This has been the week of putting it into God's hands.
I have been needing to do this. So of course I haven't, not until I'm forced to do it.
Sunday, my dad was rushed to the hospital with lung and heart problems. He's wavering there now. Not getting better, but not getting worse. It's difficult to not be there. But, it's harder to go.
I have been yelling at my kids for two days now. Not all the time, but enough that I just have to stop. They are kids, they'll act like kids and I can't expect them to act like robots. I have very rambuctious kids. Which is weird because Hubby and I aren't like that. We're much more mellow and like to hang. Our kids like to hang, too...while they're swinging from the chandelier.
I am also sick as a dog. Sore throat and stuffy and not feeling well. Luckily I've gotten a ton of sleep. And, I often wonder when I get sick like this--which is rare--that maybe my body gives up and wants sleep and the only way I'll rest is to become ill. I am a "doer" and like to do things, accomplish things, cross stuff off my "to do" list. I'm not a good sit around and sleep and watch inane tv person, which is all I can do when I'm this sick.
I want to go to FL to see my dad, but I can't because I'm sick. I can't risk getting him sick, it might quite literally kill him. I want to stop yelling at my children and have homeschool be more fun for us all. I want to live a godly life and enrich everything I touch. I want to leave the world a better place because I was in it.
I have to give it to God. I have to let His hands guide my day, guide my life, guide my actions, words and thoughts. I have to stop trying to control the universe and let the God who does control the universe do His job. I have to stop being my own stumbling block.
I put my life into God's hands.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Sharia Law is Dangerous
Abdallah Adhami, the Imam in the center of the Ground Zero Mosque controversy, just stated that homosexuals are attracted to the same sex because they were abused as children. A statement I find reprehensible and childish. I love my gay brothers and sisters, many of whom are family and friends, and I find promoting this sort of inane information unacceptable at best.
So, how does the American Left, who usually zealously supports anything that's "not Christian" and "not white," react? They actually got mad! Wow. Chalk one up for the Left.
There are many Christians who would embrace their gay cousin, neighbor or coworker. Ignorant Christians who don't understand--and I mean ignorance in the truest educational sense--need to be taught what Jesus taught us: love your neighbor as yourself.
While I can speak for many Christians, I can't speak for many Muslims. Perhaps nearly all of them love their gay cousins, neighbors and coworkers, too. But, it's hard to tell. Most Muslims don't speak for themselves, most let their Imams speak for them.
I think the American Left should take to heart those comments regarding homosexuality from the Ground Zero Mosque Imam. I think we should all delve into why he would make such a rash statement and where, truly, Sharia Law stands on homosexuality and other issues.
The reason why need to know more is that there is a current movement to promote Sharia Law here in the US. Some feel it would be useful, and promote multi-culturalism. Some think it would help Islam, and promote it as a peaceful religion.
Having Sharia Law here in the US scares me. I think it's dangerous. We might all want to take a look at it, a deep, hard, magnifying glass look at it to understand why it would be bad for America.
Here is an excerpt from James Arlandson's article in the American Thinker, where he outlines why Sharia Law is bad for all societies. Remember, this isn't about bashing a religious text, it's about showing current Islamic Law (Sharia Law) as it is practiced today in Muslim countries.
"Here are the top ten reasons why sharia or Islamic law is bad for all societies.
10. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.
The Prophet felt it hard (was angry) and ordered all those who were present in the house, to beat him [the drinker dragged into Muhammad's presence]. (Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6774—6775)
Thus, we see no offer of help for the alcoholic when he is dragged before Muhammad and his followers. Why does Muhammad not offer rehabilitation? Why does he immediately go to corporal punishment?
9. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.
The Quran says:
4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (MAS Abdel Haleem, the Qur'an, Oxford UP, 2004)
Generally, sharia restricts women's social mobility and rights, the more closely sharia is followed. For example, in conservative Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive cars. In Iran, the law oppresses women. For example, women's testimony counts half that of men, and far more women than men are stoned to death for adultery.
8. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye.
The Quran says:
5:45 And We ordained therein for them: Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal. But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers . . .). (Hilali and Khan, The Noble Qur'an, Riyadh: Darussalam, 1996)
This passage allows for an indemnity or compensation instead of imposing the literal punishment of eye for an eye. No one should have a quarrel with this option. According to the hadith* (*reports of Muhammad's words and actions outside of the Quran), the plaintiff also has the option to forgive, and this is legitimate, provided a judge oversees the process. The problem is the literal law of retaliation.
The hadith and later legal rulings demonstrate that this excessive option was actually carried out.
Islamic law calls all of humanity to march backwards 1,400 years BC and to re—impose the old law of retaliation—literally, and the evidence suggest that the Torah never intended the law to be carried out literally.
7. Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off.
The Quran says:
5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from God: God is almighty and wise. 39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)
At first glance, verse 39 seems to accept repentance before the thief's hand is cut off. But the hadith states emphatically that repentance is acceptable only after mutilation. Muhammad himself says that even if his own daughter, Fatima, were to steal and then intercede that her hand should not be cut off, he would still have to cut it off (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6788)
6. Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated.
