Al-Qaida chief calls Muslims to jihad

"Note the copious references to the Qur'an and the actions of Muhammad. This, as I have noted many, many times, is how jihadists recruit. And this is what moderate Muslims have in no way begun to refute, despite all their protestations that the Qur'an and Sunnah teach peace."

Spencer's words say it all.

Can we have Naseem reconcile the Quran and the Sunnah with her pretzel-like fact-twisting and apologist's prancing? This should be fun....

"Sheikh Al-O'Taibi (Al-O'Taibi? What is he, an Irishman?)"

Irish? LOL!
There is irony here too . . .

The name ("al O'Taibi") rang a bell from an article a few days ago. . . reference:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004010.php

Father of Saudi killed in Iraq to sue jihadist scholars

RIYADH - The father of a young Saudi fighter killed in Iraq is planning to sue religious scholars who called for jihad against US forces, Al-Medina newspaper reported on Sunday.

The paper said

Majid Shabib "al-Otaibi"

blamed the scholars, who declared “jihad (holy war) against the occupiers is a duty for all who are able”, for the death of his son Muqrin.

Majid Otaibi said he was standing up against preachers who tried to “corrupt the minds of young men”.

Irish? (chuckle)

There is no point in counter arguments with any believer in any monotheistic religious text. You have to go 'behind the scenes' and argue from the point of the neglected study of epistemology.
What CAN we know? How DO we know -anything? And bring in the simple, (to me) terrifying fact that the study of the human mind is a mere century old (in any serious form, with Frued, Jung, Adler, Reich, Stekel, Horney, et al). Where do we, as genetically jury-rigged, barely-conscious mammals, come off proclaiming anything? Or believing in the writings of those same people who thought that meteors were thrown from heaven by crows? Or that black dogs are demonic? Or that... -but why go on?

These medieval characters, worshipped by the Islamists, -and all 'Book' fundamentalisms- (... their Bible-literalist 'Christian' counterparts are trying to overthrow the study of evolution in the Western hemisphere, with their own attempt to return to those glorious days of witch frying and the spontaneous generation of Life from rotting meat) knew nothing of the circulation of the blood, the germ theory of disease, the shape of the solar system (much less the galaxy), the DNA basis of all known life, and we are supposed to believe their declarations about a subject (GOD) which requires even more profound intro and extro-spection? I think not. And these three words are my answer to all believers of any Absolutist concept of deity, or deities. "I think not". (Or, as Nietzsche so elegantly put it: "Or?")

I would say to them, instead of arguing chapter and verse (or "sura" in this case): "Look in, or look out." The West, and its intellectual compatriots in all areas of the Earth, need to heed this same warning. And keep a close eye on the ranting of any fantatics. But, those most numerous and nihilistic, at present, are the ones jumping for joy at the murderous behavior of their Muslim brethren, so we need to examine them with a 'flea comb', intellectually. And be prepared to oppose their infestation and mental-devolution, as required.

First, in regards to this guy: does this not sound like a call to all, what, 600 million islamists?

OT, but this one regards freedom of speech, as much opposed by the Left as by islam:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2004/cover112704.htm

Talk about attempting to silence dissent! Or, for that matter, any writing and / or material to do with criticizing islam, as they have done to Van Gogh's movie.
Mr. Spencer, Keep Writing!

O'Taibi?
Yes, he's one of the Cork O'Taibis, well-known pigfarmers in the area going back generations.

LOL/Setanta

Am not sure who JIHAD UNSPUN really represents?? Possibly CIA with sense of humour - as O'Taibi the Irish Jihadist!!

The Irish jihadist O'Taibi (pron. ta-be)
Sent this letter to Father Macavey
'Sure I miss the ol' pigs
And the reels and the jigs,
But it's so much more fun in Mo's army!

Setanta

OT...but a great letter from a marine that was involved in the clearing of fallujah, this was posted on LGF.

http://2slick.blogspot.com/2004/11/letter-from-fallujah.html

Here's today's link to a Jihad in Canada
where the tolerant,peaceful and loving follower of Islam waited until after Ramadan to slit the throat of one of the "Bad" Muslims.
The story tells the sad tale of once again how a Mosque(Holy site) was at the heart of the murder.

http://www.canada.com/windsor/windsorstar/index.html

No ISLAM - KNOW PEASE

Thanks Ala-sux for the info on the muslim/muslim murder in Windsor.
The islamic culture is dangerous to all, including 'intelligent muslims' ( a contradiction?).
When are we going to stop muslim immigration to Canada ? Are we going to wait until, like France, one in every 3 children born is muslim. If the answer is yes, i'm out of here.

