15 votes

A Disproportionate Threat : Terror from Islamic Radicals vs. Terror from Fascism at Home

Eisenhower: The original conspiracy theorist?

"No state ever benefited from prolonged warfare" - TsSun Tzu

"All warfare is based on deception." - Tzu

***********************************************

I have many good friends who share my values that don't share my take on "the War on Terror." Fueled by a government-encouraged media-frenzy, they are so fearful of the threat of radical Islam that it is eclipsing other factors which they used to care about deeply when they made political choices. Or check that, they still care about those other things deeply, but have not resolved the conflict between those other things and the so-called "War on Terror."

Sun Tzu correctly noted that no state ever benefited from prolonged warfare. Unfortunately, modern technological states have a military-industrial complex which, like a parasite, does benefit from prolonged warfare- at the expense of the finances and the liberties of the actual nation. That is exactly what President General Eisenhower warned us about in 1961. Please listen to his chilling warning.

When this organism gains inordinate political influence, the tail can wag the dog. Instead of a nation's war machine existing to protect the people and their rights, it can become twisted so that the nation and its people exist only to keep the war machine growing. At that point, instead of protecting the rights and property of the people, the war machine becomes the biggest threat to them.

During the Cold War, it was obvious why we needed the War Machine, and world-wide bases, and a global spy network, and investigations here at home too. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the War Machine floundered for a bit, searching for a threat it could hype enough to justify its continued growth. 9/11 changed that.

Contrary to the sloganeering, 9/11 did not "change everything." It did not change the Constitution. It did not change the Rights with which all men have been "endowed by their Creator" despite the tyrannical demands of the state. And it did not change the military-industrial complex. If Eisenhower warned us that they needed watching before 9/11, lest they threaten our liberties, then they still needed to be watched afterwards. Unfortunately, like a skillful magician, the ruling elites kept the eyes of the people, especially conservatives, directed elsewhere whilst the real trickery occurred within their own government.

The elites understand how badly they have misruled us. They know how many deceptive stratagems they have employed to short circuit all citizen efforts at true reform. The political class is sucking the nation dry, and sooner or later they realize that the illusion will shatter and the common people will figure it out. The security state they are currently erecting with break-neck speed is not to protect us from Islamic terrorists- it's to protect them from the American people once it becomes clear how they have robbed us blind.

Consider the facts. How many Islamic terrorists have there been, both actual and would be, on American soil each year since 9/11? The average is a paltry 16 per year. That average includes 2009 where they caught 17 would-be's in a single incident. In the vast majority of these cases, government informants were not just providing information, they were essential to the execution of the act of terrorism. The government asset would, for example, be the source of the weapons to be used in the attack. In many of these cases it is very likely that no terrorist attack would have ever gone down without the involvement of the government asset. IOW, the police state is producing would-be terrorists to provide ongoing justification for it's increasingly intrusive war on terror.

This is not to say that there are no terrorists out there, or that some precautions are not in order. Of course they are out there, because our own government is funding them in places like Libya and Syria.  But let's be rational here. Let's be proportional. For 16 actual and wanna-be terrorists a year, most of whom could not have followed through without assistance from a government asset, it make no sense to re-shape a free society of 310 million people into a police state.

For 16 men a year, many mentally ill like one of the two captured in the recent Seattle scare, it makes no sense to allow the government to search without a warrant and without probable cause, all your credit card records, your bank records, your emails, and your phone records. It makes no sense to restrict your travel, set up road blocks, and grope your wives and daughters at airports (and now at other mass transit points). The Feds are watching all of us more closely while at the same time letting hordes of new Muslims into the country. None of that makes any sense. That is, it makes no sense if the real goal is to stop Islamic terrorism. If the real goal is to keep profits flowing to the war/security industry and subjagate the American people to a police state then these actions make perfect sense.

I call on my conservative friends to be wise and favor allocating resources to threats in a rational and proportional manner. To me, that means less focus on defeating "Islamic Terror" and more focus on rolling back the domestic police state. Washington D.C is a more immediate threat to our freedoms and prosperity than Mecca.

