Many people have sent me reports on the Pope's words. Some have bewailed his apparent lapse into dhimmitude. I tend to think that his reluctance here to "apply generic labels" is actually a sign of just the opposite: after all, this is a man who chooses his words very carefully. From WND, with thanks to all who sent this in:
Pope Benedict XVI yesterday refused to declare Islam "a religion of peace."Asked by reporters whether Islam could be considered a religion of peace shortly before entering a meeting with priests and deacons of Valle d'Aosta in northwest Italy where he is spending a brief holiday, the pontiff refused to reply positively.
"I would not like to use big words to apply generic labels," he replied. "It certainly contains elements that can favor peace, it also has other elements: We must always seek the best elements."
We'll have to agree to disagree about this one, Robert. Considering what's going on in the world right now, this is hardly a time for measured words. It's a time to speak out clearly against the scourge that threatens us all, not the least the Catholic Church. Your interpretation is that the Pope refused to call Islam a religion of peace; mine is that he also refused to discount that description. Thus, I see it not as a matter of refusing to "apply generic labels", but of a failure to step up to the plate at this most critical time.
After the Ayatollah Khomeini proclaimed his death fatwa against Salman Rushdie --
"In its mouthpiece, L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican condemned The Satanic Verses as blasphemous. Rushdie had hurt the "religious feelings" of hundreds of millions of the Moslem faithful. Affiliation with the Roman Catholic church demanded rebuke of the blasphemous statements in the book, said the paper. The Spanish newspaper El Pais commented: "A new inquisition." Hardly by chance Pope John Paul II saw fit to call Khomeini (after his overdue death) one of the world's greatest religious leaders.
"Not only Rome, but other high dignitaries of the church elsewhere got a word in: Cardinal Decourtray, head of the French episcopal congregation, spoke of an "insult to God"; New York's Cardinal O'Connor stated it would be stupid to read Rushdie's book and that it was important to "let Moslems know we disapprove of attacks on their religion." "
http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atheists.org%2FIslam%2Fenlightenment.html
On July 10 at JW this was posted:
"La Repubblica for July 8, p. 25 has an interesting piece on Pope Benedict's immediate reaction, and then the careful censorship which removed any hint of a "war of civilizations."
Here is an excerpt:
Citta del Vaticano. "Benedetto XVI condanna "i gesti anti-umani e anticristiani", compiuti dai terroristi a Londra, poi si corregge e deplora "questi atti barbarici contro l'umanita."
Benedict XVI condemns these "inhumane and anti-Christian acts" of the terrorists in London, then corrects himself and deplores "these barbaric acts against humanity."
And the article goes on to note:
"L'aver depennato dal telegramma ufficiale inviato dal pontefice al cardinale cattolico di Londra, Murphy O'Connor, ogni accenno ad azioni "anticristiane" dimostra l'intenzione vaticana di evitare il pur minimo accenno ad uno scontro di civilta."
The removal from the official telegram sent by the Pope to the Catholic cardinal of London, Murphy O'Connor, of any allusion to "antichristian" acts demonstrates the clear intention of the Vatican to avoid even the slightest hint at a "war of civlizations."
Of note, of course, is what in the heat of an immediate reply the Pope uttered. His words were telling, and good. And of note as well, the apparently felt need to remove those very words, to censor the Pope's own text, so as not to offend Muslims. That was telling as well, and not so good."
Note, however, that the phrase "anti-Christian " can be used in two ways. It can be: an act directed specifically against Christians, or it can be an act which violates the tenets of Christianity, an act which is not in the spirit of Christianity.
When the Pope said the other day when asked about the bombings in London if they were anti-Christian, and did not completely endorse this, one suspects he meant: this was not an act directed at Christians as it was an act directed at all Infidels. There is a difference.
I think he was wrong, in the context of these times, to pull punches, but those who conclude that he has changed, or has betrayed the considerable doubts about Islam that he has expressed in many books, over a long period of time, should hold their horses.
