178 Comments

1. Terry:

It should be stressed that what is being discussed is MAINSTREAM Islam, not some mythical ‘’small group of extremists” …..

Nov 18, 2009 - 1:49 am 2. Mike Jefferson:

While everything that Raymond asserts is accurate, unfortunately this rehashing of Islamic doctrine is entirely ineffective. The vast majority of Americans remain woefully ignorant of Islam, instead they choose to believe the media branded version. It is inconceivable to most Americans that a religion could be rooted primarily in nihlistic prescriptions of hatred of the other. Yet, this is what Islam is predicated upon.

As long as the disinformation networks persist – the media, schools, etc., any chance of convincing the populace of the totalitarian nature of this “ism” is unlikely. While your message is sound, in reality you are preaching to the converted.

Nov 18, 2009 - 3:52 am 3. John "birther" Samford:

Mike, it is up to the converted to pass on the message. In political terms that is called “Astro-turfing”, or starting a grass roots movement.
The Left uses this technique all the time, 2 examples being AGW and Health care.
In the case of Islam and the fact that the entire religion has been at war with the rest of the world since it’s inception, we happen to have the facts on our side.
Eventually, we will have to exterminate Islam. It won’t be pretty, but it’s them or us. When it comes to genocide, them is always better then us.
Ask the Jews. Or the Armenians.

Nov 18, 2009 - 5:43 am 4. Brownie:

In other words, far from being the religion of “peace” Islam is the religion of deceit and cowardice.

Nov 18, 2009 - 5:50 am 5. Dave M.:

Islam transforms the saying “An enemy of my enemy is my friend” to “An enemy of my enemy is my friend unless the enemy of my enemy is an infidel and then the infidel is the enemy and the other enemy, if it is a Muslim, is my friend even though that friend is trying to kill me.”

I think I am beginning to understand Islamic “logic”.

Nov 18, 2009 - 5:57 am 6. Mr. Independant:

Dear Raymond Ibrahim,

Thank you for your article. I have a question though. If I’m understanding your writings correctly (correct me if I’m wrong) you see the religion of Islam as the cause of terrorism. Now I happen to believe that the problem with terrorism is NOT religion but the terrorists. While we probably disagree on this point, I think we can both agree that 99% of all Muslims are peaceful people and the focus of this country should be actual terrorist organizations. My question is, do you think it is productive to blame an entire religion (which has 1.5 Billion followers) when those efforts can better be spent searching for and destroying actual terrorist organizations?

Nov 18, 2009 - 6:03 am 7. BackwardsBoy:

Tenets of Islam:

Lying? Check

Deception? Check.

Hatred of your fellow man? Check.

And all of this makes you a better person, how?

Nov 18, 2009 - 6:35 am 8. Vince:

I do not trust any Muslims.

Nov 18, 2009 - 6:52 am 9. Al:

“Taqiyya” isn’t this Obama’s policy? He is bringing it to a level never yet attained.By
himself he is bringing down the big Satan to its knees ready for beheading and half the U.S. population is tickle to death by his intellectual greatness.What is going on with all of us could this be just a bad dream?

Nov 18, 2009 - 7:25 am 10. Paul from Hamburg:

#6 “I think we can both agree that 99% of all Muslims are peaceful people”

I am not sure we can agree that 99% of Muslims are peaceful people. The Koran does not teach “Love your enemies” or the Golden Rule. It doesn’t teach equality. For Islam, “Peace” means everyone is a Muslim or willing to surrender and accept dhimmi status.

Nov 18, 2009 - 7:48 am 11. moho:

Leaving aside the stupidity of this analysis, it can’t explain that with billions of Muslims world-wide, only few go this route. Can the bible explain US foreign policy? I suppose some douche with enough time on their hands could write a handy analysis of Bush’s eight year war against Islam in those terms, especially because Bush seems to admit that he believes that he was commanded by God to do so. What I’m saying is, next time masturbate in private.

Nov 18, 2009 - 8:45 am 12. Omar:

Hi there, Mr. Independent. Here’s my two cents (for what’s it’s worth). Terrorism is not being taught in American mosques per se. However, I think it would be accurate to say that mosques that are heavily influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood and/or receive most of their funding from Saudi Arabia do teach “Islamic Supremacism” (the theory that all the world must be governed by shariah and permitting non-muslims to rule any part of the earth with non-islamic law is an affront and an abomination which muslims are obligated end by hook or crook). Kabanni, a respected islamic scholar, estimates that as many as 80% of US mosques are now so influenced. (The number is similar in the UK). Now, an observant muslim at one of these mosques has a few options in terms of how he or she fulfills this duty – not all of which can or should be illegal in the US. He can perform d’ua (painting islam in a deceptively rosy and numinous light to gain converts and benefit the religion), or he can offer Zakat (Mr. Ibrahim has an excellent article on the relationship between Zakat and jihad which helps explain why so much of the WOT has involved shutting down muslim charities). However, it cannot be denied that the highest and greatest expression of one’s duty to bring about islamic rule is to “kill and be killed” in the way of Allah: to perform jihad. Undertaking jihad is so extolled in islam that it essentially negates every other failing you may have and GUARANTEES you your 72 translucent re-virginating virgins. Although islamic leaders may pay lip service to peaceful coexistence, especially while they are in a postition of relative weakness, this implicit acceptance of jihad in the way of Allah, plus the doctrine of Loyalty and Emnity, make it VERY difficult for any muslim of the supremacist bent to condemn another muslim for waging war against infidels, no matter the relative justice of the cause.

Nov 18, 2009 - 9:18 am 13. Paul from Hamburg:

OK Moho:

If Islam is so great, why does it have a death penalty for leaving the faith?

Nov 18, 2009 - 9:39 am 14. Real Deal:

What I’m saying is, next time masturbate in private.

Moho can’t seem to follow his own advice…

A few? Really? Lets see many of those “peaceful” Muslims live in 3rd world dung heaps of their own devising with standards of living barely above that of the 7th century when the followers of a epileptic pedophile wrote down his rantings during and after his seizures into what came to be known as the Quran. They only bother killing one another.

Now when you take those same “peaceful” Muslims and place them in non-Muslim dominated societies you see the “no go” zones of England, France, and Germany. Gang rapes of non-Muslim women by Muslim men, assaults on non-Muslims especially European Jews, honor killings of their own women as they see the freedoms of the West, the list goes on and on. That doesn’t even include flying planes into buildings, blowing up public transportation, shooting up hotels and the numerous other acts of terror preformed by Muslims. Then you have the “peaceful Muslim” who may not participate in the violence but instead funds it, they have blood on their hands too. They allow you to point and say “see not all Muslims are violent terrorists” while their donations buy the instruments and train the perpetrators of murder across the world.

Nov 18, 2009 - 9:46 am 15. Pragmatist:

Its easy to explain why so many Muslims are peaceful it is THEY who are the MISUNDERSTANDERS of Islam. the Koran is a PRESCRIPTIVE book from a CULT which has a stated aim to rule the world . The Koran claims ITSELF to be the ‘ ACTUAL and UNALTERABLE word of God’ and to be ‘for ALL men for all time’. That being so it is very important to study this steaming heap of writing . It is violent, misogynistic, contradictory, anti semitic, and repetitious and that along with utter nonsense is what comprises the Koran. What peaceful verses there are , and they are very very few, come from the period when Mohammad and Islam were weak they are ABROGATED, a legitimate Muslim action, by the later WARLIKE violent verses made when Mohammad was strong. Note when Mohammad was strong not allah as he is just Mohammad’s sock puppet, So Mr so called Independant thats why some Mohammedans are peaceful because THEY Misunderstand the Koran and the example of Mohammad the thieving, paedophilic, misogynistic ,anti semitic,liar, cheat , murderer and warlord that they are told to EMULATE.

Nov 18, 2009 - 10:05 am 16. GEDoug:

moho the ‘blame Bush’ angle, like the ‘racist’ tripe is old and simply doesn’t have the effect you and your kind desire. The progressive statist message/agenda is being rejected by the American people. So keep it up, it only helps.

Nov 18, 2009 - 10:33 am 17. Terry Gain:

My question is, do you think it is productive to blame an entire religion (which has 1.5 Billion followers) when those efforts can better be spent searching for and destroying actual terrorist organizations?

My question is why should I trust anyone who belongs to a religion started by a murdering pedophile and whose good book contains so many illegitimate commands, which Mr. Independent conveniently ignores. How many of the alleged 1.5 billion would like to leave but aren’t willing to risk being killed? Being killed for leaving a religion? Just one of the many inconvenient facts about Islam that liberals like to ignore.

Nov 18, 2009 - 10:41 am 18. M. Report:

Excellent Exposition

A query and a comment:

Q: If Muhammad is regarded as
the_Last_ Prophet, is there
room for a kinder, gentler,
“New Testament” in Islam’s future ?

C: Given the size of the Muslim
population in the world today,
and their increasing access to
means of carrying out Jihad on
a WMD scale, any attempt at a
“Final Solution” will be counter-
productive, to say the least;
Safer to rely on our cultural
weapons of faith destruction;
Nothing like the lure of an
earthly Paradise to dull the
desire for one in the next life.

Nov 18, 2009 - 10:45 am 19. moho:

Muslims live in 3rd world dung heaps of their own devising with standards of living barely above that of the 7th century when the followers of a epileptic pedophile wrote down his rantings during and after his seizures into what came to be known as the Quran. They only bother killing one another.

This is the heart of your movement–pointing the finger at the rest of the world, while your own society crumbles around you. Not many countries have a higher murder rate than the US and the ones that do happen to mostly be Christian LOL. The most disntinct feature of American society is the murder rampage–it is even more synonymous with US life than the hamburger. Were it only for religion, there would be a cure of some kind by deprogramming American’s Christians. But there seems to be something so deeply ingrained in US society’s need to murder anyone that it seems to span ideology and belief systems. Take care of your own problems, then worry about whether Muslims are killing one another. Go buy a USA Today if you want to see a third world society in decline; it got that way from too many idiots like you disinterested in taking responsibility for themselves.

Nov 18, 2009 - 10:52 am 20. moho:

How many of the alleged 1.5 billion would like to leave but aren’t willing to risk being killed? Being killed for leaving a religion?

LOL. Yes, how many? You seem to have some kind of cosmic knowledge of the issue? Please tell us the factual basis for this assertion. My god, you mock your own positions so brutally that I almost want to defend you from yourself.

Nov 18, 2009 - 10:54 am 21. Faeto:

“Leaving aside the stupidity of this analysis, it can’t explain that with billions of Muslims world-wide, only few go this route. Can the bible explain US foreign policy? I suppose some douche with enough time on their hands could write a handy analysis of Bush’s eight year war against Islam in those terms, especially because Bush seems to admit that he believes that he was commanded by God to do so. What I’m saying is, next time masturbate in private.”

Clearly you suffer from “Bush deraange syndrome”. Let me guess, the 1993 attach on the twin towers was Bush’s fault right>

Nov 18, 2009 - 11:22 am 22. Mr. Independant:

Omar,

Thank you for your response. I appreciate your perspective but I think you missing a vital link in you analysis. The foreign countries that are funding radical imams in mosques around the world, who are they? There countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan. All of those countries are dictatorships. My point being that those countries are sponsoring terrorism not the faith itself. Anyone can twist religion to justify violence. In this case it’s not just terrorist organizations but countries as well. Yes there are many references to violence in the Koran but also in the Bible. That didn’t make Christianity the problem with the terrorist organization the KKK and that doesn’t make Islam the problem with Al-Qaeda. The problem isn’t religion but terrorism.

Nov 18, 2009 - 11:31 am 23. Mr. Independant:

Pragmatist,

Your position seems to contradict it’s self. If you believe that that Koran is “ACTUAL and UNALTERABLE word of God”; how can that be “ABROGATED”? Perhaps the Koran like the Bible is metaphorical. Also isn’t it a little silly for you to presume that you ‘know’ what 1.5 BILLION people are thinking? I can only judge them by their actions. So far only a tiny minority of them are terrorists. Maybe you don’t understand what is written in the Koran. I asked in a previous article for you to provide quotes from the Koran to back up you position; will I ever see them?

Nov 18, 2009 - 11:40 am 24. moho:

Clearly you suffer from “Bush deraange syndrome”. Let me guess, the 1993 attach on the twin towers was Bush’s fault right>

Clearly you suffer from aphasia. Is it catching here or something? Or is this site linked to a support group for the disease?

Nov 18, 2009 - 11:45 am 25. Real Deal:

It is only in urban areas, areas impoverished by the Leftist views you support Moho that the “murder rampage” exists that murder rates are high. We’re ranked 24th in murders per capita, behind former USSR nations where religion was heavily discouraged. In fact I’d argue that the rise in secularism in the US is far more responsible for the murder rate than any Christian heritage.

Since blacks, many of whom live in urban areas where Leftist policies and corruption are par for the course, are more likely to a) commit and b) be the victim of murder, about 7 times higher than whites while representing only 13% of the population. So basically of the 16,000 or so murders in the US about 8000 were black people killed by other black people (93%). Like I said a result of Leftist policies you support Moho. Even MSNBC a left leaning news outlet admits to it. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20203888/ Note the other findings at the bottom of the article.

Nov 18, 2009 - 11:47 am 26. Buiders of Zion:

It is important for all “infidels”, Christians and Jews primarily, to understand that the basic tenants, the core of Islamic doctrine are of a waring nature, jihad is at the center of their faith. For someone to believe the misinformation that 99% of Muslims are peaceful only reveals how effective the Islamic propaganda machine has been. For any Muslim to read their books and act upon the teachings of Mohammed is to be what Westerners like to call “radical”. Truth be told, the religion is radical, its adherents are simply faithful Muslims carrying out the dictates of a deviant “prophet. For more information you can log onto http://www.buildersofzion.org and read some of the reports concerning the Islamic revolution.

Nov 18, 2009 - 12:07 pm 27. moho:

Real Deal.

We’re ranked 24th in murders per capita, behind former USSR nations where religion was heavily discouraged. In fact I’d argue that the rise in secularism in the US is far more responsible for the murder rate than any Christian heritage.

You’re apparently too stupid to realize that I made that point. If only religion were to blame, that would be one thing. But something about American culture seems to be driving this. In any case, the country with the number one murder rate is Colombia, a nearly 100% Christian nation. Islamic countries don’t really make an appearance on the list until well after the US debuts. By an estimation, Islam does not really figure into the most violent societies. As you observed, it is secular nations that make up the bulk of violent nations; a point you made, apparently in order to protect Christianity from an accusation that was never made. And it was misdirected anyway, because the most violent country in the world is indeed Christian.

Finally, as to your point about Black people. Are you implying that Black people aren’t American? Why would this have any impact on my point? Are black people not members of your culture? Just say it, if that’s what you think.

In any case, that same MSNBC article states quite clearly that more than half of all murders in the US are committed by white people. I don’t see what satisfaction you derive from observing that the other 49% are committed by black people, if that is, indeed, true. It must be the same thing driving you to constantly focus on everyone else’s problems rather than your own. You remind me of the white trash family with the dilapidated house and bleached front lawn complaining about the beat up car in his neighbors yard.

Nov 18, 2009 - 12:08 pm 28. Real Deal:

The fact that Muslim nations are cesspools and lack a reporting structure for criminal activity has no bearing at all eh Moho?

Nice try on implying I’m racist Moho. You know the majority of blacks live in urban areas dominated by Democrat and Leftist policies which you constantly support here. Policies that basically result in 13% of the population accounting for nearly 50% of the murders in the nation in areas dominated by Leftist politicians and policies. That 50% of all murders are committed by white people, which amounts to about 8,000 doesn’t look so bad when you take into account that there are 221.3 million white people living in the US.

Why is it that the Leftist policies you support Moho produce so much crime among the people who live in the areas dominated by them. In fact Barry’s beloved Chicago comes in #1 again in murders. Its ok Moho, I’d be mad too if I was named after a pedophile cult leader, bandit, and murderer but at least Soros is paying you a little to vent your bile on PJM and that helps your living standard in your 3rd word hell hole. Oh wait you probably left it to come live in our country…

Nov 18, 2009 - 12:37 pm 29. moho:

The fact that Muslim nations are cesspools and lack a reporting structure for criminal activity has no bearing at all eh Moho?

It would if you had any proof of it. As it stands, the statement only makes you look like a bigoted clown. Finally, RealDeal, a lesson in reasoning free of charge. My claim is that black people are part of your culture. I need no evidence to make this claim, as it is self-evident. Your claim is that there is a confluence between race, urban/suburban setting, and political affiliation and murder. Its a dubious claim, made more absurd by the fact that you’ve made no effort to prove it with data.

Lastly, you’re just proving my point. I’m asking you why the fact that 50% of murders are committed by white people has absolutely no impact on you, and why you are obsessed, instead with what Islamic and black people are doing. If 8,000 doesn’t look like much compared to 200 some odd million, then it really doesn’t look like much compared to 66 million either. Its the difference between .00004% and .0001%.

Additionally, both the white and black people killed are Americans. You may not seem to think so, but its not something you can prove. The original point I made was that Americans had higher murder rates than Islamic countries, which you can’t dispute. If you really feel that strongly that black people are responsible for all of the crimes in America worth focusing on, then by all means, start your crusade there, rather than seeking to indict another 2 billion people you know nothing about.

Nov 18, 2009 - 1:08 pm 30. MR:

moho: don’t waste your time with Real Deal… he is putting this tough image here because his p**is is the size of a pencil!!! Mulims rule!!!!!!!!!!

Nov 18, 2009 - 1:15 pm 31. Johnboy:

Moho,

Offical government murder stats are meaningless to most dictatorships (such as most Muslim nations). Look how many fellow Muslims have been murdered by suicide (homicide) bombers in these nations over the years.

Guess these don’t count in your calculations? (although I’m sure you’re find some way to blame America or George Bush!).

Cheers!

Nov 18, 2009 - 1:26 pm 32. moho:

Johnboy:

Offical government murder stats are meaningless to most dictatorships (such as most Muslim nations).

Aside from having no proof, why would that be? One would think that it would be harder to get away with murder in a dictatorship. Do you ever use your brain?

Nov 18, 2009 - 1:38 pm 33. Real Deal:

Nice sock puppet you have there moho, almost as good as Mohammed’s sock puppet Allah.

Nov 18, 2009 - 1:49 pm 34. mr:

moho: I would not waste any more time with real deal and johnboy. johnboy like real deal has a pe**is the size of a pencil!! the other problem with these two guys are that they are most likely a high school drop out, with hardley any education!! I can tell you these though folks:
muslims rule!!!

Nov 18, 2009 - 1:55 pm 35. baal:

32. moho:You understand that you’re allowed to post here because you make liberals and liberalism idiotic? I get censored a lot for rebutting you–but your posts just sail right through, the only explanation, given the ideological bent of this site, is your propensity for stupidity.

Nov 18, 2009 - 1:59 pm 36. moho:

Real Deal. I’m not sure who you think my sockpuppet is, but its a pretty lame accusation. For all I know you could be every poster here; it wouldn’t have any impact on the case I’m making. Concede defeat if you’d like, otherwise argue your point.