From "The Localist"
http://localismaphilosophyofgovernment.blogspot.com/



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

WRONG

Hitler was raised CATHOLIC, so there were sacrements between the Church and Hitler, which Hitler betrayed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9aMZQQbNks

I'm well aware of the atrocities the Catholics, not Christians, as this was long before martin Luther came up with the PROTESTant doctrines and theology.. and it was against Jews and Muslims because at one time, Jews and Muslims collaberated against the Catholic Empire (Western Empire Vs Eastern Empires in establishing the Ottoman Empire).

The Catholics and Jews have made their peace. When will Islam join them? When they stop trying to be THE GLOBAL Religion.

As for leaders of Islamic nations calling

As for leaders of Islamic nations calling for the destruction of Israel, you said it yourself that they were SECULAR. Last I checked, that meant separating religion from state. Anyways, I already discussed this in the case of Iran. The same is true for the countries that border Israel as well as the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. It's the unintended consequences of decades of improper and illegal policies by Israel and the US.

I am a proud libertarian Muslim.

Here are some awesome Islamic Libertarian links:

http://minaret.org

http://muslims4liberty.com

AND TO GET OFF THE NEOCON DRIVEL ABOUT MUSLIMS: http://loonwatch.com

BULL

I suggest you watch The Legal Case for Israel ALL FACT about HOW and WHY Israel has the RIGHT to exist LEGALLY, according to the League of Nations and the UN and the treaties agreed upon BY EVERY NATION ON EARTH!

This attack on Israel is by the secular Islamic Nations and Communists who they collaborate in an agreement to END ALL SOVREIGNITY and turn the world into a Palestine, a stateless area that is CONTROLLED by tripple layers of AUTHORITY. Palestinian AUTHORITY IS SO CORRUPT and INEPT it's a standing JOKE is Palestinian movies.. it's actually very sad how the Palestinian AUTHORITY FORCES people to Islam AUTHORITY, so the FAT CATS who STEAL money meant for the Palestinian people buy expensive homes and fine foods and travel, while the let Islamic THUGS employ Sharia AUTHORITY that has NO respect for women's rights, sexual orientation and is worse than America in a war on drugs, and alcohol. The fact is most Palestinians wish they lived in Israel where theycan be FREE, rather than living under an AUTHORITY THAT GIVES THEM NOTHING BUT MISERY AND BAD LAWS, and to top that off we have the UN with it's globalists that work very hard to keep Palestinians TRAPPED.. children look at these FOREIGNERS HOPING TO GOD they can help and they USE THEM to advance their UN AGENDA.. the "Palestinianazation of the world". Islam has many wonderful people who have been rendered as TOOLS because in their spiritual quest they become SERVANTS.. you think it's to God.. It's and to YOU, in your heart, I'm sure it is, but that is not the GRAND SCHEME, and this is why Islam PROVOKES the constand and abundant LIES about Israel.

The only thing you may wind up with is a call to prayer, and if that's FINE by you because you believe God /Allah wanted nothing more for you than to be a servant.. you are not NOT FOR LIBERTY, YOU ARE NOT FOR FREEDOM, and you are NOT telling the truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub2x5UvjUs4

If you'd like to show me more of your sources

I would certainly love to see them and do my research to see what they discuss.

I am a proud libertarian Muslim.

Here are some awesome Islamic Libertarian links:

http://minaret.org

http://muslims4liberty.com

AND TO GET OFF THE NEOCON DRIVEL ABOUT MUSLIMS: http://loonwatch.com

Very good

The vid in the post above is approx 46 minutes. LISTEN VERY CAREFULLY, as I would LOVE to see you dispute these facts.

call to prayer

What's you point?

That's Muazin are rock stars? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIA5FRlAJZQ

something

titled: call to prayer needs a point?

Yes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS1ur4-mjuc

There are many calls to prayer, for many reasons.

who said

there wasn't?

You

By lack of making a point.

i said no such thing

i presented a call to prayer. for anyone to think that by doing so i was negating all other types of prayer is either being silly, thick or nitpicking. take your choice.

to follow your logic, when you posted a clip on the twist you were denying all other forms of dance.

My choice is none of the above

Since you are either being silly, thick or nitpicking, I'll say you have NO RESPECT for Islam and why you posted a call to prayer to insult me, thus you used a ccall to prayer as a weapon.

SHAME ON YOU!

i posted it because i liked it

you can believe whatever you like.

Well that was insulting and devoid of any facts!

