2006 February 01 Wednesday
The Danish Anti-Muslim Cartoon Flap Keeps Growing

Some cartoons in a Danish newspaper that showed Islam's founder Mohammed as a terrorist with a bomb in his turban have got Arab governments protesting and Muslims enraged. Ho hum, and so what is new here? Anyway, a French newspaper's editor decided to run the cartoons to support the right of freedom of expression.

PARIS, Feb. 1 (UPI) -- A French newspaper waded into an international storm over freedom of expression vs. respecting religious beliefs by printing Wednesday all 12 controversial Danish cartoons spoofing the Prophet Mohammed.

"Yes," the newspaper, France-Soir, declared on its front page, "One has the right to make fun of God." Underneath, it offered its own cartoon showing Jesus, Jehovah, Buddha and an upset Mohammed sitting on a cloud. "Don't whine," Jesus is telling the Muslim prophet, "We've all been made fun of here."

In an editorial, France-Soir said it was simply doing its job by printing the cartoons, which first ran in the Danish Jyllands-Posten daily last September.

The French newspaper denounced "this religious intolerance that refuses to support any mockery, any satire, any gibes." And the newspaper derided a motley assortment of critics of the cartoon -- ranging from Arab ministers who called the cartoons an "offense to Islam," to the Islamic Jihad and other extremist groups -- as hardly the "paragons of tolerance, humanity and democracy."

But the owner of the French newspaper fired the editor who ran the cartoons.

France-Soir owner Raymond Lakah said in a statement to the agency that he "decided to remove Jacques Lefranc as managing director of the publication as a powerful sign of respect for the intimate beliefs and convictions of every individual."

"We express our regrets to the Muslim community and all people who were shocked by the publication" of the cartoons, the statement added.

Appeasement is not the solution.

However, other European newspapers are also running the cartoons.

PARIS, Feb. 1 -- Newspapers across Europe reprinted cartoons Wednesday ridiculing the prophet Muhammad, saying they wanted to support the right of Danish and Norwegian papers to publish the caricatures, which have ignited fury among Muslims throughout the world.

Germany's Die Welt daily newspaper published one of the drawings on its front page and said the "right to blasphemy" is one of the freedoms of democracy.

...

Italy's La Stampa newspaper and the daily El Periodico in Spain also published some of the drawings Wednesday.

The Muslims keep upping the ante.

Although the newspaper on Monday issued an apology for having offended Muslims throughout the world, the conflict between Denmark and the Arab world is ever-mounting: Arab countries have ordered home their Danish ambassadors, Danish products are being boycotted in several Muslim-dominated countries, and Danish and Norwegian flags are being burned on sidewalks all over the Middle East.

On Monday, a group of armed Palestinians stormed a European Union office in the Gaza strip, a day after al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades distributed flyers urging Scandinavians to leave the area within 72 hours.

Right-wing Danish lawmakers have apparently decided to hit back, with racist propaganda there making it into the media daily.

"All countries in the West are infiltrated by Muslims. They are nice to us while they wait until they are enough to kill us," said Mogens Camre, a MEP from the right-wing Danish People's Party, or DVP.

The previous article is on the question of whether Islamophobia is on the rise in Europe. Well, duh, of course it is. Every incident like the cartoons ends up stoking far more Islamophobia due to the Muslim reaction than the actual cartoon or original statement that made the Muslims upset in the first place. The Muslims keep insisting they have a right to scare everyone else into submission. Surely with each such flap more people notice what the Muslims keep saying and the vehemence with which they say it. Then the occasional train or bus bomb drives home the point like a loud exclamation point.

I like Steve Sailer's idea that Europe's governments should pay their Muslims to leave. The illegals can just get deported. But the rest can get money offers to exit the European stage.

Are the Muslims winning with their intimidation?

In Denmark, Carsten Juste, the editor of Jyllands-Posten, yesterday said opponents of free expression had won.

"My guess is that no-one will draw the Prophet Muhammad in Denmark in the next generation and therefore I must say with deep shame that they have won," he said.

Anyone have a link to English language translations of these cartoons?

Reminding me why it has been a long time since I liked a US President Bill Clinton has sided with the Muslims as their boycott has grown.

Supermarkets in Algeria, Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Qatar, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen all removed Danish produce from their shelves. Arla Foods, a Danish company with annual sales of about $430 million in the Middle East, said that the boycott was almost total and suspended production in Saudi Arabia.

The Muslim Council of Britain, whose leaders are to meet the Danish ambassador tomorrow, deplored the newspapers’ refusal to apologise for printing “sacrilegious cartoons vilifying the Prophet Muhammad”.

Bill Clinton, the former US President, added his voice, telling a conference in Qatar that he feared anti-Semitism would be replaced with anti-Islamic prejudice. He condemned “these totally outrageous cartoons against Islam”.

Well, I'd like to see more European newspapers run cartoons that make fun of Islam. Then maybe the Muslims would totally boycott the European Union and the Euros could shut down all flights to the Middle East except flights to deport Muslims.

Writing in The Forward Danish Jew Jeffry Mallow says Danes see the Muslim reaction as an attempt to impose Muslim religious law on Danes.

It doesn't help that Muslims — both here and in the Middle East — seem to many Danes to be demanding more than just respect. Most Danes agree that it's unfair to depict the prophet of Islam as a mad bomber. But many public voices in the Arab and Muslim press are going further: They want Denmark and the West to honor the Muslim religious ban on any depictions of Muhammad. That raises images of imposing Sharia law on Denmark, a country that guards its freedom of expression almost — well, religiously. Besides, as one observer noted this week, Jewish religious law forbids the depiction of God, but Jews don't boycott Italy for Michelangelo's "Creation."

Denmark, like France, Great Britain and the Netherlands, is finally being forced to face the question of just what it means to be an immigrant. Does it mean accepting the culture of one's adopted homeland, keeping one's own roots as long as they don't violate the law? Or does it mean, "Thanks for a piece of your territory, and now I will teach you — or force you — to live by my norms"? And what's a free society to do about it?

Do not allow in immigrants who are incompatible with your culture. Muslim immigration is bad. It is time to stop it and reverse it.

See some of the cartoons here. More complete collections are available here and here. Pretty boring stuff. But enough to make Muslims go nuts.

Update: The Muslims did make paintings and other visual representations of Muhammad/Mohammed/Muhammed in previous centuries. I guess they should go back in a time machine and kill their blasphemous ancestors. Check out more Muslim paintings of Mohammed made in previous centuries.

Update II: Wikipedia has an excellent account of the whole Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons saga.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2006 February 01 10:19 PM  Civilizations Clash Of


Comments
mariana said at February 1, 2006 10:58 PM:

Somebody should start a pictures of Mohammed site.

TangoMan said at February 2, 2006 12:22 AM:

Check out the fabled Muslim tolerance with their publication in Norway of Satan's Sons:

A book that's quietly being distributed within Norway's Muslim community refers to Norwegians as the sons of Satan.

Also, this essay on Liberalism's tolerance of Piss Christ versus their crumbling line of defense for freedom of expression when aligned against toleration for other cultures/religions. Imagine an artist creating a work of art where Mohammed was immersed in piss.

John S Bolton said at February 2, 2006 12:47 AM:

Mohammed was the immoral founder of a this-worldly terrorist network. His followers have always been about power in this world. Today, the moslems try to appoint themselves the censors of the entire world. This means war, and nothing but war, with them. A sincere faith does not start and end with demands for world dominion and censorship of expressions of unbelief everywhere. They are on a collision course with every rational aspect of life, yet they do not even achieve spirituality above power-seeking. That the left today bargains and allies itself with such a low, hostile faith, demonstrates that they have fallen into an abyss of unprincipled opportunism.
A left which bows down before theocracy of a this-worldy power-greed-infested faith like that of Mohammed, is in complete dishonor.

Max said at February 2, 2006 2:17 AM:

Someone over at Amren pointed out that sadly, in 10 years, this sort of thing will be moot, since Turkey will be admitted to the EU and flood Europe over with Turkish Muslims, demographically swamping out small countries like Denmark and the Netherlands especially hard. This plan to admit Turkey to the EU has to be one of the most suicidally foolish ideas in decades. In fact, it was one of the things that Hillary Clinton pushed for most intensely as a New York Senator as part of her "foreign policy" initiatives, once again revealing how much she despises Western culture and European people in general.

Most of Europe will become "Turkestan" if Turkey is admitted. This cannot be allowed.

deniz said at February 2, 2006 3:56 AM:

MOHAMMED WAS NOT A TERORIST...

deniz said at February 2, 2006 4:01 AM:

u just wrote smth about it....how many people knows smth about muslims...being muslim isnt being arabian or isnt being terorist.......
plz be carefull...u r talking about a relagion and it is prophet....

deniz said at February 2, 2006 4:09 AM:

TURKESTAN:))))))İ LİKE İT.İ DIDNT KNOW EU AFRAIDS OF TURKİYE:)))

Bob Badour said at February 2, 2006 5:58 AM:

Okay, deniz, Mohammed was not a terrorist. According to Muslim history, he was a genocidal pedophile who murdered passersby to steal their belongings and rape their women.

But, you are right: he never once set off a bomb in a crowded market.

ACID said at February 2, 2006 6:20 AM:

The assumption here is that the god is the same. That is wrong. It has been discussed over and over in articles in several Euro newspapers. There would no need or right for jews to be unhappy about Michelangelo's "Creation". It isn't really the same god. At the very least it is an improved god (from the eruo christian point of view). The term "Judeo-Christian" is an abused oxymore. It is probably a bit insulting for jews too. The only real "Judeo-Christians" are a few protestant-evangelical sects that have a strong influence in the USA. The same ones that say that catholics and others are pagan.
One must realize what kind if societies muslims often come from. One must realize that virtually all muslim countries score between 80 and 90 on an IQ scale. And we are talking about cities. Their is much to improve. Assuming it is possible. Remember what problems romans had with rioting jews (the arabs of their time)?
So what do you expect?

deniz said at February 2, 2006 9:35 AM:

hey bob,i am not an arabian,i am turkish...i never approve what they do...it is somethng that all of u dont want to see...every muslim isnt terorist...u cant say it like we cant say all christians r terorist because of nazi...
u talked about genocidal pedophil...now i understand that u dont know anything about islam...mohammed and his folows were in war lots of time.it is certain but it wasnt for being killed people.it is because of protecting themselves.they moved from mekke to medine just because of not to kill the others.because they dont let them to pray even they dont let them to live.i dont know smth about ur believes but if u r believe in god think about it if he is an terorist how do the god let him to genocide?
buy the way u can search if u want but mohammed had never marry wıth a virgin...

Roy said at February 2, 2006 9:49 AM:

The west too has a "sacred" subject which cannot be freely discussed. Anybody who denies the holocaust is subject to imprisonment in many western european countries. Why are the european papers, which claim to be ardent defenders of the right to freedom of expression silent on the denial of freedom of expression to David Irving?

Engineer-Poet said at February 2, 2006 10:00 AM:

Because the denialists are liars, and the last time people like that were allowed to get into positions of power several million people went into death camps?  Lies hurt us, whether they come from the Nazis, Stalinists, leftist PC fascists or others.

Invisible Scientist said at February 2, 2006 10:43 AM:

Roy:
For the West, the Holocaust denial issue is not so much about the objective analysis of facts, but malevolent manipulation of the facts for the benefit of certain intentionally power hungry groups such as neo-Nazi factions. David Irving is well known to be intrinsically unfair in his way of treating the Holocaust subject. In one of his lectures I have attended, he even said that basically "interesting" by presenting it in other ways. But if it can be shown that he is intentionally manipulating and altering the facts, then this freedom of expression is at some point misused. It is also true that the Nazi party came to power in a legal manner, by simply using the freedom of speech, freedom of expression, etc, by manipulating facts, exaggerating here and there, and suppressing other facts a little bit from here and a little bit from there... With enough lies, you can make innocent crowds commit mass murders. In fact, MOST Germans happily cooperated with the Holocaust processes, because they were sufficiently indoctrinated by the "freedom of expression" of Goebbels and his gang.

daveg said at February 2, 2006 10:55 AM:


I personally think the holocause denial laws are poorly thought through and should be struck from the books.

Roy correctly points out that these laws are hypocritcal and are a blemish on the west.

"Aanti-hate" laws are also an abomination.

Marvin said at February 2, 2006 1:08 PM:

I propose the founding of a Mohammed Film Festival, as a contest for amateur filmmakers. The best film portraying Mohammed will win a cash prize. You can create different categories such as high school filmmakers, college/university filmmakers, and amateur non-student filmmakers. A prize for the winner of each category.

You might even have a category for best Mohammed cartoonist, and best satirical Mohammed songwriter. Put it all on a site on the web like atomfilms.com. Swamp them with entries from around the world so they won't know who to be angry with the most. It will drive them even more insane than they are now.

Stephen said at February 2, 2006 4:26 PM:

Last night I watched a tv news show waiting to see how a visual medium would handle the story (ie it simply begs for the cartoons to be shown in the news clip). Unsurprisingly, the cameraman never quite managed to get a focuss on the cartoons themselves, so the viewers never got a chance to see what all the fuss was about.

It'll be interesting to see what the Murdoch Press does in the west. I hope to be surprised, but my guess is that it'll only be the few remaining independent newspapers that'll run the cartoons.

The fear is here already.

Bob Badour said at February 2, 2006 6:33 PM:

Deniz,

I don't recall accusing you of being either an arab or a terrorist, which leaves me struggling unsuccessfully to discern a point in what you wrote.

With respect to genocide, Mohammed ordered the killing of the entire people once known as the Banu Qurayza.

With respect to pedophilia, his favourite wife was 9.

With respect to murder, the historical record shows the early career of Mohammed and his followers was as marauders or bandits who attacked passersby.

Others,

With respect to the holocaust deniers, either one has freedom of speech or one does not. Nobody was ever killed because some idiot denied the holocaust. Be very, very careful what you wish for. The limits on freedom of expression work both ways making it illegal in some places to observe the historical facts of Mohammed's life.

Invisible Scientist said at February 2, 2006 6:47 PM:

My point is that the actual personal life of a prophet is not necessarily a reason to blame the whole nations who have inherited that religion. Similarly, even though officially Christianity was supposed to be a gentle and docile religion, the previous cruelty of the Christian nations surpass the cruelty of the Muslim nations overall. The Crusaders were FAR more violent than many other groups, and many millions of Catholic Germans happily became willing Nazi executioners. Thus is better to judge a people according to how they behave themselves instead of according to their religion. So far, the Al Qaeda and other fanatical groups are STILL a small minority in Muslim countries, while the rest of the Muslims are simply watching the situation... If the majority of the Muslims decide to join Al Qaeda in the future, then the issue will not be simply Islam, but the actual people who are deciding to behave themselves in the manner they chose to. This might mean WW III and WW IV in the future, but it will be the decision of the people who chose to use religion in one way or the other.

Markus said at February 2, 2006 7:58 PM:

Why do we let muslims into the country??? They aren't very bright and we have all the unskilled dumb workers we could ever need, and more, from Mexico.

As much as I would like to erect a great big wall along the Southern border, I have to admit, Mexicans are MUCH better than muslims.

Marcel said at February 3, 2006 6:48 AM:

Muslims are the new Nazis. They are intolerant of any opinions which oppose islam and they hate the jews. We must stop these Nazis at all costs. Muhammad the prophet, may pork be upon him and his flea infested followers.

LPG said at February 3, 2006 9:26 AM:

Read THE END OF FAITH, by Sam Harris. You will attain an understanding of why all religions are crazy. It is just inherent in the concept. Some faiths are more damaging than others and some even feed off of their perceved compatable prophacies. Armageddon is particularly popular. To the most extreme sects or cults, this life on earth is completely meaningless; unless you can convert as many as possible to your own way of "thinking". It is even better if you can hasten things along and destroy as many infidels as possible while you rocket to paradise in a MILLION LITTLE PIECES. Poor reason. It is facing a tough battle on all fronts.
LPG

Pico said at February 3, 2006 10:43 AM:

"the previous cruelty of the Christian nations surpass the cruelty of the Muslim nations overall"

Only somebody unfamiliar with muslim rule in India could say that.

deniz said at February 3, 2006 11:10 AM:


i dont understand all of u...europe says we r contemporary...if u r contemporary with blaming people with their belives, sorry i dont want to be like u...i cant say bad things about anyones belives because i have to respect...sometimes it comes ridiculas but i have to...but the newspaper didnt do it...noone can show holly things a mess like that...LOOK i never want to change ideas about islam or muslims.i just want to be respected.i just want to make u understand that u r talking about a propet.
i am a turkish and muslim woman...i am proud of being turkish and muslim...no one can jugde me with my nation and belive.i cant do it too...
u r the real nazi...milions of people even cant speak their mother language in europe...

Nazihistorian said at February 3, 2006 12:43 PM:

If the Muslims believe the images are blasphemous then can't they simply be satisfied that the cartoonists are going to hell? - Surely that is punishment enough? Certainly Allah and Muhammed would have made it so - if they exist!!

Can I also say as a Nazi Historian that your comparisons to Nazism are incredibly misguied! The Nazis followed a program of 'forced euthanasia' (a contradiction I know) on not only Jews, but also Gypsies, Dissenters, Opposition and resistors, the Physcially and Mentally handicapped, the very elderly, in the night of the Long Knives in 1938 even Loyal Nazis that did not adhere to Hitler's personal vision were simply murdered. Can we please be sensible before using Nazi comparisons.

An historian.

neveroneofyou said at February 3, 2006 1:34 PM:

well well. everything is set up i guess. make all christians, muslims and jews hate each other, let them war and kill each other. let the weapon dealers be rich. let the rich people rise on the blood of innocent people. just keep hating and insulting so your beloved ones would die in unjust wars. if you are a true muslim, christian or jew why can't you just love and respect the other people? this world is going insane...

deniz said at February 3, 2006 1:48 PM:

i dont hate ANYONE........I JUST WANNA HAVE SOME RESPECTION....

seelow heights said at February 3, 2006 2:23 PM:

Despite the terrorist attacks of recent years on New York, Bali, Madrid, London, the US Embassies in East Africa et al, there are apparently some fools who still think Islam is a religion like all other religions. BTW, I practice no religion.

Whoever says that "millions of Germans enthusiastically cooperated in the Holocaust" is spending too much time in the laboratory. The extermination of the Jews was an official State Secret. If millions participated secrecy could hardly have been maintained. Only a relatively small number of Germans were involved and many of the perpetrators were Slavs or other East Europeans acting under SS orders or encouragement.

The "holocaust denial" laws are an obvious offense against freedom of speech. You have to ask yourself why no one has ever gone to prison for denying the Turkish genocide of the Armenians or the various Communist democides. Anyone who uses the imaginary threat of neo-nazism as a reason to suppress freedom of speech has a screw loose. There is, on the other hand, a real and undeniable Islamist threat- but I believe this is still no reason to deny freedom of speech to Islamists. As Bob Badour said "either one has freedom of speech or one does not". That the slippery slope is real is demonstrated by the recent attempt by the UK Labor government to pass a law protecting Islam against "insults". A law was passed but with watered-down language after a backbench Labor revolt. Also witness the recent trial of BNP leader Nick Griffin for calling Islam a "wicked religion".

MrsNormal said at February 3, 2006 3:06 PM:

Firstly, Deniz, Please do not criticise people's grammar or the Queen's English skills when the computer spell checker is so obviously beyond your comprehension, it's a very useful little tool that may also assist you with your obvious struggle to speak the 3rd most internationally used language. (For those wanting to know the first and second they are, according to my sources, Mandarin and Spanish although English does come in second place on some websites)
Secondly, Why do we have to make religion such a big issue? what does it offer us? The nice thought that when we die we go to a nice place? Or is it the fear of standing alone and believing in yourself rather than hiding behind a belief of the unknown? I am a very logical woman, I like to have things proven to me, so I'm very open minded about all history that happened prior to my birth. Why are people so quick to believe books and yet attitude to the media remains healthy, you only believe a little, do we believe that if it is published in hard back or some ancient text, it must be true? Religion is a man made weapon of mass destruction just the same as any bomb or bullet, there was no religion during the prehistoric period was there?
Finally, Deniz, I'm sorry but I'd definately say that any man who married a girl of 9 years old or younger was undisputedly a paedophile and deserved to be judged and punished as such. I do however, understand that there are different ideas and customs throughout the world and history that see no harm in this, and I respect that (I don't choose to live in these places) but my general opinion remains the same, a girl of 9 years old is neither emotionally or physically developed enough to cope successfully with that type of relationship.
Immigration in this country has become huge, Deniz you ask for respect, respect is earned and the majority of immigrants that I have come upon have shown no respect whatsoever, this is not an invasion, they are not taking the country by storm, we opened our doors to them and allowed them in, the least we deserve as a Nation is the appreciation of the millions we have helped, you may then find that respect rapidly follows.

The general public said at February 3, 2006 3:45 PM:

It is ridiculous that one simple cartoon has caused more uproar than the atrocities that this vile religion condones.
What do you expect from a religion that condones being a paedophile as Mohammed was,What a role model he must be.The only reason he isn't depicted as a bomber is because they hadn't been invented when he was supposed to have existed.I say supposed as none of you people seem to have heard of evolution which is the real reason we are here.
All religion leads to war and therefore is pointless and made up.
The Bible is no more beleivable than Lord of the Rings!I haven't read any muslim scriptures.I'm waiting for the films to come out!But as hollywood would be the only ones who could make these without them involving a beheading or 9 year old bride then i guess i'm in for a long wait.
Muslims have a very selective memory and obviously no sense of humour.
They don't feel outraged when a hostage is beheaded on the internet but they do when a cartoon is drawn depicting a made up fun scenario and after all there would be no cartoon if there had not been murderers killing innocents in the name of Islam.
Muslim is a joke religion to the rest of the world and one that should be erradicated for the future sake of the planet.
These people protesting should get jobs.
Muslim clerics such as the one at Finsbury Park Mosque are allowed to stand in the country that they scrounge from with freedom of speech so why does this not apply to the danes who are not muslims and were in their own country at the time.
The only people making a big deal out of this are the people who are the real problem,the fundamentalists with nothing better to do.
I pity you all and your chosen way of life.Losers.
We have welcomed so many of you into the UK and you repay us by Bombing,moaning,claiming benefits and raping women.
The BNP were right.At least some sense has prevailed today when it comes to freedom of speech.
You'll probably try to bomb Denmark now as that all you know.
At least in this country we have evolved from Cave men more than some.

the general public said at February 3, 2006 3:59 PM:

Response for Deniz
What the hell is respection!?
As a turk you are used to slimy,horrible men who balance slugs on their top lips so that doesn't really give you the right to judge what a decent person is.
Turkish men are filth and if you are married to one then i pity you.
Your made up prophet was a child rapist and a murderer and this is probably what turkish men model themselves on.
What a crackpot bunch, Even when you make something up, it's still vile.
I suggest you go and learn English if you are going to remain in this country or you can just not bother like the rest of your ignorant tribe.

Stephen said at February 3, 2006 5:39 PM:

Deniz, I understand that you want respect for your (or anyone's) beliefs. That's perfectly understandable. But how do you in return respect people who hold the belief that everything is open to critisism (including religions, their prophets and the various rules they make)? I keep coming back to the childhood proverb - "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me."

Mrs Normal, I don't see where Deniz critisised other people's gramer. In fact, she's doing a brilliant job of debating a philosphical point in a foreign language. How many of us would be willing to try that? I welcome Deniz.

TheGeneralPublic, yech, you appear to be the object lesson in favour of censorship.

Bob Badour said at February 3, 2006 6:13 PM:

Invisible Scientist,

Your hyperbole turns me off. If millions of german catholics participated in the holocaust, each of them would only have to have murdered a handful of jews. There would have been no need whatsoever for the vile mechanization of death that was the holocaust. I think you offend the dead and diminish the horror of what happened when you change its nature thus.

I have noticed in recent years a shrill hysteria coming from some parts. The Simon Weisenthal Center lost my support over their ridiculous hysteria in advance of the release of Gibson's The Passion of Christ. Facts and undertstatement would go much further.

Deniz,

I do not respect beliefs, per se. Some people believe the earth is corrugated. Some beliefs are even more ridiculous. Some beliefs are evil. For instance, some people believe in mutilating the genitalia of girls to deprive them ever knowing pleasure as women. What's more, the base texts of Islam do not respect my beliefs, and I doubt very much that you respect them either.

The one thing I respect above all else is intellectual honesty. If you want my respect, I suggest you start by acknowledging the facts. Embrace empiricism. Muslim historians, themselves, recorded the genocide of the Banu Qurayza and Mohammed's marriage to nine year old Alia.

You believe you are talking about a prophet. I know we are talking about a vile murderous pedophile who was prone to schizoid rants and who developed a cult-like following. I do not believe we are talking about a prophet, and I am sure you find my beliefs as ridiculous as I find yours.

Bob Badour said at February 3, 2006 7:33 PM:

Invisible Scientist,

My point is that the actual personal life of a prophet is not necessarily a reason to blame the whole nations who have inherited that religion. Similarly, even though officially Christianity was supposed to be a gentle and docile religion, the previous cruelty of the Christian nations surpass the cruelty of the Muslim nations overall.

The Christian history of Christ's life shows him as a man who preached loving one's enemies and turning the other cheek. The primary base texts of Christianity, ie. the new testament, make almost no mention of fighting or killing. As I recall, a search of the text of the new testament for 'fight' turns up a grand total of 9 hits mostly involving the text 'fight the good fight', which has nothing to do with combativeness.

The recorded history of Christ's life show him as a singularly spiritual man who did not involve himself in affairs of the flesh. The closest he came to a warlike or political act was casting out the money changers, which was political only within the arena of organized religion.

Contrast this with the muslim history of Mohammed, a political leader whose early career amounted to desert piracy, who took 4 wives including a 9 year old girl, and who massacred entire peoples. The primary text of Islam, ie. the Qu'ran, consists largely of violent schizoid rants about mutilation and murder, the subordination of less desirable people on the basis of creed or sex etc. A search for the word fight will turn up hundreds of hits. Hundreds more for the word kill. Hundreds more for smite/smote. etc.

It is true that Christianity went through periods of intolerant violence and that Islam went through periods of relatively enlightened tolerance. However, these historical periods aberrate from their base texts. Christian violence was only sustainable by keeping an illiterate multitude ignorant of the actual gospel. As soon as the gospel became more readily available, the violent intolerance became unsustainable and all sects of the religion reverted to forms closer to the base texts.

Truly fundamentalist Christians, like the Mennonites and Amish, are singularly non-threatening to others and ask only to be left alone.

Likewise, the tolerant periods of Islam required a largely ignorant muslim multitude to follow the deviant interpretation of a higher human authority and central power within Islam. While Islam was relatively literate at the time, only a minority of muslims--mostly converted from other faiths--were actually literate, and Islamic society even during the periods of tolerance would not count as highly literate by modern standards.

I expect increasing literacy and modern mass communications to bring Islam closer to the base texts, and this is in fact what we are seeing today. The most virulent terrorism originates from the relatively highly educated Saudis.

While we can expect periodic outbursts of Christian fundamentalism to create pacifist sects adhering closely to the base texts of Christianity, we can expect periodic outbursts of Islamic fundamentalism to create murderous sects adhering closely to the base texts of Islam.

Just as only a small minority of Christians will embrace the austere life of the Mennonites, only a small minority of Muslims will embrace suicidal terrorism. However, the problem does not end there.

For every suicide bomber, there are 1000 willing to pick up arms and kill even if they won't strap on a suit of dynamite. For every one willing to pick up arms and kill, 1000 cheer them on and provide as much logistical support as they are able. For each of those, there are 100 who admire the killers and who will donate money to organizations they know support them. And 100's more who will donate money to any nominally muslim organisation without looking too closely at where the money is going. And 1000's more refuse to condemn the murderers even if they do not agree with their methods.

I have fairly simple criteria for determining which muslims are moderate and which are the enemy. Those who believe that the Qu'ran represents the unadulterated and unassailable word of Allah himself are the enemy. Only those who admit that the Qu'ran is a human artifact are moderate, and some of those are still the enemy if they support the expansion of Islam through violence.

In terms of violence and combativeness, the old testament falls between the Qu'ran and the new testament. And indeed, the Jewish faith falls between Islam and Christianity in terms of combativeness.

kim said at February 3, 2006 7:52 PM:

first of all, i would give credit to deniz for speaking up (in english). while most of u ignorants probabely speak one langauge, not even english, but redneck white supremasist old bullshit, she probabely speaks more than one language.
second, i'm an american Doctor,with half of my friends from an arab muslim descent,aand i,ve been to tunisia and morrocco several times.and been ashamed of the difference in culture and civilization between us, the free world( my ass!)and them. bob badour: you racist little bacteria, stop filling ur little brain with Fox news propaganda, and try to makeit tocanada for couple days,listen todifferentsides of the story than shoot ur self!
I'm sickof all of my white trash society!...fucking wake up!!

Randall Parker said at February 3, 2006 8:10 PM:

Kim,

You fool, Bob is a Canadian writing from Canada. I doubt he has access to Fox News. I rarely watch any TV news myself.

We are less civilized and cultured than Arabs? Spain publishes more books than all the Arab countries. The Saudis do not let women drive. In some Muslim countries women have to hide their faces.

Profaner said at February 3, 2006 8:18 PM:

For Pete's sake! And the Virgin Moses! I'm Amercian- and Californian at that- non Moslim. The cartoons were definatley rude and disrespectful. and the papers were a bunch of real wise guys looking for trouble. BUT.

You Euro folks have too many Moslims in your countries in relation to your populations. Somebody on here said that the cultures were "incompatible" and they really are. The Moslims do not have a sense of humor much at all. They get pissed off really easy- at the drop of a hat. No one has cracked a joke in an Islamic country since 1942 and in that case it was an Italian guy. This is not an easy going group of folks. I think Euros ought to reconcider their immigrant policies not only for their own good- but also for the good of their Islamic immigrants. No one wants trouble- but the Islamic folks do get mighty scarey when they are in large numbers with some pretty funky ideas about how things ought to be.

And they do intimidate in order to get their way. And their way really kinda SUCKS to tell you the truth. Which is why the "Western" folks don't want to go along with it in their own countries. Western Countries where millions of people have died and sacrificed in order to protect Freedoms from scarey, freaky people who get too powerful. Like they say where I'm from. "I don't like you calling me an asshole- but I'll fight and maybe even give my life for your right to say it".

I know i'm being racist. And I don't want anything bad to happen to Moslims. I want them to be free to do whatever they like. But, please understand, to me Muslims are scarey and wear the shirt of another team. I really DO get the idea that they want to take over and even hate their host countries. And that really wouldn't be all that bad if they had a BETTER plan. Go for it. You got a better idea - have a field day! But Muslims plan is MESSED UP and scares the hell out of me. I'd rather we (Evil infidels) run the show. I like our plan better for the long run. Maybe it's a mess in the short run. Partly because some Muslims want to keep fighting- and that hold up progress. What's so damned bad about our (Western) way? I know it has it's bad stuff. But it sure beats Sharia law imposed on everyone. You wouldn't hardly be able to get anything done if we all had Sharia Law. It just wouldn't work. Not really. It's a mess.

Randall Parker said at February 3, 2006 8:18 PM:

Kim,

Oh, and I'm sick of condescending, ignorant liberal leftists like yourself who try to claim higher status by looking down on what you call "white trash society". Trash? You are fully as bad as the Muslims. No wonder you prefer them. Okay, leave. Go get away from us.

kim said at February 3, 2006 8:29 PM:

here we go again,lefty against righty.parker,I'm from michigan, a blue state, and my dad is a pick up truck guy, as well as my brother. point is, we are an egocentric society, full of grandeur illusions (left and right). and Markus and Susan are a perfect exempleof what im talking about.then again ask urself a question, why everybody hates americans and love canadians?...we ashare the same north american system in a surprisingly same way!
and foru all white fucking trash...I voted republican.
and for u Deniz...respect

Bob Badour said at February 3, 2006 8:32 PM:

Fox news? I don't have television, and I ignore network news when visiting others who do have it.

Make it to Canada? I live in Prince Edward Island. Did we secede again? I would have thought I would notice that in the local newspaper headlines.

I am not sure where you get the idea I am a racist. I do not hate anybody on the basis of race. In fact, I don't really hate anybody.

Have you read the Qu'ran? Have you tried any of the searches I suggested? Can you point me to any sort of violent expansionism within the gospel?

Or do you find facts and logic so unassailable you have nothing left but impotent insults to hurl at them? I find that very weak, and frankly an admission of defeat.

Personally, I only ever learned english, german, french, dutch and homeric greek. Although, I have largeley forgotten the german, french, dutch and homeric greek through disuse over the past twenty years; I can still manage to order fast food in both germany and quebec.

Of the people who post in the comments to Randall's blog, I cannot think of any who are rednecks, per se. Certainly not Randall or any of the real regulars.

I am a devout atheist. Kim, if you want to engage in comparative analysis of civilisations, I suggest you ask your Tunisian and Moroccan friends what their religious texts and personal views say about tolerating my religion. I think that will give you a good starting point at empiricism.

Stephen said at February 3, 2006 8:33 PM:

Bob, I defer to you on the interesting religious comparison (not being sarcastic, rather an honest appreciation). Out of interest, do you know whether anyone has done an academically rigorous comparison of the love:hate ratio of the world's various religious ramblings?

That said, I think there's a sociological / organisational theory approach that might cast more light than a simple comparison of religious texts. I hypothesise that some religions (organisations) change their aggressive stance as a strategy for survival. For instance, a small sect might choose a low profile (ie nice flowery live-and-let-live language) because otherwise they'd be crushed by the large religion surrounding it. Whereas a dominant religion might go soft because (a) its dominant/unchallenged; (b) decides it can get more members by being nice. Finally, a religion that is challenged from all sides might go militant.

Bob Badour said at February 3, 2006 8:47 PM:
why everybody hates americans and love canadians?...

I am not sure who "everybody" is that you refer to. Most canadians disgust me. My father was in the Canadian navy in 1954, and according to him, he did not receive a very warm welcome in Brest, France. Then again, the Canadian navy did shell Brest back to the stone age less than a decade earlier.

Personally, I don't perceive much love of Canada among the bulk of Islam.

For the rest, I assume they have the same affection for Canada that they have for other hapless and harmless fools.


Kim, given your outward embrace of insults and disdain for facts and intellect, I am not sure what you think your respect is worth. Frankly, I am quite happy to lack the respect of the likes of you.

Bob Badour said at February 3, 2006 9:14 PM:

Stephen,

Both David Koresh's sect and the Mennonites are small sects; however, they differed very much in their aggressiveness. Likewise, Islam, Christianity and Buddhism are large religions with greatly differing aggressiveness--both as a whole and internally.

Just from those observations, I find your hypothesis flawed.

I really have no idea what rigorous studies have been done or even what would constitute rigor in comparative religion.


Randall,

No wonder you prefer them. Okay, leave. Go get away from us.

Don't hold back -- tell us what you really think!

In all seriousness, I find that outburst very unlike you. While I am largely guessing, I recommend more and better sleep.

Profaner said at February 3, 2006 9:28 PM:

The other differece with Christianity in the modern sense is that in the modern world Christians aren't allowed to run the show. A secular rule of law does- so that all are protected- even wacky religions. You have to go back quite a long time before you have Christians making the rules for society. And that wasn't a very good plan either. It didn't work out very well. Muslims - at least many of them want a Religious law. Bad Plan....

Bob Badour said at February 3, 2006 9:47 PM:

Profaner,

That's not really true throughout the west. The Queen of England, for instance, is the nominal head of the Anglican church and the nominal ruler of the UK, Canada and other commonwealth countries.

I, for one, wish the separation of church and state were ubiquitous throughout the west, but alas it is not so.

Randall Parker said at February 3, 2006 11:00 PM:

Stephen,

The British Parliament just came within one vote of passing a law that might have prevented publishing of things like those Danish cartoons. I do not think the various Western goverments are within a few percent of each other in terms of press freedoms.

Randall Parker said at February 3, 2006 11:09 PM:

Kim,

People resent for lots of reasons. People feel jealousy. That's a big one.

Canadians talk down America because they need to maintain their own sense of identity living next to the most powerful country that happens to have a similar culture. So they systematically bias themselves to do comparisons that make them feel better. Some Europeans do the same thing. The French do this especially. One can measure how secure and comfortable peoples are in their national self images in part by how much they resent America. Some need to use America as a foil. Some don't. I prefer the latter types of people.

