| |
 War Room Briefings
| |
| Muslim Allegiance to
Non-Muslim Governments There can be no "true muslim" loyal to anything other than islam and it's laws,sharia law.Any muslim that is in this situation is not considered a muslim and gets a far worse "justice" than any Infidel will recieve,even a Jew.There is no allegiance to any other Government only allience and that allience only goes as far as furthering islam and to the destruction of that which it is allied to at islams earliest convenience.For muslims to say they can pledge an allegiance to any other Government is to say islam is compatible with Democracy.If this were true then why is it muslims duty to instill sharia law upon those who live in democracy? | | | Question: Can Muslim citizens be loyal to a non-Muslim government?
|
Summary Answer: Many are loyal, of course, but it is in spite of Islamic teaching. Unlike other faiths, Islam is not just a religion but a political system as well. The state is intended to be inseparable from religious rule. Islamic law, or Sharia, is complete and not designed to coexist with or be subordinate to other legal systems. Muslims are not meant to be ruled by non-Muslims. The Qur'an is very clear that they are to resist unbelievers by any means until Islam establishes political supremacy. This doesn't mean that everyone must be forced to become Muslim, but rather that everyone must submit to Muslim rule.
|
The Qur'an: Sura (5:3) - "This day have I perfected your religion for you." This verse is often interpreted to mean that any government outside of Sharia is unnecessary at best, and corruptive at worst. Sura (18:26) - "[Allah] maketh none to share in his government." This was probably intended as a slam against polytheists and the Christian belief in the Trinity, but it has also been used as the basis for criticizing earthly governments. Sura (19:64) - "And we do not descend but by the command of your Lord; to Him belongs whatever is before us and whatever is behind us and whatever is between these, and your Lord is not forgetful." Sura (4:141) - "...And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumphs) over the believers." Sura (63:8) - "...might belongeth to Allah and to His messenger and to the believers; but the hypocrites know not." The "hypocrites" are defined as Muslims in name only, those who do not submit to the theocracy of Allah. Sura (5:49) - "So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them lest they seduce thee from some part of that which Allah hath revealed unto thee" Allah's Qur'an takes priority over the desires of the people. A democratic nation is by nature one that is not governed by Islamic law, meaning that a Muslim citizen would have divided loyalty. It's clear from this verse which side he must choose. Sura (3:28) - "Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah." The word 'friend' is Awliyaa which is inclusive of friends, protectors and helpers - the components of civil society. See also Sura (5:51) Sura (4:123) - "Not your desires, nor those of the People of the Book (can prevail): whoever works evil, will be requited accordingly. Nor will he find, besides Allah, any protector or helper." Sura (28:17) - "O my Lord! For that Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace on me, never shall I be a help to those who sin!" It is difficult to reconcile this verse with the civic duty of a public office holder in a pluralistic society. Sura (4:59) - "O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you..." Oddly enough, this verse is sometimes used in an attempt to make the case that Muslims should respect a non-Muslim civil government. A careful reading, however, shows that the verse is directed to Muslims and it commands them to respect the authority drawn only from among their own body of believers. See also 9:29, which establishes the ideal relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims. | |
From the Hadith:
Muslim (19:4294) - "When you meet your enemies who are polytheists [Christians], invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them" Bukhari (53:392) - While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews." We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle." | |
Additional Notes:
Islam teaches that nations are in one of two major categories - dar-al Harb (house of war) and dar-al-Islam (Muslim rule). Any nation that is not Muslim is therefore, by definition, at war with Islam. Muslims cannot be expected to maintain loyalty to a nation that is at war with their religion. Some Muslim scholars contend that there is a middle ground, dar-al-Aman (land of truce), where Muslims are free to convert others to their religion without interference from the non-Muslim government. Although this is a legitimate teaching, the supporting definition, unfortunately, is somewhat shaky and there is no central authority to declare which nations fall into this category. Some feel, for example, that denying Muslims their own system of law and Sharia courts constitutes such interference. Others believe that dar-al-Aman only applied in Muhammad's day. Still others, that a truce has a ten year-limit, and can be broken anytime by the Muslim party. One of the most influential Islamic scholars of the modern age, Egyptian Sayyid Qutb, says that Muslims have a duty to overthrow non-Islamic governments by violent means. He explains: "Islam is not merely a belief, so that it is enough merely to preach it. Islam, which is a way of life, takes practical steps to organize a movement for freeing man. Other societies do not give it [Islam] any opportunity to organize its followers according to its own method, and hence it is the duty of Islam to annihilate all such systems, as they are obstacles in the way of universal freedom. Only in this manner can the way of life be wholly dedicated to Allah, so that neither any human authority nor the question of servitude remains, as is the case in all other systems which are based on man's servitude to man." [Quoted from Andrew Bostom's The Legacy of Jihad] See also Is Islam compatible with democracy?