My frustration at the total lack of awareness, or maybe lack of bravery, of our politicians, is growing. Sad to see Canada being taken over this way; i will always remember it as nearly a paradise on this planet.

dby:

If you followed the Muhammad Elmasry story where he denied a comment on the Michael Coren show about "All Israelis over 18 are valid targets for murder by suicide bombers" you'll notice the University he works at accepts the comments happened but won't dismiss him for it.

Also he now claims it is Michael Corens fault for allowing him on the show and inciting his comment during a heated debate.
When will Muslims accept any of the blame from their actions that harm others,even the BBC now
reports that the Dutch are the bigots and TheoVan Gogh caused his own death by inciting Muslims to defend their faith.

How ironic that you can be murdered by a Muslim for accusing Islam as not being peaceful or tolerant,Rashid Manji of Toronto has had death threats against her and some are fatwa's for her claim of being a lesbian.

dby:

P.S. for the above article

Check out this video of a federal Liberal speaking at a Mosque,he claims to be a Christian but bows down to Muslims by stating that Allah is the true God of all people and Jesus is in the Quran as a revered prophet by Muslims.
The vodeo was prior to the June Election and how pathetic to denounce Christ in a Mosque just to avoid hurting the feelings of Muslims,the end of the video has the Muslims Liberal stating that Islam allow revenge but asks that they don't act out any violence towards anyone they feel may have cause harm to a Mosque.

Just click on the one titled "Respose from Pickering elected officials" ,the original version had an additional 10 minutes of Muslims
mocking Jesus as the Messiah,sadly this was a rally for tolerance towards Islam after a alleged arson attack on a Mosque.

http://www.cig.ca/arpresentsearch.php

All you canadians out there who are not happy with the current state of affairs in your country,you will have a chance to voice your indignation and discontent,next time when you will vote.
Show your politicians that you disagree with their policies of national suicide and islamic submission.
Vote them out of office and bring in new ones,ones who are not afraid to make a stand.

u are all pretty stupid, Islam is no different (well actually better than) Christianity, You all pick and chooses some phrases out of the Holy Quran the true word of god, but u havent looked at you own stupid book, the bible created by men years after Jesus and the other prophets left the earth peace be upon them all.

Read this

George H -
Topic Faith & Practice
Title The Bible, the Qur'an and Violence
Question I have read the answer to the question on violence provided by Professor Shahul Hameed, yet I am not convinced. The professor have said that no man may kill, but for a just cause. Whereas the Biblical commandment does not allow any exceptions. It says “thou shalt not kill”. So who will determine what is a just cause. I'm sure the terrorist from 9/11 can argue that their cause is just! Second, when he quotes the Bible, he also should look at its context. The only quote he presented from the New Testament was a quote from a story Jesus was telling about a nobleman who was talking to his servants. Those words "bring hither, and slay them before me" are the words of that nobleman in the story, not Jesus'!
Anyway your argument is that it is permissible to murder! And finally, how about this passage in the Qur'an which means:
*{This because those who reject Allah follow vanities, while those who believe follow the Truth from their Lord: Thus does Allah set forth for men their lessons by similitudes.}* (Muhammad 47:3)

*{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." This because they contended against Allah and His Messenger: If any contend against Allah and His Messenger, Allah is strict in punishment.}* (Al-Anfal 8:12-13)

This is not just talking about enemies, but those who don't believe what the Muslims believe. I am not taking this out of context. I also think it's important to look at the fact that you can clearly see from the Bible, if there are any metaphoric examples, Jesus clearly does not want violence. You can see that HE was not involved in war, HE did not say that you can kill, period… for any reason!! Even if you see that your cause is just! To conclude, I don't mean to sound offensive. On the contrary, I feel passionate about this lone issue because I love and appreciate the value of Islam, but am finding it very difficult to get by this particular issue.