More disturbing, in a way, was the failure of the Pope not to include Israel in the list of countries that have been the object of terrorism. Nor does it due to explain, lamely, that he was "only" referring to attacks in "recent days" when the attacks in Israel are not a week old. It makes no sense.
Blair did the same thing, carefully avoiding terrorist acts in Israel in his own little list. But one expects better of Pope Benedict than one does of any of our political leaders.
Israel has been the victim of tens of thousands of terrorist acts, most of them unsuccessful, and many of them successful. If one seeks to find the indomitable "Spirit of the Blitz" about which so much has been written and heard recently, one cannot overlook Israel, whose citizens provide a model of quotidian matter-of-fact bravery. It is time for those who have accepted the Arab rewriting of history, the rewriting of the history of the Jews in their land, of the demography of that area, of the land ownership under the Ottomans, of the influx of Muslims from North Africa, Egypt, Iraq (many from Iraq), and even from the Balkans in the 19th and 20th centuries, the ancestors of so many of those now absurdly called the "Palestinian people" -- to think again, to study, and to understand that, instead of making plans to throw Israel to the wolves to see if that, somehow, will stave off the world-wide Jihad, to realize that any triumph over the Israselis will, far from sating, merely whet Muslim appetites, aside from the intolerable injustice of such behavior.
Back to the books. Study. See why Shukairy's Jihad, the one that pre-dates May 15, 1948, and that goes back some 1350 years, has nothing to do with the borders of Israel or some invented rights of some invented "Palestinian" people. If the current Israeli leaders are too stupid to see that, tant pis. We who have the leisure to study and think, do not have to share their folly.
What a chickensh*t. Next time, they should ask Mel "What 'Holocaust'"? Gibson.
I dont blame jim at all.
Islam is not a religion of peace but of WAR...
Islam demands total and complete destruction of anyone who even dares to criticise it.
Islam demands genocide (death to jews, christians, heck everyone who isnt a muslim).
Islam has publicly stated the decision to use nuclear weapons has already been made.
I am tired of the P.C. Bullcrap that infests americas media...
They wont figure it out until the next time we get hit...
Islam is from the Devil... Period...
Chill out on criticizing Pope Benedict. He's most assuredly on the right side.
I think Pope Benedict won't be kissing no filthy green book anytime soon -- that was the biggest mistake the prior pope made, that is if you leave out getting shot by a crazed Turkish Muslim, and then visiting him in jail --
(also, I think we all have it wrong -- many Muslims are vegetarians, I think they're saying Islam is a religion of peas... they like mashed chick peas a lot over there...)
I hope Mr. Fitzgerald is wrong on this one. Its too early to say that the tide has turned, but I think it's beginning to turn. In Europe there has been a sea change (amongst some ordinary folks at any rate) since the last month.
I think what we are seeing is a moving on from islam is a religion of peace period to actually there is something wrong. To a belief system it lends itself too easily to being 'misinterpreted' or 'misued', etc. The fear of the backlash, international relations and of war with islam precludes stating the obvious.
There is a deeper problem here to, the idea that the 'solution' lies in engagement. It just feels natural (and no doubt they think that they are being 'intelligent' in doing so) to take this approach by the elites. The real questions start when this approach clearly fails. I don't think that the elites can ever adopt Mr. Fitzgerald's views, not just yet. Some are too far down the line, some (even if they understood islam) know just how ignorant their colleagues are, others think it would be politically sucidal to do the 'right thing' and the list goes on and on. They just don't understand the concept of responsibility.
I personally hold the view that if the truth were to be told 'too soon' and acted upon, the left and muslim coalition would have a field day. They would be politically slaughtered. The blame for the breakdown of 'interfaith' relations would go down on them, - 'it was never given a chance, now we have to live with the consequences, blah, blah...' In short it needs to fail. Even then many will still balk at the consequences of disengagement and persue policies that would lead to us carrying (least disruption in trade, etc) on as before as much as possible.