| | TheReligionofPeace.com Home Page |
| My friend John wanted me to post this on my blog and i am more than happy to do so of course.I can't tell you how much this disturbs me and in many ways.One is the arrogance with which they march around countries demanding islam be allowed to "preach" freely and how they should be "free" to erect their dens of hell (mosques)so they can worship their devil God.Of course islamic services as we all know amount to incitement and hatred towards all else. I find it very interesting how in islamic dominated areas they have to forcefully ban the practice of any other religion.I find it interesting how islam and it's apologists endlessly tell us how islam is equal and allows for the freedom of religion.Any day of the week any week the opposite can be seen and in full blown and living color.John and his friends,MY friends,can tell you the truth about islam without so much as a stutter. Wanna know something amazing? John is persecuted daily as are all Christians like him under the rule of islam,this is as the good lord said it would be.The amazing part is John and those like him wish no harm on the muslim people themselves because he wishes to follow the words of God and witness to them,win them over with truth and most of all what the true God teaches....love.love is something you will never find in islam,it just does not know anything of such a thing. Death is a thing for us all to fear,not welcome,well those who know of love and love their families and friends and who simply love life.But the reward for being strong and solid in ones faith that teaches goodness far outweighs the fear of death.The good lord could come tomorrow or in a million years or even right now for that matter and the reward is spoken of and it is not earned by washing your hands in the blood of those who hate you.Many of prophecies have come true if we were to look around,we see persecution all around and for centuries,but there are more prophecies of which we haven't seen yet and my friends it is going to get much worse before it gets .....heavenly. There is a reason islam is "powerful" and not just a memory in the pages of history and that is because we,of goodness,choose and allow it to be,because we give them the choice,the opportunity.There are millions of crusaders in the wait,this too is part of a prophecy,this is a part of it will get much worse before it gets ....heavenly. Islam can ban all it wishes,it can kill any it wants to hide it's own sins but the truth can never be hidden and islam's time is limit ted.The very reason i call for islam to be banned is to allow islam the next move,prove what you say it is by debate and action....or prove what i think it is just by being what it is now. Thanks John for asking me to post this to my friends so they can see it and i would like to say again that you and those like you are the bravest people i know,my highest respects and sincerest prayers INDONESIA: MUSLIM MOB STORMS CHURCH, CALLS FOR BAN BJAKARTA, August 19 (Compass Direct News) – On Sunday (August 17) a Muslim mob stormed a church service in Cipayung, East Jakarta, forcing Christians to flee and then erecting banners in the street declaring a ban on “churches and religious services.” As about 20 church members were celebrating the nation’s Independence Day at the service, the angry assailants arrived at the Pentecostal Church of Indonesia in Pondok Rangon village, Cipayung, at 9:30 a.m. shouting “Allahu Akbar!” or “God is greater!” Some in the mob were neighbors, but the majority were not local residents, according to pastor Chris Ambessa. Church members tried to close the gate leading into the church compound, but the mob forced its way in, storming into the welcoming room of the church and overturning furniture. Ambessa managed to close a roller door protecting the room where services were held. But the attackers then chased church members out into the street, warning them not to return for future services. The intruders then erected large banners in the street declaring a ban on “churches and religious services” in the village. Technically prior approval from district officials is required to erect such banners, but Public Order official Hadi Sumantri and plainclothes policemen present made no attempt to intervene or remove them. Two days prior to this incident, Ambessa sought permission from district officials to hold a special thanksgiving service on Independence Day. Officials gave verbal approval, despite contention over the existence of the church. Demolition Order
Ambessa has been in the middle of a dispute over his house church. On July 3 the Cipayung civil engineering department had ordered Ambessa to dismantle the second floor of his home, and on July 13 it ordered him to cease religious activity for an indefinite period following neighborhood protests against the house church. Neighbors had demanded that Ambessa completely demolish the building. Ambessa, whose home has functioned as a legally recognized house church for the past 12 years, built the second floor extension to accommodate his growing congregation. Realizing the prohibitive cost and difficulty of obtaining a Religious Building Permit (IMB), and on grounds that the building was a residential home, Ambessa had proceeded with the extension without applying for the IMB. Ambessa’s lawyer, August Pasaribu, told Compass he planned to challenge the demolition order, since the demand was in breach of local regulations. Construction of the extension was completed on May 17. On May 21, a neighborhood group threatened Ambessa and forced him to sign a document stating that he would cease holding church services in his home. Ambessa told Compass that he had signed the document under duress, fearing attacks on his wife and daughters. Ambessa had planned to rent a separate building for church services in another location, at a cost of 8 million rupiah per year (US$862). After Sunday’s attack, however, Ambessa said he felt disheartened and saw little point in reporting the incident to the local police station since he did not expect positive intervention. Islam fears 20 Christians.Islam is weak!!!! http://compassdirect.org/en/display.php?page=news&lang=en&length=long&idelement=5529 | |
| Here is another short and sweet lesson speaking about Islam and Democracy.Want to read the first one?Read it here..Islam is a Democracy. Is Islam Compatible with Democracy? Question:
Is Islam compatible with democracy?
Summary Answer:
Islamic law is absolutely incompatible with democracy. It is a theocratic system with Allah alone at its head. Allah's law is interpreted by a ruling body of clerics. There is no room for a secular political system in which all people are treated as equals.
The Qur'an:
Sura (45:21) - "What! Do those who seek after evil ways think that We shall hold them equal with those who believe and do righteous deeds,- that equal will be their life and their death? Ill is the judgment that they make." Unbelievers are not equal to Muslims. This is dutifully reflected in Islamic law. Sura (4:141) - "...And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumphs) over the believers." This is at odds with democracy, which allows anyone to serve in a position of power over others regardless of religious belief. Sura (63:8) - "...might belongeth to Allah and to His messenger and to the believers;" ie. not to anyone else. Sura (33:36) - "It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision." Sura (5:49) - "So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them lest they seduce thee from some part of that which Allah hath revealed unto thee" Allah's Qur'an takes priority over the desires of the people. A democratic nation is by nature one that is not governed by Islamic law, meaning that a Muslim citizen would have divided loyalty. It's clear from this verse which side he must choose. Sura (4:123) - "Not your desires, nor those of the People of the Book (can prevail): whoever works evil, will be requited accordingly. Nor will he find, besides Allah, any protector or helper." Sura (4:59) - "O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you..." Obedience is strictly limited to the government drawn only from the pool of believers, not from the broader community.
From the Hadith: Muslim (19:4294) - "When you meet your enemies who are polytheists [Christians...], invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them" Non-Muslims are intended to be subordinate to Muslims. Bukhari (88:219) - "Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler." Bukhari (89:251) - Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah, and whoever obeys the ruler I appoint, obeys me, and whoever disobeys him, disobeys me." The ruler referred to here is the Caliph, who is appointed by Allah, not by popular election. Democratic rule has no legitimacy against the will of the Caliph who, as we see by chain of reference, has the authority of Allah.
