mustapha El Akkari recently became the first non-Mormon student body president at Brigham Young University-Hawaii. Interestingly, El Akkari is a Muslim who credits the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints-affiliated school with making him a better Islamic adherent.

In an interview with The Salt Lake Tribune the business management student, who is at the school on a basketball scholarship, highlighted the ways in which LDS has assisted his faith.

El Akkari, who was born in Tripoli, Lebanon, will be a senior next fall. During the interview, he shared his experience living with a Christian family in America. Additionally, he discussed the culture shock he encountered upon attending BYU, specifically when it comes to the honor code and other strict regulations:

“It was a big shock for me. I read articles about it, but I thought it would be like a normal college. It was none of that. It was really straight with an honor code and all — no tea or coffee meant no tea or coffee. I had lived through a half-Jewish, half-Christian family but not Mormons. But I adjusted right away. I fit in. I’m a little unique — the only Arabic speaker or Lebanese on campus — but I love Hawaiians. I never knew any Polynesians before. I called my parents and told them there were islands in the Pacific where people live. They never knew it. I decided I was going to learn from the experience and bring my culture to them.”

When asked to share how his Islamic faith has been impacted by attending a Mormon university, El Akkari provided some intriguing assessments. In sum, BYU has positively impacted and reinforced his faith.

“Before I came to this school, I was not a practicing Muslim. I had never been to a Muslim school,” he explained. “When I came here, I saw all these religious people who were successful and I thought, ‘I want to be like them. I want to base my life on principles, you can’t fail this way.’”
The student reiterated his belief that Islam is “right” and said that the experience of attending the school caused him to read Muslim books and educate himself.

“Now I read the Quran, do my five daily prayers and fast during the month of Ramadan. The Mormons kind of woke me up,” El Akkari explained. “I haven’t felt any discrimination from them, but their attempts to convert me always will be there. They believe their religion is right. I don’t really blame them.”

If he goes back to Lebanon after graduation, he said that he will play basketball, as it is easy and is something that he loves. During the interview, he also made mention of his brother, Mohammad El-Akkari, who The Blaze recently covered for scoring a record-breaking 113 points in a single basketball game.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/byu-haw ... er-muslim/

Post Reply