Do not take people's emotional reactions as a reliable indicator of the accuracy or fairness of their understanding.

pervez kapadia said at February 4, 2006 2:47 AM:

I think Muslims in Europe are totally intolerent.I have seen these cartoons and I do not find them woth being a cause for WW3!Having made Europe as their home land these Muslims must mix with the Euros totally. That they havnt done so for centuries is a shame!

deniz said at February 4, 2006 4:22 AM:

kim;thanks for ur respection

Dave D. said at February 4, 2006 5:39 AM:

Thanks Bob, Randall and the rest of you. The discussions are very enlightened and with the exception of Kim quite civil given the subject matter. I look forward to posting if I can get thougts out on the level with most of you folks. This subject is very interesting to me as I have believed we(USA) have been in a war with Islam since the Iran Hostage crisis or rather Islam has been at war with us. Thanks again Bob.

DD

Marvin said at February 4, 2006 6:21 AM:

Is it possible that deniz and kim are the same person? "Respection" is just too contrived a word, too trollish. Deniz sounds not like a real person, but rather an amalgam of someone's idea of a Turkish muslim woman would sound like.
Kim says she "voted republican" but what does that mean? That she once voted for a city councilwoman who happened to be republican? It is meaningless. Trolls.

Bob Badour is sounding particularly spirited on this thread. Good on you, Bob!

Invisible Scientist said at February 4, 2006 7:15 AM:

Bob:
You wrote above that when I said that millions of Catholic Germans willingly became Hitler's willing executioners, this was an inaccurate statement that diminishes the significance of the "automated" Nazi death machine. What I was saying is that millions of Catholic Germans were happily participating in the arrest and shipment of the human cargo to the concentration camps. Note that this was NOT simply in Germany, but even in very remote parts of the world like Russia, Greece, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and even the remote Greek Island Rhodes. This also involved those Catholics who were old friends and neighbors of Jews who suddenly changed their perspective and happily called the police to get their Jewish (or even half-Jewish) compatriots and neighbors arrested simply. In other words, what I am saying is that there was considerable active and semi-active participation done by the millions of Catholic Germans (and many Christian Europeans who benefited from collaborating with the Nazis) that led to the arrest and deportation of Jews... In fact, the overwhelming majority of Catholic Germans applauded the discriminatory Nuremberg laws that caused all Jewish and half-Jewish citizens to be demoted to sub-human status. In order to participate in the triumph of evil, it is not necessary to directly execute and humiliate others, just by doing the indirect work that led to the arrest and deportation is enough to be considered "evil." As one of the commentators above mentioned, the same Nazi Catholics extended the discrimination against non-Jews, by the millions...

One remark I would like to make about the entire situation is that right now, the pandora's box is open(ed) again (for the n't time, and this won't be the last). Many mainstream Europeans will inevitably start discriminating even agsindy s well educated and fully europeanized second generation immigrant whose ancestry appears to be non-European. As some other commentator mentioned above, it is true that respect has to be earned, but this current political situation is making it more difficult for the majority of people to remain individualistic and to give the respect to the ones who respect it...

Bob Badour said at February 4, 2006 7:53 AM:

Invisible Scientist,

There is a huge difference between reporting a neighbour for deportation and executing the neighbour. The Nazis did not exactly publicize what actually happened to the people who got put on the trains, and I expect very few people went down to the trainyard to see how their neighbours got treated once they got there. And frankly, it does not require every person to report neighbours to have them rounded up. One or two hateful individuals could cover an entire neighbourhood.

Certainly, a lot of people must have known, and many of them actively participated nevertheless.

However, the number of people one could accurately describe as willing executioners numbered far, far less than a million. For every eager collaborator, you will find another who risked their own life to save the lives of those they could.

As I said, the hyperbole turns me off and does your cause harm. The actual facts are sufficiently horrifying that understatement will prove far more effective. If you want to make every european catholic your enemy, I suppose that is your prerogative. However, I suggest they would make better allies.

deniz said at February 4, 2006 8:54 AM:

me and kim r the same.......good theory:))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Ibnu said at February 4, 2006 9:24 AM:

Correction for Deniz:
The only virgin among Mohammad s.a.w.(sholallahu alayhee wassalam)'s wifes is Aisyah.
My advice is try to learn about Islam from the right source. Try to find the Salafy websites. May Allah guides you and help you to help this only religion against those who knows nothing but hatred and self proud.

Correction for the person who think of himself or their own people are smarter than others (the people they hate):
Learn!!! Proud is the mother of the sins. Have you learned yet?

Allahuakhbar said at February 4, 2006 11:06 AM:

Muslim brothers and sisters,
there is not point fighting and debating here with the kufar!Astafirullahalazim muslim brothers and sisters!May ALLAH protect us!InsyaAllah

Surah Al-Kafirun
1.Say: O you, those who reject faith

2.I do not worship what you worship

3.And you are not worshipers of what I worship

4.And I will never worship what you worship

5.And you are not worshipers of what I worship

6.To you, your religion, and to me, mine

seelow heights said at February 4, 2006 11:45 AM:

Invisible Scientist is acting like a paranoid Vatican conspiracy theorist: the population of Hitler's Reich was about half Protestant.

Re alleged popular approval of the Nuremberg Laws: NS Germany was already a totalitarian state at that time so any polls on the subject(if there were any) would have been fatally compromised.

The last paragraph of IS's post is even more muddles than the previous paragraphs, but I think it is safe to say that he is concerned that the Euros might resist Islamization too strenuously. I can't think of a more misplaced concern, the US Civil War was fought over issued arguably less weighty.

Bob Badour said at February 4, 2006 12:46 PM:

Farizahani,

I agree. To you your religion and to me mine -- except that your religion doesn't really tolerate my religion at all. Does it? What does your religion have to say about we kufar or kafr or whatever perjorative you want to call us? Do you tolerate and accept we atheists?

Does your 'to you yours and to me mine' extend to the political realm? My beliefs demand the protection of individal free speech from the coercive force of groups. Do you allow me the right of free speech? For instance, do you allow me to criticize Mohammed as much as he criticizes me?


Ibnu,

I suggest you look to your own beliefs before lecturing others on judging the relative worth of others:

"A slave woman who believes is better than an unbelieving woman"

"A man slave who believes is better than an unbeliever"


Deniz,

What do the following say about respect for my beliefs? Or the beliefs of any non-muslims? I find your posts hypocritical. You demand respect for your beliefs but your beliefs prohibit respect for the beliefs of others.


"the curse of Allah is on those without Faith."

"We have sent down to thee Manifest Signs (ayat); and none reject them but those who are perverse."

"Those who reject Faith, and die rejecting,- on them is Allah's curse, and the curse of angels, and of all mankind;"

"The parable of those who reject Faith is as if one were to shout Like a goat-herd, to things that listen to nothing but calls and cries: Deaf, dumb, and blind, they are void of wisdom."

"Say to those who reject Faith: "Soon will ye be vanquished and gathered together to Hell,-an evil bed indeed (to lie on)!"

"Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers! "

"They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;- "

"They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them."

"I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

"then shall We make them taste the severest penalty for their blasphemies. "

"If thou dost marvel (at their want of faith), strange is their saying: "When we are (actually) dust, shall we indeed then be in a creation renewed?" They are those who deny their Lord! They are those round whose necks will be yokes (of servitude): they will be Companions of the Fire, to dwell therein (for aye)! "


One may find all of the above in the Qu'ran.

Fred said at February 4, 2006 12:52 PM:

?

Fred said at February 4, 2006 12:58 PM:

If a Catholic, Protestant or Jew terrorist began committing acts of terror in the name of his religion, the religious leaders of that faith would condemn the acts and excommunicate the doers.

If the Muslim faith and the leaders of the faith do not separate the religion from the individuals by condemning the terrorists, are they not approving the acts? They are silent. They do not act, Q.E.D. they approve...Looks like Muslims are showing approval of terrorist acts through their silence, and that it's appropriate for the world to link the acts to the religion.

The cartoons are just showing what the world is coming to believe...

neveroneofyou said at February 4, 2006 1:32 PM:

fred, most of the muslim governments condemned the attacks but these condemnations did not appear on international press. all these things are deliberately done. just before usa attacks iran this cartoon incident showed up. they provoked muslim people (who care about religion more than everything) and these provocations led them to protest western people (who care about freedom of speech and expression more than everything). these are all coincidences? i don't think so.

neveroneofyou said at February 4, 2006 2:30 PM:

bob, i believe deniz is sincere about her thoughts because turkish way of practicing islam is different from the other islamic nations' practicing. turkish people respect the other religions and prophets due to their legacy of seljuk empire and ottoman empire. you cannot truely see through a soul of a nation without being in it. i respect your knowledge but i believe they are just restricted by books.

Bob Badour said at February 4, 2006 2:52 PM:

neveroneofyou,

Deniz's first post asked for truthfulness regarding Mohammed. I gave her that.

The problem is the true Mohammed is not very attractive. I don't doubt his religion prohibits representations of him because any accurate representation would repulse any good and decent person.

There are almost as many Islams as there are muslims. I am aware of that. Some muslims go through major contortions to re-interpret the base texts of the religion into something humane and decent. I see a problem with that though. Even if that becomes the orthodoxy, some lazy muslims will revert to taking the documents at their face value. And why shouldn't they?

You claim that Turkish muslims are more tolerant than other muslims. What can you point me at to suggest Turkish muslims practise any great toleration for atheism?

Randall Parker said at February 4, 2006 2:53 PM:

neveroneofyou,

Turkish premier Tayyip Erdogan has called for restrictions on press freedom to prevent Danish cartoons that are offensive to Muslims. At the political level I see little difference between Erdogan's position and that of various Arab governments. They all put religious beliefs ahead of freedom of speech.

What is going on here is pretty simple: Muslims want to control what goes on in non-Muslim countries to make non-Muslims obey a Muslim moral code.

pk said at February 4, 2006 4:42 PM:

Muslims are crazy people. What we regard as rational is what they regard as wrong and visa versa. Today in Syria they set the Danish and Norwegian Royal Embassies on fire, totally destroying the buildings. Good thing there were no people inside. Their religion has got to be poisoned or killed. There is no way I will allow some butthole colored people just burning down Embassies and endangering people's lives. What if Bush decided to burn down each and every Embassy on the Embassy row in Washington D.C. because a Swedish newspaper published something and everyone else copied it? Right now I feel like shooting every Muslim I see on the street because they talk about my *god* in bad manners. To anyone who is muslim here, rethink your life and what you are doing. What offenses you most, huh? A: New York B: Madrid C: Cartoons

pervez75 said at February 4, 2006 6:14 PM:

Add to the list of Allahuakhber

WE get ciscumcised you dont!

Invisible Scientist said at February 4, 2006 6:27 PM:

Bob Badour:
In Istanbul and Ankara, you would find millions of Atheist Turks, who are 110 % secular. Some of them got doctoral degrees from Princeton. The problem is that there are more than 60 million people in Turkey, and the majority of them are religious. However, it is still the case the the Turks were among the most tolerant Muslims. Basically the 20,000 Jewish people in Turkey, are well treated.

Stephen said at February 4, 2006 6:52 PM:

pk, I have no idea how you're going to start 'shooting every Muslim' you see. Muslims are adherents of a religion, they are not a race, they are not of one particular colour. People can convert to Islam, but that conversion does not require the person to somehow change skin colour. I suspect you're an idiot.

Bob Badour said at February 4, 2006 10:59 PM:

Invisible,

But is that a result of muslim toleration for those things in Turkey? Or from Ataturk's quite violent and forceful imposition of secular rule on muslims against their will? If a secular military protects atheists and jews, I am not sure what conclusions we can make about muslims there.

Of course, an islamist rules there now. I suppose we will find out in due course.

Invisible Scientist said at February 4, 2006 11:59 PM:

Bob:
It is true that Ataturk used extreme measures to supress the religious extremists, and that he imposed a secular system. But at the same, I believe that the national character of the Turks is more tolerant and open minded overall. But this statement is on the basis of the many individual Turks I have met, and as I said above, when there is a mass hysteria of (cyclical) historic magnitude, the crowd behavior takes over the human race, and at such times it becomes apparent that "humanity" is really skin deep. In any case, the Anglo-Germanic Aryan race must have eaten more dinosaur meat millions of years ago (yeah, I know that the dinosaurs were extinct long before the emergence of the Aryan iceman, but you see my point) than the Middle Eastern nations, and so it seems that this explains why the crusader white Europeans were more successful in invading and conquering most of the non-white world, while the Muslims had minimal conquests in Europe (in comparison).

neveroneofyou said at February 5, 2006 12:25 AM:

bob,

you are right that the former generations of turkey were less tolerant to atheism. It is true they were not as tolerent as the present generations, but not liking them does not mean neither insulting nor torturing them..In fact that generation gave birth to some of the most respected writers, intellectuals who declared to be atheists. as long as these people did not insult what muslims considered sacred, they were accepted and respected in the community. The present generations, on the other hand, are entirely comfortable with other people's choices. one must not forget that there are always radicals and religious fundamentalists in every nation. however they are the minority, and sadly, those minorities' felonies are represented to western societies by media, as if they are what all muslims are like.

also jews and atheists are 'not' protected by military. in 1492 the ottoman emperor bayezid the second gave asylum to 200.000 to 300.000 jews, who were forced to leave spain, while none of the european countries agreed to do so. this is the basic reason why israel and turkey have better relations with each other comparing to other islamic countries. Throughout this 600 years the the societies have become one, and obviously jews do not need any military protection.
ataturk is stil the much respected modern turkish ruler of turkey. it is true that he brought a secular way of life but it is also true that he saved millions of muslims in the first world war and war of independence. if this was not the case muslim people would not exist in the boundaries of turkey. this is why he is respected by both secular and conservative people in turkey. any turkish citizen with the capacity to rational analysis appreciates what ataturk has done, and does not refer his actions as 'violent and forceful'.

randall,

along with necmettin erbakan (a former premier of turkey) tayyip erdogan represents the conservative pole of politics. more than fifty years turkish people are impoverished by their governments' misuse of authority. people are sick of that, tayyip erdogan is 'not' elected because he is a defender of islam but people did not have a better choice. it is the consequence of democracy. even if there were a more liberal government in charge, they would also condemn the cartoon incident, they would not make a very big deal out of it though. i remember that the book, and the movie 'da vinci code' caused a lot of problems and condemned by christian leaders. religion is always a delicate issue and reactions are expected anyways. but i never approve that this devotion requires violence. muslim people should find a way to make themselves more open minded rather than being obsessed with other people's thougths.

Bob Badour said at February 5, 2006 8:30 AM:

neveroneofyou,

What I read is Opus Dei, the organization portrayed in The Da Vinci Code more-or-less shrugged off the whole thing and considers the publicity good.

A polite letter to the publisher saying "We are not really like that" is a far cry from demanding the execution of the author, burning down embassies, inciting violence or pressing for the end to individual freedom in the west. Trying to claim some sort of moral equivalence strikes me as either dishonest or incredibly poor judgement obliterating any credibility you might have had.

How do tolerant muslim Turks reconcile their tolerance for atheists with the base texts of their religion? I am very interested to know. It is very clear to me how they accept jewish dhimmitude, but toleration for atheism strikes me as contradicting the base texts.

Where are all these tolerant Turkish muslims condemning the ridiculous violence against the danish embassies and supporting freedom of speech?

Are they the Turks in the picture accompanying this article?

I really am interested how tolerant muslims, if any exist, successfully and permanently reconcile their tolerance for atheism with the base texts of their religion. I remember Hungarians back in the 1980's telling me how well croats, serbs and muslims got along over there, and history put the lie to their optimistic and subjective view of the situation. Given the stakes, I am cautious about accepting similar subjectivism regarding Turkish tolerance.

lolita tan said at February 5, 2006 8:59 AM:

hi
will surely create a link to your site as an eyeopener for our Australian clients still having holidys in muslim dominated countries.
In future we promote in Australia "visit Denmark"

Lolita

neveroneofyou said at February 5, 2006 12:03 PM:

Bob,
as i’ve mentioned before the muslim reactions are extreme, and i referred to da vinci code just to show that how religion is a delicate issue even in most western socities.
You wanted to know how tolerant muslims manage to tolerate atheists . the answer is simple: none of the holy religions abide atheists in their holy scripts, and Quran is no exception to that. Bible nor Quran do not praise atheism , for that would be entirely contradict with their writs. However the holy books do not command to slaughter atheists for no reason. today non believers can live in christian societies, and it should not be so surprising when they do in Islamic countries. Actually in Quran there is a passage , and I am quoting from an earlier post: “Say: you, those who reject faith, I do not worship what you worship, And you are not worshipers of what I worship, .And I will never worship what you worship, And you are not worshipers of what I worship, To you, your religion, and to me, mine” .Islam tells muslims to convince non-believers in a good manner, and if they are turned down, they are supposed to respect that. This is the ideal practice of religion. In fact I had attended to atheist professors’ classes, and them being atheist did not have the slightest affect on people’s respect to them. Since you practice no religion, Bob, you must have gone through all the holy books I suppose, and found no reason in them, so I do not intend to refer to holy texts any more. But I strongly believe you appreciate the reasoning of men, which prevents us from being stereotypes, and I do not agree considering muslims lack reason is a rational way of thinking, by stereotyping them. I think you would agree there are is good and evil in people, and the way to judge a person is not what religion she or he practices, but the way she/he reasons.
Another point that you made was about the group which was protesting in front of the embassy. The article says there were hundreds of ‘ultranationalist’ , which again refers to an extreme group. But again three representatives were allowed to speak their minds. As you could see, Turkey has a population of approximately 70 millions, if all the population consisted of just fundamentalists, there would not be no embassy building, nor atheists, by now. I just saw the prime minister of turkey (who is a conservative as I have explained earlier) on television telling people not to be provoked, and how it is time to be calm. He mentioned publishing the cartoons was wrong but overreacting is worse. I guess this declaration will be published on tomorrow’s newspapers.
***Unfortunately I believe there are worse things to come. Western people keep provoking muslims, and they react to that (and yes, they overreact, what they do is very wrong, I give you that), but don’t you think the timing and the scene is worked on? We are sitting on a time bomb, western countries are programmed to detest muslims, and muslims are getting out of control, but in the end we will all lose. As humanity we are made believe that we are different, we are led to a game that everyone loses at the end of the day. The people who set the scene will not stop until they get what they want ***

Bob Badour said at February 5, 2006 1:48 PM:

My whole point is the Da Vinci Code demonstrates exactly the opposite: that it's not a delicate issue in the west at all. Regardless whether you intentionally mischaracterised the events or utterly failed to comprehend them, you impeached your own credibility.

With respect to the moral equivalence of Islam and Christianity: Please point me to anything in the new testament that suggests anyone other than God is to judge atheists? Or to anything that suggests the new testament God disowns his atheist children. I am all ears.


"To you, your religion, and to me, mine"

I have already addressed the fact that the base texts of Islam say anything but exactly that. The person who posted that dissembled, and you bought the attractive little lie hook, line and sinker. Or do you dissemble too?


"Since you practice no religion, Bob"

Who the fuck are you to tell me that I practice no religion?!?!? You fucking arrogant outrageous hypocrite. I am a devout atheist, and I practice my religion as I see fit and not as you blindly choose to ignore or dismiss.


Stop putting words in my mouth and answer what I actually say:

"I do not agree considering muslims lack reason is a rational way of thinking, by stereotyping them"

Please point me to a single word I have ever said that stereotypes muslims or anyone else for that matter.

Since Islamic doctrine holds that the Arabic Qu'ran is the unassailable and actual word of Allah recited exactly as spoken by Allah himself in the language of his choice, I conclude any rational being who espouses that doctrine will take the content of that text literally and at face value. I would then have to conclude that any muslim who tolerates atheism is in fact irrational, and that the rational muslim is the one who seeks to destroy me for my atheism.

Where did I ever say anything that could possibly suggest I think muslims lack reason? Quite the opposite -- I justly fear what their reason will lead them to.

Or do you want to actually answer the question and explain how they reconcile their tolerance with the base texts of the religion? It's a very simple request that demands more than hand-waving and insults to answer.


If I am to judge the muslims who have posted here recently on their ability to reason, I would not judge them very highly. They seem utterly incapable of understanding simple points and totally blinded by the prejudices dictated to them by their religion. Deniz at least had the excuse of barely understanding the language.


[The prime minister of Turkey] mentioned publishing the cartoons was wrong

Publishing those cartoons was the rightest thing that paper could have possibly done. Cowing before evil doctrine and threats is wrong. If the leader of Turkey in any way reflects the opinions of 'tolerant' Turks, then I remain unimpressed.


western countries are programmed to detest muslims

Are you serious? You cannot possibly think we are that stupid can you? Nothing could be further from the truth. If that is not a case of classic 'projection', I don't know what is. I can quote book and verse where Mohammed programmed his followers to hate the west. And his followers demonstrate constantly that they fully comprehend not only how western countries are programmed to accept muslims but how to turn that against the tolerant freedom loving people who live there.

people who set the scene will not stop until they get what they want

The scene was set by a genocidal pedophile in the dark ages. Those who continue to follow such nonsense pursue a clash of civilisations that I, for one, intend to see they lose miserably.

neveroneofyou said at February 5, 2006 3:08 PM:

First of all I never meant to insult you or your belief. If I made you angry I sincerely apologise. Please understand that I have not only been answering you while explaining my point but also trying to expand it.

‘that it's not a delicate issue in the west at all’

http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1446068,00.html#article_continue
this article and alikes are what I saw here. The press reflected the issue as if it is a big deal and I even watched a documantery dedicated to prove that the Da Vinci Code is all made up.
I interpreted the articles in ‘my’ way and concluded that the book and movie was a trouble to devoted Christians.

The atheists I personally know are practicing no religion. They do not believe in God, in any divine presence this is why I assumed you to practice no religion. Well you made it clear that you practice your religion.

‘Please point me to a single word I have ever said that stereotypes muslims or anyone else for that matter.’

I didn’t say that you have mentioned something like that and as I’ve mentioned just above that I have not only been answering you while explaining my point but also trying to expand it.

‘rational muslim is the one who seeks to destroy me for my atheism’

According to Qu'ran killing people (muslims, atheists etc) is one of the biggest sins except the time of war. This is why a rational muslim will not seek you to destroy your atheism.

‘Or do you want to actually answer the question and explain how they reconcile …’

This is actually why I wrote the part -To you, your religion, and to me, mine-. Which means to me you can believe whatever you want I will tolerate it and I will believe whatever I want. I really don’t understand what answer you are looking for if this is not the answer of your question.

‘Publishing those cartoons was the rightest thing’
Those cartoons were rude and were attacking a religion.

‘western countries are programmed to detest muslims’
I never mentioned that western people are stupid. Because of some crazy acts of fanatic muslims western people are beginning to think they are all the same and this is exactly what the scene setters want to do.

‘The scene was set by a genocidal pedophile in the dark ages.’

Muslims believe that Mohammed never married to a virgin except Aisha. In Turkish interpretations Alia is said to be 13 year old not 9 and Mohammed is believed to be a trader not a desert bandit.

neveroneofyou said at February 5, 2006 4:01 PM:

i will not answer the other comments since there is a big misunderstanding let me be all wrong and just ignore what i've written. i really do not intend to cause more tension (there is enough tension all around the world right now). it will rise up when american attacks begin to iran.

my point is it never was about religion or belief it was always about power and money. it does not matter what your race or religion is. the world is dragged to the edge of disorder and there are many people who will benefit using these struggles.

what people need right now is common sense.

Bob Badour said at February 5, 2006 4:40 PM:
I interpreted the articles in ‘my’ way and concluded that the book and movie was a trouble to devoted Christians.

Please point me to where any catholic called for reprisals against the author's native country or the country where the publisher is incorporated. Please point me to where any catholic called for an official change to the law of any land in response to the book or movie. Or even to a boycott of other products by the same publisher. Or to any catholic statement that even suggests the author does not have the right to create such a book. Or to a demand for any sort of accommodation from any non-catholic.

The link you provided suggests only that a couple of priests used the book as topical material for regular sermons and proceeded to exercise their own freedom of speech. The link details the equivalent of an Imam during the gathering for friday prayers asking muslim bookstores not to sell that one issue of the paper that contained the cartoons. Ho hum.

As I said, you impeached your own credibility. If that is the unbalanced way you interpret the world, you have no credibility.


I respectfully suggest the other atheists you know practise their religion too. I don't recall where any document describing the freedom of religion in any western country limits the freedom to those whose religious doctrine stipulates a 'divine presence.'


‘Please point me to a single word I have ever said that stereotypes muslims or anyone else for that matter.’

I didn’t say that you have mentioned something like that and as I’ve mentioned just above that I have not only been answering you while explaining my point but also trying to expand it.

With all due respect, you denigrated me for something I didn't even do. Nobody needs that kind of expansion. It is dishonest, insulting and self-defeating. Quite frankly, you stereotyped me while accusing me of stereotyping.


‘rational muslim is the one who seeks to destroy me for my atheism’

According to Qu'ran killing people (muslims, atheists etc) is one of the biggest sins except the time of war. This is why a rational muslim will not seek you to destroy your atheism.

I find that less comforting than you might think for three reasons: 1) significant numbers of muslims proclaim to be at war with me, 2) the various translations of the Qu'ran I have read all translate Surah 5:32 differently, and 3) other verses of the Qu'ran seem to contradict Surah 5:32. (Some translations of Surah 5:32 suggest to me the prohibition does not apply to atheists.)


Do you understand the verb 'to reconcile' ?

Here are quotes taken directly from the Qu'ran regarding atheists:

"seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;"
"I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

Show me how one makes tolerance compatible with the above when one considers those words the words of Allah himself. I see the base texts of the religion as a problem to be overcome. You have not done or said anything to address my concerns with the base texts.


"‘Publishing those cartoons was the rightest thing’
Those cartoons were rude and were attacking a religion."

And your point would be? That your holiest texts can attack my religion brutally, viciously and repeatedly, that your co-religionists can say the vilest things about me due to my religion, but I have to be polite? Fuck off!

Mohammed was a vile man. He disgusts me. He combines the worst traits of the Marquis de Sade, Pontius Pilate and Hitler. But I am supposed to accept that it is 'wrong' to even draw a picture of the man because it might offend someone? The Qu'ran, itself, offends me. Do you plan to apologize to me for the offense? Are you going to censor the Qu'ran to avoid offending me? If you cut out the rude parts of the Qu'ran, you will have precious little left.


Muslims believe that Mohammed never married to a virgin except Aisha. In Turkish interpretations Alia is said to be 13 year old not 9 and Mohammed is believed to be a trader not a desert bandit.

Sorry, my bad. I misremembered. He married a 13 year old and a six year old. Like I said, he was a pedophile. He married two children.

I have read a number of histories written by muslims that portray Mohammed as a bandit. I am not sure why a trader would need detailed rules for dividing up the booty, but then we have Surah 8. Don't we? I would ask you to reconcile the historical interpretation with that artifact from the Qu'ran, but I don't think you will even if I ask.

Are you saying that Turks ignore the base texts and come up with 'interpretations' that contradict the texts? If this is so, what prevents some future generation from saying the interpretations are wrong and the texts are right?

Bob Badour said at February 5, 2006 4:49 PM:

neveroneofyou,

My common sense tells me that appeasing the Islamists will do as much good in the world as appeasing the Nazis did in the 1930's. Some muslims have the incorrect view that we lack resolve and morals. We need to communicate the error of that view.

Sons of Abraham... said at February 5, 2006 9:14 PM:

Wow....it's just all coming together hey. Just like it was predicted in the Qu'ran, the Bible and apparently (I've not done any additional research)a few other religious texts. Will there be a point when we finally realize the spiritual battle is every bit as real as the physical? Will we do anything to stop this escalation into pandemonium?

For those who say they have no faith, fine...I was one with you once. But not now. What if...just what if.... you're wrong? What if when you die, the choices you made here really do determine your destiny? I heard once there are very few unbelievers (in life after death) among doctors who work the Emergency Room in cities like L.A. and so on....Why.....because after you've seen so many people entering the passing, the reality changes your thinking.

I'm not a religious fanatic. But what if, what if, what if....there is an enemy of our souls who is orchestrating chaos among the nations....so that one day, this all will truly collide on an astronomical scale (it seems to be picking up quite a bit of weight so far). What if the predictions of storms, changing weather patterns, increased knowledge in the last days, and the many other prophecies that appear to be coming true in our day and age, really, really....are leading somewhere.

Maybe instead of debating and questioning, and throwing around insults at each other....we could pray. Pray that if there truly is a God in heaven, He would give us wisdom to know what we should do, as leaders, as nations, as individual people ...in this time.

Bob Badour said at February 6, 2006 8:44 AM:

Sons of Abraham,

Who do you think has no faith? Atheists absolutely have faith. I am a lifelong devout atheist with unshakable faith. Need I point out that historically atheism is the most oppressed of all faiths? Or that many still find it fashionable to oppress us?

I see apostates like you as weak and fickle.

If you truly wish to do good and to create a harmonious world, you need to turn the heads of those whose religious doctrine refuses to tolerate atheism, animism or any of the less fashionable faiths. Dar al-Harb is not an atheist concept.

Randall Parker said at February 6, 2006 4:10 PM:

Sons of Abraham,

Maybe God will punish anyone who believes the religions invented by humans. Maybe he's furious at how the Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc portray him. Maybe this reality is a test for suckers and anyone who shows himself to be a sucker and believes Islam goes right to hell.

So then the Danish cartoons, to the extent they undermine faith in a pox of a religion, are saving some souls from eternal damnation.

Dennis Lyons said at February 7, 2006 8:44 PM:

WOW!!! I don't think I have ever read so much bullshit in my life!!! I am a Catholic American of Irish & German heritage.This whole thing about the Muslims the Jews and the Christians is nothing but a bunch of BULLSHIT!!! How in the HELL can any of us sit and point their fingers at one another, everyone of our religions have been guilty of one attrocity or another. Lest we forget "DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE DONE TO THYSELF!!! ANYBODY

Bob Badour said at February 7, 2006 9:28 PM:

Dennis,

Please point me to the historical record of any atheist committing any atrocity in the name of atheism.

Since you have invoked the golden rule, I note that the problem right now stems from some Muslims demanding apologies for protected political speech. I interpret that to mean that is how they want to be treated. To accommodate their expressed desire, I, as an atheist, demand an immediate apology from all muslims of the world for the political speech in the Qu'ran that calls for smiting at my neck and my fingertips and that claims I am inferior to a slave.

What should I boycott or burn if I don't like the apologies I get?

Ruwan said at February 8, 2006 1:41 AM:

Buddhism is the solution for peaceful world.Study , understand and follow buddhist philosophy.

Randall Parker said at February 8, 2006 6:59 PM:

I just deleted a couple more all capital letters posts. I hate all caps. You can write your posts again with mixed case.

I deleted a couple of others that were thoroughly juvenile. Sometimes I let those posts stay as a reminder of just how juvenile some people are. But those all caps posts got me in a deleting mood.

Cat said at February 8, 2006 7:13 PM:

If cartoons make many Muslims want to riot,
kill and burn buildings then we better hope
Iran NEVER gets a Nuclear weapon.

JIBRIL said at February 9, 2006 1:29 AM:

Please...Shut down U'r emotion, please .....
Listen to me :YOU..or I'am ...or THEY ... Remember please, "WE ARE THE ONE WORLD", ok...?

I Just Want 2 say :
I LOVE MUHAMMAD & MUHAMMAD LOVE PEACE NOT WAR

cat said at February 9, 2006 8:47 AM:

I have been told Islam is a peaceful religion before - If it is a peaceful religion other
Muslims need to tell that to the “peaceful religious men of Iran” who seem to want death
to every country that is not Muslim - If it is a peaceful religion other Muslims need to tell that to Hezbollah - Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said today we will defend our prophet with our blood, not our voices - If it is a peaceful religion then other Muslims need to tell that to al-Qaida not to kill innocent people and blow themselves up in the name of Allah - If it is a peaceful religion then other Muslims need the Taliban that chopping off peoples heads in the name of God is not the right thing to do

Bob Badour said at February 9, 2006 1:56 PM:

Cat,

The ultimate goal of Islam is peace--after they win the war and force everyone to submit.

Sons of Abraham said at February 9, 2006 8:18 PM:

Bob, I appreciate most of your comments. I enjoy intellectuals, and at least you have put some time and effort into your thoughts.

I was basically an atheist, humanist at one point in my life, until one day, I literally stood in the presence of angels. It was beyond a doubt, the moment of perfect love, peace and full unity....heart, soul, body and mind....I can tell you about it someday...this obviously isn't the place

I think that some of the writers here, need to be enlightened to some of the atrocities "Muslim" dictators and leaders have done to their OWN people as well. Intellectuals and other citizens in Iraq, Afghanistan and many other countries have been imprisoned, suffered decades of torture at the hands of their own leadership. Start to listen to the stories of many devout Muslims who have been forced into refugee status away from their own countries, and you will quickly discover, that regardless of the religious flavouring of the leadership - it is their own merciless agenda to control, not their religion, that quickly turns them into horrible monsters. I'm not justifying or refuting the religious intents, I'm saying it is very important for us to remember that it is the extremists always that get the attention.

I have a very deep interest in the human rights violations of individuals living in these oppressed societies. I would be interested in any comments or research anyone else may have on this topic. Thanks.

Keeping an Open Mind said at February 9, 2006 8:47 PM:

This is an interesting article I found located at website, http://www.prophetofdoom.net/prologue.html

I'm open to any thoughts about it...from Muslims especially.

PROLOGUE

WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

“I have been made victorious with terror.”

Suppose you stumbled upon the Constitution of an organization that was terrorizing the world. Would you ignore such a document, or would you read it? Suppose you discovered that this Constitution’s most prominent themes were pain and punishment, thievery and violence, intolerance and war. If the regime’s charter ordered its devotees to kill, plunder, and terrorize, would you sound an alarm?
What if this Constitution was supported by a manifesto that contained the only authorized biography of the regime’s founder, and the first devotees of this doctrine, its co-founders, said that their leader was a sexual predator, a pirate, and a terrorist? If you found such evidence, what would you do with it? What if this leader motivated his mercenaries to murder and mayhem by allowing them to keep what they had stolen in the name of the cause—their victim’s homes, businesses, money—even their women and children?
All right, no more hypotheticals. I’m going to share some passages from this Constitution—from the covenant of the world’s largest and most violent organization. I have changed the names to disguise the source without altering the message. “Your leader has sent you from your homes to fight for the cause. Your leader wished to confirm the truth by his words: wipe those who disagree with us out to the last. We shall terrorize everyone who is unlike us! So smite them on their necks and every joint, and incapacitate them, for they are opposed to our doctrine and our leader. Whosoever opposes our doctrine and our leader should know that we are severe in retribution. And know that one-fifth of what you acquire as booty in war is for our great leader (the rest is for you). The use of such spoils is lawful and good.”
This popular and misunderstood Constitution says: “Fight them till all opposition ends and only our doctrine rules. If you meet anyone who disagrees with us in battle, inflict on them such a defeat as would be a lesson for those who come after them, that they may be warned. Slaughter those who disagree with us wherever you find them. Lie in wait for them. They are specimens of foolishness. Punish them so that our superior dogma and leader can put them to shame. If you apprehend treachery from a people with whom we have a treaty, retaliate by breaking it off. Those who do not think like us should know that they cannot bypass our doctrine. Surely they cannot get away. Fight them until they pay a heavy tax in submission to us; how perverse are they. Our leader and his doctrine will damn them. For anyone who offends our leader or opposes our doctrine will receive a painful punishment. We will burn them alive. So prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster, that you may strike terror in the enemies of our cause!”
This Constitution is genuine, and millions follow its message. Exposing it —understanding it—might actually save you from the wrath it inspires. The covenant goes on to say: “Our great leader urged all who agree with us to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination, you will vanquish two hundred; and if there are a hundred, then you will vanquish a thousand of our enemy, for they are a people devoid of understanding. Our great leader drove your enemy back in fury. He motivated our side in battle. He made their citizens flee from their homes and he terrorized them so that you killed some and made many captive. Our great leader made you inherit their lands, homes, and wealth, and gave you a country you had not traversed before.”
This sounds like a terrorist manifesto—a covenant for war and genocide. Does anything this immoral, this out-of-touch with human decency, actually exist? If it did, and if it were this blatant, you’d expect to see its followers amassing their weaponry. You’d expect them to rise up and terrorize the world. Not only would they feel it was their duty to kill, you’d expect their fallen assassins to be immortalized—hailed as martyrs and paraded down crowded streets, banners waving, tears flowing, guns blazing, with angry diatribes spewing from hate-filled faces. You’d expect them to wage war under the guise of doctrinal supremacy, wouldn’t you? And if there were such people, our journalists and politicians would have ferreted them out, exposed them, and protected us. Right?
Wrong! With the exception of changing the names of the perpetrators and their victims, what you read is from the actual Constitution of an enormous, rapidly growing, extremely well funded, and horrendously violent worldwide cult. And as bad as that sounds, it gets worse in context. The manifesto proudly proclaims that unarmed civilians were annihilated by armed gangs. Men were decapitated on the orders of the dogma’s founder. Thousands of children were sold into slavery. Women were raped—the leader himself participating. Townships were plundered, businesses were looted, and productive assets were destroyed. The villains slept in their victims’ beds, abusing their wives and daughters. And each bloody affair was meticulously recorded by the founder’s companions and later chronicled by the regime’s most esteemed clerics.
It’s time to turn the page. Let’s look at what the founder’s companions had to say about their leader in his manifesto. Once again, I will change the names but nothing else. “Kill them, for he who kills them will get a great reward. Our great leader said, ‘Our doctrine assigns for a person who participates in battles in our cause to be rewarded with booty if he survives, or he will be admitted into the Hall of Heroes if he is killed in the battle as a martyr. Had I not found it difficult for my followers to do without me I would have remained in army units fighting great battles and would have loved to have been martyred for the cause.’”
The regime’s founder is quoted in the doctrine’s anti-Semitic manifesto saying, “Issue orders to kill every Jew in the country.” He was asked, “What is the best deed?” by one of his devotees. The dictator replied, “To believe in me and our doctrine.” “What is the next best deed?” the devotee queried. “To fight on behalf of our cause,” he answered. At the end of one such conflict, one of the regime’s lieutenants told his commander, “We have conquered another nation. The captives and the booty have all been collected. Now, my leader, may I take a slave girl from among the prisoners?” “Take any one you like,” the warlord replied, raping one himself. Ever mindful of his duty, this regime’s leader proclaimed, “Embrace our doctrine first and then fight.” Followed by, “I have been made victorious with terror!”
You have stumbled upon the Constitution of the world’s largest nation—and it’s not China or Russia. You’ve just heard the words of its founding father, and he’s not Lenin, Mao, or Hitler. And today, this doctrine’s adherents are doing what their founder and Constitution ordered: fighting, ravaging civilians, stealing the world’s possessions, and using them to terrorize.
Since it’s happening according to plan, shouldn’t we muster the courage to expose it—to speak out against it? Or should we remain silent for fear of offending them? The answer is obvious. Or is it? What if the names I substituted were Allah, Muhammad, and Islam? What if it’s a “religion?”
This “Constitution” is the Qur’an. The “manifesto” is the Islamic Hadith. The citizens of this nation are Muslims. They’re doing what they were ordered to do. They left their homes to fight infidels; they stole our planes, ravaged our economy, and slaughtered innocents in the name of Allah. They even confessed to the crime. Yet not a single national spokesperson or politician has had the courage to hold Islam accountable.

