Fitzgerald: The five most dangerous words with regard to Muslim immigration to the West

"5 most dangerous words in the English language with regard to Muslim immigration to the West"

King reminds of history......

The five most dangerous words of the Spanish Inquisition, perpetuated by Christians against Muslims and Jews:

"You
must
convert
to
Catholicism"

King also points out three more words:

Pot
Kettle
Black

King,
Are you seriously suggesting that because of Christian intolerance more than 500 years ago, we are obliged to submit to Islamic bigotry and terrorism today?

"King,
Are you seriously suggesting that because of Christian intolerance more than 500 years ago, we are obliged to submit to Islamic bigotry and terrorism today?"

That's exactly what he's saying.

"Are you seriously suggesting that because of Christian intolerance more than 500 years ago, we are obliged to submit to Islamic bigotry and terrorism today?"

King: No, what I am pointing out here is that no religion is safe from the twisted desires of extremists. Those of you who consider yourselves Christian ought to remember the Inquisition and what it did to Europe before you engage in counterproductive rhetoric againts all Muslims.

You also should be aware that Christians pillaged the peaceful cultures of South and Central Americans, and spread their "seed" by brutal violence. To this day, some of the remnants of those tribes remain in the deepest parts of the jungles where they retreated.

King Tolerance:

You need to move to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Algeria, etc.. I am sure that you will be much happier there.

"King: No, what I am pointing out here is that no religion is safe from the twisted desires of extremists. Those of you who consider yourselves Christian ought to remember the Inquisition and what it did to Europe before you engage in counterproductive rhetoric againts all Muslims.

You also should be aware that Christians pillaged the peaceful cultures of South and Central Americans, and spread their "seed" by brutal violence. To this day, some of the remnants of those tribes remain in the deepest parts of the jungles where they retreated."

King,
I still don't see how this excuses or explains the crisis of Islamic terrorism that confronts us today.

KT-

And your comments are useful in dealing with the threat of Islam in the 21st century HOW?

To suggest that we should submit to Islamic terrorism in this day and age is insanity. To lay blame on anything that happened ages ago is also insanity, but that’s the mindset of those in the Middle East who have nothing but a vacuous, cavernous hole where their brains should be and they live so far in the past that they aren’t able to see the present, and therefore have no hope for the future.

This entire “you hit me first” mentality is like watching little schoolchildren tussling on the playground over who was the first kid to get to the sandbox –and literally, that’s what the argument sounds like when the Palestinians whine and complain about their ‘settled’ lands. Meanwhile, what have they done with themselves? Israel has created modern cities and a civilization whereas the Palestinians have created nothing of use or of value to anyone who dreams for anything other than martyrdom.

Perhaps Christianity spread by violence in the past, but the past is dead and buried, like the Mayans and many other civilizations that came and went, blown away like sand. Today’s Christianity and yesterday’s Christianity aren’t the same, unlike Islam. If Islam would or could reform and become more tolerant (or, at the very least, less violent) as Christianity has done over time, then perhaps this argument could apply, but Islam is the same now as it has always been and, sadly, has no real hopes of changing. These are, after all, the eternal words of Mohammed as passed down from Allah and hold true throughout all of time.

Relying on ‘maybes’ is a dangerous strategy. Maybe a small portion of Muslims are extremists, but maybe not. Maybe they’ll all be called on to join Jihad and maybe a good number of them will act. Maybe they won’t. Maybe they’ll have the power to attack, destroy, and kill. Maybe they’ll dance in their streets when they kill large numbers of infidels in the west and when we retaliate, maybe they’ll act like victims and maybe they’ll just hate us even more.

We need to tighten our borders. We need to get a hold of our populace for SO many reasons and we need to get a grip on our demographics for taxation purposes and for simply knowing who we’ve got on our team, so to speak. In doing so, it would decrease any attacks, legitimize those who are here legally, allow for growth, and continued, harmonious living among the citizens.

I’ve got 5 words to add that’s not only for Muslims, but for all of those who are here illegally, and that includes Muslims, as well:

Deport All Illegal Aliens Now

Extremist Muslim: One who will kill you

Moderate Muslim: One who will stand by silently and watch the Extremist Muslim kill you

King Tolerance uses the time-tested method of using the past sins of the West to exculpate the current sins of Islam.

What he refuses to see is that the West has long acknowledged the sins of its past: the Inquisition and its assault on religious freedom, the gratuitous bloodletting of the Crusades, the genocide of cultures and peoples in the New World, the Atlantic slave-trade, etc.

Meanwhile, the Islamic world to this day refuses to account for its own sins, which are many: the extirpation of local cultures after the conquests, the depredations of dhimmitude, the brutal subjugation of Hindus in India...something that reknowned historian Will Durant - who otherwise was quite sympathetic in his portrayal of Islam - characterized as "perhaps the bloodiest chapter in human history," the Armenian genocide, the continued existence of the Muslim slave trade in parts of Africa, etc.

But this telling distinction in the way these two cultures deal with their respective pasts means nothing to King Tolerance and his multiculturalist fellow-travelers. His world-view is hermetically sealed in neat, ideological lines. One can hear the mantra: "all cultures and religions are equally valid."

It is a vapid, lazy construct that is tantamount to saying "all ideas are equally valid"...a premise even the most rabid multiculturalist would agree is preposterous.

King Tolerance:

You raise an interesting point when you discuss systematic, non-Islamic intolerance dating back 500 years. Things have clearly advanced in the West since that time, to the benefit of all who live there. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the Islamic world. The Islamic world's mindset is still at least 500 years behind that of the modern world. Importing this mindset into the West presents a danger that the West will revert to systematic intolerance, this time Islamic. Same poison, different label.

Mentat: "You need to move to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Algeria, etc.. I am sure that you will be much happier there."

King: No, I am much happier living in an environment where I can thrive and speak my mind againt religious extremsist and bigots like you. Likewise, you need to move to the North Pole or some other outpost where you will be much happier away from those you hate.

sbrst: "I still don't see how this excuses or explains the crisis of Islamic terrorism that confronts us today."

King: I equally fail to see how your broad painting of Islam 'explains' anything, either. So far I see only the typical wagon circling around the articles you are baited with and no real solutions.

treehugger: "And your comments are useful in dealing with the threat of Islam in the 21st century HOW?"

King: My comments are most useful by reminding people that history has taught us a few things. First, Christianity has caused as much suffering and intolerance in its extremists days as we see from the extremist Muslims today. The reason for this are quite similar but since you choose to ignore them in lieu of rhetoric you ecome part of the problem. Second, we also have the holocaust, which used wholesale rhetoric to blame an entire religion and its followers for the ills of time. Ignoring these two historical facts are not only irresponsible but ignorant. Sorry to remind you of this, but you need to change your wholesale tune "tree hugger."

Januaryman: "Extremist Muslim: One who will kill yoModerate Muslim: One who will stand by silently and watch the Extremist Muslim kill you"

King: Bigot: One who says the above statement.

Chatillon: "The Islamic world's mindset is still at least 500 years behind that of the modern world."

King: You are making this statement through Western eyes. You may find it difficult to believe, but there are many people who live in Islamic nations and are happy with their culture. When culture is "exported" there are issues. Indeed, those who partake of the forcing of their culture onto those who are unwilling to accept it are the guilty parties. This goes for the West as well.

Chatillon: "Importing this mindset into the West presents a danger that the West will revert to systematic intolerance, this time Islamic. Same poison, different label."

King: As stated above, the same can be seen and interpreted from their perspective, too. I'm not 'excusing' anything I am simply stating things from a pragmatist's point of view. We can engage in a discussion about cultural norms all day but the bottom line is that Islamic culture, in the eyes of a Westerner, is foreign, strange and misunderstood. It is therefore hated and feared by many. Things that are hated and feared are often discarded. You have an obligation to open up the scope and see why we are at this rift.

Revenons a nos moutons, ladies and gentleman -- return with us now to the problem of those gamboling sheep, which the Infidels keep creating in their waking dreams, and then counting as they run, so as to remain drugged in a happily hypnagogic state, if not the desired state of deep and heedless sleep. Meanwhile the True Believers in Islam, convinced that the Infidels are not merely dreaming of those sheep, but are those very sheep, have started to sharpen their various knives on the implied promise of the future feast.

How about an argument in English, Hugh. Leave the meataphor and pseudo poetry for the kids in literature class.

As only 38% of Muslims work who have settled in the UK (that's the Government's own official figures) many of us are wondering what exactly their contribution to our society could possibly be as it is often accompanied by all kinds of demands for our customs to be altered to suit theirs in matters of food, dress and other religious requirements. In a series of high profile cases across the country where Muslims feature heavily using the courts to prosecute their demands, we can see that they have a very low opinion of us. The case of Zubeda Haq, the Blackburn mother of ten, who was jailed for a £60,000 benefit fraud is an example of how the kindness of the UK is often repaid by some of these people.

Excellent post, Hugh. Don't worry, some of us do understand languages other than English, the mark of a civilized and educated person. It's a pity that this practice has fallen by the wayside as in the past most educated did learn to at least read several languages.

Comparing contemporary Christian and Muslim extremists would be illuminating. Christian extremists vigorously follow the non-violent example of Christ or perhaps enforce a strict moral code through shunning or exclusion. Muslim extremists follow the example of the sword-wielding Mohammed and would use violence to enforce their strict moral code.

Christians feel sorry for those that don't share their world view but don't hate or revile in the name of God or Jesus Christ. According to Hugh's above post, the Koran, and ahadiths, Muslims don't feel sorry for Christians and are willing to kill or enslave them for the sake of Allah as pity and mercy are "not Islamic."

Londongirl: "As only 38% of Muslims work who have settled in the UK..."

King: A figure typical of any poor immigrant population.

Londongirl: "many of us are wondering what exactly their contribution to our society could possibly be as it is often accompanied by all kinds of demands for our customs to be altered to suit theirs in matters of food, dress and other religious requirements."

King: This is a perfectly valid concern but one that comes along with being a dominant economy. The UK has and always will attract immigrants of all kinds. Like it or not. Indeed, this will also bring its problems. problems that require pragmatic solutions that involved all citizens. The irony here is that amidst all of the xeonophobic hoopla, the London bombings were perpetrated by native UK citizens, not the scary, unemployed immigrants whom you demand a contribution from.

epg: "Excellent post, Hugh. Don't worry, some of us do understand languages other than English.."

King: If counting gamboling sheep is what maks the point to you as an educated person, then c'est la vie. My level of education has also taught me to smell a poser when I see one!

It could be said that the five most dangerous words in the English language are all imports: Islam, Muslim, Qur'an, Shariah, Ahadith. Furthermore, and not coincidentally, they're all imported from Arabic - from ISLAM!

King: "You are making this statement through Western eyes."

Chatillon: Yes I am. Presumably I still have the right to do so. Your point would be...?

King: "Things that are hated and feared are often discarded. You have an obligation to open up the scope and see why we are at this rift."

Chatillon: "I" have an obligation to open up the scope (of understanding)? What about "We?", i.e. Muslim and non-Muslim both? A citizen of ancient Troy might well have been told of their unilateral obligation to open up the scope of their understanding to include acceptance of Greek "gifts"!

Kingie, Kingie. Never a debate too honest for your polemics, eh? LOL

So, you have no idea how your ancient point about the Inquisition (which, I remind you yet again, was responsible for few deaths indeed, unlike your islam...sigh) relates in any way to the present situation vis-a-vis islam. I, on the other hand, know a fair bit about history and I understand exactly how you misunderstand what you've yourself written.

If indeed the Inquisition were a great and dangerous threat (and not something of an overexaggeration by German Protestants with printing presses) then indeed non-Catholics might have done well to be wary of their Catholic neighbours. There would be the possibility that they might be reported for some imaginary 'crime' and then been subject to the Inquisition. Their fears might indeed have been well founded. Of course, that is in the past. It is done. The Inquisition is over, except, perhaps, in your mind.

Islamism is now.

Moreover, we might ask how comparatively black the temporal kettles really are. In the Christian world 500 years ago, there was indeed an Inquisition, wherein something on the order of 5000 people or so were killed.

In the islamic world, I believe the invasion of India was in full swing, wherein something on the other of tens of millions of Hindus were killed.

Not really the same kettle, eh?

But if your essential point is that in the past Westerners have been responsible for evil acts, and that therefore we as Westerners should simply submit to the moon-god or pay the punitive jizya, or be executed for insulting the execrable prophet Mohammed, or his beard, or any muslim's beard, or raking leaves against a mosque, or building our churches too high, or repairing them, or not allowing completely unfettered immigration so that this moderate, moderate religion could have a moderate, moderate majority population, so that they would all vote for a moderate, moderate sharia, which would result in a moderate, moderate oppression of religious and racial minorities and women - like every single other muslim nation in the world - then you are moderately, moderately stupid, and should probably not be allowed to vote or drive a car. Your point that there are many islamicists living in islamic culture and that they seem quite happy is hilarious. Just except the women and religious minorities, eh?

Essentially, your point seems to be that we just need to understand islam better. Of course, it's clear we already understand it all too well. Or haven't you really been reading the site? Perhaps you want us to 'understand' it from your viewpoint, shaped by endless hours of prostration to a rock.

Some more words for you:

Think
Before
You
Type
Moron

In distain,

Prophet Geoff
pwner of Ia

PS: If you can't understand even the small amount of French Hugh wrote above, then I pity you.

Londongirl: "38% Muslims employed..."

King: "Typical of poor immigrants..."

Martineden: "Typical of misinformed liberals"

I come from an immigrant family. Not only were all the families we came with gainfully employed within weeks or months of arrival, but have stayed gainfully employed for 25 years.

Your assertion that 60% unemployment among immigrants is "typical" is not only insulting to hard-working immigrants (condescending in that special liberal way), it's also completely UNTRUE.

>..there are many people who live in Islamic nations and are happy with their culture

No doubt(and no doubt the majority of those are men). However, I dont believe the discussion was about 'Islamic' nations, but about Islamic migration to the west, and the dangers that that migration poses. Try to amintain a coherent argument at least.

Chatillon: "Presumably I still have the right to do so. Your point would be...?"

King: While you have the 'right' to observe another culture through your own cultural filter, you haven't the right to define what's right and wrong in the other culture. Nor do you have the right to force your cultural norms onto others. The same is true of the extremist idiots who are trying to do the same in "the name of Allah" or whatever crap they claim. I loathe them, too. This being said, I am able to see who the enemy really is - its the extremist. Its not 100% of Muslims. The quicker Weasterners learn this and figure out ways to empower moderation in places that are currently dominated by extremism the faster we can all transcend this extremist crap and live in peace.

Geoff: "If you can't understand even the small amount of French Hugh wrote above, then I pity you."

King: I chose this sentence since the rest of what you wrote is your typical hysteria-clad ad hominem tantrum. The French is the part I understood! LOL, the irony does the job time and again...

Thomas ato: "Try to amintain a coherent argument at least."

King: If you stick with the thread and read why I discussed thiw with another poster you'd be able to "amintain" and not have to pop your head up with this.

“My level of education has also taught me to smell a poser when I see one!”

Wow …it’s amazing that King’s sense of smell is so good that it affects his eyesight!

Smell this into clarity for us, then: where are the various terrorist attacks these days coming from? When there are car bombings and suicidal attacks happening, how many of them are perpetrated by Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, or Jews? Those UK-born citizens who were responsible for the London bombings weren’t Muslims by any chance, were they? For that matter, being as knowledgeable on history as you are, has there ever been anyone in the history of the world who condoned suicidal attacks on others comparable to the kinds we see today, whether believed to be innocent or not? I can only come up with Kamikaze fighter pilots, but perhaps there are others that I’m just unaware of.

Like it or not, the idea of martyrdom through suicidal attacks is not frowned upon by Muslims and the clerics and Imams continue to this day to support, condone, and encourage these atrocities against fellow human beings –that’s not the sign of a healthy mind, a forward-thinking group of people, and definitely not the ideologies behind a ‘religion of peace’. I understand their ‘peace’, though …there will be peace when you stop struggling and accept Islam as the only faith in the world –until that time, there will be no peace for anyone and the jihad continues. Oddly enough, if the entire world converted to Islam, there would still be fighting within the various sects –Sunnis, Kurds, and Shiites can’t get along even in the same country, so their ‘peace’ can never, ever be peaceful.

I’d prefer to accept a wholly tolerant position and believe that all views are valid and all religions are equal, but when presented with daily facts to the contrary, I’m completely amazed that there is an entire group of people who see the world so black and white, good and bad, and believer and unbeliever. Sure, it’s the extremists who are the root cause of the problems in the world right now and without them, there could probably be peace, but they really are only following in the footsteps of their prophet and doing what their religious book tells them to do –hate and kill unbelievers and wage jihad against anybody and everybody until Islam rules all. Those moderates who aren’t doing that …well, they’re just not Muslims in the eyes of the extremists and probably apostates and are in need of killing, as well. It’s a polarized viewpoint which if ever snuffed out, will likely be picked up by another and run with over and over again until, again, the goals of Islam are achieved.

londongirl, do you remember that Gordan Brown (nosing) speach where he stated that the Muslim population added hugely to our economy, makes you wonder about his competence doesn't it.

Geoff, very good points on the Inquistion, dodged as always by KT, who is obviously very ignorant on this subject and it is therefore blustered away, but please all, stop feeding this troll.

King Tolerance: "While you have the 'right' to observe another culture through your own cultural filter, you haven't the right to define what's right and wrong in the other culture."

What an absurd and arbitrary premise....a complete abdication of moral and ethical responsibility for our fellow man.

King Tolerance is saying here that we have no right to repudiate the stoning of accused adultresses, the amputation of the limbs of petty thieves, the killing of apostates, honor killings, female genital mutilation and the many other barbarities of Islamic jurisprudence and culture that affront the most elementary notions of basic human decency and fair play.

illustr8: "Smell this into clarity for us, then: where are the various terrorist attacks these days coming from? When there are car bombings and suicidal attacks happening, how many of them are perpetrated by Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, or Jews?"

King: Your reasoning for painting all of Islam with the same brush is hardly supported by this reasoning. Your arguement, therefore "smells." Moreover, I direct your attention to the Norhtern Ireland conflict and its religious affiliation. By your reasoning, then, we should blame all of Christianity for it.

illustr8: "I’m completely amazed that there is an entire group of people who see the world so black and white"

King: Took the words right out of my mouth. I hate extremists. I see them as a separate, hateful, huge problem right now. I do. However, I also see the millions upon millions of people, who are Muslim, and are in the same boat as us. They are as fed up with extremism as the rest of us and wish it away. We need to help those folks by empowering them with our support and understanding. We need to realize that it takes time to do this, not violence and ignorance.

Daffersd: "but please all, stop feeding this troll."

King: I see your tolerance for free speech and agrument is as strong as ever. Talk about dodging!

Quite right, Cornelius. As even Kingie must have heard, 'rights' end at another person's nose. Or property. (Wait...women ARE property in islam. Never mind that last point then.)

I wonder if he'll ever respond to my points about the Inquisition.

To paraphrase from Monty Python: No one expects a response on the Spanish Inquisition.

Prophet Geoff

"Talk about dodging", old timer? Aren't you the one who hasn't responded to a single point I made above? LOL

Your argument about free speech doesn't even make any sense. Why don't you go "help your nephew" with another "internet project"?

Still, I'm sure you hate extremists...and kuffir. How extreme they are in their unbelief!

Prophet Geoff
BBUH

KT: The words "cake" & "eating it" immediately spring to mind.