The Quran says:
5:33 Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter, 34 unless they repent before you overpower them: in that case bear in mind that God is forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)
It may be difficult to accept, but the hadith says that Muhammad tortured these next people before he executed them. This scenario provides the historical context of Sura 5:33—34. The explanations in parentheses have been added by the translator:
Narrated Anas: Some people . . . came to the Prophet and embraced Islam . . . [T]hey turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away . . . The Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they died. (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6802)
The next hadith reports that the renegades died from bleeding to death because Muhammad refused to cauterize their amputated limbs. Then the hadith after that one reports that the renegades were not given water, so they died of thirst. They probably died of both causes: thirst and loss of blood.
5. Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed.
Ibn Abbas, Muhammad's cousin and highly reliable transmitter of hadith, reports the following about early Islam and Muhammad's punishment of homosexuals: . . .
'If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done' (Abu Dawud no. 4447).
This hadith passage says that homosexuals should be burned alive or have wall pushed on them:
Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira reported God's messenger as saying, 'Accursed is he who does what Lot's people did.' In a version . . . on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali [Muhammad's cousin and son—in—law] had two people burned and that Abu Bakr [Muhammad's chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them. (Mishkat, vol. 1, p. 765, Prescribed Punishments)
4. Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.
Fornication:
The Quran says:
24:2 The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. [This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime (illegal sex), but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah's law]. (Hilali and Khan).
The additions in the brackets, though not original to the Arabic, have the support of the hadith. These command flogging only of unmarried fornicators: Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6831 and 6833.
Adultery:
This gruesome hadith passage reports that a woman was buried up to her chest and stoned to death:
And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al—Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her . . . (Muslim no. 4206)
The Prophet prayed over her dead body and then buried her. The rest of the hadith says that Muhammad told Khalid not to be too harsh, but the Prophet's words drip with irony. Perhaps Muhammad meant that Khalid should not have cursed her. However, if they really did not want to be harsh, they should have forgiven her and let her go to raise her child.
3. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non—Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself.
First, the Muslim deserves death for doing any of the following (Reliance of the Traveler pp. 597—98, o8.7):
(1) Reviling Allah or his Messenger; (2) being sarcastic about 'Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat'; (3) denying any verse of the Quran or 'anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it'; (4) holding that 'any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent'; (5) reviling the religion of Islam; (6) being sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law; (7) denying that Allah intended 'the Prophet's message . . . to be the religion followed by the entire world.'
It is no wonder that critical investigation of the truth claims of Islam can never prevail in Islamic lands when the sword of Muhammad hangs over the scholars' head.
The non—Muslims living under Islamic rule are not allowed to do the following (p. 609, o11.10(1)—(5)):
(1) Commit adultery with a Muslim woman or marry her; (2) conceal spies of hostile forces; (3) lead a Muslim away from Islam; (4) mention something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet . . . or Islam.
According to the discretion of the caliph or his representative, the punishments for violating these rules are as follows: (1) death, (2) enslavement, (3) release without paying anything, and (4) ransoming in exchange for money. These punishments also execute free speech—even repulsive speech—and freedom of religion or conscience.
As it stands, sharia with its prescribed punishments for questioning Muhammad, the Quran, and sharia itself testifies to their weakness since sharia threatens those who dare to differ.
How confident was Muhammad (and today's Muslims) in his message that he had to rely on violence and force to protect his message, besides reason and persuasive argumentation?
2. Islam orders apostates to be killed.
Apostates are those who leave Islam, like Salman Rushdie, whether they become atheists or convert to another religion. They are supposed to be killed according to the Quran, the hadith, and later legal rulings.
Sayyid Maududi, a respected Islamic scholar, argues that Sura 9:11—12 refers to apostates and that they should be put to death.
They should be given time to repent, but if they refuse, they must be killed.
And the number one reason why sharia is bad for all societies . . .
1. Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad.
Muhammad is foundational to Islam, and he set the genetic code for Islam, waging war. In the ten years that he lived in Medina from his Hijrah (Emigration) from Mecca in AD 622 to his death of a fever in AD 632, he either sent out or went out on seventy—four raids, expeditions, or full—scale wars. They range from small assassination hit squads to kill anyone who insulted him, to the Tabuk Crusades in late AD 630 against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a rumor that an army was mobilizing to invade Arabia, but the rumor was false, so his 30,000 jihadists returned home, but not before imposing a jizya tax on northern Christians and Jews.
Money flowed into the Islamic treasury. So why would Muhammad get a revelation to dry up this money flow?
What are some of the legalized rules of jihad found in the Quran, hadith, and classical legal opinions?
(1) Women and children are enslaved. They can either be sold, or the Muslims may 'marry' the women, since their marriages are automatically annulled upon their capture. (2) Jihadists may have sex with slave women. Ali, Muhammad's cousin and son—in—law, did this. (3) Women and children must not be killed during war, unless this happens in a nighttime raid when visibility was low. (4) Old men and monks could be killed. (5) A captured enemy of war could be killed, enslaved, ransomed for money or an exchange, freely released, or beaten. (6) Enemy men who converted could keep their property and small children. This law is so excessive that it amounts to forced conversion. Only the strongest of the strong could resist this coercion and remain a non—Muslim. (7) Civilian property may be confiscated. (8) Civilian homes may be destroyed. (9) Civilian fruit trees may be destroyed. (10) Pagan Arabs had to convert or die. This does not allow for the freedom of religion or conscience. (11) People of the Book (Jews and Christians) had three options (Sura 9:29): fight and die; convert and pay a forced 'charity' or zakat tax; or keep their Biblical faith and pay a jizya or poll tax. The last two options mean that money flows into the Islamic treasury, so why would Muhammad receive a revelation to dry up this money flow?
