2006 February 19 Sunday
Flemming Rose On Why Publish Cartoons Critical Of Islam

Flemming Rose, the Danish newspaper editor who ran the Mohammed cartoons which have angered Muslims to the point of burning down embassies and calling for the death of Danes, says that he decided to run the cartoons because too many people were becoming afraid and he wanted to push back the shrinking limits on critical commentary on Islam.

I agree that the freedom to publish things doesn't mean you publish everything. Jyllands-Posten would not publish pornographic images or graphic details of dead bodies; swear words rarely make it into our pages. So we are not fundamentalists in our support for freedom of expression.

But the cartoon story is different.

Those examples have to do with exercising restraint because of ethical standards and taste; call it editing. By contrast, I commissioned the cartoons in response to several incidents of self-censorship in Europe caused by widening fears and feelings of intimidation in dealing with issues related to Islam. And I still believe that this is a topic that we Europeans must confront, challenging moderate Muslims to speak out. The idea wasn't to provoke gratuitously -- and we certainly didn't intend to trigger violent demonstrations throughout the Muslim world. Our goal was simply to push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in tighter.

Rose goes on to list a number of episodes of self and other censorship in Europe done recently due to fears of Muslim violence. Click through and read the whole thing.

Also, Diana Moon of Letter From Gotham links to Stanley Fish on cartoons and naive liberal attempts at dialogue with Muslims.

This is why calls for "dialogue," issued so frequently of late by the pundits with an unbearable smugness -- you can just see them thinking, "What's wrong with these people?" -- are unlikely to fall on receptive ears. The belief in the therapeutic and redemptive force of dialogue depends on the assumption (central to liberalism's theology) that, after all, no idea is worth fighting over to the death and that we can always reach a position of accommodation if only we will sit down and talk it out.

But a firm adherent of a comprehensive religion doesn't want dialogue about his beliefs; he wants those beliefs to prevail. Dialogue is not a tenet in his creed, and invoking it is unlikely to do anything but further persuade him that you have missed the point -- as, indeed, you are pledged to do, so long as liberalism is the name of your faith.

Also see Julian Sanchez's response to the irony of Fish (extreme relativist) sort of defending free speech. But Sanchez makes a mistake in thinking that Muslims are willing to engage sincerely based on liberal assumptions:

He could as easily have put it: "There's just no arguing with these people." And of course, there are people with whom there's no arguing. But Fish is pretty clearly just flat wrong when he suggests that liberal terms of debate aren't cross-applicable for many in the Muslim world. Consider the decision by the Iranian newspaper Hamshahri to hold a contest soliciting cartoons about the Holocaust. Now, if you're like me, you found this a little befuddling initially: First we saw attacks on Danish embassies as a reaction against cartoons printed by a private Danish newspaper, and now the response extends to lampooning Jews? But it does make sense as a way of pointing up the hypocrisy of European governments that bluster about free speech in this case while making it a crime to publish Holocaust deniers. And that's precisely the kind of argument that Fish is suggesting Muslims are bound to reject—that is to say, an argument against double standards for speech depending on the target. More generally, as the French sociologist Olivier Roy has pointed out, Muslims in the West by and large do press their case using the liberal language of individual rights—objecting to France's ban on headscarves in public schools as an infringement on a general freedom of religion, for instance, rather than simply as offenses against the One True Faith. So fortunately, it appears to be empirically false that "there's just no arguing with those people," if "those people" means sincere practicing Muslims in general. But then, that's just, like, my narrative, man.

Illiberals will use liberal assumptions to promote their position when they see an advantage to appealing to liberals using liberal beliefs. But the Iranian government and its government-controlled newspapers do not intend to promote free speech by pointing out European hypocrisy. If they were for free speech they would stop locking up editors and reporters. Rather, the Iranians are trying to push Europeans to restrict speech critical of Islam just as some European countries restrict certain types of speech that is hostile toward Jews. In fact, what the Iranians would prefer would be restrictions on speech critical of Islam but no such restrictions on speech critical of Jews - like what Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim countries have now.

Sanchez's "narrative, man" is probably that libertarianism has universal appeal. My own "narrative" is that this is a foolish assertion.

See a collection of the cartoons and this cartoon collection too.. Also, the Muslim position that it has always been forbidden to draw likenesses of Mohammed is contradicted by the historical record. 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.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2006 February 19 09:49 PM  Civilizations Clash Of


Comments
John S Bolton said at February 19, 2006 11:54 PM:

Those with interests in increased power through the ramping up of intercommunal hostilities; have a reason to broadcast mendacious statements about peace, dialogue and understanding. If your goal is a war of religion, but you can hardly say so, accuse non-appeasers of being unreasonably against peace, dialogue and understanding. If your objective is the incitement of irreconcilable conflicts, say that those who request that only rational considerations be the subject of intercommunal dialogue, are enemies of peace and understanding.
If you want to greatly enhance the chances for intercommunal violence; try to force the unwilling into dialogue.

Fox Hound said at February 20, 2006 9:35 AM:

Does it strike any liberal as interesting that the whole reasoning behind the so-called taboo of Mohammed images is all about self-control. They are taboo because the Moslems can't trust themselves not to engage in idolatry, just as the women are put in burqas, because men won't be able to control their urges and thus would be forced to rape women. This is truly a religion/political system made for the impulsive, unthinking, barbarian. Portaying Mohammed visually is not an insult to his honor. If non-moslems portray him visually, what difference does it make to them? We will not be inclined to start worshipping that image--we don't believe in that disgusting religion.

true said at February 20, 2006 12:01 PM:

I have to say that the freedom of speech in the west, especially in the USA made a lot of people discuss freely their doubts about the Christian religion. But sadly it led lots of them to refuse God at all, as they didn't find something better than the "God has a human son" belief.
I think that's 'coz they only read, heard, saw and believed:
1- Whatever the media tells them (like showing that all Muslims are barbarians and terrorists)
2- The reports, books and web sites written by anti-Islamic persons
3- Just a headline of a historic Islamic story, without knowing the rest of it, or why it happened.
4- Just the words from a chapter in the Qur'an, without knowing why Allah said that and in what occasion.
5- The acts of the majority of the Muslims, which are not representative to the Islamic religion.

Bob Badour said at February 20, 2006 2:38 PM:

1. The media portray muslims as more tolerant and accepting than they really are.
2. The most damning texts regarding Islam are its own base texts.
3. As far as I can tell, the vast majority of people in the west are totally oblivious even to the headlines.
4. If one wants to put the base texts of Islam into some sensible order, I suggest Prophet of Doom
5. If the majority of muslims do not represent Islam and if the base texts do not represent Islam, what on earth does? ROFLMAO

iambt said at February 20, 2006 3:22 PM:

Bob,

We're going 'round in circles here…
First of all, I didn't ask you to change the Islamic sources like the Qu'ran, the Hadith and books like "albukhari" or "siret ibn hisham" or so, I only don't want you to try to explain every word you read the way you want it to be (or some anti-Islam guy want it to be) .

You still want people to believe that because the "ALANFAL-12" and the verses alike are very violent verses that mean that Allah ordered the Muslim to be terrorists and their duty is to kill every single atheist in the world!!! That's only 'coz YOUR SOURCES are all the same like that guy with the "prophet of doom" website, where you always link current events of what I like to call them "non-Muslim Muslims" to the WORDS you read.
Why don't you try to be neutral and show that this is a verse of war, but in normal time Allah said "And say to them: Allah's truth has come to guide us into all truth and he who wishes to acknowledge it with judgment and choice is free to do so and he who wishes to reject it is free to do so." 18:29
And also "Say O Muhammad to those who have rejected Faith: O you infidels. I do not worship the idols which you worship; Nor do you worship Allah, Whom I worship; Nor do I observe your religious rites, but I observe what accords with fact and reason and with what is logically sound; Nor do you observe Allah's ordinances or such advice as Allah inclines you to propound; You have your religion and I have mine." 109:1-6

Does that mean that Allah will give the atheist the option to choose their faith, and then he'll order his followers to kill them? There's nothing wrong in a religion when God promises his followers to be in heaven and that the disbelievers will rot and burn in hell, and if God tells his men to defend his name by killing the enemy, Even if he states that in the book like a million times with all the violent portrayal available.

Back to that caravan story you still can't get rid of those "innocent merchants" words?!!! If you read carefully before that incident you'll find that those "innocent merchants" tortured the Muslims in Mecca for like 13 years and after that they let them leave to the Medina after they stole everything they had. ( why you don't mention that every time you tell that story) So it was just practicing law. But sorry man, they didn't have FBI to arrest the thieves, hang the murderers nor giving the Muslims their money back. They had to do it their way. But even that, they didn't have the intention to go for a WAR! They were weak and poor, but AbuSufian gathered his 1000 men and started the war.

You said "With all due respect, I reject any occasion for cutting off my head or the head of any other innocent person regardless of religious affiliation"
Don't panic, they won't cut your head off, not until you go for war against them. And I guess that what anyone will do to his enemy in a war. But don't get your head chopped off by one of those "non-Muslim Muslims" and then blame us for it :)

iambt said at February 20, 2006 3:23 PM:

You keep telling people that they will find violent verses in the Quran outnumbering the ones that give good morals. Bullshit. Did you count them or that doomed guy from the website did it too. And please don't tell me that you still want to count the verses saying that "atheists will burn in hell" or "kill your enemies" as violent verses.

