Religion of Peace Update

Many liberals scrutinize the sermons of Christan ministers such as Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell, but downplay or ignore the language of Islamic Imams, despite the fact the latter -- but not the former -- are either sponsored, or actually employed, by Arab governments. So why shouldn't we evaluate Islam, and the Koran, by the views of its clerics?

When we do, the answer becomes obvious. Here's excerpts from a February 3, 2005 Saudi TV program with Saudi cleric Musa Al-Qarni, as translated by MEMRI:

The uproar and the chaos that we see today in the human race – the killing, the acts of aggression, the rape, the robbery, and the disgrace of honor – what causes this is that the banners which are hoisted high are those of the Jews, the Christians, and other religions and faiths, and not the banner of 'There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is Allah's Messenger.'

"Let's have a look at what is written in the Koran. What position must we adopt towards Allah's enemies? Is it the position we have adopted? First of all, we must be aware of the fact that at present we see that [the West] doesn't want us even to say the words 'Allah's enemies.' They don't want us to say that the Jews and the Christians are Allah's enemies. They don't want us to say that the Jews and the Christians are the enemies of the Muslims and the enemies of Islam. . .

The terrorists are these Jews and Christians who implement these policies through the use of force, repression, and tyranny, and to this end make use of planes, tanks, and all manner of deadly weapons." . . .

[W]e must realize that Allah obligated us to disseminate this religion all over the globe. And first, it should be spread through outreach and calling people to Allah's word, through pleasing words, gently, and through good deeds. Through letting people hear Allah's words and showing them Islam. However, if we run up against someone who opposes this path and attempts to obstruct the spread of the upright religion and the light, and to obstruct their reaching others – in this case it is a duty to fight such a person. And Allah said: 'Fight them until there is no more strife and Allah's religion reigns supreme.'

"We don't agree with those who disavow this completely and say that the religion [of Islam] doesn't use the sword. No. Islam uses the sword when there is no other alternative. Therefore wisdom, as the religious authorities say, consists in utilizing each thing in its proper place. If there is need for the sword, then it is wise to use the sword, and if the occasion requires kind words and outreach, then it is wise to utilize them."

The video, with subtitles, is here.

So Iraqi terrorists and Muslim religious leaders oppose both democracy and religious freedom. Can someone explain why opposing the Iraq war is considered "liberal?"

(via LGF)

More:

Winds of Change posts similar questions, including:

• What would have been the best, most legitimate way for Iraq to achieve democratic elections? Can it be applied to Burma, North Korea, Iran, and other dictatorships?



• Are tyrants defeated with soft power, or merely contained until they fade away? Is contained fascism simply the unstated and accepted cost of soft power? If it is, should Hitler have been opposed?



• Are there any circumstances where hard power is warranted?



• If the UN is too corrupt and impotent, and the US is too sovereign to represent the world, what organization would you propose instead?

(via Instapundit)