Bob Badour said at February 10, 2006 4:58 AM:

Keeping an Open Mind,

I urge you to read the histories of Islam written by muslims themselves and to read the Qu'ran itself in multiple translations. Then you won't have to take the word of the author of Prophet of Doom, and you can see for yourself.

At best, I predict you will get two muslim responses:

1) Denial.
2) Disengagement.

The muslims will eagerly engage the ignorant and will lie outright regarding their religion. When they encounter anyone who is not ignorant, they disengage immediately, which shows how sincere they are about wanting to have anything resembling a dialogue.

Then again, when you read the Qu'ran, you will understand why that is. We kafr are not considered equals worthy of dialogue. We are nothing more than raw materials for conversion or intimidation or enemies to kill.

DENIZ said at February 10, 2006 8:48 AM:

I LOVE MOHAMMED.......

Cat said at February 10, 2006 10:02 AM:

I also like Mohammed - Mohammed Ali is considered by many to be the greatest heavyweight boxer of all time

Engineer-Poet said at February 10, 2006 10:07 AM:

Deniz, that is the problem.

Dora_Öztürk said at February 10, 2006 12:16 PM:

Bob;(not only bob actually for everyone who share the same ideas with bob)

First of all, i want to say i am a muslim too. And i am from turkey.And i want to add that i am a student in german high school. The things you wrote mostly make sense but i want to say, some of them are completely non-sense. (of course in my opinion) I can not say anything about your believes, which i don't even have the right to.. But i think you have prejudices against the muslims..I personally don't approve the things happening in the muslim countries even in mine.. But saying that what the danish newspaper did was fair, that is not acceptable.If Qu'ran says "my belief is more superior than yours", do you think all the muslims think that way?.. Only the ones, who don't have anything else to do; who don't have a goal in life think that way, cuz they are obsessed with the religion!! And the same ones are offered money, food, or a place in heaven(??) by "some people" and turn into terrorists..

Most of the people( i speak for turkey) respect the believes of the people. It doesn't matter if you are christian, jewish, atheist... Why do you think turkey wants to be a member of EU? In order to destroy Europe? Or in order to spy on Europe to help muslim countries lead the world at the end? I think those are only silly conspiracy theories.. I have loads of good friends from different nations.. And i go to a german school.. (in addition there are lots of schools like mine around turkey which work with european governments, but has turkish students) These students want to learn language and culture of european countries (or american) or get to know people from these nations.. And as i want to in the future, lots of them go to these countries to study in their universities.. We want to remain as friends with you, learn things from you, share things, but you say that we see you as enemies to kill.. Please explain that to me..

Everybody talks about the humanity rights or how bad the racism is.. But what is the logic behind dividing up the people by saying: "the muslims" are scumbags (smt like that) and "we" should never accept them? (you didnt say such thing but some other have)

In my point of view the source of all these prejudices is the way you learn about the turks and the other muslims.. In the books you study at the schools, what you learn from your parents or your environment about us creates them all.. But the time will come i think, together, we get over these prejudices... If not, not because of cartoons but the reason WWIII will be religion!!

Ephetat said at February 10, 2006 12:47 PM:

I am a friend of Dora's from the same high school. Deutsche Schule Istanbul, for your information. My sentiments are very similar to his, but I will not be as eloquent or polite to you as he is.

What I have read in this sorry page is, with the exception of some of you who actually keep an open mind (cheers to neveroneofyou, for instance.), total dirt, an abonimation and should not have happened at all. I see now, that fellow humans are the worst of animals. Your prejudices are showing, ladies and gentlemen, and you wallow in them like a pig wallows in mud.

I have no sympathy for those of you here, with your percieved "creme de la creme" 'atheist' - or a misinterpretation of one - beliefs, unjustly insulting, being condescending, and ever with a "towering" confidence of your opinions, which doubtlessly have been spoonfed to you by a media clueless as to what to do, just like you here. Way to go, people, way to go. If you are truly stating that I, as a Turk, am from a country whose religion follows a "pedophile", or "marauder", and that I am also such a person, than I have no adjectives to fit you sorry people's gruesome descriptions, not because of lack of words, but because I don't wish to go down to your level.

I see now that religion causes conflicts only because of imbeciles and fanatics misinterpreting it, not because people believe in it. Of course, in your flurry of insults regarding religions that are not your own, you have forgotten the entire BASIS of religion, just WHAT caused religion to exist in the first place.

Tell me, you 'atheists', do you truly know what atheism is? Do you truly understand it? Or are you too busy embracing it as a illusory shield to protect the waste that are your 'opinions?' If not, you might want to check Wikipedia, I heard they were quite informative. As for me, I'm an agnostic, thank you. Again, check reliable, neutral sources for its definition - I do not expect you to understand what it is.

I am aware that I have just insulted most of you here, but how do you say... I do not care.

But again, thank you to those people who actually manage not to succumb to human prejudice.

Randall Parker said at February 10, 2006 12:48 PM:

Dora_Öztürk,

When people say that Muslims are bad I think most people who say that understand this is not true of every Muslim. But a large enough fraction are bad that if a country becomes a majority Muslim country or even develops a substantial Muslim majority then it becomes worse than it was before.

Yes, there are average differences between Muslim ethnicities. Arab Muslims cause far more trouble than say, Turkish Muslims.

Do people form their opinions about Muslims from books? From school? No, most learn little or nothing about Muslims in school and most people do not read books.

So where do we form our opinions of Muslims? To repeat something I've posted: If you haven't seen this yet Michelle Malkin has pictures of Muslim protestors in London England. Their signs include "Freedom Go To Hell", "Be Prepared for the Real Holocaust", "Behead Those Who Insult Islam", "Massacre Those Who Insult Islam", "Exterminate Those Who Insult Islam", "Annihilate Those Who Insult Islam", and "Europe You Will Pay, Demolition Is On Its Way". These people are not British in belief. They are not British in their political loyalties. They are not friendly toward what Britain represents. Why are they in Britain?

We do not see Hindus holding up signs that say "Freedom Go To Hell".

Muslim protestors in London want to kill everyone in Denmark.

Yesterday there was another protest in London involving hundreds of demonstrators chanting "Kill, kill Denmark!" They burned the Denmark flag and converged on the embassy.

We do not see Buddhists marchers chanting "Kill, kill Denmark!".

These people are caling for the deaths of Danes. Danish people. People who no one else in the world hates. But Muslims manage to hate the entire population of Denmark over some cartoons. Why shouldn't we want to keep Muslims away from us when they think like that?

Dora_Öztürk said at February 10, 2006 1:03 PM:

Randall Parker;

But as you can see these people are not the ones we can call as muslims.. Aren't they muslims of course they are.. But they are fooled and they don't act as they would do individually.. They effect each other and everyone do silly things, when they get enraged.. C'mon get real! do you really think they will do anything?? These "shows" will only take few more days in my opinion.. And i want to ask a simple question: Why do they chant kill, kill Denmark? because that they got bored of living without action? And what would christians or members of other religions do if these cartoons were about them?? But not from the muslim countries, cuz it is obvious that you feel superrior compared to the muslim countries. But maybe inferrior...

Esra said at February 10, 2006 1:28 PM:

Randall Parker,

Those 'muslims' chanting in London do not represent Islam all by themselves, and trying to insuniate that "it's Islam's fault" is as wrong as those 'muslims' marching, as such it's not wise to compare them as if they are similar.

People are trying to see things the way they want to see them. I also personally don't approve many things that are going on in some muslim countries. What they do is wrong. But it is equally wrong saying that, muslims are the nazis or muhammed is a terrorist just because of this. Anyone who does is just ignorant.

It is in no way acceptable what the danish newspaper did. Everybody has their own beliefs and noone else has the right to offend the other one's religion.

People should quit seeing Muslims as undercover Arabs who carry shotguns and are terrorists. Why would the Muslims be the enemy? This isn't a clash between religions it is only the civilizations but unfortunately under the name of "religion". Some people who criticize Islam would understand it if they knew some real Muslims, not just some people who claim to be one.

And yes, if one day a 3WW breaks out, it will be because of religion but not because of the different ideoligies each religion consists (they're basically all the same), but because some wrong made political moveements of some countries or because of people who have turned this into fight of religions.

Randall Parker said at February 10, 2006 1:38 PM:

Dora_Öztürk,

Will they do anything?

A Muslim group living in Holland killed Dutch film maker Theo Van Gogh. A large number of Dutch politicians now live with round-the-clock extensive police protection because of death threats against them.

A Muslim group living in Spain blew up a bunch of train commuters.

Pakistani Muslim youths raised in Britain blew up 3 trains and a bus.

I can go on. But you get the idea. The number of attacks that are carried off is a fraction of the total number of attacks attempted. These attacks and the placards of the anti-Denmark protestors and the calls by Imams to kill a bunch of Danes and their demands that we submit to their will are how we learn about Islam from Muslims.

The Danish newspaper editor Flemming Rose decided to ask for the Mohammed cartoons because a Danish story writer for children's books couldn't find a cartoonist to make a likeness of Mohammed the way that cartoonists would like likenesses for other historical figures for cartoon books for kids. The cartoonists were all afraid to do so. Why should they live in fear of such a thing in a Western country? So Rose asked all Danish cartoonists if they'd submit cartoons about Mohammed and Islam for publication. Then this led do the big cartoon story we are seeing unfold now.

How they act as individuals is no use to us if how they'll act as a group is far worse. It is group behavior that worries me most.

As for "what would christians or members of other religions do if these cartoons were about them??" here you show your ignorance about our political cartoonists, comedians, and artists and our tolerance thereof. Andres Serrano did not elicit huge protest marches by Christians calling for his death when he made his Piss Christ as supposed art work. Other artists have used excrement to portray Christian religious figures such as Jesus Christ. They haven't been killed or been forced to go into hiding. Hollywood has made movies that offended Christians (e.g. Jesus Christ Superstar "Jesus Christ Superstar, who in the hell do you think you are?"). Did any writers or actors or studio executives have to go into hiding due to death threats? No, of course not.

Newspapers around the world publish cartoons portraying American leaders and American people in all sorts of insulting ways. We just shrug it off. Muslims stand out uniquely in terms of the amount of offense they take and angry reaction they make to what other people say or draw or sing or otherwise express.

Anatole Kaletsky of the Times of London wrote an article critical of America, Bush, and Bush's right wing religious Christian supporters. He got a lot of criticism from Americans as a response. But he noted what a contrast there is between Americans and Muslims in responding to things they see as offensive:

The first, very obvious, distinction is between civility and legality, between comment or behaviour that is discourteous, inconsiderate or unpleasant and behaviour which is, or should be, unlawful. Despite the hypersensitivity of the Americans who showered me with linguistic ordure, nobody would dream of suggesting that insulting America and its President should be banned. These 300 right-wing nuts wanted me sacked for my ignorance; they wanted The Times used as toilet paper, but none of them would suggest that I should be legally prevented from saying that President Bush was a fool.

How different from the paranoid religiosity of the Muslim fundamentalists who insist that “insulting religion” should not be a question of taste or of judgment, but a subject for criminal law. Yet this obvious distinction between what is offensive and what should be illegal is deliberately ignored by the Blair Government, which wants to make insulting religion a criminal offence.

The second, and related, distinction is between verbal abuse and physical violence. Returning to my self-selected sample of nutty Americans, none of them threatened me with physical harm, or suggested that such harm might be my just desert. How different from the violence of the Muslim rent-a-crowds whose banners portray their enemies beheaded. Yet this obvious distinction between verbal abuse and physical violence is deliberately overlooked by British police, who have refused to prosecute Muslim demonstrators threatening their enemies with hideous violence. Meanwhile, British judges have sentenced Abu Hamza, convicted for inciting multiple murders, to just seven years. Presumably this means that religiously motivated murder is less serious in the eyes of our learned judges than such offences as drug-dealing or fraud.

This brings me to the third and most important distinction that Americans seem to understand much better than we in Europe. This is the distinction between religion and other beliefs. Why should religions be entitled to legal protection from “insults” and “attacks”? Would anyone suggest that communists and fascists or, for that matter, Tories and social democrats, should be protected from insults? Yet the first two of these movements were all-embracing secular religions and their believers, who numbered in the hundreds of millions, believed in them every bit as passionately as Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in their religions.

Randall Parker said at February 10, 2006 1:47 PM:

Esra states illiberally,

It is in no way acceptable what the danish newspaper did. Everybody has their own beliefs and noone else has the right to offend the other one's religion.

So then do you believe it was wrong for Hollywood to make movies such as Jesus Christ Superstar, Dogma, and The Last Temptation Of Christ? These movies all offended believers.

Also, was Andres Serrano wrong to make his Piss Christ?

What about religious people who hold beliefs that I find offensive? Are they wrong to hold beliefs that offend me?

Esra also states:

But it is equally wrong saying that, muslims are the nazis or muhammed is a terrorist just because of this. Anyone who does is just ignorant.

Muhammed used terrorism as a military tactic. Muslim terrorists of today are trying to pattern their tactics after tactics used by their founder. Is it offensive to state the truth?

Dora_Öztürk said at February 10, 2006 1:47 PM:

Randall Parker;

There is also one more thing: "Arab Muslims cause far more trouble than say, Turkish Muslims." I don't think people make trouble cuz they are a member of a religion. Not oly for the Turks for all.. Do you say only the muslims create problems.. Cuz if that is what you say i can only tell that you are either too arrogant or too ignorant to understand such things.. Also i can remember some protestors in France, who burned our flag and yelled things like beat it turkey etc. so you don't have the right to complain about that either.. And i don't understand this fear for the protests.. Look i don't think what they do is great, actually it is embarrassing. But haven't you people seen any protests in your life before?? The reason protest to take attention of somebody and i am sure your people act just the same way, when their believes are made cheap materials for cartoons in a know-it-all newspaper!!

Ephetat said at February 10, 2006 1:56 PM:

Randall Parker:

I am pleased to tell you that you're ignorant and obviously incapable of distinguishing "religious fanatics" from normal followers of a religion. And don't tell me, and lie to your conscience, by saying that "In Islam, they are the same."

Those "Muslim groups", "Muslim youths" phrases you lick like a lollipop, do not, I repeat - DO NOT - mean that those groups actually understand the Islamic religion as it is intended to be understood (and that is certainly not violence - as another of my friends Esra said about the all religions share common ideologies, and those ideologies don't involve violence).

Tell me, good sir - do you truly believe that the religious fanatics that are a part of every religion, are actually true representatives of the religion (they are misinterpreting)?

If you say "yes", I pity you and will say that such prejudice hardly makes you any better than those terrorists.

Randall Parker said at February 10, 2006 2:01 PM:

Ephetat,

If you are truly stating that I, as a Turk, am from a country whose religion follows a "pedophile", or "marauder", and that I am also such a person, than I have no adjectives to fit you sorry people's gruesome descriptions

So then a person who has sex with a 9 year old is not a pedophile?

Dora_Öztürk,

Do you say only the muslims create problems

No, but disproportionately compared to their numbers they create problems for others.

Also i can remember some protestors in France, who burned our flag and yelled things like beat it turkey etc. so you don't have the right to complain about that either.. And i don't understand this fear for the protests.

This fear of protests? I'm fairly nonchalant about protestors burning American flags. They do this in America occasionally and in many other countries. I do not mind protestors marching to embassies with signs saying how bad some action was of some government. Let people protest. But do you not see a distinction between the vast majority of protests versus protests that call for mass killings?

Again, I point out the specifics of these protests such as what the Muslim protestor placards say ("Freedom Go To Hell", "Be Prepared for the Real Holocaust", "Behead Those Who Insult Islam", "Massacre Those Who Insult Islam", "Exterminate Those Who Insult Islam") and you dismiss this all as just protests. No, it is a call for mass murder. It is a call for suppression of what we in the West consider basic human rights ("Freedom Go To Hell").

These people represent Islam to me. If Britain had no Muslims then there would have been no calls for mass murder in Britain. If the Netherlands had no Muslims then Theo Van Gogh would still be alive and some politicians and writers would not live under fear and constant police protection. Islam brings that to the West. I don't want it. I think we deserve to live free of these dangers.

Dora_Öztürk said at February 10, 2006 2:03 PM:

Randall Parker;

But if i have to say it honestly; i don't give a damn about what a christian write or draw about his religion or belief.. But if a smart-pants go and scratch something about my beliefs then it is a problem.. I am not the one to judge such a man, what or how who believes in his religion? And how does it surprise you that people in completely different Geography react to the offensive things... Tell me why do i speak turkish and and a spanish guy spanish.. And of course, as always, it is an exaggurating article for provocations. You can trust me i cross every each person who criticises me negatively ;).. The problem is you are so open to hear bad things about muslims that you believe that in seconds.. Maybe they wrote we have 5 arms or smt like that..

Ephetat said at February 10, 2006 2:13 PM:

Randall Parker,

Once more, your ignorance and prejudice becomes you. I don't presume to know the history of the Islamic religion, because I'm not a devout follower of it, nor do I have interest, but I can - ANYONE with common sense can - tell you that people don't usually follow a religion because of the leader was a "pedophile", but because he has other qualities.

Also, considering someone a pedophile is just a PERSPECTIVE, and your perspective is tainted by your view that is based on TODAY. It's like saying "Alexander the Great was an excellent leader despite having some homosexual tendencies in his culture at that time."

I see that this is a vain effort - regardless, I am right and you are not. So it does not really matter to me all that much, considering that it's not *my* prejudice that I'm trying to debase here. Obviously you're a staunch believer of your own "knowledge". It is pointless to continue this debate further.

Dora_Öztürk said at February 10, 2006 2:14 PM:

Randall Parker;

You said it yourself... "Those people represent Islam to me" which totally makes it clear that you are deaf and blind to the facts.. I assure you if you had a real life experience with a muslim your thoughts would be different.. You would see there is nothing to be AFRAID of and we are really HUMAN beings and in fact despite what everybody say, we all have too many things in COMMON... But go on be a decent citizen of your country with your "perfect opinions". But i will always welcome you when you are really ready to discuss, leaving all your prejudices behind.. ;)

Randall Parker said at February 10, 2006 2:25 PM:

Ephetat,

Tell me, good sir - do you truly believe that the religious fanatics that are a part of every religion, are actually true representatives of the religion (they are misinterpreting)?

People who adhere more closely to the base texts of a religion are better representatives of that religion than those who do not. Luckily lots of people believe watered down and diluted versions of some of the popular religions. If more believed the literal words of the base texts then we'd have much bigger problems dealing with the religious.

Another thing to consider is personalities. Some personalities are going to be pretty peaceful even if they are taught to believe a fairly dangerous religion. Some personalities are going to be dangerous even if taught a placid peaceful religion. But on the margin more people will be aggressive, hostile, and dominating if taught a religion that encourages those sorts of attitudes than if they are taught a more peaceful religion. Islam pushes many more people in illiberal directions than do Judaism and Christianity.

Ephetat said at February 10, 2006 2:35 PM:

Randall Parker,

Again, we're at a crossroads, and I suppose we're all going different ways.

I disagree with you, and frankly, I can see nothing that will change your belief that Islam is a "dangerous" religion and that terrorist adhere to it more than peaceful people do. Your understanding of Islam, or shall I say misunderstanding, is obviously there to stay regardless of how baseless or wrong it is.

Ultimately you choose what you wish to believe, and I can do nothing about that. You may however, come to regret it later on - and this is not an insuniation that I'm going to bomb your house next week, no.

I didn't think having an open mind was this difficult.

Randall Parker said at February 10, 2006 2:36 PM:

Ephetat,

Small point: I do not see where I stated that people who follows a pedophile becomes one. Lots of people follow people who are very unlike them in lots of ways. However, it remains fair game to point out the characteristics of a leader or founder of a movement regardless of what the movement's followers are like.

I do not see where I said that anyone follows a religion because its founder is a pedophile. Show me what sentence I wrote says such a thing. I think you are attacking a strawman version of my argument rather than my actual argument.

Dora_Öztürk,

You said it yourself... "Those people represent Islam to me" which totally makes it clear that you are deaf and blind to the facts.. I assure you if you had a real life experience with a muslim your thoughts would be different.

But I have had plenty of real life experiences with Muslims. I used to study with and became friends with a bunch of Iranian Muslims in college. Some were women who wore coverings over their heads and dressed in tent-like dresses. Some loved Khomeini and one said "I love that man more than my own father". I'd go out to dinner with these people and spent long hours with them working on class assignments. They were very nice and cordial and smart too (the Shah let out only the brightest and some left while the Shah was in power). A couple of them were total unbelievers who were fun at parties. Others were devout and would be dangerous in larger numbers. I even knew a few Iranian Jews who had fled Iran to avoid dying and knew some lapsed Muslims Iranians who could not safely return to Iran.

I've also worked with Turkish engineers (mostly Muslim backgrounds I think but not real believers as far as I can tell) and count a Turkish Christian and a Turkish Jew as good friends. Oh, and I've been to Istanbul too.

My problem with Islam is that if even 10% of Muslims in a population are radicals that is far too many for a peaceful society. It does not take that many to make society much worse.

Ephetat said at February 10, 2006 2:42 PM:

Randall Parker,

If I attacked a "strawman" version of your argument, it must be because your original reply was attacking a "strawman" version of mine.

I stated in my first post the following:

"If you are truly stating that I, as a Turk, am from a country whose religion follows a "pedophile", or "marauder", and that I am also such a person, than I have no adjectives to fit you sorry people's gruesome descriptions"

I did not emphasize coming to the defense of the prophet, but I did emphasize my thoughts on stereotyping and how wrong it is. Yet you replied:

"So then a person who has sex with a 9 year old is not a pedophile?"

And this has what to do with my original point, exactly?

Keeping an Open Mind said at February 10, 2006 3:52 PM:

I'll add another comment to the debate here - one which I feel is dispicable, in practise at least.

I have many Muslim friends - maybe as many Muslim as any other religion or non religion. My last partner was a devoutly Muslim male. The last Muslim wedding I attended was comprised, with the exception of myself and two or three Canadian women, of all Muslim women. It was a marriage between a 20 year old Iraqi woman and a 40+ year old Iraqi male. All of the people at the wedding celebration were female of course. The wedding was held in Canada.

Through the course of the night, the young women at my table began to speak about the marriage night, and the absolute horror and fear it holds for the woman. I couldn't believe it, because of course, in any Canadian wedding I have attended the wedding night holds nothing but beautiful promise.

The girls went on to describe to me the "rape" the young woman must endure (in great detail). If the young woman is found NOT to be a virgin on her wedding night, from the lack of blood which escapes her body, then she can be publically shamed and divorced (even killed in some places) that night in front of the entire community. The young women all trembled with fear as they discussed this disgusting practise.

The young women at my table consisted of Syrian, Algerian, Iraqi, Afghani, and other Muslim countries. All were what I would refer to as "good Muslim women." Wow! WHAT KIND OF RELIGIOUS PRACTISE WOULD STILL, IN THE YEAR 2006, ENFORCE SUCH VIOLENCE AND ATROCITY AGAINST WOMEN????? IT IS SICK AND DISPICABLE.

And while I'm not advocating that some Muslim men hold entirely to this belief - I have several close friends who are very sexually intimate with their partners prior to marriage, and regard this as absoulutely okay - a religion that would encourage such behaviour, in my opinion, actually...I won't say my opinion on this......I'm sure you may guess.....but I am interested to hear any feedback others may have......

Sons of Abraham said at February 10, 2006 4:02 PM:

Keeping an Open Mind

Wow....that's really sad. I too am Canadian, and to even think that may be going on in my own country is unbelievable!

Let's be glad Canada would serve justice to the man who would attempt to harm a woman (if reported), LET ALL WOMEN KNOW THEIR RIGHTS (Muslim or not), and ensure that if a woman is ever publically shamed under these circumstances, she would be given nothing but the proper respect as she walks away from that sorry man and begins life anew!!!

Randall Parker said at February 10, 2006 4:51 PM:

Ephetat,

As for this sentence:

"If you are truly stating that I, as a Turk, am from a country whose religion follows a "pedophile", or "marauder", and that I am also such a person, than I have no adjectives to fit you sorry people's gruesome descriptions"

Your whole "If you are truly stating" is a strawman response. You double-quoted "pedophile", probably to indicate you don't think Mohammed was one. Well, someone who has sex with a 9 year old is one . But where'd I state that you are a pedophile? You seemed to be trying to fluff out your j'accuse against me. But it was a compound sentence and I couldn't figure out what you were upset about. Maybe you were more upset for what I thought of Mohammed? Heck if I know.

Bob Badour said at February 10, 2006 6:53 PM:

Sons of Abraham,

We cannot really let all women know their rights here in Canada because we have laws against 'hate speech'. You would not want to defame muslim men, now would you? That would be racist hate-mongering.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Sadly, when it comes to freedom and governance, Canadians haven't a clue among the lot of them. Canadians are almost as deluded as muslims.


Dora_Öztürk, Esra and Ephetat,

Wow, your prejudices are showing.

My parents taught me nothing about Islam. Neither did I learn anything about Islam in school. Islam was just never important over here. I suspect from your attitudes that Turkish parents and Turkish schools do teach prejudice and bigotry. I hope that I am wrong. While every parent is different, I can assure you that schools in english Canada do not teach prejudice. Sadly, I cannot say the same about french Canada, which does tend to teach "Quebec uber alles".

I pretty much ignore the mainstream media, and I certainly disagree with the kumbaya nonsense those idiots spout about Islam. What I learned about Islam, I learned through diligent self-study of Islam's base texts.

I fully believed that Islam was like all the other religions promoting the golden rule, tolerance, civility and all that good stuff. I firmly believed that until the first time I opened a Qu'ran. Wow, what an eye-opener that was!

While I may use succinct (even terse) vocabulary, what I say about Mohammed is exactly what the base texts of Islam say about Mohammed. If you don't like what I say about Mohammed, consider the source.

Some Christians have done the same as I did with even greater diligence. However, I have no desire to convert you to anything. I understand what Islam says about apostacy, and I would never ask you to risk that.

In any case, the small minority of muslims who attack the west and commit vile acts of violence are the good muslims. Bad, vicious, vile people, but good muslims who adhere to the teachings of Mohammed and to the base texts of Islam. The rest are bad muslims. Good people but bad muslims.

I don't recall accusing Turks of pedophilia. I recall saying the truth about arguably the most evil man who ever trod the earth to explain why I find him so vile. Truthfully, the Danish cartoons did not do justice to his evil record.

Let me be very clear: The Qu'ran offends me. The Qu'ran insults me. By your argument, you have no right to offend me or to insult me so please get rid of all these Qu'rans all over the place and stop teaching that vile hateful nonsense about those of us who do not believe in Allah. Or do you have the right to insult me?

It is clear that muslims neither seek nor give respect. Islam demands submission and gives nothing. If I believed in Hell, I would tell you to go there, because if such a place exists, that is where you would belong. Given your ignorant bigotry, obvious double standards, and petulant demands, I certainly don't want you here in the west with me. Please stay in Turkey where your primitive attitudes will do no harm.

Someone mentioned Alexander the Great. Yep, he was an ass bandit. So was Achilles. What of it? I don't take moral instruction from either of these men or any other pervert. Neither do I take moral instruction from any general or any politician. Mohammed was a general, a politician, a pedophile, a genocidal murderer, a rapist, and a thief. I don't take moral instruction from any of those and I question the morality and sense of anyone who does. I ask that you honestly consider what sort of example Mohammed set for his followers.

You ask what Christians would do if a paper published caricatures of Christ? Christians might write an angry letter to the editor of the paper expressing their feelings if a paper published a caricature of Christ. Most Christians, however, would not even do that. In the west, we publish caricatures of Christ and Christianity and religious leaders all the time. It's not a remarkable thing at all. While the Turkish military has traditionally kept Turkey secularist and controls the press, much of the rest of Islam publishes far worse caricatures than the Danish cartoons every day. But muslims are no strangers to hypocritical double-standards -- those are the status quo.

Freedom of speech is not absolute. I have neither the right nor the desire to say "Kill all Turks" or "Death to Islam" or "The Only Good Muslim is a Dead Muslim" or anything even remotely similar to any of those. Those statements incite violence, and I have no right to incite violence. I would never say or mean those things in any case because I have no desire to harm anyone.

I am ashamed and disturbed by the Right Honourable Prime Minister Dhimmi Blair's obvious instructions to the police in England to NOT enforce the law of the land on the muslim protesters. Peaceful protests do not violate the law, but those protesters incited violence. That "exceeds the boundaries" as the Qu'ran likes to say. I believe Blair invited future violence by failing to enforce the law. In fact, he perpetuated the lie that the cartoons created the violence in Syria instead of Syria's own propaganda machine.

We now have one law for England and another law for Islam, which is exactly what those vile pigs sought with their signs.

It is no wonder young Turkish people like you and your friends have no clue about rights and freedoms. By refusing to enforce the law, Blair lost an opportunity for you to learn what that law is. I think the EU would be stupid to allow a country of people who do not understand rights and freedoms--regardless of the cause--to join the EU. For the welfare and safety of those who live in europe, I hope they keep you out. While you might never commit a violent act, the primitive, tribal attitudes you expressed above will encourage others to commit violence and will diminish europe's ability to preserve freedom and civil society.

Do I think Turkey intends to destroy european society? No. But then again, as they say, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Regardless of Turkey's intentions, admittance to the EU will destroy european society.

Sons of Abraham said at February 10, 2006 7:07 PM:

Bob, your comments....will not be rewarded with an answer.

My personal philosophy: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That's it....that's where I stand on this whole issue.

As far as my view on Canada - Canada like Brazil and a few other chosen countries - has thankfully been a place where most religions, cultures, people groups and philosophies continue to coexist in relative safety and harmony. Many nations look to us both as a shining example and for guidance in their own affairs. My extensive travel has definitely shown me this. I hope we can always maintain our destiny which is rooted in religious freedom and tolerance, and in being a place of healing for the nations.

Cheers!

Randall Parker said at February 10, 2006 7:46 PM:

Sons of Abraham,

The rights of women in Canada are not as secure as you seem to believe. Such is the destructive power of leftist multiculturalism. See my post Binding Islamic Tribunals Coming To Canada?.

Bob Badour said at February 10, 2006 8:32 PM:

Sons of Abraham,

Canada recently had a regime that ordered the police to use chemical weapons against peaceful protesters exercising their rights of free expression and free association. Afterward, the Prime Minister stated publicly the protesters were lucky the police did not beat them with clubs. Lo and behold, the next time the same police officers met the same protesters, they beat them with clubs.

The same regime misappropriated billions of tax dollars, and was characterized by the sort of corruption and cronyism one associates with any other third-world country.

In my lifetime, I have seen Canada piss away freedom after freedom. We do not have free speech--we have hate laws. We do not have individual rights--we have privileged communities or 'founding nations'. We have our choice of socialist parties. While we narrowly avoided the abomination of the Meech Lake Discord, I suspect that was more because each privileged community felt it was not sufficiently privileged than for the abject betrayal of individual Canadians the document really was.

Canadians take political correctness to fascist extremes.

Over the last 10 years, I have found myself shut out of decent medical care for 8 due to the obvious malignant effects of socialism to our medical system. For most of those 8 years, I had the means to pay for my own medical care, which makes the system here obscene.

Canadians delude themselves to think they live in a free nation with an advanced polity and humane medical care. It's all bullshit. Canadians are intellectually lazy, primitive tribalists and closet racists who take smug pride in nebulous concepts like 'good government' without making the effort to define what that is while looking down their noses at those who actually make the effort.

Bob Badour said at February 10, 2006 9:23 PM:

Sons of Abraham,

What happens if you do unto others as you would have them do unto you and they don't? For instance, what happens if you respect another person's freedom of speech while they repeatedly and viciously defame you, and then you discover that person wants to exterminate your freedom of speech over something completely innocuous another person said about a dead guy?

Do you watch quietly while the person who defamed you adds injury to insult?

Sons of Abraham said at February 10, 2006 9:28 PM:

Bob, I understand you are somewhat embittered by your own experiences. I guess that is fair. Fortunately, I'm still from a part of the country that doesn't make one pay their own health care expenses. But, I wouldn't doubt it would be long. Our other problem is partially one of lack of critical capacity of course. It's hard to have service provision on par with some other places, particularly given that quite a large number of the population does not contribute to the tax base to begin with.

I agree that we lost ..... a lot .... in the last regime of government. And in terms of some of the sentiments expressed before this comment, I agree we have at times, opened our doors without maybe full consideration of the consequences. However, when facing the other problem of a rapidly aging and declining population, this seemed to be the logical recourse.

I have travelled, and Canada, for all it's flaws, still has so many benefits - benefits that it takes for granted no doubt, but positives, that all...regardless of religion or faith, still benefit from.

Sons of Abraham.... said at February 10, 2006 9:35 PM:

As I said in my post long ago, we pray....and as we pray, we seek direction for changing the hearts of men. And if we have no other recourse, then we fight viciously for the freedom we have to be maintained. The heart of a warrior, acting in defense of it's country, it's freedom, it's rights is a beautiful thing. So long as the heart is not consumed by a power to control or annihilate, but rather to liberate from oppression......(does this make any sense...I'm super tired.)

But I don't know if things will ever be the way they were again? Time will tell.

Bob Badour said at February 10, 2006 10:16 PM:

Sons of Abraham,

My point what not that I had to pay for medical care. My point was that I was refused medical care and I was NOT ALLOWED to pay for the medical care I needed. At the same time, I was taxed to pay for the medical care of others, which is fucking obscene. I had the means to pay for medical care, and I was prohibited from doing so.

I see no particular benefits in Canada other than an accidental affluence driven entirely by proximity to the US. Canadians are morally and culturally bankrupt. And they are sufficiently smug and condescending to actually have pride in their bankruptcy.

I take a very hobbesian view of the role of government. I see its primary raison d'etre as having a monopoly on violence. According to the Fraser Institute, Canada spends over half of its economy on that monopoly on violence at the same time it cannot mount a credible defense of its own borders. That too is fucking obscene. Fift-five percent of the economy is used to wield violence against the citizens themselves, and Canadians are too stupid to sense any alarm.

Canada has regressed steadily for nearly 100 years. I find that sad. I find that alarming. I find that discouraging.