Thus, jihad is aggressive, coercive, and excessive, and Allah never revealed to Muhammad to stop these practices.
Conclusion
Sharia must never spread around the world. At least that much is clear and achievable. The hard evidence in this article* demonstrates beyond doubt that sharia does not benefit any society, for it contains too many harsh rules and punishments.
*Please see original article for evidence and links to supporting articles at http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html
One of the most tragic and under—reported occurrences in the West in recent years is the existence of a sharia court in Canada. Muslims are pushing for a sharia divorce courting Australia as well. Having a court of arbitration if it is based on western law and legal theory is legitimate, but sharia does not hold to this standard. Whether sharia is imposed gradually or rapidly, Canada should promptly shut down any sharia court, and Australia should never allow one. Such a court should never be permitted in the US, the rest of the West, or anywhere else in the world that is battling Islam.
It is true that the Enlightenment teaches tolerance, but it also teaches critical thinking and reasoning. Sharia cannot stand up under scrutiny. It is intolerant and excessive, and Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics teaches the West that excess is never just.
Thankfully, the province of Quebec, Canada, has forbidden sharia. This is the right initiative.
Sharia ultimately degrades society and diminishes freedom."
James M. Arlandson may be reached at jamesmarlandson@hotmail.com
So, how does the American Left, who usually zealously supports anything that's "not Christian" and "not white," react? They actually got mad! Wow. Chalk one up for the Left.
There are many Christians who would embrace their gay cousin, neighbor or coworker. Ignorant Christians who don't understand--and I mean ignorance in the truest educational sense--need to be taught what Jesus taught us: love your neighbor as yourself.
While I can speak for many Christians, I can't speak for many Muslims. Perhaps nearly all of them love their gay cousins, neighbors and coworkers, too. But, it's hard to tell. Most Muslims don't speak for themselves, most let their Imams speak for them.
I think the American Left should take to heart those comments regarding homosexuality from the Ground Zero Mosque Imam. I think we should all delve into why he would make such a rash statement and where, truly, Sharia Law stands on homosexuality and other issues.
The reason why need to know more is that there is a current movement to promote Sharia Law here in the US. Some feel it would be useful, and promote multi-culturalism. Some think it would help Islam, and promote it as a peaceful religion.
Having Sharia Law here in the US scares me. I think it's dangerous. We might all want to take a look at it, a deep, hard, magnifying glass look at it to understand why it would be bad for America.
Here is an excerpt from James Arlandson's article in the American Thinker, where he outlines why Sharia Law is bad for all societies. Remember, this isn't about bashing a religious text, it's about showing current Islamic Law (Sharia Law) as it is practiced today in Muslim countries.
"Here are the top ten reasons why sharia or Islamic law is bad for all societies.
10. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.
The Prophet felt it hard (was angry) and ordered all those who were present in the house, to beat him [the drinker dragged into Muhammad's presence]. (Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6774—6775)
Thus, we see no offer of help for the alcoholic when he is dragged before Muhammad and his followers. Why does Muhammad not offer rehabilitation? Why does he immediately go to corporal punishment?
9. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.
The Quran says:
4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (MAS Abdel Haleem, the Qur'an, Oxford UP, 2004)
Generally, sharia restricts women's social mobility and rights, the more closely sharia is followed. For example, in conservative Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive cars. In Iran, the law oppresses women. For example, women's testimony counts half that of men, and far more women than men are stoned to death for adultery.
8. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye.
The Quran says:
5:45 And We ordained therein for them: Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal. But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers . . .). (Hilali and Khan, The Noble Qur'an, Riyadh: Darussalam, 1996)
This passage allows for an indemnity or compensation instead of imposing the literal punishment of eye for an eye. No one should have a quarrel with this option. According to the hadith* (*reports of Muhammad's words and actions outside of the Quran), the plaintiff also has the option to forgive, and this is legitimate, provided a judge oversees the process. The problem is the literal law of retaliation.
The hadith and later legal rulings demonstrate that this excessive option was actually carried out.
Islamic law calls all of humanity to march backwards 1,400 years BC and to re—impose the old law of retaliation—literally, and the evidence suggest that the Torah never intended the law to be carried out literally.
7. Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off.
The Quran says:
5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from God: God is almighty and wise. 39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)
At first glance, verse 39 seems to accept repentance before the thief's hand is cut off. But the hadith states emphatically that repentance is acceptable only after mutilation. Muhammad himself says that even if his own daughter, Fatima, were to steal and then intercede that her hand should not be cut off, he would still have to cut it off (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6788)
6. Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated.
The Quran says:
5:33 Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter, 34 unless they repent before you overpower them: in that case bear in mind that God is forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)
It may be difficult to accept, but the hadith says that Muhammad tortured these next people before he executed them. This scenario provides the historical context of Sura 5:33—34. The explanations in parentheses have been added by the translator:
Narrated Anas: Some people . . . came to the Prophet and embraced Islam . . . [T]hey turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away . . . The Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they died. (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6802)
The next hadith reports that the renegades died from bleeding to death because Muhammad refused to cauterize their amputated limbs. Then the hadith after that one reports that the renegades were not given water, so they died of thirst. They probably died of both causes: thirst and loss of blood.
5. Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed.
Ibn Abbas, Muhammad's cousin and highly reliable transmitter of hadith, reports the following about early Islam and Muhammad's punishment of homosexuals: . . .