Really, what is so wrong with your belief in your much vaunted "Muslim Lands" & "Ummah" that you would not feel as happy as a pig in shit living there amongst the faithful?

Are you too Westernised? Do you find your fellow Muslims from the "old country" slightly embarrassing?

Does it scare you that you may have more in common with us here at DW / JW (a love of freedom of speech, of personal expression, of "freedom") than with the shallow, mono train of thought of your "old school" Muslims back in Dar-Al-Islam?

I could never live in Dar-Al-Islam - so backward, so ignorant, so illiterate, so stifling, so fascist, so "Borg" (without the cool technology, of course - but thats a given....)

Provoke us all you want. I am happy you come here - it galvanises our thought processes & what we think & believe, hones our opinions.

Yes, having you on hand is useful to us because it confirms all we know & suspect:

There are no moderate Muslims, only mindwiped automatons intent on changing the west even those that are products of the West & have benefitted enormously from it.

7/7 woke me up, & millions like me. I have personally turned over 700+ people on to this site since 7/7. Working in "Communications", shall we say, I have found some great ways to spread the word - subtle, discreet, effective. Amazing the things you can achieve & invent when Islamofascists are killing your fellow citizens in your own Capital city....

The coming "changes" in England will be led & driven by the people (I was going to insert the word "stupid" here, as in "Its about the people, stupid" - but you are not stupid KT, that much is obvious) - not the Dhimmi left, Al-BBCeera & Al Guardian.

Every opportunity I get to tell my fellow English Men & Women the truth about Islam I do - on the Tube is a good place to engage in some debating of late I find. If we can salvage anything positive out of the Muslim induced carnage of 7/7, its that we can actually engage in conversation on the tube now. Alot of people are very receptive to the idea that New Labour are being "economical with the truth" with regards to Islam - well, lets face it, if New Labour say "black is black" people think twice now. I am glad they are in "your corner" as it were, they are the best weapon the real truth has, so discredited are they.

Everytime Princess Tony states in his evangelical way that "Islam is a religion of peace" (honest guvnor) you can hear the puckering of arseholes, the sucking in of breath, the wincing from the New Labour faithful & the cries of laughter & derision from those with the truth, the knowledge of the history of Islam..

The word is out & spreading like a virus.

If I were you, I would start to seriously consider moving from Dar-Al-Harb - you never know, the old country & its tyrants may allow you to remain a "freethinker" & "thrive" there.

Good luck KT. However the next 5 years pan out in the West for Muslims, I know you are going to need it.

Cornelius: "King Tolerance is saying here that we have no right to repudiate..."

King: Not what I am saying at all. You have every right to repudiate anything you wish. You are also welcome to never go to nations that harbor this behavior and you are welcome to take up the cause and try to inflict change in the proper way. Hate speech and grunting about articles aint cutting it, Cornelius. Afterall, many Muslims denounce that behavior, too, and wish to see it eradicated.

Well, I'm out. Kingie went away. =( So sad. No one to pwn. Maybe that "How extreme they are in their unbelief!" thing rattled him.

Another vic for me, and my peaceful (we only hate idiots), beer-drinking cult.

Prophet Geoff

No one expects a response on the Spanish Inquisition.

Our twin weapons are courage, intelligence and determination never to be dhimmis.....
our three weapons are courage, intelligence, determination never to be dhimmis and a love for freedom....
Amongst our weaponry are such elements as :- courage, intelligence, determination never to be dhimmis and a love for freedom....

Cardinal Geoff - bring the popinjay a soft cushion!

"King: No, what I am pointing out here is that no religion is safe from the twisted desires of extremists. Those of you who consider yourselves Christian ought to remember the Inquisition and what it did to Europe before you engage in counterproductive rhetoric againts all Muslims."

I don't suppose King would mind if we simply engaged in the same rhetoric against Muslims which he engages against Christians.

Ooooh, he came back.

We're also well within our rights to prevent our own nations becoming like those other nations, Kingie.

Now, is that simple enough for you? Perhaps you understand?

I've no doubt many muslims - mostly women - want extremism crushed. So, how are they going to do it inside of islam, old fella? Every time they do they get accused of being unislamic. Kind of hard to argue with an imam.

/sarcasm

Wow, your solutions really are well thought-out.

/sarcasm off

Prophet Geoff
pwner of Ia

Geoff: "Aren't you the one who hasn't responded to a single point I made above?"

King: I respond to those who earn it. Tantrums and ad hominem do not beget respect. Neither do things like "BBUH" "Imam", "Prophet" or whatever you are calling yourself today. Its posturing, plain and simple. If you really wish to entice me into a meanignful exchange, you'll have to mature to my level. If not, your multi-paragraph tantrums will go largely ignored. Mmmmmkay?

So you're saying you can't.

Mmmkay then.

Prophet Geoff
BBUH

Actually that brings up something else: I reinforce my position with reference to the Quran. You may be familiar with this book. Where, exactly, are your supports? Do you honestly still consider yourself the more enlightened commentator? Why?

Also, I'm entitled to call myself what I like on here. I earned my titles. Let's see you earn yours.

Prophet Geoff
pwner of Ia at FFI

King: Your reasoning for painting all of Islam with the same brush is hardly supported by this reasoning. Your arguement, therefore "smells." Moreover, I direct your attention to the Norhtern Ireland conflict and its religious affiliation. By your reasoning, then, we should blame all of Christianity for it.

Illustr8rg8r: Okay, then sniff on this: ‘Norhtern’ Ireland has had their conflicts, but that is one small spot on the map compared to all of the world’s landscape in which Islam has caused millions and millions of deaths and their conflict hasn’t lasted since the 7th century, either. Did anyone in Ireland wish to carry their struggle onto others around the globe? Nope. Come to think of it, I heard quite recently that their long-lasting battle has come to a truce! Amazing! Even more amazing is that their conflicts aren’t originated in religious warfare, but rather political. You also can’t blame Christianity for this because they’re mainly Catholics –to lump them into one big group (as in your very first comment about Christians trying to convert everyone to Catholicism …hunh?) makes for a muddy, clouded argument and would be just as bad as claiming that all Muslims are terrorists, which we know isn’t true, right?

Hey, I just paint ‘em as I see ‘em.

Still, I’m sniffing for the answer to where the various terrorist attacks these days are coming from. Again, I ask: when there are car bombings and suicidal attacks happening, how many of them are perpetrated by Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, or Jews? We’re talking about today ...not yesterday, and not 500 years ago. Today.

Dr. Pepper: "I don't suppose King would mind if we simply engaged in the same rhetoric against Muslims which he engages against Christians."

King: I only point out the facts, Herr Dr. This entire website is based on unilateral rhetoric against Islam, as a whole, and to all of those who practice it. Most of whom do so peacefully and want the same things in life as you do.

Granny: "Amongst our weaponry are such elements as :- courage, intelligence, determination..."

King: You forgot to add myopia, arrogance & ignorance to your little "arsenal." Gee, does everything have to be about weaponry and violence with you people??

LOL. No ad hominem from Kingie. Heh.

You sort out that Inquisition thing yet? 'Inquisiting' minds want to know.

Prophet Geoff

Geoff: "I earned my titles. Let's see you earn yours."

King: Oh, puhleeeeeese. Recess is over, let's drop the adolscent posturing already. The insecurity from you is oozing through my monior right now. Sorry I am not one of the "gamboling sheep" who buy what you write.

Heh. Sorry, you're really barking up the wrong tree, old timer.

So, where's your argument then? Come on, it's not that hard.

Then again, maybe that's your problem.

Prophet Geoff

(Oopsie - ad hominem. Well, respect to those who earn it, I say. I guess "adolescent" and "posturing" is reeeeal logic-like terms, yep yep, mmmmkay.)

Gee, does everything have to be about weaponry and violence with you people??

Well we just tried satire and parody but if a certain person is ignorant of the cultural reference there is not much we can do about him.

Cardinal Geoff, bring the comfy chair!

illyustr8: "Hey, I just paint ‘em as I see ‘em."

King: Fair enough, but your paintin' is going outside the lines.

illustr8: "Still, I’m sniffing for the answer to where the various terrorist attacks these days are coming from."

King: Ok, then. The answer will really depend on who you ask. Ask an Iraqi who lost a family member to a US bomb who the terrorist is. Ask a family in Northern Ireland who lost an innocent family member to a bomb blast who the terrorist is. These are not from 500 years ago they are from TODAY. The world revolves around a lot of variables and a lot of issues, not just ones that affect you in your bubble. Indeed, many terrorists in the world, today, claim to be religious Muslims. I am here to tell you that they are neith religious, nor Muslim and are politically motived.

Dr. Pepper: "I don't suppose King would mind if we simply engaged in the same rhetoric against Muslims which he engages against Christians."

King: I only point out the facts, Herr Dr. This entire website is based on unilateral rhetoric against Islam, as a whole, and to all of those who practice it. Most of whom do so peacefully and want the same things in life as you do.

So, again, I don't suppose you'd mind if we only criticized Islam to the same degree which you criticize Christianity and the West?

Seems I'm going to be waiting a while for an argument from Kinky about why opposing islamicism is bad. So I'm going to go write an article. And before I do, I'm going to do Kinky the favour of giving his argument for him while saving the ad hominem he layers on it:

"The Inquisition was bad."

Thankyou.

Prophet Geoff

My sincerest apologies. I only realized now that I utterly misread King's argument, and have, in fact, slandered his position. Again, my sincerest apologies.

I wrote that his basic response to any criticism of islam in the modern (and pre-modern) era was:

"The Inquisition was bad."

I see now that my impression of his arguments was utterly, utterly wrongheaded. Instead, it is abundantly clear that his position consists of:

"WELL, the Inquisition was bad, TOO."

Again, apologies.

Prophet Geoff
BBUH

King Tolerance is pretty easy to understand. From his vantage point, even daring to think the that the problem might be in the other fella is "being hateful" and "extremist". It's the highest sin to the modern leftist.

On the other hand, whenver there's a "problem", always, always, always, no matter what, blaming yourself, searching, searching, ever deeper, ever wider, for the faults that lie hidden deep within your psyche - even invent them if you have to, you _know_ they're there - is "being tolerant". That's the greatest good.

KingChomskyite:

Quite a lot of Iraqis will tell you Saddam & Co were the terrorists before the invasion and that the terrorists post invasion are the Islamist thugs (largely foreign born) and any Baathist remnant fomenting the bloodbath in the streets of Baghdad today to prostest the passage of the Constitution that has the endorsement of so many Iraqi people via their elected represenatives.

King Tolerance is pretty easy to understand. From his vantage point, even daring to think the that the problem might be in the other fella is "being hateful" and "extremist". It's the highest sin to the modern leftist.

On the other hand, whenver there's a "problem", always, always, always, no matter what, blaming yourself, searching, searching, ever deeper, ever wider, for the faults that lie hidden deep within your psyche - even invent them if you have to, you _know_ they're there - is "being tolerant". That's the greatest good.

To simplify, always remember: "Better dead than rude".

And I have only one thing to say.

trouble at' mill. Main crossbeams warped.

"On the other hand, whenver there's a "problem", always, always, always, no matter what, blaming yourself, searching, searching...."

King: Uh, no. My argument, nboiled down to a capsule small enough to swallow but big enough for the myopic to see is:

"Don't blame all Muslims for extremist fueled hate."

King T: The words "cake" & "eating it" immediately spring to mind.

Really, what is so wrong with your belief in your much vaunted "Muslim Lands" & "Ummah" that you would not feel as happy as a pig in shit living there amongst the faithful?

Are you too Westernised? Do you find your fellow Muslims from the "old country" slightly embarrassing?

Does it scare you that you may have more in common with us here at DW / JW (a love of freedom of speech, of personal expression, of "freedom") than with the shallow, mono train of thought of your "old school" Muslims back in Dar-Al-Islam?

I could never live in Dar-Al-Islam - so backward, so ignorant, so illiterate, so stifling, so fascist, so "Borg" (without the cool technology, of course - but thats a given....)

Provoke us all you want. I am happy you come here - it galvanises our thought processes & what we think & believe, hones our opinions.

Yes, having you on hand is useful to us because it confirms all we know & suspect:

There are no moderate Muslims, only mindwiped automatons intent on changing the west even those that are products of the West & have benefitted enormously from it.

7/7 woke me up, & millions like me. I have personally turned over 700+ people on to this site since 7/7. Working in "Communications", shall we say, I have found some great ways to spread the word - subtle, discreet, effective. Amazing the things you can achieve & invent when Islamofascists are killing your fellow citizens in your own Capital city....

The coming "changes" in England will be led & driven by the people (I was going to insert the word "stupid" here, as in "Its about the people, stupid" - but you are not stupid KT, that much is obvious) - not the Dhimmi left, Al-BBCeera & Al Guardian.

Every opportunity I get to tell my fellow English Men & Women the truth about Islam I do - on the Tube is a good place to engage in some debating of late I find. If we can salvage anything positive out of the Muslim induced carnage of 7/7, its that we can actually engage in conversation on the tube now. Alot of people are very receptive to the idea that New Labour are being "economical with the truth" with regards to Islam - well, lets face it, if New Labour say "black is black" people think twice now. I am glad they are in "your corner" as it were, they are the best weapon the real truth has, so discredited are they.

Everytime Princess Tony states in his evangelical way that "Islam is a religion of peace" (honest guvnor) you can hear the puckering of arseholes, the sucking in of breath, the wincing from the New Labour faithful & the cries of laughter & derision from those with the truth, the knowledge of the history of Islam..

The word is out & spreading like a virus.

If I were you, I would start to seriously consider moving from Dar-Al-Harb - you never know, the old country & its tyrants may allow you to remain a "freethinker" & "thrive" there.

Good luck KT. However the next 5 years pan out in the West for Muslims, I know you are going to need it.

KING TOLERANCE: "While you have the 'right' to observe another culture through your own cultural filter, you haven't the right to define what's right and wrong in the other culture."

An hour later he writes...

KING TOLERANCE: "You have every right to repudiate anything you wish."

No incongruity there folks.

KT, your debating skills are as inept as your position is confused.

Martin Luther King once said "a threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

Speaking out against intolerance and violence directed at the innocent is the moral responsibility of any man with an ounce of integrity. You reserve your invective for those doing just that.

Meanwhile, I ask you point blank: how many Muslims have you heard or read that specifically and unequivocally repudiate the killing of apostates?

Are you man enough to answer this question?

King wrote: "Don't blame all Muslims for extremist fueled hate."

I take it King does not then blame all Christians for the long list of Christian crimes in history. I take it, in fact, that he would only blame a tiny minority of Christians at any given time that a Christian crime was going on (re: the Inquisition).

Similarly, we may (nay, we must) apply King's logic to any sphere of crimes: Only a tiny minority of Germans were to blame during the Nazi years for the Nazi crimes. Only a tiny minority of Southern whites were to blame during the 19th century for the crimes of slavery and racism. Etc.

Wow! The world seems so much more manageable and friendly now that I apply King's logic to it. In this new world, there can never be any major problems caused by major movements. There are only, always, a tiny minority of extremists with their extremist-fuel to worry about! Whew! What a relief!

King:

I have a few other things to do today, but thought I would add these bits.

The right to speak, to formulate and hold opinions and to express these opinions in public are all givens in Western society. These are predicated upon an understanding of mutual tolerance, if not acceptance. Non-Western societies are immediately identifiable by the absence of these rights.

While all immigrants have rights, immigration itself is a privilege extended by the host country with the simple conditions: Obey the laws of the land and tolerate those who tolerate you, sort of a dumbed-down version of the Golden Rule. If an individual or group of individuals cannot abide by these simple precepts, they forfeit the privilege of migration.

So when you preach to the multitudes, you might want to leave out the cultural relativism stuff, discredited as it is. Until the time when words such as "martyrdom" and "justice" have universally accepted definitions, strong fences may, unfortunately, be found to make the best neighbors.

Les idiots n'apprennent jamais. KinkyTolerence et son ilk avaient agi comme des trolls ici depuis mai.

Anyways... i believe that IA and KT are not the same persons...

IA generally choses to discuss subject that are not of any relevence.

He avoids questions about Islam and engages in vicious personal attacks against me and Zico.

KT on the other hand claims to b a leftie American.

He seems to call every other person here a bigot.

KT's primary "target" has been Christianity while IA's has been Hinduism.

P.S Geoff "Pwner" of Ia - S!NC3 WH3N #@V3 U $TART3D PL@Y!NG 0NL!N3 G#M3$... I like that.

VC
L33T Pwnster

KING TOLEANCE: "Indeed, many terrorists in the world, today, claim to be religious Muslims. I am here to tell you that they are neither religious, nor Muslim and are politically motived."

KING TOLERANCE: "Most [Muslims]...want the same things in life as you do."

Both of these statements are incredibly presumptuous. How do you presume to know what is in the heart and mind of a Muslim terrorist? And you throw around accusations of arrogance without afterthought.

And how do you presume to know the average Muslim wants the "same thing" in life as I do? Isn't it possible that many Muslims, even perhaps a majority, wish to live in a society ruled by Islamic law? This is not what I want, nor what the majority of non-Muslims want.

You're being thoroughly deconstructed KT.

Kingky...groan...thats the most I can muster after reading your many posts. In fact it's worthy of two groans...groan-groan...I think it was Hamlet who said " a greased pig by any other name is still a slippery hog". Remember that when you're trying to be slick...Only those who appear humble and sincere can be called, 'slippery'. Those displaying arrogance and word magic, will have a hard time getting by the greased pig detectors. I'm just trying to help you. Someday you might have something worthwhile to say. But in the meantime I encourage you to keep practicing, soon you might be able to get up to speed. Allah willing...

Cornelius: "KT, your debating skills are as inept as your position is confused."

King: Not so fast, partner. You are trying to create things that were never said or discussed and trying to pin the confusion on me. Quite the contrary.

Observing another culture and making your reputiations based on it are completely within any human being's right. HOWEVER, it is not your right to "enforce" your cultural norms onto someone else. I also said this goes both ways and I loathe those extremists who operate under the guise of religion They're thugs, plain and simple.

Indeed, many horrible things happen all over the world, not only within Islamic states.

Vikrant: "Anyways... i believe that IA and KT are not the same persons..."

King: gee, what a relief.

Vikrant: "KT on the other hand claims to b a leftie American."

King: No, that's the label you've given me. Waiting for your point...

Vikrant: "KT's primary "target" has been Christianity while IA's has been Hinduism."

King: And your primary "target" has been Islam, 24/7. Sorry it bothers you to hear that Christianity has a bloody, violent past and owns the deaths of millions of did not "buy" its brand of programming.

I guess that hissing sound is your point for even bothering to type a message...

Cornelius: "Isn't it possible that many Muslims, even perhaps a majority, wish to live in a society ruled by Islamic law?"

King: After lecturing me about incongruity and making presumptions, you add this little nugget which is based purely on your own assumption and 100% counter to what you've just said!

Cornelius: "You're being thoroughly deconstructed KT."

King: Uh, I think you should quite trying to hide behind a rosebush, fella. I see you and you've been "deconstructed." Sheesh.

KING TOLEANCE: "Indeed, many terrorists in the world, today, claim to be religious Muslims. I am here to tell you that they are neither religious, nor Muslim and are politically motived."

KING TOLERANCE: "Most [Muslims]...want the same things in life as you do."

CORNELIUS: "Isn't it possible that many Muslims, even perhaps a majority, wish to live in a society ruled by Islamic law?"

Your statements are promulgated as facts ("I'm here to tell you...").