Nov 18, 2009 - 2:04 pm 37. moho:

You understand that you’re allowed to post here because you make liberals and liberalism idiotic? I get censored a lot for rebutting you–but your posts just sail right through, the only explanation, given the ideological bent of this site, is your propensity for stupidity.

This entire post made me laugh heartily. But the last line nearly caused me to tear a vesicle. The “only explanation”…lol…keep telling yourself that.
In any case, you’ve never once provided a rebuttal that actually addressed any point being made. There are plenty on this page to choose from. Or did the nasty moderator censwor all of your widdle posts? Please, dude, the last thing I care about is that a microencephalic like you thinks I’m stupid, lol.

Nov 18, 2009 - 2:13 pm 38. myth buster:

32. It is harder to get away with murder in a dictatorship, unless you ARE the dictator. What we’re saying is that secret police executions for crimes against the police state should be counted in the murder statistics, but won’t be. Besides that, Muslim states are not going to report the murders of non-Muslims by Muslims. If the government doesn’t actively approve of these murders, they look the other way.

Nov 18, 2009 - 2:40 pm 39. Terry Gain:

20. moho:
How many of the alleged 1.5 billion would like to leave but aren’t willing to risk being killed? Being killed for leaving a religion?

LOL. Yes, how many? You seem to have some kind of cosmic knowledge of the issue? Please tell us the factual basis for this assertion.

Is it really the case that you don’t understand the difference between a question and an assertion? So the numbers who would leave, if they could, are so many you want to avoid the question by pretending that a question is an assertion. Is that what you are saying?

Nov 18, 2009 - 2:41 pm 40. Real Deal:

For all I know you could be every poster here; it wouldn’t have any impact on the case I’m making.

You never make a case for anything moho, just ad hominem attacks, and rude remarks. The few times you’ve tried you’ve been proven wrong and made to look the fool.

Nov 18, 2009 - 2:42 pm 41. baal:

37. moho:
Well, dont laugh too hard, a 400 lb woman such as yourself could actually rupture a vein or two laughing…

Nov 18, 2009 - 2:46 pm 42. moho:

Baal. I assume that remark is the only one the mean moderator let through. That’s the only possible explanation for its utter lameness. LOL.

Real Deal. If that’s true you could have easily countered my last argument. Face it, you can’t prove your points, you’re a bigot, and your hatred is completely misplaced.

Nov 18, 2009 - 3:09 pm 43. John "birther" Samford:

Fact heck time
For those claiming that Islam has 1.5 billion followers, please provide some evidence. I went thru the UN world population site back in 2003 and added up all the numbers and got 800 million. I did it off the CIS fact book in ‘98, I think and got 750 million. So please provide evidence of the somewhat dubious claim of 1.5 billion.
As a hint, India has the most Muslims with just under 300 million. Indonesian has about 230 million population of which about 90% are claimed to be Islam. It is the most populous Muslim nation. So there is 500 million or so. Where are the other billion hiding? In a cave with Osama?

Nov 18, 2009 - 3:10 pm 44. baal:

42. moho: Yes, you are a 400 lb woman. On your Rascal, in front of the computer. Maybe if you say “LOL” enough times, that fact will change, automagically… but dont hold your breath because that can kill a 400 pounder too.

Nov 18, 2009 - 3:18 pm 45. Dwight:

What a useless thread.

Nov 18, 2009 - 3:34 pm 46. John "birther" Samford:

Mr. Independent, this will be hard for you to understand, since the concepts involved are very devious.
ANY and ALL military organizations require support from the populations (people) they protect. This is especially true for irregular warriors.
The US Army cannot exist without citizens paying taxes, giving their sons and daughters up to the military, voting for defense minded politicians, etc.
So it is for Islamic terrorists. They couldn’t exist without a population base that raises money and warriors.
National wars are wars between national systems. ‘isms’ if you will. Total war theory states that all parts of a nation are involved in a national war and therefore are legitimate targets.
This flies in the face of the theory of war as a political tool of tyrants and kings. The two theories began to merge in the early 19th century after Napoleon brought national wars to fruition with his attempted conquest of Europe.
Before Napeleon wars were used by Kings and tyrants to adjust the political landscape and steal wealth.
This civic was formalized by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

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

Napoleon took the power of the industrial revolution and made the conscript army more powerful then the professional army of the early 19th century. This form of national war was much more powerful then any other type of warfare and the Europeans used it to conquer the world. That and the cannon armed sailing ship. which reached it’s perfect form at about the same time.
Naturally the rest of the world didn’t take kindly to being conquered so they looked for ways to fight back.
The sheer carnage of industrialized warfare led the Europeans ( And America, which held the first ‘modern’ war between 1860 and 1864) to seek to establish limits on how warfare was waged. That was the Hague Conventions, which was the next attempt after Westphalia to formalize some sort of order to international affairs.
Some of the third world took notice of the European’s and American’s (AKA the West) silly notions about restricting warfare. They looked to see how to take advantage of them.
Eventually Mao, a first rate military genuis managed to blend the age old tactics of resistance ( guerrilla) with national war. Guerrilla means “small war”. Before Mao, most irregular wars were small. Bandits with a political objective. Mao made irregular warfare a type of National war.
Muslims have expanded on Mao’s theories to produce a global blend of Jihad and guerrilla.
Every Muslim is involved, either in a support role, directly or indirectly by not acting against those involved directly.
The beauty and power of Mao’s genuis is that those who do nothing, support those that do the dirty deeds by the very act of doing nothing.
Since anyone is capable of doing nothing, support levels are at 100%.
Mao’s theories have one glaring weakness. Genocide, such as practiced by the Mongols. The hordes never had a problem with guerrillas. They killed everybody they could catch.
Since one of the pillars of Western civilization is human rights, we are screwed. The ONLY way to save ourselves from the Muslims is by exterminating them. Since that would make us morally no better then them, why do it?
Eventually, somebody will point out that being alive to start over is better then being dead and if we surrender Human rights is dead forever. The logical conclusion from there is “kill them all, god will know his own’.
It’s been done before, it will be done again. History always repeats itself, dragging along those to stupid to learn from it.

Nov 18, 2009 - 4:00 pm 47. jhstuart:

From Post 22, “The problem isn’t religion but terrorism”. Actually, it is.

The Qu’ran is revelatory in nature and was delivered over a 13 year period (23 years by another account). Earlier verses from the Mecca years were ‘peaceful’ because Muhammad was politically weak and he had few followers. Later verses were ‘revealed’ in Medina and abrogated many of the earlier verses when Muhammad’s influence and strength had grown. Surra 9 was the last of the revelations and abrogated most of the earlier verses. Surra 9 also contains the most violent scripture (9:5 and 9:29 are good examples along with 47:4)and advocates jihad. This part of the Qu’ran provides the principal impetus for the Wahhabist ideology, the madrassa curriculum (more than 20,000 in Pakistan alone) and the foundation for jihadist activities.

Moral relativism does not solve the problem. Unless Islam transforms, their exploding populations coupled with a political ideology disguised as a religion will continue to be a threat to ‘moderate’ Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Nov 18, 2009 - 4:30 pm 48. ehunter:

Currently there are 22 wars pitting Islam against the rest of the world.Thailand, Phillippines, Indonesia, Russia, Spain, England, USA, France, Argentina, and on and on and on. This is the norm for the past 15 centuries. Its not because of Bush, or the USA, or Israel or racism or poverty or any other Liberal delusion. The entire language of Islam is built on images of war, conquest, and above all submission. The very word “Islam” means…SUBMIT! Submit to Allah or else.

Nov 18, 2009 - 4:34 pm 49. John:

Ok moho, muhammad,and other muslim co religionist get your koran and start reading it and be good muslim follow the edict in there start and finnish what had Major Hasan started. HUH?

Nov 18, 2009 - 4:54 pm 50. Omar:

Mr. Independent. I don’t have time to elaborate right now, but suffice it say that Mohammad was not really a religious leader in the sense most people in the west would recognise. He didn’t so much create a religion as a war machine and a state – an Islamic State, as in a Political Entity. The countries you mention, with the dubious exception of Pakistan, are not just dictatorships, they are Islamic Theocracies, modeled on the state founded by Mohammad and governed by Shariah law (with concommitant rules of dhimma for non-muslims). Jihad is not the “foreign policy” of dictatorships, it’s the foreign policy of Islam and Islamic states like Iran and Saudi Arabia. Don’t know if that answers your comment exactly, but if you want to learn more about islam, you’re certainly on the right trail and Raymond Ibrahim is a GREAT place to start. If it sparks your interest, might also want to check out the thesis of Stephen Coughlin, the DOD’s sole non-muslim expert on islamic law (before the “PC” got him). It’s called “To Our Great Detriment.”

Nov 18, 2009 - 5:03 pm 51. Tom DeGisi:

Hold on a bit. What Mr. Ibrahim is describing is one interpretation of the Koran and other Muslim legal texts. There are other interpretations. It all depends on the rules you use for interpretation. For example, one rule is that later texts in the Koran abrogate earlier texts. Do all Muslims consider that rule binding? No. Is that rule stated in the Koran? I could be wrong, but I don’t think so. Does the Koran interpret itself using that rule? I have no idea.

Mr. Cramer can tell you all about the ways different rules for interpretation change the way people interpret the Constitution. And I can assure you that different rules for interpretation change the way people interpret the Bible. For example, fundamentalist Protestants have rather different rules than Catholics, and get rather different results.

This does sound like a excellent description of how Salafists view Islam. There may be other Muslim sects which hold similar views. I don’t know how many Salafists there are, but it is not a small number.

Mr. Ibrahim, can you discuss which Muslim sects hold similar views and how many Muslims adhere to them?

Yours,
Tom DeGisi

Nov 18, 2009 - 6:25 pm 52. Cristina:

Mr Ibrahim:

“One of the difficulties in discussing Islam’s more troubling doctrines is that they have an anachronistic, even otherworldly, feel to them; that is, unless actively and openly upheld by Muslims, non-Muslims, particularly of the Western variety, tend to see them as abstract theory, not standard practice for today.”

You forgot to add: “particularly of the multicultural, intellectual/academic variety.”
The rest of us take Islam at its dogmatically-certified Quran instructions and manifest avowals and deeds in recent history, in full accordance with its past: Kill or subdue the non-believers.

The “abstract” fare/farce about Islam is peddled by academics payed by the likes of Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, like at Georgetown University, formerly Catholic/Jesuit:
“This course belongs to the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. See the Registrar’s Schedule for exact course dates and room assignment. CRN-18206″
Scroll down to see how many courses have been sold to Alwaleed by the Jesuits at Georgetown University:

http://scs.georgetown.edu/departments/9/master-of-arts-in-liberal-studies/course-schedule.cfm

Nov 18, 2009 - 6:53 pm 53. Mr. Independant:

Terry Gain,

Your comment could apply to any of the Abrahamic faiths. Have you ever read the Bible? There are many verses in the Bible that appear to justify violence. Those versus like certain suwar in the Koran are metaphorical. Furthermore, have you ever read the Koran? If not, aren’t you ignoring the most important text that can better educate you on this topic.

Nov 18, 2009 - 8:24 pm 54. venividivici:

#6 “I think we can both agree that 99% of all Muslims are peaceful people”

Yeah, the ones who live surrounded by other Muslims are relatively peaceful. Google “Islam bloody borders” for a perspective on the rest. It’s when Islam comes into contact with other belief systems, whether those belief systems want to tolerate Islam (as is the case for many, but not all, in the West) or not.

Muslims, like the Romans, believe that they are to be masters of all the “Others” they encounter. At least the Romans had some class and weren’t a bunch of desert bandits.

I don’t have time to elaborate right now, but suffice it say that Mohammad was not really a religious leader in the sense most people in the west would recognise.

Agreed. Mohammed’s closest comparison in the West is Charles Manson, who also fancied himself the founder of a religion. If the Fates had decreed Mohammed be born in 20th century America, he’d have met the same fate as Manson and have been locked up for nearly his entire life. What a scumbag.

Nov 18, 2009 - 8:35 pm 55. Mr. Independant:

jhstuart,

I noticed that your post is very similar to other postings I’ve read on this site. Have you ever read the Koran? I ask because you made several grammatical mistakes that are identical to the ones that others I have read. Just one example is the word sura. The word has one r not two. Normally I would think nothing of such a simple mistake but your response is very similar to those I’ve seen on other articles. Are you just cutting and pasting other posters opinions? If you are, I would suggest you actually read the Koran. In response to your (or someone else’s post) I could point out that the Bible has many versus that appear to condone violence. Such as: Mathew 10:34-35 – “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth, I did not come to bring peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.” Now I didn’t make that reference to make any relative moral judgment but to point out that any faith can be twisted to justify terrorism. Just look at the KKK. So once again the problem is NOT religion but terrorism

Nov 18, 2009 - 8:35 pm 56. Omar:

There are very important theological differences between the violence in the Bible and the violence in the Quran, Mr. Independent.

Here is a very good article on the topic by Mr. Ibrahim himself:

http://www.meforum.org/2159/are-judaism-and-christianity-as-violent-as-islam

Nov 18, 2009 - 8:36 pm 57. Pragmatist:

There you go again Mr not so Independant spouting your idiotic ‘moral equivalence’ so show us the parts of the NEW TESTAMENT that Christians follow that promote and justify violence like the Koran DOES. You cant and you know you cant which is why you are practicing your Mohammedan Tu Quoque and Taqiyya on here. The Old Testament is DESCRIPTIVE and written by MEN telling of the times in which they lived whereas the the Koran is PRESCRIPTIVE and claims ITSELF to be ‘the ACTUAL and UNALTERABLE word of God’ and to be ‘for ALL men for all time’. So you cant claim as some Mohammedans do that the violence is only HISTORY and that all the CONTRADICTION are irrelevant as this makes both of those claims to be absolute nonsense. They also claim some verses are LITERAL and some ALLEGORICAL but ask who decides which is which and for a list of which is what and you get a deafening silence. BTW Mr Mohammedan Independant I HAVE read the Koran so I do know how evil it is.

Nov 18, 2009 - 8:46 pm 58. Pragmatist:

# 23 Mr Mohammedan Independent you ask about ABROGATION dont ask me ask your fellow Muslims it is THEY who first talked of ABBROGATION no doubt to protect allah after all the stupid CONTRADICTIONS that appear in the evil Koran/ Also I made it clear did I not that the Kran claims ITSELF as being the ‘ACTUAL and UNALTERABLE word of God’ not me I think it is just Mohammad’s INVENTION along with allah which is why it is so evil contradictory, misogynistic, anti semitic and repetitious just like the paedophile so called prophet himself.

Nov 18, 2009 - 8:54 pm 59. BigPat:

mr said:

“moho: I would not waste any more time with real deal and johnboy. johnboy like real deal has a pe**is the size of a pencil!! the other problem with these two guys are that they are most likely a high school drop out, with hardley any education!! I can tell you these though folks:
muslims rule!!!”

So ‘mr’, what do your initials stand for? MENTAL RETARD? Sure seems that way…

You and ‘moho’ both have quite an immature sound to your posts here, and you REALLY need to brush up on some of your English spelling of words! As I sincerely doubt this comment area supports the Farsi script.

Nov 18, 2009 - 9:01 pm 60. Pragmatist:

Mr Mohammedan Independant You asked for some Koranic quotes though why you need them is not logical as BOTH you and I have read the Koran and KNOW what is in there. Anyway here are just a FEW and there are lots lots more. Oh an please dont give us the HISTORY excuse we have heard that nonsense before because if the Koran is a just HISTORY BOOK it has no religious relevance today

[Shakir 9:5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [Shakir 5:51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

[Shakir 4:46] Of those who are Jews (there are those who) alter words from their places… Allah has cursed them on account of their unbelief, so they do not believe but a little.

[Shakir 4:160] Wherefore for the iniquity of those who are Jews did we disallow to them the good things which had been made lawful for them and for their hindering many (people) from Allah’s way.

[Shakir 5:41] …from among those who are Jews; they are listeners for the sake of a lie… Those are they for whom Allah does not desire that He should purify their hearts; they shall have disgrace in this world, and they shall have a grievous chastisement in the hereafter.

[Shakir 5:64] And the Jews say: The hand of Allah is tied up! Their hands shall be shackled and they shall be cursed for what they say… We have put enmity and hatred among them till the day of resurrection; whenever they kindle a fire for war Allah puts it out, and they strive to make mischief in the land; and Allah does not love the mischief-makers.

[Shakir 2:120] And the Jews will not be pleased with you, nor the Christians until you follow their religion. Say: Surely Allah’s guidance, that is the (true) guidance. And if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, you shall have no guardian from Allah, nor any helper.

[Shakir 5:82] Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, (Christians).” [Shakir 6:146] And to those who were Jews we made unlawful every animal having claws, and of oxen… this was a punishment We gave them on account of their rebellion, and We are surely Truthful.

[Shakir 9:30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

[Shakir 16:118] And for those who were Jews We prohibited what We have related to you already, and We did them no injustice, but they were unjust to themselves.

[Shakir 62:6] Say: O you who are Jews, if you think that you are the favorites of Allah to the exclusion of other people, then invoke death If you are truthful.

Nov 18, 2009 - 9:15 pm 61. Arthur:

Mr Independant:
The violent verses in the Bible are explicitely limited to the time of action. They aren’t anything like the commandements of the Kuran.
Indeed NONE of the eternal commandements of the Bible is violent.

Nov 18, 2009 - 9:45 pm 62. Thiagan:

Mr.Independant (53)

I have already told you the violent verses in the OT are effectively replaced by the arrival of Jesus and the coming of the NT. In the Koraan, it is the opposite.

I have already given the list of Islamic jihads over a period of 1400 years.

Islam is not only a religion; it has legal, military and social implications. Almost all of them are injurious to the security of the others.

Islam has never lived peacefully with its neighbours in all its history. It has a story of bloody borders with others and quite often within itself.

The Book says women captured in war can be raped. That is why western girls caught unaware are gangraped in Europe and Australia. “The captive from war that your right hand possessed” (Sura 4:3)

Nidal Hassan himself admites that he killed the soldiers for religious reaswons. If you want to believe that Islam is not cause, better have your head examined.

Nov 19, 2009 - 3:43 am 63. Omar:

Mr. Independent:

What you say about this kind of interpretation representing a salafi viewpoint is true. Sadly, that interpretation is quickly becoming normative. I’ve seen stories in more than one country where these people will, quite literally, conduct a PHYSICAL takeover of a mosque with the other, more established imams in the neighborhood retreating behind locked gates to protect their facilities. Still, muslims would not tolerate such a vicious creature if it’s claim to represent “real islam” did not resonate VERY deeply. The Salafi brand gains traction precisely because muslims recognize it as the purest expression of shariah and the most accurate model of the profit’s life and example. And in many ways this transition from “spiritual islam” to violent, political, terroristic islam is a natural one undergone by many islamic communitites. In fact, Coughlin talks about this innate progression in the thesis I mentioned. Because of its dualisic nature, Islam REALLY IS designed to change over time, just as Mohammad changed from peaceful Meccan prophet to Medinian warlord. Anyway, here are a few things that might interest you:

“Hardline Takeover of British Mosques”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2402973.ece

“Our Followers Must Live in Peace Until Strong Enough to Wage Jihad” (This from one of the premier scholars of the above referenced salafi deobandi tradition which controls nearly half of UK mosques)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2409833.ece

“Dispatches channel 4, Undercover mosque”

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-19/episode-1

(I have trouble playing this, but you might have some luck)

Finally, there are very important theological differences between the violence in the Bible and the violence in the Quran.