I have not found an answer or justification to allow me to accept this and thus the Islamic faith. My aim is to be blunt and to receive a blunt and simple answer for why there are so many violent passages in the Qur'an. Passages that are not speaking metaphorically as the Bible sometimes does, but instead calling its followers to fight, even if they don't want to.
Date 2004/11/4

Name of Consultant Shahul Hameed
Content of Reply

Salam George.

Peace be with you!

Thank you for your question.

You have claimed that the Biblical references to killing are sometimes metaphorical; but the Qur'anic commands are literal. This is a moot point; and for the time being I would dispute your contention by citing examples from the Old Testament where killing on a large scale has been done with the help and guidance of Jehovah or Yahweh.

Read the Book of Joshua, Chapters 8 to 11. About four chapters speak of nothing but killing, killing, killing and again killing, as commanded by Yahweh. I quote just the last part of Joshua Chapter 10:

30: and the LORD gave it also and its king into the hand of Israel; and he smote it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it; he left none remaining in it; and he did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho.
31: And Joshua passed on from Libnah, and all Israel with him, to Lachish, and laid siege to it, and assaulted it:
32: and the LORD gave Lachish into the hand of Israel, and he took it on the second day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it, as he had done to Libnah.
33: Then Horam king of Gezer came up to help Lachish; and Joshua smote him and his people, until he left none remaining.
34: And Joshua passed on with all Israel from Lachish to Eglon; and they laid siege to it, and assaulted it;
35: and they took it on that day, and smote it with the edge of the sword; and every person in it he utterly destroyed that day, as he had done to Lachish.
36: Then Joshua went up with all Israel from Eglon to Hebron; and they assaulted it,
37: and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and its king and its towns, and every person in it; he left none remaining, as he had done to Eglon, and utterly destroyed it with every person in it.
38: Then Joshua, with all Israel, turned back to Debir and assaulted it,
39: and he took it with its king and all its towns; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed every person in it; he left none remaining; as he had done to Hebron and to Libnah and its king, so he did to Debir and to its king.
40: So Joshua defeated the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes, and all their kings; he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.

I understand that 'he left none remaining' means, Joshua killed the men, the women and the kids—even babies. At the command of Yahweh.

And we read this in the Book of Isaiah:

"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." (Isaiah 13:15-16)

Here we see how the Bible tells of God's commands to fight and kill.

In the New Testament, Jesus Christ is quoted as saying that he had come to bring the sword, to "set father against son and mother against daughter" (Luke 12:53) and called on his followers to kill: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" (Luke 19:27).
you can see that the parable comes to an end with the previous verse, namely Luke 19:26: "For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him."

It was after this we find these verses: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." And when he had thus spoken, he went before, ascending up to Jerusalem.

It is clear that he did not want his disciples to put this into effect immediately. And certainly the mission of Jesus in those days did not include fighting, nor was he prepared for it. But it would be naive to say that Jesus did not know the role of wars in the history of humanity. He certainly knew the Law of Moses and the significance of fighting in Jewish history. Didn't he know that the Law of Moses taught the philosophy of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth? And yet what did he say of the Law?

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled..." (Matthew 5: 17, 18).

And from the manner in which he drove out the money changers in the Jerusalem Temple (John 2: 13-15), it is clear that he did not completely rule out the use of force, in establishing peace on earth.

The question is how did the Christians interpret the words of Jesus in their practical life? Most assuredly the import of the parable (quoted above) was not lost upon the Christians of the later centuries. If we examine the history of Christianity, we see the above words of Jesus have been enacted in bloody reality many times - starting when an important political rebellion against the Roman Catholic Church took on a religious slant - leading to the split in European Christendom between Catholic and Protestant. This split sparked off a series of religious wars which were ultimately to be responsible for the death of nearly a third of the entire White race.

If we argue that the essential message of Jesus is "turning the other cheek" even in the face of the worst provocation, then we have to admit that Jesus' avowed followers have belied his teaching repeatedly. Even when their tongues call Jesus "the Prince of Peace", weapons of mass destruction are being forged in their backyards to massacre the non-Christians. Every time a Christian bomb tears apart the limbs of an Iraqi man, woman or child in Baghdad or Fallujah, Christ's teaching is proved to be null and void. It is funny to hear the Christians blaming Muslims for taking up weapons while they themselves had exploded two Christian atom bombs that killed millions; and theirs is the monopoly of manufacturing, distributing and using the most horrible weapons ever made by the hand of man - the followers of the Prince of Peace indeed!