Please, don't make any comparisons with the NEW TESTAMENT, 'coz I still can't believe that modern people still worship a man saying he's god's son, and that god exists in 3 different forms, one of them is a human who lived THE HUMAN LIFE since the fetus stage 'til being GOD and the other form is a dove or whatever. You can't accept that Allah gave instructions to Muhammad in the form of the qur'an but you can accept 6 or 7 different versions of bibles written after Jesus death. Each one with "THE AUTHOR" point of view!!!!!! What kind od a holy book that has versions, and all accepted!!!!
And I know what you have in mind now, you'll tell me that Muslims has the Shiite, Sunnis, etc… yeah, I know, but each group claim that the others aren't Muslims. So that doesn't count.
I still respect other religions based on everybody's freedom of choice. (And I don't care 'bout what you hear in the media about that, read the verses I sited again"
The only reason I talked about the bible here is that I wanted to say that even if the faith is based on something bizarre to someone, he can still find good morals in it. And you'll find good morals in the faith of people who worships cows in India too.

iambt said at February 20, 2006 3:29 PM:

Sorry for posting this twice again.

But you see bob, the reason of that talk here is not for you to tell me that i only repeat what i've learned, 'coz that's what i've learned and believed. And if the conversation will go that way you'll find me forced to tell you, no, you're the one who memorized some words and keep repeating them and can't think about any opinion other than that doomed guy...
And I don't want that.
If you want to discuss the different opinions we have, sounds fine to me. Let's talk.
If you just want to be proven right, so ok, you're the winner

Stephen said at February 20, 2006 6:32 PM:

lambt, are the guys who hijacked the 9-11 planes burning in hell now and forever?

Bob Badour said at February 20, 2006 6:58 PM:
You still want people to believe that because the "ALANFAL-12" and the verses alike are very violent verses that mean that Allah ordered the Muslim to be terrorists

With all due respect, the terrorists believe this. I merely examined and reported the facts.

I really don't care if Al-Anfal 12 is "a verse of war" when a hundred million retards in backward ass countries already believe they are at war with me and do everything they can to tell me so.

The bigger question is: What business has any religion ordering followers to murder and to steal to enrich the faith? The entire idea of Al-Anfal is evil and repugnant to good and moral people. Neutrality is horseshit when dealing with evil. Either one sides with good or one doesn't.

Don't panic, they won't cut your head off, not until you go for war against them

Are you a loonie? Do you honestly expect me to believe a christian schoolgirl declared war on all you fucking embiciles? Is your head shoved so far up your rectum you failed to notice all of the terrorist attacks going on for the last 40 years or so? Give me a break!

'coz I still can't believe

I am less concerned by what muslims don't believe than with the violent evil crap they do believe.

What kind od a holy book that has versions, and all accepted!!!!

You ask: What kind? The kind that has an undeniably good influence on the world that makes its followers better people than they might have been. Pretty much the exact opposite of the Qur'an.

I still respect other religions based on everybody's freedom of choice

Apparently, you found a way to ignore the instructions in your religion's base texts to go forth and commit evil. The question is: How can you spread that to the rest of your faith? Or can you?

Bob Badour said at February 20, 2006 7:43 PM:
You keep telling people that they will find violent verses in the Quran

They will find violent verses in the Qur'an--a great many of them. Here is what I found with a cursory scan of the first 8 chapters:

Al-Baqara
161, 190-194, 217

Al-e-Imran
28, 86-87, 118, 151-152

Al-Nisa
65, 74-76, 84, 88-93, 138-141, 144-145, 160-161

Al-Maeda
14, 17, 18, 33, 38, 41, 45, 51-52, 64, 73, 82

Al-Anaam
39

Al-Araf
4, 16-18

Al-Anfal
7, 12, 15-19, 30, 39-41, 45, 50, 57-60, 65-69, 73-75

Keep in mind those are just the first 8 chapters of 114. The entire Qur'an is as violent as or more violent than the most violent book of the New Testament: Revelation.

diana said at February 20, 2006 9:27 PM:

What a dope Sanchez is.

"Now, if you're like me, you found this a little befuddling initially: First we saw attacks on Danish embassies as a reaction against cartoons printed by a private Danish newspaper, and now the response extends to lampooning Jews?"

I guess I'm not like Sanchez, because I understood exactly why the Iran gov't did this.

"But it does make sense as a way of pointing up the hypocrisy of European governments that bluster about free speech in this case while making it a crime to publish Holocaust deniers."

What Sanchez & his ilk don't get is that you can be WRONG without being hypocritical. I disagree w/those European gov't (not Denmark, which is important to note) who have "hate speech" laws. They may be wrong. But they are not hypocritical. In the West, we believe religions are BELIEF SYSTEMS but that denying the historical fact of the Holocaust, which nearly destroyed Europe, is a crime. Muslims don't think that religion is a BELIEF SYSTEM, they think it is fact, and that Islam is the final and perfect avatar of monotheism. They are impossible to have a dialogue with.

The only thing we can hope for is that they kill each other. Which they do because no one is ever a good enough Muslim. See this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/magazine/iraq.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1140429516-2WBxrwWezXpyXxdvHBHOPg&pagewanted=all

Maybe people like Sanchez should read a little more and they won't be so suprised when Islamikazis act like Islamikazis.

iambt said at February 20, 2006 9:51 PM:

Stephen,
Yes they'll burn in hell. As I said there's nothing in this religion ordering to kill innocent people,
For the last time, believe it or not. Whatever you see on the net or how much you hear ALLAHO AKBAR before the beheadings, remember they are just criminals.

Bob,
I'll have to say that you still can't get that doomed site's narration out of your head: as you keep giving me verses where God say that he'll punish the disbelievers in the afterlife as violent verses!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, then you mix them up with verses where he damned Satan and the hypocrites!!! Then you mix them up with a lot of verses of war and encouraging the Muslims to defend Allah's name in the war!!!! It seems you looked for the words "kill", "damned" and synonyms and then you listed them, and of course you read the red narration in the doomed site.
You know you remind me of Israeli people; every time you talk to them they mention the holocaust, even if there's no need to!!!!
You too, every time I say that the Islamic religion didn't ask to kill people, you keep posting links of extremists cutting heads off!!! And you keep on going with "terrorist attacks in the last 40 years"!!!! Amazing how your brain is so closed that you are determined to believe a criminal who say that he's doing an Islamic order than to believe a normal Muslim who tell you that this is a criminal act!!!!!!
I told you; don't be fooled by the majority of criminals and stupid-retarded believers. They exist in every Religion.

The problem is you hate Muslims, and you want a reason. And the extremists gave it to you. And you don't want anyone to take that reason away.
again, try to read the same verses again, but without the narration of that doomed guy, try a book written by a non-extremist Sunni Muslim (a book that narrates the Qur'an), I'll look up for these books to see if they have online site. Maybe it'll help you in your research to put every verse in its position.

iambt said at February 20, 2006 10:46 PM:

"ignore the instructions in your religion's base texts to go forth and commit evil"

I didn't ignore shit, I only understand the base text the way it's meant to be, and I know what every sentence means. A real Muslim won't use a "war" order in his normal life, he won't punish a disbeliever in life, but he know that he'll be punished in the afterlife, he lives peacefully among people with other religion and beliefs, unless they attack him or steal his land. (If you can find only 10 people with this behavior in the whole world, then you can say that the Muslim population is 10 people)

Engineer-Poet said at February 21, 2006 4:25 AM:
every time I say that the Islamic religion didn't ask to kill people, you keep posting links of extremists cutting heads off!!! And you keep on going with "terrorist attacks in the last 40 years"!!!! Amazing how your brain is so closed that you are determined to believe a criminal who say that he's doing an Islamic order than to believe a normal Muslim who tell you that this is a criminal act!!!!!!
I (and I suspect Bob) might believe that this was the work of criminals if Muslims treated the perpetrators like criminals.  Instead, they often treat them like heroes.
I told you; don't be fooled by the majority of criminals and stupid-retarded believers. They exist in every Religion.
I won't be fooled by you either.  Why is this phenomenon of beheading innocents the exclusive practice of Muslims today, and not Buddhists or Rastafarians?

You are talking to people who know what taqiyya is.  All you prove by denying that this problem exists is that you will never do anything about it, and you may even be part of it.

The problem is you hate Muslims, and you want a reason. And the extremists gave it to you. And you don't want anyone to take that reason away.
You deliberately mis-state the problem.  It is up to you to remove the reason, because the rest of the world is correct to dislike and mistrust you while your religion "defends" itself by such means as beheading little girls who don't share it.
try a book written by a non-extremist Sunni Muslim (a book that narrates the Qur'an)
Try changing the way Islam is practiced, so these things no longer happen.  Then all the books will be irrelevant.

Mike Quinlan said at February 21, 2006 8:51 AM:

Can any one tell me the source in the Islamic texts of the proscribtion against any representation of Mohammed?
On a certain level I can conceive the notion that any representation of God can only be an imperfect, partial and limited expression of the subject whose objectification would therefore circumscribe and potentially distort the viewer's ability to "know" said Divinity directly, and hence potentially promote idolatry. But how can this apply to representations of a historical religious figure other than by applying arguments of extension? I guess I have answered my own question.
I have been trying to understand Islam on its own terms, and I must admit to dismal failure. It seems to me to be the only major religion that belittles humankind by removing any basis or need for human agency towards an orientation to something greater than the self. If everything by definition is foreordained, and if at the very moment of our conception we are slated for heaven or hell, how can there be basis to judge anyone for their actions? In this light the various cartoonists were destined to mock a vision of Islam directly by the almighty, and there cannot be any basis for judgement that devolves upon them without putting into question the notion of an infallible God. Its all too specious for words, and even drawings for that matter.

iambt said at February 21, 2006 10:40 AM:

"" I won't be fooled by you either.""
""You are talking to people who know what taqiyya is. ""

Don't be such a smart ass, will you?! As you brought it up, then let me tell you one thing: you know shit!
The only info you collect about the Islam is from western, anti-Islamic researchers.
You think you know the Taquia?!