Here is a very good article on the topic by Mr. Ibrahim himself:

http://www.meforum.org/2159/are-judaism-and-christianity-as-violent-as-islam

Nov 19, 2009 - 4:48 am 64. Lance:

“My point being that those countries are sponsoring terrorism not the faith itself. Anyone can twist religion to justify violence. In this case it’s not just terrorist organizations but countries as well. Yes there are many references to violence in the Koran but also in the Bible. That didn’t make Christianity the problem with the terrorist organization the KKK and that doesn’t make Islam the problem with Al-Qaeda. The problem isn’t religion but terrorism.”

Mr Independant, I think you are totally right and I think you communicated this perfectly. Why wasn’t KKK violence branded CHRISTIAN terrorism? Terrorism, is terrorism. Prefacing it with a religion only bolsters bigotry and ignorance and in turn increases hate and violence and round and round we go. Let’s eliminate terrorism from the root, without breeding more hate and thus breeding more terrorism.

We must also make a distiction between modern and moderate muslims and radical muslims. In the media, there is NO distinction between the two and rarely do you hear the media say “most muslims are good people” (except for O’Reilly of all people). There are over a billion muslims, so even if you had 10 MILLION extremists, that’s less than 1% of the population. Moderate muslims do NOT believe in hate, violence, and divisiveness. Jihad against America is NOT permitted from a common sense interpretation of the Quran. As Mr. Independant said, anyone can twist religion to justify violence.

People think that ALL muslims are bad because the media continousouly brands these terrorists as Muslim terrorists. They are terrorists, that’s all it is to it. You can’t fight fire with fire, and branding terrorists as muslim simply is not going to get us anywhere.

Nov 19, 2009 - 6:07 am 65. venividivici:

63

The Nazis “Night of the Long Knives” provides a model (not a literal model, but a Western analogy) for what the Salafis do to “moderate” Muslims.

It should be no surprise that a stronger and more committed faction would drive out a weaker and less committed faction from a belief system. As universal ideas of “shared values” collapse due to the lack of delivery on their promises, it is inevitable that individuals would seek to find certainty somewhere. That, combined with the huge amounts of petrodollars, a portion of which goes to fund these Salafists, makes for the combustible mix we see at sites like http://www.religionofpeace.com.

Nov 19, 2009 - 6:11 am 66. Mr. Independant:

Omar:

Once again thank you for your comment. In response to post #56 I disagree. I don’t write that to make any moral judgments or comparisons on either faith but I see the violent versus and suwar from the Bible and the Koran as being very similar. I also think their metaphorical. I read the article you referred me to and noticed one subtle and one very obvious mistake. First, Raymond Ibrahim attempts to draw a distinction between the OT and the NT. In over 1600 years the OT has not been removed from the Bible. That alone undermines his position that there are no comparisons in that context. Second, he wrote “As for Christianity, since it is impossible to find New Testament verses inciting violence,” which is not true. Mathew 10:34-35 states ”Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth, I did not come to bring peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.” Now if you can accept that the violent versus in the Bible are metaphorical, then why can you not accept the same about the Koran?

In response to post #63 I disagree as well. I don’t deny that there are some who are actively attempting to twist Islam to their evil purposes (and sadly have already done so). I believe they are the minority. You mentioned in a previous post about where the funding for these radicalized imams and mosques come from. There all dictatorships. Yes some are ruled by a theocracy and some by a military junta. The point being that it is angry bigoted men who are behind the inspiration of islamic-terrorism not the religion of Islam. Also you pointed out that some are advocating that ‘true’ Muslims must make a transition to violence. I accept that certain evil men say that but that doesn’t make it true. The leaders of the christian-terrorist organization the KKK made the same claims about the Bible and Christianity but they were twisting that faith for their own evil agendas. The same is true of Al-Qaeda and Islam.

Nov 19, 2009 - 6:52 am 67. Cynic:

3. John “birther” Samford:

It is all very well saying that it’s up to the converted but so far they are doing nothing.
Case in point is that they could have refuted that Islamic inversion about the Crusades by forcibly pointing out that it was the Muslims who initially invaded and OCCUPIED lands which the crusaders attempted to take back.
From the millions of Hindus they killed in India all the way to the Atlantic coast of Africa and into Spain etc.
Nobody has had the guts to take on the PC academics and spineless politicians permitting the situation to deteriorate to the point where it is criminal to criticize a Muslim.
Maybe Fort Hood has enabled a discussion of this topic to take place now after being suppressed for so long.
1993 – WTC – 2009 Fort Hood.

Nov 19, 2009 - 8:41 am 68. Cynic:

Lance,

Yes there are many references to violence in the Koran but also in the Bible.

In the Bible there are references to violence describing basically the history of the Israelites.
The Qur’an does not refernce but orders violence to be commited against those who don’t believe in Allah, you know like all those dhimmis especially those descended from apes and pigs.
There are two other holy books besides the Qur’an, that is the Sira and the Hadith.
The Sira which is Mohammad’s biography is basically Islamic political doctrine. The totality of Islam is belief in the perfect truth of the Qur’an and following the Sunna of Mohammed.
The Hadith contains the “Traditions of Mohammad”.
Any good Muslim will follow that.

I don’t think that you will find anything in the Bible to compare with what is written in those three other tracts unless of course it is to appear fair and balanced.

Nov 19, 2009 - 10:51 am 69. Mr. Independant:

Pragmatist,

Actually I’m not making any moral equivalence about any faith. What I am doing is demonstrating that any faith can be twisted by evil men to justify violence. That was the point of my reference to violent versus in the Bible and the christian-terrorist organization the KKK. Perhaps you should read my last post again. I specifically referenced Mathew 10:34-35, which is in the New Testament. I’m starting to suspect that you haven’t read the Bible either. And I wasn’t claiming that “the violence is only HISTORY and that all the CONTRADICTION are irrelevant” you were. You stated in post #15 “The Koran claims ITSELF to be the ‘ ACTUAL and UNALTERABLE word of God’ and to be ‘for ALL men for all time” and that the peaceful suwar of the Koran are “ABROGATED” by other suwar. The point I was making is that your positions are contradictory and don’t make sense.

Finally you’ve indicated once again that you don’t understand the Koran. In you last post you stated “when Mohammad was strong not Allah”, nowhere in the Koran is even suggested that Mohammad became God. Mohammad is not depicted at an avatar like Jesus Christ is in the Bible. I suspect that you’ve never read the Koran and are just cutting and pasting someone else’s opinion. Especially since in post #60 you referenced several suwar in the following format: [Shakir 9:5]. Shakir is not a sura of the Koran. HE was an Egyptian jurist who was credited (some think incorrectly) with translating the Koran.

Nov 19, 2009 - 10:56 am 70. Mr. Independant:

Thiagan,
It is your opinion that the OT replaces the NT. In over 1,600 years the OT has never been removed from the Bible. Also the leader of the majority of all Christians (the Pope) doesn’t share that opinion. According to comments you’ve made, you cannot claim to know more about a particular religion than its leaders. In previous post I’ve mentioned the Crusades, Inquisitions, and Genocides that were committed in the ‘name’ of Christianity. I don’t state the above as a type of moral equivocation but to demonstrate that any faith can be twisted by evil men to justify violence.

Finally, you are no position to make any moral judgments on anything. You advocated murdering innocent people in post #136 in article listed below:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/islamist-perfidy-and-western-naivety-which-is-more-lethal/
You completely undermine your credibility advocating against terrorism when you condone it.

Nov 19, 2009 - 11:07 am 71. Squeamjoe:

Islam is not a religion of peace, at least insofar as it relates to other faiths and ideologies. One need only look at the history of Islam to see this is the case. Scholars of Islam suggest that roughly 15,000,000 Muslims are engaged in or are complicit with Jihad. This is no small sampling.
Read “Under the Veil” which uses the verses from the Koran to prove that Mohammed and his followers were dedicated to death and destruction; that the only way forward for Muslims is to conquer and defeat apostacy. Islam is a violent faith.

Nov 19, 2009 - 12:31 pm 72. Mr. Independant:

Arthur,

That’s your opinion. And you’re missing the point. I’m not trying to say one faith is better than the other. The point I’m trying to make is that religion isn’t the problem, terrorists are.

Nov 19, 2009 - 12:49 pm 73. Mr. Independant:

Lance,

Thank you for your response. Excluding narco-terrorism, what do you think is the solution to the current problems our country faces with terrorism?

Nov 19, 2009 - 1:00 pm 74. venividivici:

70

I don’t state the above as a type of moral equivocation but to demonstrate that any faith can be twisted by evil men to justify violence.

There are some “faiths” that make men more evil than they are wont to be. Islam is at the top of that list, at least when it comes to relations with non-Muslims. Muslims might treat each other like princes and pave each others’ paths with rose petals, but that doesn’t matter to me, since I’ll never be a Muslim, so I only care about how they treat non-Muslims. I don’t even care if the religion itself is the “absolute truth” because even if it is, I’m not interested. If Islam is the truth, then the universe f*cking sucks.

Nov 19, 2009 - 1:52 pm 75. Real Deal:

I specifically referenced Mathew 10:34-35, which is in the New Testament.

Which you also take completely out of context, which is why “verses” annoy me in general.

Matthew 10:
34 – Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 – For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Jesus is saying that his coming will not bring peace but strife as Christians are persecuted by those established in power and that they will be turned in by family, friends, and neighbors. If you refer back to verses 17-25 this is absolutely clear. Yes evil people can lead the foolish astray, but anyone who actually bothers to read the Bible and take the verses in context will not fall for their wicked words.

Nov 19, 2009 - 2:23 pm 76. Mr. Independant:

Real Deal,

Actually I don’t take the verse out of context. Mathew 10:32-33 reads ‘Every one therefore who shall confess Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.’ Verses 17-25 state just what you stated in your previous post. But 32- 35 do not.

The one thing that you did get right, is that yes any faith can be taken out of context and twisted to justify evil. The Bible like the Koran is metaphorical. And if both are used in their proper contexts they can be instruments of peace.

Nov 19, 2009 - 5:08 pm 77. Thiagan:

Mr.Independant (70)

Do you find any Christians going aroung killing other religionists quoting from OT? It means the violent verses are largely ignored, not taken literally and seriously.

Crusades were fought to reconquer the lands taken by the muslims; they were not offensive wars.

Regarding my earlier comment, any display of civility to confront barbarism is plain idiocy. How do you think Hindu India is managing 200 million strong muslim fanatics in our midst. Only Buddhists have learnt the history lessons correctly; Buddhist Burma has driven out the entire muslim population into Bangladesh and Buddhist China has let lose a chain of repressive mneasures against the muslims in Uyighur.

Nov 19, 2009 - 7:28 pm 78. Mr. Indpendant:

Thiagan,

Your comments in the article below were not about a lack of civility. You were promoting the murder of innocent people.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/islamist-perfidy-and-western-naivety-which-is-more-lethal/
That being said, you have no credibility advocating against terrorism since you condone it.

Nov 19, 2009 - 8:49 pm 79. leigh:

The truth of islam v Christianity is best left to comparing the actions and teachings of their respective prophets Mohammad and Jesus. As Jesus said by your fruits you will be known or judged. Ishaq’s original biography of Mohammad sure judges Mohammad and Allah (the mouthpiece of Hubal the chief idol in the kaba in Mecca when Mohammad was a standard pagan lad like his grandfather).

Nov 19, 2009 - 11:34 pm 80. Thiagan:

Promoting murder of innocent civilians. It starts here:

3:151
We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.
8:60
And prepare against them what force you can and horses tied at the frontier, to terrorize thereby the enemy of Allah…
8:12
I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
2:191, And slay them wherever ye catch them
2:193, And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression

I do not condone terrorism; riots are not terror attacks. They are spontaneous acts of constructive response to Islamic terror attacks and they are justifiable measures to ensure against recurrance and for self preservation. Since the folowers do not treat others with fairness and equity, they should not expect others to treatt them in a differently.

Nov 20, 2009 - 12:23 am 81. Mr. Independant:

leigh,

It’s inappropriate to compare Jesus to Muhammad. Muhammad was an imperfect man with an imperfect understanding of God. Jesus is God, perfect and without sin. A more appropriate comparison would be to compare Muhammad and Abraham. Try reading the book of Genesis, you’ll find many similarities. BTW, Allah is the arabic word for God, not the name of any particular religion’s God. An arabic speaking Christian would refer to Jesus Christ as Allah.

Nov 20, 2009 - 5:54 am 82. Mr. Independant:

Thiagan,

No don’t try and change the subject. The topic of my last post was your promoting murdering innocent civilians. You weren’t talking about killing terrorists. You stated in the article I linked above “Once in five years there should be riots in which thousands of muslims will be killed.” You can try all you want but you can’t change what you wrote. Murdering innocent civilians for political purposes is terrorism. You condone and encourage it. Which is why are in no position to pass moral judgment on anything.

Nov 20, 2009 - 6:03 am 83. Pragmatist:

Don’t continue to be a DELIBERATELY deceitful Mohammedan Mr misspelled Independent SELECTIVELY MISQUOTING me. What I wrote in FULL is “when Mohammad was strong not Allah who is JUST Mohammad’s SOCK PUPPET” he is an INVENTION allah does not exist except in the rambling BS that Mohammad convinced fools such as you is a Holy Book the Koran. You are so transparent you Mohammedan Taqiyya artist.

Nov 20, 2009 - 8:14 am 84. Pragmatist:

Yet again PJM exposes its Islamophile BIAS letting the Mohammedan Mr misspelled Independant quote at will but CENSORING posts that I have put up countering his BS and showing his DECEPTION and LIES.

Nov 20, 2009 - 8:19 am 85. Jamil Hanna:

To Mr Independant

I agree with most of what you have written and I would like to add that the historical mistake of the scholars in the US is that they underestimate the dangers and threats of the Salafi Wahabi confession ,because they went into alliance with the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia which funds the schools where the Taliban graduate as well as the Qaedas and they send troops to fight the “terrorists” while they supervise the funding of schools that the terrorists graduate from.
Scholars as Mr Ibrahim forget that some Christians committed genoside and no one generalised this hold all the Christians responsible for these genosides the holocaust committed against the jews in Europe and throwing nuclear bombs on Heroshima and Nagazaki,in addition to the apartheid in Africa and the genoside of the native Americans.
I support you on calling to fight terrorism and not to cause more rifts between confessions and religions.

Nov 20, 2009 - 10:08 am 86. Mr. Independant:

To Jamil Hanna,

Well said and thank you for your post.

Nov 20, 2009 - 10:42 am 87. hila:

Claiming “Islam” means “peace” is fraudulent to begin with. Islam is an Arabic word. And the word for peace in Arabic is “solh,” and not Islam. Islam is derived from the root word “taslim,” which means submission or surrender. Hence, Islam’s true name, surrender, is in fact most descriptive of what it is: total, unconditional submission and surrender of the individual and the community to the will and dictates of Allah as revealed by his “rasool,” messenger, Muhammad.

http://www.FaithFreeDom.org
http://www.TheThirdJihad.com
http://www.TheReligionOfPeace.com

Nov 20, 2009 - 12:12 pm 88. Kinvara:

#51 TomDeGisi asked about the Doctrine of Abrogation in the Koran and if this Doctrine is stated in the Koran. Yes, it is, in four verses:-

Koran 2:106
“When we cancel a message, or throw it into oblivion, we replace it with one better or one similar. Do you not know that God has power over all things?

Koran 16:101
“When we replace a message with another, and God knows best what he reveals, they say: You have made it up. Yet, most of them do not know.”

Koran 13:39
“God abrogates or confirms whatsoever he will, for he has with him the Book of the Books.”

Koran 17:86
“If we pleased, we could take away what we have revealed to you. Then you will not find anyone to plead for it with us.”

The following article discusses the importance of understanding Abrogation, particularly in relation to Jihad:-

http://www.meforum.org/article/1754

Of Koran 9:5 (the Ayt al-Sayf, Sword Verse):

“…the verse (9:5) does not leave any room in the mind to conjecture about what is called defensive war. This verse asserts that holy war, WHICH IS DEMANDED IN ISLAMIC LAW, is not a defensive war because it could legitimately be an offensive war. That is the apex and most honorable of all holy wars. Its goal is the exaltation of the word of God, the construction of Islamic society, and the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth REGARDLESS OF THE MEANS. IT IS LEGAL TO CARRY ON AN OFFENSIVE HOLY WAR.” (capitalization mine, for emphasis)

Nov 20, 2009 - 1:04 pm 89. Kinvara:

The Book of Jihad, p 580, Maktba Dar-us-Salam, publication of Sahih Al-Bukhari (Bukhari’s aHadith are regarded, with the Koran and the Sira, as part of Islam’s core texts):

“Jihad is holy fighting in Allah’s Cause and with full force of weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its Pillars. By Jihad, Islam is established, Allah is made superior and He becomes the only God who may be worshipped. By Jihad Islam is propagated and made superior. By abandoning Jihad (may Allah protect us from that), Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position. Their honor is lost, their lands are stolen and Muslim rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape this duty dies as a hypocrite.”

“Allah’s Cause” is an expression which appears hundreds of times in the aHadith of Bukhari and of Muslim (Muslim has an entire Book of Jihad) and this expression always refers to Jihad which may refer to actual fighting and warfare (the most exalted form of Jihad in Islam) or by “pen, wealth or mouth” but the goal, domination over all peoples, is the same, whatever the means employed.

Koran 3:85
“You, the true believers (Muslims) are the noblest community ever raised up for mankind.”

Bukhari Vol 6, Bk 60, No 80:
Narrated Abu Huraira, ‘The verse, “You (the true Muslims) are the best of people ever raised up for mankind” means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks, till they embrace Islam’.

Nov 20, 2009 - 1:47 pm 90. Thiagan:

Mr.Independent(82)

I am not changing; yes, I wrote that. You are naive not to appreciate the difference between terror attacks and riots. You also dodge the issue that muslims are not eligible for decent treatment by the others; as they do not reciprocate.

Nov 20, 2009 - 7:27 pm 91. Thiagan:

Two more quotes that Islam is barbarism:

“The conversion of the entire population to Islam and the extinction of every form of dissent is the ideal of the Muslim State. If any infidel is suffered to exist in the community, it is as a necessary evil, and for a transitional period only.…A non-Muslim therefore cannot be a citizen of the State; he is a member of a depressed class; his status is a modified form of slavery. He lives under a contract (dhimma) with the State.…In short, his continued existence in the State after the conquest of his country by the Muslims is conditional upon his person and property made subservient to the cause of Islam.” (Sir.Jhadunath Sarkar, the pre eminent historian of the Mughal Period.