It has been commentated here before on a journalists question to O. Fallaci - what's the solution? That's exactly it, they want and need solutions (multiculturalism needs solutions). When Kepel and co fail to deliver and this is seen and understood by everyone then we have some hope, but sadly and illogically not before.
I even think that the 'post engagement' scenario has been and is being prepared for. Observe some of K. Armstrong's statements after 9-11, she thinks that the conflict will last a long time, irrespective of our policies, due to the hurt caused to the muslim world by the west, her article on Moorish Spain (expulsions of) in the UK press (sorry I can't find the links). If you analyse some of her comments I think that she knows what the future options will boil down to and she is steering the western 'psyche' against them. The more of Armstrong I read, the more I am convinced that she knows what we here all know and her statements and writings are deliberate and calculated and she is acting against our civilisation.
For Europe the stakes are far higher than in the US due to our 'guests' and our proximity to Mordor.
I just don't think that Panzer Pope Mark XVI can go any faster, not yet.
JV
Well put, Popey.
How about we don't call this important Pope names like "Panzer Pope" and "Popey"? We need all the allies we can get, especially major figures like the most important Christian prelate on earth! I'm no Catholic, but a modicum of respect is due here, no?
"It certainly contains elements that can favor peace,
From what I understand, that "peace" can only be attained as long as Islam is on top, with everyone else dead, converted or subjugated. That's not any kind of peace in my books. More like some sort of nightmarish hell.
When did this tediously over-used phrase "Religion of Peace" get started anyway? I seem to remember it was from when Bush stated it after 9/11. Was it used much before then? It's so overused it's like a standing joke. It's bandied about willy-nilly and inappropriately, always after some atrocity that is anything but peaceful.
I saw this same news today, and gave a major thumbs-up for the Pope's reply. He's no dhimmi, from what I see so far. I am hoping he is the right man for the times, just as the last Pope was when Communism was the threat.
BTW, I am new to this site after having been lurking for a few weeks. I am glad I found it through the Human Events email I signed up for somewhere along the line.
All my praise to Robert Spencer! (ok, and to Daniel Pipes and to Ali Sina, and... some other brave thinkers and leaders like them). This IS a civilian conflict, and everyone will have to declare sides before it's over. Maybe that will force a re-birth of sorts in our country. It is great to have a place to learn what the real situation is. Thanks for the yeoman work!
"Pope won't call Islam religion of peace"
Neither do I!
The Catholic Church has been a great Dhimmi. Can you believe that the Catholic Cardinal, Stéphanos II Ghattas, published a poem on Muhammad’s birthday in the largest M.E. newspaper calling Muhammad something to the effect, my lord, you have come to the world to spread justice and peace… On your birthday, please accept the gratitude of a Christian. What a church.
For "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you," as it is written." Romans 2:17-24
What exactly is the purpose or the driving force behind the hatred? Surely you dont expect to eleminate or convert the 1 billion or so moslems (Hitler couldn't eleminate the jews so getting rid of the moslems is next to an impossible task). I doubt any of you know arabic or have actually read the Quran to comment or quote. I am chinese and I have read both the chinese and the english versions of the Bible. The chinese version seems to imply that the Jews were responsible for christ's cricifixion and have to suffer...etc, but the english version is not so explicit about it. If I hated the jews for some reason, I would twist the statements in the bible (the chinese version) and justify the hatred. So if you hate moslems for whatever ..9/11 or racial (after all there are not many caucasian moslems, so I dont blame you guys), it doesnt take much to interpret the Quran to justify your prejudice or hatred for the "enemy".
"Sam" (Surface to Air Missile?)
You're about as much "Chinese" as I am a one-eyed bellydancer.
Peddle your taqiyya in some college chatroom ["fatallynaivepseudointellectualsuckers.net"?]where they have no experience with your brand of happy horsh*t.
It won't flush here. (Although the Korans will.)
Sam, there is no evidence the bombers in London understood arabic, yet they certainly had no trouble interpreting literally such verses as
"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"
Read three islamically approved english translations here http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html
The koran totals around 80,000 words, but just reading Sura 5 (Considered by many the final, thus abrogating the previous Suras)will allow you to make your own judgement on Islam.
