According to Yehudit Barsky, head of the AJC's Division on Middle East and International Terrorism, over 80 percent of mosques in the US have been radicalized by the Wahhabi form of Islam. According to the article found here, Barsky notes, "The United States has a hard time understanding the extremists' ideology. Americans don't like to interfere in the religion of other people. But, the reality is that this isn't religion, but a politicized radical ideology. It's very dangerous." I suggest you read the entire article to find more information about this subject from Barsky.
I have seen the proliferation of Saudi funded mosques first hand. When I lived overseas in Central Asia, it was well known that Saudi's funded the building of hundreds of mosques just in my local city alone. In a matter of years, the country had seen a handful of mosques turn into thousands. Oil money pours in, along with the extremist ideology that accompanies it. The Wahhabi form of Islam is not moderate; it is an ultra-conservative form of Islam.
It is important to note that not all forms of Islam are radical. We must be careful to limit our criticisms to the particular groups they apply to, and in this case, we must limit our criticism to the Wahhabi sect. It should also be noted that even though Barsky states 80 percent of mosques have been radicalized in America, this doesn't mean that 80 percent of Muslims in America are extremists. Hopefully, the moderate voice within Islam will reclaim the dominance within the Islamic community that it once appeared to have. And most importantly, we must pray that our Muslim friends will accept Christ as their Lord. Only through Jesus can they truly know God and worship Him. This means we need to learn about the beliefs of our Muslim friends, know how to share with them, and be willing to have a discussion with them about the truth of Christianity.
Reach out to your Muslim friends and be willing to share with them the love of Christ, the truth of His message, and the everlasting life that only He gives.
For more info:
Other important sects in Muslim History
Comments
Richard Bean Quote: "Only through Jesus can they truly know God and worship Him.
Richard Bean Quote: "Reach out to your Muslim friends and be willing to share with them the love of Christ, the truth of His message, and the everlasting life that only He gives."
Hello Mr. Bean, I'm curious on what evidence you have chosen that Christ (Christianity) is the only way vs. the thousands of other religions?
Richard Bean Quote: "Only through Jesus can they truly know God and worship Him.
Richard Bean Quote: "Reach out to your Muslim friends and be willing to share with them the love of Christ, the truth of His message, and the everlasting life that only He gives."
Hello Mr. Bean, I'm curious on what evidence you have chosen that Christ (Christianity) is the only way vs. the thousands of other religions?
Open, thank you for your question! There are several reasons I know it is the only way. The first, and most important, is that Jesus claims this in God's revelation to man (Bible). Christianity is an "exclusive" religion in that Christ is the only way...so logically, it is not possible that Christianity is both correct and not-correct. In other words, if another religion is true, Christianity must be false. If Christianity is true, no other religion is true. But how do we know? Christianity provides the only consistent interpretation of all the evidence that we have. There are some systems that can explain some of the data. But their systems all fail in one or more places, which make them lack consistency. Every worldview is circular in its argumentation. But the trick is to discover which of the circular arguments have inconsistencies (makes them false). I know this is a general answer, but send me an email through the link above, and I'll send you more!
Richard thank you for your reply.
Good point on the circular argument. Which is where I see the logic being left behind. You personally know that Christianity is the one true religion because it is written in the bible. How do we know that that the bible is true? Because it is the written word of God, and how do we know that it is God's word? Because it says so in the bible? All religions say theirs is the only true one and if you believe in any other then you are lost. How do you really know if you have the right one?
Your quote: "Christianity provides the only consistent interpretation of all the evidence that we have." The trouble with this is that billions of other people believe they can prove the same of their religion.
Please provide evidence that you have the right one. Not just for your sake but for all those that you convert and keep in your belief group. This is a really big deal. Choose the wrong one and you spend eternity in a lake of fire.
Richard thank you for your reply.
Good point on the circular argument. Which is where I see the logic being left behind. You personally know that Christianity is the one true religion because it is written in the bible. How do we know that that the bible is true? Because it is the written word of God, and how do we know that it is God's word? Because it says so in the bible? All religions say theirs is the only true one and if you believe in any other then you are lost. How do you really know if you have the right one?
Your quote: "Christianity provides the only consistent interpretation of all the evidence that we have." The trouble with this is that billions of other people believe they can prove the same of their religion.
Please provide evidence that you have the right one. Not just for your sake but for all those that you convert and keep in your belief group. This is a really big deal. Choose the wrong one and you spend eternity in a lake of fire.
This is funny, a radical Christian writing about Radical Islam. If you really were a journalist Richard you would have known you should be skeptical of any article that only has one source, doesn't offer any opposing viewpoints, and is published in a known conservative ethnic journal that has bad relations with the minority group you are writing about. That's doesn't mean its automatically untrue, but the legitimacy of these claims are certainly should be called into question. But questioning things obviously isn't something evangelicals can do very well. Everything in the bible is true because its the word of God. We know its the word of God because the bible says so, and everything in the bible is true. Well done, you're the snake that eats itself.