Right now, I can tell you that Canada has already given away all of Canadians' rights without putting up a fight. Political correctness has so overtaken Canada that when a University President censors innocuous press freedoms on campus and directs the campus police to enforce Shariah law on the student body, the majority of students praise the cowardly bastard for showing cultural sensitivity. Disgusting!

Canadians have such ignorance and shallow understanding of current events and world history, the vast majority think the Danish cartoons caused violence in Syria and Lebanon instead of the real cause: provocations by Syria's own propaganda machine.

We no longer have political leaders; we have cynical opportunists. Our press have abandoned us entirely. In fact, I see the Canadian press as the enemies of rational thought and the people of Canada.

I predict you will never again see a warrior stand for the rights of Canadians. In fact, Canada now court marshalls our warriors for using the wrong vocabulary in a war zone. Fucking obscene.

Cat said at February 10, 2006 11:53 PM:

All this talk of religion - One guy parts the red sea - One guy walks on water - One guy moves a mountain - One guy makes the statue of liberty disappear - No wait - Sorry - That was David Copperfield - Guys who speak for God always seem to do magic tricks - I guess that impressed people thousands of years ago when we thought the Sun went around the Earth and the Earth was flat - Humans seemed to have progressed a little in the last thousand years but are still stuck in the past when in comes to religion - Most people do not believe the Earth is flat anymore but still believe that what has been distorted through history by men is the word of God - Whooo - I guess Islam is no worse than some of the other crazy things in religion although that thing about blowing yourself up and killing innocent people so you can go to heaven and get virgins is a bit much - I mean I know a good virgin is hard to find now days but that is a bit extreme - I notice the guys in charge never blow themselves up - They always seem to get some young kid who they talk into doing it and tell them they will go to heaven and unfortunately there are enough idiots around to believe it - I hope Iran never gets a nuke or we all may be around a lot of virgins - Thousands of years from now when they study us like we study Neanderthal now they will say man in 2006 was an odd monkey

Ephetat said at February 11, 2006 5:34 AM:

Randall Parker,

I have nothing more to say to you - you're evading just about most of my own points yourself, and trying to nitpick on details. I double quoted "marauder" and "pedophile" because they were the words used by the people above. Again, I already stated before just what I was criticising, and that was the blatant, raw prejudice that you people here seem to contaminate your opinions with.

Bob Badour,

Your lengthy post only helps me make myself aware of the ignorance that is going on today. I seriously did not believe that such ignorance had existed before. You say that you have learned about Islam with your own studies. Then why are you citing such sources as the "Prophet of Doom" website to further reinforce your points? Just as I am amazed at most of you people here, I am also amazed at those "Christians". What bigots - again, that site is a fine, fine example of missing the entire point of what "religion" is, and if, one day, we have a war on our hands due to religion, it's almost sure to be caused by people like those, be them the - in your words - 'good Muslims' that bomb embassies, or those 'Christians' who are responsible for that site - both are bigots that use something serene like religion for a political cause.

As for your 'understanding' of Islam, I'd still say it's more like a "misinterpretation" - especially if you cite terrorists are good Muslims. Again, you speak of knowing Islam, but you do not know what the concept of religion is, and how man caused it to be. Your opinions are like a brain tumor - rather unfortunate, and I'm afraid to say, inoperable. I'd link you to a more neutral source about these matters, but I'm not sure if it would help you in any way. After all, your facts are totally correct, yes? Anyway, you might want to check http://en.wikipedia.org, and maybe you'll learn something. But I'm not getting my hopes up.

Incidentally, thanks for citing a neutral source like that "Prophet of Doom" website. I mean, judging by the name, they are CLEARLY unbiased! By the way, that was sarcastic.

As for your doomsayer's babblings about Islam that are your "learned opinions", as well as calling the prophet those unsavory names, (which doubtlessly have been influenced by such neutral sources of information such as "The Prophet of Doom") I can only laugh at them, as I do to all of you. I have no will to disprove you, because you're simply not worth the effort.

As for the European society breaking, I'm sure that in the event of such a thing happening, it's sure to be caused by people like you, not us, thank you very much. And by saying that our attitudes above are tribal and primitve, you have crowned your achievements in the area of human prejudice.

Dora (simply) said at February 11, 2006 8:40 AM:

Bob;

I don't think these conversations will have a happy end, neither a side will have satisfaction.. I have tolerated everything you said even if it offended me but, how do you say.. "Enough is enough.." How dare you blame people that are trying to come to some places.. You can be sure that every single citizen of turkey know their faults; not all of them maybe but they figure it out slowly.. I still ask you the same: Why are we trying to be a member of EU if we are not trying destroy them? You know what?? I don't believe you are an atheist.. You are simply obsessed so much with our religion that maybe you were once a MUSLIM... I am sorry to say but you have the most comfortable way in hell by pronouncing the words you had already.. How in the world can you judge people cus they are a member of a religion?? Do you think you are superrior? I can tell you what defines you the best; an ignorant ass. As i read what you wrote, i felt embarrassed that i am discussing such thing with you.. As one of my friend said the ones like you make me disgust my own race; human beings.. But if you paid attention to what i wrote i din't say ALL christians or europeans etc. Just you and the rest of the people like you, who got so confused about believes and religions and found the only way out by saying I am atheist.. And you know what, maybe we obey your rules on out ROCKY ROAD to EU, but the time will come that you all apologise for what you have done.. I say patience and not as a muslim but as a HUMAN my advice for you is to think twice before writing about matters you don't understand in your cute little dream world..

Bob Badour said at February 11, 2006 8:58 AM:

Cat,

I guess Islam is no worse than some of the other crazy things in religion

You guess wrong. Please open a Qur'an and verify for yourself the very different nature of the base texts of Islam.


Ephetat,

You ask: Why do I link to Prophet of Doom ? Because it is clear the author, Craig Winn, read the same source material I did and came up with very similar conclusions. I do not have the author's Christian evangelical motivation, but I largely agree with his learned analysis.

I know anyone who reads the base texts of Islam with an open mind will observe the same problems Craig Winn and I observed, so I encourage people to read the base texts. However, I also realise that most people are too lazy to crack open the TV Guide let alone an archaic religious tome. I give the link to Craig Winn's analysis of the base texts of Islam so that more people can get a taste for what those texts actually say.

Other than automatically assuming anyone who agrees with my factual statements regarding the Qur'an and the Sira is a racist, prejudiced bigot, do you have any substantive response to our observations regarding the base texts of Islam?

Do you disagree that much of the content of the Qur'an is violent? That it curses atheists and hypocrites at every turn? That it calls any muslim who fails to take up arms in Jihad a hypocrite?

Do you disagree that the Sira shows Mohammed as a ruthless tyrant who murdered entire tribes of people? Who stole? Who raped his nine year old wife? Or on that last point, do you instead prefer the Sira with the Satanic Verses? I understand those verses present a problem for some muslims.

While you may very well find Islam serene, the core texts that form the basis of your religion are anything but serene.

I call Mohammed a pedophile because the Sira records that he fucked a nine year old Aisha. Do muslims not rely on the Sira as part of your faith's religious teachings?

I call Mohammed a genocidal murderer because the Sira records Mohammed wiped the Banu Qurayza off the face of the earth and murdered countless others.

I call Mohammed a rapist because the Sira records he raped women after killing their husbands and fathers.

Mohammed was a vile man and arguably the most evil man who ever trod the earth. That is the opinion I formed on my own after reading Islam's own base texts and long before I ever heard of Prophet of Doom, which I only learned about within the last two days. Craig Winn was generous enough not only to open those archaic religious tomes but to take notes, to arrange the content in a sensible chronological order, and to put it on the internet for free. Why wouldn't I link to it?

You don't seem to understand the concept of prejudice. For instance, when your friend accused me of bigotry and proceeded to explain that as coming from my parents and my education etc., your friend showed very explicit prejudice.

First, I never approached Islam from bigotry. I began my studies with an open mind and an open book, and I am very empirical. My statements are all factual statements about the base texts of Islam that are easily verified or falsified by anyone who wants to. My statements do not express any sort of judgement regarding any living muslim.

Second, your friend does not know me, never met my parents, has never stepped in any school I ever attended etc. His statements thus originated in his own mind without any factual support. That is prejudice.

You will find that Randall is even more empirical than I am. Your friend likewise demonstrated prejudice by assuming Randall never met a muslim or a Turk, when he has in fact visited Turkey and knows many muslims.

In short, I note that you seem to project your own flaws onto others.

Dora said at February 11, 2006 9:02 AM:

Bob;
"I firmly believed that until the first time I opened a Qu'ran. Wow, what an eye-opener that was!"
At least you admitted that a book, which was sent by god opened your eyes.. Which is a back up for my theory you being a Muslim once... ;) And if you are an atheist, why do you read books of god if you think they are not worth anything?..

Keeping an open mind;

That marriage belief was ages ago.. It doesn't matter to any one, except the real fanatics of islam, if the girl you get married is virgin or not.. And it is also only an opinion to decide(not to kill,harm or publicly insult) whether you want to marry a virgin girl.. I am sure some of your people think about same things too.. And you can not judge them.. And if we get in EU i give you my word no Turk will insult you publicly...

Randall parker,

If you count turks as good friends you can see that there is nothing to be afraid of.. And you say iranians which don't have anything to do with us.. I only say, that only 1% of the women in turkey have soch clothes as you say "tent-like" and for the head coverings you don't have the right to judge people by what they wear? And for you it is still my question; is it abnormal for people who live in differen georaphies to have different thoughts, clothing designs and traditions?

Ephetat said at February 11, 2006 9:54 AM:

Bob Badour,

Firstly, about those information about Mohammad.

1) Aisha's age at marriage, although widely accepted to be nine, (but there are other discussions as well, as stated in that page) does not automatically translate into sexual abuse - perhaps it would have been considered that, if it happened in these times, but as the same article states (I had read it prior to my first reply by the way), "...and that early marriages were common in most cultures until fairly recent times." So although you may consider it sexual abuse, and frankly I can see where you are coming from, your view would be tainted by today's standards of a society.

2) They were in war. In war, people are killed. Though "wiped off the face of the earth" sounds like good dramatization, I'll give you that. A prophet does not necessarily make pretense of being saintly and always forgiving, however. Again, I am of the opinion that your view is tainted by today's standards.

3) I'm pretty sure that this is called the exercise of "reading into the words". You can see any remotely similar sounding statement into what you want to see by twisting the words in your mind - as was probably the case here.

---

The USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts, the other, and a fairer source, explains Muhammad's character to be such:

"By nature he was gentle and kind hearted, always inclined to be gracious and to overlook the faults of others. Politeness and courtesy, compassion and tenderness, simplicity and humility, sympathy and sincerity were some of the keynotes of his character. In the cause of right and justice he could be resolute and severe but more often than not, his severity was tempered with generosity. He had charming manners which won him the affection of his followers and secured their devotion. Though virtual king of Arabia and an apostle of Allah, he never assumed an air of superiority. Not that he had to conceal any such vein by practice and artifice: with fear of Allah, sincere humility was ingrained in his heart."

And I suppose these are pure lies, then? Biased, I presume? An important line is "He had charming manners which won him the affection of his followers and secured their devotion." which seems to suggest that the followers of Mohammad did not follow him because he was a rapist, or a murderer, but because he was a virtuous man (but not necessarily a saint, no.). Again, insuniating that he's primarily a rapist or a murderer, I believe that is just reading into words from your part. Part of the "misinterpretation" that I'm talking about - I'll explain myself more later on.

Another part about just how women are treated, follows like this:

"[4:34] Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great."

Again, this statement is very, very prone to be misinterpreted, especially the "scourge' part and "one of them to excel the other" part. But it does not mean that men are women are not equal, although *it can be interpreted when you consider it from a FLAWED perspective of today*!

"[2:228]...And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them..."

This too, can be misinterpreted, but then we see the following explanation.

"This one degree in no way affects the position of the Creator in which He has stated that He does not hold women dearer to him than men, or vice versa. Rather it is simply a way of partitioning responsibilities in a household of two adults: someone must make the final decision on daily matters. As will be shown below in a section on a different misconception, though the final decision rests with the husband, it is through mutual consultation that decisions are best reached at."

Anyway, I heavily recommend you to read the "misconceptions" page on that same site. Why? Because as you seem to demonstrate, although a holy book can be read and understood in different ways, past experiences, one's own culture, and his/her education, *can heavily effect the interpretation of it!" Your posts seem to be a good example of this, as you only draw your conclusions from your own exploration and refuse to have an open mind.

---

And there is something else too, but something that you are either too blind to see or you refuse to see it.

Why did religion originally exist? What is religion? Was it not born with the desire of primitive mankind to "belong somewhere, or to someone" in the chaotic world that he/she found himself in? I would say yes. With such a desire to belong, "God" was effectively created, a divine presence perhaps more fiction than real, but humans percieved God to be the creator, and their caretaker, and such they felt themselves belonging to this presence. They found peace and sanctuary with him. And thus, belief was born. It may not mean so to you, but this is what religion means to me - a way of man to reach serenity while believing in God.

And now we come to Muslims, or Christians, or Jews. Each of these subtypes of people believe in their own religious sects. BUT, the ideology behind all of these religions, are the same, it has never changed. The goal is still to find God in one's heart and reach peace with belief in God.

And what I've been trying to say all this time is, that it is simply not correct to deny this from Islam. This is the base of every religion; this is WHY religion exists, was originally created.

But I'll now give you some examples, and they are not true religion:

The Inquisition tortured heretics, killed them not because the serenity of belief was at risk; the only thing that was at risk was the power that the church had at that times, and the integrity of it, because it sublimely relied on fear.

The Crusades were supposedly to find the holy lands in Jerusalem; but no, it had nothing divine in it, all they were after was the riches and power, more power.

The 9-11 happened, but not because a sublime insult to Islam, no, because it was politically motivated, to instill fear in the American's hearts and to strike a blow at it. It had nothing to do with true religion.

Some French extremists molotov'ed a theater while it was about to show Last Temptation of Christ, in 1988. Again, this had nothing to do with true religion, it was a case of misinterpreting religion, again to use it as a political cause.

And now we come to Muslims calling slogans and marching with placards. Again, this has nothing to do with the religion as I describe above: These extremists are also politically inclined to create unrest. Which makes them terrorists, yes.

So, what is the "religion" that *you* talk about?

It's nothing more than a political tool. A pawn on a chess board, ready to be sacrificed in a game, the end of which does not seem near, or likely... politics. This is what I want people to see... but you're too busy throwing stones at a politically exploited, false Islamic religion. And that is wrong, not because it accomplishes nothing, but as it is readily apparent, through this unrest and the past events, true religion is dying - and this contributes to it.

I'm done with here. I'm not sure if you understand what I'm talking about, but I told you it anyway. Something to consider, before submitting that new Mohammad caricature, huh?

Bob Badour said at February 11, 2006 9:56 AM:

Dora,

Like your friend, you project your own flaws onto me. I am an atheist. I believe there is no ilah, no allah, no yahweh, no zeus, no mars, no god of any kind. The rocks and the trees have no invisible spirits. What you see is what you get.

I have always been an atheist. I am a lifelong devout atheist. I take your statements about your beliefs at face value. Why are you unable to accept my statements about my beliefs at face value? After all, I am the authoritative source.

Unlink the Grand Inquisitor or Mohammed Atta, I cannot justify causing suffering in this world by rewards in the next. If I am to do good, this is my only shot at it.

I have never made any statement about all muslims. If you think I did, then you hallucinated. I made statements about the content of the base texts of Islam. That says nothing about how you practise your religion. You might totally ignore those base texts or engage in all kinds of mental gymnastics to see kindness where there is cruelty.

Regarding you, I made statements about your illiberalism, your tribalism and my own preference for whether to allow you to the west.

To demonstrate whether you are liberal or illiberal, you said:

But saying that what the danish newspaper did was fair, that is not acceptable.

The Qur'an offends me and offends others. The press in Islam goes out of its way to offend. What is unfair about an innocuous cartoon of a dead political leader? Especially given the historical record of Mohammed?

Your statement says you would censor me and deprive me of my right of free speech, my freedom of religion and the freedom of the press. I like those rights, and I am quite willing to kill to preserve them.

If you wish to live in a society that lacks those rights, please stay where you are. By coming here, you will create conflict for no good reason.

To demonstrate your tribalism, you said:

i don't give a damn about what a christian write or draw about his religion or belief.. But if a smart-pants go and scratch something about my beliefs then it is a problem..

In other words, you don't care what happens to other tribes as long as your tribe gets the submission it demands.

You ask why Turkey wants to be part of the EU. The answer to that is obvious. My ancestors bled for certain rights and freedoms which have created societies with great affluence. Turkey wants the affluence without all the bother of respecting those rights and freedoms.

However, you have no right to my blood or to the blood of my ancestors. We in the west have no obligation to admit you to our affluent societies especially if doing so will destroy the essential nature of those societies.

Saudi Arabia won't let me visit Mecca or Medina (not that I would want to). I cannot just waltz into Turkey without permission. You seem offended with the idea of sovereign nations inconveniencing you with their sovereignty. That's just too bad. Sovereign nations have the responsibility to pursue the interests of their own citizens before all others.

You said you don't think this conversation will have a happy ending and neither side will find a satisfying outcome. I agree. I think the west will continue to admit illiberal, illiterate, unproductive tribal actors into our society until no option remains but horrific bloody tribal conflict. Millions will die as a result.

Just as Churchill was frustrated in his attempts to save millions of lives, I fear I will be frustrated too. However, as a good and moral person, I must try to prevent it from happening.

Bob Badour said at February 11, 2006 10:04 AM:
And if you are an atheist, why do you read books of god

I started my studies of Islam on the evening of September 11, 2001. I opened the Qur'an with an open mind and one glaring fact: while Islam is not necessarily an enemy of the west, many enemies of the west are muslim and claim to fight the west in the name of Allah.

I find it prudent to understand the enemy. Don't you agree?

Dora, You seemed to miss the point that Randall fully accepted those Iranian women even though they wore tent-like garments and covered their faces. You are barking up the wrong tree.

Dora said at February 11, 2006 10:19 AM:

Bob;

Yes, i don't care about it, cuz it isn't my problem==> it is yours... I care about other tribes or nations but i know my priorities too..

"However, as a good and moral person, I must try to prevent it from happening."

Sorry but how will you be able to do such thing? Be sure, if you have such abilities; i will bring an end to the chaos and everybody will live in peace.. I have a dream, a dream that all obsessed morons will leave their "perfect" believes behind and start to care about their own problems.. That's why i don't care about your cartoons.. If everyone deal with their OWN problems properly, there won't be blood or pain i assure you..

"Just as Churchill was frustrated in his attempts to save millions of lives.."

Don't you dare to give examples about such commanders.. Don't forget that at that time your frustrated commander was trying to destroy us, when we weren't trying to be a member of EU. You still feel "superrior" (still maybe inferrior) for the muslims and turks..

"I cannot just waltz into Turkey without permission."

Oh, what a pity.. And i can waltz into european countries easily.. Don't waste your time with idiotic examples..

P.s. I advice you to read ephetat's last comment. That long one just like europe and turkey in distance...;)

Dora said at February 11, 2006 10:25 AM:

Bob;

when i am talking to someone i wait for an answer from him you know, i bark up to him.. ;) And if your enemy is god.. You don't have too much companions, right? I mean christians,jews and muslims are all your enemy then.. And if so why do you back them christians up? Are you using that political trap which is; learning more about your enemiy in close is a good way to defeat them...

Bob Badour said at February 11, 2006 10:38 AM:

Ephetat,

With all due respect, we now consider it wrong to fuck nine year olds because it is wrong. Mohammed married Aisha when she was six. She was nine when he first raped her. Plenty of dark immoral periods have existed where it was considered okay to fuck children, one example would be modern Iran. But that does not excuse the behaviour or make the behaviour moral.

Similarly, it is wrong to murder, but plenty of dark immoral periods have existed wherer it was considered okay to murder to protect honor, one example would be mordern Arabia.


My questions to you: Do you accept moral instruction from a pedophile? From a murderer? Do you consider a pedophile such an example of perfect morality that you consider it wrong to even draw a picture of the man? Which is more insulting, an historically accurate picture of Mohammed as a pedophile and genocidal murderer? Or a political caricature associating Mohammed with modern terrorism or modern oppression of women in Islam?


When Mohammed wiped out the Banu Qurayza, they had surrendered or been captured. What would you call it if America had exterminated all of the Iraqi Sunnis after taking Iraq?


I encourage everyone to read several translations of the Qur'an and several Islamic histories to verify for themselves that I have not twisted anything around. Those who pretend the Qur'an and Sunnah are peaceful most certainly twist the words around. It takes very agile mental gymnastics to deny the inherent violence and intolerance of Mohammed's teachings.


I encourage people to read the translations of the texts as the translators wrote them and then judge for themselves what message they convey. Be certain that those who war against us in the name of Allah read the texts exactly as I do.


If you believe the ideology behind 'turn the other cheek' and 'love your enemy' is the same as 'smite them above the neck and cut the fingertips off them' then you are a blind and dangerous fool.


While Christianity has gone through some dark and bloody periods, like the Inquisition and the Crusades, that was only possible at the time by keeping the majority of the population ignorant of Christ's pacifist teachings. The Reformation happened because it was no longer to keep the masses ignorant of the actual religious message. Likewise, Islam has gone through some benevolent and enlightened periods. However, those periods were only possible by keeping the masses ignorant of Mohammed's actual message.

Unlike other religious texts, the Qur'an and the Hadith are primarily political documents establishing a dictatorship in Arabia with a mandate to wage war to expand Islam (Jihad) and Mohammed's vile rule.

Umur said at February 11, 2006 10:51 AM:

Muslims are the new Nazis. They are intolerant of any opinions which oppose islam and they hate the jews. We must stop these Nazis at all costs. Muhammad the prophet, may pork be upon him and his flea infested followers.

The ultimate goal of Islam is peace--after they win the war and force everyone to submit.

Well,while you said about war and peace lets talk about your peace.Some terrorist who read the Qur'an and misunderstood it,just runs and blows himself,and we become terrorists.

You,can,NOT say that all muslims are terrorists,because if i could make a generalize as yours,i could say:''All people except Muslims are terrorist,they are looking for a war,lets give them.Cihad!'',see you are probably saying that stfu to me,i dont care what you say;but dont forget something:We other Muslims can remain silent,but if you go over the line,you will see that Muslims are not just terrorists.

And for the ''Muslim are the new Nazis,stop them kill them.''so,why dont we kill all germans?They were the one who WERE Nazis,kill em all!

As i agree with dora,ephetat,esra, you are just an idiot.Leave your comments to yourself,and shut it.So that we can live in peace,without war.

You are the one who is looking for a war right now,not us.

Bob Badour said at February 11, 2006 10:54 AM:

Dora,

Since Turkey lost WWI regardless, don't you think it would have been better to lose the war early and with relatively little bloodshed? That's exactly what would have happened had Churchill not been frustrated by incompetence in the field. Gallipoli would never have happened. How many Turks died in that battle?

Are you offended that Churchill tried to save all those men?


How can I prevent bloody tribal bloodshed that will kill millions? By convincing the people around me that it is stupid to invite the tribalists into our midst in the first place. By convincing the people around me that appeasing Islamists will only invite further violence.


God does not exist. I don't consider mythical creatures enemies. I did not choose the enemies who attacked us. They chose me.

Ephetat said at February 11, 2006 11:00 AM:

Bob Badour,

Again, your misinterpretations become you. I'd expect no less from someone who began to study Islam's holy book on the day of a terrorist attack, while still claiming to be unbiased (and we can clearly see your neutrality here) I'd say you're the blind and ignorant fool, for not even responding to my other points in my last post. Shows what you know about Islam as well, because clearly, you see only what you want to see.

This particular trait makes people like *you* are the danger to society.

Reread my last post again, especially the second and third part, then reply to the points made there - if you can. And look up the definition of rape while you are at it.

I thought I wouldn't have to post again, but God... I was not aware people like you existed.

---

"With all due respect, we now consider it wrong to fuck nine year olds because it is wrong. Mohammed married Aisha when she was six. She was nine when he first raped her. Plenty of dark immoral periods have existed where it was considered okay to fuck children, one example would be modern Iran. But that does not excuse the behaviour or make the behaviour moral."

Do you even know what rape actually means, or do you just use it as a buzzword?
Morality changes with time. What was immoral yesterday can grow to be moral today. I told you this already, but again, you did not even comprehend my post, or read it, because it disagreed with you.

"Similarly, it is wrong to murder, but plenty of dark immoral periods have existed wherer it was considered okay to murder to protect honor, one example would be mordern Arabia."

Point?

"My questions to you: Do you accept moral instruction from a pedophile? From a murderer?"

* No. But then, this is not the primary attribute of Muhammad, and your description is your interpretation only - like I stated above. Again, shows just how much you read my last post.

"Do you consider a pedophile such an example of perfect morality that you consider it wrong to even draw a picture of the man?"

* Whether I find it wrong or not has NOTHING to do with Muhammed being a potential "pedophile" - stop putting words in my mouth.

"Which is more insulting, an historically accurate picture of Mohammed as a pedophile and genocidal murderer? Or a political caricature associating Mohammed with modern terrorism or modern oppression of women in Islam?"

* Both are insulting and just how much they insult is irrelevant. Again, "murderer" and "pedophile" are buzzwords that you seem to use a lot.

"When Mohammed wiped out the Banu Qurayza, they had surrendered or been captured. What would you call it if America had exterminated all of the Iraqi Sunnis after taking Iraq?"

Oh yes, because the Iraq war was truly a war on terrorism and not resources? There were no civil losses either? America has already murdered civilians in the Iraqi war - and really for oil.

The rest of your post follows the standard anti-Islamic drivel that seems to be your trademark.

Read my last post. Again.

Bob Badour said at February 11, 2006 11:02 AM:

Umur,

You have juxtaposed something someone else said with something I said. I have never said that all muslims are terrorists.

What is the literal meaning of the Arabic word: Islam ? Not the meaning of salam or asalam but of islam.

What is the literal meaning of the Arabic word: muslim?

Dora said at February 11, 2006 11:06 AM:

Bob;

But you know we are not that mythical.. You see being the minority, makes the minority to be mythical or inferrior so stop insulting nearly everyone reading this page. You have done enough of that to some of them; muslims.. And if you call 90% of the world creature, then you are little snow-flakes which only appear for little periods of time and your destiny is to thaw under our feet..

Bob Badour said at February 11, 2006 11:21 AM:

Epethat,

I apologize that you dislike what motivated me to study the teachings of Mohammed. However, I can honestly say I did not consider Islam important enough to bother with prior to that day. If it were not for the rabid violence of the Islamists, Islam would be no more important than any other backward, primitive society.

I encourage people to avoid any bias I might have and actually read the base texts for themselves. Why does that frighten you so?

Are you saying that what I saw does not in fact exist in Islam's base texts? Are you suggesting that muslim historians did not record Mohammed's acts of genocide? Pedophilia? Murder? Rape? Are you suggesting I have misrepresented the passages of the Qur'an I have cited?

Rape is sex without consent. No nine year old has the intellectual or emotional development required for consent. Forced sex on a prisoner of war is rape too.

If Mohammed is both a pedophile and a murderer and you do not accept moral instruction from a pedophile or murderer, why would you care about any silly cartoon of him? Or do you disown the base texts of Islam that record his acts of murder and pedophilia? If not those base texts, what is the basis of Islam?

The base texts of Islam record that Mohammed was a pedophile and a murderer. What is wrong with calling a man who fucks a nine year old a pedophile? Or a man who kills innocent men and women a murderer? Those are the english words that describe a person who commits those crimes.

Bob Badour said at February 11, 2006 11:24 AM:

Dora,

You accused me of having god as an enemy. When I ask you why I would consider something that doesn't even exist an enemy, you put yourself in that place. Do you consider yourself god? Doesn't your faith consider that blasphemy?

I have difficulty decyphering anything meaningful from your most recent post.

Dora said at February 11, 2006 11:31 AM:

Bob;

In other words you always misinterpret everyithing and understand everything the way you like to.. Then i ask you the same, are you god to decide whether we are creatures or not?? I have difficulty "decyphering" anythin meaningful from most of your recent posts..

Ephetat said at February 11, 2006 11:39 AM:

"If it were not for the rabid violence of the Islamists, Islam would be no more important than any other backward, primitive society..."

What you refer to as Islamists are not the true representatives of religion as outlined in my longest post above, but again you consider Islamists to be even as any member of religion. Your choice, but you'd be wrong. The fact is, though, that extremists exist in every religion, society - it is nothing specific to Islam.

Again, it seems you did not read that post of mine!

"I encourage people to avoid any bias I might have and actually read the base texts for themselves. Why does that frighten you so?"

One, it does not frighten me, as I don't consider myself a member of Islam - I'm an agnostic and think that even if a God exists the it's man's own business between God and himself - a more personal bond.

However, this line:

"Unlike other religious texts, the Qur'an and the Hadith are primarily political documents establishing a dictatorship in Arabia with a mandate to wage war to expand Islam (Jihad) and Mohammed's vile rule."

Frankly it doesn't really sound like you're encouraging neutrality with that kind of statement.

"Rape is sex without consent. No nine year old has the intellectual or emotional development required for consent. Forced sex on a prisoner of war is rape too."

It is not clearly determined that Aisha was 9-years old when she first had sex or 6-years old when she married - like that wikipedia article states, there are evidence that points both ways. As for she lacking the development required for consent - again, this is something you're looking at from your own perspective only. She might have very well had it, or like the other side of evidence points out, might have had sex later on.

Islam does not accept mistreatment of women, and any Muslim who does mistreat her woman is someone who misinterprets Islam.

"If Mohammed is both a pedophile and a murderer and you do not accept moral instruction from a pedophile or murderer, why would you care about any silly cartoon of him? Or do you disown the base texts of Islam that record his acts of murder and pedophilia? If not those base texts, what is the basis of Islam?"

I do not care about the cartoon... but my first reply to this thread criticised not the cartoon but how people were making unsavory remarks at Turks without providing any basis for it. And frankly, when people kept on making uninformed remarks from their computer seats, not knowing ANYTHING, or providing any proof, it annoyed me, which in turn made me post my first message (I also disagree with the political contamination of religion - like I said in my longest post, the second last one before this! Like neveroneofyou said very well, you can not truly see through a soul of a nation without being in it.

"The base texts of Islam record that Mohammed was a pedophile and a murderer. What is wrong with calling a man who fucks a nine year old a pedophile? Or a man who kills innocent men and women a murderer? Those are the english words that describe a person who commits those crimes."

It is wrong because you're basing all your opinions on a personal, biased interpretation of a holy book. I really doubt whether you had any experiences with actual Muslims that are not extremists, or even any Turks. It's easy to call people tribalists though, isn't it.

Randall Parker said at February 11, 2006 1:21 PM:

Ephetat,

You are funny. When you say:

Islam does not accept mistreatment of women, and any Muslim who does mistreat her woman is someone who misinterprets Islam.

You are left with two choices with regard to Islam's founder:

1) Mohammed misinterpreted Islam.

2) Rape and pedophilia are acceptable behavior under some circumstances.

So did Mohammed mistreat women or not?

Bob Badour said at February 11, 2006 1:22 PM:

Dora,

I believe what I see with my own two eyes or that I measure with instruments I understand.

I don't know who you are. You claim to be a teenaged male from Turkey. I have no reason to doubt you.

When I seek out the most authoritative sources available to me and I read that Mohammed fucked a nine year old girl, I conclude he is a pedophile. What part of that is interpretation? What part of that am I supposed to reject? The part that he fucked a nine year old girl? Or the interpretation that fucking a nine year old girl means he is a pedophile?

Similarly, when I seek out the most authoritative sources available to me and I read that he killed innocent traders and captives, I conclude he is a murderer. What part of that is interpretation? What part of that am I supposed to reject? The part that he killed innocents? Or the interpretation that killing people for financial gain is murder?

When you ask me to substitute some wild fantasy for what I see with my own two eyes, you are asking me to submit to your will. I refuse.

If you want to address my empiricism with something empirical, please, go right ahead.

Ephetat said at February 11, 2006 1:44 PM:

Randall Parker,

There's a very thin line of distinction. As I said,
- Rape is forced sex. There's no indication, except personal guesses, that Muhammad forced his first wife to have sex with him under any circumstance. (not even her age during this ordeal is something set in stone.)
- As the wikipedia article also states,
"Some respond to this criticism by claiming that Aisha was post-pubescent at nine and that early marriages were common in most cultures until fairly recent times."
This makes sense. Therefore, something that is considered to be pedophilic today, might not have been considered pedophilic in the past - and again, Aisha's age is nothing that's been proven - there is evidence that points both sides.

So no, it is in no way proven that Muhammad mistreats women. That does not mean I agree with the concept of having sex with 9 year olds, no - but as I stated, that's why the line is thin.

New Nigga Nazi said at February 11, 2006 2:10 PM:

Dear ones who describe the muslims anything but muslims,

About this "Anti-Muslim" Cartoon, i don't care who has drawn it or i do not care what it is about, but this cartoon is against people believes, it's forbidden to draw the muslim prophet, Danish goverment could simply send a diplomatic apology to muslim countries and it could be the end of it, they didn't do so, they wanted a discussion about it and they got it, fair enough. But you know it, it's wrong to describe a person -who is symbolizing a big group of people and described as a prophet of Muslim religion- as terrorist. We don't have to explain you our prophet and you don't have the right to talk about it like that.
About terrorism;
DON'T YOU DARE TO TALK ABOUT TERRORISM WITH ME!, I am living in Turkey and we have too many losses because of Terrorism, they were Muslims too. I sent my two uncles to the east side of the country where there is a some kind of guerilla war going on.
The people who had started the wars in the history, the people who discriminate other people according their ideas, language, skin color etc., the people who are insulting other religion do it just becuz they don’t feel something about god. They should not have the right to talk that.
And the ones who know the history very well, don't tell me : "Mohammed did that and that and that blah", our prophet is Mohammed not Jesus Christ, i respect the ideological behavior of Jesus Christ but we are Muslims and we believe in Mohammed. It's non-sense to talk about how many wives he had or something.
And I think there is only one God we all trust in different ways. Everybody has their own believes, but you can't call Muslim Terrorist becuz there are some terrorist who are describing themselves as muslims. Is it fair if i call christs terrorist just becuz there are some terrorist who is believing in Jesus Christ. Read it carefully: "THE PEOPLE WHO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE CAN'T BE A MUSLIM" understand that terrorism is not only related with religion, otherwise my two uncles should be alive, a terrotist bombed twin towers and suddenly people realized that there is something called Terrorism, well done and bring it on, you are too smart to be human.
Turks wants to conquer europe by joining in EU, i mean we are going to rule the world, yeah right, what ever…
You peoplejust don’t understand, it's easy to write bad names for somebody, and it's hard to defend it, i must defend it at all costs becuz someone is trying to stop "us" at all costs. Don't be an idiot, just be a good person and try to understand something which important to some people
And finally bob you, you are an idiot and you are manipulating everything,
1: You are evaluating a religion with one or two situations, that is not effective
2: You are an ethnosantrist which means that you are evaluating the situation according todays condition which doesn’t means anything, In those days people could see this normal. There is not a such a thing called “pedophile” maybe, you don’t know, so you shut it
3: We really have very low source to talk about it so deeply, but all you say is nonsence
4: I don’t really care who muhammad fucked, but you are fucking my brain bob,
I suggst you to think about what you’re saying and find something that you are good at it have a hobby have a god job. Have a 18 year old girld so dont be a pedophile, have a good life, but don’t have a stupid brain.
Take Care

Dora said at February 11, 2006 2:11 PM:

Bob;

First of all i dint't get your point when you repeated who i am and where i am from or if it has anything to do with the subject.. There are sides that you must reject.. For example the obsession for Mohammed, to understand what your sources said about him you should go over Ephetat's text again.. And next time please tell me more about your "most authentive sources" i am deeply intereseted..

"I believe what I see with my own two eyes or that I measure with instruments I understand."
I do not really get that.. Did you see Mohammed fucking a little girl? Maybe in your dreams ha? Or maybe in one of your previous lives? I really want to learn about your source if it really convinces people that good? Why do you trust the things you read that much? (Even if i know the real reason) It is really easy to write bad things about someone when you can find people to trick on..

Bob Badour said at February 11, 2006 2:19 PM:

Ephetat,

What you refer to as Islamists are not the true representatives of religion

And your point would be? I fail to see how Islamists alter the actual content of the base texts of Islam, and I fail to see how Islam would have any relevance to the rest of us without the Islamists. Without the threat posed by Islamists, Islam would be the same as any other backward, primitive society.