I completely disagree with what you have to say about Islam, and quite frankly, I'm getting tired of hearing conspiracy theories about how Islam is out to get Israel. Guess what though, I'm not a holocaust denier, nor do I believe in some Jewish conspiracy theory. I don't mind you voicing your support for Israel. But I will always denounce bigotry and falsehood. You perpetuate the same, long refuted lies about Islam that neocons love to use as arguments for perpetual war.

When you talk about the Prophet Muhammad supposedly murdering the Jews, I suppose you refer to the incident of Banu Qurayza, right? That, after they had willingly violated the Constitution of Medina by aiding an enemy ten times the size of the Prophet's army, who attempted to besiege the entire city, they were charged of treason, not by the Prophet, but by the chief of one of Banu Qurayza's allies, Sa'd bin Muadh of Banu Aus, and their sentencing wasn't derived from the Quran, BUT FROM THE TORAH!

I am a proud libertarian Muslim.

Here are some awesome Islamic Libertarian links:

http://minaret.org

http://muslims4liberty.com

AND TO GET OFF THE NEOCON DRIVEL ABOUT MUSLIMS: http://loonwatch.com

If anything...

...that shows Islam's acceptance of religious pluralism. Here's a link that discusses this: http://www.muhammadfactcheck.org/muhammadfactcheck/prophet-m...
Traditional study references from other Islamic and even non-Islamic historical websites record this as fact. If you have any other "proof" of Islam's hatred of Jews from the time of the Prophet, I'd be glad to take a look.

I am a proud libertarian Muslim.

Here are some awesome Islamic Libertarian links:

http://minaret.org

http://muslims4liberty.com

AND TO GET OFF THE NEOCON DRIVEL ABOUT MUSLIMS: http://loonwatch.com

Sure

First, I did not post to insult you. You want to believe that I insulted you because from the perspective one one who is being persecuted by me, someone who you call a Neocon, which is an insult, it empowers you to attack me.

You have permisssion to attack me because this is America, and that's your right. You do not have to take offense when none was intentionally given to you, so why would you? You said it yourself in your post, PLURALISM.

Pluralism is the art of self deception.

There are 1.2 million Jews seeking amnesty to Israel because as Islam grows, the attack on Jews grow. Plurastically speaking, one can make excuses such as, "it was the individual and not Islam". We see this same plualism in corporate behavior.

I can even go so far to say, The Art of War is pluralism, as this is how you can self righteously attack me claiming I insulted YOU, because you preceive I attacked Islam.. so, you can be Islam without being Islam at your descression, as a CEO for a corporation can be that corporation or not at their descression.

Not that you care, but you might find it interesting, that I supported and voted for Ralph Nader in 92, 96, Y2k, 04 and 08. How neocon is that? I would say it's not Neocon at all. Yes recently wiki changed the defination of what is a Neocon.. a Neocon is someone who supports Israel's right to exist. Just because of a wiki change in definition, I am now a Neocon.. Wiki is a corporation, pluristic, the collective defines the individual, the individual has no right to define themselves, another art of war against the individual by a collective.

I think it's very healthy to have positive discussions. If you want to help others find their spiritual path in Islam, I am not opposed, as I think religious freedom has been the greatest gift God gave me being born an American. And as an American women, I have no doubt, Islam is not for me and I'd have been stoned to death before I was 11 years old, my nature being what it is, individual, not pluralistic. So it is not fear, but that fact, I AM who I am, and have no excuse, no alternative, no one to blame other than myself. No one else is me, and I do not have the power to control who or what exists, but to accept what is, in my limited ability as a human being born into a world I have no control.

I am not trying to control you. I am not posting to insult you, and it's my shame that you choose to find offense to attack me with purpose in defending not yourself as an individual, but as a pluralism standing for Islam.

You twisted my words around.

Firstly, I never called you a neocon. I told you your arguments were one, REFUTED A MILLION TIMES AND ONE, and two, that they were used by neocons perpetually to establish fear and hatred of Islam. I couldn't care less that you choose not to be a Muslim, but when you say Islam is actively dismantling our freedom, and that Muslims are plotting to take over the world in a tyrannical one world government system, I call that hatred and bigotry. I don't care who you voted for.

Secondly, you don't know what religious pluralism is. It's tolerance of other faiths. It's not the Art of War. It's not deception. Hell, I can't even understand half the words you say in this post because it's redundant and irrelevant in so many ways! It's not even wrong because it's so off topic, and so was your original post about Islam!