'If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done' (Abu Dawud no. 4447).
This hadith passage says that homosexuals should be burned alive or have wall pushed on them:
Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira reported God's messenger as saying, 'Accursed is he who does what Lot's people did.' In a version . . . on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali [Muhammad's cousin and son—in—law] had two people burned and that Abu Bakr [Muhammad's chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them. (Mishkat, vol. 1, p. 765, Prescribed Punishments)
4. Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.
Fornication:
The Quran says:
24:2 The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. [This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime (illegal sex), but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah's law]. (Hilali and Khan).
The additions in the brackets, though not original to the Arabic, have the support of the hadith. These command flogging only of unmarried fornicators: Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6831 and 6833.
Adultery:
This gruesome hadith passage reports that a woman was buried up to her chest and stoned to death:
And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al—Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her . . . (Muslim no. 4206)
The Prophet prayed over her dead body and then buried her. The rest of the hadith says that Muhammad told Khalid not to be too harsh, but the Prophet's words drip with irony. Perhaps Muhammad meant that Khalid should not have cursed her. However, if they really did not want to be harsh, they should have forgiven her and let her go to raise her child.
3. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non—Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself.
First, the Muslim deserves death for doing any of the following (Reliance of the Traveler pp. 597—98, o8.7):
(1) Reviling Allah or his Messenger; (2) being sarcastic about 'Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat'; (3) denying any verse of the Quran or 'anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it'; (4) holding that 'any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent'; (5) reviling the religion of Islam; (6) being sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law; (7) denying that Allah intended 'the Prophet's message . . . to be the religion followed by the entire world.'
It is no wonder that critical investigation of the truth claims of Islam can never prevail in Islamic lands when the sword of Muhammad hangs over the scholars' head.
The non—Muslims living under Islamic rule are not allowed to do the following (p. 609, o11.10(1)—(5)):
(1) Commit adultery with a Muslim woman or marry her; (2) conceal spies of hostile forces; (3) lead a Muslim away from Islam; (4) mention something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet . . . or Islam.
According to the discretion of the caliph or his representative, the punishments for violating these rules are as follows: (1) death, (2) enslavement, (3) release without paying anything, and (4) ransoming in exchange for money. These punishments also execute free speech—even repulsive speech—and freedom of religion or conscience.
As it stands, sharia with its prescribed punishments for questioning Muhammad, the Quran, and sharia itself testifies to their weakness since sharia threatens those who dare to differ.
How confident was Muhammad (and today's Muslims) in his message that he had to rely on violence and force to protect his message, besides reason and persuasive argumentation?
2. Islam orders apostates to be killed.
Apostates are those who leave Islam, like Salman Rushdie, whether they become atheists or convert to another religion. They are supposed to be killed according to the Quran, the hadith, and later legal rulings.
Sayyid Maududi, a respected Islamic scholar, argues that Sura 9:11—12 refers to apostates and that they should be put to death.
They should be given time to repent, but if they refuse, they must be killed.
And the number one reason why sharia is bad for all societies . . .
1. Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad.
Muhammad is foundational to Islam, and he set the genetic code for Islam, waging war. In the ten years that he lived in Medina from his Hijrah (Emigration) from Mecca in AD 622 to his death of a fever in AD 632, he either sent out or went out on seventy—four raids, expeditions, or full—scale wars. They range from small assassination hit squads to kill anyone who insulted him, to the Tabuk Crusades in late AD 630 against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a rumor that an army was mobilizing to invade Arabia, but the rumor was false, so his 30,000 jihadists returned home, but not before imposing a jizya tax on northern Christians and Jews.
Money flowed into the Islamic treasury. So why would Muhammad get a revelation to dry up this money flow?
What are some of the legalized rules of jihad found in the Quran, hadith, and classical legal opinions?
(1) Women and children are enslaved. They can either be sold, or the Muslims may 'marry' the women, since their marriages are automatically annulled upon their capture. (2) Jihadists may have sex with slave women. Ali, Muhammad's cousin and son—in—law, did this. (3) Women and children must not be killed during war, unless this happens in a nighttime raid when visibility was low. (4) Old men and monks could be killed. (5) A captured enemy of war could be killed, enslaved, ransomed for money or an exchange, freely released, or beaten. (6) Enemy men who converted could keep their property and small children. This law is so excessive that it amounts to forced conversion. Only the strongest of the strong could resist this coercion and remain a non—Muslim. (7) Civilian property may be confiscated. (8) Civilian homes may be destroyed. (9) Civilian fruit trees may be destroyed. (10) Pagan Arabs had to convert or die. This does not allow for the freedom of religion or conscience. (11) People of the Book (Jews and Christians) had three options (Sura 9:29): fight and die; convert and pay a forced 'charity' or zakat tax; or keep their Biblical faith and pay a jizya or poll tax. The last two options mean that money flows into the Islamic treasury, so why would Muhammad receive a revelation to dry up this money flow?
Thus, jihad is aggressive, coercive, and excessive, and Allah never revealed to Muhammad to stop these practices.
Conclusion
Sharia must never spread around the world. At least that much is clear and achievable. The hard evidence in this article* demonstrates beyond doubt that sharia does not benefit any society, for it contains too many harsh rules and punishments.