Mine is posed as a question.

Who is being arrogant and presumptuous. And you didn't answer my question about the many Muslims you've supposedly heard repudiating the killing of apostates.

You're a coward KT, who obfuscates in order to avoid being held accountable for his words.

King T:

Do you ever answer any question put to you?

Cornelius asked:

"Meanwhile, I ask you point blank: how many Muslims have you heard or read about that specifically and unequivocally repudiate the killing of apostates?"

Maybe I missed your answer in the nonsensical tirades you enter into instead of actually engaging in the deabate.....

Now I have Paganesque things to do in the free world tonight - so please, pretty please with a blood red crescent moon on top, answer
the question Cornelius asked - I for one would like to know.

KingTolerance misses the point, and in so doing himself promotes intolerance.

Islam is based on commandments from two primary sources: the Qur'an and the Sunnah. In the Qur'an, God commands Moslems to emulate Mohammad.

Islam's canonical scriptures teach us that Mohammad was a murderer, thief, pedophile, and slave trader. All of these are felony crimes.

So, in America, practicing Islam (which is a nation with a religious component, and not a religion per se), is to participate in an organized criminal enterprise that teaches its children and commands its adults to perform acts of murder, theft, pedophilia, and slave-taking.

After all, God said these things in the Qur'an, and Mohammed acted these things out during his life.

So, where is the equivalence?

Only a leftist could partake the pretzel logic it takes to call for toleration of the sick organized crime enterprise that is the nation of Islam.

KT like IA, you've choosen to turn a blind eye to the heaps of evidence Mr.Spencer has acculmulated against Islam and the complicity of so-called "moderates" in supporting the terror network. We're not against Islam, we're against the violent eliments of Islam which are overtly used by the ppl like Osama to justify terrorism. Reads about the Hadiths the Islamic concept of War, Dar-ul-Harb and Dar-ul-Islam. Read and learn from the Islamic history. Ultimately a day will come when the world will realise the full scale of Jihadi conspiracy, but by then my friend it'd have been already late. When jihadis come knocking on your doorsteps, it wont matter to them whether u supported Muslims or not, what will matter is if u are Muslim or not.

Mr.KT you are prejudiced against JW. Please read all article by Mr.Spencer without "jaundiced view". Probably then it'll dawn upon you how west is being taken for a ride by its leaders.

P.S Bible may have "violent" verses but we dont see any Christians using those verses to justify acts of terror.

Shaughn

F__K Yeah.

C'mon KT, the Pagan world of delights awaits me

ANSWERS PLEASE

King Tolerance:

Re: "Those of you who consider yourselves Christian ought to remember the Inquisition and what it did to Europe before you engage in counterproductive rhetoric againts all Muslims."

My ancestors emigrated from England. Please enlighten us about the English (or Dutch, etc. for that matter) Inquisition. It seems my history teachers must have skipped that lesson.

Re: "You also should be aware that Christians pillaged the peaceful cultures of South and Central Americans, and spread their "seed" by brutal violence. To this day, some of the remnants of those tribes remain in the deepest parts of the jungles where they retreated."

You sir are a fucking idiot (probably the only time I have sworn on this board). If you had read even the Readers Digest version of the conquest you would know it driven by greed for gold. Religion was tagged on or used as an excuse to attack (see Pizarro's capture and execution of Atahualpa) and was not the reason for the conquest. BTW - when you refer to the Conquest, please keep your remarks to the Spanish and the Portuguese (to a lesser extent) and not to "Christians"

Also - please elaborate on the peaceful culture of the Aztecs - you know, the ones who egaged in warfare to obtain captives whose living hearts were cut out. I suppose the Incas established an empire stretching from Chile to Colombia by peaceful means - you know, like a pre-Colombian version of the EU. Just a suggestion, but you may want to shut the f--k up about topics you know nothing about.

Cornelius: "You're a coward KT, who obfuscates in order to avoid being held accountable for his words."

King: Whatever you say. Now that you've resorted to insults, your arguement is now pretty much irrelevant. Low road = you. It is so easy to come on here and drag you into the dirt, where you belong, with your own words.

Albion: "Do you ever answer any question put to you?"

King: Yes, hundreds of them!

Albion: "how many Muslims have you heard or read about that specifically and unequivocally repudiate the killing of apostates?"

King: Once again, hundreds of them. One needs to look beyond the confines of a wesite such as this to actually find such repudiations.

Question answered, I hope I did not hold you from your pagan world of delights for too long...

Shaughn: "So, in America, practicing Islam (which is a nation with a religious component, and not a religion per se), is to participate in an organized criminal enterprise..."

King: If I subscribe to pretzle logic then you subscribe to downright moronism. Now shoo!

If I may summarize Hugh's argument:

1. The teachings of Islam are incompatible with secular democracy and the freedoms laid out in the UHDR.

2. Some Muslims do not accept the parts of Islam that make (1) true, or do not believe (1) to be true.

3. Since (1) is true, the Muslims in (2) cannot present a strong theological case for their position that will convince open-minded Muslims to accept their position and reject (1). Therefore every Muslim described in (2) will believe (1) if he is honest and receives correct information about Islam.

Everyone accepts (2). The debate is really about (1), because (3) depends on (1). The easy way to prove Hugh wrong is to show that (1) is wrong. Tangents about Nazis, past Christian evils, white supremecy conspiracies or the intelligence of various commentators prove nothing. If Islam promotes peace and tolerance, quit fooling around and link us to some articles that argue on Islamic grounds in favour of peace, equality, and secular government. Show us the theological ammunition that will convince young Muslims that the terrorist recruiting captains are erroneous in their interpretation of Islam.

The notion that the Jihadists are "extremists" is patently absurd. Islam itself is extreme, as a quick glance at the Qur'an, Hadiths, and Sira will explain.

Any "reglion" with a God that commands its followers to commit murder is extreme. Any "religion" with a God that commands its followers to emulate a man who committed murder, theft, pedophilia, and slave trading is extreme.

There can be no "fundamentalism" when it comes to Islam, because the Qur'an is the literal word of God himself, not left open to interpretation.

There can be no "Islamic extremists" and "Islamic moderates."

There can be only good Moslems (who accept the Qur'an and the Sunnah) and bad Moslems (who do not).

There can be only active Moslems (Jihadists) and inactive Moslems (good Moslems who silent support the Jihadists).

After all, it's in Islam's scriptures, plain as day.

Mohammed was a genius. He concocted a relentlessly self-perpetuating hate-bloodlust-conquest machine that won't be stopped until there is a bloodbatch the likes of which has never been seen before.

In other words, after the would-be Caliph Usama Bin Laden destroys an entire western city with a WMD, it won't be left to George W. & Tony to rush to a microphone and again make the fallacious assertion that "Islam is a religion of peace."

Those of us with common sense, hopefully including the Joint Chiefs, will be forced to amend the Consitution, outlaw the organized criminal enterprise called Islam, and evict all Moslems overseas.

I believe that, speaking realistically, this is our best case scenario.

Keep in mind that with every immigrant Moslem or Infidel who converts to Islam, America becomes a little less free. It's an incremental process that soon will be punctuated with a excremental event.

The Big One is coming, and frankly KT, I find that intolerable.

King: I equally fail to see how your broad painting of Islam 'explains' anything, either. So far I see only the typical wagon circling around the articles you are baited with and no real solutions.
treehugger: "And your comments are useful in dealing with the threat of Islam in the 21st century HOW?"
King: My comments are most useful by reminding people that history has taught us a few things.
First, Christianity has caused as much suffering and intolerance in its extremists days as we see from the extremist Muslims today. The reason for this are quite similar but since you choose to ignore them in lieu of rhetoric you ecome part of the problem.
Second, we also have the holocaust, which used wholesale rhetoric to blame an entire religion and its followers for the ills of time. Ignoring these two historical facts are not only irresponsible but ignorant. Sorry to remind you of this, but you need to change your wholesale tune "tree hugger."

So you are saying that your focus on history is to remind us that other religions have done bad things and that pointing out the aspects of Islam that are unpalatable to the free world is akin to or calling for another Holocaust?

Well, I still don't see how this helps. I agree that the childish name calling and finger wagging is totally unnecessary. It is enough to just to quote the Koran, the writings of various imams, and current news items to make the point.

The problem is with core elements of the Islamic teachings. Avoiding discussing them or trying to cloak them in irrelevance is dishonest.

Ignorant hate talk and inflammatory rhetoric is counterproductive and doesn't do anything to help communication or solve problems. It creates more.

The problem put simply is that Islam isn't compatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

How does a knowledge of another religions dubious past help solve the problem that Islam is incompatible with modern thought concerning human rights? It doesn't.

sniff, sniff..smells like "the flay-rod has gone out upon the treadle!!!" of kingky's brain..

"Despite attempts to explain it away as a benign form of striving, the Arab-Islamic notion of jihad remains essentially unchanged since Ibn Khaldun described it in 1406: "holy war is a religious duty ... to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or force." Only Islam, he added, "is under obligation to gain power over other nations."
-JPost

Also - please elaborate on the peaceful culture of the Aztecs - you know, the ones who egaged in warfare to obtain captives whose living hearts were cut out.

For certain gods, the victims were also burned alive before being retrieved from the flames and having their beating heart cut out.

Perhaps this is the source of all our disagreements with KingTolerance about Islam being a religion of peace: we seem to have a different definition of peace.

Note that I am not justifying European imperialist aggression in South America or suggesting an inherent superiority of any race over another. The Conquistadors might have done some good things, like put a stop to live human sacrifice. But they weren't there to do good things, they were there for greed and power.

KT, calling you a coward was not a gratuitous insult, it was an accurate reading of your methods of debate. For example, you've just stated that you've witnessed "hundreds" of Muslims who have repudiated the killing of apostates.

I challenge you to show us proof of these hundreds. My guess is you can't even find 10, excepting for Muslim apostates themselves.

So now, based upon objective evidence - i.e., your own words - I postulate that not only are you a coward for your obfuscations, I now state for the record that you have shown yourself to be a LIAR.

Prove me wrong. Reveal your integrity for all to see. Source the "hundreds" of Muslims who have publicly repudiated the killing of apostates.

KT has just lied to us through his teeth.

Let us see whether he can source the "hundreds" of Muslims he's heard publicly repudiate the killing of apostates.

He won't folks because he can't, so he'll either disappear or he'll find a way to rationalize not doing so.

Just watch.

Cornelius: "Prove me wrong. Reveal your integrity for all to see. Source the "hundreds" of Muslims who have publicly repudiated the killing of apostates."

King: Calling me a liar is not only a comical way for you to roll over, I will now scratch your belly withthe following links. Now we'll see who the coward is. Go to these links and read them. See that they are progressive Muslims trying to be heard, trying to deliver their religion from the clutches of medievil thugs, trying to transcend, trying to better their religion.

http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm

http://www.freemuslims.org/

http://www.freemuslims.org/document.php?id=68

http://www.m-a-t.org/

http://www.voanews.com/english/AmericanLife/2005-05-13-voa38.cfm

A few more for ya. Now its incumbent upon you to read all of these and find fault, or rationalize why you cannot/willnot do so. Careful what you wish for, big mouth.

http://www.detnews.com/2004/editorial/0409/17/a11-275949.htm

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

http://www.keshertalk.com/archives/2005/05/fifty_muslims_a.html

"Progressive Moslems?!"

Tell your friends in the Progressive Moslem community they better keep a lid on this progress thing.

If they renounce God's commandment to murder Jews, Christians, and pagans then they are renouncing God himself.

If they renounce the Sunnah, which includes the example of Mohammed heaving 700 adult male Jews beheaded in a single day, then they are renouncing God himself.

If they renounce the Sunnah, which includes the example of Mohammed trading in sex-slaves, then they are renouncing God himself.

After all, it's fundamental to the bloodlust-murder-conquest perpetual motion machine we call Islam.

Allahu Akhbar!

Shaughn rolls over on his back along with Cornelius. Where did ya go, Cornelius? Hah?

I've met the challenge and at least have offered many examples of public denouncement of terrorism in the name of Islam. I find the silence in here most deafening.

Kingky..help me here..point out in these links exactly where these moderates challenge the interpretation of verses of Kuran etcetera that the extremists rely upon..?

King: My comments are most useful by reminding people that history has taught us a few things. First, Christianity has caused as much suffering and intolerance in its extremists days as we see from the extremist Muslims today. The reason for this are quite similar but since you choose to ignore them in lieu of rhetoric you ecome part of the problem. Second, we also have the holocaust, which used wholesale rhetoric to blame an entire religion and its followers for the ills of time. Ignoring these two historical facts are not only irresponsible but ignorant. Sorry to remind you of this, but you need to change your wholesale tune "tree hugger."

King, based on your statement above you are:

1) assuming that others here (including myself) are ignorant of basic western/christian history that is taught in every public school in the US.

(2) assuming that we all choose to ignore important historical facts, such as the holocaust and are ignorant of it's implications. (BTW, the last time I checked, most holocaust deniers were MUSLIM, witness Abu Mazen's graduate studies. I also note that the Jews were not going around blowing non-Jews up or slitting their throats prior to the Holocaust).

Again, how do your comments help deal with the problem of extremist Islam TODAY?

Against my better judgement I checked one of the links and ended up here;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2005/05/14/VI2005051401282.html

Quote;
An anti-terrorism rally organized by the Muslim American organization Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism attracted a few dozen speakers and supporters at Freedom Plaza in downtown Washington, D.C. The rally was billed as the first anti-terrorism rally by a Muslim American group in the nation's capital. However, many of the leading Arab American organizations including the Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee did not endorse the event.

Hmm, KingofTalkingCr@p (a hypocrite) just shoots himself in the foot (as he did with the christan fundamentalist killing abortion doctors.) This would be the march where about a dozen muslims showed up and were outnumbered by the media.

I say let KingOfTalkingCr@p (a hypocrite) get on with his navel gazing in peace.

Ta-ta !!

waiting...

meanwhile in your Detnews link i find this;spoen byAP reporter Ostling i guess..

"On the means of warfare, one key text is the farewell instructions of Muhammad's immediate successor, the Caliph Abu Bakr, as his army headed for Syria.

He forbade the killing of children, women, the aged and the clergy, which is understood to mean protection for all civilians."

WTF!"forbade killing of children, women and clergy

is UNDERSTOOD by who to mean all civilians..i don't see adult non-clergy males mentioned.. the AP writer is an apologist..

More obfuscations King? I asked you an explicit question: where are the "hundreds" of Muslim voices repudiating the KILLING OF APOSTATES?

You gave me a bunch of web-sites of Muslims repudiating terrorism.

In case it aluded you, there is a difference. I'm still waiting.

That should have been "eluded"

Still waiting King Tolerance....

I guess I over-estimated your intelligence King Tolerance. I just assumed you understood what 'apostasy' means.

Apostasy is the repudiation of one's faith. Muslims who convert to another religion or become atheists are considered apostates...the penalty for which, under Islamic Law is DEATH.

If you'll read each time I questioned you about this issue, I was explicit in referring to "the killing of apostates."

I didn't realize your powers of discernment precluded you from understanding as much.

Your gloating does appear pretty comical now.

Cornelius

Oh no you don't.

I'm addressing the incompatibility of Islam with any form of tolerance or progressivity, not the whether Moslems ever make the statements you cite.

I'll freely admit to being aware of thousands of instances of Moslems renouncing terrorism, execution of apostates, and the like.

But the fact that they do this proves nothing at all. Some are practicing taquiyya, others are bad Moslems who make these statements sincerely, and still others are just crazy mixed-up good Moslems who don't understand their own religion, and give it way to much credit.

Here's a question, Mr. Equivalency: How many murders did Christ commit? How many murders did Siddhartha Gautama commit? And, speaking of the Devil, how many Buddhists have been beheaded in the past year in souther Thailand?

my last post was supposed to include the statement that most of the links' spokefolks
don't adress specific scripture and most use reference to Palestine or one grievance or another to skirt the issue of literal interpretation of islams scriptures.

Well, it would appear that the ridiculous theological equivalence argument has reared its head again.

A religion cannot be held responsible for atrocities done in it's name unless such actions can be reasonably justified in the canonical texts of that religion. Similarly, a religion cannot be attributed for outlawing an action unless it is specifically condemned in its canonical texts.

The undoubted horrors of the Inquisition therefore can only be attributed to Christianity if a comprehensive argument, based on the teachings in the new testament can be put forward to justify such actions (merely quoting hellfire and brimstone verses from the old Testament is not sufficient, as the new Testament "abrogates" the old testament in all Christian Jurisprudence over the last 2000 years). Anybody who claims that Christianity is responsible for the Inquisition or other atrocities must put forward such an argument for their views to carry any weight. I have not seen such an argument to date.

Similarly, if we are to believe that Islam is against the killing of apostates, then it is not sufficient just to show that some Muslims are against this crime. A clear argument, based on the teachings in the Qur'an, Hadith and Sira must be presented to prove that Islam is against the killing of apostates. Sadly, Sura 4:89 explicitly states that they should be killed and is not abrogated by any verse in the Qur'an. This is why the killing of apostates is sanctioned under Sharia law and is practiced in parts of the Middle East today.

Therefore I would say to the poster who calls himself "King Tolerance" to show through the canonical texts of the respective religions that Christianity sanctions crimes such as those committed under the Inquisition and Islam specifically condemns the killing of apostates, before I will begin to take the Theological equivalence line of argument seriously.

I challenge you to do this.

Kingky..your silence is deafening..

again..please direct us to the link(s)
wherein islams spokesfolks refute the extremists interpretation of Quran,hadiths& suras (chapter and verse)

Some of the organizations on KT's list sponsored an anti-terrorism rally in Wash DC earlier this year.

Besides the 10 or 12 speakers and the 20 or 25 reporters, the only people who attended were 7 or 8 passersby, all of who appeared Anglo-American.

The rally was delayed by the lack of attendance, with the main sponsor insisting that "busloads" of people were on their way from all over the country.

I stayed 'till the end of the rally. No one ever came.

SHAUN, denouncing terrorism is a common practice of Muslims. In many instances, it is sincere. But there have not been hundreds or thousands of cases where Muslims have repudiated the murder of apostates.

To do so would essentially render the repudiator an apostate himself.

I've always taken 4:89 to be referring to those who decline to join the nation of Islam.

I will concede that there is a debate among Moslems on the apostate-execution thing.
That there is room for such a debate is a sad commentary on Islam. But Moslem apologists contend that there is no Qur'anic commandment for apostate-execution, and only one "weak" hadith that commands it in the Sunnah.

There can be no argument, however, that Sharia calls for apostate-execution, and that the practice is routinely carried out in the subhuman animalistic "civilization" of Islam.

Hi KingTolerance, How you doing mate?

"I've no doubt many muslims - mostly women - want extremism crushed. So, how are they going to do it inside of islam, old fella? Every time they do they get accused of being unislamic. Kind of hard to argue with an imam."

So it all comes down to that, huh Geoff?

With that you just proved that you are an idiot, hey, you can be frank with me, you hate Islam and Muslims. So be it, I really couldn't care. Now is that all you have as an argument? Very disappointing.

Pffffff, Osama was a good Muslim, Ha ha ha.

Pull yourself together, I hate to see you like this Geoff, cheer up mate. When was the last time you smiled or laughed, go on do it now!! You know it makes sense.

The bottom line is you hate the man Muslims hold dear to their hearts. Now you know Islam can be practiced peacefully, you know that, you know that their are Muslims that are good human beings that strive to help those around them, you know that. Now you wish to hijack the problems with terrorism, so be it. Two can play at that game.

