You are not very perceptive, are you? Are you REALLY buying Broder’s “conservative” rhetoric? He is, like Küntzel, an anti-German leftist, just too arrogant to openly admit it.

That does not mean that they both, Küntzel and Broder, are not right about a pseudo-academic clown like Benz.

martini-henry said: “Typical of the Germans (I lived there for 3 years). They still struggle with a national identity under the yoke of eternal guilt. The Germans F’d up their nation with liberal immigration policies allowing countless Muslim Turks in as laborers and eventually they will out populate the native Germans, who beam with pride at their own zero population growth while mommy and daddy Muslim shop at Wertkauf or Hertie with 5-6 little Muslims in tow.”

I think you are misinterpreting the German agenda. The Germans are counting on a long and “fruitful” cooperation with the Muslim world. (Remember Hadj Amin Al Husseini, the “Grand Mufti” of Jerusalem?) Thus, they can be sure that the Jews will suffer, yet appear as tolerant, multi-culti-inclined Gutmenschen who have “learned from their past”. The love for alien cultures stops right there where they don’t embrace any hatred of Jews, Israel or America.

WAKE UP WORLD…the Caliphate intends to embrace you all in the arms of the “religion of peace”!!

Pleaaaaaaaaaaaase! In Judaism there is more than one prophet and the list is not closed, thus if you are a believer you accept the idea of God deciding that the old rules have exceeded their usefulness. Also, the Old Testament is basically a history book with some hygiene/epidemic control precepts inserted (both for poeople and for cattle: like the near-obsessive attention paid to quarantining people and cattle who have suspicious sores) and relatively light on the moral side except for Ten Commandments. In Islam while paying lip service to Jewish Prophets and to Christ their teachings have been modified to coincide with Muhammad’s so there is only one prophet and, except in the tiny sect named Ahmadists, there will be none more. God is denied the right to send other prophets for further revelations. In fact the Coran is supposed to have been uncreated, coexisting with God since before the beginning of times so it is not even clear that God himself can alter the message.

In Judaism, the moral rules are not in the Bible proper but on a tradition that, in Christ time was still oral and it allows changes: eg it was only after 1000AD that poligamy was banned. Also there is no personality cult about Moses or Abraham. In Islam, Muhammad is the perfect man to be imitated in everything. An old Algerian derided islamists saying: “they wear same clothes as the Propjet’s despite Algeria being colder than Arabia, the Prophet wore khol to protect his eyelids from desert’s sun so they wear khol despite never having seen the desert, if prophet had worn a stick in his ass, they would wear one in theirs”.

In Christianism Jesus is also last of prophets but there are four Gospels and while they basically coincide on Christ’s teachings it allows interpretation. But the lmost important is that Christ’s rules are merely moral, very difficult to follow and he was completely unconcerned about politics or every day life so there was both a need to adapt Christ precepts to real world and a vast space unruled by religion. Coran is a lot more detailed and when solution is not directly in it there is the life of Muhammad, the perfect man, object of a personaliity cult who exceeds Stalin’s and Kim Kong Il’s, and when life of Muhammad still reveals nothing then there are the thousand of Muhammad’s sayings (Haddiths) given that Muhammad is right on everything. And there is a haddith for everything, including how you must clean yourself in the toilets.

However you have cheated and sidestepped the question. The question was about not about Islam’s mutability but about its intrinsic nature, about its basic ideas and ideals (ie the guidelines for developping futher ideas) and these, from the unquestionable Coran and from the equally unquestionable Muhammad’s example are:

Muslims have the right and duty to conquer infidels, anything is valid for expanding Islam (cf Muhammad breaking treaties, the practice of Takiyah and the lack of blame for the worst of atrocities as long as they work), Infidel subjects (dhimmis) have no right to legitimate defense and the sentence for their death is only half the one for the death of a Muslim. In other words Muslims are the master race. Finally, there is no sin or crime heinous enough for God not forgiving it if the sinner goes to Jihad (and no, Crusaders didn’t benefit from such unconditional pardon). And then there is the example of Muhammad’s life, the man to be imitated in everything, who had intercourse with a woman whose father and husband bodies have been killed in the preceding minutes and gets a fraction of the booty, women included, each time Muslims are victorious.

That is why except for Ahmadism (who admits prophets after Muhammad, whose prophets teachings are completely opposite to Muhammad’s and who are not accepted as Muslims by 99% of other Muslims), warfare is intrinsic to Islam and the closer to real, unadulterated Islam, the more violent.

then i wish that you experience as soon as possible vague and varying forms of discrimination. But coming from the UK, you already are and you’re too stupid to realize it.

Dhimmi status is an inferior status and this happens in any muslim country and the jyza is the constant flow of cash that comes from various places and benefits only the muslim community.

Christian churches in muslim countries cannot even be repaired and fixed with PRIVATE MONEY.

Actual jyza is present in palestine, iraq under the form of ransom money to small shops.

“The fact that muslims and muslim ruled countries do not apply this system in modern times”

evidence proves you wrong

“your theory that islamic scripture can and will only ever be interpreted in one fixed literal sense by muslims is false”

show me a successful muslim reformer, please, otherwise eat your crow

“Also your claim that Sunni and Shia will always stick together when faced with the infidel is obviously false, you only have to look at the situation in Iraq where Sunni and Shia have been at each others throats depsite the ‘great satan’ actually being there at the time.”

this is the peculiar situation left by your hero saddam, he was a sunni and persecuted the shia that were supported by iran. When he fell, it was payback time.

And they did unite to murder some peace corps that were there. 5000 deads among western soldiers is the evidence of that

“Nice nazi jibe btw, how’s the fingerprinting of gypsies going at the moment in your country? ”

i bet you think you are so smart and witty, if I request a passport and visa to the usa I have to leave my fingertips. Does this make the USA a nazi state?

Please go on making an a$$ of yourself, you are a british form of cheap entertainment.

BTW, there are no fingertips taken of rom people in my country, that is because not all the propaganda that shows up in your fascist press turns out to become reality, unlike your laws to promote poligamy among muslims and forbid it for the rest of the population.

The fact that muslims and muslim ruled countries do not apply this system in modern times clearly shows that there is room for manoeuvre and that your theory that islamic scripture can and will only ever be interpreted in one fixed literal sense by muslims is false.

Also your claim that Sunni and Shia will always stick together when faced with the infidel is obviously false, you only have to look at the situation in Iraq where Sunni and Shia have been at each others throats depsite the ‘great satan’ actually being there at the time.

Nice nazi jibe btw, how’s the fingerprinting of gypsies going at the moment in your country?