Frankly it doesn't really sound like you're encouraging neutrality with that kind of statement

I encourage people to understand the base texts of Islam for what they actually are. They are a political manifesto for a dictator. They are also the base texts for a religion, but it is a religion that does not separate politics from religion or morality from legality.


people were making unsavory remarks at Turks without providing any basis for it.

What unsavory remark did I make at Turks? I don't recall making any statements about the soul of your nation, whatever that is. You say you are here to defend your tribe from statements I don't recall making and you criticize me for noting your tribalism?!? Yikes!


you're basing all your opinions on a personal, biased interpretation of a holy book.

My "interpretation" is very literal. I encourage others to read the texts for themselves and see for themselves.

Randall Parker said at February 11, 2006 2:36 PM:

Epethat,

No, in most cultures for most of history people were not considered normal if they married 6 year olds and had sex with 9 year olds. Some people are just making up facts to rationalize what this guy did.

You are also ignoring the rape charge. Oh, and I've forgotten to mention the slavery too. Did he misinterpret when he supported slavery?

Ephetat said at February 11, 2006 2:39 PM:

Bob Badour,

"And your point would be? I fail to see how Islamists alter the actual content of the base texts of Islam, and I fail to see how Islam would have any relevance to the rest of us without the Islamists. Without the threat posed by Islamists, Islam would be the same as any other backward, primitive society."

In your opinion. There's not much I can say to dispel this impression from you, because you have to see for yourself. So I'll just be silent on this one, but again, I think you're being narrowminded - certainly not a fitting characteristic for someone who lives in a more "advanced" society, I must say.

"I encourage people to understand the base texts of Islam for what they actually are. They are a political manifesto for a dictator. They are also the base texts for a religion, but it is a religion that does not separate politics from religion or morality from legality."

Again, I think we're just going to disagree here. You think they are a political manifesto, but I can't say I share this opinion. No point in dragging this further, the horse has died already.

"What unsavory remark did I make at Turks? I don't recall making any statements about the soul of your nation, whatever that is. You say you are here to defend your tribe from statements I don't recall making and you criticize me for noting your tribalism?!? Yikes!"

My first reply to this discussion was not specifically aimed at you either - I merely caught sight of the MANY unsavory remarks that people have been throwing around without any basis - (I'm just repeating myself here.) why are you considering it as a personal reply? Yikes!

By the way, we're not a primitive tribe. Turkey is a nation and we're as civilized as you are. There is no need to be discriminatory - poor form, really, and shows just how much you can do.

Unless you're considering every nation as different tribes?

"My "interpretation" is very literal. I encourage others to read the texts for themselves and see for themselves."

And that is as it should be - encouraging others to see the texts for themselves. But they don't need your opinions that can be potentially misleading. Your interpretation, is still an interpretation and you are just as prone to making mistakes as anybody else, because the way you interpret things are influenced by many factors unique to each person. Again, I'm just repeating myself here.

Anyway, I'm off to sleep, so we can continue this merry debate tomorrow.

Ephetat said at February 11, 2006 2:45 PM:

Randall Parker,

Thanks for admitting your bias. "Some people are just making up facts to rationalize what this guy did.", really, you can do better. We're talking about one of the most neutral information sources in the Internet. I recall your own news stories having links to Wikipedia articles.

You'll have the point out the rape charge to me. As I said, I do not presume to know fully Mohammad's biography.

Slavery is already something accepted by Islam, go check your sources. No misinterpretations there.

Anyway, I'm off to sleep, I will see if I can continue this debate with you tomorrow.

Bob Badour said at February 11, 2006 3:09 PM:

Ephetat,

Fucking a nine year old girl, pre or post pubescent, is pedophilia and rape. No nine year old has the intellectual and emotional development necessary to consent. It was wrong even if some culture was sufficiently immoral to condone the act. If you accept moral guidance from someone who committed such an act, you seek moral guidance from an immoral pedophile.

Likewise, the historical record shows Mohammed as a murderer in spite of the contorted mental gymnastics apologists use to try to dismiss the historical record.

The primary sources for Mohammed's pedophilia are al-Tabari's Ta'rikh and al-Bukhari's The True Traditions and Muslim's Hadith. These were primarily based on ibn-Ishaq's Sira which has been lost.

If you reject these three compilations as unreliable, what remains of the Hadith?

And even if you personally reject them, are there not millions perhaps even hundreds of millions of muslims who accept them?

Randall Parker said at February 11, 2006 3:17 PM:

Ephetat:

Regarding this Wikipedia sentence:

"Some respond to this criticism by claiming that Aisha was post-pubescent at nine and that early marriages were common in most cultures until fairly recent times."

Some respond by claiming. The Wikipedia writer does not say that these claims are accurate. The Wikipedia article does not prove these claims. Wikipedia articles often relay claims and counter-claims. In areas of controvery the articles constantly change based on who last edited them. An appeal to this sentence is a real stretch. It does not support your position.

As for slavery: I'm very clear in my own mind that I'm against it. I'm offended by religions that support it. If we are going to start censoring offensive comments then Muslims are going to have to stop printing Korans and Hadiths since these books obviously say offensive things.

But my guess is you are promoting a double standard where Muslims can demand that they can offend but the rest of us can not. Is that the sum total of your position? Seems to be.

Bob Badour said at February 11, 2006 3:30 PM:

NNN,

it's forbidden to draw the muslim prophet

Not in Denmark it isn't.


Danish goverment could simply send a diplomatic apology to muslim countries and it could be the end of it

In other words, the Danish government could betray the most cherished core values of its people and submit to the will of Allah. Go fuck yourself.


you don't have the right to talk about it like that.

You are wrong. I do have that right.


They should not have the right to talk that.

As long as you stay in Turkey where you can happily have no rights or freedoms, I am okay with that. I do have the right to talk like that, and I absolutely will kill to protect that right just as my forebears killed to earn it.

Bob Badour said at February 11, 2006 3:39 PM:
"I believe what I see with my own two eyes or that I measure with instruments I understand."
I do not really get that.. Did you see Mohammed fucking a little girl?

No, I saw only that the earliest written and most authentic Islamic histories record that he was a genocidal pedophile who robbed and murdered and raped. I saw that written in black and white. The muslims who read those same documents, read those same words.


Why do you trust the things you read that much?

Trust? I don't trust those documents, but I am not a muslim. I do not adhere to a faith based upon those documents. If those documents are not valid, upon what is the Islamic faith based? The documents to which I refer are ibn-Hisham's Sira, al-Tabari's Ta'rikh, al-Bukhari's The True Traditions, Muslim's Hadith, and of coure the Qur'an.

I do not need to trust or to explain or to excuse those documents because I do not claim to receive any moral guidance from them.

Bob Badour said at February 11, 2006 3:55 PM:
Unless you're considering every nation as different tribes?

Some are tribal and some are not. The primitive ones are tribal. The advanced ones are not tribal. Of all the Islamic nations, Turkey is the least tribal. However, it is still tribal. Ataturk put limits on tribalism but he did not eliminate it.

And yes, I consider Japan to have a primitive value system.

New Nigga Nazi said at February 11, 2006 4:20 PM:

Bob you are fool and you don't deserve to be a human beeing.
"In Denmark it isnt" i didn't ask, it is forbidden. If dutchs are doing it, it's against our rules, that's why we are discussing about dumb-ass we are discussing abour understanding, apperently you don't get it. All you are saying is demagogy.
You just answered that you can answer.
You don't get this religion, it's not a simple thing, you can think your god as our god, we are just worshiping diffrent ways, there is no such a monster called allah so he doesn't have a "Will", i can't fuck myself but i can easily fuck you, so watch it.
Dutch governmet could not betray something, it just called diplomacy you moron.
You think that you are too clever but you are not, you are just talking nonsense, and you are just another egoist who is insisting accept a fault.
and you think you know tooooo many thing about muslim but you don't.
I think you are defending yourself just becuz you're a dutch, it seems so, you are an example for dogmatics,
Just you think Qur'an but you don't know it. Just Stop talking against something that you don't really know

New Nigga Nazi said at February 11, 2006 4:29 PM:

I would think you are defending yourself becuz you're dutch, it seems so, you are an example for dogmatics*
you are so passioned to critize to muslim culture. why do you care it so much anyway?

Bob Badour said at February 11, 2006 4:54 PM:

NNN,

Am I to understand you correctly? You can reject the laws of Denmark but Denmark must adhere to what you forbid. Is that correct?

I assure you, if my elected representatives submit Canada to Allah, they will betray me and everything I value. Diplomacy means Islam must tolerate our foibles in our own lands just as we tolerate your nonsense in your land.

you can think your god as our god

I am an atheist. There is no ilah. I have no god. The script you have rehearsed for Christians does not apply to me.

you don't deserve to be a human beeing
...
i can easily fuck you, so watch it

Are those threats? Do you get your moral guidance for uttering threats from Mohammed?

Just Stop talking against something that you don't really know

Since when did I lose the freedom to speak my own mind? I know what I read. I know what others will see if they follow my suggestion and read the base texts of Islam.

why do you care it so much anyway?

Recently, muslims have been calling for an end to the rights and freedoms my ancestors bled for. I care very much about my rights and freedoms considering the high price paid to obtain them. I will not simply hand them over to you, and I will not submit.

Keeping an Open Mind said at February 12, 2006 12:37 AM:

Bob, although I am a Christian, and see things from a slightly different perspective than you do, I must say that I absolutely agree with your last statement.

"Recently, muslims have been calling for an end to the rights and freedoms my ancestors bled for. I care very much about my rights and freedoms considering the high price paid to obtain them. I will not simply hand them over to you, and I will not submit."

The one thing that absolutely paralyzes me with dread, and part of the reason my last relationship ended, is because of the vast difference in values between myself and my Muslim partner over the issue of how to reasonalby solve situations such as this one. It is absolutely inconceivable to me that anyone who has been immersed in the Western value system to any extent, could still believe that war and domination, forcing others to submit to your beliefs, when they are the one who chooses to come to you (your country, your community, etc) could even be debated.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, I want to say to every person who would forcibly impose their beliefs on another person: This is my life. I will make the choices that are best for me. And when I die, if their is a God in heaven, I will answer for those choices. It is a decision you got to make in your own heart, and it is most certainly a decision I will make in mine. So, thank you for the information.....leave me to process.....bye, bye.


Dora said at February 12, 2006 3:17 AM:

Bob;

I don't think in Qu'ran there is such a statement which says: Mohammed fucked a little girl or he killed innocent people so watch your words... And i agree with ephetat right now; "pedophile" is your most favourite buzzword and i don't think i will continue writing things(unless there is a big madness gıing on); cuz your prejudices are your walls around you and it deflects whatever i say. But as a friend i tell you; even if Mohammed did smt. to a girl or innocent people i assure you not all muslims are "pedophile" or "murderer".. You are not our enemmy but it is your attitude which will lead us to a war, even though your answer to this post will contain: 1- Denial 2- Disengagement ;) I advice you to take the advises ıf New Niggar Nazi and take good care of yourself... I'll be reading...

Dave D. said at February 12, 2006 5:06 AM:

Bob, keep up the good fight, as I read the postings from the otherside (I would love to insert a muslim insult), it just reinforces what I have been reading lately about IQ levels and tribal aspects of the different cultures in the Islamic world. Thanks for posting the reference links, I challenge Ephetat to post links and references to support his argument. I shall do my part and share what I learn. As you say "I care very much about my rights and freedoms considering the high price paid to obtain them" . Thank you Sir


"I WILL NOT SUBMIT"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ephetat said at February 12, 2006 5:35 AM:

Bob Badour,

"Fucking a nine year old girl, pre or post pubescent, is pedophilia and rape. No nine year old has the intellectual and emotional development necessary to consent. It was wrong even if some culture was sufficiently immoral to condone the act. If you accept moral guidance from someone who committed such an act, you seek moral guidance from an immoral pedophile."

1) I am not a believer or a member of Islam - and I do not accept moral instruction from any prophet, no. A person's morality is his own to contempolate, don't you think?

2) You thinking that it is immoral, is like saying I find you narrowminded - they are similar in the way that they are both mere opinions. Likewise, you thinking it was wrong to condone it, is also an opinion - not fact. The rules in a society is nothing more than a generalized opinion. Therefore, even though you think it's wrong, does not necessarily make it so, especially when we consider the times of the ordeal that we're talking about, and again, the circumstances during this act are not proven, such as the age. You know nothing about the rules of social behaviour during Mohammad's time, nor do I. Judging it by today's standards is inherently flawed.

That the Qu'ran insults you or offends you because of this is irrelevant. You do have to right to protest, if you're offended, go ahead.

3) Like stated in the USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts, the characteristics you accuse Muhammad of are not the sole characteristics of Muhammad, and certainly not the ones that caused people to follow him. Again, check that source.

You are accusing Muhammad of being a pedophile and murderer, and even if this was as true as you say, it does not influence the morality or the other virtues of this character.

Every general, commander, even soldier is a murderer, for instance - because in wars, people are killed, civilians are killed. Does this make them immoral, savage - an evil character? No.

Again, you see only what you want to see and ignore the rest. The Qu'ran seems like a military manifesto to you because you only managed to understand the parts in which strife was described. Because, you wanted to "know your enemy." (Probably you were rather distraught at the day of 9-11 - understandable.) You know nothing of Islam's morality, which is exactly why makes Islam a valid religion, even though you claim you have studied it yourself.

"The primary sources for Mohammed's pedophilia are al-Tabari's Ta'rikh and al-Bukhari's The True Traditions and Muslim's Hadith. These were primarily based on ibn-Ishaq's Sira which has been lost.

If you reject these three compilations as unreliable, what remains of the Hadith?"

I do not reject any historical source, but I reject your rather pigheaded stance on interpretation - seeing only what you want to see. That does not constitute a neutral, even refined stance.

"And even if you personally reject them, are there not millions perhaps even hundreds of millions of muslims who accept them?"

See the points I made above for my response on this.

"Some are tribal and some are not. The primitive ones are tribal. The advanced ones are not tribal. Of all the Islamic nations, Turkey is the least tribal. However, it is still tribal. Ataturk put limits on tribalism but he did not eliminate it.

And yes, I consider Japan to have a primitive value system."

Again, your opinion. It is good that your considerations and opinions are not law.

---

Randall Parker,

"Some respond by claiming. The Wikipedia writer does not say that these claims are accurate. The Wikipedia article does not prove these claims. Wikipedia articles often relay claims and counter-claims. In areas of controvery the articles constantly change based on who last edited them. An appeal to this sentence is a real stretch. It does not support your position."

It does not support your position either, when you accuse those who claim something that doesn't agree with you, of "making up facts."

"As for slavery: I'm very clear in my own mind that I'm against it. I'm offended by religions that support it. If we are going to start censoring offensive comments then Muslims are going to have to stop printing Korans and Hadiths since these books obviously say offensive things."

Again, if you're offended, you can protest. But expecting to change dramatically because you were offended? Nope. I do not agree with extremist protests either. One of them happened in my own country - a priest was shot - killed by a 16-year old, who was influenced by the cartoons. Do I think it's a good thing that happened? No, I do not. I would seriously question the mental health of any Muslim - that is not an extremist - if they were to tell me it was something good.

So what was your point with those statements, exactly?

---

Anyway, I've posted my final post here - really, because apparently it's hard for you two to be open minded. No point in this - I think I've improved my English enough, and I speak better English than you anyway.

Ephetat said at February 12, 2006 5:43 AM:

Oh, and Dave D -

If my IQ level is as low as you seem to insuniate, that we're primitive, and tribal as you think, then you're probably too busy screeching in real life, because you haven't evolved enough to communicate coherently. You probably still haven't developed feet either - do you walk on all fours?

I would surmise that your post was a result of random mashing of keys of your keyboard. Aren't you better off up a tree, screeching your heart out? You may even speed your evolution.

I'm out.

W. Dorsman said at February 12, 2006 6:06 AM:


We loves Danmark!!!


Greets from Holland!

Bob Badour said at February 12, 2006 7:22 AM:
I don't think in Qu'ran there is such a statement which says: Mohammed fucked a little girl or he killed innocent people so watch your words...

I have watched my words. You will find those statements in the Hadith, specifically the earliest Siras and the Ta'rikh. You dissemble when you say they are not in the Qur'an knowing I never claimed they were. Islam does not exist without the Hadith, and all Hadith trace their roots to the same few compilations.

if Mohammed did smt. to a girl or innocent people i assure you not all muslims are "pedophile" or "murderer"..

Again, you dissemble. I never made any such claim. I asked muslims to explain how they justify demanding censorship of an innocuous cartoon when their own histories say much, much worse things about this so-called example of perfect morality.

I advice you to take the advises ıf New Niggar Nazi and take good care of yourself...

Are you agreeing that NNN's statements sounded like threats? Is this a threat too? Are threats and violence what you learn from Mohammed's example?

Keeping an Open Mind said at February 12, 2006 7:53 AM:

Come on people. Evolution itself is not a scientific fact. Rather, a series of conjectures, most of which have been totally disproven. Study a little for yourself please and stop blindly making references to where one people group may or may not have "risen to". Education, economy, geographical constraints, etc - these are the seperating lines between us....and of course, not to mention, the fact that many of the Western nations (at one time, if not today) for the most part give credence to the Christian God, whom has greatly, greatly blessed us as He promised He would do in His Word, through the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is the prayers of millions of saints, for many generations that have kept the world in the balance where it lies. There will come a day when God removes his presence from the face of the Earth - that will be a scary day!!! One I hope never to encounter in my own life time. Then the nations will know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, where the balance of righteousness and peace came from.

Love you all!! Praying for you.

Engineer-Poet said at February 12, 2006 8:29 AM:

I see Ephetat considers himself highly advanced because of his agnosticism, but he refuses to consider the possibility that others may be beyond him on the path - indeed, so far beyond him that he cannot accurately judge where they are.

The others, who see Ephetat at a place they passed some time ago, do not have this handicap.  Hindsight is 20:20.

Ephetat said at February 12, 2006 8:37 AM:

God, this page is addictive. Very well, I'll humor you.

Engineer-Poet,

"I see Ephetat considers himself highly advanced because of his agnosticism, but he refuses to consider the possibility that others may be beyond him on the path - indeed, so far beyond him that he cannot accurately judge where they are.

The others, who see Ephetat at a place they passed some time ago, do not have this handicap. Hindsight is 20:20."

I am deeply moved by your statements.

Your confidence is staggering.

You have convinced me to give up my arguments.

You have won me over.

I am dominated by your intellect.

You are clearly superior.

I am hindsighted.

And you have surpassed me.

But I don' t really think you know how to detect sarcasm, so I think I'll finish here.

Engineer-Poet said at February 12, 2006 8:40 AM:

The purpose of opening one's mind is to close it tight on something solid; if you leave it open for openness' sake, people will throw garbage in it.

At the risk of diverting this thread, KAOM, the criticisms you're repeating have been proven empty and bankrupt many, many times.  If you want to read what science actually has to say about such criticisms, you could do much worse than to start at the talkorigins.org FAQ and the index to creationist claims.

You really should inform yourself on this topic before going further; if you don't, all you are going to do is reinforce the view of believers as weak-minded dupes.

Engineer-Poet said at February 12, 2006 8:43 AM:

Ephetat:  You were finished quite some time ago.  It just took you this long to realize it.

Ephetat said at February 12, 2006 8:46 AM:

Engineer-Poet,

"The purpose of opening one's mind is to close it tight on something solid; if you leave it open for openness' sake, people will throw garbage in it."

What if the something solid you close it on, is something flawed, which in turn makes one throw garbage him or herself? Indeed, is there something that is so perfect that one must close his mind around it? What's the issue with being open? You can leave your mind open, and you can choose to ignore the garbage.

Do you even think about what you're saying or do you just half heartedly try to be impressive?

"You really should inform yourself on this topic before going further; if you don't, all you are going to do is reinforce the view of believers as weak-minded dupes."

Yes, because clearly, you're very well informed yourself.

Incidentally, what's a weak-minded dupe, chap?

Ephetat said at February 12, 2006 8:48 AM:

Engineer-Poet,

Yes, yes, of course, you're right, I agree, good point, exactly, wow.

By the way, my friends and me were in for the amusement of this discussion - we had not seen such narrowminded thinking before and decided to probe it ourselves. ;)

Randall Parker said at February 12, 2006 9:29 AM:

Ephetat,

You are young and fairly ignorant and have a lot to learn. You do not seem to get the difference between real evidence and simple assertions. You are arguing with people who are bringing real evidence to their arguments and you are ignoring the evidence and responding with sarcasm and, at best with your Wikipedia quote, second hand assertions which the author of the piece did not even present as authoritative.

Look at what Bob presented: Real quotes from ancient Muslim texts. You simply refuse to believe the material presented and assert in response that he can't possibly be right because you know that you are right and what you believe is something else. Where'd you get your beliefs? An accident of birth. Try studying with a very active mind and you just might find that many of the beliefs passed on to you as an accident of birth are wrong.

What you call "narrowminded" are beliefs and evidence that threaten beliefs you were raised to embrace. You want to laugh off what we say and respond with sarcasm because A) you lack the knowledge to disagree using real information and B) it threatens you to have your basic beliefs challenged.

That's what the whole Islam vs the West thing is about. Muslims want to hang on to ancient beliefs and have Westerners treat those beliefs with way more respect and way more deference than those beliefs merit. Do you really expect us to treat a rapist, murderer, and pedophile as a revered historical figure? Ha! You can get some leftist multiculturalist dupes to condescend to pretending. But the rest of us are not going to play along.

You have a choice to make between faith and empiricism. You claim to be an agnostic but you are not yet an empiricist dedicated to knowing the truth about objective reality. Let go of the myths and embrace the evidence. It is much more intellectually satisfying.

Ephetat said at February 12, 2006 10:24 AM:

Randall Parker,

"you are ignoring the evidence and responding with sarcasm and, at best with your Wikipedia quote, second hand assertions which the author of the piece did not even present as authoritative."

The best evidence that Bob has come up with were the following:

"The Prophet of Doom" - a site that makes no pretenses at being neutral.
"The USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts" - an actually neutral site, which has counters to Bob's own arguments, but Bob refuses to read them himself, because he believes his own interpretation is flawless.

"Look at what Bob presented: Real quotes from ancient Muslim texts."

You are making me repeat myself again.

I never denied that the quotes were real, actually. But I disagreed with Bob's interpretations, and his way of thinking. I still disagree with it. I also gave the reasons for my disagreement. They are all above, you may read them - but obviously you consider them to be results of ignorance.

"You simply refuse to believe the material presented and assert in response that he can't possibly be right because you know that you are right and what you believe is something else. Where'd you get your beliefs? An accident of birth. Try studying with a very active mind and you just might find that many of the beliefs passed on to you as an accident of birth are wrong."

Let me start off by saying that you, in turn, refuse to reply to my own points. This is aimed at both of you. I'm not even sure if you read all of the posts that I'm writing and comprehended them, as you only respond very little or none of them - thus, giving me a "narrowminded" impression that seems to only see what it wants to see.
For the rest, it is not correct. The last two sentences don't even make sense. Considering none of my parents follow the Islamic religion, where would they pass me the information from?

Again, you seem to confuse actual "religion" with the politically exploited religion of today that you're throwing stones at.

"What you call "narrowminded" are beliefs and evidence that threaten beliefs you were raised to embrace. You want to laugh off what we say and respond with sarcasm because A) you lack the knowledge to disagree using real information and B) it threatens you to have your basic beliefs challenged."

And, as I've basically been repeating, your beliefs and evidence are your own interpretations and are in no way factually correct - as are my own opinions.

Again, I do not have any basic beliefs regarding Islam. I am an agnostic - but actually it's more than that. Whereas Bob Badour seems to embrace his atheism as something to be proud of, being an agnostic is merely my label for my own kind of belief. Every person's religious belief is unique in some way, and so is mine.

"That's what the whole Islam vs the West thing is about. Muslims want to hang on to ancient beliefs and have Westerners treat those beliefs with way more respect and way more deference than those beliefs merit. Do you really expect us to treat a rapist, murderer, and pedophile as a revered historical figure? Ha! You can get some leftist multiculturalist dupes to condescend to pretending. But the rest of us are not going to play along."

That's fine by me. I can't say I care.

But what I've seen on this page goes beyond a rejection to "regard Muhammad and his believers with respect". As easily evidenced from the very beginning of this page, other people themselves are making unsavory remarks at Islam, Turks (some fool went as far as to call a EU with Turkey, "Turkestan" - funny, really) and other Muslim countries. Without any basis.

"You have a choice to make between faith and empiricism. You claim to be an agnostic but you are not yet an empiricist dedicated to knowing the truth about objective reality. Let go of the myths and embrace the evidence. It is much more intellectually satisfying."

Again, you look like you have a point to make, but fail to do it.

Do you know what being an agnostic means?
And how objective, empirical is objective reality when it contains subjective interpretations?

Randall Parker said at February 12, 2006 10:52 AM:

Ephetat,

People do certainly have a very large basis for saying very negative things about Islam. Look at the Muslim countries. Compare them to the European countries. If I was wrong about IQ differences then the failures of the Muslim countries (autocratic and dicatorial governments, low per capita GDPs in all cases where they do not have oil, oppression of women, lack of basic freedoms, etc) would have to be put down to Islam. It is what they have in common.

Oh, and there are the Dutch politicians living under police protection and the French banlieues that are no-go zones for ambulances and firetrucks without police escorts and the Muslim rape gangs in France and Australia and the Danish cartoonists living in hiding and the holes in the ground where skyscrapers used to stand. Islam is a really pain in the ass for the rest of the world and we are growing increasingly pissed off at the Muslims.

Since you probably reject group average differences in IQ you have to come up with a reason for the failure of the Muslims countries which is other than Islam. I'd add consanguineous (cousin) marriage as a cause both for suppressing IQ and for causing corruption and lack of civic spirit and lack of loyalty toward much beyond the family. Turkey has a lower rate of consanguineous marriage than the Arab countries and so falls between Europe and the Arabs politically. Though Ataturk's legacy of generals who have stepped out of the barracks periodically to clean house has certainly helped as well.

As for reading everything say: The vast bulk of really long replies are usually low on useful content. So whether or not I'm disagreeing I tend to skim the long replies. Unless a person is linking to useful info and excerpting real facts the long replies tend toward being just defense of one's self esteem.

So far I've seen little evidence that you've done much digging for facts or read heavily on the links you've been pointed to by those who disagree with you.

Ephetat said at February 12, 2006 11:16 AM:

Randall Parker,

"People do certainly have a very large basis for saying very negative things about Islam. Look at the Muslim countries. Compare them to the European countries. If I was wrong about IQ differences then the failures of the Muslim countries (autocratic and dicatorial governments, low per capita GDPs in all cases where they do not have oil, oppression of women, lack of basic freedoms, etc) would have to be put down to Islam. It is what they have in common."

You misunderstand me. Even if they have a very large basis for saying negative things, something like the following quote;

"Mohammed was the immoral founder of a this-worldly terrorist network. His followers have always been about power in this world. Today, the moslems try to appoint themselves the censors of the entire world. This means war, and nothing but war, with them. A sincere faith does not start and end with demands for world dominion and censorship of expressions of unbelief everywhere. They are on a collision course with every rational aspect of life, yet they do not even achieve spirituality above power-seeking. That the left today bargains and allies itself with such a low, hostile faith, demonstrates that they have fallen into an abyss of unprincipled opportunism.

A left which bows down before theocracy of a this-worldy power-greed-infested faith like that of Mohammed, is in complete dishonor."

does not have any validity. I don't agree with this statement - do you? If you do agree with it, well then, I don't think we'll ever reach an agreement anyway.

Turkey adhers mostly to the Islamic religion, a lot of people do follow Islam - are we all terrorists now? Do we want "nothing but war?" Do we demand world dominion? Are all that we are after, is power? Is he calling the Islamic faith "greed-infested", or is he seeing a politically exploited, false religion and aiming his comments at that?

"This plan to admit Turkey to the EU has to be one of the most suicidally foolish ideas in decades. In fact, it was one of the things that Hillary Clinton pushed for most intensely as a New York Senator as part of her "foreign policy" initiatives, once again revealing how much she despises Western culture and European people in general.

Most of Europe will become "Turkestan" if Turkey is admitted. This cannot be allowed."

Did "Max" have any experience or proof to back up his claims? Or is he merely attempting to poison the minds of others? Why would we want to break the EU or to destroy european culture?

Such comments - and there are more below it - are what caused me to post my original reply. I replied to arrogance with arrogance of my own.

---

"Oh, and there are the Dutch politicians living under police protection and the French banlieues that are no-go zones for ambulances and firetrucks without police escorts and the Muslim rape gangs in France and Australia and the Danish cartoonists living in hiding and the holes in the ground where skyscrapers used to stand. Islam is a really pain in the ass for the rest of the world and we are growing increasingly pissed off at the Muslims."

These are the result of extremists' actions. They exist in every religion. That you're basing the Islam's "painful to us" state on the actions of such extremists, also means that the rest of Islam would just like to be left alone. Did you consider that before?

"As for reading everything say: The vast bulk of really long replies are usually low on useful content. So whether or not I'm disagreeing I tend to skim the long replies. Unless a person is linking to useful info and excerpting real facts the long replies tend toward being just defense of one's self esteem.

So far I've seen little evidence that you've done much digging for facts or read heavily on the links you've been pointed to by those who disagree with you."

I do not agree with your stance on skimming long posts. I read your posts fully and do check the links. Do you skim posts unless you see a blue hyperlink in them? If that is the empiricality that you seem to advocate, then that only encourages stagnance in a discussion.

Again, I'm off. I'm not sure if I'll continue this later because it's obvious that this is going nowhere. Feel free to reply, however.

Bob Badour said at February 12, 2006 11:30 AM:

Ephetat,

I provided links to facts not to opinions. You pointed to opinions of others to counter the facts. I ignore those opinions because they don't count as much as the facts do. I have consistently brought the discussion back to the facts themselves.

The links to the online Qur'an you provided are the opinions of an apologist saying "Don't look at the man behind the curtain", which in case you don't know (although you probably do) is a reference to the Wizard of Oz.

You can criticize me all you want for ignoring the opinions and for focussing on the facts, but by doing so, you only confirm Randall's comments about your lack of empiricism.

Hundreds of millions of muslims accept that Mohammed married Aisha when she was six and had sex with her when she was nine. ALL of the early hadiths record that Mohammed was a murdering thief and genocidal maniac.

In the end though, the key issue is whether muslims demand we place their faith superior to our rights, and whether we will surrender our rights and freedoms to Islam. No muslim respects my right to my religion. The Qur'an forbids such respect--over and over again.

Islam does not mean "peace". Islam means "submission" and comes from the same root as aslama which means "to surrender". Muslim means "one who surrenders".

I will not submit.

Bob Badour said at February 12, 2006 11:41 AM:

Ephetat,

Randall pointed to evidence that literally millions of muslims, everywhere one can find significant minority populations of muslims, present very real problems for others. Those are facts.

You responded with hand-waving about extremists. Please present your facts to support your counter that millions of extremist christians or buddhists or animists or jews pose problems for other nations everywhere one can find significant minority populations of them.

Ultimately, the issue boils down to whether muslims will accept equal status among others or whether they demand others surrender to their demands for superiority.

I will not submit.

Ephetat said at February 12, 2006 11:46 AM:

Bob Badour,

I have nothing more to say to you, but the only sources I cited were the University of California's Compendium of Muslim Texts. Which you had cited yourself before. Nothing else.

Your facts are not facts, your facts are opinions. That's the problem with you. You claim being empirical while lacing your opinions with your bias and trying to hand them out like facts.

And submission, surrendering to God is nothing that implies anything negative. How else are Muslims going to obey God's will? As your second link describes:

"Muslims believe that true peace can only be achieved through true obedience to the will of Allah."

Oh, wait, it's just opinions of others, you know the facts, so they don't count.

Feel free not to submit. We don't care. Drama!

Randall Parker said at February 12, 2006 12:01 PM:

Ephetat,

These are the result of extremists' actions. They exist in every religion. That you're basing the Islam's "painful to us" state on the actions of such extremists, also means that the rest of Islam would just like to be left alone. Did you consider that before?

Where are the cartoonists or politicians or editors who are in hiding due to extremist Buddhists or extremist Zoroastrians or extremist Christians?

You keep trying to say that Islam is no different than other religions in terms of its extremists. But cartoonists are not afraid of any believers aside from Muslims. Muslims are different. They keep reminding us of this even as they claim their's is the religion of peace.

Dora (back again) said at February 12, 2006 1:06 PM:

Bob and Randall:

I said goodbye but your simple ignorant attitude(s) don't let me hang around seeing how you think you have cornered ephetat.. I wan't to make some things clear.. First of all you don't have the right to judge someone because of his or her age. If we are to young to understand "some things".. Then you are too dumb to understand anything.. Your cartoonists are also dumb no matter they are afraid of us or not cuz they feel too arrogant.. I understand that from their approach to the believes.. Bob i remember(or read) how you reacted when i blamed you for not being an atheist at all.. And i am sure your reactions would be the same if i had drawn things about them.. And Randall i am sure you have your opinions about us but i think you should keep it for yourself.. Cuz your subjective opinions can and will effect others minds.. As you can read all of the posts we are the ones that face (and laugh about) all these silly accusations... We have real fun actually.. And that is the reason why i came back with my posts.. I couldn't bare to live without this.. So you go on accusing me with being "pedophile" and "murderer", cuz that must be the reason why you are writing the same about Mohammed, and we go on with our answers with our laughter but execuse us if we type the words wrongly with our hands shaking.. ;)

Engineer-Poet said at February 12, 2006 2:56 PM:

It appears that both Ephetat and Dora are learning about cognitive dissonance from personal experience.

This is good.  That's the road that Ayaan Hirsi Ali walked, and look where it got her.

Bob Badour said at February 12, 2006 3:08 PM:
the only sources I cited were the University of California's Compendium of Muslim Texts. Which you had cited yourself before. Nothing else.

In a discussion of the contents of the base texts of Islam, the compendium consists of translations of the base texts themselves (facts) and a handful of apologetic preambles (opinions). Asserting that the facts of the base texts of Islam are mere opinions does not alter the facts. I pointed to the facts and you pointed to the opinions. Empirically, which has greater weight? A fact? Or an opinion?

If the discussion were a discussion of the opinions of the specific apologist who wrote the preamble, I would consider your links useful and empirical. However, you were challenging my statements regarding the actual content of the Qur'an which makes your links irrelevant.

And submission, surrendering to God is nothing that implies anything negative.

I disagree. When one demands it of others by demanding censorship, for instance, it implies something very negative. When one hacks the head off a non-muslim for exercising his or her freedom of religion, it becomes something very, very sinister and downright evil. Other muslim decapitation stories and pictures here. (WARNING: not appropriate for the squeamish)

Even when choosing it for oneself, I consider it mildly negative because the order to submit demands one stop thinking for oneself. Another religion might peripherally limit critical thought by demanding love or kindness or tolerance, but at least the secondary negative is balanced by a clear primary positive. I find the demand to cease critical thought more consistent with a cult than a religion.

Bob i remember(or read) how you reacted when i blamed you for not being an atheist at all.

Reacted? I politely and calmly reminded you that I am the authoritative source regarding my beliefs. I am also the authoritative source regarding my motives and intent and feelings. If you perceived any particular emotion in my response, I suggest you projected your own there.

And i am sure your reactions would be the same

My reactions were calm and reason. I agree: my reactions would have been exactly the same if you drew a cartoon.


Dora,

As a muslim, if you come to the west, will you support limiting free speech to prevent people from offending muslims and Turks? Will you allow the Danish to publish unflattering cartoons without demanding censorship?

Keeping an Open Mind said at February 12, 2006 3:49 PM:

My God, those beheading videos are terrible.

I have no words to say. There is no reason and rhetoric to deal with men driven by demons from the pits of hell. We must pray people. We must pray. We must pray, WE MUST PRAY. And if you are an atheist, or don't hold to any form of organized Christian ideology, then I implore you - ask the God of the Bible to reveal himself to you, so that in some way, beyond a shadow of a doubt, you can know He exists and he cares about everything that is happening. And that HE ALONE is the source of wisdom and power to deal with this fight.

The Bible says, "We don't fight against Flesh and Blood, but against principalities and powers and the rulers of darkness in high places." You and I can have NO power against this without the Blood of Jesus on our side.

I'm out...and more determined to pray than ever!

Bob Badour said at February 12, 2006 6:03 PM:

Keeping an Open Mind,

I apologize for posting the link that upset you. I hesitated to post it for that very reason, and frankly I have not watched the videos myself. I wanted to communicate the sheer number and regularity of decapitations more than the horrific gore of them.