*Please see original article for evidence and links to supporting articles at http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html
One of the most tragic and under—reported occurrences in the West in recent years is the existence of a sharia court in Canada. Muslims are pushing for a sharia divorce courting Australia as well. Having a court of arbitration if it is based on western law and legal theory is legitimate, but sharia does not hold to this standard. Whether sharia is imposed gradually or rapidly, Canada should promptly shut down any sharia court, and Australia should never allow one. Such a court should never be permitted in the US, the rest of the West, or anywhere else in the world that is battling Islam.
It is true that the Enlightenment teaches tolerance, but it also teaches critical thinking and reasoning. Sharia cannot stand up under scrutiny. It is intolerant and excessive, and Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics teaches the West that excess is never just.
Thankfully, the province of Quebec, Canada, has forbidden sharia. This is the right initiative.
Sharia ultimately degrades society and diminishes freedom."
James M. Arlandson may be reached at jamesmarlandson@hotmail.com
Monday, January 24, 2011
The Over-Education of America
We are a great nation. We are. We help the world, we change ourselves when we need it, we have grown up and grown strong in a short number of years as a country. I love America, I love the fact that we fight the good fight and we stand as a symbol of freedom for the world. The USA makes me proud.
We are a country where anyone can become anything. Seriously, despite what the propagandists want us to believe, if you can dream it you can achieve it, regardless of circumstance. Bill Clinton grew up in a trailer fer cryin' out loud.
And in that excellent vein of being able to become anything we want, higher education is available to all. To everyone. Unlike other parts of the planet, no one will be excluded because of socioeconomic status, race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Everyone can enter. There are standards, yes, but if one studies, learns and graduates high school or gets a GED, anyone can go to college. It might not be Harvard or Stanford, but one can go.
So, we in America are free to attend college, and attend we do! We get technical degrees, and baccalaureate degrees, and masters and doctorates and specialities galore! We are students for years, for decades! We sign up and go, go go!
And, we pay, pay, pay.
When I worked for the Red Cross I met so many young people saddled with large amounts of college debt. I couldn't believe how much these young kids, fresh out of school, owed. They were swimming in it.
And, yet, here they were working for their hearts at a non-profit. They say you really work at a non-profit for the benefits because the salary is rather thin, and that's pretty much true. Here are these young idealists pouring out their hearts and souls for a cause, and carrying around a mass of college debt that will take them decades if not a lifetime to repay.
And, yet, the atmosphere in the social services industry promotes even more education. Sure, you got your bachelor's, but what you really need now is a masters. And, don't forget that doctorate! The people who can least afford to continue racking up tuition bills are the ones being pushed back to the books. The theory is that they can advance in their careers if they have more letters after their names.
And, that's not just true for social work, it's true in every industry. More degrees equals more pay, better titles, advancement.
But, I have to ask, at what cost?
Nearly 70% of students graduate with debt, and the average student in 2009 graduated with $24,000 debt.
That's a really nice car. If you're not making much money, that can be a staggering number.
For some professions it totally makes sense because one's salary power can increase dramatically. A general physician can increase his or her salary by specializing. A chemical engineer can increase his or her take home with advanced degrees and certificates.
However, with other professions, it only allows a slight bump in earning ability. The degree for the lower-paid professionals acts a status symbol to placate peers and expand resume rather than a driving force to increase income.
The problem is now pandemic because industry reasons why hire a bachelor's when we can get a master's or a doctorate? We've got highly educated and degreed professionals doing monkey work because the field is littered with over-educated and over-qualified individuals fighting for the few positions open in these hard economic times.
Higher education IS a good thing, it really is. But, look what's happened.
According to numbers out at the end of 2010, college debt in the US is nearing $1 trillion. It has surpassed credit card debt.
These days if a person wants to get hired, he or she must ensure the right degrees appear on the resume, otherwise it's back to campus...
...and the financial aid office.
We are a country where anyone can become anything. Seriously, despite what the propagandists want us to believe, if you can dream it you can achieve it, regardless of circumstance. Bill Clinton grew up in a trailer fer cryin' out loud.
And in that excellent vein of being able to become anything we want, higher education is available to all. To everyone. Unlike other parts of the planet, no one will be excluded because of socioeconomic status, race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Everyone can enter. There are standards, yes, but if one studies, learns and graduates high school or gets a GED, anyone can go to college. It might not be Harvard or Stanford, but one can go.
So, we in America are free to attend college, and attend we do! We get technical degrees, and baccalaureate degrees, and masters and doctorates and specialities galore! We are students for years, for decades! We sign up and go, go go!
And, we pay, pay, pay.
When I worked for the Red Cross I met so many young people saddled with large amounts of college debt. I couldn't believe how much these young kids, fresh out of school, owed. They were swimming in it.
And, yet, here they were working for their hearts at a non-profit. They say you really work at a non-profit for the benefits because the salary is rather thin, and that's pretty much true. Here are these young idealists pouring out their hearts and souls for a cause, and carrying around a mass of college debt that will take them decades if not a lifetime to repay.
And, yet, the atmosphere in the social services industry promotes even more education. Sure, you got your bachelor's, but what you really need now is a masters. And, don't forget that doctorate! The people who can least afford to continue racking up tuition bills are the ones being pushed back to the books. The theory is that they can advance in their careers if they have more letters after their names.
And, that's not just true for social work, it's true in every industry. More degrees equals more pay, better titles, advancement.
But, I have to ask, at what cost?
Nearly 70% of students graduate with debt, and the average student in 2009 graduated with $24,000 debt.