“Those who recommend integration must be considered pea-brained even if they are scholars and scientists. Just try mixing oil and vinegar. Then shake the bottle. After a moment the two substances will separate again. Do you really believe French society could absorb ten million Muslims, who would be twenty million tomorrow and forty million the day after? In fact, my own village would no longer be Colombey-les-deux-Églises but would rather come to be known as Colombey-les-deux-mosques.” Charles De Gaulle

Nov 20, 2009 - 7:31 pm 92. iasius:

Mr.Independent,

Your assumption that only dictatorships like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan fund mosques and madrassas, needs urgent review. Even the government elected by a non-Muslim majority in the largest ‘SECULAR’ democracy in the world, India (with a 13.5% Muslim population), is seeking to ‘promote’ Islam and Muslims, to the detriment of all others, through a grossly unjust series of social, economic and political sops BASED ON RELIGION ALONE! A special Commission was set up in 2005 to ‘study’ the ‘deplorable’ condition of Muslims in that country (The Sachar Commission). Their Prime Minister brazenly declared that Muslims have the ‘first right on the resources of that country’, no doubt on instructions from Italian Catholic, Sonia Maino (who is, most curiously, its de facto ruler with a personal political agenda)!!! Everyone knows, of course, that none has any love lost for so cantankerous and hostile a community as the Muslims, but their rapidly growing numbers (they DO breed like rabbits!) figure in political calculations for short term electoral gains. The non-Muslim polity in India, like elsewhere, are Islam’s Useful Idiots…THAT is where the problem lies, I think.

Nov 20, 2009 - 11:29 pm 93. iasius:

Thiagan & Mr.Independent,

Innocent Civilians? What about the genocides in the Canaan described almost gleefully in the Old Testament? Weren’t “all that breathed” in the Promised Land also ‘innocent civilians’? The Jews simply killed ALL who weren’t Jews; the Christians converted them so as to commercialize human and geo-political resources; the Muslims do both. Muhammad sure knew his Bible well! It almost seems his role models were Moses, Joshua and Paul. It is little wonder all the three religions share and lionize an identical succession of ‘Prophets’.

There wasn’t and isn’t any way for a gentile to become a Jew (a Jew has to be born a Jew). The Christian may return to paganism by free choice even in our time. But no kafir can hope to survive as such under Allah’s law, nor may a Muslim ever hope to continue living as an apostate – the death penalty is prescribed for both. Which is why, when Muhammad plugged these theological loopholes, he earned from Allah accolades for Islam as the “perfect religion”…

Let’s face it. Religion – at least the Abrahamic variety – is all about geo-politics in the ultimate analysis.

Nov 21, 2009 - 12:56 am 94. Mr. Independant:

Thiagan,

Actually no I’m not. Murdering innocent civilians (regardless of how you do it) is terrorism. You weren’t suggesting holding demonstrations to speak out against terrorism. You were advocating stating riots for the sole purpose of murdering innocent civilians. Once again that’s terrorism. And I didn’t dodge any issue. You cannot lay the blame of a tiny minority on 1.5 Billion people. 99% of which are peaceful people. Finally I’ll reiterate that you’re in no position to pass moral judgment on anything, since you advocate committing murder and terrorism.

Nov 21, 2009 - 5:41 am 95. Sarah:

“99% of all Muslims are peaceful people”

True. Only a small fraction of Germans were Nazis. Only a small fraction of Muslims conquered lands from Spain to India.

Nov 21, 2009 - 8:52 am 96. Sami:

hello all. I am Muslim, yet I love peace, just like my parents and leaders at my mosque. i am moderatly involved at my mosque, and know many people who share my beliefs. however, we all preach peace, and believe that all people of the book (muslims, chritians and jews) will be rewarded with eternal life.

at least i’m glad that, juts like radical islamic extreamists, radical americans like you guys are a small minority, and that most sensible americans are open to freedom and peace for all, no matter what religion.
thank you.

Nov 21, 2009 - 10:56 am 97. Sarah:

Sami, do you reject jihad? Do you reject what your Prophet envisioned that Constantinople will be submitted to Islam first and Rome next? How about non-Christians and non-Jews? How about those people who are not in the Book? Do you believe that they should also be treated like Christians and Jews. The book proposes something else. I am right? I apologize for politically incorrect questions. When I wrote that not all German were the Nazis and not all Japanese were kamikaze, I still couldn’t preclude that their aggressive behavior was fueled by their ideology.

Nov 21, 2009 - 2:47 pm 98. Anonymous:

Sarah,

You’re comparing apples and oranges. The Nazi party was a political movement. The “Muslims (who) conquered lands from Spain to India” belonged you various different ethnicities and countries.

You asked Sami if he/she rejects Jihad. A better question to ask would have been: do you reject terrorism? You can go back through almost every religion’s history and find various periods when their leaders advocated violence. The problem isn’t the faith but what happens when angry bigoted men twist that faith for evil. The Nazi’s (who were mostly Christian BTW) were motivated by ideology but not religion. For different reasons the same was true for the Imperial Japanese.

Finally, just a little history lesson. Prior to 1453, Constantinople was conquered only once. By the ‘Christian’ 4th Crusade.

Nov 21, 2009 - 4:13 pm 99. Mr. Independant:

Sarah,

You’re comparing apples and oranges. The Nazi party was a political movement. The “Muslims (who) conquered lands from Spain to India” belonged you various different ethnicities and countries.

You asked Sami if he/she rejects Jihad. A better question to ask would have been: do you reject terrorism? You can go back through almost every religion’s history and find various periods when their leaders advocated violence. The problem isn’t the faith but what happens when angry bigoted men twist that faith for evil. The Nazi’s (who were mostly Christian BTW) were motivated by ideology but not religion. For different reasons the same was true for the Imperial Japanese.

Finally, just a little history lesson. Prior to 1453, Constantinople was conquered only once. By the ‘Christian’ 4th Crusade.

Nov 21, 2009 - 4:14 pm 100. Mr. Independant:

Sami,
Don’t make the same mistake that others are making with your faith. Just because some (or even a majority) of posters on this site blame those of your faith for all terrorism, which isn’t true. You shouldn’t blame all posters on this site for the same ignorance. There are conservatives and independents who don’t.

Nov 21, 2009 - 4:18 pm 101. Ralph DeVane:

Mr. Ibrahim illustrates the simple phrase “words mean things”. Muslim jihadists know the Koran very well and to them, they are following its dictates by killing non muslims, or infidels. It used to be that non muslims were given three choices: 1. Convert to Islam, 2. Pay a tax for living in a Muslim controlled country, 3. Kill the infidel if he refuses the first two. Now, we are just given two choices.
Just be grateful not all Muslims practice their religion by the strict dictates. Fort Hood would look like child’s play.

Nov 21, 2009 - 6:27 pm 102. Sarah:

“You’re comparing apples and oranges. The Nazi party was a political movement. The “Muslims (who) conquered lands from Spain to India” belonged you various different ethnicities and countries.”

I dare to assume that they did it under the banner of Islam. I also dare to assume that they were driven by the idea of jihad (not as a personal struggle as we are often told but but an outright war on the battelfield and beyond).

Yes, the Crusaders did once did much destruction to Constantinople (serious historians call crusades the last wave of barbarian invasions of the Roman Empire. Read a little about persistent 600-year war waged on Byzantium by the Muslims. Step-by-step. Do you think this war has stopped? Read about Sudan, Nigeria, Erithrea, Kashmir, East Timor, South Philippines. Different ethnic groups and even races, but the step-by-step process is the same.

Nov 21, 2009 - 6:58 pm 103. Mr. Independant:

iasius,

I didn’t write “only dictatorships like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan fund mosques and madrassas”. Quote me correctly. Now the rest of your post #92 sounds a little farfetched. Can you source it?

On post #93 the innocent civilians that I was writing about is in reference to the people that Thiagan advocated murdering. It wasn’t a general statement. I think your also wrong about the Abrahamic religions; there not all about geo-politics but have been manipulated by them.

Nov 21, 2009 - 7:02 pm 104. Sarah:

I may add that Crusades were botched defensive wars. Simply, there is nothing in Christianity recommending submission of infidels through violence.

Nov 21, 2009 - 7:23 pm 105. Mr. Independant:

Sarah,

You appear to assume too much. When ‘Christians’ conduct Crusades you make excuses. When ‘Muslims’ conduct Jihads you find fault with Islam. Do you think perhaps the problem is not with religion but with angry bigoted men who twist religion for evil? BTW the city of “Byzantium” was never attacked by Muslims; the Roman Empire was. If you deem yourself a serious student of Roman history you should know that there was no such thing as the Byzantine Empire. You also wrote “Different ethnic groups and even races, but the step-by-step process is the same”. That’s true for almost all religions, including Christianity. Again the problem is not religion. On your comment in post #104 seems to be disproven by the men of Inquisition, Reformation, and the Europeans with their relationship with the Native Americans. Finally, the problem with terrorism is NOT religion but with terrorists.

Nov 21, 2009 - 7:52 pm 106. Sarah:

I simply state the facts, which don’t fit your line (I know that facts are politically incorrect and therefore use a phrase “dare to assume”.)

The facts are:

1. Beginning with Mohamed, Muslims waged jihad to “submit” infidels and he recommended it to posterity. Conquered infidels were not considered “equals” under the islamic law (there is no golden rule in Islam; Muslims must love each other but be ruthless to infidels: this is in Koran).

2. Different religion used violence, but only Islam systematically spread through conquest and violence. Jihad is a core part of the Islamic doctrine. There is nothing similar in Christianity.

3. Byzantine Empire or Eastern Roman Empire did exist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire

It was chopped piece-by-piece over 600 year. The process of chopping infidel lands continues.

Nov 21, 2009 - 8:50 pm 107. Sarah:

There is also one point about Islam which you don’t understand. Islam is not just another religion. There is no separation of sacred from profane (religious from secular), as it is in Christianity. Islam is a political and religious movement in one.

Nov 21, 2009 - 9:25 pm 108. iasius:

Mr. Independent,

Re:#92. I am sorry, but you said so in Post # 22. BTW, since you seem keen on hair-splitting, Iran and Pakistan are not dictatorships – they are democracies.

Here are the sources for what I stated. http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=77972 (first claim)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India (muslim population)
http://minorityaffairs.gov.in/newsite/sachar/sachar.asp (sachar committee)

Nov 21, 2009 - 11:05 pm 109. iasius:

Mr.Independent,

First, welcome to the Useful Idiots’ Club.

Second, you state in # 105 that “the problem is not with religion but with angry bigoted men who twist religion for evil” (trust I am not misquoting you!). Speaks volumes for the intrinsically pitiable quality of religions, so fragile in their content that they can be twisted out of recognition with impunity by so many of your evil and bigoted men, and for so long, doesn’t it? Content and context that lends itself so conveniently to willful re-shaping just cannot figure in rational discourse, and need to be shunned out of hand. No, Mr.Independent, the problem indeed lies with religion and not with an odd bigot.

Nov 21, 2009 - 11:24 pm 110. Mr. Independant:

Sarah,

Actually no, you’re stating opinions.

First, your reference to Muhammad is taken out of context. Virtually all of the political leaders of the time waged war with each other. Take for example the Roman Emperor Heraclius. Peoples that he had conquered were not treated equally under imperial law.

Second Christianity most certainly was spread through conquest and violence. Ask yourself; what happened to all of the Native Americans when the English, French, Portuguese, and Spanish arrived in ‘New World’. And I’m not referring to new diseases but war.

Third, if you’re using the Wikipedia as your sole source for information you really need to get a better education. There was no such thing as the Byzantine Empire. When the Roman Empire slit into two entities the citizens of the Eastern Roman Empire did not start calling themselves ‘Byzantine’ citizens. The term Byzantine Empire was invented centuries after the fall of Constantinople (which you referred to as Byzantium). Do you know who that historian was? I’ll give you a hint. His name is misspelled in the Wikipedia, so try and find out somewhere else.

Finally, your last point is also false. While I am Buddhist, I think I have pretty sound understanding of Islam. In my opinion, all of the Abrahamic faiths combine the “sacred from profane”. Perhaps if you read the Bible you would be aware of certain prophets from the Old Testament that were kings.

Nov 22, 2009 - 5:50 am 111. Sarah:

>First, your reference to Muhammad is taken out of >context. Virtually all of the political leaders >of the time waged war with each other.

You simply confirm what I said: Islam never separated religion from politics and political system. Even more, Islam imposes detailed legal system. In Christianity secular and religious powers could cooperate or be at odds. In Islam secular and religious powers are ONE. You may deny facts at nauseam, but facts are just that!!!

>Second Christianity most certainly was spread >through conquest and violence.

Here you immediately jump to being at odds with facts: you mix secular powers who waged wars and were often at odds with religious powers. If you checked facts: Cortez didn’t care about spreading religion although he was outraged when he saw human sacrifice. He made the entire population of Indians hostile towards Christianity. Conversions happened later after apparitions of the Mexican icon: Lady of Guadelupe. Conversion to Christianity didn’t give Indians any change of status (as it was in the case of Islam). If you read history, you can find that Franciscan friars had big issues with Spanish soldiers raping women and their secular officers exploiting the local population. This was in direct conflict with their mission of spreading Christianity. Nevertheless, you are putting it under the banner of Christianity.

About Byzantine Empire: I cannot send you any history books. You can google over million of entries on the internet, including maps of the Byzantine Empire, and how it shrank after subsequent Muslim invasions. THESE ARE FACTS!

Nov 22, 2009 - 8:00 am 112. Sarah:

“the problem is not with religion but with angry bigoted men who twist religion for evil”

Those who are on suicidal mission, firmly believe that when they detonate that car bomb, they go straight to heaven. Literally!.
The same promise carried them to battles against infidels. Who are you Mr. Independent to claim that Muslims who bet their lives don’t understand their religion? Would you bet your life if you didn’t believe it and triple checked all the facts?

Nov 22, 2009 - 8:13 am 113. Sami:

I do in fact reject terrorism as a disgusting stain on my religion. I agree with sarah, and I thank you for standing up for your opinions. I suppose I could address all of the various posts that responded to my original one, but I’ll just say this: I am very glad that in America, people can speak their voice without fear, and others can contest what they say without fear as well. This is a luxury that many dominantly Muslim countries do not provide. God/Allah/Whoever Bless America! (it’s all the same God up there if you ask me).

Nov 22, 2009 - 9:30 am 114. sami:

correction, not sarah, mr. indepedent!

Nov 22, 2009 - 11:35 am 115. Mr. Independant:

iasius,

You’re post #108 is dishonest. You wrote in post #92 “Your assumption that only dictatorships like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan fund mosques and madrassas”. That was false, I didn’t write that. Furthermore you stated in post #108 “Re: #92. I am sorry, but you said so in Post # 22”. Actually what I wrote in post #22 was “The foreign countries that are funding radical imams in mosques around the world, who are they? There countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan”; which wasn’t what you stated I wrote. In my statement no where do I write the word “only” and in the second sentence you’ll notice the word “like”

Also I’m not splitting anything. Iran is in fact a theocracy and Pakistan for the majority of its existence has been ruled by a military junta. During Pakistan’s last “democratic” election, the candidate who was expected to become Prime Minister was assassinated. Furthermore you might want to reread that article concerning Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s comments again. In the article that you referenced, the PM states “We will have to devise innovative plans to ensure that minorities, particularly the Muslim minority, are empowered to share equitably the fruits of development. These must have the first claim on resources”. He stated specifically that he was talking about all minorities in India. I think you fail to understand the current state of Indian politics. India is officially a socialist country. Despite the economic reforms they are making, the redistribution of resources is a primary focus of the government of India.

On you comments concerning religion, I disagree. Religion doesn’t conveniently lend itself to be twisted out of recognition. But it has been my men more often than not who were very intelligent. Think about some of the most hated men of the last century. How many of them were evil and brilliant? And religion should not be shunned. Look at all the good that has been done in the name of religion. Helping the destitute, preserving learning, and helping to end the reign of the Soviet Union.

Finally, your last comment was very childish. Do you think that comments like that serve any purpose? No they don’t. Instead of childish remarks when your opinions are disproven (particularly when you’re caught lying) perhaps you should try research to better educate yourself.

Nov 22, 2009 - 2:32 pm 116. iasius:

Mr. Independent

# 115 is sufficient evidence that you are naturally given to splitting hairs, as I said earlier, without realizing you are doing so. If you want to see white where there is black, so be it!

Nov 23, 2009 - 12:58 am 117. Mr. Independant:

iasius,

Actually, your post #116 shows that you’re naturally given to dishonesty. If you feel that I’m splitting hairs on a particular topic, why didn’t you point it out specifically in your last post? Was it because my posts don’t support what you’re suggesting? I think so. BTW, you didn’t comment on my last post. I’m interested to know what your response is to being caught lying.

Nov 23, 2009 - 10:55 am 118. Sarah:

I believe that dishonesty is avoiding the truth. For example, that the Byzantine Empire was the historical entity and that it was destroyed by relentless attacks of Muslims driven by their religious call to jihad. This call was never revoked and we see its effects today. You are trying to deny that. I can assure you that dishonest apologists are as dangerous as determined terrorists are.

Nov 23, 2009 - 1:30 pm 119. Mr. Independant:

Sarah,

In response to your post #111, you either don’t fully understand the English language or you’re just making up comments. What I mean by that specifically, is that you have indicated that you believe that Christianity was not spread through violence. When I pointed out that the Crusades, Inquisitions, Reformations, and the experience of Native Americans disprove that, you stated “You simply confirm what I said: Islam never separated religion from politics and political system. Even more, Islam imposes detailed legal system. In Christianity secular and religious powers could cooperate or be at odds. In Islam secular and religious powers are ONE. You may deny facts at nauseam, but facts are just that!!!” That statement doesn’t make sense. If those actions disprove your theory, how can you say that they confirm your statements? They don’t.

On Cortez what proof do you have that what you stated is in fact correct. Name your sources. The Wikipedia is NOT a credible source. You neglected to address the actions of the English, French, and Portuguese. You also didn’t address the Inquisitions or the Reformation. Was that an oversight? Those topics all disprove your theory that Christianity was not spread through violence and conquest. They also support my position that almost all faiths have been spread through violence and conquest. Which taken with other facts indicates that my overall position, that the problem isn’t religion but terrorism is also correct.

In response to your post #112, I could point out that the leader of most Christians (the Pope) ordered most of the Crusades and promised that soldiers who went to fight in the Levant and died would be forgiven all sins and guaranteed entrance into Heaven. The langue is almost identical to was imams tell jihadists. In more recent history, members of the christian-terrorist organization the KKK have publically encouraged their members to blow up the churches of black Americans. Again their language is almost identical to that of Al-Qaeda. Are you seeing the pattern yet? Those last few points were not made as a form of moral equivocation but to demonstrate that almost any faith can be twisted by evil men to justify terrorism. BTW who are you to make judgments about a faith you don’t understand. I’ve noticed you’ve never stated that you have read the Koran, have you? If you haven’t, how can you possibly have an informed opinion on what the faith is about?