The verse where the Taquia was mentioned, tells the Muslims not to prefer the atheists over the Muslims (normal "same religion" brotherhood) except when you are weak, and afraid of something, so you can pretend you like them. But (that only shall be said by tongues and not believed by hearts)
And here some translation of the verse
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html
http://www.elazhar.com/qurane/imran/28.asp


Al-Imran 3:28
""Belief is incompatible with Disbelief, therefore let those whose hearts have been touched by the divine hand refrain from favoring those infidels who deny Allah over their companions in religion. He who follows this irreverent course of action, Allah shall renounce- except under compelling circumstances…""
003.028
YUSUFALI: "Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them…."
PICKTHAL: "Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security…"
SHAKIR: Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully

Let me give you only two examples when the taquia is used (and you'll see that's something practiced by all the people all around the world)
1- When being tortured by an enemy, and he wants you to curse Allah or the prophet or he wants you to help him in a project to hurt Muslims.
In this situation you can either refuse to cooperate and that's nice if you are strong enough, or you have this taquia solution where you can fool him by saying whatever he wants, and try to make him feel that you help him, so he can trust you and then you buy yourself some time to get away. (Pure ISLAMIC act, right?!!!!!!!!)
2- In war, when you want to trick the enemy, and you want him to think about something, while you prepare another plan to surprise him, you may use the taquia.

The Taquia is not an Islamic word, you idiots, but the people who hated Muslims through time made you think that, so you'll always hate them, live away from them and fear them.
Even if the extremists or some stupid believers say or do otherwise.

iambt said at February 21, 2006 10:40 AM:

You know it's like these churches in Europe and USA that approved "same sex marriages", some silly Muslims claimed that the Christianity accepts gay and lesbian people. They just say that 'coz they want to hurt Christian people. But no open minded person will ever believe that a religion came with such filthy thing.

""It is up to you to remove the reason, because the rest of the world is correct to dislike and mistrust you while your religion defends itself by such means as beheading little girls who don't share it.""

Again judging ISLAM by the acts of extremist Muslims,
Theoretically, if we judge Christianity by the acts of the Christians nowadays all around the world, we'll have no choice but to say that Jesus accepted adultery, he granted drinking alcohols, he ordered teenagers to use drugs, he ordered the priests to rape young boys, he wanted gay and lesbian marriages to happen, he wanted serial killers to kill freely in the usa,…etc…
BUT NO
When we read the bible, and we hear the good Christian explaining its text we can be sure that what's happening these days is just a matter that Christians are no longer Christians, they don't follow their religion anymore.

iambt said at February 21, 2006 10:41 AM:

And I AM REMOVING THE REASON by telling you the true meanings of the verses and some true historical stories, but you still think of al taquia, extremists' acts and the stories you hear and read from the western point of view.

""Try changing the way Islam is practiced""
Can you change the way Christianity is practiced nowadays?! The only thing that I can tell you is you can't change but yourself and advice others.
I live a very peaceful life with people who are not Muslims; I know lots of people living in the states and in Europe the same way. Even if they are minority, but that's the way it is through time.
The "baddies" outnumbered the "goodies".

""All you prove by denying that this problem exists is that you will never do anything about it, and you may even be part of it.""
I didn't deny the existence of the problem, I only clarify that this problem has nothing to do with the real ISLAM.


One last thing
"" Why is this phenomenon of beheading innocents the exclusive practice of Muslims today, and not Buddhists or Rastafarians?""

You must look up in some Muslim news' sites where you can find them killed and beheaded by others, in India, Indonesia and Philippines …etc. (Extremists exists even in people who worship the fire or cows)
But due to their small numbers against the Muslims and due to this is not exactly the news the west would like to hear, that's why you don't see any other religion extremist beheading videos.

I have pictures and news if you are interested.

Engineer-Poet said at February 21, 2006 11:23 AM:
Theoretically, if we judge Christianity by the acts of the Christians nowadays all around the world, we'll have no choice but to say that Jesus ... granted drinking alcohols,
Of course he did.  The Bible says that Jesus turned water into wine (John chapter 2).

There's plenty more.  "Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for it is now that God favors what you do."
(Ecclesiastes 9)

"He makes grass grow for the cattle,
and plants for man to cultivate—
bringing forth food from the earth:
wine that gladdens the heart of man,
oil to make his face shine,
and bread that sustains his heart."
(Psalm 104)

(No wonder you're such a miserable bunch; the People of The Book get to have all the fun!)

Can you change the way Christianity is practiced nowadays?!
I do not consider myself a Christian, but I am doing what I can to expose the hypocrisy of fundamentalism and get people to reject it out of disgust with its dishonesty.

What are you doing about the much worse problems in Islam?

iambt said at February 21, 2006 11:36 AM:

diana & stephen
Did you see what some crazy fanatic Christians did after 9-11?!
They killed lots of innocent Muslims, they beat others and they burned and destroyed others' shops. Even if these Muslims lived like 20 or 30 years in peace in the states.
These Christians punished innocent people 'coz they are Muslims even if they did nothing.
What happened in 9-11 or in these beheading videos is the same: Fanatic Muslims want to punish the USA for its acts, so they kill innocent Christians. And to punish that Danish newspaper editor they burned the Danish embassies??!!
Both fanatic Christians and Muslims are sinners in their religions.

iambt said at February 21, 2006 11:38 AM:

Believe it or not, Good Muslims want dialogue not clashes.

iambt said at February 21, 2006 11:50 AM:

Engineer-poet,

""I am doing what I can to expose the hypocrisy of fundamentalism and get people to reject it out of disgust with its dishonesty.What are you doing about the much worse problems in Islam?""

I'm doing the same by telling that fundamentalism is not the way to solve problems, it only creates more problems.
I wish I could stop those fanatic Muslims from acting like that.
I wish that America would stop its aggressive acts and laws against the middle east.
'coz injustice is the mother of extremists.
But I know this is a circle where you can never know: who started the problem?!.

Stephen said at February 21, 2006 9:54 PM:

iambt, thanks for your response and your honest attempt to debate. It is much appreciated. Moving away from the eternal debate on the one-true-way to interpret any particular religious text, I'd like to ask for you to shed some light on the politics of the Muslim world with regards to the USA. In particular, before the stupid Iraqi invasion, what were the Muslim problems with the USA? On the other side of the ledger, does the USA get credit for anything?

Also, in the aftermath of 911, what was the Muslim world's overall view of whether the USA deserved what happened? Some channels broadcast video of people in the Arab street celebrating, but of course we only had the journalists assurance about what it was they were celebrating.

Finally, what's your opinion of the cause of muslim fundamentalism (particularly the militeristic variety) and what's your recipe for stopping it? Can moderate muslims hope to win?

I'd like to assure you that I'm asking the above questions in a genuine attempt to understand. [Stephen listens to hear the sound of non-liberals rofl'ing!!]

Gary said at February 22, 2006 3:02 AM:

There is a wide line between "freedom of speech" and "incitement".
You do not yell fire in a movie theatre - that is not freedom of speech.
Those from Iran and other notable Muslim terrorists can find many excuses to become violent when Danish cartoons make fun of Muhammed, but yet the same people remain quiet during and after 9/11. They can spit daily on Christ and Judism in their cartoons and call us "infidels" - yet we do not riot. We only ask for peace, respect and tolerance. The FM of Denmark has proved that by taking out a Google adwords campaign.

I applaud Joel Leyden, publisher of the Israel News Agency, for collecting all of the inciteful Holocaust cartoons now coming out of Iran and noting on each and every one of them the facts of the Holocaust. Leyden says yes to freedom of speech by uploading these cartoons with factual notes. Leyden is truly the winner of this cartoon contest or should I say democracy is. Is there democracy in Iran or Syria?
No - just blind hate for Western democratic values.

And why do some many Muslims protest over cartoons?
Because their leaders pay them to get out into the street and keep them in power. How much are we now paying cartoonists in Iran, Syria and around the world for designing inciteful cartoons on the Holocaust which took the lives of Jews, Christians and Muslims?
12,000 dollars!

Shame on the Muslims who use the words "freedom of speech" to incite others to violence and murder.

Lastly, I am now going to follow Leyden's words of advice by typing the keywords for which we all should: "incitement, hate, iran, islam, terror, beheading, daniel pearl, 9/11, barcelona bombings, turkey car bombs, george w. bush, ariel sharon, lebanon, syria, hamas, oil backed terrorism, saudi arabia, suicide bus bombers, blowing up children in restaurants, freedom of speech, israel defense forces, Flemming Rose and denmark."

iambt said at February 22, 2006 11:26 AM:

Stephen,

"""before the stupid Iraqi invasion, what were the Muslim problems with the USA"""

I'll just talk 'bout some of the thoughts millions of Muslims have in mind.