Additional Notes: To quote the 20th century cleric, Sayyid Qutb, "It is Allah and not man who rules. Allah is the source of all authority, including legitimate political authority. Virtue, not freedom, is the highest value. Therefore, Allah's law, not man's, should govern the society." Islamic law is based on the Qur'an and the Sunnah, which are set and fixed. There is no need for addition or correction. Neither is there any room for the law of fallible man (particularly non-Muslims). Nor should it take the place of Allah's perfect law, which tells a man everything he needs to know about daily life (down to which hand he should "hold it in" while urinating). The law of one man, one vote is heretical to Islam. The testimony of a Muslim woman is worth only half that of a man. Jews and Christians are never to have equal standing with Muslims under the law (and certainly never in a position of authority over Muslims), and atheists are to be killed outright. Athiests pertain to Hinduism ,Buhdism and any other religion that has nothing to do with the Torah,Bible or Qur'an.Any that believe in any other religion aside from these three are to be killed outright.This is because Jews and Christians are seen as Mis-led and they at least know of "allah." whereas the others are just a blasphemy to islam because they never have believed......it all makes perfect sense. Reform-minded Muslims (who prefer to ignore all of this) instead point to Sura (42:38), where the phrase "[Muslims] who (conduct) their affairs by mutual consultation" is used as evidence that Islam is compatible with democracy. Also recruited to this end is an oft-repeated hadith that has Muhammad saying, "My community will never agree on an error." On this is based the much ballyhooed concept of "ijma" or consensus among Muslims for determining matters of Islamic law. But ijma, has always been controversial and rarely practiced within Islam. Some interpret it to mean "consensus of the scholars" - having nothing to do with the opinion of the community at large. Even when its legitimacy is recognized, ijma is accepted only as a secondary (or tertiary) form of authority, behind the fiqh councils. Also, it bears pointing out that ijma and consultation are applicable only within the Muslim community (and probably limited to the "consensus" of males). Muhammad ruled on Allah's authority and did not submit his decisions to the will of the people. Even if the entire world became Muslim overnight, it is highly doubtful that democracy would last, since it would be applicable only to the most mundane of matters not already decided by Islamic law. See also Can a Muslim be loyal to a non-Muslim government? Here is an example of Islamic democracy,visit my friend John's site..... Click here to go to Johns and visit Democracy in Indonesia
TheReligionofPeace.com Home Page
| |
| This lesson is pretty short as well as cut and dried.Here once again we find the wonderful entity of islam saying one thing when thier actions...for centuries...say another.Just because you say something doesn't make it true....i am a super model....nope still just little old me. Also as it says below any islamic state considered a Democracy is never a true Democracy....aaaaand we will see,if we look,that those states slowly turn back to the rule of sharia.Malaysia is considered one of the most recent democratic-Islamic nations and sharia law is still the law of the land there. The idea that islam is a Democracy or that it is even compatible with Democracy is laughable at best.If that were the case then why is it islams only duty to turn everything else islamic,given only the choices of Convert,be a dhimmi or die?That's not very Democratic. Islam is a Democracy The Myth: Islam is compatible with democratic principles. The religion itself is a democracy. The Truth: A democracy is a system in which all people are judged as equals before the law, regardless of race, religion or gender. The vote of every individual counts as much as the vote of any other. The collective will of the people then determines the rules of society. Under Islamic law, only Muslim males enjoy full rights. The standing of a woman is often half that of a man's - sometimes even less. Non-Muslims have no standing with a Muslim. The Islamic state is guided by Islamic law, derived from the Qur'an and Sunnah. A body of clerics interprets the law and applies it to all circumstances social, cultural and political. The people are never to be placed above the Qur'an and Sunnah any more than man should be above Allah. It is somewhat debatable as to whether there are any states in the Muslim world that qualify as actual democracies. There is no denying, however, that the tiny handful that are often held up as democratic nations are ones in which deep tension exists between the government and religious leaders, as the later often complain that it is an idolatrous system imposed on them. Islam does not facilitate democracy. | |
| Haha...okay this is the second time i have tried to post this and it doesn't seem as if Multiply wants me to.I have lost both attempts to post this so i am not going to add my comments here (your welcome ,lol ).I will say in short Islam is not only compatible with terrorism it is the epitome of terrorism and that islams children are it's mass weapon of destruction.The world has much to answer for in allowing islam to continue to prosper in any manner.All new commers wanting to learn more about islam with simple lessons should check out the previous lessons of "Back to the Basics."That said read on ...... The Myth: Islam is completely incompatible with acts of terrorism. It is against Islam to kill innocent people. The Truth: Even though many Muslims earnestly believe that their religion prohibits the killing of innocent people by acts of terrorism, the truth is certainly more complicated. This is why the Jihadis and their detractors are both able to point fingers at the other, while confidently insisting that they are the true Muslims. In fact, the definition of an “innocent person” is far more ambiguous in Islam than Muslim apologists will lead others to believe. So, also, is the definition of terrorism. First, consider that anyone who rejects Muhammad is not considered to be innocent under Islamic law. The most protected and respected of all non-Muslims are the dhimma, the “people of the book.” These would specifically be Jews and Christians who agree to Islamic rule and pay the jizya (tribute to Muslims). Yet, the word “dhimmi” comes from the Arabic root meaning “guilt” or "blame." ["...the dhimmi parent and sister words mean both 'to blame' as well as safeguards that can be extended to protect the blameworthy" Amitav Ghosh, In an Antique Land] So, if even the dhimma have a measure of guilt attached to their status (by virtue of having rejected Allah’s full truth), then how can non-Muslims who oppose Islamic rule or refuse to pay the jizya be considered “innocent?” Within the Islamic community itself there is a category of Muslims who are also said to bear guilt – greater even than the average non-believer. These are the hypocrites, or “Munafiqin,” whom Muhammad referred to in the most derogatory terms. A hypocrite is considered to be a Muslim in name only. They are distinguished either by an unwillingness to wage holy war or by an intention to corrupt the community of believers. When Muslims kill Muslims in the name of Allah (which occurs quite frequently), they usually do so believing that their victims are Munafiqin or kafir (unbelievers). This is actually a part of Islamic Law known as takfir, in which Muslims are declared apostates and then executed. (A true Muslim would go to paradise anyway, in which case he or she could hardly be expected to nurse a grudge amidst the orgy of sex and wine). In addition to the murky definition of innocence, there is also the problem of distinguishing terrorism from holy war. Islamic terrorists never refer to themselves as terrorists, but always as holy warriors (Mujahideen, Shahid, or Fedayeen). They consider their acts to be a form of Jihad. Holy war is something that Muhammad commanded in the Qur’an and Hadith. In Sura 9:29, he establishes the principle that