The Hadiths and Sira, considered just as important by muslims will leave you in no doubt that the message is the establishment of a global islamic caliphate with death, slavery or dhimmitude for those who do not comply.
Mohammed justified theft, murder and slavery by building up a religion around his activities. He is no more religious than Charles Manson.
The hatred you find find here is directed at Islam.
The chinese version seems to imply that the Jews were responsible for christ's cricifixion and have to suffer...etc
The Chinese version? There's only one? Who wrote it?
it doesnt take much to interpret the Quran to justify your prejudice or hatred for the "enemy"
The problem, Sam, is not our interpretation of the Qur'an, since we're just a bunch of people on a website. The problem is that millions of Muslims are also interpreting that Qur'an commands jihad to advance Islam and institute Sharia law (which denies equality in law to non-Muslims). You can say that we're wrong, but the more pressing question is, how can you convince those around the world prepared to kill and die for Islam that they are wrong?
sam obviously needs a quick lesson before he can further engage in which cas3e i direct him to read this before he come to class:
`The facts about the founder of Islam are spreading very rapidly, and Muslims are frantically scurrying to defend their faith. But the information superhighway is paving over the ignorance that has for centuries been the stronghold of Islamic dogma. In the end, Islam will fall, for the entire structure is built upon the belief that Muhammad was the greatest moral example in history, and this belief is demonstrably false.`
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Authors/Wood/islam_beheaded.htm
The Catholic Church owns the molestation of thousands of boys. The Pope has sewage in his own living room, his up or down opinion on Islam matters not.
when Muslims try so desperately to explain away Muhammad’s atrocities, they are attempting to show that Muhammad fits in with Christian moral standards. But such an attempt is absurd. Muhammad killed countless people (torturing many of them), robbed people, married thirteen women (one of them a juvenile), took part in the slave trade, and permitted women to be beaten by their husbands.[35] When he is judged by the standards laid down by Jesus, Muhammad fails miserably. Thus, when Muslims find themselves defending the moral character of Muhammad, they may be doing so because they find the moral standards of Jesus more compelling than the moral standards of Muhammad, and they may be consciously or unconsciously trying to replace the spotted life of Muhammad with the spotless life of Jesus. If so, it is time for Muslims to look to a different messenger, one who is truly worthy of our admiration, praise, reverence, and worship.
http://www.answeringinfidels.com/content/view/61/42/
The pope made the right call, as far as he was able.
With Catholic missionaries and Catholic laity in muslim lands, surely you don't expect him to come right out and say "islam is most assuredly NOT a religion of peace", whatever he might think. Catholics in muslim nations (to say nothing of Christians overall) would simply be murdered en masse, to joyous, 'forgiving' cries of "Allah akbhur!" Such a forgiving deity.
And to bring up sexual assault within the Catholic church as a reason to ignore the pope is preposterous, tu tuoque at its lowest. We might, based on JackTolerance's interpretation, then conclude that islam is in no position to discuss morality since (although many priests have been charged and will be jailed) no one is ever going to be prosecuted for rape in islamic countries - excepting, of course, the victim (inshallah!).
Come to think of it, shouldn't we just ignore Jack, since he still hasn't admitted to being muslim? Come on, no one dislikes you for being muslim. We dislike you because you're thick as a whale steak.