The Qur'an is a continuation and completion of the earlier scriptures like the Torah and the Gospel; and the mission of Muhammad was a reconciliation between the harsh Law of Moses and the non-violent Gospel of Jesus. Consider this Muslim idea in the light of Islam's acceptance of Moses and Jesus as prophets of God and their books as God-given scriptures. Muhammad never claimed that he was preaching a new religion: he said that his mission can be compared to a brick; the last brick needed to complete the construction of a building. All the prophets—indeed thousands of them—had preached the Religion of God before, and every prophet had a mission to fulfill. And when the time was ripe the Last Prophet came and completed the Religion of God.

The Qur'an has said what means:
*{So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates…}* (Muhammad 47:4)

The context of this verse was when the Muslims were to fight their enemies for their very existence. After thirteen years of endurance and patience, the prophet and his companions had to leave their home town of Makkah and to emigrate to Madinah. When the people of Madinah had welcomed him there and he was accepted as a leader there, the Makkans became unhappy. They wanted to eliminate Muhammad and his religion; and so they sent their army to root out Islam. And the crucial battle took place in Badr. It was just before this that Muhammad received the revelation from God to fight:
*{And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.}* (Al-Baqarah 2:190)

This meant that the Prophet and his companions were not to start the fighting; but to defend themselves against aggressors. That was how fighting was ordained; but we must know that once we fight, we fight to defeat the aggressors, so that we can live without fear of molestation and invasion; so that we can live in peace; so that justice is done. Remember God does not command any one to start fighting; rather He permits people to fight in self defense or for the defense of those who are attacked unjustly.

All the passages in the Qur'an referring to fighting have been revealed in the context of the threats of battles from the enemies of Truth and Justice. And when you are told to fight, you are commanded to fight on till justice is established; till the criminals are brought to book, till Peace can prevail.

When DU bombs are dropped from a height of 30,000 ft, how can you turn the other cheek? By their invasions and occupations the people whom the Muslims see as representing the Christians have been proving Jesus' message of Peace irrelevant and meaningless in the world of reality. And then they quote Jesus and ask Muslims not to resist them while they go on brutally maiming and massacring people and demolishing their mosques!

"u r all retards" says: "You all pick and chooses some phrases out of the Holy Quran the true word of god. . ."

You moron, this post is quoting a MUSLIM site taking verses from the Quran. Can't you READ?

that wasnt really the point Miss Moneypenny, i just want to prove the hypocricy of this stupid website

Bad way to win people over, buddy. Just by the name you chose to post under, you lost any potential audience. You'll excuse us if we Ignore you from this point on. Correction! Most everyone has already ignored you.

Screaming adherent to a Johnny- come-lately religion says we are retards... ha ha ha

Gary, im not trying to win people over, im just exposing the hypocracy of all of your views and this website. if you ignore me go ahead, because most people in this site are too thickheaded to reason with logic

To:

U R ALL RETREADS (sp?),

Don't waste your time trying to quote copious passage of competing dogma or defend religious texts that can be twisted by any moron to mean anything. (Look at what endless bestial atrocities ancient Jewish, medieval Christian and current Islamic imbeciles have turned their "holy" books toward).

Think for yourself.

Or, as Sid G. (sometimes known as "The Buddha" -who was not a 'religious' teacher, but a 'mental hygienist') said:

"Wake up. Be compassionate."

What more scripture dfo you need than that?

The rest is merely room for fools to argue over angelic pinheads, and leads to murderous schism and endless family vendettas.

Know thyself. The rest is debatable.

At least to people who aren't hypnotized by dogma.

To:

U R ALL RETREADS (sp?),

Don't waste your time trying to quote copious passage of competing dogma or defend religious texts that can be twisted by any moron to mean anything. (Look at what endless bestial atrocities ancient Jewish, medieval Christian and current Islamic imbeciles have turned their "holy" books toward).

Think for yourself.

Or, as Sid G. (sometimes known as "The Buddha" -who was not a 'religious' teacher, but a 'mental hygienist') said:

"Wake up. Be compassionate."