unbelievers should be fought until they either convert to Islam or accept a state of humiliation under Islamic subjugation. This is confirmed in the Hadith by both Sahih Muslim and Bukhari. In many places, the prophet of Islam says that Jihad is the ideal path for a Muslim, and that believers should “fight in the way of Allah.” There are dozens of open-ended passages in the Qur’an that exhort killing and fighting – far more than ones of peace and tolerance. It is somewhat naïve to think that their inclusion in this "eternal discourse between God and Man" was of historical value only and not intended to be relevant to present-day believers, particularly when there is little to nothing within the text that distinguishes them in such fashion. Combine the Qur’anic exhortation to holy war with the ambiguity of innocence, and a monumental problem develops that cannot be covered over by mere semantics. Not only is there a deep tolerance for violence in Islam, but also a sharp disagreement and lack of clarity over the conditions that justify this violence... and just whom the targets may be. Even many Muslims who claim to be against terrorism still support the “insurgency” in Iraq, for example, and often entertain the allegation that there is a broader “war against Islam.” Although the Americans in Iraq are trying to protect innocent life and help the country rebuild, Muslims around the world and in the West believe that it is legitimate for Sunnis to try and kill them. Enjoying the sanction of holy war, the Mujahid reasons that it is permissible to attack fellow Iraqis – the ones helping the Americans… even if they are part of a democratically-elected Iraqi government. These non-combatants and combatants alike are believed to be the “Munafiqin” assisting the enemy “Crusaders.” Although we use Iraq as an example here, this is the same rationale that is ultimately behind all Islamic terror, from the Philippines to Thailand. Wherever the religion of Islam is a minority, there are always radicals who believe that violence is justified in bringing it to dominance - just as Muhammad taught by example in places like Mecca and the land of al-Harith. And what of the so-called “innocents” who suffer from the bombings and shootings? Even in Muhammad’s time they were unavoidable. The much-touted hadith in which Muhammad forbade the killing of women also indicates that there were such casualties in his conflicts. If there is any doubt that he believed that the forbidden is sometimes necessary, it should be put to rest by an incident in which Muhammad's men warned him that a planned night raid against an enemy camp would mean that women and children would be killed. He merely replied “they are of them,” meaning the men. This is the slippery slope that is opened by the sanction of holy war. What starts out as the perception of a noble cause of self-defense against a supposed threat gradually devolves into a "let Allah sort them out" campaign through a series of logical steps that are ultimately justified by the sublime goal of Islamic rule. Islam is not intended to co-exist as an equal with other religions. It is to be the dominant religion, with Sharia as the supreme law. Islamic rule is to be extended to the ends of the earth, and resistance is to be dealt with by any means necessary. Apologists in the West often shrug off the Qur'an's many verses of violence by saying that they are only relevant in a “time of war.” To this, Islamic terrorists would agree. They are at war. www.thereligionofpeace.com/ | |
| This topic is one that never ceases to amaze me.Islam is so blatant in it's racism and very much blatant in it's slavery,though really and to be fair islam has no qualms about any particular ethnicity of which it desires to enslave.Islam is all about slavery and if we have been paying attention to the earlier blogs we have learned islam means submission,servitude...slavery....not peace.The main reason i never cease to be amazed is when black people run into islams arms thinking it offers them anything,well it doesn't,least of all freedom.Right now islam is in a cleansing campaign of the black christians ,has been and always will be until every last one is gone.In the golden age of islam and every day in between islam has brought millions of blacks to the Middle east.there is a reason there is no black community to speak of in the muslims world,outside of those places that were populated by blacks originally.Blacks in islam were castrated,used and made to fight it's battles.Even when a slave finally was beaten down and converted to islam they were still a slave.In islam "abed" means slave,in islam "abed" means black.Anyhow i will let someone that knows a bit more about than myself tell you about it. Islam is Opposed to Slavery The Myth: Islam is intolerant of enslaving human beings. The religion eradicated the institution of slavery thanks to the principles set in motion by Muhammad, who was an abolitionist. The Truth: There is not the least bit of intolerance for slavery anywhere in the Qur’an. In fact, the “holy” book of Islam explicitly gives slave-owners the freedom to sexually exploit their slaves – not just in one place, but in at least four separate Suras. Islamic law is littered with rules concerning the treatment of slaves, some of which are relatively humane, but none that prohibit the actual practice by any stretch. The very presence of these rules condones and legitimizes the institution of slavery. Adding to this is the fact that Muhammad was an avid slave trader. After providing ample evidence of his activities according to the most reliable Muslim biographers, the Center of the Study of Political Islam summarizes their findings: Muhammad captured slaves, sold slaves, bought slaves as gifts of pleasure, received slaves as gifts, and used slaves for work. The Sira is exquisitely clear on the issue of slavery. (Muhammad and the Unbelievers: a Political Life) As such, this deeply dehumanizing horror has been a ubiquitous tradition of Islam since the days of Muhammad to the current plight of non-Muslims in the Sudan, Mali, Niger and Mauritania, as well as other parts of the Muslim world. There has never been an abolitionary movement within Islam (just as the religion produces no organized resistance to present-day enslavement). The abolition of slavery was imposed on the Islamic world by European countries, along with other political pressures that were entirely unrelated to Islamic law. Although horrible abuses of slaves in the Muslim world were recorded, there has been little inclination toward the documentation and earnest contrition that one finds in the West. The absence of a guilty conscience often leads to the mistaken impression that slavery was not as bad under Islam... when it is actually indicative of the tolerance that the religion has for the practice So narcissistic is the effect of Islam on the devoted, that to this day many Muslims believe in their hearts that the women and children carried off in battle, and their surviving men folk, were actually done a favor by the Muslim warriors who plucked them from their fields and homes and relegated them to lives of demeaning servitude. Shame and apology, no matter how appropriate, are almost never to be found in Dar al-Islam. Caliphs, the religious equivalent of popes, maintained harems of hundreds, sometimes thousands of young girls and women captured from lands as far away as Europe and consigned to sexual slavery. Hungarians were hunted like animals by the Turks, who carried 3 million into slavery over a 150 year period. African slaves were often castrated by their Muslim masters. Few survived to reproduce, which is why there are not many people of African descent living in the Middle East, even though more slaves were taken out of Africa in the 1300 years of Arab slave trading than in the 300 years of European slavery. The 400,000 slaves brought to America, for example, have now become a community of 30 million, with a much higher standard of living than their African peers. There is no William Wilberforce or Bartoleme de las Casas in Islamic history as there is in Christianity. When asked to produce the name of a Muslim abolitionist, apologists sometimes meekly suggest Muhammad himself. But, if a slave owner and trader, who commanded the capture and sexual exploitation of slaves, and left a 13-century legacy of religiously-based slavery, is the best that Islam can offer, then no amount of sophistry will be enough to convince any but the most ignorant. | |