Finally, dishonesty is the act of being deliberately deception (i.e. lying). For example insisting that there was an historical entity know as the “Byzantine Empire” isn’t lying per se, its ignorance. There was no such entity. The emperors, their soldiers, their bureaucrats, and their citizens all called themselves, Romani, and later Rhōmaîos. Historians centuries later began to refer to the Eastern Roman Empire by the term “Byzantine Empire”. I not denying anything; I’m simply pointing out that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Nov 23, 2009 - 3:28 pm 120. Sarah:

Again, you admitted that Mohamed was a political leader (he waged wars, presided over public executions, imposed legal system etc). He was also a religious leader. Nothing changed since his times – he is a model to follow: the political and legal power in Islam is still in the hands of of religious leaders: ayatollahs, kings, kernels. Do you deny that these guys are both religious and political leaders?. Once you unite politics and religion, the outcome may be ugly. Spanish Inquisition is an example: the church was involved in identification of false converts to Christianity, who during the Reconquista were dangerous for homeland security because their loyalties were split. The Spanish Inquisition was formed upon request of the king who had problem of the fifth column on liberated (re-conquered) territories.

You deny that Cortez WAS NOT a religious leader (actually he was an imposter, sentenced in Spain for statutory rape and illegally exploring the Aztec territories).

Crusades were defensive wars, a response to Islamic invasions. Reconquista was a crusade and a model for other crusades. Yes, crusades were disorganized and bloody. After all, the participants were recently converted barbarians and their officers didn’t care much about Christianity when plundering churches in Constantinople. The pope cried for a week when he learned about that.

>soldiers who went to fight in the Levant and died would be forgiven all >sins and guaranteed entrance into Heaven. The langue is almost identical > to was imams tell jihadists.

I can agree with that but the mission was not offensive but defensive. It was not to conquer the infidels but to liberate Jerusalem. These were the times when Ottomans destroyed churches in Jerusalem to build mosques and even destroyed the tomb of Christ (very little is left of it). The crusades were called in other defensive battles (Lepanto, Varna, Vienna). No crusades were called agains Indians and other “infidels”. Obviously, the Christian doctrine is not equipped to organize violence and it backfired in some instances as you noted. Nevertheless crusades were effective in Reconquista, battle of Lepanto or even rescue of Vienna in 1683. All of them were response to prior agression.

About the Byzantine Empire: I love that you are trying to overrule historians. This is an example of you myopic approach to history. Nobody denies that they started as a Roman Empire, but became something else: the Byzantine Empire. Iasius summarized it well: you split hairs and see black as white to drive pre-conceived conclusion. This is typical for left-leaning apologists who can always put relativistic spin on everything.

Nov 23, 2009 - 6:04 pm 121. Mr. Independant:

Sarah

No, I’m simply pointing out that you don’t know what you’re writing about. I asked in my last post two very simple and important questions. Have you ever read the Koran and what are the sources for your statements? Is there any particular reason you didn’t answer my questions? I suspect it’s because you haven’t read the Koran and your only source of information is the Wikipedia. Here’s another question for you; at what point and who specifically decided within the Empire to stop calling themselves Roman citizens and to start calling themselves ‘Byzantine’ Citizens. Your final comment is very typical of posters on this site. It’s been my experience that when someone like you has their opinions are disproven, they make childish comments. You’ll note that at no time have I ever made any excuses for anything. And unlike others I don’t believe in something just because I read it in the Wikipedia.

Now quit playing dodge ball and answer the following questions:
1) What are the sources for your beliefs?
2) Have you ever read the Koran?
3) When and who specifically decided within the Empire to stop calling themselves Roman citizens and to start calling themselves ‘Byzantine’ Citizens?

If you’re not going to answer these questions don’t bother commenting back.

Nov 23, 2009 - 7:19 pm 122. Sarah:

1) What are the sources for your beliefs?

Which ones?

2) Have you ever read the Koran?

Yes

3) When and who specifically decided within the Empire to stop calling themselves Roman citizens and to start calling themselves ‘Byzantine’ Citizens?

Typical change of subject. What does it prove in this discussion? That Muslims didn’t attack this Empire for 600 years? That was my only statement which you tried to side-track.

Nov 23, 2009 - 7:56 pm 123. Marcus:

To end this long, never ending debate; Jesus wins, Muhammad loses. “Hear, O Israel: The lord our God, the lord is one.”

Nov 23, 2009 - 8:04 pm 124. Mr. Independant:

The debate was never over Jesus or Muhammad. The actually winner are those who are informed, the real loser is ignorance. BTW the Lord is one; the God of Abraham, of Isreal, and of Christians is also the same God worshiped by Muslims.

Nov 23, 2009 - 8:42 pm 125. Mr. Independant:

Sarah,
I see you didn’t answer my questions. Did you not understand my instructions? Let’s try this again.

1)Just to name a few of the absurdities that you’ve written: Where specifically have you read that Cortez (he was far from the only Spaniard to lead a conquest in the Americas) did not attempt to forcibly convert the Native Americans. That the Inquisition was not religiously motivated (that means not ordered by the Catholic Church), and that Christian doctrine is not equipped to organize violence (you might want to try reading the Bible).
2)If you have read the Koran why have you never supplied quotes from it to support you positions on Islam?
3)When and who specifically decided within the Empire to stop calling themselves Roman citizens and to start calling themselves ‘Byzantine’ Citizens’? This question is NOT an attempt to change the subject but is being asked because you mentioned it and to demonstrate that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

And I didn’t side track anything. You on the other hand have. This time try and follow these simple instructions: Answer the questions above.

Nov 23, 2009 - 8:58 pm 126. Sarah:

About Cortez: you don’t understand anything about Christianity and, in particular, about Catholic Church. Conversion in the Catholic Church requires something else than shahada. It requires baptism and religious instructions administered by Catholic clergy. There were no priests with original Cortez expedition. Yes, he had a mistress (which goes against Catholic teaching). What are you talking about? Your question sounds like this: where have you read that Moon is not made of Swiss cheese. Show me the sources.

2. The Inquisition was ordered by the King of Spain (the pope delayed for 3 years). The Spanish Inquisition had no jurisdiction over non-Catholics. It investigated recent converts, some of which pretended to be Catholics, and who cooperated with the Muslim invaders. For beginners read this:
Henry Charles Lea, A History of the Inquisition of Spain (4 volumes), (New York and London, 1906–1907).
Henry Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision. (Yale University Press, 1997).

About Koran: which position you want me to support?. The most important commandment in Christianity is to love God and neighbors (no matter what their convictions are). Koran summarizes it differently (sura 48:29): Muslims must be merciful to each other and ruthless to “truth deniers” (non-Muslims).

I stated that the the Byzantine Empire was relentlessly attacked for 600 years by jihadis. Until it was “submitted”. Whether the Byzantines called themselves as such or not, has no relevance here. I also stated that Crusades were response to aggression. Until today Vatican maintains the doctrine of “just war”. If you think that aggression and defense have the same moral weight, you are mistaken.

Nov 23, 2009 - 11:29 pm 127. Kinvara:

While I respect the efforts of various commenters to respond to the remarks of the commenter “Mr Indepenant” (sic), that commenter is a troll and its purpose is simply to deflect attention from the subject of this thread. I would suggest that the troll be ignored in future. I read many sites, and comment on a few, and such trolls follow the same approach and their goal is always to remove readers’ attention from Islam, its doctrines, its history and, especially, Mahomed.

It is essential that Islamic doctrines are clearly understood, the point of Mr Ibrahim’s article, and that is why in my comments #s 88 and 89, I posted a link to an article on the Doctrine of Abrogation which also explains Jihad in Islam as both defensive and offensive warfare to bring the world under submission to Islam.

Nov 24, 2009 - 1:14 am 128. Mr. Independant:

Kinvara,

You’re not paying attention to what has been written. It was the poster ‘Sarah’ who changed the subject of the discussion. I only answered her comments because they demonstrate that she doesn’t know what she’s writing about. And if you read my comments you’ll notice a specific them, I blame terrorists for terrorism. You and others attempted to scapegoat an entire group of people for the actions of a tiny few. BTW the links you provide are the same ones that others on this site frequently use. Why not cite specific suwar from the Koran to back up your opinions. Could the reason be that you don’t know what you’re writing about?

Nov 24, 2009 - 8:46 am 129. Mr. Independant:

Sarah,

Actually, I do. I see you’re still dodging my questions. My question was: “Where specifically have you read that Cortez did not attempt to forcibly convert the Native Americans?” Your response was “There were no priests with original Cortez expedition.” Never mind that doesn’t answer my question, under your belief system, when Arab or Persian armies attacked any of the European countries and didn’t have priests with them, they weren’t engaged in Jihad. That’s really silly. I asked for specific sources to back up your opinions (which means the name of a manuscript with a quote and page number) and you responded with your quote above. I guess you really don’t know what you’re talking about.

Your response to the Inquisition was again to avoid citing any quotes. That’s great that you were able to find the names of some manuscripts but I want to see specific quotes and page numbers.

Your response to my questions about the Koran is very telling. Your response is NOT what is written in the Koran. Your response is identical, to what I’ve read other posters have written. Are you just cutting and pasting someone else’s quotes? BTW the most important commandment of the Bible is also the first which is why it should be so obvious: NAS Bible – Exodus 20:2-3 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other Gods before me”. I guess YOU don’t understand anything about any of the Abrahamic faiths.

On your comments concerning the Roman Empire I never disputed any of the defensive or offensive wars that they fought throughout its history. And I’ve never wrote any position one way or the other on that topic. My point has always been you don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m sure the Wikipedia reads otherwise but there was no such thing as the ‘Byzantine Empire’. You stated in post #111 and #120 that historians and history books support your beliefs about the Empire because they are the “facts”. That’s not true. BTW what historians and history books?

When I quote the Torah, Bible, or Koran I state what version I use and the chapter and verse or the sura and ayah. When I quote a news report I provide a link to their website. And when I quote a manuscript, I provide the page number. You haven’t done any of these things.

Finally, you’ve been taking this discussion off topic. So let’s get back on track. The issue is whether or not religion is the root cause of terrorism. You appear to think so and specify that you believe that is the with Islam but not the other Abrahamic faiths. I disagree. I feel that the history of Judaism and Christianity are replete with violence. Not just in their holy books but in ancient and modern history. I don’t state that as a form of moral equivocation but to disprove your position. My point being that if the christian-terrorist organization the KKK was not created by Christianity; then why do you (seem) to believe that the islamic-terrorist organization Al-Qaeda was created by Islam? BTW, the majority of all terrorism that has been committed in the world over the past 30 years has been narco-terrorism.

Nov 24, 2009 - 8:50 am 130. Sarah:

My question was: “Where specifically have you read that Cortez did not attempt to forcibly convert the Native Americans?” I you are not trolling, you should know that one cannot prove negative. Simply it is not in the records.

>when Arab or Persian armies attacked any of the European >countries and didn’t have priests with them, they weren’t >engaged in Jihad.

Trolling again. Conversion to Islam means reciting shahada in the presence of witnesses (could be soldiers). Conversion to Christianity requires administering Sacraments (soldiers cannot do it).

>I guess YOU don’t understand anything about any of the >Abrahamic faiths.

I specifically spoke about Christianity. I cut and paste:

Matthew 22:36-40 (New International Version)

36″Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

>I feel that the history of Judaism and Christianity are > replete with violence.

Yes. Now show me those Christians and Jews who massively blow themselves up and believe they go to heaven (or virgins). Perhaps they don’t know Islam. Prove it (any quote from Koran would do). KKK were killing Catholic Christians. You are free to blame the Catholic religion. BTW. Assasins did not originate during the last 30 years.

Nov 24, 2009 - 10:51 am 131. Mr. Independant:

Sarah,

I see you’re still playing dodge ball. Now if you can’t prove a negative don’t your statements about Cortez cease to be “facts” and instead become your opinion, like I wrote? BTW it’s my understanding that the only requirement to convert to Christianity is that you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior? Granted I am a Buddhist but I’m certain I’ve read that somewhere.

In post #129 I wrote “BTW the most important commandment of the Bible is also the first which is why it should be so obvious: NAS Bible – Exodus 20:2-3 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other Gods before me”. Mathew 22:36-38 proves that. Don’t bother trying to misquote the Torah, Bible, or the Koran to me. As a student of theocracy I have a copy of each.

Also committing suicide bombing is not exclusive to any particular faith or ethnic group; unless you’re unaware of the Japanese suicide bombers (WWII). And your “prove it” comment doesn’t make sense. I’m flattered that instead of attempting to learn something new you’ve decided to mimic me but what exactly do you mean?

Additionally, the terrorist organization the KKK killed anyone who got in their way (not just Catholics like you suggested). BTW, I never stated that assassins originated in the past 30 years. What I wrote was “the majority of all terrorism that has been committed in the world over the past 30 years has been narco-terrorism”. If you try to misquote me I’ll call you out for the liar you are. And I’m not blaming any faith for terrorism. I’ve repeated that statement throughout these comments. Religions is NOT the problem, terrorism is.

Finally, my reading of history (not the Wikipedia) has shown me that throughout history, young men have been duped into believing the words of evil men to commit terrorism or other violence. The problem isn’t that the words that are being twisted are from a Holy Book but that evil men are twisting religion to justify evil.

Nov 24, 2009 - 12:20 pm 132. Sarah:

>Granted I am a Buddhist but I’m certain I’ve read that >somewhere.

This is why you feel authorizes to teach non-Buddhists about Christianity.

>Also committing suicide bombing is not exclusive to any particular faith or ethnic group; unless you’re unaware of the Japanese suicide bombers (WWII).

This is where we started this unfortunate discussion. Since you couldn’t find any Christian suicide bombers, you had to invoke Japanese fascism for comparison. This is how you deviate from the topic.

>Don’t bother trying to misquote the Torah, Bible, or the >Koran to me.

True, you will never admit that there is no equivalent to “love your neighbor” in Koran. This makes a world of difference how they relate to other human beings.

>Additionally, the terrorist organization the KKK killed >anyone who got in their way

I assure you that KKK were not pious Christians who believe that they go to heaven for that. Also they didn’t wage suicide missions.

>Religions is NOT the problem, terrorism is.

Is suicidal bombing motivated by religious convictions or not?

>The problem isn’t that the words that are being twisted >are from a Holy Book but that evil men are twisting >religion to justify evil.

Perhaps. Yet, I am not aware of a single Christian suicidal bomber but there are many, many, Muslim suicidal bombers. Moreover, nobody blows himself up, unless he strongly believes in eternal reward for that. And you are telling me that they all misunderstand their religion. You, as a self-proclaimed Buddhist, know better. Congratulations! However, I remain unconvinced.

Nov 24, 2009 - 1:34 pm 133. Mr. Independant:

Sarah,

Your problem is that you don’t seem able to admit when you’re wrong. For example: You didn’t address my comment about how your belief that you can’t prove a negative disproves your assertion that your beliefs about Cortez are not “facts” but only your opinion. You also didn’t address my comment on what is in fact the first commandment of the Bible; my quote showed what it is (Exodus 20:2-3), your quote (Mathew 22:36-38) not only disproves your position but supports mine. Additionally your don’t (seem) to understand my comment about suicide bombers. You have suggested that suicide bombers are proof of the inherent evil of Islam and asked me to point out if there was an equivalent in Christianity. In earlier posts I mentioned how ‘Christian’ soldiers of the Crusades often committed suicide in battle for the same reasons ‘Muslim’ jihadist commit suicide bombings. As additional evidence that your theory is false I pointed out the Japanese suicide bombers. The point is not to change the subject like you do, but to demonstrate that these other instances of suicide attackers are not confined to Muslims.

Now I never stated that there is an equivalent of ‘love your neighbor’ in the Koran. However there are many versus in the Old and New Testament that can be interpreted to negate that theme in the Bible. Specifically: “ Mathew 10:34-35 – Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth, I did not come to bring peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”

And I can assure you that 99.9% of Muslims don’t believe that members of Al-Qaeda are pious Muslims who will go to heaven. Otherwise why are 1.5 BILLION Muslims not attacking us? No, suicide missions are not motivated by religion but by evil men twisting the words of faith for evil. I again remind you of the Christian-terrorist the KKK.

While I’m not aware of ‘christian’ suicide bombers, I am aware that the christian-terrorist organization the KKK did commit tens of thousands of assaults, rapes, and murders. And those ”many” ‘muslim’ terrorists of Al-Qaeda and other groups, probably account for less than 1% of all the world’s Muslims. At the height of their power in the 1920’s the christian-terrorist organization the KKK counted about 15% of the US population as members.

Finally, I’m not saying terrorists misunderstand religion, I’m saying that they have been duped. Just like members of the KKK. Or do you think they had/have a correct understanding of Christianity?

Nov 24, 2009 - 3:29 pm 134. Sarah:

>For example: You didn’t address my comment about how >your belief that you can’t prove a negative disproves >your assertion that your beliefs about Cortez are not >“facts” but only your opinion.

The fact is that Cortez was not interested to convert anybody, and in the entire history of Christianity nobody gave people 3 choices: convert, pay taxes, or die! This is my opinion. Of course my opinion also is that Cortez never met people from Mars, but I cannot back it up with any records.

>You have suggested that suicide bombers are proof >of the inherent evil of Islam and asked me to point >out if there was an equivalent in Christianity.

You are putting in my mouth statements like “inherent evil”. I never use such words and I don’t think in these categories. I assume inherent goodness of human beings and wonder why so many Muslims show extreme aggression and self-destruction. You claim they all have been duped. There is nothing in Koran which tells them to fight infidels and nothing about paradise for dying on battlefield or ad an exploded martyr. Conquests from Spain to India were done by duped people who believed in jihad because of what? Because they were all duped? I find it hard to believe.

>In earlier posts I mentioned how ‘Christian’ soldiers of the >Crusades often committed suicide in battle for the same reasons >‘Muslim’ jihadist commit suicide bombings.

Where and when did I state that?. They did NOT!!!. They died in the battle (by and large against aggressors who destroyed their sacred places, conquered their lands, took their women to harems etc.). Suicide is not an option in Christianity, unlike say, self-immolation in Buddhism. Of course I cannot prove that it didn’t happen, because there is no record that any Crusader ever committed a suicide, and as a believer he would go straight to hell for that. You are terribly dishonest.

>As additional evidence that your theory is false I pointed out >the Japanese suicide bombers.

Previously #98 you wrote that these are apples and oranges. That they were motivated by ideology NOT religion. Thus we made a full circle:).

KKK had nothing to do with Christianity, but much to do with racism and supremacism in the same way as Nazim and Japanese fascism. It was fueled by vulgarization of Darwinism. Show me that they relied on the Bible in the same way as terrorists relied on Koran (duped or not).