What more scripture do you need than that?

The rest is merely room for fools to argue over angelic pinheads, and leads to murderous schism and endless family vendettas.

Know thyself. The rest is debatable.

At least to people who aren't hypnotized by dogma.

TO:

U R ALL PETARDS (sp?):

Wasn't being repetitive in the dual post, merely tried to correct a type "dfo" for "do" and it made the whole thing pop up twice.

And neither am a I Buddhist (Hinayana or Mahayana or Zen)... before you go off one any presumptive rants.

More a classical Cynic with Taoist leanings.

But a student of all faiths, from the Poetic Edda, Popul Vuh, Bhagavad Gita, Tripitaka, et al...

Keeping my own notions after distilling the best.

As Li Po, the Chinese classical poet said:

"Don't try to hug the moon's reflection on the river."

u are all pretty stupid, Islam is no different (well actually better than) Christianity----
u r all retards

We stand corrected after reading your brilliant exegesis of Quranic hogwash. Are you a recent convert, or were you born into the religion of carnage and hate?
You are out of your league here, so I suggest that you scurry to IslamOnline and exalt with your fellow moronic savages the divine majesty of Islam.
You insult the Holy Bible and God by suggesting that He replaced the Bible with the abominable Qur'an.

Thank you, Sylvester, for brightening our morning.

My (Irish) husband and I had a good laugh at your posts.

To U R all retards :

Could you tell us how present day Islam is superior to present day Christianity?

I'm sure we will all be interested to read your reply.

Its funny how none of you can refute my comments, either all of u are too stupid or you got my point and see how hypocritical your views are

To U R All Retards: (wonderfully revealing moniker, BTW...speaks volumes about how you regard those who view the world differently than you do)

Can you please provide any evidence for your assertion that the Catholic/Protestant wars of the 1500 annihilated "nearly a third of the White race..." ? These wars were bloody, yes, but the death rate cannot possibly be compared with, for example, the numbers associated with the Black Plague, which you seem to be suggesting.

And can you tell us the death toll of the Iraq-Iran/Sunni-Shia war of the 1980s? Oh, wait, that was all the Americans' fault, wasn't it.

There is no extant world religion which compares with the problematic and violent theosophy of Islam. Perhaps you are the hypocrite for not realizing it. At least the radical Islamists live and die by their holy book and make no excuses.

to retard~ no, we're just ignoring you. For the most part.

Yikes, this comment stream is a bit ugly. I question whether that kind of thing does anyone any good. Certainly this doesn’t help the democratic resistance to jihad, and maybe Spencer, though he is obviously very busy, should consider devoting a bit more time to educating us, his readers, about how to comment in the most productive way?

I don't claim to be an expert on the theology of Islam and Christianity and Judaism. So I would simply try to take an empircal approach here for the moment.

Something like 51 out of 53 Muslim-majority states are not democracies as the West understands that term, nor do those 51 states respect freedom of religious conscience, civil rights, etc. That’s probably most of what it is necessary to know. Most of us here are not expert enough in theology to get so loud about it. But the facts of social organization are indisputable except to a fringe. And based on those facts, perhaps we can agree to the following:

Until a majority of Muslim-majority states demonstrate that Islam is compatible with pluralist democracy, it seems only common sense that we in the West prevent Muslim immigration from ever being even close to large enough to give even a future prospect of Muslims ever becoming a majority here. This might be an unattainable guideline, but perhaps it is the idea that should stand sentinel to judgments about future emigration.

Now a brief effort at understanding the differences in theologies (never mind whether the theologies are true or false – the point is, what do those who believe them believe):

Judeo-Christian tradition says man is made in the image of god the Creator. The strong implication is that man has a divine spark of freedom and creativity. Islam does not say that man is made in the image of God. Islam gives god more of a monopoly on creative power. That is why, for example, much of Islam says it is blasphemy for artists to portray living beings – because allegedly only God is a creator. This aspect of Islamic theology does not bode well for civil rights.

According to Daniel Boorstin, author of The Creators, both the Judeo-Christian God and the Islamic God command and create. But the Islamic God is more of a commander, the Judeo-Christian God more of a creator. Thus, for example, after bringing the world into being, Allah did not have to rest, because he simply commanded the world to be, and it was. The Judeo-Christian God made the world over a 6 day period, and on the 7th day actually had to rest from working and making.