 | ?? | Aug 18, '08 11:45 PM
for everyone |
| This is one of my most favorite myths.Why?For a few reasons really.One being you have to jump into your time machine and go back centuries to find just what it was islam "discovered"......centuries,like at least eight of them.Now that we have to do this lets ask ourselves why it is that we have to reference back eight hundred years to find these "islamic Discoveries."Why is there nothing to speak of since then?It's easy there was nothing else to conquer and no more war booty to claim.The reason there has been nothing else to brag about is because islam stifles thought and in reality opposes science,except for in the charge of furthering islam ...of course.The furtherment of islam is a whole other issue though.Is that a good thing or a bad thing? My thoughts are a bad thing,in fact a crime against humanity.Ask a muslim or an islamic apologist appeaser and the furtherment of islam is a good thing,why all the peace and justice it brings the world.I would laugh ny butt off at the thought of islam being a good thing for the world but i can't when i think of all the women and children raped and all the blood spilled by this "goodness." Well on to someone that knows more of what they are talking about before i get too far off topic. Islam and the "Golden Age" of Scientific Discovery. The Myth: Muslims often claim that their religion fostered a rich heritage of scientific discovery, “paving the way” for modern advances in technology and medicine. On this topic, they usually refer to the period between the 7th and 13th centuries, when Europe was experiencing its “Dark Ages” and the Muslim world was conquering new populations and culture. What? Only around 600 years of superbness?Even when islam is bragging about itself it speaks of how it died a long time ago. The Truth: Although there is no arguing that the Muslim world was more advanced during this period than the “Christian” world, the reasons for this have absolutely nothing to do with the Islamic religion (other than its mandate for military expansion). In fact, the religion actively discourages knowledge outside of itself, which is why the greatest Muslim scholars throughout history tend to be students of religion rather than science. First, the Muslim world benefited greatly from the Greek sciences, which were translated for them by Christians and Jews. To their credit, Muslims did a better job of preserving Greek text than did the Europeans of the time, and this became the foundation for their own knowledge. (One large reason for this, however, was that access by Christians to this part of their world was cut off by the Muslim slave ships and coastal raids that dominated the Mediterranean during this period). Secondly, many of the scientific advances credited to Islam were actually “borrowed” from other cultures conquered by the Muslims. The algebraic concept of “zero”, for example, is erroneously attributed to Islam, but it was, in fact, created by the Hindus and merely introduced to the West by Muslims - along with the products of other cultures that were found to be useful to their new rulers. In fact, conquered populations contributed greatly to the history of “Muslim science” until gradually being decimated by conversion to Islam (under the pressures of dhimmitude). The Muslim concentration within a population is directly proportional to the decline of scientific achievement. It is no accident that the Muslim world has had little to show for itself in the last 600 years or so, since running out of new civilizations to cannibalize. Third, even the great Muslim scientists and icons were often considered heretics in their time, sometimes for good reason. One of the greatest achievers to come out of the Muslim world was the Iranian scientist and philosopher, al-Razi. His impressive works are often held up today as “proof” of Muslim accomplishment. But what the apologists often leave out is that al-Razi was denounced as a blasphemer, since he followed his own religious beliefs – which were in obvious contradiction to traditional Islam. Fourth, even the contributions that are attributed to Islam (often inaccurately) are not terribly dramatic. There is the invention of certain words, such as alchemy and elixir, but not much else that survives in modern technology that is of any practical significance. Neither is there any reason to believe that such discoveries would not have easily been made by the West following the cultural awakening triggered by the Reformation. As an example of this, consider that Muslims claim credit for coffee, since the beans were discovered in Africa (at the time, an important source for Islamic slave trading) and first processed in the Middle East. While this is true, it is also true that the red dye used in many food products, from cranberry juice to candy, comes from the abdomen of a particular female beetle found in South America. It is extremely unlikely that the West would not have stumbled across coffee by now (although, to be fair, coffee probably expedited subsequent discoveries). In fact, the litany of “Muslim” achievement often takes the form of rhapsody, in which the true origins of these discoveries are omitted - along with their comparative significance to Western achievement. Scientific, medical and technological accomplishments are not something over which Muslim apologists want to get into a pissing contest with the Christian world. Today’s Islamic innovators are known merely for turning Western technology, such as cell phones and airplanes, into instruments of mass murder. To sum up, although the Islamic religion is not entirely hostile to science, neither should it be confused as a facilitator. The great achievements that are said to have come out of the Islamic world were made either by non-Muslims who happened to be under Islamic rule, or by heretics who usually had little interest in Islam. Scientific discovery tapers off dramatically as Islam asserts dominance, until it eventually peters out altogether. I can't believe there are over one and a half billion really really stupid people out there.I really can't believe there are ...however many there are....of what should be intelligent....apologists and appeasers. Muslims are right about one thing and i will give them all the credit in the world for it,you do revert when you sign on to islam,they are right about that.It has never budged since the day muhammad invented it,you revert back to dirt and rocks.That is not a good thing. www.thereligionofpeace.com/ | |
| Islam is tolerant of other religions as long as other religions stay in the basement ,do not witness or discuss their religion with muslims...why is that?...and accept their positions as inhuman and feel themselves subdued and humiliated.Their places of worship are to remain in disrepair until it falls down round them.I'm sure i have left some wonderful things out that prove islam is tolerant of other religions...oh yea there is no compulsion in religion..but submit or die. Islam is Tolerant of Other Religions The Myth: Religious minorities have flourished under Islam. Muslims are commanded to protect Jew and Christians (the People of the Book) and to do them no harm. Nah,other religions are to pay the heavy infidel tax to keep from being killed.They are to be made to feel subdued,humiliated.Islamic protection comes in the form of kidnapping the females of other religions and selling them into sex slavery or forced marriages. The Truth: Religious minorities have not “flourished” under Islam. In fact, they have dwindled to mere shadows after centuries of persecution and discrimination. Some were converted from their native religion by brute force, others under the agonizing strain of dhimmitude. What Muslims call “tolerance,” others correctly identify as institutionalized discrimination. The consignment of Jews and Christians