1- The USA and Europe (like France, UK, Italy,…) had problems with the Islamic world for ages, just a quick search will tell that more than 95% of the Islamic countries were occupied by western countries (the last ones that gained freedom were like in the 1970s).They always wanted to occupy their land, steal their resources and have control over that strategic geographic position.
2- Why do you think the world forgave them for these occupations that lasted decades but they never forgave Iraq for occupying Kuwait for less than a year??! (I hate and condemn what the Iraqis did back then, but all I'm saying is that they are the same, ideologically)
3- Why the West keep portraying Saddam as a Monster for using Chemical weapons against villages hiding some rebels who wanted him dead, while we know that the same thing happened when America wanted to punish Japan for PEARL HARBOR, and destroyed two innocent Japanese villages with the nuclear bomb. And why the west applauded back then. Or this was 'coz they were happy that the japs quit the war!!!!!!!!!!!
4- The USA always helped conflicts between Arab countries to grow stronger so they can have reason to build bases inside them. They want chaos over here 'coz they know if the Muslim countries will ever be united, then a giant economic and military power will rise and then they won't be the only power in the world. (Another quick search will give you what the Americans have done to destroy the Soviet Union during the cold war and before, even how they sponsored terrorists like OSAMA BIN LADEN and others and helped them in Afghanistan during their war against the USSR so that they control the world all by themselves) That's why they The USA is helping every Arabic regime to work solo around his neighbors.
5- We hate to hear what some people say that the USA just wants the Arabic world to respect the UN resolutions and free the Middle East from mass destruction weapons!! And why the USA don't listen to the UN (like when they refused the war on Iraq) and why they exclude Israel from that "Free the ME from the nukes" thing, and why Israel never listens to the UN resolutions (make another search) and why do they want the ME disarmed anyway?! Isn't every country have the right defend itself!!! Or that they just want them weak enough so they can invade them whenever they like!!! If it's for the "World" Peace, then let us disarm all countries.
Sorry man, but world peace my ass. It's all about POWER.
5- The USA help the Arab's presidents and kings to stay in power forever and be wealthy, as they help them back to achieve their targets in the region.
6- The USA considers the American soldiers as High rank (class) over other soldiers –as Hitler did with his army. They are above the international law. (Please compare abou Gharib and guantanamo scandals and the punishments of the guilty soldiers)

Man… I can go like that for weeks and still won't finish.
Anyway, I can say that our governments and us share the guilt with the American government.

iambt said at February 22, 2006 11:27 AM:

"""On the other side of the ledger, does the USA get credit for anything"""

It's a hard question!!!! I can't say no, 'coz that won't be fair to a lot of American people who really helped the Middle East. But I can't say yes either, 'coz I know that even when the American government offered help, they meant either bribing the presidents and kings or to protect their mutual interests and energy sources. ((The Middle East lives on the USA donations, some Arab countries have no real army, they rely on American soldiers, and 80% of national projects in the Arab world are either founded or financed by USA and Europe))

But, as I said, we share the guilt here, the middle eastern countries (with their wide, rich and different resources) could have some kind of a union, but every country wants to live independent from the others and everyone of them thinks that he's the favorite ally to the USA.

""" Also, in the aftermath of 911, some channels broadcast video of people in the Arab Street celebrating"""

Yes, I confirm that. They were celebrating, and they were Palestinians. But let me just tell you two things:
1- Not because you see hundreds of people or even thousands celebrating that means that this is the overall opinion (Muslims' population is over 1.5 billion over the world)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations
You need an example: when the coalition forces invaded Iraq, and on the day they entered Baghdad, we saw in every news channel that hundreds of Iraqis were celebrating and even kissing and hugging the American soldiers… Then what, since the next day, we knew that these are some silly idiots who knew nothing or some people who hated Saddam for a reason or another. And we saw that the Soldiers weren't welcomed at all, as the people stoned them, killed them, and fought them on daily basis. (And I said PEOPLE, not MILITANTS)

""" What was the Muslim world's overall view of whether the USA deserved what happened?"""

They condemned the terrorists' acts and the killing of the innocents. They didn't say the "USA" deserved it, but that's because the people who died aren't the "USA", they are residents of the USA.
But they said that this is a much anticipated and expected event after all the injustice acts of the
USA (government and politic wise) against the Arabs and Muslims. And that they expect more of that if the USA continues it's inequality in judging.
(As I said before: injustice is the mother of extremists and terrorism)


""" [Stephen listens to hear the sound of non-liberals rofl'ing!!]"""

I didn't get that last part!!!

Mahdieh said at February 22, 2006 4:24 PM:

The same newspaper denied to publish some cartoons ridiculing Jesus, in 2003 ....
How come???

Also, the same newspaper has denied to publish the cartoons regarding the holocust ....

Now be the judge yourself ...
The discrimination is the main problem here, don't excuse freedom of speech, while you don't practice it when it is against your beleives ...

Marvin said at February 23, 2006 9:01 AM:

Iambt and Mahdieh are perfect illustrations of the "mind tracks" of muslims, moderate or not. That is how they think. They have given us a valuable gift by expressing themselves so well here. It is obvious that they are sincere.

Sincerity in following this particular religion, combined with exploding birthrates and clever exploitation of immigration rules in the west, all lead to a eventual confrontation of monumental proportion. Europeans have been softened by multicultural relativistic conceits, maintaining that all cultures are equally good--except western culture which is universally bad. With such self-hating blindness toward outward dangers, Europe is set up to fall. It is only a matter of time, unless Europe wakes up to itself.

Turkiye- Istanbul said at February 23, 2006 6:36 PM:

listen carefully.... There is no such fing as christians now adayz because they have no beliefs in god. Islam is the right way and always will be. Christians are terrosrists, if you ask why? well listen to this. Say someone invaded your country? ... what would you do? Say the poeple that invaded your country started raping your wife your children? What would you do ? Christian people think they are clever but i think they are the most stupidest people iv seen in my whole life..Not all of them tho because i cannot blame all of them for the crimes the minority of them commit. But listen to this carefully and clearly because i iwill not repeat myself .. If christians do not leave our countrys then attacks will be more seviour. IF JUST SOME HUMAN BEINGS CAN OPEN THERE EYES AND SEE THE RIGHT WAY THEN THE WORLD BE A MUCH HAPPIER PLACE..

Just think about what i have said.... (if your country gets invaded and your family and freinds get killed/raped by animals, and if your religion gets clowned around with , WHAT WOULD YOU DO? wouldent you die for the things i have listed.

Would you just sit there and wait for Democracy to come.. this is all politics against ISLAM i will die for my religion and for my country and for the sake of human beings that are gettin mistreated very badly

Randall Parker said at February 23, 2006 9:46 PM:

iambt,

Muslims have a very selective way of remembering history. Muslims conquered others but only remember being conquered and how that bad that was. Or maybe they remember their own conquests as not morally wrong and only see conquests by non-Muslims as morally wrong.

As for Western colonial control of Muslim countries: It was for a historically brief period of time. The Turks ruled the Arabs for centuries.

Also, the Brits and French ruled many other non-Muslim peoples for longer and those peoples are not now using that colonial rule as an excuse to blow up trains in Madrid and trains and buses in London. What is it about Muslims that make them so different? I think it is the example Mohammed made as a warrior founder of a religion and his own extensive killing, looting, raping, and enslaving. His followers are just following his example.

Fox Hound said at February 24, 2006 7:36 AM:

"If christians do not leave our countrys then attacks will be more seviour. IF JUST SOME HUMAN BEINGS CAN OPEN THERE EYES AND SEE THE RIGHT WAY THEN THE WORLD BE A MUCH HAPPIER PLACE.. "

Do not leave your countries? "Your" city, Istanbul, was stolen by you slant eyed Turks from Christians. That is OUR city, a holy one at that, built by the great Emperor Constantine. You see that Hagia Sophia? That was one of the greatest Christian churches in history before your filthy ancestors defiled it. As a Turk, you should go back to your miserable wastelands of Central Asia, where your ancestors are really from.

"Just think about what i have said.... (if your country gets invaded and your family and freinds get killed/raped by animals, and if your religion gets clowned around with , WHAT WOULD YOU DO? wouldent you die for the things i have listed."

What exactly did the filthy Turks do to the Serbs? Greeks? Armenians? Or even the Kurds? Steal their land and kill them and rape them. That's all you Turks have ever done. You didn't pay enough in World War I.

"this is all politics against ISLAM i will die for my religion and for my country and for the sake of human beings that are gettin mistreated very badly"

There is no shortage of those who are willing to kill your people for that same reason.

Mohammed Othman Al-Homaidi said at February 24, 2006 10:06 AM:

When Reason Disappear Ignorance Appears!!

In fact, I am surprised of what the Denmark journalist did! It's really a disaster when a man of reason loses his self-control. We want to be more objective than to put on the fire.

As you know, every nation has its own circumstances that put it in a particular place that the other can't be in its same position...

Muslims are not equal, but they meet in one straight way that keeps them so close from each other. And when someone fools, they will be able to guide him to the lines of light that he misses

In my opinion, I don't love neither extremism nor the narrow-minded thinking of people. I love those wide-minded ones who think well before they step

"All that glitters is not gold", a good proverb that explains the real situation of the whole creatures in the universe

There is good and evil...Life and Death...Hope and Despair...Peace and Fight...etc and at last there's a life for everyone!!Don't you think of this??

Let's be friends and leave all the hurt inside us die. Let's give the chance to wisdom, reason, and thinking.

Let our wise men and thinkers draw the lines of happiness for us…and leave hatred and feeling of proud …and open a new life that is full of respect.

Note: If there is one ignorant man don't punish his people because of him, but if there are people full of fools then let the sky and fate crash them .And punishment lies beyond eternity…

I came here for life and respect, not for playing with children. I am talking to wise men.

In a word, don't let the fools of you play with fire and teach them about the religions, prophets, and the sacred nature of humanity. And Muhammad (PBUH) is one of the prophets you should respect. So be with God if you want the best in your life. Think of one for all and all for one. No one can live alone!

Best Regards,
Mohammed Othman Al-Homaidi.
E-mail: the_translator_007@hotmail.com
Journalist and news reporter.
Sana'a, Yemen.

Bob Badour said at February 25, 2006 4:29 PM:

iambt,

of course you read the red narration in the doomed site.

I have read almost none of the narration at Prophet of Doom. I skimmed enough of the introduction and preface to realize the author arrived at the exact same conclusions I did for the exact same reasons I did.