Imam Geoff
sampleton;
(meant in the nicest, nonjudgemental, morally equivalent way)
"if you hate the jews you could twist...."
yeah, anyone with a nominally creative mind could twist anything to mean whatever you want. here's the difference, if you can't keep up, take notes or ask me to go slower,
christian, bible-sourced calls for death of jews, homosexuals, etc, are ARCHAIC REMARKS VIEWED BY THE LARGER CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY AS HISTORIC ANECDOTES FROM ANOTHER TIME, REFLECTING CONTEMPORARY SENSIBILITIES, WITHOUT RELAVENCE TO THE MODERN DAY VIS-A-VIS THEIR EXHORTATIONS TO MURDER.
islamic quran/hadith-sourced calls for the death of jews and christians, homosexuals, etc and the death, conversion, or subjugation of all non-muslims thru killing, deception, theft, rape, subterfuge, and lies are FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS OF MODERN CONTEMPORARY ISLAMIC LIFE, VIEWED AS ESSENTIAL AND LIVING CONCEPTS, SERVING AS THE IMPETUS FOR, AND DEFENSE OF, ACTIONS COMMITTED TODAY BY ISLAMIC MURDERERS AROUND THE WORLD, ON A DAILY BASIS, AGAINST EVERY NONMUSLIM GROUP
EXTANT. CONCEPTS AND EXHORTATIONS PROUDLY WORN LIKE A CLOAK AND SHIELD, TO DRAPE ONES ACTS IN A CACHE OF LEGITIMACY DURING PERPETRATION AND TO HIDE BEHIND POST FACT.
King toiler-ants;
"the catholic church owns the molestation..."
shrewd observation, but you were remiss in not carrying the thought a bit farther to note the disparity in outcomes.
molest a child in the west and if you are found out you are arrested, charged and convicted, defrocked, sent to prison, sued, and sometimes killed by your victim or fellow prisoners.
molest a child in the muslim world and you are doing what your prophet says is okay with allah, and an unremarkable action common to daily life. get good at it and you earn the respect and admiration of your fellow muslims from the creep on the corner all the way up to your Grand Muffin or whatever your particular big-dog is called. might get you the old islamic high-5.
be the molested and you might want to STFU before you get charged with a death-sentence crime.
"And to bring up sexual assault within the Catholic church as a reason to ignore the pope is preposterous, tu tuoque at its lowest."
King: Of course you find it preposterous - it lends balance and fairness which has not registered in your melon even once since I've made your acquaintance.
My point is that the Catholic Church has its own scandal going on which, in my view, lends it little if any credibility to chastize any other major religion for whatver reason. Diddling little boys for decades and covering it up sounds shameful and disqualifying to me, Mmmmkay Imam?
If the truth were known about all the 'schoolmasters' in all the millions of madrassas across the globe -- all those guys in flowing robes, shut off from the company of women, spending all their waking hours with "boys like pearls" strewn about their feet -- The buggering going on in the Muslim world is unprecedented in human history! Get real, Kingsizedfake!
Like a practical catholic, I am happy for this, It´s a step in the good direction, I know that here there are many anti-catholics, I am ashamed for what happened in the catholic dioceses of Los Angeles and Boston, but this don´t serve for destroying a doctrine or a church. The Catholic Church is like something says a hospital of sinners and not a museum of saints.
Many american students have been abused by their theachers, too, in other religions, there have been abuses, but only, the Catholic Church abuses are reported.
I am a catholic and european in this forum of americans and not-catholic people, but I am proud of my religion.
The Catholic Church was the first anti-dhirmi organisation in the story, the reconquista in Spain, the Crusades, the Siege of Vienna and the help of the Vatican, the catholic monarchy Spain and others liberated Europe.
The so worried now evangelism, in that time said nothing, not, well, Luther said that the catholics are worse than turks, nice guy.
Now with the rise of atheism and agnosticism in Western, we are weak, we don´t want to defend our civilisation, and this is a problem.
If you know, that there a God, a life later of death you can fight because you see that your life is only a trip, but without nothing, you only want a welfare life.
Because if this lie, why do you think that the people don´t want to fight even intelectualy islam, why there are lazy? because they don´t believe in nothing.
We come back to Middle Ages, although we don´t want.
But I am optimistic, islam is nothing against christianism but christians have to have faith.
jsla:
Not to mention the late Yasser Arafat's rather notorious activities documented during his stay in Romania.