But let's suppose for a moment that Islamic theology's belief in theocratic rule, as exemplified by the life of Muhammed as soldier ruler of a theocracy, is no different from what the Judaic faith advocates. Even if that were so, which I question, still there are about 12 million Jews in the world. Furthermore, very few Jews proselytize. The Jewish religion evidently mostly disapproves that. The Jews are not by any means seeking to make everyone jewish. Islam spread by war over tremendous areas of the earth within a mere century of Muhammed’s death. And Islam's pretentions to theocratic rule of the world have many hundreds of millions of people behind them, not a measly 12 million like the Jews, half or more of whom are quite secularized anyway.

Meanwhile, Christianity is a significantly stronger force for separation of religion and state than Islam. "Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's", and "my Kingdom is not of this world" and many other statements in the bible clearly generated a strong tendency to separate church and state that gradually came to fruition in Christian countries everwhere over many centuries. This bodes well for the civil rights we in the West consider of the essence.

Christ washed the disciples feet, and from that and other alleged acts reported in the Bible, all over the earth societies have gradually developed in which any compulsion increasingly can only be justified on the basis of freely contractual relationships – egalitarianism and the rule of law, again, of the essence to us in the West.

I wish to learn more of Islam, and I know my interpretation of it is anything but infallible. If I were to discover that I have judged it unfairly, I would certainly want to apologize. For now, it seems clear to me that Christianity is much more benign with regard to civil rights, both empirically in how many Christian countries are pluralist democracies, and in the miraculous velvet revolutions we have been seeing in Europe recently, but also non-empirically, in terms of the background theologies of the two religions.

My main point is not to argue the theology -- the facts are that Muslim-majority states today are only very rarely pluralist democratic, and until that changes, we in the West should strive, within the rule of law, to keep Muslims as small a minority as required to forestall indefinitely the likelihood of their ever becoming a majority here. Otherwise we carelessly throw away for our grandchildren millennia of progress toward the sacred ideals of liberty and equality.

Someone has questioned how Christ's washing of the disciples' feel leads to societies based on freely contractual relationships rather than hierarchical forms of compulsion.

The Christian world, rightly or wrongly, considered Christ to be God, Third Person of the Trinity. If, in your mind, even God SERVED so humbly, like a lowly servent, washing mere mortals' feet, then how much more will you believe that ordinary earthly rulers must serve their peoples humbly and not be lords over them? The point is not whether the washing of the feet ever in fact happened or not -- the point is that the example has extremely benign social consequences, provided sufficient numbers of people in a society believe in the example. Christ is reputed to have said that he who would be greatest among us must be humblest and the most of service, not a lord over us. This washing of the feet (and many other aspects of Christ's reputed behavior and words) is thus one of the historical events (ancient Greece was also important in this respect) that led to the European Enlightenment's emphasis on human freedom, and led over centuries toward societies based on free contract rather than on hierarchical compulsion.

Unfortunately, the example of Muhammed as soldier-ruler of a theocratic state, seems to lead precisely to hierarchical societies, at least if we look at the Muslim-majority states in the world today, 51 out of 53 of which are non-democratic. But perhaps I am misinterpreting the essence of these religions.

Ed~ yes, this thread is a bit of a mess. However if the person who began this mess had chosen a different moniker, we might have a better conversation going. But he chose to denigrate by the very choice of his name, and thereby becomes a Troll in my book. I will admit I respond to small minds like that somewhat badly- keithjoy being a case in point.

Hey, Mr. secularistprofitsbeard, the compassion of the Buddhists extends to the unborn child, who will tug on the skirts of the mother who aborted it in the 18th Hell (so the Mahayanans claim). Also, the Theravadins are so compassionate to the purity of the monks that they forbid women to sit on benches and chairs reserved for the monks (even a modestly clothes female bottom would pollute them).

Buddhists and neo-Muslims: Western man, being told his God is dead (by a syphilitic ranter, no less), goes out and seeks a new one.

"the bible created by men years after Jesus and the other prophets left the earth peace be upon them all."