to dhimmis under Islamic rule means that they are not allowed the same religious rights and freedoms as Muslims. They cannot share their faith, for example, or build houses of worship without permission. Historically, dhimmis have often had to wear distinguishing clothing or cut their hair in a particular manner that indicates their position of inferiority and humiliation. They do not share the same legal rights as Muslims, and must even pay a poll tax (the jizya). They are to be killed or have their children taken from them if they cannot satisfy the tax collector’s requirements. For hundreds of years, the Christian population in occupied Europe had their sons taken away and forcibly converted into Muslim warriors (known as Jannisaries) by the Ottoman Turks. It is under this burden of discrimination and third-class status that so many converted to Islam over the centuries. Those who didn’t often faced economic and social hardships that persist to this day and are appalling by Western standards of true religious tolerance and pluralism. For those who are not “the People of the Book,” such as Hindus and atheists, there is very little tolerance to be found once Islam establishes political superiority. The Qur’an tells Muslims to “fight in the way of Allah” until “religion is only for Allah.” The conquered populations face death if they do not establish regular prayer and charity in the Islamic tradition (ie. the pillars of Islam). Tamerlane and other Muslim warriors slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Hindus and Buddhists, as well as displacing or forcibly converting millions more over the last thousand years. At best, Islam has a dual personality toward other religions. In some places they are explicitly cursed by Allah, in others there appears to be a measure of tolerance shown. There are about 500 verses in the Qur’an that speak of Allah’s hatred for non-Muslims and the punishment that he has prepared for their unbelief. There is also a tiny handful that say otherwise, but these are mostly earlier verses that many scholars consider to be abrogated by the later, more violent ones. Muhammads entire way of peace was abrogated once his sword brought him worldly things.there is very little spoken of as far as peace goes in islam and even that is only among muslims themselves and they seem to kill each other off at a pretty good rate,so it is safe to say there is no peace in islam because it has never taught it. If tolerance simply means discouraging the mass slaughter of those of a different faith, then today's Islam generally meets this standard more often than not. But, if tolerance means allowing people of other faiths the same religious liberties that Muslims enjoy, then Islam is fundamentally the most intolerant religion under the sun. It's funny if you think about it,not really ha ha funny,muslims all over the world holler racism and about injustice to them.All a sane person has to do is look at the islamic world to see the true definition of all that we abhor and the true definition of what they say is being exacted out on them.i learned a long time ago that if a muslim is accusing you of doing something you can be assured they are the one doing it to you.Prime example is the islamic world crying there aren't enough mosques in the west....not one single church ,temple or synagogue in the heart of islam,saudi arabia.Not one single mosque is attacked in the west,churches are defiled and burned all over the islamic world. I'm not the smartest person in the world but i am not deaf,dumb,blind or stupid.I hate islam,i hate it with every fiber of my being.islam is arrogant and disgusting. Comming soon is one of my favorites about the Golden era of Islam.That which they long so much to return to.Islam is such a sham,it contributes nothing,never has and never will. www.thereligionofpeace.com/ | |
| Okay i have been coming into contact with some new people as of late and many are of the anti-islam type,hehe,i hope all are if not.......well we will see what happens there. One of the most common questions is "What is your name? Is it Daral? " No it isn't.I do not give out my real name nor where i am located.I do not give out any more personal information than necessary.There are few who know any of my personal information and i can guarantee i have known them for sometime in order to allow them to have it.It's nothing personal and this isn't a rant.I just wanted to clear up what my name means and what it stands for if you read my latest few blogs you will see we have gone back to the basics of what we all should have learned and know by now,it seems a back to the basics with what Dar Al harb is to mean is in order as well...see definition below. Islam’s House of Islam and House of War The world is divided into the House of Islam and the House of War, the Dar al-Islam and the Dar al-harb. The Dar al-Islam is all those lands in which a Muslim government rules and the Holy Law of Islam prevails. Non-Muslims may live there on Muslim sufferance. The outside world, which has not yet been subjugated, is called the "House of War," and strictly speaking a perpetual state of jihad, of holy war, is imposed by the law. The law also provided that the jihad might be interrupted by truces as and when appropriate. In fact, the periods of peace and war were not vastly different from those which existed between the Christian states of Europe for most of European history. The law thus divides unbelievers theologically into those who have a book and profess what Islam recognizes as a divine religion and those who do not; politically into dhimmis , those who have accepted the supremacy of the Muslim state and the primacy of the Muslims, and harbis, the denizens of the Dar al-harb, the House of War, who remain outside the Islamic frontier, and with whom therefore there is in principle, a canonically obligatory perpetual state of war until the whole world is either converted or subjugated. Source: Bernard Lewis, The Multiple Identities of the Middle East , Schocken Books, New York, 1998, pp.121-122. Just call me Dar 
| |
| The proof of Peace is so overwhelming....uh where is it again? Islam is a Religion of Peace The Myth: Muhammad was a peaceful man who taught his followers to be the same. Muslims lived peacefully for centuries, only fighting in self-defense when it was necessary. True Muslims would never act aggressively. The Truth: Muhammad organized 65 military campaigns in the last ten years of his life and personally led 27 of them. The more power that he attained, the smaller the excuse needed to go to battle, until finally he began attacking tribes merely because they were not part of his growing empire. After Muhammad’s death, his most faithful followers and even his own family turned on each other almost immediately. There were four Caliphs (leaders) in the first twenty-five years. Three of the four were murdered. The third Caliph was murdered by the son of the first. The fourth Caliph was murdered by the fifth, who left a 100-year dynasty that was ended in a gruesome, widespread bloodbath by descendents of Muhammad’s uncle. Muhammad’s own daughter, Fatima, and his son-in-law, Ali, who both survived the pagan hardship during the Meccan years safe and sound, did not survive Islam after the death of Muhammad. Fatima died of stress from persecution within three months, and Ali was later assassinated. Their son (Muhammad’s grandson) was killed in battle with the faction that became today’s Sunnis. His people became Shias. The relatives and personal friends of Muhammad were mixed into both warring groups, which then fractured further into hostile sub-divisions as Islam grew. Muhammad left his men with instructions to take the battle against the Christians, Persians, Jews and polytheists (which came to include millions of unfortunate Hindus). For the next four centuries, Muslim armies steamrolled over unsuspecting neighbors, plundering them of loot and slaves, and forcing the survivors to either convert or pay tribute at the point of a sword. Companions of Muhammad lived to see Islam declare war on every major religion in the world in just the first few decades following his death - pressing the Jihad