The fact that I agree with Craig Winn is no indication that he had any influence on me. He had none. In fact, I expressed my disgust about the base texts of Islam here on this site before anyone ever mentioned Prophet of Doom, and I found Prophet of Doom after someone else posted it here. (Mom in USA perhaps?)

The Qur'an itself and the Islamic histories had a profound effect on me by opening my eyes to the extreme violence and intolerance inherent in the base texts of Islam. Those documents are vile disgusting filth. Any country with laws prohibiting hate propaganda needs to prohibit the base texts of Islam to avoid the charge and the actual fact of hypocrisy.

Anyone who expresses surprise that those documents inspired the terrorists is either a damned liar or a damned fool. Iambt, which are you?

you keep giving me verses where God say that he'll punish the disbelievers in the afterlife as violent verses

You are a liar. I left out literally scores of such verses. Each of the verses I included were violent or a curse. What sort of "god" curses? What sort of "god" commands disciples to murder for profit? A disgusing, vile one.

I encourage anyone to click through the links I provided and read those verses for themselves.

The problem is you hate Muslims

I don't hate anybody. The problem is you are a lowlife lying scumbag whose personal pursuit of Jihad starts with character assassination of anyone who speaks the truth about the base texts of your faith.

(If you can find only 10 people with this behavior in the whole world, then you can say that the Muslim population is 10 people)

You can dissemble all you want. That won't make the terrorists any less Islamic, and it won't change a comma in the base texts that fuel their vile thirst for blood.

Again judging ISLAM by the acts of extremist Muslims,

Yeah, extremists like Mohammed, Bukhari, Muslim, every other compiler of Hadith.

I judge the base texts of Islam by the base texts themselves. They are factual and self-evident.

I link the content of the base texts of Islam to the acts of terrorists like the beheadings inspired by Al-Anfal 12, the principle of Jihad, etc.

I note the outrageous hypocrisy of hundreds of millions of people who scream for censorship of innocuous cartoons while believing Mohammed fucked a nine year old girl and committed genocide.

Can you change the way Christianity is practiced nowadays?!

To what end? The Reformation and the Enlightenment already changed the way Christians practise their faith in a profound manner with very desirable results. Many people think the solution is for Islam to undergo a similar change.

However, the Reformation and the Enlightenment changed the practice of Christianity to more closely follow the scripture of the New Testament. If Islam is to become a humane and modern religion, it must change to reject much of the content of its base texts.

I see that as problematic. Don't you?

this problem has nothing to do with the real ISLAM.

The problem may have nothing to do with the way you personally practise your faith. However, we have already demonstrated beyond any credible denial that the problem has EVERYTHING to do with the base texts of Islam.

You must look up in some Muslim news' sites where you can find them killed and beheaded by others, in India, Indonesia and Philippines …etc.

Please point me to the Buddhist or Hindu texts that command beheading muslims. Until you produce those, I will assume the principle of "turn about is fair play" when it comes to retribution. However, having read the base texts of Islam, I suspect such retribution targets the wrong head. ie. the Jihadists won't care so much about that one.

They killed lots of innocent Muslims

Really? How many? How many muslims were attacked in the US in the 12 months following 9/11 ?

For comparison, how many antisemitic attacks against Jews were there during the same period?

Believe it or not, Good Muslims want dialogue not clashes.

If that's the definition of a Good Muslim, then so far I have heard of one good Muslim: Irshad Manji. Where are the others?

Dialogue must start with intellectual honesty, and that includes intellectual honesty regarding the Hadith and the Qur'an.

Man… I can go like that for weeks and still won't finish

All I got from your diatribe is the US should quit the UN and ask the whiners to find different quarters. That would free up some badly needed office space in Lower Manhattan. I hear a sudden reduction in supply caused a shock to the commercial real estate market there a few years ago.

They were celebrating, and they were Palestinians.

I have a friend in Sandakan, and from what he told me, the Malay propaganda machine was working overtime after 9/11 too. As I recall, many of the celebrations were in places like Pakistan and Paterson as well.

The same newspaper denied to publish some cartoons ridiculing Jesus, in 2003 ....How come???

The cartoons sucked and nobody had claimed self-censorship caused any difficulty getting people to draw cartoons of Christ.

Mohammed Othman Al-Homaidi,

In fact, I am surprised of what the Denmark journalist did!...I love those wide-minded ones who think well before they step

Well, Mohammed, that's an interesting take on things. Apparently, a journalist exercising the freedom of the press to examine an issue of importance to the general public is closed minded while calls for censorship are open-minded. Forget the Qur'an--start by opening a dictionary you Orwellian fucktard.

Let our wise men and thinkers draw the lines of happiness for us…

I am my own wise man and thinker. Will you allow me to draw my own lines of happiness? Fleming Rose is a wise man and thinker too.

And Muhammad (PBUH) is one of the prophets you should respect

Really? Why do you think anyone should respect a muderer, a rapist, a thief and a genocidal pedophile all wrapped up into one? I would really like to hear your wise and reasoned explanation for respecting vile filth.

Marvin said at February 26, 2006 8:48 AM:

It is quite telling that islamists and fanatics must be inspired to violence by fake cartoons (Mohommed the pig) and fictionalized propagandist films (the latest Turk movie about Iraq). It reveals a lot about their intelligence level, that they are so easily led by ignorant mullahs to violence and rage. Is it an accident that Islam is so popular in the regions of the world where mean IQ is low? These people are easy to manipulate, like puppets, and their religious leaders have mastered puppeteering for over a thousand years.

Bob Badour said at February 26, 2006 1:38 PM:

It is quite telling that so many in the west blame innocuous Danish cartoons for the riots while ignoring the fake cartoons and other propaganda.

One might note that any discussion of the abject Saudi failure to protect the lives of hajj pilgrims from Pakistan is now long forgotten.

The catholic faith is not entirely without similar trampling incidents when pilgrims come to see the Pope. However, the Vatican learned from a first mistake to make sure it hasn't happened again.

The Sauds lets hundreds die on the hajj on a regular basis. Imagine if you would: had the Vatican responded to its trampling incident by manipulating the media in Catholic dominated countries to stir up anger at some external bogeyman, shrugged their shoulders and let tramplings grow in frequency and size.

Human beings are lazy, stupid and easily manipulated.

iambt said at February 27, 2006 12:42 AM:

Marvin,
""""These people are easy to manipulate, like puppets, and their religious leaders have mastered puppeteering for over a thousand years.""""

Is that what you think about Christians too?! That if someone believed in "his" God, he is manipulated?!

""""Is it an accident that Islam is so popular in the regions of the world where mean IQ is low?"""""

You need to read some history to know that when the Muslims were powerful and they had a great civilization, the Europeans had to learn Arabic so they can come and learn in Baghdad university and other Muslim's cities.
But after the Muslims started to fight each other and everyone wanted to "have it all", they weakened and you know the rest of how all Muslim countries suffered from the western occupation.
As I said before, I don't blame the west, I blame our leaders, and not just the leaders of present time, this thing goes a long way.

iambt said at February 27, 2006 12:45 AM:

Marvin,
Just small hints about what once was.

About IBN SINA

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

"" Ibn Sina also wrote extensively on the subjects of philosophy, logic, ethics, metaphysics and other disciplines. All his works were written in Arabic - which was the de facto scientific language of that time""

you see that the scientific language of that time was tha arabic.

"""He was the author of 450 books on a wide range of subjects. Many of these concentrated on philosophy and medicine. He is considered by many to be "the father of modern medicine." George Sarton called Ibn Sina "the most famous scientist of Islam and one of the most famous of all races, places, and times."""

""Accordingly he is one of the earliest pioneers of the scientific process of peer review as we know it today, his influence on that process being profound at least, and perhaps even decisive.""

"""An Arabic edition of the Canons appeared at Rome in 1593, and a Hebrew version at Naples in 1491. Of the Latin version there were about thirty editions, founded on the original translation by Gerard of Cremona. The 15th century has the honour of composing the great commentary on the text of the Canon, grouping around it all that theory had imagined, and all that practice had observed. Other medical works translated into Latin…"""
"""There is a crater on the moon called Avicenna which was named after him."""

About AL RAZI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Razi

""As an alchemist, Razi is credited with the discovery of sulfuric acid, the "work horse" of modern chemistry and chemical engineering. He also discovered ethanol and its refinement and use in medicine. He was unquestionably one of the greatest thinkers in Islam, and had an enormous influence on European science and medicine.""

""The al-Hawi is not a formal medical encyclopaedia, but a posthumous compilation of Razi's working notebooks, which included knowledge gathered from other books as well as original observations on diseases and therapies, based on his own clinical experience. It is significant since it contains a celebrated monograph on smallpox, the earliest one known. It was translated into Latin in 1279 by Faraj ben Salim, a physician of Sicilian-Jewish origin employed by Charles of Anjou, and after which it had a considerable influence in Europe. ""

"""These discoveries paved the way for other Islamic alchemists, such as the discovery of various other mineral acids by Jabir Ibn Hayyam (known as Geber in Europe)"""

About JABER IBN HAYAN

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

"" known in Europe by the Latinized name Geber, was one of the most notable Islamic alchemists. His books strongly influenced European alchemists and justified their search for the philosopher's stone. He is credited with the invention of many types of now-basic chemical laboratory equipment, and with the discovery and description of many now-commonplace chemical substances and processes — such as the hydrochloric and nitric acids, distillation, and crystallization — that have become the foundation of today's chemistry and chemical engineering.