Open, good insight. Circular reasoning isn't bad as long as the whole circle is consistent. The resurrection is validation of Christianity. It also, by definition, shows the invalidation of other religions (atheism, agnosticism, rabbinic judaism, islam[since it denies death of Christ], buddhism, hinduism, etc). This is not to say that other religions don't have some truth. But some truth isn't what we are after. We are after THE truth. For example, I could say "That car is blue." Well if it is really a bicycle, but it was blue, that original statement has some truth, but overall it is false. Religions that get some truth right aren't correct by virtue of getting some things right. The entire circle of argumentation must consistent.
Just out of curiousity (it will help me as I explain my views to ya), what is your faith background?
Hugh, thanks for commenting. I'm not sure why you consider me a radical Christian, but maybe you can explain that. Also, if you have found something that leads you to doubt the article, please post it. I lived in a city overseas where Saudis were building hundreds of mosques, and was threatened by some. I found nothing to discredit the claims of Barsky. I could have posted more sources, but they say the same things. My article was not solely about Barsky if you read it. It was pointing out that even if that stat is exactly accurate, that doesn't mean all those who attend are radicals. Also, what worldview, in your opinion, is not circular? You seem to fault me for saying that all worldviews are circular, but that mine is consistent. Could you elaborate on your disagreement please?
I've already stated my fault with the article, it is lazy journalism. I don't know enough about the topic to comment further. And I believe all evagelicals are radicals. If you believe the earth is 6000 years old and god created it in 6 days and homosexuality is a sin, they you are a radical. Here's a worldview that is not cyclical: Gather empirical evidence about world, form hypothesis. Test hypothesis. Do results support hypothesis? If no, then look for more evidence. If yes, then a theory has been created. Use theory to better understand the world until new empirical evidence is found, at that point, come up with new hypothesis. Now this is Christianity: believe blindly in old book, ignore all contradicting worldviews.
Do you believe in creationism? If so you are a radical, and an idiot.
Hugh, and what makes you think that senses are trustworthy in order to use them to make scientific discoveries? The empiricism of Hume is unworkable. The logical positivism of others is self contradictory. To say that for something to be true it must either be true by definition or be empirically verifiable is self refuting because that statement is neither true by definition nor empirically verifiable. The scientific method assumes a Christian worldview in that it assumes the laws of logic apply. These laws have no basis in an atheistic worldview, for example. These laws have no *consistent* basis in any non-Christian theistic worldview either. The scientific method is wonderful for us to better understand how God works in the world, but the method itself has to presuppose God's existence to be workable. Thanks for your comments and input.
Part 2 of 2
[RB] "Religions that get some truth right aren't correct by virtue of getting some things right. The entire circle of argumentation must consistent."
[Open] I totally agree please provide.
[RB] "Just out of curiousity (it will help me as I explain my views to ya), what is your faith background?"
[Open] While it is no secret I would prefer for you not to change tactics. I have legit questions and I believe you are honesty trying to answer them to the best of your ability. No mystery intended.
Part 1 of 2
Richard pardon my reply in quote / outline form but I find it helps me to stay on topic and address your points better.
[RB] "Open, good insight. Circular reasoning isn't bad as long as the whole circle is consistent."
[Open] From a logic standpoint I must hearty disagree with this statement. I believe this to be true.
"Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms. In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion."
[RB] "The resurrection is validation of Christianity."
[Open] Here my friend lays the crux of the dilemma. Where is the evidence? The bible seems to have different accounts of the resurrection depending on which chapter and verse you are reading.
Part 1 of 2
Richard pardon my reply in quote / outline form but I find it helps me to stay on topic and address your points better.
[RB] "Open, good insight. Circular reasoning isn't bad as long as the whole circle is consistent."
[Open] From a logic standpoint I must hearty disagree with this statement. I believe this to be true.
"Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms. In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion."
[RB] "The resurrection is validation of Christianity."
[Open] Here my friend lays the crux of the dilemma. Where is the evidence? The bible seems to have different accounts of the resurrection depending on which chapter and verse you are reading.
Personally I believe that our next experience with terrorism will come from our own ranks. The radical (subversive) right has their followers extremely worked up with misinformation and fiery rhetoric. A congressman in California even gave an endorsement to a man claiming to be a "right wing terrorist"! Glenn Beck and Fox news have people afraid for their lives. I'm not trying to give a pass to radical muslim sects but I just see the threat from our right as more imminent.
"Spokeswoman for NC jihadist has her own radical past" - when you read news like this it is easy to believe 80% of mosques are radical.
http // kl.am/2e97
People like Richard Bean must be stopped. He is spreading misinformation and hate. There is a big difference between radical Islam and conservative Islam. Radical is what can lead to terrorism. Conservative Islam has never condoned terrorism. Mosques have always been centers of Conservative Islam. By directing your fear and mistrust at mosques across the world and spreading this notion that some force is going to emanate from them and control those in the surrounding area you are creating an atmosphere of hate and misunderstanding. The way to assert your religion is not to try to isolate and discredit Muslims. I suspect you justify foisting your beliefs on others by maintaining this notion that Muslims are already pushing their beliefs in a similar way. Practicing your religion and asserting ridiculous notions that most mosques are "radicalized by Saudis" are two completely different things. You are trying to control people's minds by making them ignorant.
"contrary to popular belief — very religious Muslims were in fact the people who ended up being the most resistant to radicalization (and terrorism)."
>http://www.npr.org/2011/01/24/133125267/new-terrorism-adviser-takes-a-br...
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!