So what, so what? The bottom line is, you want Muslims to go through as much hardship as possible, that is it. I put my faith in God and to you I say, bring it on, bring it on dear Geoffrey.

God is Great!!!

Ha ha ha

(Good to see you back)

Bukari has the prophet saying "he who discards his Islamic religion, kill him."

This is "sahi"...it is not a weak hadith.

There is by the way, another Quranic verse that stipulates death for apostasy. If anyone knows it, please let us know. I'll look for it in the meantime.

King Tolerance: "While you have the 'right' to observe another culture through your own cultural filter, you haven't the right to define what's right and wrong in the other culture."

Oh hell yes we do have the right to define what's right and wrong in other cultures, particularly Islamic culture, which has been arbitrarily foisted on us by elitist social engineers who are conveninently sheltered from its stench.

All cultures are not equal and moral judgments are entirely germane. Islam is a death cult with an archaic, savage, rotten, corrupt, depraved, venal, deadly culture. We have every right to define it as DEPLORABLE.

Forgive me for these large posts, but believe me, they will help you see things more clearly.

VICTIMS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"WONDERFUL EVENTS THAT TESTIFY TO GOD'S DIVINE GLORY"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Listed are only events that solely occurred on command or participation of church authorities or were committed in the name of Christianity. (List incomplete)

Ancient Pagans

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As soon as Christianity became legal in the Roman Empire by imperial edict (315), more and more pagan temples were destroyed by Christian mob. Pagan priests were killed.
Between 315 and 6th century thousands of pagan believers were slain.
Examples of destroyed Temples: the Sanctuary of Aesculap in Aegaea, the Temple of Aphrodite in Golgatha, Aphaka in Lebanon, the Heliopolis.
Christian priests such as Mark of Arethusa or Cyrill of Heliopolis were famous as "temple destroyer." [DA468]
Pagan services became punishable by death in 356. [DA468]
Christian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) even had children executed, because they had been playing with remains of pagan statues. [DA469]
According to Christian chroniclers he "followed meticulously all Christian teachings..."
In 6th century pagans were declared void of all rights.
In the early fourth century the philosopher Sopatros was executed on demand of Christian authorities. [DA466]
The world famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was torn to pieces with glass fragments by a hysterical Christian mob led by a Christian minister named Peter, in a church, in 415.
[DO19-25]
Mission

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to Christianity, beheaded. [DO30]
Peasants of Steding (Germany) unwilling to pay suffocating church taxes: between 5,000 and 11,000 men, women and children slain 5/27/1234 near Altenesch/Germany. [WW223]
15th century Poland: 1019 churches and 17987 villages plundered by Knights of the Order. Number of victims unknown. [DO30]
16th and 17th century Ireland. English troops "pacified and civilized" Ireland, where only Gaelic "wild Irish", "unreasonable beasts lived without any knowledge of God or good manners, in common of their goods, cattle, women, children and every other thing." One of the more successful soldiers, a certain Humphrey Gilbert, half-brother of Sir Walter Raleigh, ordered that "the heddes of all those (of what sort soever thei were) which were killed in the daie, should be cutte off from their bodies... and should bee laied on the ground by eche side of the waie", which effort to civilize the Irish indeed caused "greate terrour to the people when thei sawe the heddes of their dedde fathers, brothers, children, kinsfolke, and freinds on the grounde".
Tens of thousands of Gaelic Irish fell victim to the carnage. [SH99, 225]
Crusades (1095-1291)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First Crusade: 1095 on command of pope Urban II. [WW11-41]
Semlin/Hungary 6/24/96 thousands slain. Wieselburg/Hungary 6/12/96 thousands. [WW23]
9/9/96-9/26/96 Nikaia, Xerigordon (then Turkish), thousands respectively. [WW25-27]
Until January 1098 a total of 40 capital cities and 200 castles conquered (number of slain unknown) [WW30]
After 6/3/98 Antiochia (then Turkish) conquered, between 10,000 and 60,000 slain. 6/28/98 100,000 Turks (incl. women and children) killed. [WW32-35]
Here the Christians "did no other harm to the women found in [the enemy's] tents - save that they ran their lances through their bellies," according to Christian chronicler Fulcher of Chartres. [EC60]
Marra (Maraat an-numan) 12/11/98 thousands killed. Because of the subsequent famine "the already stinking corpses of the enemies were eaten by the Christians" said chronicler Albert Aquensis. [WW36]
Jerusalem conquered 7/15/1099 more than 60,000 victims (Jewish, Muslim, men, women, children). [WW37-40]
In the words of one witness: "there [in front of Solomon's temple] was such a carnage that our people were wading ankle-deep in the blood of our foes", and after that "happily and crying for joy our people marched to our Saviour's tomb, to honour it and to pay off our debt of gratitude."
The Archbishop of Tyre, eye-witness, wrote: "It was impossible to look upon the vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere lay fragments of human bodies, and the very ground was covered with the blood of the slain. It was not alone the spectacle of headless bodies and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that roused the horror of all who looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which brought terror to all who met them. It is reported that within the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels perished." [TG79]
Christian chronicler Eckehard of Aura noted that "even the following summer in all of Palestine the air was polluted by the stench of decomposition". One million victims of the first crusade alone. [WW41]
Battle of Askalon, 8/12/1099. 200,000 heathens slaughtered "in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ". [WW45]
Fourth crusade: 4/12/1204 Constantinople sacked, number of victims unknown, numerous thousands, many of them Christian. [WW141-148]
Rest of Crusades in less detail: until the fall of Akkon 1291 probably 20 million victims (in the Holy land and Arab/Turkish areas alone). [WW224]
Note: All figures according to contemporary (Christian) chroniclers.

Heretics and Atheists

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Already in 385 C.E. the first Christians, the Spanish Priscillianus and six followers, were beheaded for heresy in Trier/Germany [DO26]
Manichaean heresy: a crypto-Christian sect decent enough to practice birth control (and thus not as irresponsible as faithful Catholics) was exterminated in huge campaigns all over the Roman empire between 372 C.E. and 444 C.E. Numerous thousands of victims. [NC]
Albigensians: the first Crusade intended to slay other Christians. [DO29]
The Albigensians (Cathars) viewed themselves as good Christians, but would not accept Roman Catholic rule, and taxes, and prohibition of birth control. [NC]
Begin of violence: on command of pope Innocent III (the greatest single mass murderer prior to the Nazi era) in 1209. Beziérs (today France) 7/22/1209 destroyed, all the inhabitants were slaughtered. Number of victims (including Catholics refusing to turn over their heretic neighbors and friends) estimated between 20,000-70,000. [WW179-181]
Carcassonne 8/15/1209, thousands slain. Other cities followed. [WW181]
Subsequent 20 years of war until nearly all Cathars (probably half the population of the Languedoc, today southern France) were exterminated. [WW183]
After the war ended (1229) the Inquisition was founded 1232 to search and destroy surviving/hiding heretics. Last Cathars burned at the stake 1324. [WW183]
Estimated one million victims (Cathar heresy alone), [WW183]
Other heresies: Waldensians, Paulikians, Runcarians, Josephites, and many others. Most of these sects exterminated, (I believe some Waldensians live today, yet they had to endure 600 years of persecution) I estimate at least hundred thousand victims (including the Spanish inquisition but excluding victims in the New World).
Spanish Inquisitor Torquemada, a former Dominican friar, allegedly was responsible for 10,220 burnings. [DO28]
John Huss, a critic of papal infallibility and indulgences, was burned at the stake in 1415. [LI475-522]
Michael Sattler, leader of a baptist community, was burned at the stake in Rottenburg, Germany, May 20, 1527. Several days later his wife and other follwers were also executed. [KM]
University professor B.Hubmaier burned at the stake 1538 in Vienna. [DO59]
Giordano Bruno, Dominican monk, after having been incarcerated for seven years, was burned at the stake for heresy on the Campo dei Fiori (Rome) on 2/17/1600.
Thomas Aikenhead, a twenty-year-old scottish student of Edinburgh University, was hanged for atheism and blasphemy.
Witches

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the beginning of Christianity to 1484 probably more than several thousand.
In the era of witch hunting (1484-1750) according to modern scholars several hundred thousand (about 80% female) burned at the stake or hanged. [WV]
Incomplete list of documented cases:
The Burning of Witches - A Chronicle of the Burning Times
Religious Wars

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15th century: Crusades against Hussites, thousands slain. [DO30]
1538 pope Paul III declared Crusade against apostate England and all English as slaves of Church (fortunately had not power to go into action). [DO31]
1568 Spanish Inquisition Tribunal ordered extermination of 3 million rebels in (then Spanish) Netherlands. [DO31]
Between 5000 and 6000 Protestants were drowned by Spanish Catholic Troops, "a disaster the burghers of Emden first realized when several thousand broad-brimmed Dutch hats floated by." [SH216]
1572 In France about 20,000 Huguenots were killed on command of pope Pius V. Until 17th century 200,000 flee. [DO31]
17th century: Catholics slay Gaspard de Coligny, a Protestant leader. After murdering him, the Catholic mob mutilated his body, "cutting off his head, his hands, and his genitals... and then dumped him into the river [...but] then, deciding that it was not worthy of being food for the fish, they hauled it out again [... and] dragged what was left ... to the gallows of Montfaulcon, 'to be meat and carrion for maggots and crows'." [SH191]
17th century: Catholics sack the city of Magdeburg/Germany: roughly 30,000 Protestants were slain. "In a single church fifty women were found beheaded," reported poet Friedrich Schiller, "and infants still sucking the breasts of their lifeless mothers." [SH191]
17th century 30 years' war (Catholic vs. Protestant): at least 40% of population decimated, mostly in Germany. [DO31-32]
Jews

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Already in the 4th and 5th centuries synagogues were burned by Christians. Number of Jews slain unknown.
In the middle of the fourth century the first synagogue was destroyed on command of bishop Innocentius of Dertona in Northern Italy. The first synagogue known to have been burned down was near the river Euphrat, on command of the bishop of Kallinikon in the year 388. [DA450]
694 17. Council of Toledo: Jews were enslaved, their property confiscated, and their children forcibly baptized. [DA454]
1010 The Bishop of Limoges (France) had the cities' Jews, who would not convert to Christianity, expelled or killed. [DA453]
1096 First Crusade: Thousands of Jews slaughtered, maybe 12.000 total. Places: Worms 5/18/1096, Mainz 5/27/1096 (1100 persons), Cologne, Neuss, Altenahr, Wevelinghoven, Xanten, Moers, Dortmund, Kerpen, Trier, Metz, Regensburg, Prag and others (All locations Germany except Metz/France, Prag/Czech) [EJ]
1147 Second Crusade: Several hundred Jews were slain in Ham, Sully, Carentan, and Rameru (all locations in France). [WW57]
1189/90 Third Crusade: English Jewish communities sacked. [DO40]
1235, Fulda/Germany: 34 Jewish men and women slain. [DO41]
1257, 1267: Jewish communities of London, Canterbury, Northampton, Lincoln, Cambridge, and others exterminated. [DO41]
1290 Bohemia (Poland) allegedly 10,000 Jews killed. [DO41]
1337 Starting in Deggendorf/Germany a Jew-killing craze reaches 51 towns in Bavaria, Austria, Poland. [DO41]
1348 All Jews of Basel/Switzerland and Strasbourg/France (two thousand) burned. [DO41]
1349 In more than 350 towns in Germany all Jews murdered, mostly burned alive (in this one year more Jews were killed than Christians in 200 years of ancient Roman persecution of Christians). [DO42]
1389 In Prag 3,000 Jews were slaughtered. [DO42]
1391 Seville's Jews killed (Archbishop Martinez leading). 4,000 were slain, 25,000 sold as slaves. [DA454] Their identification was made easy by the brightly colored "badges of shame" that all Jews above the age of ten had been forced to wear.
1492 In the year Columbus set sail to conquer a New World, more than 150,000 Jews were expelled from Spain, many died on their way: 6/30/1492. [MM470-476]
1648 Chmielnitzki massacres: In Poland about 200,000 Jews were slain. [DO43]

(I feel sick ...) this goes on and on, century after century, right into the kilns of Auschwitz.
Native Peoples

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Beginning with Columbus (a former slave trader and would-be Holy Crusader) the conquest of the New World began, as usual understood as a means to propagate Christianity.
Within hours of landfall on the first inhabited island he encountered in the Caribbean, Columbus seized and carried off six native people who, he said, "ought to be good servants ... [and] would easily be made Christians, because it seemed to me that they belonged to no religion." [SH200]
While Columbus described the Indians as "idolators" and "slaves, as many as [the Crown] shall order," his pal Michele de Cuneo, Italian nobleman, referred to the natives as "beasts" because "they eat when they are hungry," and made love "openly whenever they feel like it." [SH204-205]
On every island he set foot on, Columbus planted a cross, "making the declarations that are required" - the requerimiento - to claim the ownership for his Catholic patrons in Spain. And "nobody objected." If the Indians refused or delayed their acceptance (or understanding), the requerimiento continued:
"I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter in your country and shall make war against you ... and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church ... and shall do you all mischief that we can, as to vassals who do not obey and refuse to receive their lord and resist and contradict him." [SH66]
Likewise in the words of John Winthrop, first governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony: "justifieinge the undertakeres of the intended Plantation in New England ... to carry the Gospell into those parts of the world, ... and to raise a Bulworke against the kingdome of the Ante-Christ." [SH235]
In average two thirds of the native population were killed by colonist-imported smallpox before violence began. This was a great sign of "the marvelous goodness and providence of God" to the Christians of course, e.g. the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony wrote in 1634, as "for the natives, they are near all dead of the smallpox, so as the Lord hath cleared our title to what we possess." [SH109,238]
On Hispaniola alone, on Columbus visits, the native population (Arawak), a rather harmless and happy people living on an island of abundant natural resources, a literal paradise, soon mourned 50,000 dead. [SH204]
The surviving Indians fell victim to rape, murder, enslavement and Spanish raids.
As one of the culprits wrote: "So many Indians died that they could not be counted, all through the land the Indians lay dead everywhere. The stench was very great and pestiferous." [SH69]
The Indian chief Hatuey fled with his people but was captured and burned alive. As "they were tying him to the stake a Franciscan friar urged him to take Jesus to his heart so that his soul might go to heaven, rather than descend into hell. Hatuey replied that if heaven was where the Christians went, he would rather go to hell." [SH70]
What happened to his people was described by an eyewitness:
"The Spaniards found pleasure in inventing all kinds of odd cruelties ... They built a long gibbet, long enough for the toes to touch the ground to prevent strangling, and hanged thirteen [natives] at a time in honor of Christ Our Saviour and the twelve Apostles... then, straw was wrapped around their torn bodies and they were burned alive." [SH72]
Or, on another occasion:
"The Spaniards cut off the arm of one, the leg or hip of another, and from some their heads at one stroke, like butchers cutting up beef and mutton for market. Six hundred, including the cacique, were thus slain like brute beasts...Vasco [de Balboa] ordered forty of them to be torn to pieces by dogs." [SH83]
The "island's population of about eight million people at the time of Columbus's arrival in 1492 already had declined by a third to a half before the year 1496 was out." Eventually all the island's natives were exterminated, so the Spaniards were "forced" to import slaves from other caribbean islands, who soon suffered the same fate. Thus "the Caribbean's millions of native people [were] thereby effectively liquidated in barely a quarter of a century". [SH72-73] "In less than the normal lifetime of a single human being, an entire culture of millions of people, thousands of years resident in their homeland, had been exterminated." [SH75]
"And then the Spanish turned their attention to the mainland of Mexico and Central America. The slaughter had barely begun. The exquisite city of Tenochtitlán [Mexico city] was next." [SH75]
Cortez, Pizarro, De Soto and hundreds of other Spanish conquistadors likewise sacked southern and mesoamerican civilizations in the name of Christ (De Soto also sacked Florida).
"When the 16th century ended, some 200,000 Spaniards had moved to the Americas. By that time probably more than 60,000,000 natives were dead." [SH95]
Of course no different were the founders of what today is the US of America.

Although none of the settlers would have survived winter without native help, they soon set out to expel and exterminate the Indians. Warfare among (north American) Indians was rather harmless, in comparison to European standards, and was meant to avenge insults rather than conquer land. In the words of some of the pilgrim fathers: "Their Warres are farre less bloudy...", so that there usually was "no great slawter of nether side". Indeed, "they might fight seven yeares and not kill seven men." What is more, the Indians usually spared women and children. [SH111]
In the spring of 1612 some English colonists found life among the (generally friendly and generous) natives attractive enough to leave Jamestown - "being idell ... did runne away unto the Indyans," - to live among them (that probably solved a sex problem).
"Governor Thomas Dale had them hunted down and executed: 'Some he apointed (sic) to be hanged Some burned Some to be broken upon wheles, others to be staked and some shott to deathe'." [SH105] Of course these elegant measures were restricted for fellow Englishmen: "This was the treatment for those who wished to act like Indians. For those who had no choice in the matter, because they were the native people of Virginia" methods were different: "when an Indian was accused by an Englishman of stealing a cup and failing to return it, the English response was to attack the natives in force, burning the entire community" down. [SH105]
On the territory that is now Massachusetts the founding fathers of the colonies were committing genocide, in what has become known as the "Peqout War." The killers were New England Puritan Christians, refugees from persecution in their own home country England.
When however, a dead colonist was found, apparently killed by Narragansett Indians, the Puritan colonists wanted revenge. Despite the Indian chief's pledge they attacked.
Somehow they seem to have lost the idea of what they were after, because when they were greeted by Pequot Indians (long-time foes of the Narragansetts) the troops nevertheless made war on the Pequots and burned their villages.
The puritan commander-in-charge John Mason after one massacre wrote: "And indeed such a dreadful Terror did the Almighty let fall upon their Spirits, that they would fly from us and run into the very Flames, where many of them perished ... God was above them, who laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to Scorn, making them as a fiery Oven ... Thus did the Lord judge among the Heathen, filling the Place with dead Bodies": men, women, children. [SH113-114]
So "the Lord was pleased to smite our Enemies in the hinder Parts, and to give us their land for an inheritance". [SH111].
Because of his readers' assumed knowledge of Deuteronomy, there was no need for Mason to quote the words that immediately follow:
"Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them..." (Deut 20)
Mason's comrade Underhill recalled how "great and doleful was the bloody sight to the view of the young soldiers" yet reassured his readers that "sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents". [SH114]
Other Indians were killed in successful plots of poisoning. The colonists even had dogs especially trained to kill Indians and to devour children from their mothers breasts, in the colonists' own words: "blood Hounds to draw after them, and Mastives to seaze them." (This was inspired by Spanish methods of the time)
In this way they continued until the extermination of the Pequots was near. [SH107-119]
The surviving handful of Indians "were parceled out to live in servitude. John Endicott and his pastor wrote to the governor asking for 'a share' of the captives, specifically 'a young woman or girle and a boy if you thinke good'." [SH115]
Other tribes were to follow the same path.
Comment the Christian exterminators: "God's Will, which will at last give us cause to say: How Great is His Goodness! and How Great is his Beauty!"
"Thus doth the Lord Jesus make them to bow before him, and to lick the Dust!" [TA]
Like today, lying was morally acceptable to Christians then. "Peace treaties were signed with every intention to violate them: when the Indians 'grow secure uppon (sic) the treatie', advised the Council of State in Virginia, 'we shall have the better Advantage both to surprise them, & cutt downe theire Corne'." [SH106]
In 1624 sixty heavily armed Englishmen cut down 800 defenseless Indian men, women and children. [SH107]
In a single massacre in "King Philip's War" of 1675 and 1676 some "600 Indians were destroyed. A delighted Cotton Mather, revered pastor of the Second Church in Boston, later referred to the slaughter as a 'barbeque'." [SH115]
To summarize: Before the arrival of the English, the western Abenaki people in New Hampshire and Vermont had numbered 12,000. Less than half a century later about 250 remained alive - a destruction rate of 98%. The Pocumtuck people had numbered more than 18,000, fifty years later they were down to 920 - 95% destroyed. The Quiripi-Unquachog people had numbered about 30,000, fifty years later they were down to 1500 - 95% destroyed. The Massachusetts people had numbered at least 44,000, fifty years later barely 6000 were alive - 81% destroyed. [SH118] These are only a few examples of the multitude of tribes living before Christian colonists set their foot on the New World. All this was before the smallpox epidemics of 1677 and 1678 had occurred. And the carnage was not over then.
All the above was only the beginning of the European colonization, it was before the frontier age actually had begun.
A total of maybe more than 150 million Indians (of both Americas) were destroyed in the period of 1500 to 1900, as an average two thirds by smallpox and other epidemics, that leaves some 50 million killed directly by violence, bad treatment and slavery.
In many countries, such as Brazil, and Guatemala, this continues even today.
More Glorious Events in U.S. History

Reverend Solomon Stoddard, one of New England's most esteemed religious leaders, in "1703 formally proposed to the Massachusetts Governor that the colonists be given the financial wherewithal to purchase and train large packs of dogs 'to hunt Indians as they do bears'." [SH241]

Massacre of Sand Creek, Colorado 11/29/1864. Colonel John Chivington, a former Methodist minister and still elder in the church ("I long to be wading in gore") had a Cheyenne village of about 600, mostly women and children, gunned down despite the chiefs' waving with a white flag: 400-500 killed.
From an eye-witness account: "There were some thirty or forty squaws collected in a hole for protection; they sent out a little girl about six years old with a white flag on a stick; she had not proceeded but a few steps when she was shot and killed. All the squaws in that hole were afterwards killed ..." [SH131]
More gory details.