"""Jabir is also credited with the invention and development of several chemical instruments that are still used today"""

""""Besides its obvious applications to gold extraction and purification, this discovery would fuel the dreams and despair of alchemists for the next thousand years"""'

""" In the Middle Ages, Jabir's treatises on chemistry were translated into Latin and became standard texts for European alchemists""'
Several technical terms introduced by Jabir, such as alkali, have found their way into various European languages and have become part of scientific vocabulary.


About AL KHAWARIZMI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Khwarizmi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebra#History

"""820: The word algebra is derived from operations described in the treatise first written by Persian mathematician Al-Khwarizmi titled: Al-Jabr wa-al-Muqabilah meaning The book of summary concerning calculating by transposition and reduction. The word al-jabr means "reunion". Al-Khwarizmi is often considered as the "father of modern algebra","""

""""When his work was copied and transferred to Europe through Latin translations, it had a profound impact on the advancement of basic mathematics in Europe. He also wrote on mechanical devices like the clock, astrolabe, and sundial.""""

""" He made major contributions to the fields of algebra, trigonometry, astronomy/astrology, geography and cartography. His systematic and logical approach to solving linear and quadratic equations gave shape to the discipline of algebra, a word that is derived from the name of his 830 book on the subject, al-Kitab al-mukhtasar fi hisab al-jabr wa'l-muqabala""""

"""" He also assisted in the construction of a world map for the caliph al-Ma'mun and participated in a project to determine the circumference of the Earth, supervising the work of 70 geographers to create the map of the then "known world".6""""

About Ibn Al NAFIS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nafis

""""…discovered a script titled, "Commentary on the Anatomy of Canon of Avicenna" in the Prussian State Library in Berlin while studying the history of Arab Medicine at the medical faculty of Albert Ludwig’s University in Germany. This script is considered one of the best scientific books in which Al-Nafis covers in detail the topics of anatomy, pathology and physiology. This was the earliest description of pulmonary circulation"""'


About AL FARABI

"""Farabi had great influence on science and knowledge for several centuries
he was regarded as the Second Teacher in philosophy for centuries."""

Marvin said at February 27, 2006 2:47 AM:

A thousand years ago there was a brief period of Islamic tolerance and intellectual renaissance. That was then. Now Islam is known for backwarness and violence. If Islam can ever regain that tolerance and escape its current rigidity, perhaps a few Islamic cities can become centers of knowledge again. Islam's glory days are in the past, however. It is an escape from religious rigidity that allows a people to progress, as nations of Europe learned.

Medieval Persia must have been a place of wonderful intellectual ferment. For a brief time, Islam was open and tolerant, and a few muslim cities served as receptacles of wisdom from the west and from the east, combining the two and adding new intellectual value. Modern day muslims are learning how a rigid religion can hold an entire culture down, much as the intolerant Roman church held most of Europe down during the dark and middle ages.

Bob Badour said at February 27, 2006 9:06 AM:
As I said before, I don't blame the west, I blame our leaders

Why blame anybody? Why not look to yourself?

A thousand years ago there was a brief period of Islamic tolerance and intellectual renaissance. That was then. Now Islam is known for backwarness and violence.

It's interesting to note that all of the scholars mentioned by iambt were Persians from the first half of Islam's history. For 1200 years prior to Islamic occupation of Persia, Persia had been one of the great civilizations of the world first founded by the aryans and then renewed by the greeks after Alexander the Great and later by the White Huns.

I would argue that the relative tolerance of the Ummayads was largely due to the requirement to incorporate the Christians of North Africa and Spain as well as the Zoroastrian Persians into their empire. I would also argue that the great scholarship of early Islam was a vestige of the cultures they conquered rather than a great accomplishment of Islam.

For the last 700 years, the arabs and the mongols have fundamentally changed the genetics and culture of the Persian region. It's almost as if Islam sprang up and latched onto whatever it could and has since been slowly sinking back into the ooze taking everyplace it grabbed with it.

By modern standards, the Ummayads were intolerant. In fact, all Islamic periods and places have been intolerant compared to the modern western culture. Consider that the European peoples threw off the shackles of the dark ages and rose up to build the modern world we know today while during the same time Islam brought great civilisations low. While the west grew to take a more literal interpretation of the New Testament, Islam sank back to more literal interpretations of its base texts.

I am not a kafir. I am an atheist. I do not cover the truth--I expose it. The muslims are the real kafirs.

Randall Parker said at February 27, 2006 4:42 PM:

iambt,

The Muslim region decayed and became intellectually moribund long before Europeans started taking back some of the terrorities that Muslims conquered. Their problem was not that they fragmented into smaller polities like the Europeans did. A large portion of Muslims lived under Turkish Muslim rule.

Also, the Muslim renaissance looks good mainly in comparison to how far down Europe had decayed. The Muslim renaissance was small compared to the European renaissance that came later.

My guess is that as non-Muslims declined as a percentage of territories ruled by Muslims and the Muslim attitude toward knowledge came to more thoroughly permeate Muslim-ruled societies their intellectual decay came as a result of this.

else said at February 28, 2006 9:55 PM:

My tuppenceworth: is it possible that anyone professing to be a 'believer' or an 'atheist' must essentially be forwarding the same argument i.e. that I consider my beliefs to be fact, that 'whoever feels it knows it'? For locically there is no intellectual proof for god's non/existence, either rational or scientific. The above arguments must neccessarily start from this assumption and end up being bogged down into hatred of 'the other', that is, one who does not share your basic beliefs. This is beginning to be understood phycologically in the west but had..sorry it's dinner time

Bob Badour said at March 1, 2006 7:05 AM:

else,

You are falling into the moral equivalence trap.

I see no reason to hate anyone for believing in some silly spirit just because I do not. The whole point behind my faith is we don't have any evidence one way or the other.

While Randall would say that lacking any evidence he sees no reason to believe either way, I believe there is no god. I could take the agnostic line and leave it at "I don't know", but that would not be intellectually honest. I do believe there is no god.

Fundamentalist muslims hate me for believing in no god because the base texts of their religion tell them to hate me. Fundamentalist christians love me in spite of believing in no god because the base texts of their religion tell them to love me.

Click the links I gave you above. Can you honestly say that the base texts of Christ teach one to hate 'the other' ? Can you see a difference between the message of Mohammed and the message of Christ? Even though I am an atheist, the difference is as clear as night and day to me. And I can see that each religion pounds the message it wants repeatedly to make it sink in.

Randall Parker said at March 4, 2006 6:41 PM:

I delete all posts that are in all capital letters. So I just deleted a post by adil qureshi. He is free to make the post again in mixed case.

iambt said at March 5, 2006 4:54 AM:

Randall,
Either you are an idiot, or you just act like one.

""""the Brits and French ruled many other non-Muslim peoples for longer and those peoples are not now using that colonial rule as an excuse to blow up trains in Madrid and trains and buses in London""""

I didn't say that those terrorists have an excuse for blowing things up, I was answering Stephen's question: "before the stupid Iraqi invasion, what were the Muslim problems with the USA" And I expanded my answer to include Europe.

"""" Mohammed made as a warrior founder of a religion and his own extensive killing, looting, raping, and enslaving...""""

As long as you take Mohammad as a killer to defend God's name, then we'll take all the prophets as killers as well. As you know they fought much more wars against hostile infidels.
And just because you don't believe in Islam, means that you question the honesty of its wars. People are fighting in wars since the beginning of time until nowadays to defend what they believed in (either if it's religion, freedom, land, or even OIL if you know what I mean) so let's not portray the Muslims as the first and last people who fought wars for "their" God's glory. Ok?
And PLEASE, don't let me start on how Christians acted in the near past while they had clashes over religious matters in Europe.

How come that you find Mohammad an enslaver, when he came to a society where slaves where treated like animals and inferior creatures, and then he took this society -Step by step- to end slavery (He made slavery possible only in wars, and he made dozens of ways to free slaves, and he treated them like he treated his companions).

iambt said at March 5, 2006 4:55 AM:

Bob & Randall

""""Muslims have a very selective way of remembering history""""

What about you people? You have a selective way for remembering AND interpreting history the way you wanted it to be.
A Rapist??!! A pedophile?!! A man who wanted to get rich??!!
Let's go through his life…
1- Before Muhammad became a prophet he was the most well known man for his honesty and purity. He never drinked, and he never slept with a woman before his marriage. When Quaraish leaders wanted advices, they came to him. They never became his enemies until they felt threatened by this "new" religion that make a slave equal to a master.
2- As a 25 year old man (not a prophet yet), he married khadiga (15 years older than him, widow with sons from her first marriage) and stayed with her for 25 years. And when she died he spent 2 more years mourning her as he loved her very much. (Yeah we can see "LUST" all over his first 52 years)
3- He was born in a noble family, and he was married to a VERY rich woman, but ever since he became a prophet until he died, he lived a poor life. (have another look at the IBN HISHAM book)
4- Now 52, he married a widow (50 year old widow who needed help after her husband died)
5- From the age of 52 to 60, all the other marriages were to widows too (except Aisha), and every marriage had a reason.
Are you crazy you and that Bob??!! Did you know that during those ages, marrying a 9 or 12 year old girls was a common trend even between the Romans and the Persians? Did you know the majority of prophets through time married more than one (including Abraham: 2 wives, David: 8 wives…). What about Solomon, huh? Solomon, According to 1 Kings 11:4, he had 700 wives and 300 concubines!!!! You need to agree that every time has its trends.And we shall not judge their acts by today's concepts.
What if you try to compare what Solomon did with these days' concepts?
And as you already know, Aisha's age is still not confirmed as lots of stories stated that she was 17 or so when they got married.