And when you say I have no reason to be offended by your horrific misrepresentation of Islam as a religion actively trying to destroy freedom, upon which you actually claim Muslims try to adhere to, since, as you said, Muslims try to emulate the Prophet, who you falsely claimed "wiped out the Jews from the Middle East three times," I'd say that only a fool would not take offense to that. I'm a proud American born patriot, and I adhere to and take my religion seriously, and I will not be wiped off as some lousy terrorist who wants to take away our freedoms..

I am a proud libertarian Muslim.

Here are some awesome Islamic Libertarian links:

http://minaret.org

http://muslims4liberty.com

AND TO GET OFF THE NEOCON DRIVEL ABOUT MUSLIMS: http://loonwatch.com

There you go again

Talk about twisted. I didn't call you a terrorist.

Sexual orientation, adultry and the abuse of alcohol and drugs is not condemable to death in America. They are in Islam and that is three reasons Islam is not free.

Islam's tolerance of other religions is when they are a minority religion, like here in America, which saying that Islam is tolerant is an INSULT to Christianity and Judeaism. Where's the respect? You want respect for your minority religion? PRACTICE respect rather than wax as if you are better. You're not.

Your post is nothing but offensive insults which you subjectively choose to enable a self righteous attitude in the name of defense. Talk about twisted.

All one needs to do is look at Sunni and shiite to see how well Islam's religious plurality works.

"All one needs to do is look at Sunni or shiite..."

That's like me saying, "All one needs to do is look at Protestant and Catholic to see how well Christianity's religious plurality really works." Firstly, it's grammatically incorrect, which unfortunately makes you look really ignorant about Islam. Secondly, considering that there are Christians of all sects that believe in anarchocapitalism, while they used to fight each other viciously, the same can be true for Islam. Now Christianity is known as peaceful. Islam can too, and with both faiths, and Judaism, they are truly not inherently violent.

I am a proud libertarian Muslim.

Here are some awesome Islamic Libertarian links:

http://minaret.org

http://muslims4liberty.com

AND TO GET OFF THE NEOCON DRIVEL ABOUT MUSLIMS: http://loonwatch.com

Instead of responding to my argument

Instead of responding to my argument using Islamic theological and historic references, you change your subject and choose to discuss a completely different subject, that of course, being that which is condemnable to death in Islam. Considering that the Prophet never killed Non-Muslims for this, we can first strike this as irrelevant to them. Furthermore, considering that the Quranic verses 2:256 and 88:21-22 clearly state that there is no compulsion in faith and that you can only tell people to follow Islam but you can't force them, this makespunishing apostasy forbidden in Islam.

I am a proud libertarian Muslim.

Here are some awesome Islamic Libertarian links:

http://minaret.org

http://muslims4liberty.com

AND TO GET OFF THE NEOCON DRIVEL ABOUT MUSLIMS: http://loonwatch.com

Continued

When all of this is understood, it becomes clear that Islam is a voluntary system, and this makes sense, because no one can force faith to enter into your heart. Only the individual can find his or her spiritual path. But if one accepts Islam truly in one's heart, one must be willing to accept the punishment for the sin that that person has committed. Only a true believer would voluntarily submit to the rules of the Quran and opt to have him or herself killed or punished according to Islamic code. Those who don't are free to leave in Islam, and all those who say otherwise are logically inconsistent and do not have truth or history on their side. No person was over forcibly taken against his or her will to be killed for crimes unless they severely infringed on the rights of others during the time of the Prophet, as in the case of murder or rape.

I am a proud libertarian Muslim.

Here are some awesome Islamic Libertarian links:

http://minaret.org

http://muslims4liberty.com

AND TO GET OFF THE NEOCON DRIVEL ABOUT MUSLIMS: http://loonwatch.com

Continued

No one was forced to follow Islam against their will either. The Constitution of Medina established a voluntary, anarchocapitalist system of governance, where voluntary pluralism in the case of various judicial verdicts among Muslims and Non-Muslims were made, and violations of the Constitution resulted in punishment according to the violater's creed, which in the case of Banu Qurayza, was derived from the Torah in respect to their being Jewish.

I am a proud libertarian Muslim.