Yes -- sadly we spend too much time stating the obvious and countering the lies at this superb site -- It takes just a few Muslims such as "King" and ia786 to degrade the discussion ... I should have just ignored his post, as I have done with so many others... Sorry for even giving him the time of day -- we all know he's a dissembler, and minion of evil... Enough said!
The thing about the KTs, IAs, etc., is that you don't have to engage with them endlessly, but when they insist on misleading, make your point, point blank. They'll still waffle, weave and dissemble, but you have refreshed your own memory and others of facts that may not have been immediately in mind.
As for the maddrassahs of Pakistan, I recall accounts of brutality and sexual assault were in the news only this past spring.
As a Catholic who has written extensively about the Vatican's appeasement of Islam under the late Pope, I regard this as a hopeful sign. Benedict will be far more subtle than the last Pope. For example, at Benedict's instillation Mass, one of his assistants offered a prayer for persecuted Christians in Arabic. That gesture speaks volumes.
By appealing to Islam's "peaceful" elements, Benedict is subtly trying to divide and conquer. Yes, we know that such elements are rare, if they exist at all in Islam. Nevertheless, consider his position. Many people view Benedict as an international moral leader (not least of all Benedict himself). As such, he believes he has a moral obligation to pursue peace and not to declare all-out holy war against Islam. In the process, he cannot be seen to favor one side or the other. This is not the same as kissing Korans or failing to discipline an American prelate (Cardinal Law of Boston) for praying to Allah in a suburban Boston mosque.
jsla: "The buggering going on in the Muslim world is unprecedented in human history! Get real, Kingsizedfake!"
King: In my "keeping it real" schematics, a list of what apears to be hundreds of names linked to thousands of pedophilia reports. All priests. All Christian. US only, the global list must be shockingly huge. I remind you not a Muslim or Imam in sight, unless you consider Imam Geoff as fair game (ha ha ha).
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/priestdb/
King Tollerschwanz:
You exhibit a rather hysterical concern for the wrongdoings of Catholic priests - why?
In a recent survey in madrassahs and mosques child abuse and sexual molestation by Imams was found to be rampant.
But isn't homosexuality part of being Islamic just like learning to hate Infidels and Jews before they even learn to say "Mama?"
Turdinator: "You exhibit a rather hysterical concern for the wrongdoings of Catholic priests - why?"
King: For the same reasons you satiate your boner for the wrongdoings of Muslims. In my case, I draw attention to the Catholic pedophila scandal to prove a point that you get, but will not admit.
Turd: "In a recent survey in madrassahs and mosques child abuse and sexual molestation by Imams was found to be rampant."
King: In a recent scandal, he same has been proven within the Catholic church. Go to the link I left above for more details. Your straw man builds....
Turd: "But isn't homosexuality part of being Islamic just like learning to hate Infidels and Jews before they even learn to say "Mama?""
King: No more than it seems to be a requisite to be a Catholic priest! Straw man on fire.
Now, we can surmise from your little post that you not only have trouble with understanding two sides to an argument, but you now seem to take isue with homosexuals in addition to Muslims since you equate homosexuality with being Muslim and something that is inherently wrong. Perhaps you should learn to shut up before making too big a fool of yourself? Sheesh.
There you go again, "Kinktolerance" -- you're the one who keeps bringing up "boners" and such -- Islam is a puerile relgion, obsessed with bodily functions, the handling of bodily fluids, obsessions about shaving this and shaving that -- obsessions about what to do with scabs, clipped fingernails, clipped hair, chopped off clitorises... Terror bombers are sometimes found with tissue wrapped around their genitals, presumably to keep 'em fresh for the 72 sybarites in allah's garden of evil -- WEIRDO religion, fer shizzle...
The abusive tactics and policies of Islam are legion, and they are known by the posters here. The rape victim is blamed for the rape, the terror victim is blamed for the terror, no doubt the poor hapless boys and girls who fall prey to the satanic imams are blamed for tempting the imam with their clean soft skin---
Why do Muslim girls even have to cover themselves in your squalid culture? Could it be that you're so preoccupied with sex on earth and sex in heaven, that even little girls and boys aren't safe from your hoary Muslim eyes? You come from a revolting culture, and practice a revolting religion -- It's crimes even outweigh the deplorable actions of a few priests. There is also a HUGE difference between evil individuals doing heinous deeds which fall completely outside of every tenet of relgion, and the altogether REVOLTING actions of Muslims who act on behalf of their "prophet's" calls to rape, behead, steal, and murder.