By the 1860s, "in Hawai'i the Reverend Rufus Anderson surveyed the carnage that by then had reduced those islands' native population by 90 percent or more, and he declined to see it as tragedy; the expected total die-off of the Hawaiian population was only natural, this missionary said, somewhat equivalent to 'the amputation of diseased members of the body'." [SH244]
20th Century Church Atrocities

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Catholic extermination camps
Surprisingly few know that Nazi extermination camps in World War II were by no means the only ones in Europe at the time. In the years 1942-1943 also in Croatia existed numerous extermination camps, run by Catholic Ustasha under their dictator Ante Paveliç, a practicing Catholic and regular visitor to the then pope. There were even concentration camps exclusively for children!
In these camps - the most notorious was Jasenovac, headed by a Franciscan friar - orthodox-Christian Serbians (and a substantial number of Jews) were murdered. Like the Nazis the Catholic Ustasha burned their victims in kilns, alive (the Nazis were decent enough to have their victims gassed first). But most of the victims were simply stabbed, slain or shot to death, the number of them being estimated between 300,000 and 600,000, in a rather tiny country. Many of the killers were Franciscan friars. The atrocities were appalling enough to induce bystanders of the Nazi "Sicherheitsdienst der SS", watching, to complain about them to Hitler (who did not listen). The pope knew about these events and did nothing to prevent them. [MV]

Catholic terror in Vietnam
In 1954 Vietnamese freedom fighters - the Viet Minh - had finally defeated the French colonial government in North Vietnam, which by then had been supported by U.S. funds amounting to more than $2 billion. Although the victorious assured religious freedom to all (most non-Buddhist Vietnamese were Catholics), due to huge anticommunist propaganda campaigns many Catholics fled to the South. With the help of Catholic lobbies in Washington and Cardinal Spellman, the Vatican's spokesman in U.S. politics, who later on would call the U.S. forces in Vietnam "Soldiers of Christ", a scheme was concocted to prevent democratic elections which could have brought the communist Viet Minh to power in the South as well, and the fanatic Catholic Ngo Dinh Diem was made president of South Vietnam. [MW16ff]
Diem saw to it that U.S. aid, food, technical and general assistance was given to Catholics alone, Buddhist individuals and villages were ignored or had to pay for the food aids which were given to Catholics for free. The only religious denomination to be supported was Roman Catholicism.
The Vietnamese McCarthyism turned even more vicious than its American counterpart. By 1956 Diem promulgated a presidential order which read:
"Individuals considered dangerous to the national defense and common security may be confined by executive order, to a concentration camp."

Supposedly to fight communism, thousands of Buddhist protesters and monks were imprisoned in "detention camps." Out of protest dozens of Buddhist teachers - male and female - and monks poured gasoline over themselves and burned themselves. (Note that Buddhists burned themselves: in comparison Christians tend to burn others). Meanwhile some of the prison camps, which in the meantime were filled with Protestant and even Catholic protesters as well, had turned into no-nonsense death camps. It is estimated that during this period of terror (1955-1960) at least 24,000 were wounded - mostly in street riots - 80,000 people were executed, 275,000 had been detained or tortured, and about 500,000 were sent to concentration or detention camps. [MW76-89].
To support this kind of government in the next decade thousands of American GI's lost their life.

Christianity kills the cat
On July 1, 1976, Anneliese Michel, a 23-year-old student of a teachers college in Germany, died: she starved herself to death. For months she had been haunted by demonic visions and apparitions, and for months two Catholic priests - with explicit approval of the Catholic bishop of Würzburg - additionally pestered and tormented the wretched girl with their exorcist rituals. After her death in Klingenberg hospital - her body was littered with wounds - her parents, both of them fanatical Catholics, were sentenced to six months for not having called for medical help. None of the priests was punished: on the contrary, Miss Michel's grave today is a place of pilgrimage and worship for a number of similarly faithful Catholics (in the seventeenth century Würzburg was notorious for it's extensive witch burnings).
This case is only the tip of an iceberg of such evil superstition and has become known only because of its lethal outcome. [SP80]

Rwanda Massacres
In 1994 in the small African country of Rwanda in just a few months several hundred thousand civilians were butchered, apparently a conflict of the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups.
For quite some time I heard only rumors about Catholic clergy actively involved in the 1994 Rwanda massacres. Odd denials of involvement were printed in Catholic church journals, before even anybody had openly accused members of the church.
Then, 10/10/96, in the newscast of S2 Aktuell, Germany - a station not at all critical to Christianity - the following was stated:
"Anglican as well as Catholic priests and nuns are suspect of having actively participated in murders. Especially the conduct of a certain Catholic priest has been occupying the public mind in Rwanda's capital Kigali for months. He was minister of the church of the Holy Family and allegedly murdered Tutsis in the most brutal manner. He is reported to have accompanied marauding Hutu militia with a gun in his cowl. In fact there has been a bloody slaughter of Tutsis seeking shelter in his parish. Even two years after the massacres many Catholics refuse to set foot on the threshold of their church, because to them the participation of a certain part of the clergy in the slaughter is well established. There is almost no church in Rwanda that has not seen refugees - women, children, old - being brutally butchered facing the crucifix.
According to eyewitnesses clergymen gave away hiding Tutsis and turned them over to the machetes of the Hutu militia.
In connection with these events again and again two Benedictine nuns are mentioned, both of whom have fled into a Belgian monastery in the meantime to avoid prosecution. According to survivors one of them called the Hutu killers and led them to several thousand people who had sought shelter in her monastery. By force the doomed were driven out of the churchyard and were murdered in the presence of the nun right in front of the gate. The other one is also reported to have directly cooperated with the murderers of the Hutu militia. In her case again witnesses report that she watched the slaughtering of people in cold blood and without showing response. She is even accused of having procured some petrol used by the killers to set on fire and burn their victims alive..." [S2]

More recently the BBC aired:

Priests get death sentence for Rwandan genocide
BBC NEWS April 19, 1998

A court in Rwanda has sentenced two Roman Catholic priests to death for their role in the genocide of 1994, in which up to a million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed. Pope John Paul said the priests must be made to account for their actions. Different sections of the Rwandan church have been widely accused of playing an active role in the genocide of 1994...

As can be seen from these events, to Christianity the Dark Ages never come to an end.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If today Christians talk to me about morality, this is why they make me sick.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References
[DA]
K.Deschner, Abermals krähte der Hahn, Stuttgart 1962.
[DO]
K.Deschner, Opus Diaboli, Reinbek 1987.
[EC]
P.W.Edbury, Crusade and Settlement, Cardiff Univ. Press 1985.
[EJ]
S.Eidelberg, The Jews and the Crusaders, Madison 1977.
[HA]
Hunter, M., Wootton, D., Atheism from the Reformation to the Enlightenment, Oxford 1992.
[KM]
Schröder-Kappus, E., Wagner, W., Michael Sattler. Ein Märtyrer in Rottenburg, Tübingen, TVT Media 1992.
[LI]
H.C.Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages, New York 1961.
[MM]
M.Margolis, A.Marx, A History of the Jewish People.
[MV]
A.Manhattan, The Vatican's Holocaust, Springfield 1986.
See also V.Dedijer, The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican, Buffalo NY, 1992.
[NC]
J.T.Noonan, Contraception: A History of its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists, Cambridge/Mass., 1992.
[S2]
Newscast of S2 Aktuell, Germany, 10/10/96, 12:00.
[SH]
D.Stannard, American Holocaust, Oxford University Press 1992.
[SP]
German news magazine Der Spiegel, no.49, 12/2/1996.
[TA]
A True Account of the Most Considerable Occurrences that have Hapned in the Warre Between the English and the Indians in New England, London 1676.
[TG]
F.Turner, Beyond Geography, New York 1980.
[WW]
H.Wollschläger: Die bewaffneten Wallfahrten gen Jerusalem, Zürich 1973.
(This is in german and what is worse, it is out of print. But it is the best I ever read about crusades and includes a full list of original medieval Christian chroniclers' writings).
[WV]
Estimates on the number of executed witches:

N.Cohn, Europe's Inner Demons: An Enquiry Inspired by the Great Witch Hunt, Frogmore 1976, 253.
R.H.Robbins, The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology, New York 1959, 180.
J.B.Russell, Witchcraft in the Middle Ages, Ithaca/NY 1972, 39.
H.Zwetsloot, Friedrich Spee und die Hexenprozesse, Trier 1954, 56.

_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

Some more:

_________________________________________________Adolf Hitler

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf, Volume 1, Chapter 2, Years of Study and Suffering in Vienna)

The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation.

Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf, Volume 1, Chapter 11, Nation and Race)

The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine.

Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf, Volume 1, Chapter 12 The First Period of Development of the Nationalist Social German Worker's Party)

_________________________________________________

Would any rational person blame today’s peaceful Christians for this?……..

How can one possibly blame all Muslims for the actions of a few? (If the majority are following the 'wrong version of Islam' why would it matter?)

How can one blame Muslims for what happened hundreds of years ago? I am not responsible for what others do, I am responsible for my own actions before God.

Daffersd: "but please all, stop feeding this troll."
King: I see your tolerance for free speech and agrument is as strong as ever.

Daffersd, Kink Cretin is in fact saying that whoever ignores his drivel is guilty of intolerance! Luckily for you Daffersd you live in a society where tolerance of anything, including idiocy, is understood as patient indulgence and not as a duty to show it respect through consideration. In a society ruled by Kink Tolerance you would be jailed for lack of tolerance.

"All cultures are not equal and moral judgments are entirely germane. Islam is a death cult with an archaic, savage, rotten, corrupt, depraved, venal, deadly culture. We have every right to define it as DEPLORABLE."

Stop beating around the bush Sue. Tell us what you REALLY think.

It is bad enough we have to endure KingOfTalkingCr@P(a hypocrite) now lying for islam IA786 has shown up with his copy paste scatter gun bollocks.

King Tolerance,
Is your real name George Galloway?

IA666, your post is a sixteen second scroll-blur

ia,
I won't cut and paste the whole page, but it will match your "terrible Christian" B.S. (and it is just since 9-11-01.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

"ia,
I won't cut and paste the whole page, but it will match your "terrible Christian" B.S. (and it is just since 9-11-01.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/"

Tit 4 tat, huh Carolyn?

I scratch your back, you scratch mine, huh Carolyn? No thank you!!!

________________________________________________

You fell for my 'trap', you have proved yourself to be a bigot!!!

Sorry (-_*)

Read what I said, only a fanatical death worshipper would blame all Muslims or all Christians for what happened in the past, or for that matter blame ALL Muslims for the action of “the few true Muslims, such as Osama and Zarqawi". (Sarcasm)

Cornelius: "You gave me a bunch of web-sites of Muslims repudiating terrorism. In case it aluded you, there is a difference. I'm still waiting."

King: Not only have my posts shown that there are many Muslims out there who denounce terrorism, publicly, as you and others have requested, my posts answered your question.
As I expected, your statement here demonstrates both your lack of integrity and your desire to engage in meaningful debate. You've failed miserably.

Cornelius dug deeper: "denouncing terrorism is a common practice of Muslims. In many instances, it is sincere."

King: Once again, you contradict yourself and actually admit to a major portion of my argument. You fool, did you think I'd miss that?

Cornelius rolls on: "But there have not been hundreds or thousands of cases where Muslims have repudiated the murder of apostates."

King: There have actually been hundreds of thousands my friend! I could ask you to prove your statement but I know you cannot and will not so I'll refrain. Simply because there isn't a website or published article that chronicles the opinion of every Muslim does not mean they do not exist. You even say it yourself "denouncing terrorism is a common practice of Muslims". So which is it? Do you even know, or is this an exercise in futility?

I've met your challenge, posted public outcry from Muslims all over the world, and caught you in your own web of contradiction. You have been the most satisfying morsel. Thanks.

"IA666, your post is a sixteen second scroll-blur"

It is!!! Wow!!!

God is Great!!!

_________________________________________________

I'm just making a point, only a bigot would blame today’s peaceful Christians for what happened in the past. I know it is possible to practice Christianity peacefully, I know that. It is also possible to practice Christianity aggressively (e.g. Hitler etc.) Everyone knows that Islam can be practised peacefully and aggressively. That is all I'm trying to say. Why attack those that practise Islam peacefully?

This site aims to fight terrorism and extremism, something that affects both Muslims and non-Muslims. How many Muslims have been killed since 9/11 by ‘Islamic Holy Warriors’, huh? Muslims are victims too yet you completely ignore that. What about the Kurds, the Shias in Iraq, the Black African Muslims in Sudan, the Shia in Pakistan?

Instead of coming together with moderate Muslims a lot of the people here take every opportunity to attack all Muslims, even those living peacefully in the West. How low can you get?

ia: "Hi KingTolerance, How you doing mate?"

KIng: Hello to you too! I see this thread is one of the most active in a while. Gee, I wonder why?

Toobad: "It is bad enough we have to endure KingOfTalkingCr@P(a hypocrite) now lying for islam IA786 has shown up with his copy paste scatter gun bollocks."

King: Oh, this is why! When honest, meaningful opposition is delivered by you, me, or heaven forbid even both of us at once they simply cannot contain themselves. Out come the ad hominem insults and pseudo knowledge of Islam - all of which are supposed to pass for a solution. I honsetly laugh out loud.
It is easy to see where the hate comes from, they can't even tolerate an opinion diferent than their own, let alone a religon or culture.

IA and I have endured every name in the book, answered questions from those who deserve our time and even met a few challenges. We are still here, still willing to hear a solution on how to make things better.

Kling
..the links you provided have statements by
"bad muslims"..i.e., ones who don't believe the words of the Koran..therefore, they cannot even be said to be statements by "Muslims" repudiating terrorism..

roll over and we'll scratch yer belly now..here's a Snausage(TM) too..good boy!!

KingofTalkingCr@p (a hypocrite) you are indeed the king of ad hominem attacks and I bow before you. I take issue with the tactic of ia786 flooding the board with his cut and paste material which is a waste because I am fairly sure scant attention is paid to it (although the name Thomas Aitkenhead somehow caught my eye) and just wastes bandwidth. If he does it again he should be banned, in my opinion.

KingofTalkingCr@p (a hypocrite) you are indeed the king of ad hominem attacks and I bow before you. I take issue with the tactic of ia786 flooding the board with his cut and paste material which is a waste because I am fairly sure scant attention is paid to it (although the name Thomas Aitkenhead somehow caught my eye) and just wastes bandwidth. If he does it again he should be banned, in my opinion.

KING T: Not only have my posts shown that there are many Muslims out there who denounce terrorism, publicly, as you and others have requested,

CORNELIUS: I never requested a record of Muslims who denounce terrorism. Never once. Read my posts and tell me where I have.

KING T: my posts answered your question. As I expected, your statement here demonstrates both your lack of integrity and your desire to engage in meaningful debate. You've failed miserably.

CORNELIUS: No King, you never answered the only question I asked you. You've obfuscated over and over, exposing your own lack of integrity. The question I asked was for you to source the "hundreds" of Muslims who you claim have repudiated the killing of apostates.

KING T: Once again, you contradict yourself and actually admit to a major portion of my argument. You fool, did you think I'd miss that?

CORNELIUS: No contradiction at all. I've never claimed that some Muslims don't repudiate terrorism. That's why I never asked for such information. Some of the repudiations are sincere. Many of the repudiations are qualified (the murder of Israeli women and children is somehow "different"). The fact that some Muslims repudiate terrorism doesn't mean for a moment that Islam isn't in its essence an intolerant, violent creed. It only means that some Muslims, by virtue of their innate humanity, are horrified by terrorist violence. Again, this has nothing to do with the murder of apostates.

KING T: There have actually been hundreds of thousands my friend! I could ask you to prove your statement but I know you cannot and will not so I'll refrain.

CORNELIUS: Here you want me to prove a negative, to source that Muslims HAVEN'T repudiated the murder of apostates by the hundreds of thousands, precisely because you yourself are unable to prove that ten, much less hundreds or even hundreds of thousands, have done so.

KING T: Simply because there isn't a website or published article that chronicles the opinion of every Muslim does not mean they do not exist.

CORNELIUS: What a pathetic cop-out. Certainly somewhere on this massive information super-highway you can find ten Muslims (who are not themselves apostates) who have publicly repudiated the murder of apostates. You claimed earlier to know of "hundreds"...later "hundreds of thousands". I'm asking you to produce just 10. What's the matter King? Laziness? Or perhaps you simply can't and you've been caught in a lie.

KING T: You even say it yourself "denouncing terrorism is a common practice of Muslims". So which is it? Do you even know, or is this an exercise in futility?

CORNELIUS: I understand you're a bit slow King, so I'll repeat myself: denouncing terrorism is not the same thing as denouncing the murder of apostates. Freedom of conscience is central to our entire way of life, the freedom to believe in the God of our choice (or not to believe at all). Islam takes away this freedom. It is a prime example that Islam is incompatable with our own culture of freedom. You see my friend, this is not just about terrorist violence. It is about a religious doctrine that is antithetical to the separation of the ecclesiastical from the temporal; a creed that is at fundamental varience with basic human freedom and gender equality. But because of your ideological blinders, you can't see this.

You see King, I keep beating you and you keep coming back for more.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question.

Actually, KT
I think we were waiting for some suggestions on how to deal with this threat from you, and IA if he wishes.