And for that guy (I guess it was you bob) who said that khadigua helped Muhammad 'coz she wanted to increase her trade because of the Hajj (pilgrimage) …
I just want him to remember that before Muhammad became a prophet, people from everywhere practiced the Hajj to go and worship the idols (made of stone and bricks) near the Qua'ba in Mecca. And that Muhammad wanted the people to worship Allah and he wanted to destroy the idols, so theoretically, that would jeopardize her business.
And she stood by him 25 years including his first 13 years where he stayed in Mecca (poor, tortured, abandoned from most of his people) (Go and read about the years they boycotted the Muslims for 3 years in "ABI TALEB" valley.
And the Muslims started the Hajj to the Qua'ba after she died.
And who told you that her business depend on the Hajj anyway?! She exported goods from Mecca to other regions like Yemen and so.

""""whose personal pursuit of Jihad starts with character assassination of anyone who speaks the truth about the base texts of your faith."""""

It seams that just for me to defend what I believed in and to try to clear something up is considered a trial to shut you up??!!!!!!!!!!!! What exactly did you expect to see in hear? That all the people must read your posts and be convinced at once?! Just to have an opposite opinion that contradicts everything you say and think doesn't mean that we want to "start our jihad by character assassination who speaks the truth".
You make me laugh.

""""the Reformation and the Enlightenment changed the practice of Christianity to more closely follow the scripture of the New Testament"""""

I was proving that sometimes you can't change what people do, even if it's clear that what they do is against their religion (adultery-stealing-taking drugs…) and all you can do is to advice them or put them in prison or so. But eventually, they always get back to what they've always done.

"""""How many Muslims were attacked in the US in the 12 months following 9/11"""""

Do you hear yourself?!!!!!!!!! It doesn't matter how many!!! You idiot.
I'm trying to tell you that some people killed or hurt innocent Muslims for things other Muslims did. why? 'coz they were angry and they felt like they need to avenge the people who died in 9-11, and as they can't kill or hurt the real people who did attack them, they went straight to the nearest Muslim they can find.
As those idiots in IRAQ, they are angry with Bush, They kill the first American they find!!!

""""A thousand years ago there was a brief period of Islamic tolerance and intellectual renaissance. That was then. Now Islam is known for backwarness and violence.""""

It's a Muslims failure, not an ISLAM failure.

iambt said at March 5, 2006 5:29 AM:

Bob,

"""""{I link the content of the base texts of Islam to the acts of terrorists like the beheadings inspired by Al-Anfal 12, the principle of Jihad,"""""

I don't know why this "AL-ANFAL 12" is driving you that crazy?!
To see that this was a war verse (like I said), you need to read the verses 11 through 16, where Allah describes what happened that day (the Badr war).
And read the introduction too

Intro:
""The Surah (Chapter) outlined the body of rules to be followed in war time and the indications for declaring war and the factors which would lead to victory. Here, we find the detailed narrative of the Battle of Badr, the circumstances preceding it and those succeeding and the reason for each, such as the ousting of the Prophet Muhammad from Macca. And just as the indications of war have been stated, so were those for peace, especially when requested by the enemy.""

Verses and interpretations:

008.011
11- ""And there did Allah replace the emotion of sorrow and grief which was caused by fear of the unpredictable outcome by peace of mind and sense of security thus inducing your eyes to take themselves to slumber. He sent down from the floor of the vault of heaven rain - water to free you people from foreign matter as well as from moral and spiritual pollution and from the incitement of evil instigated by AL-Shaytan (Satan) and by those with characteristics befitting Him, and to do your hearts good and set your feet firm.""

PICKTHAL: When He made the slumber fall upon you as a reassurance from him and sent down water from the sky upon you, that thereby He might purify you, and remove from you the fear of Satan, and make strong your hearts and firm (your) feet thereby

008.012
12- ""There and then did Allah, your Creator, inspire the angels. Thus: I am acting with you, Allah said: and so support the cause of those whose hearts have been impressed with the image of religious and spiritual virtues and sustain them spiritually and help them take a firm position and set their feet firm. I will inspire terror, Allah added, in the hearts of those who are given to disbelief; strike them above the necks and strike their finger tips, their weak limbs and their failing joints.""

YUSUFALI: 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."

008.013
13- ""This train of events succeeding one another were occasioned on account of their hostility to Allah and to His Messenger; and he who is hostile to Allah and His Messenger shall realize that Allah punishes severely indeed.""

YUSUFALI: This because they contended against Allah and His Messenger: If any contend against Allah and His Messenger, Allah is strict in punishment.

008.014
14- ""This is it you infidels, but that is not all; there awaits you the torment to be laid on the damned.""

YUSUFALI: Thus (will it be said): "Taste ye then of the (punishment): for those who resist Allah, is the penalty of the Fire."

008.015
15- ""O you who have conformed to Islam: If you happen to meet with the infidels -the enemy to your faith- and you see they are marshaled for fighting you, do not turn your backs upon them nor reverse your course or retreat.""

YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! when ye meet the Unbelievers in hostile array, never turn your backs to them.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! when you meet those who disbelieve marching for war, then turn not your backs to them.

008.016
16- ""And he who turns his back, reverses his course or retreats, unless it be a stratagem for gaining advantage over the enemy or for falling back on other troops projected and directed as the larger military movement and operation of the campaign, will have come within the measure of Allah's wrath and be destined to the abode in Hell, and how evil is the destination!""

YUSUFALI: If any do turn his back to them on such a day - unless it be in a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop (of his own)- he draws on himself the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell,- an evil refuge (indeed)!
PICKTHAL: Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless manoeuvring for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end.
SHAKIR: And whoever shall turn his back to them on that day-- unless he turn aside for the sake of fighting or withdraws to a company-- then he, indeed, becomes deserving of Allah's wrath, and his abode is hell; and an evil destination shall it be.

Bob Badour said at March 5, 2006 3:56 PM:
Mohammad as a killer ... then we'll take all the prophets as killers as well

Um, no. Nothing in any historical record shows Christ as a genocidal murderer a la Mohammed. It shows in the legacy each left as base texts for religions. The New Testament is decidedly pacifist and the Qur'an is decidedly violent and evil.

And PLEASE, don't let me start on how Christians acted in the near past

We are not discussing Christians. We are discussing the apparent intolerance and needless violence of Muslims and the base texts of Islam that encourage that behaviour.

Before Muhammad became a prophet he was the most well known man for his honesty and purity

I disagree. The Qur'an and the Sira suggest otherwise to me. It strikes me that Mohammed spent a lot of time in the Qur'an preparing his followers to meet the very negative oppinion of Mohammed they would find among the people who knew him best.

he never slept with a woman before his marriage

Does that include the women he raped after murdering their husbands and fathers?

every marriage had a reason.

Yes, he married Aisha because he was a frustrated sexual deviant. He married adult women as a business and Aisha because he preferred fucking a nine year old child.

What if you try to compare what Solomon did with these days' concepts?

I don't recall objecting to polygyny, polyandry, or anything other than fucking nine year old children. Thus, I fail to see the relevance. Are you trying to suggest that all of Islam's prophets were immoral and evil just like Mohammed?

And as you already know, Aisha's age is still not confirmed as lots of stories stated that she was 17 or so when they got married.

Actually, that's not true. Only one 'story' clearly states Aisha's age. That is her own story about being taken from swinging in her playground to be fucked by a middle aged pervert when she was nine.

The arguments that she was older are tenuous at best and involve piecing together scraps of indirect evidence from diverse passages.

Regardless of those tenuous arguments, hundreds of millions of devout muslims believe with all their hearts that Mohammed fucked a nine year old Aisha. Don't you find it problematic that those individuals see nothing immoral in the act?

khadigua

I have no idea what you are ranting about the hajj and the kaaba. It was not a reply to anything I posted.

poor, tortured, abandoned from most of his people

Which is it? Was he respected as honest and pure? Or was he so despised that his own people tortured and abandoned him?

""""whose personal pursuit of Jihad starts with character assassination of anyone who speaks the truth about the base texts of your faith."""""

It seams that just for me to defend what I believed in and to try to clear something up

With all due respect, character assassination doesn't clear anything up. It stinks of evasion. I don't hate anyone. You would have people dismiss everything I say merely on the basis of your accusation that I hate muslims. I see no reason not to call you on the character assassination.

I'm trying to tell you that some people killed or hurt innocent Muslims for things other Muslims did.

You asserted that muslims were murdered in the US in retaliation for 9/11 without proving that a single occurrance actually happened. How many were murdered? One? Less than one?

How many jews were attacked in the US in the same timeframe for no reason other than being jewish?

Is it true that you care more about an imagined attack that never occured than you care about hundreds of actual attacks against jews?

To see that this was a war verse (like I said), you need to read the verses 11 through 16, where Allah describes what happened that day (the Badr war).

I fail to see the relevance whether the verse was associated with a particular battle. It is vile nonetheless. The terrorists use it to guide their own behaviour when they murder innocent schoolgirls.

Should I assume the Badr Brigade, a modern day band of murdering pirates, takes any inspiration from Al-Anfal?

I am not sure where you got the extremely wordy translations you posted, but I encourage everyone to read several translations of Al-Anfal to understand what it actually says.

Verse 1: Mohammed claims the goods stolen from the people he and his men murdered.
Verse 2: Mohammed warns his men they better do as he says or else.
Verse 3: Mohammed warns his men against stinginess.
Verse 4: Mohammed congratulates the murdering brigands for their dignity, forgiveness and generosity.
Verse 5: Mohammed congratulates his men on coming out to murder and pillage when better men frowned upon such things.
Verse 6: Mohammed dismisses the objections of moral men as cowardice.
Verse 7-8: I am not sure, but it looks like Mohammed had to make excuses for Allah for letting one party escape and for letting the enemy fight back.
Verse 9: Mohammed said that Allah promised reinforcements from 1000 angels.
Verse 10: Mohammed made excuses for the lack of angels saying it was all just a pep talk anyway.
Verse 11: Something about an intoxicated or dissociative state that some would associate with demonic possession.
Verse 12: Allah's instructions to behead and mutilate non-muslims.
Verse 13-14: Moral justification for murder and mutilation.
Verse 15-16: Condemnation of any who flee the enemy.
Verse 17: Mohammed morally absolves his men from murder by claiming demonic possession.