BIG difference between primitive Islam, and Christianity... Islam is backward and evil -- end of story!
King Schwanz:
Mohammed had a lackey accompany him when he went to crap behind a sand dune. He told the lackey to fetch him pebbles, not bones, in order to scrape the crap from his anus, since the crap on the bones 'are the food of jinn'... Is that in the Koran or from the Sunnah?
For my upcoming trip to the Sahara I am looking for such a lackey, especially one like you or 1a who are so knowledgable and could entertain me ....
But then again, when I think about all the mental chips you guys carry on your shoulders and your obsession with race and tears streaming down your cheeks when you read the Koran...
No. I think I stay in Australia for now. But we have deserts and camels and goats here too, could I interest you?
All the Explanation Anyone Should Need
Muhammad:-
Hey people I am a prophet!
People: -
Where are your credentials?
Muhammad: -
Here is a letter that I have written that says I am a prophet.
People: -
But this is your own words.
Muhammad: -
No this is what Allah dictated and I wrote it.
People: -
How can we know you are not lying?
Muhammad: -
You are deaf, dumb and blind and you’ll burn in hellfire. 2.171. 6.39, 8.22. 17.97
Stupid people aka Muslims: -
Whoa! What a convincing argument! We believe.
Muhammad: -
Now let us go and raid merchant caravans.
Muslims: -
But isn’t stealing unethical?
Muhammad: -
No! Because you became poor after following me and are no more working, Allah has given you the right to lay hand on other people’s property. Also they oppressed you. You can kill them. Oppression is worse than killing 2:217 Now let us attack villages without warning and take the population by surprise while they are heedless and their cattle is being watered at places of water. We will kill their fighting men and take their women and children as captives. Remember that the prettiest of the captives is my share. [Bukhari 3.46.717 ]
Muslims: -
But isn’t raping married women sin?
Muhammad: -
No! Incidentally Allah sent me a verse this morning saying it is okay to have sex with your right hand possessions. 4:24 So rape them with clear conscience. But always remember that the prettiest captive belongs to Allah and his messenger. [Bukhari1.8.367]
Also from now on you don’t have to practice coitus interruptus. Go ahead and ejaculate inside your victims "for if any soul is predestined to exist, it will exist". [Bukhari 3.46.718 5.59.459 Abu Dawood 29.29.32.95 29.29.32.96]
Faith Freedom
The scabrousness of Islam just keeps getting worse to me -- the more I learn the less I want to know -- yet to defeat it, one must sadly learn about its lurid ugliness. It is no surprise that it emerged from among the most harsh and vile race of desert ruffians and degenerates -- the embarrassment to humanity -- ARABS -- I am now beginning to understand why it only attracts the most broken and debauched people for converts -- the absolute dregs of our society. Without fail - Western converts to this ideology are the weakest minded, or the most degenerate... Clearly it is no coincidence...
"And to bring up sexual assault within the Catholic church as a reason to ignore the pope is preposterous, tu tuoque at its lowest."
King: "My point is that the Catholic Church has its own scandal going on which, in my view, lends it little if any credibility to chastize any other major religion for whatver reason. Diddling little boys for decades and covering it up sounds shameful and disqualifying to me, Mmmmkay Imam?"
Oh sure. Know what sounds even more shameful? Diddling little boys and girls for a thousand years in mosques and maddrassas worldwide with NO means for redress now or ever, covering up the statistics, and, in the meantime, just for fun, oppressing women, religious minorities, and murdering tens of millions of people worldwide in the name of a holy rock in Mecca.
Yep. You sure seem to have a grasp on the moral equivalency thing.
Geoff