A ton of energy has been wasted on "your religion did this in the 14th century" blah blah blah.

But there is a problem with extremist Islam in the 21st, not 14th century. In the ROP website list of extremist attacks, they include attacks that harm non violent muslims as well as non-muslims. Everyone who wants to just "get along" has a stake in this issue.

My solution: given that the extremists swim hidden in the pool of "moderates", I'm inclined to stop all immigration to western countries until this is sorted out in the area of origin. The problem should not be allowed to spread, similar to the controls used to contain disease vectors.

That is my solution, what is yours?

AND
MAYBE
THE
COWS
WILL COME
HOME
TOO.

AND
MAYBE
THE
COWS
WILL
COME
HOME
TOO.

(errata).

There are many moderate Muslims in the world. King's links should settle all doubt about that. The real question is: is Islam itself moderate? That is, do the moderates have a realistic chance of becoming the dominant force in Islam? Central to this is the theological basis on which moderates denounce terrorism and the parts of Sharia law that are incompatible with the UHDR. The "extremists" are convinced that they are doing the will of Allah, and they need to be convinced otherwise. Appeals to humanist or "progressive" principles, however forceful, are unlikely to win the day by themselves.

Ia - you are right to point up the dreadful atrocities committed by christians over the centuries

i did not read it all, not shall i. not because i cant face up to it

btw did you include the the burning of the entire jewish population of berlitz in 1243, because they were suspected of kidnapping and torturing a communion wafer?

my point is this - it is not possible, as you have said, to practise christianity aggressively ie by killing people. this is prohibited by the new testament (Gods rule for christians) all who participate in this are directly disobeying God, either out of ignorance or wilfulness and will answer to Him

the new testament does not envisage any kind of warfare in the name of Christ (other than spiritual, which does not involve killing people)- please read "epistle to the ephesians" chapter 6, verses 13-17 to find out about the "whole armour of God" - the christians only weapons

the new testament does not propose a christian state even

islam proposes war, killing and the setting up of muslim temporal power very clearly in the name of the muslim god, allah.

this is one reason i oppose islam

This may be a bit off-topic in relation to Mr. Fitzgerald's posting, but here goes:

Islam is a nightmare attempting to come to full bloom, fruition as it were, in these times. The very act of being a Moslem is an act of aggression and, as I posted earlier, probably a felony crime. After all, God himself and Mohammed call for either the conversion, execution, or subjugation of Infidels (dhimmitude).

The guiding tactical principle of Islam is "victimism," defined here as a conscious effort to manipulate events to make onself appear as the victim of bad deeds by one's opponent for motivational, legal, and tactical benefit.

For example, the fake reaction of Afro-American leaders to the events following the hurricae Katrina is an act of victimism.

From the very beginning of the nightmare called Islam, Mohammed delivered speeches filled with violent denunciations of infidels and open threats against them.

My theory was that he was taunting the Infidels, hoping for a reaction that would beneifit his recruiting and murder-motivation program.

It was only a matter of time before the infidels would respond out of self defense. And when they did, Mohammed was ready. He revealed to his nascent Moslem flock that God had recited the infamous surah 2:191, wherein Moslems were authorized to commit murder in order to overcome the putative persecution then supposedly beleaguring the aggrieved Moslems.

This very same victimism is being practiced by Moslems today, as is amply documented by here Messrs. Spencer and Fitzgerald, and others elsewhere.

I've read a fair amount of history, and I could be wrong, but I beflief that victimism was invented by Mohammed.

My theory is that victimism feeds the energy that Islam's conquest program requires. and has done so from the beginning.

My theory is that victimism is a fundamental principle to this gutter "religion," and requires further documentation and analysis by non-insane Islamic scholars (Islam is a form of collective insanity).

"my point is this - it is not possible, as you have said, to practise christianity aggressively ie by killing people. this is prohibited by the new testament (Gods rule for christians) all who participate in this are directly disobeying God, either out of ignorance or wilfulness and will answer to Him"

Hey, lets run around in circles!!!

Anyone can say that! The people here say that Osama bin Laden and Zarqawi are 'good Muslims', well people that think in such a narrow minded manner must also think Hitler was a 'good Christian'.

You can check the quotes below, these are from Hitler.

------------------------------------------------

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."

Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

-------------------------------------------------

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf, Volume 1, Chapter 2, Years of Study and Suffering in Vienna)

-------------------------------------------------

"The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine."

Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf, Volume 1, Chapter 12 The First Period of Development of the Nationalist Social German Worker's Party)

-------------------------------------------------

I know Christians are horrified by what Hitler did, now lets look at what the people here say, Osama was a good Muslim!

I couldn't care about what you people think of me as a Muslim, you can call us moderates 'fake' Muslims, it doesn't mean a thing.

-------------------------------------------------

"islam proposes war, killing and the setting up of muslim temporal power very clearly in the name of the muslim god, allah.

this is one reason i oppose islam"

Fair enough. If you believe that is Islam, you can oppose that. As a Muslim if you truthfully do what you have stated, I will not be effected in any way. I am a peaceful Muslim living in the West, I'm a simple guy. You can oppose your version of Islam if you wish. Go ahead.

Now do you must be able to understand that Islam can be practised peacefully,

you still with me,

how does that effect you?

How can you oppose my Islam if its something personal. Huh?

Islam cannot be practiced peacefully. It's fundamental to this gutter religion's canonical scriptures that Islam is about, and God's commandment to Moslems, is to conquer Infidels for the crime of not adopting this crapulous hate-bloodlust-conquest nightmare called the nation of Islam.

Lying of Islam ia786, this is not a competition. You are deliberately trying to obfuscate. You reach so far back and grasp at diminishing history it is not even funny. And lest we forget, your coreligionists were pretty quick to sign up for some jew baiting during WWII. But that is all in the past. What have you done for me lately ?

I've been doing my own research and I've come across a body of evidence that the death penalty for apostasy is indeed a source of contention within the ummah and that there are certain constituencies (such as 'sisters in Islam'- a Malaysian group) that are opposed to the murder of apostates.

I apologize King Tolerance for my personal attacks and my stated inaccuracies. I also apologize to Shaughn for contesting his accurate position on the issue.

There is no question that among the main schools of Islamic jurisprudence, the penalty for apostasy is death. But there are voices within the ummah (how many is a matter of debate) that are opposed to such punishment.

King, I've never once maintained that there are no moderate Muslims. What I insist upon is that Islam itself is incompatable with human freedom.

You fell for my 'trap', you have proved yourself to be a bigot!!!
http://www.dotfart.com/

king.;.we can't sort out the tolerant muslims
from the intollerant muslims..therefore all muslims gotta go!

all muslims must be shipped out b4its too late..

all muslims need to be shipped out of our country

it's not racist..all muslims go home we don't need yer sheet here,,

ship muslims to lands they love

did i say all muslims should go bak to where they live in muslimia.. yes i sed all muslims should
get the fuck out of our country..get the fuck out of our country

Cornelius wrote: "But there are voices within the ummah (how many is a matter of debate) that are opposed to such punishment [of death for apostates]."

To paraphrase Sarkozy as he eviscerated Tariq Ramadan -- it is grotesquely ludicrous for this to be even a matter of "debate" -- let alone the fact that it is only among a tiny minority of Muslims (some ragtag Malaysian group of "Sistahs" adduced as evidence among millions of splinter groups in Islam spending their precious time more usefully figuring out more important things, e.g., why gelatin may be not be forbidden after all)!

As long as Muslims do not unceremoniously round up and physically punish (let them calculate how many lashes in the public square is fitting -- Muslims are good at those kinds of details) those of their fellow Muslims who support this barbarically insupportable punishment, we should not (for that reason alone, let alone hundreds of other egregiously hideous and backward practices they continue to assiduously cultivate) tolerate the state of Islam.

i'm madder than a hornet! fukkin muslims better
understand we are on to them

final post tonite..fuk islam!!!!!!
and King Tolerance of terrorism is an asswhipe

IA786, this is what I think.

All religions are essentially evil. They are essentially evil because at their core, they are anti-democratic.

Prophets are anti-democratic, "gods" are anti-democratic.

Western society has gradually become a secular haven, free of compulsory christianity, and that's a good thing.

But Islam threatens to do away with secularism, and bring us back to where we were when christianity ruled.

At least however, christiantiy allowed us to wear whatever clothes we liked, play music, draw pictures, and generally live our own lives to some degree.

Islam is so repressive, that the christian dark ages seems like the good old days by comparison.

King of Tolerance and ia786:

Before you both continue to rail against Christianity and list crimes from the beginning of the Roman Christian era to the present, look in the light of the following.

" Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life and few there be that find it." Matthew 7:13 - 14

Further there is.

"Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them." Matthew 7:20

Additionally.

"Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my father which is in heaven. Many will say unto me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And I will profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:22 - 23

The point being that many may claim to be Christian. Few really are. Even Jesus Christ told us such would be the case.

Yes of course the UK will always attract immigrants and I'm from an immigrant family myself. But we want immigrants like Indians and East Asians who do very well, make a contribution to society, try to integrate and have a high profile in the business world. It's a fact that unemployment is very high amongst Muslims - so high that the Government has set up a committee to investigate it. They congregate in enclaves and hardly mix. They even call us "Kufr" amongst themselves - a derogatory term which doesn't exist amongst other immigrants. Even Afro-Caribbeans after a long period of tensions have integrated better. It's a sad fact that no other community that has a second generation of immigrants want to kill and bomb us in the UK. Even the IRA sent their terrorist boys in from Ireland with money from Irish Americans - they weren't Irish immigrants. You're in denial and as long as you're in denial, the situation will deteriorate.

BTW - I forgot to add that I was referring to unemployment amongst second generation Muslims - not "scary Immigrants" as you referred to. What is the point of emigrating to a country to live on benefits and welfare?

This line about all immigrant groups having the same level of unemployment as the indigent Muslim male youth in Britain today is contemptible nonsense - Sikhs and Hindus and Chinese do not have high unemployment rates nor do they live off state welfare nor do they appear in the prison system as Muslims do - this is lies and garbage - what an insult to all those Indians and Chinese that come to Britain, face the same prejudice and racism that Pakistanis do, and yet they outperform everyone else academically and have great entrepeneurial skills and energy.

So many lies, such bare faced arrogant clueless witless lies.

What an insult to real hardworking immigrants - these Muslim apologists want to drag everyone to their level so they can make excuses for their indigence and failure - pathetic.

"Islam cannot be practiced peacefully. It's fundamental to this gutter religion's canonical scriptures that Islam is about, and God's commandment to Moslems, is to conquer Infidels for the crime of not adopting this crapulous hate-bloodlust-conquest nightmare called the nation of Islam."

Yeh.........….okay…………

"Lying of Islam ia786, this is not a competition. You are deliberately trying to obfuscate. You reach so far back and grasp at diminishing history it is not even funny. And lest we forget, your coreligionists were pretty quick to sign up for some jew baiting during WWII. But that is all in the past. What have you done for me lately ?"

Why are you so upset? I was making a simple point, you can't blame todays Christians for what happened in the past, what’s the matter?

"You reach so far back and grasp at diminishing history it is not even funny."

Followed by....

"And lest we forget, your coreligionists were pretty quick to sign up for some jew baiting during WWII."

You, yourself, reach so far back and grasp at diminishing history it is not even funny. What’s the matter mate, one rule for Muslims and another for everyone else, huh?

_________________________________________________

"You fell for my 'trap', you have proved yourself to be a bigot!!!
http://www.dotfart.com/"

Hey Carolyn, You are an extremist death-worshipping fanatic, I don't blame you. I mean, with all that Muslim bashing in the media and all that trash you are taught by your fanatical evangelical Church leaders, I can’t blame you.

I won't click on that link, it doesn't really look nice and I can't really trust someone that wants me to suffer as much pain and hardship as possible.

_________________________________________________

"final post tonite..fuk islam!!!!!!"

Okay, okay mate.

Now what about 'Muslims' that are not practising. What about Muslims that hardly ever go Mosque but still love God and his Prophets, huh?

_________________________________________________

"All religions are essentially evil. They are essentially evil because at their core, they are anti-democratic."

I believe that there is a God, a creator. Now I believe that God has chosen Prophets from Mankind in order to guide us to the right path, the path of righteousness. That is what I believe. If I was alive during the time of past Prophets, I would have attached my self to them. Now things have changed, alot of people see things differently. I am an easy going guy, I always strive to be good and kind to those around me, that is something that all religions try to emphasise. In Islam, I strive to eliminate all bad characteristics of my ego, I strive to become selfless. How can that be seen as evil, when religion was revealed, many were killed, yes, but how can religion be called evil because of that. Can't religion promote good between Mankind?

We believe that the human conscience is a guide to the truth. We believe that if one continually sins without repenting the consciences ability becomes blunted and it is then lost. One can sin without feeling any guilt. This is something that is dangerous for the person him/herself and those around him/her.

In our Sufi teachings we pay alot of attention to Jesus. Here is a favourite quote of mines, from Jesus.

"My daily bread is hunger, my badge is fear, my raiment is wool, my mount is my foot, my lantern at night is the moon, my fire by day is the sun, and my fruit and fragrant herbs are such things as the earth brings forth for the wild beasts and cattle. All the night I have nothing, yet there is none richer than I!"

______________________________________________

"Prophets are anti-democratic, "gods" are anti-democratic."

mmmmmm......

"Western society has gradually become a secular haven, free of compulsory christianity, and that's a good thing."

mmmmmmm......

I can understand where you're coming from however don't you see any problems in the West now?

I see many problems and I do think these maybe linked with the weakness of Christianity. We have lost our link with God and are chasing materialism, something that will never bring true happiness. Everything in the World now is about money, about materialism and sex. This is happening across the World and it saddens me to see these things. Outside schools in the UK we have billboards with dirty pictures of women. In newsagents we have some utter filth, in some newspapers we also have utter filth.

London itself feels like a ghost town, no one talks to anyone. Everyone is minding his or her own business. The tube is like a transport service for Zombies. No one talks to anyone. There is no warmth. Its so dangerous to cross roads in London, no one gives you a chance. Sometimes I ask, where is the love???

I love England and the people here, I am not complaining about the state of the country or anything, I just think you are being one sided. When my father came here back in the 70s he told me how in the streets people would say hello to each other. People would talk and spread happiness, where is that now. I don't see it.

How did this happen?

I agree that religion shouldn’t be forced on anyone but then again how can one combat all the problems the World is facing now?

_________________________________________________

"But Islam threatens to do away with secularism, and bring us back to where we were when christianity ruled."

How?

Islam, who represents 'Islam'. That statement of yours means nothing.

_________________________________________________

"At least however, christiantiy allowed us to wear whatever clothes we liked, play music, draw pictures, and generally live our own lives to some degree."

I wear western clothes, I listen to music, I draw pictures, I play sport, I live my own life, I believe in God too and am a Muslim so what?

The sad thing here is that alot of the people here have their own version of Islam, no music and no pictures, that sort of stuff.

There are hadiths, yes however who interprets these things, the Imams and scholars. You can't just ignore the majority of Muslims.

_________________________________________________

"Islam is so repressive, that the christian dark ages seems like the good old days by comparison."

Okay.

There is alot of discrimination when it comes to Muslims. Hopefully more will be done to combat this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3885213.stm

"All the applicants were given the same standard of qualifications and experience, but their CVs were presented differently.

Almost a quarter of applications by two candidates given traditionally "white" names - Jenny Hughes and John Andrews - resulted in interview offers.

But only 9% of the "Muslim" applications, by the fictitious Fatima Khan and Nasser Hanif, prompted a similar response."

final post tonite..fuk islam!!!!!!
and King Tolerance of terrorism is an asswhipe

otterfisher,

It is of course your business if you want to engage that pathetic nitwit and I am not going to remind you that being a classic troll his goal and ambition is to be noticed and engaged, not to prevail in discussion. Therefore the more eggs he collects on his face and the more kicks on his posterior the happier he is.

Anyway, I don’t think it is good to use a foul language however frustrated one is with that ninny's cognitive powers. It doesn’t advance our cause a bit, but lessens the standard of that blog.
We are here to fight islam not to “fuk” it.
Really, what an insane idea to entertain. Almost as crazy as asking prophet Mohammed-the-Pig to look after your little daughter. Or son. Or goat.

Ia, tho I've already pwned you, I see no difficulty in doing it some more.

"So it all comes down to that, huh Geoff?"

No. It comes down to the Quran and hadiths too, but we're talking leadership here.

"With that you just proved that you are an idiot... Now is that all you have as an argument? Very disappointing."

It's even more disappointing when the other guy won't answer the point, and only responds with ad hominem and tu tuoque. Maybe that's just the benefit of some people's university experience so far.

"The bottom line is you hate the man Muslims hold dear to their hearts. Now you know Islam can be practiced peacefully"

Well, I've never liked warlords or murderers, so I suppose I might hate Mohammed at that. I mean, there's nothing to respect or appreciate in the man. People like that live off of human suffering and conflict. Why would I not hate such an individual? I hate Stalin. I hate Hitler. I hate Pol Pot. All scum. How is Mohammed any different? He instigated wars and, worse still, a philosophy founded on a twisted idea of a deity to ensure that his own screwy epileptic meme was continued on after his death.

Also, I'm sure islam can be practiced peacefully - it's just that the practice isn't so "peaceful" for non-muslims in majority muslim countries, or for women, or even homosexuals for that matter. If islam is so great, I must take my interpretations of its greatness from its practice - from where islam is dominant, as its leaders demand. Regrettably for islam, the observance of its practice does not fill anyone with great admiration for it (except for that one guy, with the funny little moustache). If you want to be peaceful, fine, go be peaceful. But it seems more and more likely that that should be done in segregation from the rest of the world and its evil "kufr".

"you want Muslims to go through as much hardship as possible"

LOL. Nope. Wrong again. I just want them to stop killing and oppressing people over a non-existent deity. I mean, it's like killing someone because they don't believe in men from Mars, you know?

As for your long cut-and-paste list (seriously, do these lists come with every copy of the Quran? everyone seems to have the same one), I was indeed amused: you seem to think islamic behaviour in the 20th century, some mere 60 years ago (90 for the Armenian genocide by Turkish Islamists) and onward to the present day is "diminishing history", yet Christian crimes from 1000-500 years ago seem to be right up there in your modern conception of Christianity. You need to sort out your understanding of linear time.

"Islam, who represents 'Islam'"

The Quran. And the hadiths. And Mohammed. He was the one who wanted islam to rule the world. Did you forget about him? You know, Zico is dead on when he berates you for "witless lies". It's bang on.

"I'm just making a point, only a bigot would blame today’s peaceful Christians for what happened in the past."

Well, you clearly do so, so you are in fact a bigot. The comparative histories of violence in islam vs. violence by any (ANY) other world religion is a treatise in unbalance. Islam has, without doubt, been responsible for far more violence and evil than Christianity ever has. A simple comparison of body count will illustrate that.

But the issue is so much more core than that: Christianity is not given to violence. It does not invoke violence. Jesus Christ, as a figure, may have said he "came with sword", but only a figurative one. In order to follow Christ, one must be peaceful.

The same is clearly not true of Mohammed, or of islam. The Quran contains passages that are highly anti-Semitic, violent and hateful. Someone posted a list here a while back, and even that list, long as it was, was incomplete. Even when peaceful, islam warns not to "interrupt the spread of dislam" or else war and death must be the result, to say nothing of what islam dictates must happen to those that defame the, ahem, "prophet".