Here are some awesome Islamic Libertarian links:

http://minaret.org

http://muslims4liberty.com

AND TO GET OFF THE NEOCON DRIVEL ABOUT MUSLIMS: http://loonwatch.com

I'm so happy to be able to teach you about your religion

Islam[edit source]

See also: Islamization and Safavid conversion of Iran from Sunnism to Shiism

Many scholars have argued that early Islamic scripture and law forbids forced conversion,[24] while other scholars contest this claim with historical examples.[25][26][27]

One particular verse of the Qur'an (2:256) is frequently cited, reading "let there be no compulsion in religion".[28][29][30][31][32] Another cited verse of the Qur'an (9:5), reads "And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists (pagan) wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them go on their way."[33][34][35][36]

Some scholars suggest Muhammed and his followers never practiced forced conversion of the Pagan Arabs during Muhammad's conquest of Arabia.[37][not in citation given][page needed][38] Other scholars, point to sunnah, described in multiple Hadith, which suggest use of violence by Muhammed and his followers to achieve forced religious conversion. Sahih al-Bukhari, for example, describes Muhammed asking his followers, "fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."[39][40][41][42] Sahih Muslim similarly, in Book 19, describes Muhammed asking his followers, "You see the ruffians and the lowly followers of the (pagan) Quraish. And he indicated by striking one of his hands over the other that they should be killed."[43][44][45]

Historians suggest that forced conversions have occurred during Islamic history.[24][46][47][48] Noted cases include the conversion of Samaritans to Islam at the hands of the rebel Ibn Firāsa,[49][50] conversions in the 12th century under the Almohad dynasty of North Africa and Andalusia, as well as in Persia under the Safavid dynasty where Sunnis were converted to Shi'ism[51] and Jews were converted to Islam.[52] A form of forced conversion became institutionalized during the Ottoman Empire in the practice of devşirme, a human levy in which Christian boys were seized and collected from their families (usually in the Balkans), enslaved, converted to Islam, and then trained for high-ranking service to the sultan.[53]

There is dispute amongst scholars as to whether the famous Jewish philosopher Maimonides converted to Islam in order to freely escape from Almohad territory, and then reconverted back to Judaism in either the Levant or in Egypt.[54] Maimonides wrote a book on apostasy wherein he advocated accepting forced conversion rather than suffer martydom, and to then seek refuge afterward at a place where it was safe. The dispute also extended to the allegedly forced conversion of Sabbatai Zevi, an Ottoman Jew from Smyrna. In reality, at the beginning of 1666, the Ottoman Sultan in Constantinople ordered Sabbatai, who had many followers and had claimed to be the long-awaited Jewish messiah, to be imprisoned. When Sabbatai was later taken to Adrianople, the Sultan's physician, a former Jew, advised him to convert to Islam. The following day he converted before the Sultan, who happily rewarded Sabbatai by conferring the title (Mahmed) Effendi, and appointing him as his doorkeeper with a high salary. A number of Sabbatai's followers also went over to Islam and about 300 families converted and were known as dönmeh (converts).[55]

Mughal ruler Aurangzeb cherished the ambition of converting India into a land of Islam. For this, he encouraged forced religious conversions and destroyed thousands of Hindu temples during his reign.[56][57] During Tipu Sultan's invasion of Malabar in the late 18th century, he forcefully converted over 400,000 Hindus to Islam.[58][59][60] During the Moplah Riots of 1921 in Kerala, Muslim Mappilas forcibly converted thousands of Hindus to Islam[61] and killed all those who refused to apostatise.[62] During the Noakhali genocide of Hindus in 1946, several thousand Hindus were forcibly converted to Islam by Muslim mobs.[63][64] In Bangladesh, the International Crimes Tribunal tried and convicted several leaders of the Islamic Razakar militias, as well as Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami (Delwar Hossain Sayeedi), of war crimes committed against Hindus during the 1971 Bangladesh atrocities. The charges included forced conversion of Bengali Hindus to Islam.[65] In the 1998 Prankote massacre, 26 Kashmiri Hindus were beheaded by Islamist militants after their denial of converting into Islam. The militants struck when the villagers refused demands from the gunmen to convert to Islam and prove their conversion by eating beef.[66]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion

The Quranic Verse 9:5 along with the Hadith

are taken out of context. For verse 9:5, read the verses around it. Read the exegesis of it. The myths about the so called "Sword verse" have been debunked so many times that it doesn't take long to figure out the truth about the context of the verse itself. As for the two Hadith quotes mentioned in the wikipedia article, you have to understand the context provided here in this. Both of the

I am a proud libertarian Muslim.