That's a really nice car. If you're not making much money, that can be a staggering number.
For some professions it totally makes sense because one's salary power can increase dramatically. A general physician can increase his or her salary by specializing. A chemical engineer can increase his or her take home with advanced degrees and certificates.
However, with other professions, it only allows a slight bump in earning ability. The degree for the lower-paid professionals acts a status symbol to placate peers and expand resume rather than a driving force to increase income.
The problem is now pandemic because industry reasons why hire a bachelor's when we can get a master's or a doctorate? We've got highly educated and degreed professionals doing monkey work because the field is littered with over-educated and over-qualified individuals fighting for the few positions open in these hard economic times.
Higher education IS a good thing, it really is. But, look what's happened.
According to numbers out at the end of 2010, college debt in the US is nearing $1 trillion. It has surpassed credit card debt.
These days if a person wants to get hired, he or she must ensure the right degrees appear on the resume, otherwise it's back to campus...
...and the financial aid office.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Princesses and Honey
Theme: Encourage others in a positive way.
My sister and I grew up with means. And that fact, the fact that Daddy made money, enveloped some other people's perception of us. We were "the princesses."
Not, they have such loving hearts. But, they are spoiled princesses. Not, they care about others and devote their energies to causes that help others. But, they are spoiled princesses. Not, they are kind, stand up for those who can't stand up for themselves, and give generously. But, they are spoiled princesses.
They just saw the external and didn't bother to check out the internal.
(Note: I need to tell you that I currently don't have means. My Daddy had means, but I don't. We live a simple life, we have a modest home, a modest budget to which we religiously stick, we give as we can, and we splurge a little. My goal is to make my life as simple as possible, and I'm working diligently on that.)
Because of my upbringing, I know firsthand how seemingly good people can allow the enemy to prosper in their hearts because they are looking only at the surface...and perhaps reading their own agenda into someone's life.
When people are seen through a lens of what they have, the exterior and material, and not who they are, then prejudice takes root. And those doing the judging can feel self righteous about it because it fulfills a stereotype and highlights how much better they are at living and giving.
An ego not reined in by self and God can misjudge. Even a good, beautiful, giving Christian ego.
And, I 'm guilty of it! Despite the fact I've been on both sides--the judged and the judger. Maybe you understand, too. Have you been on both sides, too? I know I still work on not judging others in a self-righteous snit.
It's easy to judge another person's lifestyle when you see a thumbnail and not the full picture. It's easy to think that people who live in a big house and eat out a lot have ample money and should be giving it to the poor or those in need. In our financial services business (closed 2 yrs now) we saw client after client who bought into the American Dream, buying big and often, yet still barely living paycheck to paycheck.
In American today, granite countertops and hardwood floors don't necessarily indicate wealth, in fact they could spell poverty.
My point is that when people are in the trenches and life is difficult they could think they work more than anyone. They could also think that they help more than anyone, and that they suffer more than anyone. It's very, very easy to place blame on those perceived to be sitting on the sidelines.
When a person gives it all, emotionally and physically, practically out of breath and shirt dirty and dripping with sweat, it's very easy to judge the person in the clean, dry shirt. I know, I've been scratched and bruised and wondering why the manicured hands aren't helping me.
But, it's all about perception.
Maybe people have don't have the time it appears. Maybe people don't have money they seem to have. Maybe something external simply doesn't exist on the internal. Maybe we don't see the hours or dollars donated, and the needy people uplifted and served.
To be effective and help others be effective, we have to be encouragers and supporters. Because when we look at other people, regardless of their circumstances and our prejudices, we truly don't know the whole story. We can never know.
So, we have to assume the best and inspire others.
Honey is a much better attractor to a cause than vinegar.
My sister and I grew up with means. And that fact, the fact that Daddy made money, enveloped some other people's perception of us. We were "the princesses."
Not, they have such loving hearts. But, they are spoiled princesses. Not, they care about others and devote their energies to causes that help others. But, they are spoiled princesses. Not, they are kind, stand up for those who can't stand up for themselves, and give generously. But, they are spoiled princesses.
They just saw the external and didn't bother to check out the internal.
(Note: I need to tell you that I currently don't have means. My Daddy had means, but I don't. We live a simple life, we have a modest home, a modest budget to which we religiously stick, we give as we can, and we splurge a little. My goal is to make my life as simple as possible, and I'm working diligently on that.)
Because of my upbringing, I know firsthand how seemingly good people can allow the enemy to prosper in their hearts because they are looking only at the surface...and perhaps reading their own agenda into someone's life.
When people are seen through a lens of what they have, the exterior and material, and not who they are, then prejudice takes root. And those doing the judging can feel self righteous about it because it fulfills a stereotype and highlights how much better they are at living and giving.
An ego not reined in by self and God can misjudge. Even a good, beautiful, giving Christian ego.
And, I 'm guilty of it! Despite the fact I've been on both sides--the judged and the judger. Maybe you understand, too. Have you been on both sides, too? I know I still work on not judging others in a self-righteous snit.
It's easy to judge another person's lifestyle when you see a thumbnail and not the full picture. It's easy to think that people who live in a big house and eat out a lot have ample money and should be giving it to the poor or those in need. In our financial services business (closed 2 yrs now) we saw client after client who bought into the American Dream, buying big and often, yet still barely living paycheck to paycheck.
In American today, granite countertops and hardwood floors don't necessarily indicate wealth, in fact they could spell poverty.