I find plenty of sources of wisdom and power other than God to deal with this problem. You mention atheists in your post, and I respectfully point out that atheists are not the cause of the problem. Atheists are not murdering people and hacking their heads off.

If it will make you feel better, I will pray for your God to comfort your mind and to protect you.

Can anyone really doubt that Islam's base texts have anything to do with that evil mayhem?

Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

I challenge anyone to find anything even remotely as violent in the New Testament. I challenge anyone to construct any analysis even remotely as damaging as Prophet of Doom by stringing together actual quotations from the New Testament no matter how out of context. It is simply impossible to do.

Not all religions are alike. As they sing on Sesame Street: "One of these things is not like the others"

Tank Piloter said at February 13, 2006 12:54 PM:

I don't see what the bloody wogs are on about.

It's not like their silly god was insulted, just his prophet....not like a real god, who might get hurt feelings and blow us all to kingdom come, got stomped on. Just a messenger boy. Who cares ? Bloody wogs. As bad as those silly American Christians with their panties on too tight.

Bob Badour said at February 13, 2006 1:20 PM:

TP,

It's really not about the insult, though. That's just a pretext.

The whole thing is about forcing the west to give muslims superior rights to the dhimmi and apply Shariah law instead of our own.

Dave D. said at February 13, 2006 8:08 PM:

Ephetat, I believe there is always an element of truth in sarcasism, So deep down inside you must know, some of your own statements are true

"I am deeply moved by your statements.

Your confidence is staggering.

You have convinced me to give up my arguments.

You have won me over.

I am dominated by your intellect.

You are clearly superior.

I am hindsighted.

And you have surpassed me."

So what happened to your final post, Seems your addicted to a good argument, I do have feet and think I am evolved, and your attempt at insult is truly hilarious. Keep them coming.

Dave D.

Cat said at February 13, 2006 11:23 PM:

I think it is odd when religious people say evolution is not a scientific fact even when the bones of a Neanderthal are in their face - What is fact about the bible or Islam - People write stories thousands of years ago when mankind was superstitious and you believe the beliefs of people in the dark ages then say it is the undisputed word of God - The Hebrew God - The Christian God - The Moslem God - Religions say their God is love yet Kill in the name of their God - Everyone’s God needs to be worshipped too - It is funny - I go outside of my house and there is an ant on the ground - I can crush that ant but I just walk by - I definitely do not want that ant to worship me - If your God exists he is much higher over me than I am to that ant and I do not think he gives a rats ass about being worshipped - If you kill other people he created in his name he will reward you with virgins and other gifts - The religion of man has portrayed God as a creator who must always be told he is great by us ants

java said at February 13, 2006 11:58 PM:

FUCK YOU DANISH, EUROPE. LOOK AT PALESTINE. WHY ISRAEL IS NOT TERRORIST.......

Cat said at February 14, 2006 9:21 AM:

Needless to say - Some Neanderthal still live - That is why if Iran ever gets a nuke they
will be saying fuck you to everyone - A nation run by religious fanatics with nukes in the
civilized world is a very bizarre concept

Bob Badour said at February 14, 2006 11:07 AM:

"WHY ISRAEL IS NOT TERRORIST"

There have been one or two very isolated israeli terrorists. There have been many thousands of Islamic terrorists who are not at all isolated. They form groups and networks of groups: al qaeda, the plo, al fatah, hamas, hezbollah, jemaat islamiyah, the islamic brotherhood and they operate in all parts of the world from Bali to NYC.

Bob Badour said at February 14, 2006 11:13 AM:

P.S. The Israeli government, the Israeli press and the Israeli people condemn the extremely rare and isolated Israeli terrorists. The governments of the Islamic world lend succor and support to Islamic terrorists and cheer them on to their own people.

deniz said at February 14, 2006 11:33 AM:

http://www.bible-land.net/

Bob Badour said at February 14, 2006 12:00 PM:

Hi Deniz,

It appears you posted a link to a site that some sort of online terrorist defaced. Is that the sort of thing that fills you with pride?

Sickandtired of Extremists said at February 14, 2006 12:24 PM:

I have been reading through a lot of posts and articles and have come to the conclusion that deniz needs to get a clue. The Danish and French proved a point with publishing those cartoons that some Muslims, not all are a bunch of idiots. Those that are actually protesting and causing problems are the biggest idiots in the world. Instead of proving the Western World wrong about Muslims believing in terrorism and killing others to get their way, they are doing a great job proving that a lot of Muslim are just as the cartoons depict terrorists. I am not saying all, because I know some individuals who are Muslims and are disgusted with what some of the Muslim community is doing. No one is saying that you don't have a right to be offended, that is your right, but I guarantee and have seen that theirs is not the only religious figures to get made fun of in a cartoon and it won't be the last. It is my right to publish and read what I want, just like it is my right to not read what offends me. Let the so called "prophet" deal with them. I am a Christian and when people print degrading cartoons of Jesus or God, I say "let God sort them out." If Muslims really believed that Muhammod was a true prophet, they would do just that and leave punishment to him. I thought Muslim were supposed to be peaceful, in the 33 years I have been on this earth, they have shown me just the opposite of peaceful.

Dora said at February 14, 2006 12:39 PM:

BOB BADOUR KNOWS IT ALLLL!!!!! THREE TIMES FOR HIMMM;

DUMB!
DUMB!
DUMB! :p:p:p:p:p:p

Bob Badour said at February 14, 2006 1:07 PM:

SickAndTired,

Islam literally means submission or surrender and not peace.
Muslim literally means one who surrendered.

Whoever told you it means peace was either dishonest or ignorant.

pervez said at February 14, 2006 8:46 PM:

The end to the cartoon controversy lies in getting all Danish citizens circumcised. Allah o Akber!

Cat said at February 15, 2006 1:38 AM:

Dora - I do not agree with everything Bob Badour has to say but I do agree with many
things he has to say - In any case what is the point to make a post just to say he is DUMB
- DUMB - DUMB - Is it that intellectually you have nothing to add to the site or I guess
emotionally you can not contain yourself - I can understand the latter since we all have
evolved from the ape

Bob Badour said at February 15, 2006 6:33 AM:

I would like to return to the link Deniz posted. Quite a while back, Deniz posted that I don't know anything about Islam. Let's look briefly at what the online terrorists put up on the defaced page:

"COME TO ISLAM ! COME TO BEING HUMAN!"
Presumably the rest of us are not yet human.

"Our ancestors, Seljuks and Ottomans thought (sic) the World what is humanity and tolarance (sic), with their heart and sword."
Perhaps Deniz or some other muslim can explain how one teaches humanity and tolerance with a sword.

"Don’t forget that we are 1,5 billion muslims and we are on the same way…"
Deniz tells us that not all muslims are terrorists, and then she posts the link to a site defaced by online terrorists that claims all muslims "are on the same way". Should we not assume that she at least endorses terrorism?

"These cartoons are insulting our Prophet. It wouldn’t be approved in freedom of expression."
Muslims are fond of calling others hypocrites. What about the hypocrisy of telling the west what their own rights mean to them? It's not like anyone in Turkey fought or bled for our rights. Our ancestors did that.

"Cartoons of Jyllands-Posten ar’t (sic) same with other paintings those of muslim asrists"
In other words, in Islam, muslims have rights that the rest of us do not have.

and finally: "You’ll pay for it!-"

Briefly put, the muslim attitude is: Muslims have superior rights to non-muslims, and we better submit to those rules or else. I will not submit.

Cat said at February 15, 2006 1:25 PM:

It is funny how when you belong to a religion you can see correctly that all the other religions were made up by man - The problem is you can never see that the one you belong to was also made up by man - I do not hate Moslems just like I do not hate Jews -Christians - white - black or any other type of human - I know there is no way I will make someone change their religious belief by posting something on a web site - The truth is
even communism in countries like China hides the truth - So in a way that is a sort of religion - The problem with the radical Moslems in countries like Iran is that they do not understand the true concept of freedom - In a free country you have the right to say your leader is a jackass out in public and you have the right to print any cartoon you like even if it offends someone else - In turn if you are offended you have the right to demonstrate but you do not have the right to destroy buildings and kill because you were offended - I think the moderate Moslem understands that but unfortunately the hard liners do not - They have noconcept of freedom or freedom of the press - Once a free country apologizes for something put in the newspaper NO MATTER HOW OFFENSIVE - Then freedom looses and we live by the law of the religious fanatics - It is not that we do not understand the radical part of Islam - It is that radical Islam does not understand freedom

Bob Badour said at February 15, 2006 5:02 PM:

Cat,

I disagree. Islam, including fundamentalist Islam, understands freedom and rejects it. One who surrenders to Allah does not ask to be free. The Qur'an does not instruct muslims to respect the freedom of others:

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. Al-Tawba 5

Those who are drawn to Islam expect to be told exactly how to act and how to behave from how to apportion one's will right down to how to eat and clean oneself. Those who do not want that kind of forced structure in their lives will not find themselves drawn to Islam.

So take what the Messenger assigns to you, and deny yourselves that which he withholds from you. And fear Allah; for Allah is strict in Punishment. Al-Hasr 7
Cat said at February 15, 2006 9:52 PM:

Bob - Yes it is true that Islam has a lot of violent things in the Quran but to me so does
other religious books like the bible - Yes it does say in the Quran - So take what the
Messenger assigns to you, and deny yourselves that which he withholds from you. And
fear Allah; for Allah is strict in Punishment but their are also sayings just like that in the
bible such as - The Lord God is a jealous God and if your right eye offends thee then
pluck it out - Now you and I both know that Christians do not go around plucking out
their eyes when they see something that will cause them sin - Many Christians follow a
watered down version of the bible and pick and choose what to believe in it just like I
think many Moslems do not take every word written in the Quran literally - To me the
problem lies with the fundamentalists in religion - The nuts who believe every word
literally - That is why religious nuts who are Christians blow up abortion clinics and
religious nuts like Hizballah blow up buildings - They take the word of man written in
these books to literally be the word of God - The few Moslems I know were not happy
about 911 and think it was completely wrong to kill - Yet when you have insane people in
the world like the taliban that is what happens - That is why I say I hope Iran never gets a
nuke - They will use it in the name of Allah - I do not think I am better than people
who live in Iran - I think we are all the same - Intelligent monkeys - Yet monkeys none the
less and a nuke in the arms of a chimp who believes the superstitious writings of men
thousands of years ago is a dangerous animal

Abdullah said at February 16, 2006 6:52 AM:

1- Prophet Muhammed is the person who entitled with morality morality is Muhammed and Muhammed is morality walked on the earth.

The Carecature will not hurt him as if you spit at the sun (that is above you) the spit will turn on to your face.

Some people have stupid arguments that shows their lack of knowledge of islam and the answers to their claim can be found in www.answering-christianity.com

It is clear to everybody that Europe has a flexible definition of freedom of expression and that Europeans cannot write whatever they want.

David Irving and others are simple of Europ's hypocricy.

2- The West are in fear of religions and their revolutions had come when they left christianity but Westerns should know that Islam has brought the light to their revolutions and without Muslims in Alandalus Westerns today would be as barbers as they were.

3- Read before you judge.

Bob Badour said at February 16, 2006 8:46 AM:

Cat,

it is true that Islam has a lot of violent things in the Quran but to me so does other religious books like the bible

Let's look at Matthew 5 where you find the passage about plucking out an eye. Whose eye is it? I don't see any instruction to pluck out another person's eye. What else is in Matthew?

  • The first 11 verses of Matthew 5 are blessings.
  • The next 5 verses instruct Christians to set an honest, sincere and good example for the world.
  • Verse 17 really says a lot: "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
  • Verse 19 addresses sin: "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven". One can hardly call that violent. In fact, I suspect the least in heaven would feel quite blessed.
  • The next 5 verses instruct followers to be good, and the closest thing to a curse or violence is: "whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Sounds more like a warning than a curse.
  • Verse 25: "Agree with thine adversary quickly" Agree? What? Not decapitate? Hardly seems like the same God.
  • The next dozen verses, which include the eye plucking verse, address sin by mind or heart or body. Rather than instructing followers to blind or maim others, these verses say it is better to lose an eye or limb than let it condemn one to damnation. You yourself noted that Christians do not go around plucking eyes. Unlike all the muslims hacking off heads.
  • Verses 38 through 45, to me, represent the very paradigm of Christian faith:
    Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
    But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
    And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
    And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
    Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
    Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
    But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
    That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
    "Turn the other cheek, walk the second mile and love all of God's children" Can you think of anything more typically Christian? Or more pacifist?
  • Finally, the last three verses elaborate on loving one's enemy with the very telling phrase: "And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?"

Contrast this with Al-Anfal, a chapter of the Qur'an devoted to dividing up the booty stolen from murdered merchants.

  • In Verse 1, we see that Mohammed claims the stolen goods for himself to divide in the name of Allah.
  • The next three verses flatter muslims for their obedience.
  • The next four verses seem to shout down the voices among his followers opposed to anything so evil as murdering merchants by denigrating opposition or hesitation as cowardice
  • In verses 9 and 10, Mohammed tells his followers that Allah will fortify their number with Angels as they go about their murderous quest
  • Verse 11 talks about some sort of dissociative state overcoming inhibition leading me to suspect some sort of intoxicant
  • And then we come to verse 12 where Mohammed tells his followers that Allah instructed the Angels to hack off heads and fingertips. And at least some of Mohammed's followers continue to follow this instruction even today.
  • Verses 13 and 14 curse the victims
  • Verses 15 and 16 curse those who retreat
  • Verse 17 further overcomes inhibition by allowing the muslims to deny culpability for the murder they commit in Allah's name
  • Verses 18 and 19 repeat that Allah is on Mohammed's side
  • Verses 20 through 25 dehumanize the victims
  • Verse 26 stirs up resentment against the world in general

Al-Anfal has 75 verses so I am not going to go through all of them. Other verses stir resentment, dehumanize the victims and curse non-muslims. And in amongst that, Mohammed claims 20% of the proceeds of the crime for himself.


Comparing the above, whose socities would you expect to be more tolerant? Christian societies or Muslim societies? Which would you expect to be more violent?

Anyone who tries to morally equate Christianity and Islam dissembles whether with intent or ignorance.

Cat said at February 16, 2006 9:09 AM:

Abdullah - Just to let you know you spelled your prophets name wrong - It is Muhammad
- ad at the end not ed - Please let me make it clear that I do not think Islam is any worse
or better than the Christians or the Jews - All of your religions have killed in the name of
their God - Prophet Muhammad was just a man no better than you or I but if you feel you
are weak and must follow the words written by a man who claims to speak for God and
can do it without violence to others then so be it - You are right The Caricature will not
hurt him but that his because the man died years ago - Also you are right when you say -
The West are in fear of religions and their revolutions - The west has a right to fear people who think they are doing the will of God with a nuclear weapon

Bob Badour said at February 16, 2006 9:22 AM:

Abdullah,

I found nothing that addresses anything I said at www.answering-christianity.com

In fact, the site seems devoted to proving that God actually condones pedophilia, murder and theft as suggested by the Hadith and the Qur'an. I am sure many Christians would find very surprising the idea that the Christian God condones any such thing.

I did read before I judged, Abdullah. And I judge that Mohammed was a vile and evil man who engaged in wanton acts of murder, theft, rape and pedophilia. I further judge that muslims care nothing about respect or insults and everything about forcing others to surrender. I will not submit.

Cat said at February 16, 2006 10:09 AM:

Bob - “Anyone who tries to morally equate Christianity and Islam dissembles whether with
intent or ignorance.” -
I guess that makes me ignorant but I do know their are things in the bible like in
Deuteronomy 20:13-20 (King James Version) - 13And when the LORD thy God hath
delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the
sword: -14But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city,
even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. -
Numbers 31:17-18 (King James Version) - 17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him -. 18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Christians did not cut off heads but they burned people at the stake and sent their armies in history to convert people and kill in the name of Christ
To me the hard-line radicals in all religions are dangerous - They exist in Israel - They
exist in Christianity and they exist in Islam - The problem though with Islam is at this point in time their seems to be a lot more of them around - Hizballah - taliban and the rest of the fanatics -
It is just as bad to have Iran run by Hizballah than to have it run by Jehovah witness - The jerks who bomb abortion clinics or any other religious fanatic

Cat said at February 16, 2006 11:45 AM:

Bob - Just one more thing to let you know - I was brought up in the Christian religion - As
I got older I realized that all these religions were the word of men who want others to
follow so they can be controlled by priests - ministers - rabbis - mullahs - ayatoallahs -
Most people get brainwashed before they are old enough to realized it happened - Then
for the rest of their lives they follow superstitious of men who lived hundreds of years ago - Like little children who believe in Santa Claus they do not think for themselves but take the word of another that this is the TRUE word of God - This does not bother me if they leave me alone and want to believe they must recite mombo jumbo five times a day to a God that if he did exist I believe could care less about a stupid human telling him how great he is - The problem is when these crazy people get in charge of a country like the taliban the civilized world is in big trouble - I think the west needs to make sure that Iran never gets a nuclear device - If they do it will be a disaster in the civilized world

Bob Badour said at February 16, 2006 11:49 AM:

Cat,

The problem though with Islam is at this point in time their seems to be a lot more of them around

And why do you think that is? The reasons for it are very clear to me.

I notice you had to dig back into the Old Testament to find anything violent at all. While Christians include the Old Testament in their Holy Bible, arguably the books of the New Testament are the founding documents of the Christian faith.

I think it was no accident that the Calvinist Christians who created apartheid in South Africa gave greater weight to the Old Testament than most other Christian sects.

While great evil was done in the name of Christ through the dark and middle ages, the Church was only able to do that by keeping an illiterate multitude ignorant of what the New Testament actually says. With increasing literacy and greater availability of Bibles, all of the sects of Christianity reverted to forms closer to a literal interpretation of the New Testament -- even the Catholic Church which previously had been so violent. And the literal message of the New Testament is "turn the other cheek, walk the second mile and love all of God's children -- including your enemies."

We are seeing the same thing today in Islam. Islam has had periods of relative enlightenment and relative tolerance, but it was only able to sustain that by keeping an illiterate multitude ignorant of the extreme violence and intolerance expressed in the base texts of Islam. With increasing literacy and availability, we see more and more sects reverting to literal interpretations commanding murder and mayhem in the name of Allah.

Islam is not morally equivalent to any other religion. Your denial of that obvious fact helps nobody.

Bob Badour said at February 16, 2006 12:13 PM:

Cat,

Let's suppose for a moment that religion is brainwashing.

Do you want to live among those who are brainwashed to "turn the other cheek, walk the second mile, and love all of God's children--including one's enemies" ?

Or do you want to live among those who are brainwashed to "smite the unbelievers above the neck and take not friends among them, pursue the unbelievers in every stratagem of war unless they submit to pay the dhimmi tax" ?

As an unbeliever, I know which of the above I choose.

Cat said at February 16, 2006 1:05 PM:

Bob - I am going to have a few beers now at the pub since I am not Muslim but before I
do let me say this - You said “As an unbeliever, I know which of the above I choose” -
Although I think both of these religions are full of crap I guess all in all the Christian
religion in 2006 seems to be the less violent - I will give you that - All I am saying is that there are Christians who commit violence in the name of God and there are Moslems who
are not violent - Yet if you want to base it on numbers alone then yes I agree that there are many more who kill the innocent in the name of Islam than the other religions

Bob Badour said at February 16, 2006 1:38 PM:

Cat,

You keep trying to make it seem as if no reason exists for the greater violence coming from Islam. That it just happened that way by accident.

It didn't just happen by accident. The base texts of the religions are very different and bias the outcome in different directions. Christianity biases the outcome toward pacifism and inclusion. Islam biases the outcome toward violence and exclusion. Other religions have other biases.

Cat said at February 16, 2006 7:02 PM:

Bob - You seem to see the folly in Islam where I see the folly in both - Perhaps you are a
Christian and say you are not - In eithert case I do not mean to offend - To me as someone
who believes in none of this the joke was played on humanity by not just those who
believe in Islam but all of the religious groups made up by man - You say you also believe
in none of the bullshit of religion like I do but seem to always defend the Christians - Odd

Randall Parker said at February 16, 2006 7:34 PM:

Cat,

One of the characteristics of our intellectual age is the tendency of intellectuals to lump large assortments of ideas and groups at the same level of moral equivalence. The motive for this absurdity is a radical form of egalitarianism where all people are seen as equal. Multiculturalism where all cultures are seen as morally equal and equally valid is a manifestation of this.

We all have unjustifiable beliefs. Some such beliefs are problematic for the rest of us. Other such beliefs actually benefit the rest of us. It is folly to fail to distinguish between individual beliefs and between belief systems based on how problematic or beneficial they are to the rest of us. Christianity is nowhere near as problematic as Islam. These two religions have large differences in the messages in their base texts and the effects those messages have on believers.

One can look down on all religions as a way to pose as having higher status due to one's wisdom in seeing thru all the bullshit. That's really easy to do. You are doing it. But it is also not terribly productive since it blocks off development of a more accurate understanding the various religions and the different effects they have on human behavior.

Oh, and your attempt to pose as having superior knowledge by correcting the spelling of Muhammed/Mohammad/Mohammed/etc is stupid. There's no one right way to spell that guy's name in English just like there's no single accepted way to spell Muslim/Moslem. Your own preferred "Muhammad" is less popular than Mohammed on Google (23.7 million versus 27 million).

Cat said at February 16, 2006 7:43 PM:

I am not religious but if I were I say God bless Ahmed Salman Rushdie - I also condom
the killing of Hitoshi Igarashi buy Islamic radicals - In the end the terror and pain that
Islam and the rest of man made religion creates will dissipate and mankind will survive

Cat said at February 17, 2006 2:02 AM:

Randall - Thanks for pointing out that I am “stupid” - I also spelled two words wrong in
my last post - I only meant the spelling as a joke but everyone here seems too uptight for
me -
When you say - “One can look down on all religions as a way to pose as having higher
status due to one's wisdom in seeing thru all the bullshit. But it is also not terribly
productive” -
That may be true but I do not see how it can be productive to keep comparing Christianity to Islam over and over and over - That is what is happening here - That is why I say it is all bullshit - Not because I feel I am intellectually superior - I think there are Christian and Moslem doctors for example who are intellectually superior to me yet believe in some crazy religion - I am not going to post here anymore but it has been enlightening - What I noticed is all of you here who are not Moslem think they are intellectually superior to the Moslems and Moslems think they have the true religion and they are intellectually superior
- Bob will keep posting the crap in the Quran and the Moslems will reply with Allah is
Great - No one here will change - All I say is I hope Iran never gets a nuclear weapon -
Thanks for your web site - I had fun - Cat

Daverap said at February 17, 2006 5:46 AM:

Muslim brothers and sisters

ALLAH protect us
I have read most of the postings and will only post once now and not return .The cartoons
were wrong plain and simple. They associated a great man with the horrors and stupidity
that we see today. The reaction is wrong too.and so was 911. What u need to understand
is that unfortunately in Islam there are too many idiots, pathetic religious leaders
("mullahs") and unfortunately ignorant people who follow such mullahs. I was deeply
offended by the cartoons, but to go around burning things and calling for beheadings is
absolutely stupid and totally un-islamic. Boycott yes...raise a case for defamation perhaps
yes... try and hit back by using the pen or your brains rather than pathetic signs and
burning of flags. This is where the majority of Muslims are inferior to others. Their ability to handle things rationally and in a way that gets the point. Having said that... i wonder how the Jewish people would feel about a funny picture of a Jew being sent to the
"showers"

Dora, calling them Dumb Dumb Dumb gets us nowhere

Cat, you say you will not return but if you do I tell you try to find some religion it may
help. I do not agree with what you say but I notice that even though you attack us the
others like Bob and Randall attack you more because you do not attack us enough. I
applaud you for leaving and not feeding into it

Randall, I think you are smart but not as smart as you think

Bob, I think you are Moslem. You know the Quran and like to quote from it what suits
you. Yes, you are my Muslim brother. Methinks the lady doth protest too much

Randall Parker said at February 17, 2006 6:07 AM:

Daverap,

The state newspapers of Saudi Arabia run highly insulting cartoons of Jews quite frequently. So do newspapers throughout the Middle East. Getting sent to the "showers"? Usually they are eating babies or other similar things.

Cat,

I think the Middle Eastern Muslims have lower average IQs than Europeans and that is the main reason why they are so backward. Certainly some small number of believing Muslims are very smart. Some larger (but still proportionately small compared to Europe) number of people from the Middle East are lapsed Muslims who are very smart. These latter keep quiet about their lack of faith because being atheistic or agnostic is dangerous in the Middle East.

Again, comparing religions is a very useful exercise. By arguing that comparisons are not useful you basically are arguing that all religions are the same. Over and over again? Repetition is necessary when people do not want to see the obvious. Also, the differences are many and one must study the details to understand the larger picture.

You want to be a big picture man and just say basically that all religions are crap and leave it there. But, again, wrong. They differ in many ways that matter. You are adopting an intellectually lazy approach and labelling it a virtue. Bob's doing the hard work of reading books and making useful comparisons. The temptation to label him in such a manner is great because it justifies your intellectual laziness. Who'd want to have to work hard to form correct opinions?

Bob Badour said at February 17, 2006 4:52 PM:

Cat,

We are discussing an apparent clash between Islam and the west. Islam by definition has been shaped by the Qur'an and the Hadith for the last 1400 years. The west has been shaped by Christianity for 2000 years and almost exclusively by Christianity for over 1000 years.

In such a discussion, what would you have me compare? Animists and shintos?

The moral equivalence religion you preach is every bit as damaging as the other religions you condemn.

You can find all kinds of extremism within Christianity. You can find lunatic pseudo-christian nutjobs like David Koresh. You can find extremely evangelical Christians out to save the world one conversion at a time. You can find extremely pious monastic Christians. You can find extremely pacifist Amish and Mennonite Christians.

If one morally equates Christianity with Islam, one naturally equates the "Muslims with guns" to the "Christians with guns." Through your moral equivalence orthodoxy then, the terrorists must be nutjobs like David Koresh.

However, when one understands what is really going on by studying the base texts of the religion, the terrorists are Islam's version of the Amish or the monastic Christians.

Neither the mujahideen nor the Amish make up a huge number within their respective religions. Just as you will find mainstream Christians clustered closer to the beliefs of the Amish and monastic Christians than to David Koresh, you will find mainstream muslims clustered closer to the beliefs of the terrorists than to Irshad Manji.

Thus, rather than being crazies that are totally dismissed by the faithful, the terrorists are actually quite close to the mainstream of Islam and many mainstream Muslims admire the terrorists for their conviction just as many in the west admire the conviction of the Amish without wanting to become one.

Bob Badour said at February 18, 2006 5:28 PM:

I could be persuaded that I am wrong about the terrorists/mujahideen being the Islam version of Amish and monastic Christians. I suppose one could persuade me they are the Salvation Army of Islam.

Ninjalewis said at February 19, 2006 5:26 AM:

You are all sick, racist filth. The cartoons were clearly an attempt to stir up rabid anti-muslim racism such as what i can see here. The filthy capitalist pigs of the West have been oppressing muslims in the middle-east for decades and are using these cartoons as an attempt to stir up more anti-muslim racism as part of the genocidal 'war on terror'. I do not believe that racist scum (such as holocaust deniers and the facists who printed these foul cartoons) have any right whatsoever to 'freedom of speech'. Their freedom can only lead to the oppression and exploitation of the masses of people. The leaders of the West and the right-wing scum who support them are the new Nazis, and the war on terror is the new holocaust.

Bob Badour said at February 19, 2006 5:47 AM:

Ninja,

Either one has freedom of speech or one hasn't. Considering your vocabulary, 'capitalist pig' etc. I assume you are one of those sad individuals who are still stuck on evil political and economic systems like communism. Thinking people have rejected those systems in favour of much more humane systems.

Clearly, you have never read much of anything besides the propaganda that supports your sick, failed ideologies, and I strongly urge you to learn before you speak. Read the Qur'an. Read the Hadith. You will see.

Jones said at February 19, 2006 5:47 PM:

What is one called when he believes in no god yet follows a certain religious principle?

Jones said at February 19, 2006 5:51 PM:

Query, why is there so much talk of racism?
We are speaking of truthful information, if you can dispute these then do so but dont argue for arguments sake.

Jones said at February 19, 2006 5:58 PM:

Yeah, I know I'm a little off subject i just read this entire post ands its a little hefty so i took a few notes.

iambt said at February 19, 2006 6:17 PM:

BOB,
your problem (as "you" here means lots of people) that you mix some things you read on your own from the quran with some things you see on the internet with other things you hear from the extremists... etc. then you come up with conclusions.
example: you read that "the curse of Allah is on those without Faith." that's right. but u didn't mention the verse of "And say to them: Allah's truth has come to guide us into all truth and he who wishes to acknowledge it with judgement and choice is free to do so and he who wishes to reject it is free to do so. "
that means that : yes muslims beleive that they will go to heaven and no one else will. but that doesn't mean that they have to fight people to be muslims. do you really beleive that God will be happy to see people worshipping him with a gun stuck to their heads?! c'mon.
another example: you see those people saying "ALLAHO AKBAR" b4 beheading that guy. but that doesn't mean that ALLAH asked them to do so.but i know in the quran u'll find verses telling muslim to kill the "kuffar" , yes BUT in WAR.
every religion tells its followers that they will go to heaven if they beleive, and all the others disbeleivers will go to hell. right?! the christians and the jews have a hell in their afterlife too. don't they? for who u guess? for them? no. for those who didn't beleive in jesus.
i know that some muslims (or let's say a lot of muslims or 95% of muslims ) are not good represantative of the islam 'coz they make the islam's laws bent to their needs.
one last thing. the prophet did marry a 9 year old girl, but FYI she was engaged for another guy before that. and a lot of similar situations can be found. that means that girls at that age, at these circumstances were developped enough to be married. and one to be a pedophile must have like some kinda attitude, not an attitude of a guy his first contact with a woman when he married "khadigua" while he was 25 and she was older than him, and then he stayed with her 'til he was 50. and all the women he married one after another were all above 40 or so except "aisha" who was 9.
finally, i'm against the violence to express opinions. i prefer talking.

Jones said at February 19, 2006 6:21 PM:

It was brought to my attention an artical from Der Spiegel.
Quote
"In the American Slate Magazine, Christopher Hitchens criticises the attitude of the American Government in the cartoon dispute. The Muslin bans - on portraying images of the Prophet, eating pork and drinking alcohol - certainly don't hold for him: ""Very well then, let a good Muslim abstain rigorously from all these. But if he claims the right to make me abstain as well, he offers the clearest possible warning and proof of an aggressive intent. This current uneasy coexistence is only an interlude, he seems to say. For the moment, all I can do is claim to possess absolute truth and demand immunity from criticism. But in the future, you will do what I say and you will do it on pain of death.
I refuse to be spoken to in that tone of voice, which as it happens I chance to find offensive""
Phew woulda just given you the link but I've since lost it, and I think this brings up a good point, you in your belief whether wrong or right in nations that proclaim freedom for everyone cannot impose your own will upon others through force.
And yet these people do and they do it with impunity. Why? because for some reason the muslims of this world are held in stature above others.

Bob Badour said at February 19, 2006 6:25 PM:

Jones,

He might be called any number of things. Atheist religions abound--communism, socialism for instance.

It is politically incorrect to arrive at any conclusion inconsistent with absolute equality in all things. Any thinking person who deviates from this orthodoxy gets shouted down as a racist. Unless, of course, one claims Christianity or western culture is inferior -- that's fair game.

iambt said at February 19, 2006 6:44 PM:

yet another example of reading the story from the wrong book =)
some guys here stated the prophet asked his men to steal and kill the passerbyes!!!!

ok, here's the story from the SIRA that you mentioned. : muhammad and his followers were forced to leave mekkak (their homeland) and also leave all their money and belongings. so after they went to meddinah, they decided to cut the way on ABU SUFIAN who was one of the leaders in mekkah who ordered the muslims to leave, this way they can take some of their money back. they had orders not to kill anyone, 'coz ABU SUFIAN and his mates were on a trip, but when abu sufian heard from some spies that muhammad is comming towards him, he changed his way, went back and guatherd an army of 1000 men and decided to go and fight muhammad, who guatherd only 300 men to fight back.

Bob Badour said at February 19, 2006 6:53 PM:

Iambt,

You say I drew my conclusions from the web, but you are totally ignorant about me. Even in spite of the fact that I already revealed the sources of my conclusions--the Hadith and the Qur'an themselves.

The fact that I provide a link to Prophet of Doom says nothing about how I reached my conclusions. It says only that I reached similar conclusions to Craig Winn, that he took better notes than I did and that he went to the trouble of publishing those notes online.

The fact that I provide a link to Michael Savage says nothing about me at
all. It is one of the few places I found that provides information about multiple beheadings of non-muslims by muslims. Where do you think all these different muslims got the idea to hack off people's heads?

u'll find verses telling muslim to kill the "kuffar" , yes BUT in WAR

That's horseshit. Al-Anfal (the booty) was revealed in the context of sending Mohammed's men out to kill innocent passersby and to steal their wealth and their women. Period. Are you suggesting a christian schoolgirl was at war with anybody?

Point me to any passage in the New Testament that instructs believers to kill anybody for any reason at all at any time. The Qur'an is evil. Mohammed was evil.

every religion tells its followers

The Gods in very few religions curse frequently. Allah curses almost continuously--if one believes a murderous thieving pedophile, that is. Allah curses in the Qur'an as frequently as God blesses in the New Testament.

the prophet did marry a 9 year old girl, but FYI she was engaged for another guy before that.

She was only 6 when he married her. He fucked her when she was 9. Fucking a nine year old has always been wrong even in marriage. Mohammed was a digusting fucking pervert.

[nine year olds] were developped enough to be married

That's fucking horseshit. No nine year old is emotionally or intellectually or physically prepared to be raped by a middle-aged pervert. One does not pluck a child from her swingset to take her inside and fuck her, which is exactly how Aisha described the ordeal.


I do take note, though, that unlike some others you do not try to argue that Aisha was older. Do you admit that hundreds of millions of muslims believe their paradigm of perfect morality fucked a nine year old?

Bob Badour said at February 19, 2006 7:02 PM:
here's the story from the SIRA that you mentioned

That's not the Sira I recall. I recall that Mohammed sent groups of his followers on numerous failed raiding parties against caravans passing through the area. Finally, they encountered a caravan weak enough for them to win. When they found these innocent merchants, it was the month of Ramadan when apparently killing innocent people is frowned upon. The raiding party had a choice: kill them during the month of Ramadan or wait until they were on hallowed ground to kill them. Apparently, killing innocents on hallowed ground is frowned upon too. They decided "The Holy month be damned we are going to kill those innocents before they reach hallowed ground."

This caused a bit of a dilemma for our hapless prophet when he found out that the murder happened during the holy month. At first he sequestered the stolen goods. Then he had a revelation in the form of Al-Anfal at which point he decided he could spend the loot after all.