Here are some awesome Islamic Libertarian links:

http://minaret.org

http://muslims4liberty.com

AND TO GET OFF THE NEOCON DRIVEL ABOUT MUSLIMS: http://loonwatch.com

Continued

...two Hadith were said during the time when the Prophet was fighting against the confederacy of the main tribes of Mecca, the Quraysh, who at first expelled him and his people, and then initiated war against them. The first Hadith which quotes Muhammad as saying that war should be waged until everyone turns to Islam was recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih al-Muslim, while another recording of the same Hadith as recorded by Imam Nasai, states that this refers only to the polytheists, and as the Quran and Hadith are very notable of not specifically mentioning the specific tribe in question, scholarly research from medieval Islamic resources determines the historical context of the situation. So scholars from the Maliki school of Sunni Islamic thought, which I probably most closely adhere to, and whom were the closest and earliest major group, declare that the Quraysh are the people Muhammad is discussing.

I am a proud libertarian Muslim.

Here are some awesome Islamic Libertarian links:

http://minaret.org

http://muslims4liberty.com

AND TO GET OFF THE NEOCON DRIVEL ABOUT MUSLIMS: http://loonwatch.com

Update

Alright, I finally have an answer. To continue, in the various Hadith and Seerah, or biographies of the Prophet, it was understood that the Quraysh would take every means to eliminate the Muslims. They first besieged the Muslims in Mecca and held an embargo against them for three years. They beat people who openly practiced it and enslaved them. When the people were able to break out and go to Medina, the Quraysh led an expedition of 12000 men against the community of one thousand strong and besieged them there, only to find trench warfare and defeat. There they got the Banu Qurayza to commit treachery and rallied neighboring tribes in exchange for power. The Muslims knew that the Quraysh would stop at nothing to annihilate them so they had to engage in self defense for a seemingly endless amount of time. Many other nonmuslim tribes had signed treaties with the Muslims but the Quraysh would never accept surrender or peace treaties that they wouldn't later break. The various tribes within the Quraysh understood that too. If they tried to have peace without losing their religion, they feared that the rest of the Quraysh would turn on them. But if they converted, then they could be under the protection of Muslims, and that if they were attacked, it would break all treaties, particularly at this time the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. So in effect, the Prophet wasn't fighting to force them to be Muslims. It was under purely defensive circumstances, and even the more radical scholars, like ibn Taymiyyah, accepted that only under defense could this occur, but the Quranic verses 2:190-193 which advocate just war should always be adhered to in a tine of war.

I am a proud libertarian Muslim.

Here are some awesome Islamic Libertarian links:

http://minaret.org

http://muslims4liberty.com

AND TO GET OFF THE NEOCON DRIVEL ABOUT MUSLIMS: http://loonwatch.com

As for the second Hadith

You already understand the context. He wasn't calling for the people to kill them because they were pagan, but because at that time they had done so much to them and specifically, if I'm not mistaken, here they stole the property of various Muslims who had run to Medina, loaded them onto caravans, and tried to sell them to the Byzantines and Persians. It was a just defense against the Quraysh's unjustified aggression.

I am a proud libertarian Muslim.

Here are some awesome Islamic Libertarian links:

http://minaret.org

http://muslims4liberty.com

AND TO GET OFF THE NEOCON DRIVEL ABOUT MUSLIMS: http://loonwatch.com

Sorry for taking so long to reply!

This was an excellent question, and I'll do more research on it, but I will definitely get back to you! You have me stumped with the Hadith, but I know a few people I can contact and ask about it. Believe me when I say I'm a man of my word, and I promise I'll get an answer soon.

I may not know the most about Islam or be the best Muslim, but I certainly try!

I am a proud libertarian Muslim.

Here are some awesome Islamic Libertarian links:

http://minaret.org

http://muslims4liberty.com

AND TO GET OFF THE NEOCON DRIVEL ABOUT MUSLIMS: http://loonwatch.com

WOW! Talk about hitting the nail on the head!

What a beautifully written, logical way to make a point.

Thanks for sharing nolongerperplexed!