Nov 24, 2009 - 5:07 pm 135. Mr. Independant:

Sarah,

Now it looks like you’re confused by your own contradictions. Specifically, you still continue to assert you know what Cortez was or was not interested in. You can’t possible know that. So don’t pretend that you do. Now, you can make judgments of his actions. For example, did he forcibly convert (what he left alive) various Native American populations? Yes. He did. In a previous post you stated that only with the presence of clergy could one convert to Christianity. I pointed out (rather cleverly/sarcastically) that my understanding of Christianity indicates that all one has to do to convert to Christianity, is to accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. That is correct, is it not? So your assertion otherwise is false.

In answer to your statement “in the entire history of Christianity nobody gave people 3 choices: convert, pay taxes, or die” I would point to a previous discussion. The Inquisition. Correct me if I’m wrong but weren’t the accused told to confess and convert or die? So that statement is false as well.

Actually I didn’t put any words in your mouth. In case you didn’t notice, this discussion is taking place in written form. LOL. All kidding aside, when I quote someone I use quotation symbols (they look like this “). You have suggested that Islam is inherently evil. I will apologize for the statement if you state that you do not believe that Islam is inherently evil. If you don’t make that statement word for word then this particular topic is just a red herring. Now I never stated that all Muslim have been duped. What I have stated is that 99.9% of them are not terrorists and are peaceful people. I said terrorists have been duped or are evil. And the conquests in medieval times were fought by slaves. Just as the conquests of the Americas (all by Christians) were fought by slaves as well. What you don’t seem to understand is that if you are not a citizen of a democracy, you are a slave. Ask yourself, were the ‘citizens’ of the soviet Union free people or slaves?

In response to your question to my comment “ In earlier posts I mentioned how ‘Christian’ soldiers of the Crusades often committed suicide in battle for the same reasons ‘Muslim’ jihadist commit suicide bombings” I never stated that you wrote. You’ll notice that in the comment I wrote the letter “I” to indicate I was referring to myself. I don’t understand how that could be confusing. And they most certainly did. The Pope told all those who went on Crusade and died would be forgiven their sins and guaranteed entrance to heaven. Pope Urban stated “I hoped to find you as faithful and as zealous in the service of God as I had supposed you to be. But if there is in you any deformity or crookedness contrary to God’s law, with divine help I will do my best to remove it” and “All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested”. Those quotes are from ‘Dana C. Munro, “Urban and the Crusaders”, Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European History, Vol 1:2’. BTW, the Crusaders weren’t fighting to regain their lands, places, and women. The Levant was formerly part of the Roman Empire (what historians later refer to as the Byzantine Empire). The 1st Crusade was ordered by Pope Urban, at the request of Roman Emperor Alexius. You really do need to spend some time studying history.

So now you’re an authority on my faith as well as Christianity and Islam. Please tell me more about this “self-immolation” that you mentioned in your last post.

Additionally my mention of Japanese suicide bombers was made specifically to debunk your theory that it’s religion that is the cause of such actions. I believe (and the evidence supports my position) the cause of such actions is ideology not religion.

Finally, the KKK claimed and (what’s left of them) continue to claim that they are a Christian organization. http://www.kkk.com/
Now I don’t state the above to claim that I think they represent all or even most Christian. By the same token I don’t believe that even 1% of Muslims are anything but peaceful people of faith. Now that is just my opinion but if it’s not true, then way aren’t 1.5 BILLION Muslims attacking us?

Nov 24, 2009 - 7:03 pm 136. Sarah:

>I pointed out (rather cleverly/sarcastically) that my >understanding of Christianity indicates that all one has to >do to convert to Christianity, is to accept Jesus Christ as >their lord and savior. That is correct, is it not?

I am tired by your ignorance and arrogance. This kind of conversion may be among Evangelical Christians who don’t have priests, and very few Sacraments. I can assure you that Cortez was not an Evangelical Christian. But you will ask for evidence and I find it plain stupid.

>The Inquisition. Correct me if I’m wrong but weren’t the >accused told to confess and convert or die?

If you mean Spanish Inquisition, they had jurisdiction over Catholics only (professed Catholics). If they suspected that the conversion was insincere, they asked to confess and repent. In most cases this was the end of the matter. In some cases they had evidence to the contrary, and then interrogation and abuse followed. Insincere converts were result of the king’s policy which required to convert to Christianity and be loyal subjects. Some converted. Some left. But some pretended conversion which became a serious security matter. This is what the sources say.

>You have suggested that Islam is inherently evil. I will apologize for >the statement if you state that you do not believe that Islam is >inherently evil.

I do not believe or ever believed that Islam is inherently evil. It produced wonderful civilization in its early history. Muslims were open to debate (e.g. saint Francis could go and try to convince Sultan to Christianity without being hurt). Today this would be impossible or dangerous). Even the pope became a target after quoting some past discussions between Muslims and the Byzantine Emperor:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

Something happened in the meantime which closed this beautiful and inspiring religion for so many of its adherents.

Your spin on suicide among Crusaders is ridiculous: it goes against every teaching of Christianity. The only way was to die in the “just war”. BTW: Previous pope condemned invasion of Iraq based on this doctrine.

I am astounded that you never heard of Buddhist monks setting themselves on fire in some protests. This would be a grave sin for a Christian.

Finally, not everybody referring to Christianity is a Christian. Definitely the clansmen do not blow themselves up with the name of God on their lips. You don’t want to acknowledge that KKK specifically targeted non-whites, Catholics and Jews. I don’t think that burning crosses is very Christian either.

Nov 24, 2009 - 8:27 pm 137. iasius:

If only we would accept two things, a great deal of the present confusion would be resolved.

One. Mr.”Independent”, quite contrary to the import of his assumed name, is really a ’slave’ to unreasonableness. He is best ignored.

Two. The three Abrahamic ‘faiths’ are no more than prescriptions for ruthless domination of the ‘others’ for geo-political gain. They have nothing in them even approximating spiritualism. That is why they acknowledge and share a belief in a common terrorist-god called Jehovah/Allah, angels (or demons?), prophets (profiteers?) and the Day of Judgment (till the doubtful dawning of which one may commit every inhumanity with perfect impunity). Humanity has suffered in the past and is suffering in the present mostly on account of these three theologies. We need to understand their true nature urgently.

Nov 24, 2009 - 10:10 pm 138. Mr. Independant:

iasius,

I see you didn’t answer any of my question from my last post to you. Well here it is again:

You’re post #108 is dishonest. You wrote in post #92 “Your assumption that only dictatorships like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan fund mosques and madrassas”. That was false, I didn’t write that. Furthermore you stated in post #108 “Re: #92. I am sorry, but you said so in Post # 22”. Actually what I wrote in post #22 was “The foreign countries that are funding radical imams in mosques around the world, who are they? There countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan”; which wasn’t what you stated I wrote. In my statement no where do I write the word “only” and in the second sentence you’ll notice the word “like”

Also I’m not splitting anything. Iran is in fact a theocracy and Pakistan for the majority of its existence has been ruled by a military junta. During Pakistan’s last “democratic” election, the candidate who was expected to become Prime Minister was assassinated. Furthermore you might want to reread that article concerning Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s comments again. In the article that you referenced, the PM states “We will have to devise innovative plans to ensure that minorities, particularly the Muslim minority, are empowered to share equitably the fruits of development. These must have the first claim on resources”. He stated specifically that he was talking about all minorities in India. I think you fail to understand the current state of Indian politics. India is officially a socialist country. Despite the economic reforms they are making, the redistribution of resources is a primary focus of the government of India.

On you comments concerning religion, I disagree. Religion doesn’t conveniently lend itself to be twisted out of recognition. But it has been my men more often than not who were very intelligent. Think about some of the most hated men of the last century. How many of them were evil and brilliant? And religion should not be shunned. Look at all the good that has been done in the name of religion. Helping the destitute, preserving learning, and helping to end the reign of the Soviet Union.

Finally, your last comment was very childish. Do you think that comments like that serve any purpose? No they don’t. Instead of childish remarks when your opinions are disproven (particularly when you’re caught lying) perhaps you should try research to better educate yourself.

P.S. If Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are just followers of prescriptions for ruthless domination, why are almost half of the world’s population non-believers of the Abrahamic faiths?

Nov 25, 2009 - 5:53 am 139. Sarah:

>If Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are just followers of prescriptions >for ruthless domination, why are almost half of the world’s population >non-believers of the Abrahamic faiths?

Domination, to be ruthless, must include TOTAL power (like in the Soviet Union or the Nazi Germany). Total power includes political, military, judicial and spiritual power. Of the three Abrahamic religions only Islam is designed to be the total system. Christianity relied on secular governments for pretty much everything but spiritual power, with mixed results. After French Revolution secular powers turned mostly against Christianity in particular, and any spiritual power in general. May be this is the source of Islamic shock and growing aggression. Muslims come to the West and they don’t like what they find: aggression against religion. In their countries they control all powers and such aggression would not be tolerated. Frankly, they could also silence many secularists in the West (Mohamed cartoons come to mind). In their frustration the secularists turn ever more aggressive against Christianity but remain muted or silent against Islam and Judaism. In the case of Islam out of fear and in the case of Judaism the guilty conscience.

I am trying to understand why, before the modern era, Islam went into decline starting ~12th century. The only reason I could find was just in combining all powers which stifled human creativity. As you can see Mr. Independant, I am looking for intellectually satisfying explanation, and the phrase “inherently evil” doesn’t even come close to my standards.

Nov 25, 2009 - 7:51 am 140. iasius:

sarah, please ignore the useful idiot. concentrate on real issues. monotheism – certainly of the abrahamic variety – has been the bane of humanity. let’s face reality. that we should debate issues like the efficacy of religion even in the twenty-first century, is a blot on our intellectual ability. religion needs to be identified as the root cause of ALL evil. as i said, the sooner we do it, the better for human existence. surely, we deserve a dignified existence.

Nov 25, 2009 - 9:37 am 141. iasius:

and, btw, the State (or political power) in pre-renaissance europe was called ‘the secular arm of the church’. what more do you need than subjecting the secular power to the religious for promoting your false creed? the abrahamic faiths cannot survive without the power of the state because they have nothing that is spiritual or timeless in them. as jefferson said, it is only falsehood that needs the support of the state – truth can stand on its own, or something to that effect!

Nov 25, 2009 - 9:43 am 142. Sarah:

>religion needs to be identified as the root cause of ALL evil. as i said, >the sooner we do it, the better for human existence.

Then you start ignoring “progressive” ideologies such as Leninism, Stalinism, Pol-potism, Hitlerism etc. All these Gulags, killing fields and concentration camps. I can remaind you also about atrocities of the French Revolution and of the Napoleonic wars which followed. Let’s not be simplistic.

Nov 25, 2009 - 9:50 am 143. Sarah:

>and, btw, the State (or political power) in pre-renaissance europe was >called ‘the secular arm of the church’.

Perhaps. But if you remember that the Byzantine Emperor Constantine presided over Church Synod, or that popes were kidnapped to Avignon by the French kings this doesn’t sound that they the the arms of the Church.
Besides, separation of sacred and secular was imposed by Christ. Unity of sacred and secular was imposed by Mohamed.

Nov 25, 2009 - 9:56 am 144. iasius:

Sarah, “Islamic shock” be damned! It makes no difference to rational discourse. So do not try to ‘understand’ Muslim problems through compassion – they don’t deserve anything they will never grant to others. The problem is this: the believer has been indoctrinated into a belief system that offers no room for questioning either the accuracy or relevance of those beliefs. then you are told that god wanted it to become the creed of humankind. then you are told to coerce the ‘others’ into your belief system and kill them if they resist. to ask, in this ‘age of reason’, the ‘others’ to believe what you are forced to believe as the undebatable truth is horrendous.

Nov 25, 2009 - 10:29 am 145. Sarah:

>the believer has been indoctrinated into a belief system that offers no >room for questioning either the accuracy or relevance of those beliefs.

The problem is not in believers, but in what they believe in. Again, Stalinists and Robespierre followers were true believers. On the other end of the spectrum you have those that don’t believe in anything, question everything. They don’t even believe that there is something called the objective TRUTH. There must be a balance between those extremists. Perhaps Catholics got it finally right in balancing faith and reason (see the link in #136)

Nov 25, 2009 - 10:53 am 146. iasius:

Christ, poor fellow (if ever he was historical, which is doubtful), has little or nothing to do with the religion-based imperialism that was inspired and is practiced in his name today. So, what he may or may not have said makes little difference. If Constantine presided over the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE (when Jesus attained ‘divinity’ in a divided vote!!!!), it was merely to save his empire from imminent collapse. Remember that he converted only on his death bed, having lived ALL his life as a pagan. Then, seeing the nature of the fledgling ‘faith’, his successor, Julian, tried to reverse the damage done, but was slain in battle before he could complete it.

The Popes were (and are – Benedict’s azi antecedents?) complex, immoral characters themselves. I would not attach much significance to their moral values or spiritual authority to ‘rule’. Whether they were kidnapped by French kings (Philip the Fair, particularly), makes little difference to the fact that they held political sway over Europe till the renaissance. Excommunication of Scotland is an example of their influence over the generally immature minds of the populace.

Nov 25, 2009 - 10:57 am 147. iasius:

sarah,

Indeed BELIEF is the main problem. Even Hitler ‘believed’ that what he was doing was correct. So did Moses, Joshua, Stalin, Genghis Khan, Muhammad and the entire lot that threw humane conduct to the winds. Belief needs to be tempered by reason and humaneness.

Also, you cannot condemn someone for what he believes because that is his personal right and choice. But if those beliefs infringe upon or threaten the rights of other equally placed human beings, they necessarily need to be reined in. Everyone has the right to say that his beliefs, no matter how ridiculous they might seem, are the best in the world. But he has no right to use force to make others agree with his debatable views. How can you fit every human being in clothes of a superannuated design and one single size that were stitched in remote antiquity?

Nov 25, 2009 - 11:07 am 148. iasius:

btw, in lighter vein, those clothes were stitched NOT by professional tailors, but by shepherds!

Nov 25, 2009 - 11:11 am 149. Sarah:

>But if those beliefs infringe upon or threaten the rights of other equally >placed human beings, they necessarily need to be reined in.

Here I agree!!! But… There is always… however.

For example, abortionists believe that unborn human being is not human. The other side equally strongly believes the opposite. Science has no answers: genetically it is a HUMAN BEING, developmentally not yet. In the same way as a newborn is not an adult. I think that more damage is done by those who deny humanity to the unborn than those who err on the side of life. Those who are for abortion call themselves “rational” and despise those “fundamentalists” or however they name them. If we don’t think that human life is sacred it doesn’t matter (this the line of Robespierre, Stalin, Hitler – you name them). Once you utter the word “sacred” you are subject to ridicule of relativists. There must be some sanity here. At least in the US the public discourse is shifting against abortion on demand and for convenience. I can go on, and on, and on….

BTW: Mr. Independant didn’t apologize as promised.

Nov 25, 2009 - 11:30 am 150. Sarah:

>Indeed BELIEF is the main problem.

Well, I believe that life is worth living. That my work and daily pursuits are worth the effort. Artists believe in value of their work. So do scientists. Without belief, you may stay in bed and wait to die. Belief goes deeper: it looks for absolute values: truth, beauty and goodness. You cannot derive them from science or philosophy. And here you have the problem of religions.

On the other side are moral relativists, who don’t believe in anything. The problem is, you can build nothing on shifting sands. And here you have the problem of atheism.

Nov 25, 2009 - 11:38 am 151. Sarah:

>Whether they were kidnapped by French kings (Philip the Fair, >particularly), makes little difference to the fact that they held >political sway over Europe till the renaissance.

No matter what the struggles, look at the circumstances. The Roman Empire was destroyed by the barbarians. The Western Europe was so unsafe that the Emperors moved further East. The popes were the only organizing force. One pope (Leo) persuaded Atilla not to rape and plunder Rome again. In the middle of Dark Ages, when it was unsafe to travel even short distances, Benedictine monks erected fortified Monasteries, taught the locals how to read, graft trees, raise cattle. In the end they had a vision to build cathedrals and universities. This is what happened to barbarians.

On the other end, Muslim conquered great civilizations: Roman, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Persian, Hindus… And turned them in what they are today (Pakistan, Afhganistan, Iraq, Egypt, Turkey). Does “after their fruits you will know them” apply?????.

Nov 25, 2009 - 12:00 pm 152. iasius:

Sarah,

Don’t bother with Mr.Independent.

The merits of ‘belief’ cannot be brushed aside, I agree. But they need to be beliefs rooted in a modicum of reason. For instance, a scientist must believe the work done by his predecessors and utilize that knowledge to take the next step. Otherwise he will need to waste all his energy and time in merely proving what has already been established. Also, a quick experiment will always demonstrate to him that his predecessor was correct. But this cannot be done in the case of religious beliefs because none of them can be proven. After all they were things that certain individuals arbitrarily claimed as true. For instance, no one who has died and seen ‘paradise’, has ever come back to tell us of his experiences! All religious beliefs are untenable, if not downright ridiculous. (And we need not give any thought at all to what is attributed to Tertullian: “It is certain because it is impossible”!) They were perhaps justifiable, given the intellectual level of the person who created them and the people to whom he ‘taught’ them. But having outgrown those primitive proclivities, should humanity in the twenty-first century still continue to mortgage its intellect to them? I think not.

It is our collective (and escalating) insistence on the efficacy of religious beliefs that is a cause for present violence.

Nov 25, 2009 - 9:24 pm 153. Sarah:

Iasius,

thank you for your response. It is such a pleasure to debate at this level.

About scientists: they rely on predecessors, but the greatest ones only to a limited extent (e.g. Mendel and his inheritance laws). Preliminary results are fine for a scientist but in the case of artist or composer things get more ephemeral. Even more ephemeral is human life itself, and everybody must live it. The outcome of your life is unpredictable, and your a priori knowledge is limited, but you live on hoping and believing that it will be good at some level. Those who hopelessly doubt it, commit suicide. Of course one can believe that evil is good (e.g. blowing up innocent people to get to heaven). I think that this kinds of beliefs are intrinsically evil. You must separate good beliefs from bad. I would’t condemn all beliefs as evil, but I admit that there are evil beliefs. You need to apply reason to best of your abilities to separate terrible beliefs from reasonable ones. Faith without reason means fanaticism. Reason without faith means cynicism (I believe that German pope is into something here; I decided to read his Regensburg address).

Finally: Tertullian. “Credo ut intelligam” is a very profound statement, repeated many times by many intellectuals in many contexts. Science is helpless when it comes to very improbable or unique events. Common sense judgment does not apply. Yet unique and improbable events do happen all the time. They cannot be reproduced in the lab. I recommend analysis of the Nobel laureate Jacques Monod in his “chance and necessity” book. In this context you must think of Tertullian who analyzed the Christian doctrine and concluded that nobody could have invented such an incredible story. Therefore, he concludes, the Apostles must have witnessed something real. If they invented it, they would have tried to make it look credible. This is what convinced him to become a Christian.