My point is that when people are in the trenches and life is difficult they could think they work more than anyone. They could also think that they help more than anyone, and that they suffer more than anyone. It's very, very easy to place blame on those perceived to be sitting on the sidelines.
When a person gives it all, emotionally and physically, practically out of breath and shirt dirty and dripping with sweat, it's very easy to judge the person in the clean, dry shirt. I know, I've been scratched and bruised and wondering why the manicured hands aren't helping me.
But, it's all about perception.
Maybe people have don't have the time it appears. Maybe people don't have money they seem to have. Maybe something external simply doesn't exist on the internal. Maybe we don't see the hours or dollars donated, and the needy people uplifted and served.
To be effective and help others be effective, we have to be encouragers and supporters. Because when we look at other people, regardless of their circumstances and our prejudices, we truly don't know the whole story. We can never know.
So, we have to assume the best and inspire others.
Honey is a much better attractor to a cause than vinegar.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Rex Ryan, "It's Personal" Plan to Victory
Theme: Rex Ryan had a winning strategy and I didn't see it.
So, in the week leading up to Rex Ryan and the Jets playoff game against the Patriots, Ryan shot his mouth off about Brady and Belichick and how "personal" his beef was with the Pats.
I'm like, dude, you're a head coach of a nationally ranked football team. You're a leader and captain of your ship. You're the elite. Stop talking smack! Let your linemen talk smack. You have to rise above it and guide the vessel.
I think I might have been wrong.
Let's see, what did that smack talk produce? Ryan galvanized his team. They shut the Pats down and won handily. Two players being interviewed before the game talked about how personal it was with them. Ryan had gotten into their heads. The whole team had a chip on their shoulders and they were out for blood. (Pats had beat them into the ground earlier this year with a 45-3 blowout, btw.)
Then, AFTER the game, after the big win against his personal rivalry of Brady and Belicheck, Ryan pulls a 180! I'm like, huh? In his post game interview, Ryan's talking about how Brady is a formidable opponent, the best there is, and how Belichick is the greatest coach in the NFL, probably the best coach of all time. He was sugar coating it so much I about had an insulin rush.
I have to admit, the guy knew what he was doing. Here's Ryan's winning game plan:
1. Make it personal. Engage your team in your vision and have them make it personal, too.
2. Study your opponent. Ryan admits he watched the entire footage of the Pats grinding them into the ground 45-3 about 20 times.
3. Elevate your victory. When you've conquered your created foe, lavish him/them with praise, thus making the win even more substantial.
Could I say Rex Ryan was tilting at windmills? Maybe. Could I say he had the Pats beat before the game even started? Definitely.
P.S. Here's a funny tweet from Jon Acuff (Stuff Christians Like blog): "Rex Ryan announces there's a Pittsburgh hot dog vendor who once slighted him. It's personal with Steelers."
So, in the week leading up to Rex Ryan and the Jets playoff game against the Patriots, Ryan shot his mouth off about Brady and Belichick and how "personal" his beef was with the Pats.
I'm like, dude, you're a head coach of a nationally ranked football team. You're a leader and captain of your ship. You're the elite. Stop talking smack! Let your linemen talk smack. You have to rise above it and guide the vessel.
I think I might have been wrong.
Let's see, what did that smack talk produce? Ryan galvanized his team. They shut the Pats down and won handily. Two players being interviewed before the game talked about how personal it was with them. Ryan had gotten into their heads. The whole team had a chip on their shoulders and they were out for blood. (Pats had beat them into the ground earlier this year with a 45-3 blowout, btw.)
Then, AFTER the game, after the big win against his personal rivalry of Brady and Belicheck, Ryan pulls a 180! I'm like, huh? In his post game interview, Ryan's talking about how Brady is a formidable opponent, the best there is, and how Belichick is the greatest coach in the NFL, probably the best coach of all time. He was sugar coating it so much I about had an insulin rush.
I have to admit, the guy knew what he was doing. Here's Ryan's winning game plan:
1. Make it personal. Engage your team in your vision and have them make it personal, too.
2. Study your opponent. Ryan admits he watched the entire footage of the Pats grinding them into the ground 45-3 about 20 times.
3. Elevate your victory. When you've conquered your created foe, lavish him/them with praise, thus making the win even more substantial.
Could I say Rex Ryan was tilting at windmills? Maybe. Could I say he had the Pats beat before the game even started? Definitely.
P.S. Here's a funny tweet from Jon Acuff (Stuff Christians Like blog): "Rex Ryan announces there's a Pittsburgh hot dog vendor who once slighted him. It's personal with Steelers."
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Arizona Shooting is the Haiti Earthquake Part Two
Theme: Giving to others might not come in the package we intend, so we have to change our idea of how to give.
So, the Lefties say the Righties are to blame, and the Righties say the Lefties are to blame for blaming the Righties. To me, the AZ shooting had nothing to do with politics so I don't know how any one of them can insert themselves into the sadness.
But, wait! I do know.
Here's what's going on: EGO! Yes, ego. The egos of the Righties and Lefties and Nutjobs are what is driving this insipid political posturing.
In Arizona they have found a tragedy to exploit to their own benefit. They harumph, pontificate and incite to appear as if they are "concerned," "caring" and "righteous" but in reality, their words are merely noise, blather to shine their faces in the spotlight and garner a little bit of attention that their egos lap up like kitten milk.
It's like the Haiti earthquake all over again.