Which compilation does yours come from?

iambt said at February 19, 2006 7:15 PM:

bob,
u still keep telling me that i'm right about you. every time you use a document, you use one from someone who's against the islamic religion. what d'u expect him to say?!you need to read the sira and the quran with their explanation but from a muslim who is also a non extremist.
you must read both sides of the story and build your opinion after that. i'm sure u'll say "i already did, and i can't get out of my head that he married a 9 year old" let me ask you a question, did you live in their time? who told you that in that time a 9 year old isn't mature enough? i told you that she was engaged b4 him, does that mean that all the men were pedophiles?! can you beleive that someone who wanted the people to follow him and respect him would do such thing to disgrace himself?! OR AT LEAST HE COULD'VE DONE IT IN SECRET. i don't know pedophiles who announce their gayness in public in such way even in this time where you can attend a "same sex marriage" ceremonies.
can you imagine the picture you are trying to draw here: "hey guy i'm muhammad the messenger of god, i'm here to teach you the right things, but pardon me, i'm a pedophile"
why the pedophile "crime" was just mentioned centuries after his death?! why can't you find one of the kuffar in muhammad's time saying "don't follow that pedophile bastard".
did you read any historic events about the region where muhammad was born, i mean before he was born to see if marrying a 9 year old was just something normal?! or you just think about the nice 9 year old neighbour you meet on your way to work.

iambt said at February 19, 2006 7:33 PM:

bob,
u mentioned in your reply: " The fact that I provide a link to Michael Savage says nothing about me at
all. It is one of the few places I found that provides information about multiple beheadings of non-muslims by muslims. Where do you think all these different muslims got the idea to hack off people's heads?"
ok...
do you know that jesus orderd his followers to forgive the sinners? why do you think that all these different christians still have hate crimes, murders, revenge crimes? do you know that jesus prohibitted adultery? why do you think that 95% of the christians in the world committed adultery? what about same sex marriage? in usa some churches even granted same sex marriage!!!! what if muslims will begin a campain agaisnt the "christan religion" claiming that jesus orderd his followers to be gay and lesbians?! but no, we know that these are individual opinions that don't represent christianity, even if it's the pope's opinion. again can you beleive jesus asking his men to be gay?! ewwwww. no way.
what can you say about that?! you can accept a guy fucking another but can't accept a man marrying -and not just fucking- a 9 year old, 1500 years ago, where alot have changed in cultures and even in our biology?!!!

iambt said at February 19, 2006 7:47 PM:

bob,
again you amaze me how you mix things up. what's the holy ground and the holy month have to do with you saying that he killed passerbyes or innocent merchants?! it's either you or your sources or it's just maybe that you think maybe if you find two verses in the same chapter they have to be related or something.
read my post again ...i said "muhammad never got to abusufian's caravan, so how come he killed the merchants =))))
abu sufian went back to recruit 1000 of his best men (ARMY) to fight muhammad who -in that time- couldn't gather more than 300 men to fight back. and no one in his situation (weak, poor, outnumberred by the enemy) never would have start a war. would one?

iambt said at February 19, 2006 7:54 PM:

http://thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=63

befair said at February 19, 2006 8:26 PM:

iambt, bob,
when i say to my son " when you see Rick, kill him" and after 10 minutes, i say to him "when you see Rick say hello to him" it's either i'm crazy or i'm talking 'bout two different Ricks or i dropped some words from the first sentence like "when you see Rick (and he pulled a gun to your face), kill him" or maybe situations changed between the two sentences and Bob was an enemy then he became a friend.
Muslims have verses in the quran that say "kill the atheists" and others say "talk to them in a friendly way" and "don't fight anyone of them who lives peacefully with you"
Muslims have verses declaring that allah curses the atheists, but they also have verses of Allah forgiving all men's faults
that's why you need to understand the situation of every verse before you judge, bob
go iambt.

befair said at February 19, 2006 8:28 PM:

iambt, bob,
when i say to my son " when you see Rick, kill him" and after 10 minutes, i say to him "when you see Rick say hello to him" it's either i'm crazy or i'm talking 'bout two different Ricks or i dropped some words from the first sentence like "when you see Rick (and he pulled a gun to your face), kill him" or maybe situations changed between the two sentences and Bob was an enemy then he became a friend.
Muslims have verses in the quran that say "kill the atheists" and others say "talk to them in a friendly way" and "don't fight anyone of them who lives peacefully with you"
Muslims have verses declaring that allah curses the atheists, but they also have verses of Allah forgiving all men's faults
that's why you need to understand the situation of every verse before you judge, bob
go iambt.

Bob Badour said at February 20, 2006 5:22 AM:

Iambt,

Jesus instructed his followers to be good, and some of them fail to achieve the good Jesus asks. Mohammed instructed his followers to be bad (murder, rape, steal), and some of them fail to achieve the evil Mohammed demands.

What point are you trying to make? That some muslims have morals superior to Allah and Mohammed?

I didn't see where you found any passage in the New Testament instructing Christians to kill anybody for any reason.

Why should I give a shit that you alleged Mohammed instructed his men only to kill during war, even though that is not true in any case, when millions of muslims claim to be at war with me just because I am an atheist or live in the west?

muhammad never got to abusufian's caravan

I repeat: that's not the Sira I recall. I recall that Mohammed sent out multiple parties to murder innocent merchants over an extended period of time. They were too inept to succeed the first half-dozen times or so. And when they finally succeeded in killing innocent passersby and stealing their wealth, they did so during the holy month to avoid doing so on holy ground.

That's called being between a rock and a hard place: murder now when it is not allowed or murder later where it is not allowed. Hmmmmm. Do you see the dilemma for a good muslim?

But in the end, Mohammed pulled a happy ending out of his hat when Allah revealed to him that murdering innocents during the holy month was okay after all.

Ishaq:287 The Muslim raiders consulted one another concerning them, this being the last day of Rajab. One of the Muslims said, ‘By Allah, if we leave these people alone tonight, they will get into the Haram (the sacred territory of Mecca) and they will be safely out of our reach. If we kill them we will have killed in the sacred month.

Tabari VII:19 They hesitated and were afraid to advance on them, but then they plucked up courage and agreed to kill as many as they could and to seize what they had with them. Waqid ibn Abd Allah shot an arrow at Amr and killed him. Uthman ibn Abd Allah and al-Hakam surrendered, but Nawfal ibn Abd Allah escaped and eluded them. Then Abd Allah and his companions took the caravan and the captives back to Allah’s Apostle in Medina

Ishaq:288 The Jews, seeing in this an omen unfavorable to Muhammad, said, ‘Muslims killing Meccans means war is kindled.’ There was much talk of this. However, Allah turned it to their disadvantage. When the Muslims repeated what the Jews had said, Allah revealed a Qur’an to His Messenger: ‘They question you with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say, “War therein is serious, but keeping people from Islam, from the sacred mosque, and driving them out is more serious with Allah.’ [Qur’an 2:217] The Muslims now knew that seduction was worse than killing. When the Qur’an passage concerning this matter was revealed, and Allah relieved Muslims from their fear and anxiety, Muhammad took possession of the caravan and prisoners. The Quraysh sent him a ransom, but the Prophet said, ‘We will not release them to you on payment of ransom until our companions (Sa’d and Utbah) get back, for we are afraid you may harm them. If you kill them, we will kill your friends.’ They came back, however, and the Prophet released the prisoners on payment of ransom. When the Qur’an authorization came down to Muhammad, Abd Allah and his Companions were relieved and they became anxious for an additional reward. They said, ‘Will this raid be counted as part of the reward promised to Muslim combatants?’ So Allah sent down this Qur’an: ‘Those who believe and have fought in Allah’s Cause may receive Allah’s mercy.’ Allah made the booty permissible. He divided the loot, awarding four-fifths to the men He had allowed to take it. He gave one-fifth to His Apostle.

Ishaq:289 Our lances drank of Amr’s blood and lit the flame of war.

Note that the muslim lances lit the flame of war.

With regard to the "true religion" link, it does a good job of beating the crap out of the straw man it constructs. However, it does not address reality in any discernable way. It certainly does not address the repugnant filth found in the Qur'an and the Hadith.

Bob Badour said at February 20, 2006 5:25 AM:

Befair,

With all due respect, I do not have to use one rare verse to temper dozens of others. Even in spite of containing complete gibberish in parts, the overall message in the Qur'an is clear. Allah curses incessantly and instructs his followers to kill non-muslims to enrich Mohammed/Islam and to extend Islam.

I repeat my challenge to you: Find a single verse in the New Testament that is as violent as Al-Anfal 12. String together passages from the New Testament to construct anything even one tenth as damning as Craig Winn's analysis of the base texts of Islam. You can quote entirely out of context if need be.

Is that not a fair challenge?

iambt said at February 20, 2006 6:45 AM:

bob, bob, bob
Man, bob, you are truly incredible!!! Don't repeat your words over and over again. If you want to be like you said "open minded who don't hate anybody" so you have to listen and read more from different sources.
First of all, what's wrong with you and this Anfal-12 verse?! Why are you trying to say that this verse is like "whenever you see a kafer (atheist) in the street kill him and break his hand" do u only believe YOUR SOURCE of the explanation of the Quran. I agree with that guy "be fair" when he said that there are lots of verses with different meanings, he was right. But you were wrong when you replied : "I do not have to use one rare verse to temper dozens of others". That's 'coz we don't say that one verse is hostile then another one came to be friendly at the same situation. We say that the first one has an occasion and the other one has another occasion.
It seems that you hate the Islam so much but you still find the Christianity something nice. And you also take challenges that the bible will defeat the Quran in nobleness!! That's not the talk of an atheist, it's one of a Christian who can't accept religion's rules and heard the shitty things about Islam from people who also hate Islam!!!!!!
Don't take sides now; I'm not trying to convince you to be a Muslim nor to say what's better the Islam or the Christianity! I'm just trying to tell you the other side of the story.

bob_full_of_shit said at February 20, 2006 7:23 AM:

Bob,
I said:
"You only refuse things that God gave you the option to choose whether to accept them or not."
"YOU'RE ONLY PLAYING IN THE AREA where GOD MADE YOU PLAY IN: YOUR BRAIN"
I mean that he gave you the choice. It's like if they tell you in prison that's either rice or bread. When you choose one of them, it's not bcoz u have the power, It's bcoz THEY GAVE YOU THE POWER OF CHOOSING.
I said:
I mean, God gave you the option to kill somebody or to kill yourself with a knife, that doesn't make you powerful, if you are powerful, then kill yourself by telling your heart to stop beating at this moment. =) .
And By the way like 30% of suicide attempts get aborted, like if someone takes his own life by cutting his blood vessels in his wrist, sometimes some passerby or a neighbor can still save him. So you also can't determine when to put an end to your life. YOU'R WEAK MAN.
Again, you've only chosen to refuse God bcoz he wanted us to believe in him voluntarily not reluctantly (by force)
God gave you the brain, so you can think, but you use it to think that there's no God!
And who told you that this universe is made by a human-like creature anyway?! Do you think really god exists in 3 forms bullshit and all?! If god wanted to forgive our sins, he didn't have to come to the earth and be crucified for us, he could have forgiven us while in heaven. And if say, he wanted to come to the earth to teach us something, why on earth did he start by being a fetus in his mom's uterus, then pass all the way through childhood, pee himself, cry and then teen aging difficult period and after 30 years or so he starts to preach us!!!!!!!!!! Bullshit.
There's only one god in heavens, who has neither sons nor companions

iambt said at February 20, 2006 7:25 AM:

Man, bob, you are truly incredible!!! Don't repeat your words over and over again. If you want to be like you said "open minded who don't hate anybody" so you have to listen and read more from different sources.
First of all, what's wrong with you and this Anfal-12 verse?! Why are you trying to say that this verse is like "whenever you see a kafer (atheist) in the street kill him and break his hand" do u only believe YOUR SOURCE of the explanation of the Quran. I agree with that guy "be fair" when he said that there are lots of verses with different meanings, he was right. But you were wrong when you replied : "I do not have to use one rare verse to temper dozens of others". That's 'coz we don't say that one verse is hostile then another one came to be friendly at the same situation. We say that the first one has an occasion and the other one has another occasion.
It seems that you hate the Islam so much but you still find the Christianity something nice. And you also take challenges that the bible will defeat the Quran in nobleness!! That's not the talk of an atheist, it's one of a Christian who can't accept religion's rules and heard the shitty things about Islam from people who also hate Islam!!!!!!
Don't take sides now; I'm not trying to convince you to be a Muslim nor to say what's better the Islam or the Christianity! I'm just trying to tell you the other side of the story.

iambt said at February 20, 2006 10:01 AM:


http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996016332&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE

http://www.islamonline.net/English/In_Depth/mohamed/1424/misconception/article10.shtml

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996016500&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996015510&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543986

Jones said at February 20, 2006 10:10 AM:

Iambt, stop repeating your phrases.
And seriously look at the book, overall it's not a nice peice of literature and you should seriously look where your morals lie if you believe it is.

Jones said at February 20, 2006 10:16 AM:

If there is a god (And I'm not so sure there is) do you think that he'd be anything like they phrase him in any book? He is supposed to be all knowing and all powerful but you can't characterize that and if you look all these books, they seem to have god reflect the authors own personal feelings.
What you are saying is that god conciously made you in that way but if god is really all he's cracked up to be then why not him being more of a force which makes all things rather then some human ego written on paper.

Jones said at February 20, 2006 10:18 AM:

Oh and since it's no one being it cannot be phrased in gender.

iambt said at February 20, 2006 10:53 AM:

Jones,
You don't believe in god… ok
Tell me is that 'coz you didn't find a religion that can convince you otherwise or is it 'coz your mind can't believe there's a higher power not known in our dictionary that controls the universe.
Can you hear the ant's voice with your ear?! No. why? 'coz your ears have limits
Can you see someone miles away from you with your bare eyes? No. why? Youe eyes have limits.

Jones said at February 20, 2006 11:05 AM:

Certainly, I believe something made us... but not a concious being whom you would so easily resort to, and besides what defines a god is my worship of such. There are gods of money and lust but none of these I worship so there is no real god for me but people who would do good, not your feeble attempt at justifying your own miserable existance.

iambt said at February 20, 2006 11:10 AM:

By the way, in the Arabic language grammar, the "he" and "she" are used for everything: living, dead and unidentified. Everything in the world is grouped either in the male or the female section even if they don't have reproductive organs =)). We don't have an "it" in our language.
It goes like that:
Q: where's the chair?
A: he is in the kitchen. (Trans: Enaho fee almatbakh)
Q: where's the table?
A: she's in the kitchen. (Trans: ennaha fee el matbakh)
Got it?!

iambt said at February 20, 2006 11:37 AM:

jones,
sorry about repeating my posts twice or so on the same page, but it's my "disconnection from the net" problem.

And what exactly that thing that made us?!
You know, through time you people (atheists) always say stuff like "great power" "the coincidence" "something big" "the sun" "the moon" "the stones" "the supernatural …" "a greater..." etc bla bla blaaaa.
All of that. so you just don't say "God"

(Attempt at justifying your own miserable existence)

I'm not justifying my "GREAT" existence. (Maybe yours is miserable) I just can't understand how come someone feels like this universe is ruled by no one.
I don't try to make you believe otherwise now, it's your brain and mind, it's your choice.
I'm just discussing to get to know how you ppl think!!

Jones said at February 20, 2006 11:43 AM:

Well I'm going to class now but i must say everything is predetermined but I don't think it's governed by some god in heaven but more by circumstance.

Jones said at February 20, 2006 1:36 PM:

To Mr. Bob Badour,
You can't win this arguement, not because you aren't right but because people don't listen, I myself don't personally change from my set opininon but when given definitive proof (Such as you so graciously offered) It's awful hard to argue.
Even should his information be slightly skewed if you take the time to read any translation of that book, then it does not bode well for the future of mankind that it has such a large following.

Bob Badour said at February 20, 2006 1:41 PM:

iambt,

You are not discussing anything. You are repeating nonsense from your religious texts about what Mohammed told you to think about atheists.

There is no prime mover in the universe. The universe is enough. There is no higher power controlling things. We are each responsible for our own actions.

Instead of trying to shout me down by pasting the same worthless nonsense in multiple threads, why don't you try listening? Or try cracking open the base texts of your own religion to verify (or contradict) what I have said.

Bob Badour said at February 20, 2006 1:49 PM:

Jones,

I don't know what the solution is, but I know it's not our responsibility in the west to solve Islam.

As for kind and decent muslims who wish to coexist and even participate in the west, I find they are either non-existent or entirely mute. The only option the vocal muslims give us is to buy their knee-jerk denials or surrender. Either way, I say no. I will never venerate a murdering, raping pedophile.

If they don't wish to coexist as active and equal participants with atheists and Christians and Jews and Buddhists and animists etc., they need to leave the west.

Jones said at February 20, 2006 1:55 PM:

Heh, I just noticed something, I've a friend who's a muslim but the funny thing is he's never read the Qu'ran.

Jones said at February 20, 2006 2:15 PM:

Anyone ever read Satanic Verses? It's an interesting book.

iambt said at February 20, 2006 3:50 PM:

You say that everyone is responsible for his own actions.who said he ain't??!!
that's why in the afterlife some people who did the right actions will go to heaven and people who didn't will be fucked.(kind of religion or faith aside, they all have the same ending in the afterlife)

Jones said at February 20, 2006 4:00 PM:

You are responsible for your own actions, howevor I really don't think theres a god in heaven who really cares about that kind of thing, only you and me and the rest of the world.

Jones said at February 20, 2006 4:01 PM:

/universe

iambt said at February 20, 2006 4:06 PM:

But you can only have control over what ONLY God wanted you to have control over =))
And please tell me again this "There is no prime mover in the universe. The universe is enough". ??!!!!
Let's say people are in control of themselves, who is in control of the complicated systems in the universe?!
They just came like that?!
Please Mr. Jones who said (personally change from my set opinion but when given definitive proof It's awful hard to argue)
tell me….
And another point of view i would like to hear from an atheist please:
If there's no god, then there's no afterlife. Right? no heaven, no hell , no judgment day
Then, you think that all the "rapists, thieves, PEDOPHILES, murderers..."will get away with their crimes whoever they are??!!!
Poor victims...
So let's all enjoy life and do everything forbidden and not worry about being sinners or being punished.
CHAOS-MAYHEM YEAAAHHHHHHHHHH

Jones said at February 20, 2006 4:11 PM:

Truthfully the cartoons (Which is what this is about) were just a setup, or excuse rather for muslims to get into a huffy and burn things.
There is also reason to believe that the uprising might even have been orchestrated.

Jones said at February 20, 2006 4:13 PM:

Actually I do believe pedophiles, murderers and all that will get away with what they've done which is why we've set in place laws to make them suffer now, though in my opinion they really should just be all put on an island to deal with eachother sorta like how australia was long ago.

Jones said at February 20, 2006 4:17 PM:

Though I'm a soft sort of man and I believe that if truly repentant (Not just because someone it buttraping you in the showers) then one should be forgiven. Unfortunately I don't think rehabilitation is possible.

iambt said at February 20, 2006 4:36 PM:

Bob & Jones
ok leave the islamic religion for now,
tell why you didn't become a jew or why you didn't believe in jesus?!
what made you think that there's no God?!

Bob Badour said at February 20, 2006 5:15 PM:
who is in control of the complicated systems in the universe

Nothing. Or rather, the universe is self-regulating simply by its own physical properties.

Then, you think that all the "rapists, thieves, PEDOPHILES, murderers..."will get away with their crimes whoever they are??!!!

They won't get away with those things if they get caught. Good and moral people intend to see they get caught and get punished.

Sadly, Mohammed was rewarded for his perversions and his crimes.

So let's all enjoy life and do everything forbidden

You are an idiot if you think no atheist can have morals.

what made you think that there's no God?!

I am an empiricist who values intellectual honesty above all else. There simply is no credible evidence whatsoever that any God has ever existed. An agnostic will say: "I don't know, and I have no particular belief" whereas I say "I believe in no God." It would be intellectually dishonest for me to pretend to have no particular belief.

I don't see where judaism or christianity ever enter into it as possibilities for me.


If you are a muslim, do you have the intellectual honesty to admit to yourself:

  • what your Hadith and your Qur'an say about Mohammed? (Or at least what hundreds of millions of muslims believe it says about him.)
  • that the Qur'an, if inspired, was edited by human hands?
  • that the base texts of your religion allow no possibility for Islam to have equal footing with any other religion?
  • the muslim chauvinism in the Qur'an makes it difficult for muslims to coexist as equals with non-muslims?

If you have the intellectual honesty to admit those things, do you have a solution that will allow muslims to coexist in the west as equals with atheists?

Jones said at February 20, 2006 7:19 PM:

I personally believe Jesus was a real man, theres no arguement on that subject, he was likely even a good person howevor I don't think he was god or the messiah.
As for why I did not fall so much into any particular religion none of them made any sense when you read too deeply into them, and I'm not even sure why the old testament is included in the christian bible other then perhaps for reference.
As for Judaism and Islam they were all to non-approriately brutal, Samson killed innocents because he was stolen from, and Mohammad really seemed too devious, like some sort of sick child making up an extravagant lie to justify his own actions.

other said at February 22, 2006 6:09 PM:

February 21st, 2006
>
>Missiles in Jerusalem and Ashkelon, and Jihad against "Global Blasphemy"
>
>With each passing day, terrorism, or the threat of it increases
>substantially. While the world is trying to find a way to deal with Hamas,
>and Hamas pretends to be moderating their position, the true facts on the
>ground speak for themselves.
>
>
>
>Today, Hamas launched several kassam missiles from Gaza and struck the power
>plant in Ashkelon, a costal city that is part of what even the U.N.
>considers sovereign Israeli territory. At the same time the IDF (Israeli
>Defense Forces) captured a terror cell that had acquired military grade
>mortar shells and IDF uniforms, and were about to send a barrage of missiles
>into the southern Jerusalem neighborhoods of Gilo and Har Homa. The
>launching pad was inside Beit Jala, the Christian Arab community from which
>so much machine gun fire emanated at the beginning of this Intifadah. Muslim
>killers break into the homes of these Christians and take them over as a
>base of operations, terrorizing the Arab homeowners and their families, and
>drawing Israeli fire back at the Christian homes leaving them often full of
>bullet holes and worse. After ransacking everything and everyone, they leave
>to return another day, and do the same thing all over again in another Beit
>Jala home.
>
>
>
>Every day there are over 50 credible terrorist alerts in the Jerusalem area
>alone. By the grace of God, the IDF intercepts most of them, but today’s
>actions indicate that the Hamas promised third wave of this Intifadah has
>begun in earnest.
>
>
>
>A few days ago, Iranian President Ahmadinejad again threatened the
>existence of Israel, and called on the entire Muslim world to come to the
>aid of Hamas in eradicating the Zionist enemy. He recruited 200 university
>students for the purpose of moving to Gaza and training for suicide missions
>inside Israel. Ahmadinejad said on Monday that the recent victory by the
>Islamist group Hamas in the Palestinian elections brushed aside the Oslo
>Peace Accord and the Roadmap to Peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and
>expressed hope that “soon all of Palestine will be liberated”. Iran’s
>Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps launched a new recruitment drive for
>suicide bombers in Tehran to fight against “Global Blasphemy”, more than
>52,000 “volunteers for martyrdom-seeking operations” have been registered so
>far. A brigadier general in this same Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps
>announced that dozens of “trained volunteers for martyrdom-seeking
>operations” will soon stage a maneuver in a mountainous area west of the
>Iranian capital to display their “readiness”.
>
>
>
>Interestingly, new missiles purchased from Russia have a 5000 kilometer
>range, far more than necessary to reach Israel. Considering the emphasis on
>fighting “Global Blasphemy”, Europe should be asking themselves, at whom
>Iran is planning to point these missiles?
>
>
>
>Ahmadinejad is without question possessed by at least one demon, perhaps a
>legion. He believes ‘god’ speaks through him, and that he must launch a
>global war in order to bring the Islamic Imam (messiah). He is driven by the
>same madness that drove Hitler.
>
>
>
>In the on again off again Sadaam Hussein trial, a highly placed official in
>the former Iraqi government confessed that Iraq’s Weapons of Mass
>Destruction had been moved to Syria prior to the war. That confirms what
>many have suspected all along and vindicates the Bush assertion that such
>weapons existed prior to the invasion. I imagine that the press in the U.S.
>isn’t talking about this, I know that the European press is ignoring it.
>What concerns me of course is that these weapons are likely situated in a
>position to be launched at Israel, and the American troops in Iraq.
>
>
>
>Friends, there are not enough hours in the day for me to cover the problems
>brewing in the Middle East and their ramifications for the world. While the
>churches in the west are embroiled in such burning issues as what color the
>carpet in the sanctuary should be, and where to go for pizza night, Islam is
>setting the world on fire, and the European and American governments are
>practicing a politically correct appeasement. This is the exact opposite of
>what should be done, for Islam sees it as weakness and it will fuel their
>Jihad. We give up our freedom of expression and offer up apologies for a few
>cartoons, while the Muslims around the world vow to destroy everything in
>its path. I don’t buy the argument of radical versus moderate… Islam is a
>satanic religion born in the pit of hell, and you cannot appease the devil.
>The Arab nations today consist of a blend between the offspring of Ishmael
>and Esau (Esau married the daughters of Ishmael) and the Lord says this
>about their ultimate fate, but more precisely describes their nature in the
>book of Amos as follows “ I will not turn away its (Edom’s) punishment
>because he pursued his brother with the sword, and cast off all pity; His
>anger tore perpetually and he kept his wrath forever.” Iran of course is not
>ethnically Arab, but they are under the same spiritual bondage of Islam.
>
>
>
>We must understand, the ONLY hope for the Muslim people is salvation through
>the Jewish Messiah, Yeshua. We will never appease them, they are enslaved in
>a culture of death and violence, and they keep their wrath forever,
>perpetually, it will never end unless they are freed by the blood of the
>Lamb. If you know any Muslims, Arab or otherwise, pray for them diligently,
>because they will eventually serve their master, even if they don’t intend
>to presently. As the darkness in the earth rises, they will not be able to
>resist the spirit that dwells within them, any more than unregenerate man
>will resist their sinful natures.
>
>
>
>I know many gentle and lovely Arab people, but I also know that in times
>past, Arab neighbors of Jewish families whose children played with each
>other, and who regularly broke bread together rose up and murdered whole
>families of their supposed closest friends to perform their obligation to
>kill the infidels.
>
>
>
>A week or so ago, I visited some friends in a Moslem village who run an
>olive processing plant, and there was a sense of despair in the air. While
>no words were spoken about it, I felt they knew what was coming, and they
>felt hopeless in the face of it. They have their pictures of the Dome of the
>Rock, and Koranic verses proudly displayed next to pictures of Yassir
>Arafat, and while they have had warm relations with Jewish friends for
>decades, they will be compelled to uphold the code of their religion, or be
>killed as traitors if they refuse. This is the reality of life inside the
>Muslim community.
>
>
>
>I wish I could travel to America and speak in church after church, public
>meeting halls, and anywhere that someone might listen in order to sound the
>warning bell, but this newsletter is about as close as I can get to that.
>
>
>
>I would encourage you to share The Israel Report with as many people as you
>can in the days ahead, because Christians need to wake up and realize that
>for the most part, they are the lukewarm church that is about to be spit
>from God’s mouth. I know this is a hard word, and that many will reject it,
>but I live in a nation that has spent years burying their dead as a direct
>result of this enemy being unleashed against us by forced peace agreements,
>and I am telling you that wherever you are, this same enemy is in your
>neighborhood, and he is planning global Jihad, and lukewarm Christianity is
>not going to be effective in the battle that lies ahead.
>
>
>
>As things intensify here in Israel, they will intensify in your world as
>well. I am warning you to prepare, because you won’t stop it from coming.
>How do we prepare? By humbling ourselves before the Lord, by interceding on
>behalf of Israel, your country and its leaders, and the poor souls under
>bondage to the enemy.
>
>
>
>The Lord declares that the battle will be won, not by might, nor by power,
>but by His Spirit. His Spirit is love, and He said of Himself that He is
>meek and lowly, and that is the kind of people we are to be. Humble, and
>full of faith and intercession, fighting this battle in the spiritual realm.
>
>
>
>I am not trying to frighten you, but I am trying to alert you to the gravity
>of the situation and to your responsibility to be a warrior for the kingdom
>of God. I feel I must issue wake up calls until the coming of the Lord. You
>were made for this day, to glorify the living God, don’t give up the battle,
>don’t turn in your heavenly crown for a large screen plasma TV. Run the good
>race and fight the good fight until the end.
>
>
>

sk said at February 23, 2006 10:47 AM:

Michaelangelo's "creation" was not an attack against any religion. Although Prophet Mohammad's depiction IS forbidden, some Muslim cultures have been drawing the Prophet's image for years- for example, in Iran. The Muslim world didn't boycott Iran and still won't because....
The problem isn't simply the Prophet's depiction. The problem is accusing a Prophet of preaching terrorism. So, don't bring in oversimplified reasoning like the Jews didn't boycott Italy and such.
Islam teaches Muslims to treat non-Muslims like brothers and with respect. Like Christianity, Islam urges Muslims to invite non-Muslims to their religion, but it never teaches Muslims to kill, let alone even misbehave with a non-muslim. There has been much violence and terrorism in the world in the name of Islam, but you have to understand that they only call themselves Muslim if they don't follow the teachings of Islam, which is essentially a peaceful religion.

Jones said at February 23, 2006 2:23 PM:

Thank you for being civil, but it does in not so many words suggest that you kill "unbelievers" even if not directly (which on occasion it does) it still makes reference that can easily be translated to "slay your neighbor because he is a Jew". (Not that I personally like jews)

Bob Badour said at February 25, 2006 6:33 PM:
Islam teaches Muslims to treat non-Muslims like brothers and with respect.

Frankly, that statement is a lie. The base texts of Islam teaches Muslims to treat non-Muslims differently from muslims and differently from each other based on their 'proximity' to Islam in faith. Jews and Christians are tolerated if subservient. Pagans, idolaters and atheists are not tolerated at all.

The most respected modern clerics likewise preach intolerance and violence. Khomeini, Sistani, the blind sheik...

it never teaches Muslims to kill

Except in Al-Anfal 12 and dozens of other verses.

you have to understand that they only call themselves Muslim if they don't follow the teachings of Islam

And if all evidence suggests the murderers are following a very literal interpretation of the base texts of Islam? Doesn't that mean everyone else is not really a muslim?

Islam, which is essentially a peaceful religion.

If not the literal base texts, what defines the essense of Islam?

sk said at February 27, 2006 10:16 AM:

Quranic translations are misleading when taken out of context, and quoted in isolation of the lines before and after. The quotes many people refer to, which suggest killing idolators, Christians and Jews are in the context of a battle between groups, which was often the case during Mohammad's prophethood.

As for tolerating other religions on the basis of proximity, the same context applies. Mohammad himself lived in Medina and maintained peace for many years among a diverse population. In fact, Mohammad was invited to live in Medina and act as an arbiter between the many existing groups including pagans, idolators, Jews, Christians and some Muslims.

A very literal translation of anything, especially when taken out of the original context, is dangerously ignorant including that of Quran's. Fundamentalists, terrorists and murderers take advantage of this to justify their own extremist ideals.

Bob Badour said at February 27, 2006 12:49 PM:
In fact, Mohammad was invited to live in Medina and act as an arbiter

Yes, and he leveraged that position to commit genocide and to subjugate the people there. From that starting point, he subjugated the Arabian Peninsula. The caliphates that followed expanded the area of subjugation as far east as India and as far west as Spain.

A very literal translation of anything, especially when taken out of the original context, is dangerously ignorant

That lie needs to end right now. A literal interpretation of the New Testament is not dangerous at all. A literal interpretation of a scientific document is anything but ignorant. What is dangerously ignorant about a literal interpretation of Matthew 5 ?

A literal translation of the Qur'an and the Hadith is dangerous because those base texts are hate-filled propaganda. And Islam actively promotes ignorance. However, I see no reason to project those flaws onto anything else.

sk said at February 28, 2006 10:04 AM:

Bob,
I agree. There's nothing hateful in a literal interpretation of Mathew 5, except one can misconstrue its meaning in other ways if one wants to.

I don't know so much history and so much Quran or Bible as you do, but I know enough to understand what is extreme and what is modest. Brought up as a Muslim, I was never taught violence or hatred towards anyone; rather peace and love. Would you say those who are teaching Islam to advocate peace in the world are in the wrong? Surely, there's more to Quran than the 'hate-filled propaganda' you focus on.

Bob Badour said at February 28, 2006 11:28 AM:

sk,

One has to try extremely hard to misconstrue Matthew 5 into anything violent just as one has to try extremely hard to misconstrue Al-Anfal into anything peaceful.

When you interpret Islam's base texts to mean peace and love, you are very much taking what you want and leaving the rest. When the Jihadists interpret Islam's base texts as a call to arms to conquer the unbelievers, they are taking what they want and leaving the rest too.

I suggest the Jihadists are taking more of the base texts and leaving less of the base texts than you are.

You ask: "Would you say those who are teaching Islam to advocate peace in the world are in the wrong?"

One can parse that sentence with different emphases. Those who are preaching Islam as a means to advocate peace are very much in the wrong--at least until Islam changes some very fundamental doctrines. Those who are teaching muslims to advocate peace are doing good, and they have their work cut out for them.

You ask: Is there more to the Qur'an than hate-filled propaganda? Yes, a little.

You say you were brought up muslim but you claim not to know the history or the Qur'an. I suspect you were not brought up the way Mohammed would have wanted--at least after he moved to Medina. I think that's good. Mohammed seemed to want muslims brought up as terrorists.

You mentioned extremism and modesty. One will often hear platitudes like 'all fundamentalism is bad' or 'all extremists are bad'.

When I try to think of an extremely fundamentalist Christian, I think of the Amish or the Mennonites or the Quakers. Those are some of the few who really will turn the other cheek. As extremist as they are and as fundamentalist as they are, they threaten nobody.

When I think of an extremely fundamentalist Muslim, those are the terrorists, the Jihadists, the mujahideen and their leaders: Khomeini, Sistani, the blind sheik, Usama bin Laden.

While you were brought up to learn peace and love, you learned other things too. You learned moral equivalence. You were conditioned to react to anything even remotely resembling criticism of Islam with cliches that many will nod to in agreement that simply are not true.

Not every religious text is as violent as the Qur'an. Not every religion spread by the sword. Not every extremist is bad. Not every fundamentalist is bad.

Good, kind, tolerant and moral people of different faiths are not enemies to one another.

Every Christian I have ever met can talk rationally and honestly about the Inquisition and other atrocities committed in the name of Christ. I have yet to meet a single muslim who will talk rationally and honestly about Islam, about Mohammed's history of genocide, about the various jihad movements around the world etc.

How do you, as a muslim, propose to have peace and love win over all of Islam? Saying Islam is a peaceful religion is not enough. You have to make it one too.

sk said at March 1, 2006 4:39 PM:

When you change a religion's fundamental doctrines, it's not the same religion anymore. It's something deviant. Besides, when you're talking about modifying a religion, you're assuming its followers believe the religion is man-made, thereby giving man the authority to modify whatever they please. But, Muslims don't believe Quran is man-written.

Moreover, your proposal for modifying Islam is based on your personal interpretation of history, which is not shared by the majority, and more importantly, you don't know whose interpretation is unbiased. If you think taking the message of peace and love from Islam is the wrong interpretation of its base text, you should realize that is only your opinion; not an objective standpoint because you don't seem to consider other possibilities like the context of the 'hate-filled' things you see, or the then-acceptable culture of the Arabs.

Perhaps, people do, but Quran does not promote ignorance. The first word revealed from the Quran to Prophet Mohammad was "Read".

Every Muslim that I have ever met talked rationally about terrorist activities, suicide bombings and hating non-believers being wrong. One can agree to disagree and still maintain rationality- one can disagree that Mohmmad was a terrorist and still defend Him rationally. But it would be only civil to take into consideration the other person's sensitivity towards one's Prophet. Maybe the Muslims you met were, indeed, irrational, but saying that irrationality is a Muslim attribute is irrational. Many things can make a person irrational; you cannot say Islam is the reason. I don't believe one should judge a religion by its people just like one should not judge people by their religion. Yes- moral, good, kind people are not enemies. I have Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Atheist and Muslim friends, whom I don't judge by religion, which is what Islam teaches people if people try to understand it truly.

I take your point and agree with you on that- every fundamentalism isn't bad, but again, you can't judge a religion by its fundamentalists.

I was not "conditioned to react to anything even remotely resembling criticism of Islam" and you will find that many weren't. Contrary to popular belief among both Muslims and non-Muslims, a Muslim is allowed to accept Islam by examining his own faith and learning about other faiths instead of blind acceptance.

Unfortunately, those who are making Islam a peaceful religion AND not just saying it are not getting the same attention as are those who make it unpeaceful. You can condemn the latter for their ignorance, but like you said, projecting one's flaws onto another is wrong.

Bob Badour said at March 1, 2006 8:00 PM:

If your religion is supposed to be a peaceful religion, it is your responsibility to make it one. The requirement to change your religion is yours, and you accepted that challenge the instant you claimed Islam is peaceful--contrary to all available evidence.

Muslims don't believe Quran is man-written.

Muslims believe all sorts of insane, irrational bullshit. That's not my problem. If you are to make Islam a peaceful religion, the first doctrine you will have to get rid of is the one above. The doctrine that the Arabic Qur'an is Allah's actual message exactly as spoken by Allah in the language of Allah's choice did not start until Uthman destroyed all of the variant Qur'ans leaving the fractured and rambling insane rants we have today.

Any muslim who actually believes the bullshit that the Qur'an is not man-written is a terrorist. Because if one believes that shit, one has to literally interpret Al-Anfal 12 and At-Tawba 5 and the scores of other violent intolerant verses that call for the murder of all atheists, all Buddhists, all Hindu, all animists etc. as the actual word of Allah exactly as spoken by Allah.

you should realize that is only your opinion

Bullshit! It's also the opinion of Khomeini, Sistani, Usama bin Laden, the blind sheik, and all of the terrorists who follow the teachings of these so-called learned and well-respected Islamic scholars.

you don't seem to consider other possibilities like the context of the 'hate-filled' things you see

The context of Al-Anfal is the context of a fucking mob boss claiming his share of the wealth stolen from the people he just fucking murdered. I am not the one ignoring the context. Those who think Islam is peaceful have to willfully ignore the context.