Best wishes,

Sarah

Nov 26, 2009 - 7:53 am 154. Sarah:

I am sorry, for putting St. Augustine in the mouth of Tertullian. The quote should be, “credo quia absurdum”. I believe, because it is an absurd.

Nov 26, 2009 - 7:58 am 155. Mr. Independant:

iasius,

I see you still haven’t answered any of my question from my two last posts to you. Well here it is again:

You’re post #108 is dishonest. You wrote in post #92 “Your assumption that only dictatorships like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan fund mosques and madrassas”. That was false, I didn’t write that. Furthermore you stated in post #108 “Re: #92. I am sorry, but you said so in Post # 22”. Actually what I wrote in post #22 was “The foreign countries that are funding radical imams in mosques around the world, who are they? There countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan”; which wasn’t what you stated I wrote. In my statement no where do I write the word “only” and in the second sentence you’ll notice the word “like”
Also I’m not splitting anything. Iran is in fact a theocracy and Pakistan for the majority of its existence has been ruled by a military junta. During Pakistan’s last “democratic” election, the candidate who was expected to become Prime Minister was assassinated. Furthermore you might want to reread that article concerning Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s comments again. In the article that you referenced, the PM states “We will have to devise innovative plans to ensure that minorities, particularly the Muslim minority, are empowered to share equitably the fruits of development. These must have the first claim on resources”. He stated specifically that he was talking about all minorities in India. I think you fail to understand the current state of Indian politics. India is officially a socialist country. Despite the economic reforms they are making, the redistribution of resources is a primary focus of the government of India.
On you comments concerning religion, I disagree. Religion doesn’t conveniently lend itself to be twisted out of recognition. But it has been my men more often than not who were very intelligent. Think about some of the most hated men of the last century. How many of them were evil and brilliant? And religion should not be shunned. Look at all the good that has been done in the name of religion. Helping the destitute, preserving learning, and helping to end the reign of the Soviet Union.
Finally, your last comment was very childish. Do you think that comments like that serve any purpose? No they don’t. Instead of childish remarks when your opinions are disproven (particularly when you’re caught lying) perhaps you should try research to better educate yourself.

The problem you have find yourself in is threefold. One, your positions are disproven by history. Two, you undermine your credibility when you are caught lying. Three, every time you dodge answering the questions above you just make yourself appear more and more dishonest.

Nov 26, 2009 - 8:49 am 156. Mr. Independant:

Sarah,

In response to your post #136 you didn’t answer my questions. Can a non-believer convert to Christianity (in your opinion) by simply accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior? Yes or no? Are you dodging the question to avoid making your self look silly? If that’s the case, you should know you did that way back when you wrote that historians and history books (in your case the Wikipedia) agree on your beliefs about the ‘Byzantine Empire’. Now you continue to make assertions about Cortez and yet state that it’s “stupid” to ask for proof. If you know something is a “fact”, how can you know that without proof? That doesn’t make any sense.

On your beliefs’ about the inquisition, you are again stating your opinions as facts. You stated “Spanish Inquisition, they had jurisdiction over Catholics only (professed Catholics). If they suspected that the conversion was insincere, they asked to confess and repent. In most cases this was the end of the matter. In some cases they had evidence to the contrary, and then interrogation and abuse followed. Insincere converts were result of the king’s policy which required to convert to Christianity and be loyal subjects. Some converted. Some left. But some pretended conversion which became a serious security matter. This is what the sources say.” Well what are those sources?

In previous posts you have compared Muslims to Nazis. Since I consider those people to be the very embodiment of inherent evil, I think my statement about your position is justified. However, I did state in a previous post that if you stated specifically that you renounce that position I would apologize. Since I am a man of my word, I apologize. So now that we agree that Islam is NOT the problem then what is? Could it be that evil men have twisted it’s words to justify terrorism? It sounds like your admission not only undermines your entire beliefs on this subject but reinforce mine.

Furthermore I haven’t put a “spin” on anything. When I quote someone, I provide the source. Like when I demonstrate the contradictions in your statements, I specify the actual posts. Pope Urban told anyone who would fight and die on Crusade would go to heaven.

Additionally, I am not aware of any practice of my faith that require monks to set themselves afire. I noticed that you added the qualifier ‘protests’ to your last comment. Are you suggesting that if a monk protests fascism (China) and is torched by Chinese troops, that is somehow a religious belief? That is one of the most dumbest red herrings I have ever read.

On the KKK citing scripture while they commit terrorism, you again are wrong. Are you honestly telling me that Klansmen do not cite the Bible and Christianity as the motivation for their terrorism? And I haven’t refused to acknowledge that the KKK targeted anyone who interfered with them. If you think that I have what specific post was that in? When you make declarative statements like that it becomes very easy to point out that your lying.

In response to your post #139, you stated “Domination, to be ruthless, must include TOTAL power”. So let me get this straight, the terrorist organization the KKK was not ruthless because it didn’t have total power of the political process, judiciary, military and spirituality? I’m fairly certain that their victims would disagree. Seriously, that opinion of yours is absurd. The Catholic Church has combined the political process, judiciary, military and spirituality within it’s borders for centuries. The Vatican continues to combine the sacred and the profane to this day. Does that make the Catholic Church ruthless? No. Also, you don’t see the Catholic Church being blamed for the actions of all Christians. So that theory of yours just went by the wayside.

Finally, religion is not the problem, terrorism is.

Nov 26, 2009 - 9:55 am 157. Sarah:

>In response to your post #136 you didn’t answer >my questions. Can a non-believer convert to >Christianity (in your opinion)

Some branch of Christianity, perhaps. Catholic Christianity: NO!!!!!

>Insincere converts were result of the king’s policy which required to convert to Christianity and be loyal subjects. Some converted. Some left. But some pretended conversion which became a serious security matter. This is what the sources say.” Well what are those sources?

I gave you the sources in #126. Actually, my response was incomplete: the king asked either to convert to Christianity or *leave the country*. It applied mostly to Muslims and it was very generous compared to the option of death offered by the Muslims.

>In previous posts you have compared Muslims to Nazis.

Where? Can you quote? Can you understand English?

>Could it be that evil men have twisted it’s >words to justify terrorism?

Yes. However, I am alarmed by the share volume of terrorism. Do you think that Islam harbors disproportionate number of evil men? How about death threats for Danish cartoons or to the pope for quoting the Byzantine Emperor. Are all these crowds evil? Is there anybody to tell them please be tolerant, love your neighbor, don’t threaten him. Are there any massive rallies of Muslims against terror? All I can see are apologists like yourself. Sometimes a lip service “not in the name of Islam.” More often: “Muslims are afraid of revenge” (after Fort Hood). Revenge is foreign for Christian thinking and is nor happening here. Is is foreign for Muslim thinking?

>>So let me get this straight, the terrorist >organization the KKK was not ruthless because >it didn’t have total power of the political >process

The keyword you left out is DOMINATION. Terror means criminal activity which may or may not lead to domination of entire lands and people.

>The Catholic Church has combined the political >process, judiciary, military and spirituality >within it’s borders for centuries.

Typical explaining away. Every elementary history textbook will tell you that Europe had separation to religious and secular rulers. That priests could not carry weapons or kill (unlike mullahs who could, did and still do).

>The Vatican continues to combine the sacred and >the profane to this day.

Even Stalin ridiculed this notion when he asked: how many divisions the pope has. Let’s talk about ayatollah of Vatican secretly working on atom bomb and threatening that Israel will be wiped out of the map. Sounds ridiculous enough? O may be can you show me children attending first Communion in Catholic churches taking afterword photos with plastic guns and inscription on foreheads: “I want to be a martyr.” That would be something to give me a pause.

Nov 26, 2009 - 11:21 am 158. Mr. Independant:

Sarah,

So you believe that a Catholic now and in during the renaissance cannot share their faith with a non-believer and convert them, unless they are an ordained priest? Where exactly in the Bible is that written. I seem to have missed that part.

On my question as to your sources for the Inquisition, I asked you for specific quotes and pages numbers. I’m still waiting.

In posts #95 & 97 you compared the Nazis to the discussion of Muslims.

You still haven’t answered my question concerning your assertion that Buddhists light themselves afire as a part of their religious beliefs. That’s nonsense but you continue to assert it. Tell me where you learned this from.

You also haven’t answered my point about the Pope telling Crusaders that if they go on Crusade and die (i.e. commit suicide in battle) that they would go to heaven.

If you are truly alarmed by the volume of terrorism you should want to learn what is causing it. Not put your hand in the sand and pretend that a particular scapegoat is responsible. When you and others do that, you are in effect enabling terrorism. Have you noticed that almost all terrorism that is not connected to narco-terrorism, is originating from dictatorships? Think about it. Where are 99% of terrorists (non narcos) coming from? There almost all dictatorships. Yes there are exceptions to every rule but in this case they are few and far between.

If you review our posts you’ll notice that I am the only one not making apologies for terrorism. Not once. Between the two of us, I’m the only one not making excuses for terrorism. How many times have you made excuses for the terrorist organization the KKK? What I have advocated time and again is the need to destroy terrorists. You on the other hand (even though you probably don’t know it) are enabling them. When you attempt to scapegoat 1.5 Billion Muslims, you make Al-Qaeda’s terrorism that much easier.

On your response to my question on the KKK, your just writing in circles now. So do you think that the KKK did not dominate their victims (circa 1920’s)?

On the Vatican, yes I am explaining, because you do not (appear) to understand. Actually, I like to know what elementary textbook states “that Europe had separation to religious and secular rulers”. Have you ever heard of the Papal States? A remnant of that country still exists with the Catholic Church; it’s called Vatican City. It is a completely sovereign country recognized (with diplomatic missions) in over 150 countries. So much for separating the church and state.

Finally, have you noticed that in almost every single assertion you’ve made I’ve disproven it using your own contradictions and historical references? I mean, I find you ignorance very entertaining but what are you learning from this exchange? Anyway, if you do decide to respond, make sure you have the quotes (and page numbers) that I’ve asked for.
Have a Happy Thanksgiving.

Nov 26, 2009 - 5:53 pm 159. iasius:

Sarah,

Thank you but, in reality, I am the real gainer in this exchange with one as erudite as you.

# 153…

Scientific beliefs, being founded entirely on the immutable laws of nature, can NEVER be ‘evil’. And, while accepting the ephemeral nature of certain ‘creative’ human pursuits, it must still be conceded that ‘faith’ per se has little to do even with those. For instance, Michaelangelo could have produced as impressive a sculpture of Satan as David. That he did not was no doubt for considerations for both contemporary public psyche (of which he was himself an inseparable part) and, more importantly, patronage. His faith had nothing whatsoever to do with either his creativity or skill with the chisel.

Religious faith, on the other hand, is based on the arbitrary notions of someone who lived in a period of comparatively primitive human intellectual development. There being no method of actually verifying these claims, they are most susceptible to be used to render an otherwise humane society into the most heinous war machine. All beliefs, as you say, are not evil, but then see what sufficiently intelligent human beings like Moses, Joshua, Muhammad and the Conquistadors did citing faith as justification.

Nevertheless, the successful outcome of scientific beliefs can and has been used for evil ends. The quality of the application depends entirely on the maturity and discretionary powers of the user. The developer cannot be blamed for how his work is used. You cannot blame Einstein for the death of millions who perished in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I wonder if Tertullian would have also trusted authors of epics like the Ramayana or Mahabharata which narrate infinitely more “unique and improbable events” than all scriptures put together. If Tertullian was privy to the latter, do you really believe he may have been “convinced” to become Hindu?

Nov 27, 2009 - 6:58 am 160. Mr. Independant:

Sarah,

I’m pleased to see that you’re learning. You didn’t answer any of my questions and did make a childish comment in your intro but you now seem to understand the basic point I’ve been making all along. Faith, knowledge, or science are not the cause of violence today. Evil men are. Taking the time to learn about the world around you can be a very illuminating experience. Learning things like the difference between poems like the Mahabharata and religious texts like the Vedas. But I encourage you to continue to learn more about the poeple that you share this small world with. Take care and happy reading.

Nov 27, 2009 - 8:04 am 161. The Infidel Alliance:

It is clear that within Islam there are only:

1) Islamic Apostates – the “good peaceful Muslims” who reject Muhammed’s Jihadist commands to forcibly convert, subjugate or kill all non-Mulsims in dar al-Harb, due to ignorance or willful denial.

2) Islamic Sympathyzers – pro-Islamists who don’t kill, but provide financial, material or propaganda support to Muhammed’s Jihadists and the Islamic World War.

3) Good Pious Muslims – Muhammed’s Jihadists, Soldiers of Allah like:
- Major Nidal Hassan M.D., SoA (SAWS)
- Islamic Caliphate jihadist mastermind Osama bin-Laden
- Richard “aka shoe bomber / aka Abdul Raheem” Reid
- UNC SUV jihadist “I live only to serve Allah by obeying all of his commandments of which I am aware by reading and learning the contents of the Koran” Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar (psychology and philosophy graduate)
- 9/11 airliner jihadist Mohammed Atta
- Little Rock Army/Navy Recruiting Center jihadist Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad
- Glasgow Airport jihadists Bilal Abdulla M.D., Khalid Ahmed M.D., Mohammed Haneef M.D.
- 9/11 mastermind / Daniel Pearl decapitator Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
- Al Qaeda #2 Ayman al-Zawahiri M.D.
- And on, and on, and on…….

Why are so many Islamic terrorists named “Muhammed/Mohammed/Ahmed”??

~ The Infidel Alliance

Nov 27, 2009 - 8:13 am 162. The Infidel Alliance:

Dear Readers,

I see that “Mr. Islampendant” is back, spinning, twisting, dodging, defending and doing his little “religion is not the problem, terrorism is” dance.

“Mr. Islampendant” is a #2 Islamic sympathyzer and taqiyya master who wants us to believe that even though Islam is a terrorist religion, founded by a terrorist “prophet”, that teaches terrorism as its basic morality, and demands that followers of Islam engage in terrorism, it somehow does not spawn Islamic terrorists.

Well…..let’s see where Islamic terrorists Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar (as cited in my previous post) got his inspiration for Islamic terror: “I live only to serve Allah by obeying all of his commandments of which I am aware by reading and learning the contents of the Koran”

Yes, clearly there is no connection between Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azars terrorism and his religion, even though he himself clearly says there is (and cites numerous Koranic references in his many letters).

Give it up “Mr. Islampendant”. You have been exposed.

~ The Infidel Alliance

Nov 27, 2009 - 8:33 am 163. Anonymous:

The Infidel Alliance,

There is a fourth, sadly growing class – not strictly within Islam, though. That is the non-Muslim sympathizer. Bush and Blair head the list by saying Islam was a religion of peace. And, unfortunately, they are not alone.

Nov 27, 2009 - 8:38 am 164. iasius:

The Infidel Alliance,

# 162 : “Islampendant” will yet find some semantic discrepancy in your forthright comment! So be prepared for it…

# 161 : There is a fourth, sadly growing class, though not strictly within the prison-house called Islam – the non-Muslim sympathizer/white washer. Bush and Blair head the list: they discovered that Islam is a religion of peace!!!!

Nov 27, 2009 - 8:44 am 165. The Infidel Alliance:

Further thoughts about the “99.9%” of “good peaceful Muslims”:

1) EVERY Muslim, “good peaceful Muslim” and “jihadist uslim” alike must proclaim the Shahada: “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammed is his messenger”

2) “The Messenger of Allah”, Muhammed. supposedly spewed forth the direct immutable word of Allah, which is recorded in the Koran.

3) The Koran 33:21 states “You have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern [of conduct]”

4) As also recorded in the Koran and Ahadith, Muhammed was a sadistic sociopath, a mass murderer, a torturer, a decapitator, a mutilator, an amputator, a slaver, a human trafficker, a rapist, a sex trafficker, a liar, a looter & thief, a sexual pervert, a paedophile rapist, a genocidist and a self proclaimed terrorist, motivated by unquenchable lust, greed and power.

5) Thus, it is clear that the moral foundation of Islam is sadistic violence.

Thus, until the 99.9% of “good peaceful Muslims” reject Muhammed and state unequivocally that the actions and teachings of Muhammed were monstrous, criminal, evil, and that Muhammed should be reviled, not revered, we can only assume they must believe that this kind of sociopathic behavior lays the foundation of their individual personal morality in spite of their outward “goodness & peacefulness”.

But the 99.9% of “good peaceful Muslims” cannot reject the vile, repulsive actions and teachings of Muhammed, because in doing so they would no longer be Muslims. They would be Islamic apostates subject to the Islamic Sharia Law death penalty.

So……….how many of the worlds 1.2 billion Muslims are really “good, peaceful” Muslims? Perhaps not as many as we think.

~ The Infidel Alliance

Nov 27, 2009 - 9:18 am 166. The Infidel Alliance:

Dear “113. Sami”,

You state: “I do in fact reject terrorism as a disgusting stain on my religion.”

The Hadith Bukhari (52:220) states: “Allah’s Apostle said… ‘I have been made victorious with terror’. Do you reject the self proclaimed terrorism of Muhammed?

Do you also reject Muhammeds:

- Sexual perversion?
- decapitations?
- amputations?
- looting & thievery?
- rape?
- slavery?
- torture?
- perfidy?
- paedophilia?
- genocide?

Or do you embrace these as virtues exemplified by your “prophet” Muhammed worth emulating? Is this what you consider “an excellent model of conduct”? Or do you consider these to be universal modern day values?

~ The Infidel Alliance

Nov 27, 2009 - 10:15 am 167. Sarah:

RE #153

Iasius,

Thank you for your good word and a thoughtful response.

>Scientific beliefs, being founded entirely on >the immutable laws of nature, can NEVER be >‘evil’.

This is why science has nothing to say about ethical issues. Burning a human being alive is just a chemical reaction from the scientific point of view.

>Michaelangelo could have produced as impressive a sculpture of Satan as David.

Faith has something to do with the kind of religious convictions so does the patronage. Muslim faith forbids painting and sculpturing. It also prohibits instrumental music. I can assure you that we wouldn’t have any Michaelangelo, David or Mozart if Europe didn’t stop Islamic invaders at Poitiers and at the gates of Vienna.

>Religious faith, on the other hand, is based >on the arbitrary notions of someone who lived >in a period of comparatively primitive human >intellectual development.

Many scientific hypotheses are based on counterintuitive, and often arbitrary notions. The value of the hypothesis becomes known AFTER tests are done (which sometimes means a lifetime work). Faith is also a kind of hypothesis according to which one conducts experiments (in this case personal life). The outcome depends very much on the KIND of faith. It is given that there are good and bad hypotheses. In the same way there could be terrible religions and ideologies (nazism, communism). When Christ was asked how to distinguish between good and terrible religion, he responded: “after their fruits you will know them”

>but then see what sufficiently intelligent human beings like Moses, Joshua, Muhammad and the Conquistadors did citing faith as justification.