Then of course there's your final phrase: "I agree that religion shouldn’t be forced on anyone BUT then again..."

Once we pass the "BUT", the rest of your argument is unimportant. You valide quite successfully all the correct conceptions we have of your religion. "Religion shouldn't be forced, BUT..." coming from someone who claims to be a moderate says it all, and also illustrates the true meaning of Q 2: 256.

This phrase of Ia's was also telling: "If today Christians talk to me about morality, this is why they make me sick."

Ah. So Christianity CAN be good, but is really in fact evil. Right. But islam CAN be good, and really is good, in your line of thinking.

Nope, no bigotry there! LOL Seriously, Ia, does shirk lead you to hate Christianity SO much? Why? You've no idea if you're even right, if there even is a god up there. He's never spoken to you (I assume!). Why so much hate over something so intangible?

As for Kinky, please illustrate the NT passage which gives religious support to the Catholic-Protestant conflict in Northern Ireland. Our complaint, I think you may have noticed, is not how muslims necessarily behave to each other (with notable societal inequities such as the oppression of women and minorities in islam) but how they behave to non-muslims. Your example is one of strife between two Christian nations, rather than a difference between religions, and is thus more akin to Sunni-Shia violence, which, incidentally, has claimed far more victims than the "Troubles" ever did.

BTW - if you really disliked people who want to force religion on others, you'd dump your cozy association with your coreligionist, Ia, who's already admitted he'd force religion on people (see above) and, just for good measure, thinks the Jews perpetrated 9/11.

Wow. Really can tell things about people by the company they keep, no?

Kingky: "Don't blame all Muslims for extremist fueled hate."

PROPHET GEOFF: We don't. We just don't like the aggressive, expansionistic and discriminatory aspects of their religion. Figured as a fellow leftist you wouldn't either. Silly me. Nice links: wish I could access them, but I really don't want a hack. Interesting that a self-professed non-muslim has such a ready list of links, though. Kind of like Ia's saved list of Christian crimes, eh? LOL. In any event, Shaughn has it right: it's the ideology, stupid.

How odd. Now get on with your "honset" laughing.

Both of you do fine work on here. But not for your side.

Prophet/Cardinal Geoff
In the comfy chair, BBUH

albion:

I'll try to catch you on this thread but if I miss you I'll try again later.

I'd like to have your email address on our private-member JW/DW contact list. No address is exchanged without prior authorization, and only to a specific party that has requested it, if approved. If you'd agree, please send your email address along with your screenname to susan_b356@yahoo.com. I keep the backup copy of the list.

CGW

Vikrant:

To correct you gently: I AM AGAINST iSLAM.

And I know for a fact that I do not speak only for myself on this board.

On the assumption that volume doesn't necessarily equal quality, I'll try to add further to this interesting thread, but briefly.

A poster by the name of ia786 has provided a lengthy list of abominations perpetrated by so-called Christians. I am having some difficulty in connecting the relevance of the list to the original posting. Is the intended conclusion one of, "Well if Christians murder, why should anyone complain about Muslim excesses?" The point is: murder is wrong.

Also, I thought it very creative using quotes from Adolf Hitler, concerning his political views based upon his putative Christian beliefs. I have never before considered Hitler as the go-to guy for matters of Christian Doctrine. This is particularly so, given the fact that so many Christians of all shades lay down their lives in the struggle (Kampf? Jihad?) to prevent this guy from gaining world power. Even Christians of German extraction, from countries such as the US and Canada paid the ultimate price in the effort to defeat Nazism. I think it only fair to ask Muslim emigrants to the West: Are you also willing to defend your adopted country to preserve the rule of law and the rights of all to practice their faith, no matter who, with ties of blood, religion and culture, may exhort you to do otherwise?

Lying for islam ia786, I am ticked off at your cut and paste behemoths and I said so.

TooBad;"And lest we forget, your coreligionists were pretty quick to sign up for some jew baiting during WWII."

Lying for Islam;You, yourself, reach so far back and grasp at diminishing history it is not even funny. What’s the matter mate, one rule for Muslims and another for everyone else, huh? It's funny how when citing diminishing history you ommit a crucial part of it making your whole cut and past job incomplete.

Never the less, you failed to respond to the question :What have you done for me lately?

But in any event, I really can't be @rsed with a troll these days. I wil leave that to the others with more time.

Ia - your quotations from adolf hitler are completely irrelevant

nothing remotely like them is to be found in the new testament, therefore they are not in accordance with the divine will, therefore they are NOT christian, in fact the Holy Word is actively being opposed in these speeches by this evil man

the antichrist hitlers views of christianity are neither here nor there, he was merely using the word christianity to further his own satanic ends. (he is certainly not alone there)

on the other hand, killing people IS according to the will of the false god allah, as can be clearly read in the book of his false prophet muhammed

you say it is possible to peacefully practise islam, but your god and his prophet promote slaughter, and the imposition of the most dreadful bondage on those who will not have islam. who are you to disagree with those who follow the teaching? they can point to the quran

adolf hitler couldnt point to the new testament, nor could any of the "christian" mass murderers who preceded him

actually reading again your quotations from hitler reminded me just what a vile liar he was

Thomas H...
you are right of course..i apologize to the readers of those beery posts and invite the censor to lop them off and deposit in the compost heap..

The only good muslim is a bad muslim..
(how's that?)

ia, Ha ha, my linky is just a raspberry. I am a "death-worshipping fanatic"? That is rich coming from a muslim, whose co-religionists are causing 95% of the havoc on the planet, and who BTW- take great pride in saying in a loud voice how "They love death more than we(kufr) love life." If all islamists would go back to their homes in SA and other desert places and practice their 7th century barbarities, we would not have any problem with them. When they begin their dreams of a "Caliphate" and begin trying to take over our lands, now we have a large problem. I believe with all my heart that muhammad saw visions inspired by the "god of this world"...you call him allah, I call him Lucifer. I know you will not accept what I say, but the fruit produced by the tree of islam is bloody and evil.

otterfisher,

The only good muslim is a bad muslim..
(how's that?)

Brilliant! Profoundly true yet wonderfully simple!

The author of the motto deserves a standing ovation! Wouldn't you say so?

cheers!

Cornelius: "I've been doing my own research and I've come across a body of evidence that the death penalty for apostasy is indeed a source of contention within the ummah and that there are certain constituencies (such as 'sisters in Islam'- a Malaysian group) that are opposed to the murder of apostates. I apologize King Tolerance for my personal attacks and my stated inaccuracies."

King: Apology accepted. I am glad our exchange provoked you to research something that ended up changing your viewpoint. This is all I ever ask.

"Ia, tho I've already pwned you, I see no difficulty in doing it some more."

What does that mean?

"It's even more disappointing when the other guy won't answer the point, and only responds with ad hominem and tu tuoque. Maybe that's just the benefit of some people's university experience so far."

You are going to have to forgive me, I can't be bothered to scroll to the top of the page to work what you are actually talking about.

"Well, I've never liked warlords or murderers, so I suppose I might hate Mohammed at that. I mean, there's nothing to respect or appreciate in the man. People like that live off of human suffering and conflict. Why would I not hate such an individual? I hate Stalin. I hate Hitler. I hate Pol Pot. All scum. How is Mohammed any different? He instigated wars and, worse still, a philosophy founded on a twisted idea of a deity to ensure that his own screwy epileptic meme was continued on after his death."

Oh Geoffrey, you can hate who you want. Hate is something I don’t have to deal with, I am free from that burden. I don't have to hate anyone or anything. I just don't want this hatred to get to you, Muhammad is physically gone, though people like you are obsessed with him. Calm down.

"Also, I'm sure islam can be practiced peacefully - it's just that the practice isn't so "peaceful" for non-muslims in majority muslim countries, or for women, or even homosexuals for that matter. If islam is so great, I must take my interpretations of its greatness from its practice - from where islam is dominant, as its leaders demand. Regrettably for islam, the observance of its practice does not fill anyone with great admiration for it (except for that one guy, with the funny little moustache). If you want to be peaceful, fine, go be peaceful. But it seems more and more likely that that should be done in segregation from the rest of the world and its evil "kufr"."

I am not telling you Islam is great or better than any other religion, I am saying Islam can be practised peacefully. Though, I know you wish it was not possible, it is. I have been a practising Muslim for many years, yet I have been peaceful. How many Muslims in the UK practice Islam peacefully?

"LOL. Nope. Wrong again. I just want them to stop killing and oppressing people over a non-existent deity. I mean, it's like killing someone because they don't believe in men from Mars, you know?"

You should stop 'LOL'ing and try sorting it ouuuuut.

How can I take you seriously when you make such silly statements. How many Muslims in the Uk have killed and oppressed others over our false moon good or was it Lucifer? Huh?

I am responsible for my own actions, can you understand that?

This may hurt your feelings but I think I have to say it:

One can practice Islam peacefully.

Muslims are human too!!!

Islam and Muslims will not disappear.

"As for your long cut-and-paste list (seriously, do these lists come with every copy of the Quran? everyone seems to have the same one), I was indeed amused: you seem to think islamic behaviour in the 20th century, some mere 60 years ago (90 for the Armenian genocide by Turkish Islamists) and onward to the present day is "diminishing history", yet Christian crimes from 1000-500 years ago seem to be right up there in your modern conception of Christianity. You need to sort out your understanding of linear time."

pppppfffff...........

I don't find 'Christians' killing Pagans funny. You seem to forget that ‘Christians’ killed about 6 million Jews in WW2. Oh and lets not forget how priests blessed Serb soldiers before they massacred Muslims. There are pics of this. Does this justify crimes committed by Muslims, no. A crime is a crime.

What are you trying to say, today’s Muslims are responsible for what happened in the past. Hey Geoff, I am responsible for my own actions.

"The Quran. And the hadiths. And Mohammed. He was the one who wanted islam to rule the world. Did you forget about him? You know, Zico is dead on when he berates you for "witless lies". It's bang on."

They represent Islam, that’s all fine. You have an argument bringing it to them (ha ha) Oh, and make sure you do it through Islamic teachings, that is not taking verses out of context!!!

What about non-practising Muslims? What about more than a billion Muslims reject Zarqawis version of Islam (The one you wish all Muslims followed)?

What about the fact that the majority of Muslims are peaceful, do you suggest ignoring them or deporting and murdering them. Which one?

"Well, you clearly do so, so you are in fact a bigot."

Weak. I have never blamed Christians for the actions of Hitler or other Christians.

"The comparative histories of violence in islam vs. violence by any (ANY) other world religion is a treatise in unbalance. Islam has, without doubt, been responsible for far more violence and evil than Christianity ever has. A simple comparison of body count will illustrate that."

That’s the thing with people like you, you live in the past. Instead of embracing every new day with enthusiasm you moan about the past. The past is that, the past. It is gone, we should be looking to the future, we should be building bridges, coming closer together and openly declare the greatness of God.

(ignore that last one mate!)

"But the issue is so much more core than that: Christianity is not given to violence. It does not invoke violence. Jesus Christ, as a figure, may have said he "came with sword", but only a figurative one. In order to follow Christ, one must be peaceful."

How many times have I heard this, lets resurrect Hitler so he can speak to you!

"The same is clearly not true of Mohammed, or of islam. The Quran contains passages that are highly anti-Semitic, violent and hateful. Someone posted a list here a while back, and even that list, long as it was, was incomplete. Even when peaceful, islam warns not to "interrupt the spread of dislam" or else war and death must be the result, to say nothing of what islam dictates must happen to those that defame the, ahem, "prophet"."

Usual drivel. You know Islam can be practised peacefully, you have a problem with fanatics, discuss it with fanatics.

"This phrase of Ia's was also telling: "If today Christians talk to me about morality, this is why they make me sick."

Geoff, you should know that quote was actually from the cut and paste, it wasn't mine.

"does shirk lead you to hate Christianity SO much? Why?"

Huh???..........

"He's never spoken to you (I assume!)."

God is Great!!!

"ia, Ha ha, my linky is just a raspberry."

And the point of that was.................?

"I am a "death-worshipping fanatic"? That is rich coming from a muslim, whose co-religionists are causing 95% of the havoc on the planet"

95%!!! Wow. I never knew you thought the US was an Islamic state (sarcasm) (ha ha ha)

"If all islamists would go back to their homes in SA and other desert places and practice their 7th century barbarities, we would not have any problem with them."

That’s fine. What about Western born Muslims that practise Islam peacefully? What about 'White' Europeans and Americans that have accepted Islam, they are as Western as you and I.

"When they begin their dreams of a "Caliphate" and begin trying to take over our lands, now we have a large problem."

Fully understandable. As we know both Muslims and Non-Muslims are victims of these terror attacks. We should come together and fight them. Having an oversimplified view of the World will get you no where.

"I believe with all my heart that muhammad saw visions inspired by the "god of this world"...you call him allah, I call him Lucifer."

Fair enough.

"I know you will not accept what I say, but the fruit produced by the tree of islam is bloody and evil."

As was the tree of Christianity! Huh Carolyn? e.g. Hitler, Crusades (Killing Jews, Christians and Muslims), Huh Carolyn???

"I am a "death-worshipping fanatic"? "

I think that was abit harsh from me and I apologise. I have heard the things the Christian extremists say in American Churches. We had one call for (___can't remember__) leader to be killed. (Venezuela??)

Its funny yet sad. Alot of the people here wish to see Muslims across the World murdered, why don't they just go to Iraq and do their thing. Its easy sitting behind a computer worshipping and calling for death, how would you feel if there was a knock on the door and they wanted you sent to Iraq.

wwwwWoW!!!

This has been the most amazing thread - I read about 3/4 of it before running out of desire (which is not too bad).

So my point will be brief - with regard to the historical mistakes of Christians and Muslims reported by ia786.

Ia786 - here is the essential difference.

Christians refer to historical Muslim atrocies as an explanation for CURRENT Muslim atrocities (looking for a continuing pattern).

Muslims refer to ancient Christian atrocities to either 1) explain their CURRENT atrocities (its all payback) or 2) to try to create moral equivalence (like - hey, you guys are bad guys too).

Neither of the Muslim historical references are valid. This is more to the point than the ia786 posts, yes?

Welcome aboard Skippy!!!

"Christians refer to historical Muslim atrocies as an explanation for CURRENT Muslim atrocities (looking for a continuing pattern)."

We can learn alot from the past. I can fully understand what you are saying. Yet looking at the World now we see the ‘Christian’ US ravaging the rest of the World.

The ‘Christian’ US has spread fear and hatred across the World, just as they have spread DU in Iraq. The US is one of the most hated and feared countries in the World. Just ask any guy in the street what he thinks of the US.

We have had extremist Evangelicals preaching death, we have had them call for hits!

We have had the Iraq fiasco from the US, the murdering and raping of Iraqis. Just bring Bush and his friends to the rest of the World. Check the response. Demonstrations and protests. Actually bring him to Europe, check the response. Demonstrations and protests. Absolute disgust. That says something. You can’t ignore that.

"Muslims refer to ancient Christian atrocities to either 1) explain their CURRENT atrocities (its all payback) or 2) to try to create moral equivalence (like - hey, you guys are bad guys too)."

No. You did not read my replies properly. I said that only an irrational person would blame today’s Christians for its bloody past. We see the same thing over and over as many of the right-wingers try to suggest today’s Muslims are in someway responsible for what happened hundreds of years ago.

I have been born and brought up in the West, English is my language and Islam is my religion. Islam is a universal religion and it can be practised peacefully. I have no problem with anyone or anything, I am an easy going guy. I am responsible for my own actions, mine alone, not what some Muslim did hundreds of years ago.

IA786:

It is good to hear your assurances that it is possible to practice Islam peacefully. Even westerners (white) people who have accepted Islam can practice it peacefully. Presumably we should all defend their right to do so.

Would you also agree that we should also defend the right of any Muslims (Saudis, Iraqis, whatever) who have accepted Christianty or any other religion, to peacefully practice their new faith in the land of their birth? Tolerance, right?

Yes. God is Great. But some of the man-made interpretations of that greatness suck pretty bad.

You don't know what pwned means? Means I ran circles around you, pushed your caravan over, beat you and your god. I pwned you. I can appreciate that you don't understand how your ad hominem doesn't translate into an argument, however: you've probably never had your opinions challenged until you came here, and so I imagine that was a big shock for you.

Sorry, Ia, insults don't cut it, unless you have evidence.

I can hate who I want? Oh joy! LOL. But this next bit is amazingly funny:

"Muhammad is physically gone, though people like you are obsessed with him."

I see. So I, merely as someone who has grave suspicions and doubts about islam as a politicoreligious movement, am "obsessed" with Mohammed.

Ia, as a muslim whose religion is founded on 'perfect emulation' of the 'perfect man' (Mohammed, apparently) is conversely NOT 'obsessed with him'.

Right. You don't need Mohammed in islam. Nah. Don't be obsessed with him to the point that everything he's ever supposed to have said or done is endlessly debated for 1400 years with such ferocity that it causes major religious strife within islam to this very day including terrorism and war. Not at all. You don't need Mohammed in islam.

...

Seriously, that was your real comment? Are you insane? Or is this a Sunni thing? LOL!

"I am not telling you Islam is great or better than any other religion"

Er, again, this seems to be islam's point. Remember your shahada, Ia? Shirk bad. Absence of partners good.

"How many Muslims in the UK practice Islam peacefully?"

How many anywhere do so? Lots. But in muslim-majority countries, there is horrifying and quite legal (under sharia) mistreatment of both women and religious minorities. Both are sanctioned - ordered, in fact - by islamic theology. Many people went about their daily lives quite peacefully in the Soviet Union and China - but few people would really want to live in such despotic societies. Yet they were very 'peaceful'.

"You should stop 'LOL'ing and try sorting it ouuuuut."

LOL! I already sorted you ouuuuut.

"How many Muslims in the Uk have killed and oppressed others over our false moon good or was it Lucifer?"

I'm not sure whether it's a moon god or Iblis (Satan), frankly. Very difficult to say, theologically, although if there were such beings it would be one of the two. As for how many people have been oppressed in the UK by muslims, you should talk to apostates who've been threatened with death and/or physically attacked in the UK. Do a search on here and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Seriously, you shouldn't ask loaded questions like that. =)

"One can practice Islam peacefully. Muslims are human too!!!"

And so are non-muslims, Ia. Including Jews. You have to understand that, and I pray one day you will. As for the peace bit, see above. I ask not for disappearance, but truly peaceful treatment of "kufr" (and non-People of the Book) by muslims, that's all. The examples of islamic civilization do not indicate that such exists, so far.

"Does this justify crimes committed by Muslims, no. A crime is a crime. What are you trying to say, today’s Muslims are responsible for what happened in the past."

Ah. So your point posting your long list was...? We're talking about polito-theology here, Ia. Moreover, we're also talking about crimes in the PRESENT. Ongoing ones. Wakey wakey.

"They represent Islam, that’s all fine. You have an argument bringing it to them [Quran, hadiths, Mohammed] (ha ha) Oh, and make sure you do it through Islamic teachings, that is not taking verses out of context!!!"

So, you're saying that islam, which preaches hatred of Jews and other non-muslims, oppression of women, and the murder of apostates, cannot be changed, since we cannot ask Mohammed to retract his statements, as he's long dead. How does this support your point? You know, even as an agnostic, I find myself driven further and further towards Christianity every time the two religions are debated. Christ, dead or alive as he may be, never carried on like the lunatic who founded islam.

"What about non-practising Muslims?"