against Hindus, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and Buddhists. By the time of the Crusades (when the Europeans began fighting back), Muslims had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world by the sword, from Spain to Syria, and across North Africa. The Arab slave-trading routes would stay open for 1300 years, until pressure from Christian-based countries forced Islamic nations to declare the practice illegal (in theory). Today, there is not another religion in the world that consistently produces terrorism in the name of religion as does Islam. The most dangerous Muslims are nearly always those who interpret the Qur’an most transparently. They are the fundamentalists or purists of the faith, and believe in Muhammad’s mandate to spread Islamic rule by the sword, putting to death those who will not submit. The holy texts of Islam are saturated with verses of violence and hatred toward those outside the faith. In sharp contrast to the Bible, which generally moves from relatively violent passages to far more peaceful ones, the Qur’an travels the exact opposite path. The handful of earlier verses that speak of tolerance are overwhelmed by an avalanche of later ones that carry a much different message. While Old Testament verses of blood and guts are generally bound by historical context within the text itself, Qur'anic imperatives to violence usually appear open-ended. By any objective measure, the "Religion of Peace" has been the harshest, bloodiest religion the world has ever known. Pathetic the arrogance of islam.here we have a "religion" that professes to be the epitome of peace and it has not a single shred of evidence saying such a thing.just because you say it doesn't make it true...."I am a super model"....nope still just me. Doesn't any of the apologists abettors or even muslims them,selves look around and winder if islam is such a religion of this peace then why is it muslims die by the truckload on any given day?Not by any other than other muslims themselves. There is absolutely nothing in islam that speak of peace,save that between muslims alone and they can't even do that.they fail to follow their own commands and their own holy book yet we are the ones inhuman because we are not muslims.Islam is a joke and it is not very funny at all. Earlier i re-stated that i do not hate muslims,i don't,but now let me re-state i hate islam...with every fiber of my being i hate islam...I HATE ISLAM...I DESPISE IT!!!! let he without sin cast the first stone....islam is the arrogance of the devil. There will be more Back to the Basics.I have to get a new bat,maybe an aluminum one this time. www.thereligionofpeace.com/ | |
| Ahhhh,here is an oldie but a goodie The Myth: Islam’s Western apologists sometimes claim that since the Arabic word, Jihad, literally means “fight” or “struggle,” it refers to an “inner struggle” rather than holy war. Every time i hear the definition of Jihad to mean inner struggle i myself have an inner struggle from the desire to do the hitting the definer in the head with that bat from an earlier post.I have to figure out how calling for jihad with the voice of violence is to have anything to do with an inner struggle.Also why is it when "inner struggling "is being called for it is usually accompanied by guns,knives and bombs? Come on,i can't wait to hear this.This is going back to the basics so there should be plenty of really really good arguments to prove i am wrong in thinking it means violence. The Truth: This is extremely difficult to reconcile with the Qur’an, which, for example, exempted the disabled and elderly from Jihad (4:95). This would make no sense if the word is being used merely within the context of spiritual struggle. It is also unclear why Muhammad would use graphic language, such as smiting fingers and heads from the hands and necks of unbelievers if he were speaking merely of character development. With this in mind, Muslims themselves usually admit that there are two meanings to the word, but insist that “inner struggle” is the “greater Jihad,” whereas “holy war” is the “lesser.” In fact, this misconception is based only on an a single hadith that is extremely weak and unreliable. By contrast, the most reliable of all Hadith is that of Bukhari. The word, Jihad, is mentioned over 200 times in reference to the words of Muhammad and each one is a clear connotation to holy war. By contrast, Bukhari does not contain a single reference to Jihad within the context of “personal struggle.” Of course not.Islam cedes nothing to personal anything much less enough thought to struggle against what is good and what is evil within ones self.Islam tells them five times a day what is good and what is evil. Want more?the next basic lesson is about to come hot off the press.Neeeext!! www.thereligionofpeace.com/ | |
| Islam Respects Women as Equals This Myth is too disgusting to be funny!! The Myth: The Qur’an places men and women on equal foundation before Allah. Each person is judged according to his or her own deeds. Women have equal rights under Islamic law. Anyone out there that can believe islam Respects Women as Equals? If so why do honor killings exist?If you are going to say that is a cultural thing let me go ahead and say that wherever islam is dominate that is the culture of the area.Also if it isn't a muslim / islam thing then why do muslims do it in the west as well? lets just cut to the chase,a female has no choice,no decision.There is nothing equal about that. The Truth: Merely stating that individuals will be judged as such by Allah does not mean that they have equal rights and roles, or that they are judged by the same standards. In fact, Sura 37:22-23 implies that women will be punished on Judgment Day for sins committed by their husbands. There is no ambiguity in the Qur’an, the life of Muhammad, or Islamic law as to the inferiority of women to men, despite the efforts of modern-day apologists to salvage Western-style feminism from scraps and fragments of verses that have historically held no such progressive interpretation. After military conquests, Muhammad would dole out captured women as war prizes to his men. In at least one case, he advocated that they be raped in front of their husbands. Captured women were made into sex slaves by the very men who killed their husbands and brothers. There are at least three Qur’anic verses in which Allah makes it clear that a Muslim master has full sexual access to his female slaves, yet there is not one that prohibits rape. The Qur’an gives Muslim men permission to beat their wives for disobedience. It plainly says that husbands are “a degree above” wives. The Hadith says that women are intellectually inferior, and that they comprise the majority of Hell’s occupants. Under Islamic law, a man may divorce his wife at the drop of a hat. If he does this twice, then wishes to remarry her, then she must first have sex with another man. Men are exempt from such degradations. Muslim women are not free to marry whomever they please, as are Muslim men. Their husband may bring other wives into the marriage bed. She must be sexually available to him at all times (as a field ready to be “tilled,” according to the holy book of Islam). Muslim women do not inherit property in equal portions to males. Their testimony in court is considered to be worth only half that of a man’s. Unlike a man, she must cover her head and often her face. If a woman wants to prove that she was raped, then there must be four male witnesses to corroborate her account. Otherwise she will be jailed or stoned to death for confessing to “adultery.” Given all of this, it is quite a stretch to say that men and women have “equality under Islam” based on obscure theological analogies or comparisons. This is an entirely new stratagem that is designed to appeal to modern tastes, but is in sharp disagreement with the reality of Islamic law and history. The author of this article nor myself are saying women are not equal (well yes we are of course) under islam but islam and muslims say women are not equal.they may say one thing but their actions say another. If i were hitting you in the head with a baseball bat but i was telling you i wasn't hitting you in the head with a baseball bat,which would you believe.( If the answer is too hard for you to come by...well...perhaps a demonstration is in order and i would be happy to oblige in that.) Need some more basic learnin'? There is more...NEEEEXT www.thereligionofpeace.com/ | |