It's comments like these that tell me the level of thought that has gone on in this person's mind.

Let me guess, urallretards, you are a Biblical scholar? Yeah, I thought so.. No you aren't.

Had you been one, then I guarantee that you would have better arguments than the ones that you raised. You complain about people taking things out of context, then you go about taking things out of context yourself. Sounds a bit like you are projecting your lack of understanding onto others in this comments section.

And, had you been a bit of a scholar, you would realize that the comment posted above is patently absurd. I mean, to which Bible are you refering? The Hebrew? or the Christian? And, in which eras were each of those books actually written? If you can't answer, then you don't know. What do the current scholars say? (Both conservative and liberal) Until you can answer basic questions regarding canonicity, I don't think I can rely on your attempts at exegesis or hermenuetics - sorry.

Kepha1

I am not excusing the misuse of the Buddha's simple message- "Wake Up, be compassionate" with the typical human-all-too-human madnesses that followed his death. Robes, male and females "monks", temples, written doctrines, ad absurdum...

Once you turn a plain call to self-awareness into an organized 'faith', which is logically absurd, as any Zen Buddhist (who you forgot to mention, becuase they've seen through the follies of embellishing a request to be aware and become decent), you reap the same old patriarchal and megalomaniacal delusions attendant on all rigid orthodoxies.

The secular rule of law guarantees all can practice their follies to the point of only harming themselves.

As Blake put it, "If the fool would PERSIST in his folly, he would become wise." (Since you eventually bang against reality... learning things like the bacterial transmission of disease, and not witches curses, bring illness, etc.)

Religious rule generally becomes inquisition-leaning, until a poeple hurt too much and raise up a secular rule to smack it down.

As someone who knows Nietzsche's ("syphillitic...") own misunderstanding of his beautifully written critique of Religion (he was strangely sympathetic to Islam, oddly enough, as a " true man's religion"... unless he was already suffering from paresis by then?), I still respect his intellectual honesty, as far as it went.

Who else would dare end a book with the word "Or?"

To: u r all retards (may we call you 'retard' for short?)

In what way is Islam 'better than' Christianity?

Dear Mr. Retarded: Please start reading the New Testament on your own and do not allow some intellectual quack to mislead you.

Also, to atheists out there: Really, you need to refocus your efforts on combatting Islam, not joining the Left which is trying to bring down Christianity and thereby extinguish your natural ally (against Islam). Just remember, if you are right about the Nothingness after death: you will never be able to say "I told so." Talk about an empty victory.

Setting aside faith, the New Testament is intellectually heads above its competitor, the Koran. Taking it only as a pure ideology (love, compassion, respect, self-discipline), what's not to like? Jump on the doctrinal bandwagon. Let's defeat Islam on every front possible.

u r all retards,

"They wanted to eliminate Muhammad and his religion; and so they sent their army to root out Islam. And the crucial battle took place in Badr"

Do you really believe that? Even Islamic apologist websites concede that just about the very first money-making scheme Mo and his Muslims came up with is attacking the Meccan caravan. One website apologized for it by saying that Mohammad was OWED this caravan because he and his men had to leave their homes behind in Mecca.LOL

"THe Meccans ATTACKED ISLAM!" Translation: They sent out a force to intercept Mo's THIRD attempt to take the caravan. He won that GLORIOUS battle, then divided the spoils, women, ransomed or killed the men, etc etc etc, y'know the usual thing. Fast forward 1300 years and Islam is still boasting an unbroken string of 100% DEFENSIVE battles.

BTW, practically nobody in the western world views the old testament as "scripture":) Everyone understands it is a collection of stories and histories of the Hebrew people. Unlike Mohammad, no Judeo/Christian treats every word or character in a man-made, oft-translated, often-edited Book as PERFECT and FINAL. Nobody looks to pattern their lives after bloody-handed Joshua, or picks up dating tips from King David (he saw a beautiful women sunbathing, then put her husband in the front lines of the next battle). No, Christians are free to say "David was a jerk".

So get your compulsions straight. It is YOU who are compelled to fashion your life after a man whose first official actions were caravan raiding and critic assassination.

But to be fair, those were NON-MUSLIM caravans, those assassinated critics were NON-MUSLIM, weren't they? So I guess those aren't really crimes after all.