I was working for the Red Cross at the time setting up blood drives. We couldn't say that the blood we collected was going to help Haiti victims, but in NC we all knew that FL was sending blood to Haiti and we in NC were sending blood to FL to make up for the loss. We were on appeal for blood, and really pushed getting those extra pints in, extra pints we knew were greatly needed both locally and globally.
BUT, I can't tell you how many people wanted to set up a blood drive "for Haiti." I told them I couldn't do it. We couldn't promise that the blood would go to Haiti.
As I was taking appointments for one drive, a man came up to me.
"I want to make sure my blood is going to Haiti."
"I can't promise that, we need blood everywhere, not just Haiti."
"Then I'm not giving." And he walked away.
Um, okay dude.
Another potential blood donor, a gal asked me, "Can't you just send my blood to Haiti? I can't give in the States, but if my blood just goes to Haiti, then it will be okay, right?"
Um, no.
Of the myriad of things going through my mind, the first was picturing a healthy Haitian baby contracting a disease from the deferred blood donor.
I understand that people want to help, I understand that people want to give, but when it doesn't come in the package they intend, instead of changing their outlook on how they can help, they walk. That's ego-giving, not giving.
When people make it about themselves, even for the good of others, then God isn't working in us. When our egos drive our ambitions, even when we appear magnanimous, then it's not really touching other lives in the way God intends.
We have to be careful of our motives. Our motives are the true barometer of our hearts, and when we act to satisfy our own egos then we fail to act for God.
So, the Lefties say the Righties are to blame, and the Righties say the Lefties are to blame for blaming the Righties. To me, the AZ shooting had nothing to do with politics so I don't know how any one of them can insert themselves into the sadness.
But, wait! I do know.
Here's what's going on: EGO! Yes, ego. The egos of the Righties and Lefties and Nutjobs are what is driving this insipid political posturing.
In Arizona they have found a tragedy to exploit to their own benefit. They harumph, pontificate and incite to appear as if they are "concerned," "caring" and "righteous" but in reality, their words are merely noise, blather to shine their faces in the spotlight and garner a little bit of attention that their egos lap up like kitten milk.
It's like the Haiti earthquake all over again.
I was working for the Red Cross at the time setting up blood drives. We couldn't say that the blood we collected was going to help Haiti victims, but in NC we all knew that FL was sending blood to Haiti and we in NC were sending blood to FL to make up for the loss. We were on appeal for blood, and really pushed getting those extra pints in, extra pints we knew were greatly needed both locally and globally.
BUT, I can't tell you how many people wanted to set up a blood drive "for Haiti." I told them I couldn't do it. We couldn't promise that the blood would go to Haiti.
As I was taking appointments for one drive, a man came up to me.
"I want to make sure my blood is going to Haiti."
"I can't promise that, we need blood everywhere, not just Haiti."
"Then I'm not giving." And he walked away.
Um, okay dude.
Another potential blood donor, a gal asked me, "Can't you just send my blood to Haiti? I can't give in the States, but if my blood just goes to Haiti, then it will be okay, right?"
Um, no.
Of the myriad of things going through my mind, the first was picturing a healthy Haitian baby contracting a disease from the deferred blood donor.
I understand that people want to help, I understand that people want to give, but when it doesn't come in the package they intend, instead of changing their outlook on how they can help, they walk. That's ego-giving, not giving.
When people make it about themselves, even for the good of others, then God isn't working in us. When our egos drive our ambitions, even when we appear magnanimous, then it's not really touching other lives in the way God intends.
We have to be careful of our motives. Our motives are the true barometer of our hearts, and when we act to satisfy our own egos then we fail to act for God.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
It's worth fighting for
Frodo: What are we holding on to, Sam?
Sam: There's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it's worth fighting for.
Yes, I believe there IS good in this world, and it's worth fighting for.
Something about the Arizona shooting, not the shooting itself, or the people killed, or the lives fractured, but the aftermath of the tragedy has given me hope. It's given me hope that decent people still rise up, take action, and protect those who need it.
Politicians and others (while victims were still fighting for their lives and families were fresh with grief over those killed) used the situation to promote their particular ideologies. BUT, saner heads prevailed, and those who might have used the devastation to springboard their agendas have been silenced.
Those idiots who protest funerals are planning to picket the 9-year-old little girl's funeral. BUT, they will be shut out. Quite literally by angel wings, built high and large to shield the family and friends from their satanic protest and destructive signage.
People can do good, and they do. People can see truth. People can help others.
There is good in this world, Mr. Frodo, there is. And, it's worth fighting for.
Sam: There's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it's worth fighting for.
Yes, I believe there IS good in this world, and it's worth fighting for.
Something about the Arizona shooting, not the shooting itself, or the people killed, or the lives fractured, but the aftermath of the tragedy has given me hope. It's given me hope that decent people still rise up, take action, and protect those who need it.
Politicians and others (while victims were still fighting for their lives and families were fresh with grief over those killed) used the situation to promote their particular ideologies. BUT, saner heads prevailed, and those who might have used the devastation to springboard their agendas have been silenced.
Those idiots who protest funerals are planning to picket the 9-year-old little girl's funeral. BUT, they will be shut out. Quite literally by angel wings, built high and large to shield the family and friends from their satanic protest and destructive signage.
People can do good, and they do. People can see truth. People can help others.
There is good in this world, Mr. Frodo, there is. And, it's worth fighting for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)