| I haven't really blogged much lately and have instead been wandering the Multiply trails and wherever they have led is where i have ended up.That and doing my own thing as well.I was both saddened and elated with a blog i recently visited. I was saddened because the content of the blog wasn't anything new but i was elated that people are still finding the truth about islam and passing it around. Although the new twist was that a muslim was admitting to just how islam was out to conquer,yet and still ,but then again this too was nothing new because muslims always tell us how and why they need and want to conquer the world.In fact they shout it at us they do not hide it at all.Islam is a 1400 year old bloody story and the world is in danger of more years of still more bloody story because those sleep walking into Oblivion get tripped up on just a few things that keep them from seeing the truth.... 1) islam is a religion. 2) islam is a race. 3) islam means peace. ( How any sane person can believe islam means peace when it teaches thier children hate ,murder and suicide is beyond me...wake up. ) The Myths of Islam Muslims often complain of the popular "misconceptions" about their religion in the West. We took a hard look, however, and found that the most deeply held myths of Islam are the ones generated by Muslims and Western apologists. The only glaring exception to this is the misconception that all Muslims are alike (they aren't), but even Muslims fall into this trap as well, as evidenced by the various contrary factions insisting that they are the true Muslims, while others are either infidels, hijackers, or hypocrites. I myself do view all muslims as the same,therefore i do disagree in part with the statement above.This is not to say that i hate muslims,i do not.I am a good person and i believe all should be given the chance to see the truth and choose,my reaction to muslims comes from thier decision.There are around one and a half billion muslims,not all are bad,so which number is the largest?.The good ones or the bad ones?what IS the decision of muslims?I view all sects of islam with the constant rabble i have that islam is islam.As long as islam flourishes in any manner some wack job will use it as it is being used today and for the past 1400 years.That leads me back to muslims choosing,which leads to my reaction to thier decision.1400 years and islam is still islam,nothing has changed except now those who choose islam as it has always been are deeper into Dar Al harb.what does the future hold?My and your reaction. Come what may... Don't be fooled! Hear the myths, but know the truth..... Islam Means Peace The Myth: Lesser educated Muslims sometimes claim that the root word of Islam is “al-Salaam,” which is “peace” in Arabic. The Truth: The root word for Islam is “al-Silm,” which means “submission” or “surrender.” There is no controversy about this among Islamic scholars. Submission and peace can be very different concepts, even if a form of peace is often brought about through forcing others into submission. As the modern-day Islamic scholar, Ibrahim Sulaiman, puts it, "Jihad is not inhumane, despite its necessary violence and bloodshed, its ultimate desire is peace which is protected and enhanced by the rule of law." Laymans terms: Destroy free thought and will and peace will reign,just as it does now in the islamic world through sharia law (sharia is the rule of law in islam )....right?By any means necessary,bombing crowds with suicide bombers to prove islam is peace.It all makes so much sense. In truth, the Qur’an not only calls Muslims to submit to Allah, it also commands them to subdue people of other religions until they are in a full state of submission to Islamic rule. This has inspired the aggressive history of Islam and its success in conquering other culture. The aggressive history and counquering of other cultures by the way is done by any means necessary and no price is too high.A childs life under the guidence of islam is valued a big fat zero.For all you future muslims and by that i mean liberal appeasers and abettors i hope you are very happy in knowing your children will carry the sins of a sick and twisted man on thier backs ,at least until they comit the ultimate sin and die for something that offers not one iota of love to them and die in the acts of murder and suicide. Your stomachs should be turning as mine does just thinking about that ignorance and the thought there is any moron out there that can find any justification for such acts and beliefs.But somehow those who sleep walk thier way towards Oblivion still manage to sleep at night and that's okay because i sleep pretty sound at night in knowing i am doing my part and doing all that i can for now until...well...come what may. I am back to saddened because this is one of the most basic lessons that should have been learned by anyone with half a clue.I am not that brilliant but i knew the truth before i even read this.I am saddened because i know,hope,someone will stumble upon this and sees it for the first time...something they never knew,that would put me back to elated because then hopefully they would look around and islam will tell them the truth themselves in word and deed just what thier "religion" is and means. For those who just had thier eyes opened and want more simple truths catch the next blog. www.thereligionofpeace.com/ | |
| Something i came across on a strangers page.I don't know why i am posting it,i just am. The story My mom only had one eye. I hated her... She was such an embarrassment. .
She cooked for students & teachers to support the family. There was this one day during elementary school where my mom came to
Say hello to me. I was so embarrassed. How could she do this to me?
I ignored her, threw her a hateful look and ran out.
The next day at school one of my classmates said, "EEEE, your mom only
Has one eye!" I wanted to bury myself.
I also wanted my mom to just disappear..
I confronted her that day and said, " If you're only gonna make me a
Laughing stock, why don't you just die?" My mom did not respond....
I didn't even stop to think for a second about what I had said, because
I was full of anger.
I was oblivious to her feelings. I wanted out of that house, and have nothing to do with her.
So I studied real hard, got a chance to go abroad to study.
Then, I got married.
I bought a house of my own.
I had kids of my own.
I was happy with my life, my kids and the comforts, Then one day, my
Mother came to visit me.
She hadn't seen me in years and she didn't even meet her
Grandchildren. When she stood by the door, my children laughed at her, and I yelled at
Her for coming over uninvited.
I screamed at her, "How dare you come to my house and scare my
Children!"
GET OUT OF HERE! NOW!!!" And to this, my mother quietly answered, "Oh, I'm so sorry. I may have
Gotten the wrong address,"
And she disappeared out of sight.
One day, a letter regarding a school reunion came to my house. So I lied to my wife that I was going on a business trip.
After the reunion, I went to the old shack just out of curiosity.
My neighbors said that she died.
I did not shed a single tear.
They handed me a letter that she had wanted me to have.
"My dearest son,
I think of you all the time. I'm sorry that I came to your house and
Scared your children.
I was so glad when I heard you were coming for the reunion.
But I may not be able to even get out of bed to see you.
I'm sorry that I was a constant embarrassment to you when you were
Growing up. You see........when you were very little, you got into an accident, and
Lost your eye.
As a mother, I couldn't stand watching you
Having to grow up with one eye.
So I gave you mine.
I was so proud of my son who was seeing a whole new world for me, in my
Place, with that eye. With all my love to you,
Your mother.
Always tell someone that you love them because you never know what day
| | |
|