So did Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol-pot, Mao citing science and rational thinking. All it happened during the XXth century, the era of science when “religious superstition” was finally abolished (e.g. Soviet Union). The marxist faith was that they can run society on scientific principles. So they did. Conquistadors went for gold, not conversion. Muslims indeed conquered for conversion. Devil is in detail.

>>>The quality of the application depends entirely on the maturity and discretionary powers of the user.

You mean those creatures of the XXth century, or Truman who had harsh words for the pope and did’t hesitate to drop atomic bombs on Japan?
I don’t think you have simple answers here. Science cannot guide etics. We may turn to tested religious beliefs, perhaps. Nevertheless it is important to separate human component from doctrinal component.

>I wonder if Tertullian would have also trusted >authors of epics like the Ramayana or >Mahabharata

Tertullian didn’t comment on epics, but on very recent historic events. He was born in the 2nd century and met people from congregations founded by the Apostles. He heard multiple accounts which were very coherent. He was a great intellect.

Nov 27, 2009 - 2:16 pm 168. Sarah:

>Can a non-believer convert to Christianity (in your >opinion) by simply accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord >and Savior?

Depends what you mean by “accepting”. If you mean reciting the formula under a threat of death or under pressure of higher taxes, the answer is NO. However, if it is a sincere and voluntary first step to transform one’s life according to Christian principles, the answer is positive. You still are trying to convince me that Cortez asked the Indians to recite a kind of shahada and shot or taxed those who did not. I can assure you that Cortez would kill anybody for gold not God. Being raised Catholic he had a conscience (some kind of conscience), and, for example, he violently opposed human sacrifice practiced by the Aztecs.

>In previous posts you have compared Muslims to Nazis.

Read it again: with understanding. In the same vain I can claim that you compared Muslims to kamikaze. I don’t find kamikaze better than the Nazi.

>If you are truly alarmed by the volume of terrorism >you should want to learn what is causing it

In the case of narco-terrorism: money. In the case of islamic terrorism a true conviction on heavenly rewards based on the teaching of Mohamed. I want to see how it could be so massively perverted by so many terrorists. Many of them quite intelligent (e.g. major Hassan).

>Where are 99% of terrorists (non narcos) coming from? >There almost all dictatorships.

Was Mohamed a dictator or a highly democratic leader? Ayaan Hirsi Ali claims that Hussein, Ghadafi or the Saudi rulers follow the model of Mohamed.

>Between the two of us, I’m the only one not making >excuses for terrorism. How many times have you made >excuses for the terrorist organization the KKK? What I >have advocated time and again is the need to destroy >terrorists.

You are doing everything to obscure the root cause of terrorism. This makes any honest discussion impossible. To destroy terror, you must destroy the root cause of terror.

>>So do you think that the KKK did not dominate their victims (circa 1920’s)?

They did not dominate the US population. We managed to neutralize them.

>Have you ever heard of the Papal States?

Yes. Popes had terrible experience of being assassinated or kidnapped during the medieval times. Therefore they created their own defensive force supported by a territory known as a “papal state”. Indeed the Swiss guard (a defensive force), and Vatican, are remainders of that era. If the popes had secular ambitions, nothing would have stopped them from proclaiming themselves as caliphs of the European Empire. Some of them probably had such ambitions, but their successors corrected the course based on Christ’s teachings.

>I mean, I find you ignorance very entertaining but >what are you learning from this exchange?

I learned nothing, except that you are a dishonest apologist who doesn’t want to discuss the root cause of terror. Who cannot admit the difference between the mullahs and priests/pastors. Who wouldn’t admit the fundamental tenet of Islam that political and religious power must remain in the same hands. You cannot find any difference between the pope and ayatollah in terms of direct political power. I am not going to waste my time on you anymore.

Nov 27, 2009 - 2:59 pm 169. iasius:

Sarah,

# 167:

>This is why science has nothing to say >about ethical issues. Burning a human being alive is just a chemical> reaction from the scientific point of view.>
Agreed. And that is precisely where maturity and discretional power comes in. But discretion cannot be based on issues of faith alone. It MAY be so based IF AND ONLY IF it does not conflict with current societal norms determined ONLY through secular discourse. Otherwise, we might still find self-righteous missionaries strutting about ‘saving’ souls, and ‘heretics’ and ‘witches’ being burned at the stake.

> Faith has something to do with the kind of religious convictions so does the patronage. Muslim faith forbids >painting and sculpturing. It also >prohibits instrumental music. I can assure you that we wouldn’t have any Michaelangelo, David or Mozart if Europe didn’t stop Islamic >invaders at Poitiers and at the gates of Vienna>
True. Yet, the point I was trying to make is that if both religious conviction and patronage had been subject to ‘Satan’ instead of ‘God’, we would still have had both Michaelangelo as well as Mozart producing their stuff with equal mastery, enthusiasm and profusion. Their artistic expression would not have depended on what faith they held. That Islam does not permit artistic expression of any kind, is an altogether separate issue.

> Many scientific hypotheses are based on >counterintuitive, and often arbitrary notions. The value of the hypothesis becomes> known AFTER tests are done (which sometimes means a lifetime work).>
Yes indeed. But the period within which the outcome is known with 100% certainty is finite – often just a few generations at most.

> Faith is also a kind of hypothesis according to which one conducts experiments (in this case personal life).>
If this is the case, how can the IDENTICAL prescription of unquestionable, unchangeable faith, fabricated a few thousand years ago, be justly expected to fit every human being in every time and clime? If experiments in faith are personal / individual in nature, the entire concept of evangelization is in the dock.

>So did Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol-pot, Mao citing science and rational thinking.>
No, they DID NOT cite rational thinking. They cited their variety of faith – faith in a doctrine / philosophy / or what have you. That is precisely why Russel called Communism ‘Christianity without God’!

>Conquistadors went for gold, not conversion. >Muslims indeed conquered for conversion. >Devil is in detail>
If conquistadors went for gold, why did they take priests with them and why did they need to decimate entire populations? They could have taken all the gold there was and left quietly. However, it is stated at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquistador that “The stated purposes of these conquests were to equally spread the word of God and to bring this new civilization in the most obscure parts of the world into the Spanish Crown as dutiful vassals …” Muslims also conquered for gold, with the added lure of also converting the vanquished peoples. Ultimately, lucre WAS AND STILL IS the only aim, which is what the three Abrahamic faiths are all about.

> You mean those creatures of the XXth century, or Truman who had harsh words for the pope and did’t hesitate to drop atomic bombs> on Japan?
I don’t think you have simple answers here.> Science cannot guide etics. We may turn to tested religious beliefs, perhaps>. Nevertheless it is important to separate human component from doctrinal component.>
I mean both – the worthies of the XXth Century definitely, and Truman partially. Surely, there might have been a more merciful way of dealing with Japan’s war machine. But, then, that might have cost the Americans more than dropping two untested WMDs. Also, it provided a ready laboratory to actually assess the effects of the nuclear explosion. Asian populations have always been perfectly dispensable! Pure science might not be able to guide ethics, but social sciences are very well equipped to lend more than a helping hand. In any case, they are far more wholesome than superannuated values that instilled by faith.

> Tertullian didn’t comment on epics, but on very> recent historic events. He was born in the 2nd century and met people from congregations founded by the Apostles. He heard multiple accounts which were very coherent. He was a great intellect.>
He may well have been THE GREATEST INTELLECT EVER, yet the point I am making is that anyone who relies on the degree of absurdity for his beliefs needs to have a second opinion.

Nov 27, 2009 - 11:35 pm 170. Sarah:

>And that is precisely where maturity and discretional power >comes in. But discretion cannot be based on issues of faith >alone.

The pope speaks about “faith and reason.” Funding fathers of the United States were mostly enlightened deists (read agnostics), but they still couldn’t proclaim human rights without invoking higher powers. Stalin did not invoke any God-given rights and created Gulags (Enlightened state-given rights).

>It MAY be so based IF AND ONLY IF it does not conflict with >current societal norms determined ONLY through secular >discourse.

Yeah. Shifting sands. In the 60-ties one of the popes proclaimed that contraception would not reduce abortions, instead it would increase their numbers, would destabilize marriage, would lead to explosion of venereal diseases, depopulation and finally to eutanasia (indeed, abortions exploded, sexual revolution brought AIDS and other plagues, such as herpes and papiloma virus which were linked to cancers.

Yet, the “secular discourse” ridiculed the pope to the extreme, especially the notion of abortion, depopulation and eutanasia. Women were supposed to have control, and depopulation was to be remedied by immigrants from other countries (Europeans brought in North Africans, Pakistani and Turks). Now they explain away that terrorist threat in Europe has nothing to do with that import or sexual revolution.

Even recently there was a massive secular hysteria about condoms in Africa when B16 stated that they aggravate the problem. Even after Harvard expert supported this view with scientific data, the hysteria continues.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5987155.ece

And it goes on. Some institutions such as monogamous marriage were established by natural selection over thousands of years. It was all about procreation. Sexual revolution decoupled sex from procreation, and marriage became meaningless. Now marriage between a man and a woman is attacked as a “religious superstition”. I can go on and on and on. Not all religious rules are off. Secular discourse can be off by light years if it rejects the wisdom of millenia and before the fruits (man-made disasters) are seen.

>Yes indeed. But the period within which the outcome is known >with 100% certainty is finite – often just a few generations >at most.

Indeed, it took only 2 generations to bring Europe to the brink of disaster. I am not even sure if it can be avoided as the childless baby-boom generation continues to age. Inclusion of countries less affected by the sixties (Eastern Europe) may bring a temporary relief. Inclusion of Turkey may completely change the dynamics.

>However, it is stated at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquistador that “The stated purposes of these conquests were to equally spread the word of God and to bring this new civilization in the most obscure parts of the world into the Spanish Crown as dutiful vassals …”

The neutrality of the wikipedia article is disputed. Besides, there are facts: Cortez went to the Aztec land without permission. He was a convicted felon and nobody gave him any mission. Yes, later priests came to reduce hostility of the conquered populations.

>Pure science might not be able to guide ethics, but social sciences are very well equipped to lend more than a helping hand. In any case, they are far more wholesome than superannuated values that instilled by faith.

Social sciences are not considered sciences but fall into a category of “arts and humanities”. Interestingly, they are often dominated in Academia by left leaning ideologues. One interesting phrase I heard at Yale, from an ethnic studies department goes like this: “the worst kind of human being is a white heterosexual man”. That would summarize the current state of confusion in humanities. If you want a guide of Princeton ethicist, Peter Singer, he stated that chicken has more right to live that a newborn human being, because it is more independent. He also advocated the right of parents to kill newborns. A new religion of “reason” is ready to replace the existing “superstition” which prohibits such killing.

>yet the point I am making is that anyone who relies on the >degree of absurdity for his beliefs needs to have a second >opinion.

Absolutely. Faith and reason balancing each other.

Nov 28, 2009 - 10:43 am 171. Sarah:

>If this is the case, how can the IDENTICAL prescription of unquestionable, unchangeable faith, fabricated a few thousand years ago, be justly expected to fit every human being in every time and clime?

How can the IDENTICAL prescription of unquestionable, unchangeable physical laws, fabricated at the beginning of the Universe, be justly expected to fit every human being in every time and clime?

You are free to violate physical laws and time-tested ethical rules. The outcome will be similar.

Nov 28, 2009 - 11:00 am 172. Mr. Independant:

The so called “The Infidel Alliance”

Well I see you’re still interested in blaming long dead religious figures instead of terrorists. Anyway, I asked in a previous article if you have ever read the Koran. You stated that you had and that you in fact have two copies. I thought that was strange at the time but now that comment makes more sense. You were lying. You’ve never read the Koran. You’re just cutting and pasting someone else’s opinion. In post #165 you wrote “The Koran 33:21 states “You have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern [of conduct]”. That’s not what that verse states. And that is an identical mistake I’ve seen other posters on this site make. TIA you don’t know what you’re writing about.

Let’s set you ignorance about the Koran aside for a moment. You have constantly refused to condemn modern terrorism and have constantly made excuses for the terrorism of organizations like the KKK. Why? You have also made it a point to condemn to metaphorical descriptions of Muhammad but refused to do the same for Abraham? Why? Is it bigotry? I can’t think of any other reason.
TIA your ignorance and bigotry has just been exposed. You are a fraud.

Nov 28, 2009 - 1:11 pm 173. Sarah:

Any opinions about this?

http://bikyamasr.com/?p=6144

Nov 28, 2009 - 2:52 pm 174. PAT:

DON’T BELIEVE ALL MUSLIMS ARE BAD. SHOW ME ANOTHER RLIGION IN THE PRESENT DAY THAT SPAWNS MORE TERRORISTS.

Nov 30, 2009 - 9:41 am 175. The Infidel Alliance:

Dear #172 “Mr. Independant”,

Don’t be a moron.

Concerning Koran 33:21, you know as well as I that there are subtle differences in the precise wording of the translation. It is the meaning that is important. If the verse says “a beautiful model” or “beautiful pattern” is irrelevant.

What is relevant is that the Koran thinks this sadistic raping, enslaving, stealing, murdering, terrorist butcher is some kind of ‘holy’ man, a role model to be emulated.

Face it, by any objective standard, Muhammed was a vile pig. Koran 33:21 should say: “In Muhammed you have an horrible model of conduct, and you should use this man as a prime example of how NOT to live your life.”

“Mr. Independant”, I have not “constantly refused to condemn modern terrorism and have constantly made excuses for the terrorism of organizations like the KKK.” Each and every one of my posts deals directly with the root cause of modern terrorism – Muhammed and his Jihadist cult of Islam.

To be clear, the KKK is a repulsive organization who I stand firmly against, but the KKKlanists are not the ones perpetrating ‘modern terrorism’. Nor are the “Abrahamists”, the Buddhist Liberation Front, the Lutheran Suicide Bombers, or the Baptist Jihad Brigades.

It’s THE ISLAMISTS YOU MORON! And MUHAMMED is their leader, inspiration, moral compass and commander in chief.

ITS THE ISLAMISTS……I-S-L-A-M-I-S-T-S……ISLAMISTS!!!

And the ISLAMISTS are engaged in THE ISLAMIC WORLD WAR.

Burning on every continent except Antarctica.
Against everyone and everything non-Islamic.

Allah is the inspiration.
The Koran is the war manual.
Muhammed is the supreme commander.
Bin Laden & al Zawahiri are the generals.
The Clerics are the colonels.
The Minarets are the watchtowers.
The Mosque is the command post.
The Muslim is the Soldier of Allah (SoA – like “good American Muslim” Major Nidal Hassan M.D.).
The campaign is Jihad.
The command is to convert, subjugate or kill the ‘infidel’.
The objective is dar al-Harb.
The reward is flowing wine and gluttious promiscuity with 72 black eyed houris in 7th heaven.

Israel. Africa. Europe. India. Russia. China. Thailand. The Philippines. Australia. North America. South America.

THE ISLAMIC WORLD WAR

Get it, “Mr. Independant”??

Best regards, your pal in peace,

~The “so called” Infidel Alliance

P.S. – You misspelled “independent”, but perhaps this was just you expressing your “independance”.

Dec 1, 2009 - 8:42 pm 176. Mr. Independant:

Sarah,

And you were making such progress. Oh well. In response to your post #168 I have the following questions that you still have not answered:

1) Where in the Bible is it written that only clergy can convert someone to Christianity?
2) Are you standing by your statement in post #157 “Where? Can you quote? Can you understand English?” that you have not compared Muslims (without conditions) to Nazis?
3) On your beliefs about the cause of terrorism; if you believe islamic-terrorism is caused by Islam, then what was the cause of christian-terrorism?
4) Your comment suggesting (post #168) that most islamic-terrorists do not come from dictatorships didn’t make sense. What did you mean by that statement specifically?
5) If religion is the root cause of terrorism; how do you explain the fact that the majority of terrorism is narco-terrorism?
6) What elementary textbook states “that Europe had separation to religious and secular rulers”?
7) Do you now accept that the Catholic Church (i.e. the majority of all Christians) does in fact combine the secular and the spiritual?

Try to understand that these questions are not meant to embarrass you but to educate you. Almost every single assertion you made I’ve disproved with your own contradictions and credible evidence (which does not include the Wikipedia). You’ve claimed that I’ve been dishonest with my posts but have not pointed out one specific point I’ve made that is false; not one. Your opinions are just opinions, not facts. You write in circles about any topic that disproves your opinions. First about Cortez, then the KKK, then the Pope, and many other items as well.

If you read my posts you’ll see I don’t apologize for anything. Unlike you and others (like Iasius) I do not think that Christianity created the KKK or that Islam created Al-Qaeda. I think evil men created those terrorist organizations. I only compare them to debunk your (apparent) theory that Islam is the root cause of terrorism. I’m very interested in having an honest debate on how best to defeat terrorism. I think that should include killing the actual terrorists and undermining the countries that support them by spreading democracy and capitalism. You’re only stated solution has been to blame 1.5 Billion people; 99 percent of whom are peaceful. That enables terrorism. You should ask yourself; do you really want to help Al-Qaeda?

Dec 2, 2009 - 10:07 am 177. The Infidel Alliance:

Dear Sarah,

Please ignore “Mr. Independant” (aka “Ben Grimm/The Thing”). He’s a babbling moron with delusions of eloquence, a pied piper philosoph with a broken flute, a true Egyptian who loves “de-nial”.

~ The Infidel Alliance

Dec 2, 2009 - 11:11 am 178. Mr. Independant:

The so called “The Infidel Alliance”

Actually no I don’t know “that there are subtle differences in the precise wording of the translation”. According to posts you’ve written in previous articles, there is no room for interpretation in the Koran. I happen to disagree but you have stated repeatedly that you don’t. You’re contradicting yourself again. So what translation specifically are you using? Or more precisely, what website are you cutting and pasting your ‘opinions’ from? I’m very certain you haven’t actually read the Koran. You’ve made certain grammatical errors in your ‘quotes’ that are identical to ones I’ve read from other posters.

On your repeated attempts at moral equivalency, I’ve already pointed out that the actions described in the Bible about Abraham are very similar to Muhammad. Rape, slavery, theft, murder, and terrorism are all depicted in the Bible. Unlike you, I think both the Bible and the Koran are allegorical. Thus your position that Islam is responsible for creating terrorism (unless your beliefs are based on bigotry and hatred) is completely disingenuous unless you also believe that Christianity is responsible for terrorism as well. Religion is not responsible for creating terrorism. Evil men are. Which is why when 15% of American ‘Christians’(circa 1920’s) were members of the terrorist organization the KKK the other 85% of American Christians didn’t need to renounce Abraham and the Bible in order to right the wrongs of the KKK. Likewise the 99% of Muslims that are peaceful don’t need to renounce anything except terrorism and the dictatorships that most of them live in.

Look most people don’t like to be proven wrong. Most people don’t like to be shown that their ignorant. And most people don’t like to be caught lying. I’ve clearly demonstrated that all three apply to you. If you’d like to change those things, try reading the Koran so that you can have an intelligent debate with someone about the religion of Islam.

Dec 5, 2009 - 1:04 pm