What sort of god would reveal his message through a murdering pirate?

mac said at March 14, 2006 9:30 PM:

this article on the life of prophet Mohammad, written by a non-muslim, is a good read: http://www.themodernreligion.com/prophet/prophet-rao.html

pasted below are the FAQ's from this site: http://www.whyislam.org/877/FAQ/q12.asp

Frequently asked questions:

Q. Doesn't Islam promote violence, bloodshed and brutality since the Qur'an says that Muslims should kill the kafirs where ever they find them?

A.

A few selected verses from the Qur'an are often misquoted to perpetuate the myth that Islam promotes violence, and exhorts its followers to kill those outside the pale of Islam.

1. Verse from Surah Taubah

The following verse from Surah Taubah is very often quoted by critics of Islam, to show that Islam promotes violence, bloodshed and brutality:

"Kill the mushriqeen (pagans, kafirs) where ever you find them."

[Al-Qur'an 9:5]

2. Context of verse is during battlefield

Critics of Islam actually quote this verse out of context. In order to understand the context, we need to read from verse 1 of this surah. It says that there was a peace treaty between the Muslims and the Mushriqs (pagans) of Makkah. This treaty was violated by the Mushriqs of Makkah. A period of four months was given to the Mushriqs of Makkah to make amends. Otherwise war would be declared against them. Verse 5 of Surah Taubah says:

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and 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-Qur'an 9:5]

This verse is quoted during a battle.


3. Example of war between America and Vietnam

We know that America was once at war with Vietnam. Suppose the President of America or the General of the American Army told the American soldiers during the war: "Wherever you find the Vietnamese, kill them". Today if I say that the American President said, "Wherever you find Vietnamese, kill them" without giving the context, I will make him sound like a butcher. But if I quote him in context, that he said it during a war, it will sound very logical, as he was trying to boost the morale of the American soldiers during the war.

4. Verse 9:5 quoted to boost morale of Muslims during battle

Similarly in Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 5 the Qur'an says, "Kill the Mushriqs where ever you find them", during a battle to boost the morale of the Muslim soldiers. What the Qur'an is telling Muslim soldiers is, don't be afraid during battle; wherever you find the enemies kill them.

5. Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 6 gives the answer

Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 6 gives the answer to the allegation that Islam promotes violence, brutality and bloodshed. It says:

"If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum,grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure that is because they are men without knowledge."

[Al-Qur'an 9:6]

The Qur'an not only says that a Mushriq seeking asylum during the battle should be granted refuge, but also that he should be escorted to a secure place. In the present international scenario, even a kind, peace-loving army General, during a battle, may let the enemy soldiers go free, if they want peace. But which army General will ever tell his soldiers, that if the enemy soldiers want peace during a battle, don't just let them go free, but also escort them to a place of security?

This is exactly what Allah (swt) says in the Glorious Qur'an to promote peace in the world.

Bob Badour said at March 15, 2006 11:02 AM:
A few selected verses from the Qur'an are often misquoted to perpetuate the myth that Islam promotes violence

A few? I identified 73 verses in the first 8 out of 114 chapters. Search these comments above starting at "Al-Baqara".

It's not a myth. Mohammed and Allah promote violence. Anyone who reads the Qur'an and the Hadith can see that plainly for themselves.

The myth is the myth that Islam is peaceful, and one must deny all available evidence to perpetuate the myth. Muslims decapitating schoolchildren. Muslims hijacking planes and flying them into office buildings. Muslims strapping on dynamite and detonating themselves at Sbarro. Muslims burning down embassies. Muslims roaming in gangs to rape non-muslim girls. Muslims killing their sisters and daughters for getting raped or otherwise dishonoring the family. Mohammed murdering traders to steal their wealth. Allah's instruction to hack off the heads and fingers of non-muslims in Al-Anfal 12. Allah's derogation of non-muslims as not worthy of friendship in Al-E-Imran 28. Allah's instruction to kill non-muslims wherever muslims find them in Al-Tawba 5.

mac, you, sir, are a kafir -- you try to conceal the truth.


This verse is quoted during a battle.

With all due respect, who gives a flying fuck when it was quoted? The message is clear. The message is violent. The message is intolerant.

As Irshad Manji wrote: 'The scholarship that puts such verses "into context" reeks of evasion.'

My reading of Al-Tawba 4-5 is that Mohammed's men are to honor the contract they made only killing those who broke the contract until it expires and then to set about killing all of the non-muslims:

So fulfill your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)

That part seems clear and straightforward to me. I certainly have no surprise that the terrorists read it that way.


Example of war between America and Vietnam

I find your argument lacking. First, Allah, the purported author of the condemnation of all non-muslims, is supposed to be an all-knowing, all-powerful god, and not a mere political leader. Second, if the instruction were meant to apply only to specific pagans at a specific time, why would anyone include it in a religious document claimed to be the actual word of God in God's preferred language so that it could inspire terrorists 1400 years after the fact? Islam does not consider the Qur'an is a mere history book but Allah's direct instruction to all muslims.


What the Qur'an is telling Muslim soldiers is, don't be afraid during battle; wherever you find the enemies kill them.

With all due respect, what business has a religious text instructing people to murder anyone? Are you all nuts?


This is exactly what Allah (swt) says in the Glorious Qur'an to promote peace in the world.

That's fucking horseshit. I am not going to bend over backward and grasp at straws to turn one violent passage out of scores of violent passages into a message of peace. "Kill them wherever your find them" is not a message of peace. "Don't take them as friends" is not a message of peace. "Hack them about the neck and fingertips" is not a message of peace.

mac said at March 16, 2006 7:09 AM:

"With all due respect, who gives a flying fuck when it was quoted?"

you make it clear that you don't CARE when it was quoted. and yet, you refer to these quotes every goddamn hour of your living life. that's plain ignorance.

Bob Badour said at March 16, 2006 2:51 PM:

Mac,

The alleged context does not in any way make the base texts of Islam any less violent. It does not in any way reduce the effect on the terrorists.

As Irshad Manji points out, your denials reek of evasion.

What are you doing to change your religion into a peaceful religion from the vile, repugnant thing it is now?

Khan said at May 19, 2006 6:18 AM:

"The alleged context does not in any way make the base texts of Islam any less violent."

Bob, i think its easy to pick out particular phrases from the Qur'an and interpret them out of context. Your interpretation is quite possibly very close to the interpretation that the terrorists involved in the 9/11 tragedy concluded with. As with most terrorists, their behaviour stems from deep seeded hate and resentment born from repression and injustice. What is your reason? You probably saw injustice dealt when the 9/11 tragedy took place on television one day and proceeded to find out more on the internet. Your understanding of the matter seems incredibly biased and i dread to say ignorant. Be not blinded by your media. It is a mere construct. Your self-righteousness is painful to watch.

"It does not in any way reduce the effect on the terrorists."

Don't string together random words in hope of sounding credible. Terrorism is a buzz word the media came up with to incite hatred. Of course it doesnt reduce the effect on the terrorists. To reduce terrorism, you have to understand why they have deep seeded resentment against the US and judge for yourself if it is justified. There is enough arrogance backed up by ignorance going around without you trying to sound smart. Looking up articles on the net doesnt make you widely read. If you truly give a shit, you would learn about the people and why they are suffering. The knowledgeable ones are always the most humble and truth seeking. You are just maliciously furthering the ongoing campaign of hatred. Spare me.

Bob Badour said at June 13, 2006 7:20 AM:

With all due respect, Khan, I have read those texts and I read them quite literally. That is to say: I read them for what they actually say and not for what someone else wants me to believe they say.

No hate or resentment is required to understand the hatred and resentment those texts teach. I encourage others to read the texts for themselves. The violent passages are just as violent and perhaps even more violent in context. The terrorists are simply taking a literal reading of what you tell them is the unaltered word of God in God's language of choice.

Those who pretend that the base texts of Islam are anything other than vile, repugnant, murderous, hate propaganda are the ones who cherry pick passages to quote out of context. Anyone who decides to read the Qur'an for themselves will find themselves shocked at what surrounds many of the verses quoted to allege Islam's ecumenism, tolerance and pacifism.

I don't get my information from CNN or the internet, and your suggestion that I do only proves your own ignorance. I read several translations of the Qur'an as well as a boxload of various histories of Islam and the middle-east. I am pretty good at keeping an open mind until I have the evidence to decide for myself. My current opinions are anything but ignorant. The ignorant ones are the suicidal panglossians who deny the nature of the base texts of Islam without ever having opened one.


To reduce terrorism, you have to understand why they have deep seeded resentment against the US and judge for yourself if it is justified.

And to do that, all one has to do is read the Qur'an. The resentment has nothing to do with the US or wealth or justice. It was imprinted on the minds of unthinking drones by an illiterate and murderous thug 14 centuries ago.

Muslims suffer because they are ignorant and stupid. Given every opportunity to lift themselves out of the shit, they prefer to wallow in it to keep their neighbours down. They substitute blind obediance to murderous religious instruction for legitimate study -- often teaching their kids to mindlessly parrot the Qur'an in a language they do not understand instead of teaching them the basic building tools to become effective thinkers.


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 ©