If you are to make Islam a religion of peace, you will have to deal with the base texts.

you can't judge a religion by its fundamentalists

Let's see: I cannot judge a religion by the majority of its followers. I cannot judge a religion by the content of its base texts. I cannot judge a religion by its fundamentals. Fuck you! I will judge a religion by all of those things. Who the fuck are you to tell me what I can or cannot judge? Or what facts I am allowed to consider when I do?

I will judge. And I will consider all of the relevant facts.

The first word revealed from the Quran to Prophet Mohammad was "Read".

I guess I was misinformed then. I was led to believe that the first word revealed to the murdering pedophile was "Recite". Is that not the reason teaching children to phonetically recite the Qur'an in a language they don't understand passes for education in Islam ie. in the most ignorant and backward places on earth?

one can disagree that Mohmmad was a terrorist and still defend Him rationally

I have yet to see a rational defense. Such a defense will have to start by acknowledging the actual content of the Hadith and the Qur'an. The base texts of Islam are very clear that Mohammed was a murdering pirate who raped the widows and daughters of the innocent men he murdered. A man who committed acts of genocide. Those documents clearly state that he fucked a nine year old child; although, some contest the veracity of the passages attributed to Aisha about the first time Mohammed raped her by piecing together wisps of evidence merely suggesting otherwise.

What kind of religion challenges the veracity of it's own base texts anyway?

Telling me that I cannot examine the actual evidence and use my own faculties of critical thought does not amount to anything rational.

you cannot say Islam is the reason

Until I meet a rational muslim, online or offline, my opinion will not change.

I was not "conditioned to react to anything even remotely resembling criticism of Islam"

Bullshit. You have done nothing but repeat the exact same knee-jerk defensiveness I have found in every muslim. You have yet to acknowledge a single problem in the vile texts that form the basis of your religion.

those who are making Islam a peaceful religion AND not just saying it are not getting the same attention as are those who make it unpeaceful

Here is your chance to give them exposure. What exactly are they doing to make Islam peaceful? What exactly are they doing to end the beheadings of innocent schoolchildren? What exactly are they doing to end terrorism? What exactly are they doing to show they accept the core values of the west that allow members of all other faiths to coexist in peace here?

I think there was one in Jordan who got himself sacked for suggesting that portraying Mohammed as Islam's own base texts portray him is not such a bad thing. Where are the others? What are they doing?

If you think denial and obfuscation are going to cut it, you are wrong.

sk said at March 2, 2006 6:27 AM:

You are free to think or say whatever you want, except I don't appreciate the swearing.

I was only presenting you with my perspective on my religion and your take on it.

A few people's sick actions doesn't make every Muslim responsible. What do you expect us to befriend terrorists and educate them properly? A terrorist is a terrorist to humankind- Christians and Muslims alike.

Bob Badour said at March 2, 2006 7:06 AM:

sk,

When those few sick individuals were the founders of your religion, namely Mohammed and the early caliphs, as recorded in the base texts of your religion, it damned well does make every muslim who denies the content of those base texts, who lies to non-muslims about the founders of Islam, who pretends that hundreds of millions of muslims are not celebrating the terrorists responsible. They are responsible for their own failure to stop the carnage and for trying to continue it by distracting people from the real source of the violence.

All available evidence condemns Islam as violent and intolerant. Your own actions confirm the nature of your religion.

If Islam is a religion of peace, muslims must rise up en masse to reclaim the mosques to punish the terrorists and to drive out the hatemongering imams and mullahs from their midst.

Muslims do not do that. Hundreds of millions of them celebrate and honour these evil men.

Bob Badour said at March 2, 2006 7:09 AM:

P.S. I note you were given the opportunity to expose the acts of those making Islam peaceful, and you failed to provide any suggestion that even one muslim is even trying.

The opportunity remains: What exactly are any muslims doing to make Islam peaceful? What exactly are they doing to end the beheadings of innocent schoolchildren? What exactly are they doing to end terrorism? What exactly are they doing to show they accept the core values of the west that allow members of all other faiths here to coexist in peace?

sk said at March 2, 2006 12:46 PM:

Bob,
Although I don’t particularly agree with her on certain things, Irshad Manji, whom you mentioned earlier, does speak with the kind of rationality you look for: http://www.freemuslims.org/document.php?id=34
Nonetheless, Free Muslims Coalition does work together with both Muslims and non-Muslims to fight terrorism.

Every Muslim scholar that I’d ever read or listened to has always condemned terrorism actively, has spoken out against ignorance among Muslim mullahs who advocate terrorism and among Muslim people whose ignorance is an obstacle to peace. Since one cannot eradicate such a deep-rooted problem as ignorance overnight, it’s a task at hand for Muslims that will take time and calls for great leadership. It will take a lot more activism to accomplish this, but a country’s political environment does not always allow it. American Muslim scholars actively fight terrorism: http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/muslim_voices_against_terrorism/

Except for the peaceful protests against the cartoons, I do believe the violent strategies that Muslims in some countries are currently expending their energy on should rather be diverted elsewhere. Towards making peace- Last year, 3 Filipino Muslim women were nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for promoting non-violence. There are many such people I know in my community who do the same.

Bob Badour said at March 2, 2006 3:27 PM:

sk,

I am familiar with Irshad Manji, and I see she and I agree almost completely. I disagree with her statement: "Compassion and contempt exist side by side, as they do in every sacred book." Otherwise, I agree with what she wrote. Most sacred books have so much less contempt than Islam's that her statement borders on deceipt.

Otherwise, I think she is right on the mark regarding what muslims have been doing. Including you:

  • The big canvas shows that many of these Muslims continue to cradle a dangerous delusion. Islam, they still insist, had nothing to do with this horrific crime.
  • Wishful whitewashing. The Koran verse that's cited as "unequivocal" actually bestows wiggle room.
  • Religion is no innocent bystander in the violence perpetrated by Muslims.
  • [The violent passages in the base texts of Islam] couldn't be exploited if they didn't exist.
  • The scholarship that puts such verses "into context" reeks of evasion.
  • God instructed Mohammed to strike preemptively. (So much for the idea he defended himself from the innocents he murdered.)
  • Muslims have to own up to the fact that the Koran's message is all over the map.
  • Moderate Muslims, like moderate Christians and Jews, shouldn't be afraid...
  • We'll only be sanitizing what we don't want to hear.
  • That's no way to address Islam's intellectual lethargy, or the moral dereliction that goes with it.

What do you think are the chances that a billion muslims will ever take their moral guidance from a lesbian?

From your TAM link:

Dr. Javeed Akhter -- a jihadist. His entire piece is focussed on how to change America and not on how to change Islam. Basically, he's all in favour of the political wing of Jihad accomplishing what the military wing failed to achieve. He starts by marvelling at the free and open society created by western rights and freedoms, and he finishes by demanding we end those rights and by prescribing a path to turn America into the sort of shithole he fled.

Aziz H. Poonawalla -- an apologist. His entire nit-picking piece is nothing but an attempt to whitewash and deny the role of Islam in terrorism.

Dr. Farish A. Noor -- more concerned that the translator was not american. He expounds at length how ashamed he is of the name the murderers used, but does nothing to understand or combat what part of his religion drives the murderers.

Imam Abdul Malik Mujahid -- more interested in mutual censorship than open dialogue. However, I think it would do muslims good to see how other muslims use the base texts of Islam to justify killing them. That might be the only way muslims confront this ugly truth.

M. A. Muqtedar Khan -- a true moderate, and a decent, tolerant human being. You would do very well to contemplate this one until you understand why the four articles that preceded it do not in any way, shape, or form battle terrorism or make Islam a peaceful religion. The only thing I would fault is his statement: "The US, bigotry and xenophobia has been kept in check by media and leaders." It was actually kept in check by the higher morals and greater values of the majority of Americans themselves. The typical muslim arrogance and chauvinism prevent him from acknowledging those higher morals.

TAM seems utterly unable to separate the chaff from the wheat. I had to wade through four articles supporting jihad before I could find one truly trying to transform Islam into the peaceful religion so many muslims smugly claim it is. You complain that the moderate, tolerant voices have no platform, but the link to the platform you gave me shouts them down with intolerant voices.

Is that the fault of us in the west? No! It's the fault of Islam's doctrine of Da'wa and muslims' inability to question their own lack of morality.

If you want to start transforming your faith into the peaceful faith you claim it is, you need to chastise TAM for going for quantity instead of quality. They apparently think people in the west will count the links without reading the content they point to.

How dare they include CAIR among the 'moderate' voices? CAIR's entire focus of correcting my 'misperception' is entirely jihadist. And it comes as no surprise seeing as CAIR supports, funds and leads the terrorists.

With respect to the Nobel prize, I don't know what these muslim filipinas did or did not do. I stopped paying attention to the Nobel Peace Prize after they awarded it to murdering terrorist #1 -- Arafat. The Nobel committee finally succumbed to moral and intellectual bankruptcy and in so doing they became as illegitimate to me as the UN.

I would amplify your concluding statement by arguing that much of the energy going into non-violent strategies used by muslims, such as yourself, should be diverted to transforming Islam into a peaceful religion as well.

h said at May 3, 2006 5:45 PM:

If you want muslims to stop coming to your country DUMBASS then all your stupid people should leave their countries alone.Mohammad never murderd or raped anyone. FYI Islam is a religion of peace its meaning is peace and surrender to god. Muslims only fight back when they have no other choice. Let me ask you something what would you do if someone came to your home killed your family and took away your land ? would you just surrender or would you fight them with every means possible? Then if arabs and muslims are so bad in your eyes how come you live in their countries and use the natural resources? Also Michelangelo's "Creation." does not depict jesus with a bomb on his head or as a person in a line up. I am pretty sure if a muslim newspaper depicted your prophet or god or even rideculed your culture you would not only kick them out of your country but declare an alot war on them. Think how much you benifit from arabian countries gas/gold before you redicule them. what would happen to precious danish economy if the arabians decided to cut you off from these things or would you rely on solar power for the rest of your lives??? You should really consider how much your country has alreasy lost economy wise regarding this matter.

AA said at May 3, 2006 6:38 PM:


ISLAM MEANS
Islam is derived from the Arabic root "Salema": peace, purity, submission and obedience. In the religious sense, Islam means submission to the will of God and obedience to His law.
Muhammad, was born in Makkah in the year 570, at a time when Christianity was not yet fully established in Europe. Since his father died before his birth, and his mother shortly afterwards, he was raised by his uncle from the respected tribe of Quraysh. As he grew up, he became known for his truthfulness, generosity and sincerity, so that he was sought after for his ability to arbitrate in disputes. The historians describe him as calm and meditative.
Does Islam tolerate other beliefs?

ISLAM REPECTS OTHER RELIGIONS
The Quran says: God forbids you not, with regards to those who fight you not for [your] faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them; for God loveth those who are just. (Quran, 60-8)

It is one function of Islamic law to protect the privileged status of minorities, and this is why non-Muslim places of worship have flourished all over the Islamic world. History provides many examples of Muslim tolerance towards other faiths: when the caliph Omar entered Jerusalem in the year 634, Islam granted freedom of worship to all religious communities in the city.

Islamic law also permits non-Muslim minorities to set up their own courts, which implement family laws drawn up by the minorities themselves.
ISLAM IS A MERCIFUL RELIGION
The Prophet said:

'God has no mercy on one who has no mercy for others.'

'None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.'

'He who eats his fill while his neighbor goes without food is not a believer. '

'The truthful and trusty businessman is associated with the prophets the saints, and the martyrs.'

'Powerful is not he who knocks the other down, indeed powerful is he who controls himself in a fit of anger. '

'God does not judge according to your bodies and appearances but He scans your hearts and looks into your deeds.'

'A man walking along a path felt very thirsty. Reaching a well he descended into it, drank his fill and came up. Then he saw a dog with its tongue hanging out, trying to lick up mud to quench its thirst. The man saw that the dog was feeling the same thirst as he had felt so he went down into the well again and filled his shoe with water and gave the dog a drink. God forgave his sins for this action.' The Prophet was asked: 'Messenger of God, are we rewarded for kindness towards animals?' He said, 'There is a reward for kindness to every living thing.'

From the hadith collections of Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi and Bayhaqi

Islam respects Woman
Islam sees a woman, whether single or married, as an individual in her own right, with the right to own and dispose of her property and earnings. A marriage dowry is given by the groom to the bride for her own personal use, and she keeps her own family name rather than taking her husband's.

Both men and women are expected to dress in a way which is modest and dignified; the traditions of female dress found in some Muslim countries are often the expression of local customs.

The Messenger of God said:

'The most perfect in faith amongst believers is he who is best in manner and kindest to his wife.'

MARRIAGE IN ISLAM
A Muslim marriage is not a 'sacrament', but a simple, legal agreement in which either partner is free to include conditions. Marriage customs thus vary widely from country to country. As a result, divorce is not common, although it is not forbidden as a last resort. According to Islam, no Muslim girl can be forced to marry against her will: her parents will simply suggest young men they think may be suitable.

ISLAMS VIEW ON WAR
Like Christianity, Islam permits fighting in self-defense, in defense of religion, or on the part of those who have been expelled forcibly from their homes. It lays down strict rules of combat which include prohibitions against harming civilians and against destroying crops, trees and livestock. As Muslims see it, injustice would be triumphant in the world if good men were not prepared to risk their lives in a righteous cause. The Quran says:

Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress limits. God does not love transgressors. (2:190)

If they seek peace, then seek you peace. And trust in God for He is the One that heareth and knoweth all things. (8:61)

War, therefore, is the last resort, and is subject to the rigorous conditions laid down by the sacred law. The term jihad literally means 'struggle', and Muslims believe that there are two kinds of jihad. The other 'jihad' is the inner struggle which everyone wages against egotistic desires, for the sake of attaining inner peace

ISLAM ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Freedom of conscience is laid down by the Quran itself: 'There is no compulsion in religion'. (2:256)

The life and property of all citizens in an Islamic state are considered sacred whether a person is Muslim or not.

Racism is incomprehensible to Muslims, for the Quran speaks of human equality in the following terms:

O mankind! We created you from a single soul, male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, so that you may come to know one another. Truly, the most honored of you in God's sight is the greatest of you in piety. God is All-Knowing, All Aware (49-13)


Bob Badour said at May 10, 2006 6:18 PM:
If you want muslims to stop coming to your country DUMBASS then all your stupid people should leave their countries alone.

I haven't done anything to any DUMBASS, er muslim, country.


Mohammad never murderd or raped anyone.

That's not what the earliest recorded muslim histories portray. Who are we to believe if not the earliest muslim histories? Regardless whether we believe either of those particular points, hundreds of millions of muslims do believe those things while simultaneously believing Mohammed is the paradigm of perfect morality. What should we conclude about those hordes of people and their moral compasses?


FYI Islam is a religion of peace its meaning is peace and surrender to god.

If only that were actually true instead of mendacious. Islam means submission and has nothing to do with peace. Islam's doctrine of Jihad is anything but peaceful as so glaringly demonstrated by muslims all over the world.


Muslims only fight back when they have no other choice.

Horseshit.


Let me ask you something what would you do if someone came to your home killed your family and took away your land ?

What relevance does your question have? I have never gone to any muslim area, I have never killed anybody and I have never taken anybody's land. Yet, the base texts of Islam claim I am more-or-less vermin good only for extermination.


Also Michelangelo's "Creation." does not depict jesus with a bomb on his head or as a person in a line up.

As an atheist, I wonder why I should care either way?


I am pretty sure if a muslim newspaper depicted your prophet or god or even rideculed your culture you would not only kick them out of your country but declare an alot war on them.

Um, newspapers do those things all the time, and I have never responded in the way you fantasize. Neither do any of the hundreds of millions of other peaceful freedom loving people in the west.

If I were that sort of person, I would have to demand the immediate censorship of the Qur'an because it is--after all--hate propaganda directed at my religion.


Think how much you benifit from arabian countries gas/gold before you redicule them.

Living in Canada, I don't really benefit from competing sources of these resources.


what would happen to precious danish economy if the arabians decided to cut you off from these things or would you rely on solar power for the rest of your lives???

The Danish would probably buy Arab oil from a jew in Amsterdam like they do now.


You should really consider how much your country has alreasy lost economy wise regarding this matter.

I would say it has gained. I am not sure where you think there are any economic losses.

Bob Badour said at May 10, 2006 6:31 PM:

AA,

'Islam' however is not 'Salemia'. Islam means submission. Salam means peace. The words are similar but not the same.

I have identified scores of passages in the Qur'an that are blatantly intolerant to other religions and particularly to my own religion. (See above.) It's all well and good that some isolated passage in a small appendix seems tolerant, but that does not counter passage after passage in the large prominent Surah's up front.

On Islam's view of war, Islam considers Mohammed's aggressive attack without any provocation 'defensive' because Mohammed claims Allah told him his victims were going to betray him. Sane, rational, intelligent people don't consider murdering innocents without provocation 'defense'.

aa said at May 12, 2006 1:05 AM:

You are a totally sick and delusional person
and the best way to answer you is not to answer you
at all.

LKSmith said at May 12, 2006 10:55 AM:

I've read the majority of what's being said by all of you wind bags. I'm a Christian American, I was raised in Canada, and know there is a huge Middle-Eastern community there. I have no Problem with Arabs or what have you, but what Bob posted is by my homework correct. It seems that the radical muslim states have a real PR problem, making themselves look like they're part of modern Society, when in fact they live somewhere around 1800 forever ago. Any group of people that would riot in such a violent way over cartoons, just goes to show how out of reality these people live. I'm Irish' Christian, and raised Canadian, so I get my jabs. I recently read in Esquire Magazine a bunch of Cartoons be-littling Jesus. This made me a little dissapointed, but I didn't riot. It seems to me that Muslims are gonna have to learn to live in modern society, wait I guess after recent Events, burning cars in paris, killing 3 thousand people in New York, Shooting kids in the back in Russia, Beheading civillian contractors in Iraq, suicide bombing they're own people(they're own people mind you!!!!), starting global riots over a cartoon, islomo-facists gleefully showing allied forces getting bombed in Iraq on the internet...and the beat goes on. I guess what I really want to say is that I'm tired of they're excuses!!!! If a muslim scrapes his knee in a foreign country it seems as though he feels as though it's OK to nail bomb a pizzaria or disco. Bob hit on the head, and in my words here's how it is. I don't feel islam is a religion of peace, when it's members seem to get off by killing innocent people. How is that a religion of peace? I'm sure some dopey Kerry voter will let me know!!!!!!

aa said at May 17, 2006 9:12 AM:

There was a professor of philosophy who was a deeply committed > atheist.

His primary goal for one required class was to spend the entire semester attempting to prove that God couldn't exist.

His students were always afraid to argue with him because of his impeccable logic.

For twenty years, he had taught this class and no one had ever had the courage to go against him. Sure, some had argued in class at times, but no one had ever really gone against him because of his reputation.

At the end of every semester on the last day, he would say to his class of 300 students, "If there is anyone here who still believes in God, stand up!"

In twenty years, no one had ever stood up. They knew what he was going to do next. He would say, "Because anyone who believes in God is a fool. If God existed, he could stop this piece of chalk from hitting the ground and breaking. Such a simple task to prove that He is God, and yet He can't do it." And every year, he would drop the chalk onto the tile floor of the > classroom and it would shatter into a hundred pieces. All of the > students would do nothing but stop and stare.

Most of the students thought that God couldn't exist. Certainly, a > number of Christians had slipped through, but for 20 years, they had > been too afraid to stand up.

Well, a few years ago there was a freshman who happened to enroll. He was a muslim, and had heard the stories about his professor. He was required to take the class for his major, and he was afraid. But for three months that semester, he prayed every morning that he would have the courage to stand up no matter what the professor said, or what the class thought. Nothing they said could ever shatter his faith...he hoped. Finally, the day came. The professor said, "If there is anyone here who still believes in God, stand up!" The professor and the class of 300 people looked at him, shocked, as he stood up at the back of the classroom. The professor shouted, "You FOOL!!! If God existed, he would keep this piece of chalk from breaking when it hit the ground!" He proceeded to drop the chalk, but as he did, it slipped out of his fingers, off his shirt cuff, onto the pleat of his pants, down his leg, and off his shoe. As it hit the ground, it simply rolled away unbroken. The professor's jaw dropped as he stared at the chalk. He looked up at the young man, and then ran out of the lecture hall. The young man who had stood, proceeded to walk to the front of the room and shared his faith in Islam for the next half hour. 300 students stayed and listened as he told of Allah's love for them and to be the followers Of our beloved prophet Mohammed

Randall Parker said at May 17, 2006 4:56 PM:

aa,

You illustrate very nicely one of the problems with Muslims: They live in fantasies in order to believe their religion. You made up a story or passed along a story made up by someone else to supposedly prove that God exists and that Muslims the correct set of beliefs about him. You made up a story. You offered fiction as evidence. How ridiculous. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Bob Badour said at May 20, 2006 10:13 PM:
You are a totally sick and delusional person and the best way to answer you is not to answer you at all.

I will take that as an admission you have no effective way to counter the plain and simple truth.


You made up a story. You offered fiction as evidence. How ridiculous.

Indeed. Couldn't even bother to make up a name for the professor or for the university. I guess aa's imam was too stupid to know the names of any. Although, it is very revealing for what sort of insane mythologies the terrorists are spreading as propaganda around the mosques.

Bob Badour said at May 21, 2006 8:21 AM:

It's also revealing of how gullible and jihadist enabling so many muslims really are. Many muslims who would never become terrorists are nevertheless a threat due to their enabling behaviour.

aa said at May 21, 2006 9:45 AM:

If Islam is so wrong then tell me this my why have hundreds of thousands of
people from all over the world converted to this religion on their own free will ??
Priests,Muscians,Scientists regular people ? Surely a priest should not doubt his faith ???
Here are just one example and there are more @ http://thetruereligion.org/modules/xfsection/


formerly kenneth l jenkins
As a former minister and elder of the Christian church, it has become incumbent upon me to enlighten those that continue to walk in darkness. After embracing Islam I felt a dire need to help those who have not yet been blessed to experience the light of Islam.

I thank Almighty God, Allah, for having mercy upon me, causing me to come to know the beauty of Islam as taught by Prophet Muhammad and his rightly guided followers. It is only by the mercy of Allah that we receive true guidance and the ability to follow the straight path, which leads to success in this life and the Hereafter.

Praise be to Allah for the kindness shown to me by Shaykh 'Abdullah bin 'Abdul-'Azeez bin Baz upon my embracing Islam. I cherish and will pass on the knowledge gained from each meeting with him. There are many others who have helped me by means of encouragement and knowledge, but for fear of missing anyone, I will refrain from attempting to list them. Sufficient it is to say that I thank Almighty God, Allah, for each and every brother and sister that He has allowed to play a role in my growth and development as a Muslim.

I pray that this short work will be of benefit to all. I hope that Christians will find that there is yet i hope for the wayward conditions that prevail over the bulk of Christendom. The answers to Christian problems are not to be found with the Christians themselves, for they are, in most instances, the root of their own problems. Rather, Islam is the solution to the problems plaguing the world of Christianity,as well as the problems facing the so-called worldof religion as a whole. May Allah guide us all and reward us according to the very best of our deeds and intentions.

Abdullah Muhammad al-Faruque at-Ta'if, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Beginnings

As a young boy I was raised with a deep fear of God. Having been partially raised by a grandmother who was a Pentecostal fundamentalist, the church became an integral part of my life at a very early age. By the time I had reached the age of six, I knew all too well the benefits awaiting me in Heaven for being a good little boy and the punishment awaiting in Hell for little boys who are naughty. I was taught by my grandmother that all liars were doomed to go to the Hellfire, where they would burn forever and ever.

My mother worked two full-time jobs and continued to remind me of the teachings given to me by her mother. My younger brother and older sister did not seem to take our grandmother's warnings of the Hereafter as seriously as I did. I recall seeing the full moon when it would take on a deep reddish hue, and I would begin to weep because I was taught that one of the signs of the end of the world would be that the moon would become red like blood. As an eight year old child I began to develop such a fear at what I thought were signs in the heavens and on earth of Doomsday that I actually had nightmares of what the Day of Judgement would be like. Our house was close to a set of railroad tracks, and trains passed by on a frequent basis. I can remember being awakened out of sleep by the horrendous sound of the locomotive's horn and thinking that I had died and was being resurrected after hearing the sound of the trumpet. These teachings were ingrained in my young mind through a combination of oral teachings and the reading of a set of children's books known as the Bible Story.

Every Sunday we would go to church dressed in all of our finery. My grandfather was our means of transportation. Church would last for what seemed to me like hours. We would arrive at around eleven in the morning and not leave until sometimes three in the afternoon. I remember falling asleep in my grandmother's lap on many occasions. For a time my brother and I were permitted to leave church in between the conclusion of Sunday school and morning worship service to sit with our grandfather at the railway yard and watch the trains pass. He was not a churchgoer, but he saw to it that my Eamily made it there every Sunday. Sometime later he suffered a stroke, which left him partiallyparalyzed, and as a result, we were unable to attend church on a regular basis. This period of time would be one of the most crucial stages of my development.

Rededication

I was relieved, in a sense, at no longer being able to attend church, but I would feel the urge to go on my own every now and then. At age sixteen I began attending the church of a friend whose father was the pastor. It was a small storefront building with only my friend's family, myself, and another schoolmate as members. This went on for only several months before -the church closed down. After graduating from high school and entering the university I rediscovered my religious commitment and became fully immersed in Pentecostal teachings. I was baptized and "filled with the Holy Ghost," as the experience was then called. As a college student, I quickly became the pride of the church. Everyone had high hopes for me, and I was happy to once again be "on the road to salvation".

I attended church every time its doors would open. I studied the Bible for days and weeks at a time. I attended lectures given by the Christian scholars of my day, and I acknowledged my call to the ministry at the age of 20. I began preaching and became well known very quickly. I was extremely dogmatic and believed that no one could receive salvation unless they were of my church group. I categorically condemned everyone who had not come to know God the way I had cometo knowHim. I was taught that Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) and God Almighty were one and the samething. I was taught that our church did not believe in the trinity but that Jesus (peace be upon him) was indeed the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I tried to make myself understand it even though I had to admit that I really did not fully understand it. As far as I was concerned, it was the only doctrine that made sense to me. I admired the holy dress of the women and the pious behavior of the men. I enjoyed practicing a doctrine where women were required to dress in garments covering themselves completely, not painting their faces with makeup, and carrying themselves as true ambassadors of Christ. I was convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that I had finally found the true path to eternal bliss. Iwould debate with anyone from a different church with different beliefs and would totally silence them with my knowledge of the Bible. I memorized hundreds of Biblical passages, and this became a trademark of my preaching. Yet, even though I felt assured of being on the right path, a part of me was still searching. I felt that there was an even higher truth to be attained.

I would meditate while alone and pray to God to lead me to the correct religion and to forgive me if what I was doing was wrong. I had never had any contact with Muslims. The only people I knew that claimed Islam as their religion were the followers of Elijah Muhammad, who were referred to by many as the "Black Muslims" or the "Lost-Found Nation." It was during this period in the late seventies that Minister Louis Farrakhan was well into rebuilding what was called "The Nation of Islam." Iwentto hear Minister Farrakhan speak at the invitation of a coworker and found it to be an experience that would change my life dramatically. I had never in my life heard another black man speak the way that he spoke. I immediately wanted to arrange a meeting with him to try to convert him to my religion. I enjoyed evangelizing, hoping to find lost souls to save from the Hellfire - no matter who they were.

After graduating from college I began to work on a full-time basis. As I was reaching the pinnacle of my ministry, the followers of Elijah Muhammad became more visible, and I appreciated their efforts in attempting to rid the black community of the evils that were destroying it from within. I beganto support them, in a sense, by buying their literature and even meeting with them for dialogue. I attended their study circles to find out exactly what they believed. As sincere as I knew many of them were, I could not buy the idea of God being a black man. I disagreed with their use of the Bible to support their position on certain issues. Here was a book that I knew very well, and I was deeply disturbed at what I deemed was their misinterpretation of it. I had attended locally supported Bible schools and had become quite knowledgeable in various fields of Bible study.

After about six years I moved to Texas and became affiliated with two churches. The first church was led by a young pastor who was inexperienced and not very learned. My knowledge of the Christian scriptures had by this time developed into something abnormal. I was obsessed with Biblical teachings. I began to look deeper into the scriptures and realized that I knew more than the present leader. As a show of respect, I left and joined another church in a different city where I felt that I could learn more. The pastor of this particular church was very scholarly. He was an excellent teacher but had some ideas that were not the norm in our church organization. He held somewhat liberal views, but I still enjoyed his indoctrination. I was soon to learn the most valuable lesson of my Christian life, which was "all that glitters is not gold." Despite its outward appearance,there were evils taking place that I never thought were possible in the Church. These evils caused me to reflect deeply, and I began questioning the teaching to which I was so dedicated.

Welcome to the Real Church World

I soon discovered that there was a great deal of jealousy prevalent in the ministerial hierarchy. Things had changed from that to which I was accustomed. Women wore clothing that I thought was shameful. People dressed in order to attract attention, usually from the opposite sex. I discovered just how great a part money and greed play in the operation of church activities. There were many small churches struggling, and they called upon us to hold meetings to help raise money for them. I was told that if a church did not have a certain number of members, then I was not to waste my time preaching there because I would not receive ample financial compensation. I then explained that I was not in it for the money and that I would preach even if there was only one member present... and I'd do it for free! This caused a disturbance. I started questioning those whom I thought had wisdom, only to find that they had been putting on a show. I learned that money, power and position were more important than teaching the truth about the Bible. As a Bible student, I knew full well that there were mistakes, contradictions and fabrications. I thought that people should be exposed to the truth about the Bible. The idea of exposing the people to such aspects of the Bible was a thought supposedly attributable to Satan. But I began to publicly ask my teachers questions during Bible classes, which none of them could answer. Not a single one could explain how Jesus was supposedly God, and how, at the same time, he was supposedly the Father, Son and Holy Ghost wrapped up into one and yet was not a part of the trinity. Several preachers finally had to concede that they did not understand it but that we were simply required to believe it.

Cases of adultery and fornication went unpunished. Some preachers were hooked on drugs and had destroyed their lives and the lives of their families. Leaders of some churches were found to be homosexuals. There were pastors even guilty of committing adultery with the young daughters of other church members. All of this coupled with a failure to receive answers to what I thought were valid questions was enough to make me seek a change. That change came when I accepted a job in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

A New Beginning

It was not long after arriving in Saudi Arabia that I saw an immediate difference in the lifestyle of the Muslim people. They were different from the followers of Elijah Muhammad and Minister Louis Farrakhan in that they were of all nationalities, colors and languages. I immediately expressed a desire to learn more about this peculiar brand of religion. I was amazed with the life of Prophet Muhammad and wanted to know more. I requested books from one of the brothers who was active in calling people to Islam. I was supplied with all of the books that I could possibly want. I read each and every one. I was then given the Holy Qur'an and read it completely several times within four months. I asked question after question and received satisfactory answers. What appealed to me was that the brothers were not keen on impressing me with their knowledge. If a brother did not know how to answer a question, he would tell me that he simply did not know and would have to check with someone who did. The next day he would always bring the answer. I noticed how humility played such a great role in the lives of these mysterious people of the Middle East.

I was amazed to see the women covering themselves from face to foot. I did not see any religious hierarchy. No one was competing for any religious position. All of this was wonderful, but how could I entertain the thought of abandoning a teaching that had followed me since childhood? What about the Bible? I knew that there is some truth in it even though it had been changed and revised countless numbers of times. I was then given a video cassette of a debate between Shaykh Ahmed Deedat and Reverend Jimmy Swaggart. After seeing the debate I immediately became a Muslim. (To view this debate click here – requires RealPlayer)

I was taken to the office of Shaykh 'Abdullah bin 'Abdul-'Azeez bin Baz to officially declare my acceptance of Islam. It was there that I was given sound advice on how to prepare myself for the long journey ahead. It was truly a birth from darkness into light. I wondered what my peers from the Church would think when they heard that I had embraced Islam. It was not long before I found out. I went back to the United States for vacation and was severely criticized for my "lack of faith." I was stamped with many labels - from renegade to reprobate. People were told by so-called church leaders not to even remember me in prayer. As strange as it may seem, I was not bothered in the least. I was so happy that Almighty God, Allah, had chosen to guide me aright that nothing else mattered.

Now I only wanted to become as dedicated a Muslim as I was a Christian. This, of course, meant study. I realized that a person could grow as much as they wanted to in Islam. There is no monopoly of knowledge - it is free to all who wish to avail themselves of the opportunities to learn. I was given a set of Saheeh Muslim as a gift from my Qur'an teacher. It was then that I realized the need to learn about the life, sayings and practices of Prophet Muhammad . I read and studied as many of the hadlth collections available in English as possible. I realized that my knowledge of the Bible was an asset that is now quite useful in dealing with those of Christian backgrounds. Life for me has taken on an entirely new meaning. One of the most profound attitude changes is a result of knowing that this life must actually be spent in preparation for life in the Hereafter. It was also a new experience to know that we are rewarded even for our intentions. If you intend to do good, then you are rewarded. Itwas quite different in the Church. The attitude wasthat "the path to Hell is paved with good intentions." There was no way to win. If you sinned,then you had to confess to the pastor, especially if the sin was a great sin, such as adultery. You were judged strictly by your actions.

The Present and Future

After an interview by the Al-Madinah newspaper I was asked about my present-day activities and plans for the future. At present, my goal is to learn Arabic and continue studying to gain greater knowledge about Islam. I am presently engaged in the field of da'wah and am called upon to lecture to non-Muslims who come from Christian backgrounds. If Allah, Almighty, spares my life, I hope to write more on the subject of comparative religion.

It is the duty of Muslims throughout the world to work to spread the knowledge of Islam. As one who has spent such a long time as a Bible teacher, I feel a special sense of duty in educating people about the errors, contradictions and fabricated tales of a book believed in by millions of people. One of the greatest joys is knowing that I do not have to engage in a great deal of dispute with Christians, because I was a teacher who taught most of the dispute techniques used by them. I also learned how to argue using the Bible to defend Christianity. And at the same time I know the counter arguments for each argument which we, as ministers, were forbidden by our leaders to discuss or divulge.

It is my prayer that Allah will forgive us all of our ignorance and guide us to the path leading to Paradise. All praise is due to Allah. May the peace and blessings of Allah be upon His last messenger, Prophet Muhammad, his family, companions, and those following true guidance.

and also cat stevens his story is @ http://www.yusufislam.org.uk/

I have no doubt that you will find some way to doubt this info and ridecule it as you
have blind eyes and closed hearts and deaf ears but to you sirs ill say this and only this
he who laughs lasts laughs the best and surely you are laughing now but one of these days it will be me who will laugh in your face. and you atheist BOB must understand one thing i am not asking you to become a muslim or to convince you of anything I am only defending my religion just like you defend your beliefs on there not being a creator.


Randall Parker said at May 21, 2006 10:43 AM:

aa,

People convert to other religions every day too. Catholicism, Protestant Christianity, Mormonism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Bahai, and still other religions win converts and some win more converts than Islam.

Bob Badour said at June 12, 2006 6:50 PM:

I see aa wins the prize for the 300th post in this thread.

Since you like to ponder converts, aa, ponder why so many thousands, perhaps even millions, of muslims convert to other religions even when they can expect their family and their former friends to want to kill them for doing so...

If Islam is so wrong then tell me this my why have hundreds of thousands of people from all over the world converted to this religion on their own free will ?

Some people are stupid and prefer not to think for themselves. Others are taken in by cults during periods of extreme stress or other mental weakness.


Surely a priest should not doubt his faith ???

Why not? A priest has already demonstrated a tendency to magical thinking, irrationality and a childish desire to have answers provided by others. I suggest that devout atheists, like myself, show much greater resolve and strength of character than any so-called holy man.


Why would I doubt that the world has gullible people in it? See P.T. Barnum.


it will be me who will laugh in your face

I don't bother laughing at murderers and their mindless drones. I don't find them at all funny. I suggest you look deep into your heart for why you think you will one day have joy at my expense or at the expense of anyone else. It suggests to me that you might have a desire to perpetrate evil. What is so wrong with your soul that you cannot imagine your own self-esteem without imagining someone else losing? Life is only a zero-sum game for losers.

tony liar said at February 15, 2008 2:50 AM:

mohmmad was a paedophile as are all muslim terrorist filth.all muslims love death & probably want death.why dont these muslim nazi facist stasi sympathisers piss off back to outer space.after all muslims really are ALIENS.muslims are not normal.what type of human being wants to explode themselves.not normal ones thtas for sure.
the west must wake up expel ALL MUSLIMS at the very least & break off all contact with these followers of the devil.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©