As they're unlikely to kill anyone over religion, that's fine with me. It's when critical mass reaches high proportions that the umma tends to demand strict sharia. As long as they don't do this, I have no problem with them. Why would I?

"What about the fact that the majority of Muslims are peaceful, do you suggest ignoring them or deporting and murdering them. Which one?"

Neither. How could you have missed that? Here's the response question, then, for comparison:

What are you going to do with all the non-muslims if the global caliphate is ever established? Kill them or force them to convert? (Actually, your previous comments do in fact indicate the latter.)

"I have never blamed Christians for the actions of Hitler or other Christians."

You just did, above. Weak! LOL!

Prophet Geoff: "This phrase of Ia's was also telling: "If today Christians talk to me about morality, this is why they make me sick."

Ia: "Geoff, you should know that quote was actually from the cut and paste, it wasn't mine."

Fine. Why didn't you cut it out then? Apologies, please. Explain how you disagree with it.

And Ia then ends off with the Phrase that Slays: "God is Great!!!"

I think you'll understand how Westerners would perceive such a statement as highly discriminatory and offensive, given our history with islam.

Oh, and a quick point for my homie Carolyn:

Caro: "I know you will not accept what I say, but the fruit produced by the tree of islam is bloody and evil."

Ia: "As was the tree of Christianity! Huh Carolyn? e.g. Hitler, Crusades (Killing Jews, Christians and Muslims), Huh Carolyn???"

Moron, those aren't the origin of Christianity. Christ was born supposedly around 0 AD. Hitler came much, much later. Christ didn't order the elimination of all who didn't believe in him. Mohammed, by contrast, did. Ergo, Mohammed planted a poison tree, watered by blood. This behaviour has continued in islam to the present day - its 'poison fruits'.

So, you lose. Only you would be dumb enough to associate Hitler with the origin of Christianity. Actually, Shirki might as well; hard to say, really. So maybe you have more company in your ignorance than I thought. I apologize. =)

"Alot of the people here wish to see Muslims across the World murdered"

Really? Who? Do you want Christians or agnostics across the world murdered?

Well, seems like yes to the latter. Unless they embrace your religion.

Too easy.

Prophet Geoff
BBUH

Yes, the USA IS THE MOST FEARED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. THUS IT SHOULD BE, AND THUS IT SHALL REMAIN.

muslims understand only force, violence and death. That is their value system, as dictated by their Satanic "allah". Any concession or appeasement is seen as weakness and defeat.

Never doubt the triumph of Enlightened Western Civilization over primitive tribal 7th century barbarity. WE SHALL PREVAIL.

IA786 - you sound like a really nice person. I agree that the west is faced with some social "problems". But that's life, as series of trade offs. "Materialism" or "Commercialism" may have a lot more people wrapped up in their cocoons, but it's also helped greatly in shifting people's focus from "who stole my goat?" to other, more important, matters. Why do you think Europe was able to heal so quickly after the most devastating war mankind has witnessed? Certainly a desire to never repeat that sort of destruction played a role, but so too did the material progress made in the following years - people were so busy making money they had less time to focus on "hate".

(Muslims, on the other hand, are going anywhere in economic terms - they've got ample time brush flies from their faces and ruminate about past glories, about the damn Jews and that whore they glimpsed the other day showing some ankle.)

Anyway, why don't you just become Christian man? You still get to have your God but you don't have to waste mental energy thinking up defences for a complete scumbag like Mohammed. Isn't this a simpler solution for you?

"It is good to hear your assurances that it is possible to practice Islam peacefully. Even westerners (white) people who have accepted Islam can practice it peacefully. Presumably we should all defend their right to do so."

Yes, Islam can be practised peacefully. Come to the Mosques of the UK, watch British Muslims go about their lives like normal Brits. I am a non-violent peaceful moderate British Muslim.

"Would you also agree that we should also defend the right of any Muslims (Saudis, Iraqis, whatever) who have accepted Christianty or any other religion, to peacefully practice their new faith in the land of their birth? Tolerance, right?"

I agree with you completely.

"Yes. God is Great. But some of the man-made interpretations of that greatness suck pretty bad."

Again, I agree with you completely.

"You don't know what pwned means? Means I ran circles around you, pushed your caravan over, beat you and your god. I pwned you."

Calm down Geoff, what’s the rush!

Take a seat and help yourself to a drink. As I said earlier trivial things mean nothing to me.

"Sorry, Ia, insults don't cut it, unless you have evidence."

Huh???

"I see. So I, merely as someone who has grave suspicions and doubts about islam as a politicoreligious movement, am "obsessed" with Mohammed."

Yes. That’s the bit that is funny. I remember on FFI when it was the Prophets birthday they (Islamophobes) created a separate thread to commemorate that day! 1400+ years on and even those that hate him can't stop saying his name!

"Ia, as a muslim whose religion is founded on 'perfect emulation' of the 'perfect man' (Mohammed, apparently) is conversely NOT 'obsessed with him'. "

That’s were you and I differ. I am free from hate, I don't need to hate anyone. I am free from that poison.

"Right. You don't need Mohammed in islam. Nah. Don't be obsessed with him to the point that everything he's ever supposed to have said or done is endlessly debated for 1400 years with such ferocity that it causes major religious strife within islam to this very day including terrorism and war. Not at all. You don't need Mohammed in islam."

...........Have I missed something?

"Seriously, that was your real comment? Are you insane? Or is this a Sunni thing? LOL!"

Huh??

"Er, again, this seems to be islam's point. Remember your shahada, Ia? Shirk bad. Absence of partners good."

Huh??

""How many Muslims in the UK practice Islam peacefully?"

How many anywhere do so? Lots."

Lots, did you just say Lots. God is Great!!!

"But in muslim-majority countries, there is horrifying and quite legal (under sharia) mistreatment of both women and religious minorities. Both are sanctioned - ordered, in fact - by islamic theology. Many people went about their daily lives quite peacefully in the Soviet Union and China - but few people would really want to live in such despotic societies. Yet they were very 'peaceful'."

I don't know about Muslim majority countries in my entire life I have only been in one for....a few months. I am a British Muslim.

"And so are non-muslims, Ia. Including Jews. You have to understand that, and I pray one day you will. As for the peace bit, see above. I ask not for disappearance, but truly peaceful treatment of "kufr" (and non-People of the Book) by muslims, that's all. The examples of islamic civilization do not indicate that such exists, so far."

Everyone knows that Jews are human well then again you did tell me that the Crusades were defensive and you completely ignore how crusaders raped, murdered and looted their way through Europe and then killed Christians, JEWS, and Muslims.

"I'm not sure whether it's a moon god or Iblis (Satan), frankly. Very difficult to say, theologically, although if there were such beings it would be one of the two. As for how many people have been oppressed in the UK by muslims, you should talk to apostates who've been threatened with death and/or physically attacked in the UK. Do a search on here and you'll see what I'm talking about."

Muslims have to abide by the laws of the land they live in. I cannot support the threatening and attacking of apostates.

All this fuss over the Muslims and that’s all you can say? Come on Geoff, are there any mass graves in England, any camps where non-Muslims are killed. Anything like that, huh?? (sarcasm)

"What about non-practising Muslims?"

As they're unlikely to kill anyone over religion, that's fine with me."

A moment ago you said that there are many who practise Islam peacefully. What’s up with that, huh Geoff?

""How many Muslims in the UK practice Islam peacefully?"

How many anywhere do so? Lots."

_________________________________________________

My question.

"What about the fact that the majority of Muslims are peaceful, do you suggest ignoring them or deporting and murdering them. Which one?"

Response Question from Geoff.

"What are you going to do with all the non-muslims if the global caliphate is ever established? Kill them or force them to convert? (Actually, your previous comments do in fact indicate the latter.)"

I seriously had to laugh when I read this. You are about as irrational as they get. What a silly question. The caliphate is gone and I don't and will oppose a Wahabite one (like the majority of Sunni Muslims across the World).

_________________________________________________

""I have never blamed Christians for the actions of Hitler or other Christians."

You just did, above. Weak! LOL!"

Wrong. Read my post again. Every human is responsible for his/her own actions.

_________________________________________________

"Prophet Geoff: "This phrase of Ia's was also telling: "If today Christians talk to me about morality, this is why they make me sick."

Ia: "Geoff, you should know that quote was actually from the cut and paste, it wasn't mine."

Fine. Why didn't you cut it out then? Apologies, please. Explain how you disagree with it."

Okay bigot here I go. I have been to churches, I have heard Church leaders speak. I speak to good Christians and they are very nice people. I used to sing Christian hymns when I was young, Geoff, think you should know that. I acted in Christmas plays and would do it all again if I could. I believe all religion will cause one to come to God and the truth. That is why I have no fear, I am always happy.

"And Ia then ends off with the Phrase that Slays: "God is Great!!!"

I think you'll understand how Westerners would perceive such a statement as highly discriminatory and offensive, given our history with islam"

Huh???.......

_________________________________________________

"Oh, and a quick point for my homie Carolyn:

Caro: "I know you will not accept what I say, but the fruit produced by the tree of islam is bloody and evil."

Ia: "As was the tree of Christianity! Huh Carolyn? e.g. Hitler, Crusades (Killing Jews, Christians and Muslims), Huh Carolyn???"

Moron, those aren't the origin of Christianity. Christ was born supposedly around 0 AD. Hitler came much, much later. Christ didn't order the elimination of all who didn't believe in him. Mohammed, by contrast, did. Ergo, Mohammed planted a poison tree, watered by blood. This behaviour has continued in islam to the present day - its 'poison fruits'."

Aren't the crusades the fruit of Christianity. Huh Geoff? God wills it!!!

"So, you lose. Only you would be dumb enough to associate Hitler with the origin of Christianity."

I never did.

""Alot of the people here wish to see Muslims across the World murdered"

Really? Who? Do you want Christians or agnostics across the world murdered?"

You are really good for a laugh Geoff. It seems as though you live on another planet.

Okay let me think, do I want Christians or agnostics killed.......NO!!!

What a silly question Geoff!!!

"Yes, the USA IS THE MOST FEARED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. THUS IT SHOULD BE, AND THUS IT SHALL REMAIN."

So the blessed Christian USA should be the most feared country in the World? What would Jesus say?? Don't think he would be happy, what about Satan, he must be laughing his head off!!!

Its sad and pathetic but I cannot help my self but laugh. There’s a pic of a US tank in Iraq, it said 'Baghdad then Paris' something like that.

The US has created a massive wedge between itself and the rest of the World. It is these people that fear and hate the US. Ask any European what they think of Bush and America.

Its not good. I know many Americans are good and honest people, its sad America has been hijacked by Neo-Cons and fanatics.

I don't fear America. America is a normal country, we saw the state of America after the tragic hurricane. We saw the racism that came through, I watched some American News channels and heard the views of the American people. Calls for Bush to quit, people asking why the US can send troops to Iraq but no there own country. I feel sorry for ordinary Americans. Oh, and don’t forget what Kanye West said.

Oh yeh, American will run from Iraq. They will run. They will bomb Iran, then run. They will bomb Syria then run. They will replace the Wahabis in Saudi with Sunnis (Good news for us all) then leave. These wars are about control of resources. You should know that by now.

"IA786 - you sound like a really nice person."

Thanks mate!

"I agree that the west is faced with some social "problems". But that's life, as series of trade offs. "Materialism" or "Commercialism" may have a lot more people wrapped up in their cocoons, but it's also helped greatly in shifting people's focus from "who stole my goat?" to other, more important, matters. Why do you think Europe was able to heal so quickly after the most devastating war mankind has witnessed? Certainly a desire to never repeat that sort of destruction played a role, but so too did the material progress made in the following years - people were so busy making money they had less time to focus on "hate"."

You have made some very good points there.

"(Muslims, on the other hand, are going anywhere in economic terms - they've got ample time brush flies from their faces and ruminate about past glories, about the damn Jews and that whore they glimpsed the other day showing some ankle.)

Anyway, why don't you just become Christian man? You still get to have your God but you don't have to waste mental energy thinking up defences for a complete scumbag like Mohammed. Isn't this a simpler solution for you?"

Thanks for the advice, I know it is sincere and I appreciate it a lot. It does mean a lot to me.

As I said, I believe that all religion leads one to God. Our God given conscience is what guides us in life. Now we believe that Jesus' return is very, very near. We are living in the End times. We are in that period. Now when he returns all God fearing people will be with him. Its that simple. He will be like a magnet and all Good God fearing people will be attracted to him.

Now there are problems and arguments with people now, at the end of the day, when Jesus comes all barriers will be broken. That is our belief. I happen to be Muslim and you happen to be Christian, that is just the way it goes.

When the time comes God Willing we will be both under Jesus and all barriers will be broken. There will be only the believers under the command of God under Jesus. Call them Christians, Jews, Muslims, its irrelevant, those are just labels.

I long for that day. Be well my friend.

The fighters that hide and run away are the muslims.

Ia,

Glad trivial things mean so little. Of course, I beat you before, which is hardly trivial. And, like I say, save the personal insults, unless you can support them. Just because I have serious doubts about your ideology doesn't make me evil, little fella.

"1400+ years on and even those that hate him can't stop saying his [Mohammed's] name!"

Yeah. Impressive when you consider that Hitler's only been in the "news" for about seventy or so. Hardly an act of approval, of course.

PROPHET GEOFF: "Ia, as a muslim whose religion is founded on 'perfect emulation' of the 'perfect man' (Mohammed, apparently) is conversely NOT 'obsessed with him'. "

IA: "That’s were you and I differ. I am free from hate, I don't need to hate anyone. I am free from that poison."

It's spelled 'where', and if you're muslim, you're more obsessed than I with Mohammed. Sorry. That's definitive. You lost. You're muslim, ergo you're far more obsessed with Mohammed than I ever need be. =) Gotcha. I commend your playing dumb, however. That's the best card you currently have going. Must be half a dozen "huhs" in your post.

"Lots, did you just say Lots. God is Great!!!"

There it is again! The Phrase That Slays! LOL.

Too bad "lots" only matters in certain demographic conditions, and only towards other muslims. Let's not forget al-Buhkari now. =)

PROPHET GEOFF: "But in muslim-majority countries, there is horrifying and quite legal (under sharia) mistreatment of both women and religious minorities. Both are sanctioned - ordered, in fact - by islamic theology. Many people went about their daily lives quite peacefully in the Soviet Union and China - but few people would really want to live in such despotic societies. Yet they were very 'peaceful'."

IA: "I don't know about Muslim majority countries in my entire life I have only been in one for....a few months."

Ah! Did you say you don't know? God is not great!!! La Mohammed, La Allah.

Seriously, you do know, of course. Minorities are treated as second-class citizens at best in islamic countries, as you quite well know. But, again, I commend your strategy of ignorance. It may fool the ignorant.

Ia: "Everyone knows that Jews are human well then again you did tell me that the Crusades were defensive and you completely ignore how crusaders raped, murdered and looted their way through Europe and then killed Christians, JEWS, and Muslims."

They were, my sad little friend, a defensive response to muslim aggression against Christian nations in the Middle East. In the same manner, muslim armies committed all kinds of atrocities against other muslims on their way to engage in aggressive hostile acts against the Crusaders who were, from a theological perspective, fighting a heroic defensive action against an imperialistic, expansionist doctrine. Muslims even made alliances from time to time with the Christian defenders to fight other muslims! Thus, if both sides were on the same local moral footing, then on a larger moral footing the muslims were clearly wrongful and imperialistic aggressors, since they were invading the Christian nations in the Middle East.

Thanks for forcing the point; I win.

IA: "Muslims have to abide by the laws of the land they live in. I cannot support the threatening and attacking of apostates."

Until, of course, muslims can attain majority and change the laws of the land to sharia, wherein they can quite legally begin attacking apostates, Jews, women and other minorities to enforce the "peace of islam", wherein such people are second-class citizens at best. Then, based on your theological position on this issue, you could indeed support it. I, on the other hand, would never support such action: it is wrong independent of the "laws of the land". This is something I call "morality".

Ia seethes: "All this fuss over the Muslims and that’s all you can say? Come on Geoff, are there any mass graves in England, any camps where non-Muslims are killed. Anything like that, huh??"

Not yet. But if Britain were indeed a muslim country, this could quite easily occur. See Turkey, 1908-1917 for an example. I would also recommend the general demographic isolation and forcible extinction or deportation (if they were lucky) of non-Muslims in the Middle East from about 1900 onward. But seriously, why do you bring up death camps at this point?

Ia blathers: "What about non-practising Muslims?"

PROPHET GEOFF preaches: "As they're unlikely to kill anyone over religion, that's fine with me."

Ia rebuts: "A moment ago you said that there are many who practise Islam peacefully. What’s up with that, huh Geoff?"

Any reader of the dialogue will note immediately that Ia's imagined contrast appears to be based entirely on the act of inspecting his own arse. How exactly does my comment that I have no problem with non-practicing muslims whatsoever relate to the issue or non-issue of muslims practicing peacefully? Ia needs a logic course, or one based on overlapping and non-overlapping definition. All A's are not B's, so even if all C's are B's, they are not all A's. Comprends-tu?

________________________________________________

"I seriously had to laugh when I read this. You are about as irrational as they get. What a silly question. The caliphate is gone and I don't and will oppose a Wahabite one (like the majority of Sunni Muslims across the World)."

But, of course, a Sunni one would be ok. And therein, based on sharia, one could oppress and kill non-muslims ("kufr") for minor infractions against your imagined 'Prophet', or for not paying jizya, and so forth, and so on.

_________________________________________________

Ia proudly farts: "I have never blamed Christians for the actions of Hitler or other Christians."

Geoff points out: "You just did, above. Weak! LOL!"

Ia veers: "Wrong. Read my post again. Every human is responsible for his/her own actions."

Geoff teaches: I did. You blamed Christians for Hitler and for every evil act committed BY Christians by sheer implication alone, without having to enumerate your list. I also invite him to point out the basic Christian principle that would make any such crimes "Christian" from a theological perspective, and to point out where Mohammed was the same. (Bonus points if you answer: he wasn't.)

_________________________________________________

Ia: "Okay bigot here I go."

Oopsie! Ad hominem. Kind of ironic, coming from a racist and anti-Semite, too, no?

I'm very glad you seem to be almost admitting that Christians are human too. That's a good start. I'm also actually glad you state that all religion will cause one to come to God: that's a surprising coming from you. And how about the concept of shirk? You would allow Christians to state that they feel Christ is also God without retribution? Because that sort of sentiment isn't allowed in islamic countries, at least not publicly.

Now, what about no religion at all? Would you still force religion onto those who have none?

Ia: "I wouldn't force religion onto anyone, BUT"
________________________________________________

Ia shrieks: "Aren't the crusades the fruit of Christianity. Huh Geoff? God wills it!!!"

Are they? I thought you said you didn't associate Christianity with such 'evils'. The Crusades might or might not be a 'poison fruit', but the tree - which was the personage of Christ Himself - was certainly above such questions. He did not call for the death of anyone. The character of Mohammed, however, is not above question - one only has to look at the biographies, the hadiths and the Quran. Understand now?

Geoff: "So, you lose. Only you would be dumb enough to associate Hitler with the origin of Christianity."

Ia: "I never did."

Yes, you did, although you really didn't understand your own point, nor Carolyn's, nor mine.

Ia: "Okay let me think, do I want Christians or agnostics killed.......NO!!!"

Well, if you think the question's silly, you should go pose it at muslim websites and see the response you get. Then again, your rejection is based on the Quran and the law of the land.

Hope that law doesn't change, eh?

Prophet Geoff