"Dear Mr. Ape Pig..."

What planet is this guy from?

Though Robert is out-of-pocket,
To Islamos, JW still does sock it!

Hitler detested Christanity. Nazi beliefs were a bizarre construct of Aryan mythology, Norse runes, astrology, holy relics, blood myths, the Hindu swastika, and goodness knows what else. Hitler and his henchmen admired Islam above all the other organized religions for its warlike qualities.

Not that such a pitiful response deserves refutation. The "arguments" prove that Muslims (who speak out anyway) can't answer Prager's questions without resorting to the tired, old, boring script they always use.

Their persecution / superiority complex should be studied by psychologists so we can work out a deprogramming system. Literacy, leading to a broader reading list, should be emphasized as well.

Perhaps we should mentio the 80,000,000 (and rising) Hindu's butchered by the self-proclaimed religion of peace. But perhaps this individual has a brain that is the size of a pea.

OH-MY-GOSH!!!!

"...and the reality is that the west is the most occupied and unfree nation in the world." (Question 3)

Where do I start...

I definitely live in an unfree nation. I mean, as opposed to Saudi Arabia where I wouldn't be allowed to drive which would make getting to my office and conducting business difficult. And where I'm not married so I'd never be able to go out of my house. (No man to escort me.) I guess I could do some kind of home based business but then I'd have to get friendly with the Fed Ex guy, which could get me stoned.

I guess I could wear whatever I want, as long as I cover it up with a big, ugly tablecloth. Oh, and I wouldn't be allowed to vote for governor, like I did last week, or I guess post here or write poems. That could cause me to beat myself to death like poor Nadia the poet. (God bless her soul.)

Perhaps I could live like the poor Afghan women whose husbands died in the war with the Soviet Union, and after the Taliban took over they were only allowed to a) beg in the streets or b) work as prositutes.

NOT!

To all you Islamic Orks out there, (Ref: Lord of the Rings,) just a word of advise:

We American women don't buy into your kinder, gentler, PC crap. There is nothing your satanic cult religion could offer me, but then, you don't really care if I buy into it, do you? Not when you can use terror and your testerone driven superior physical strength to force me into submission. Understand something though, I will fight you with every breath in my body. I defy you and spit upon you. I'm telling everyone I know about you and what you are about and when I point out that women can't drive in Saudi Arabi, they can't vote, they can't think, really the only thing they can do is have sex when you want it and bring up millions of little Islamic Orks so the cycle continues,
perhaps they will wake up and smell the stench of what you bring to this world. If I remind them over and over again then your lies won't stick and we will defeat you.

I guess that's why you are attacking Robert so vehemently right now, because he's pulled back the rock and exposed your nasty little secrets. We know now and we are telling everybody.

I don't know what anti terrorist rally this muppet is talking about, but on my site I have a video of the last islamofascist rally held in london, at the base of nelsons column - http://justifythis.blogspot.com/2005/11/al-quds-hate-rally-london-updated.html.

From all the hezbollah flags being waved around, i'd hardly call it anti terrorist.

As I wrote in my post when Prager first posed his questions:

These questions would create far too much cognitive dissonance in that minefield called the Muslim mind to even be assimilated for analysis.

Having called one hostile witness, I rest my case.

LATEST ISSUE OF ISLAMIC JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY-----published regularly (from Saudi Arabia) since the times of Prophet Mohammad(PBUH):- only momins(true muslims) are sane,while kafirs are insane creatures. This explains the (so called) killings of muslims by Christians, Joos and Hindoooos.

With all due respect to the site, i`m not too sure whom i`m more annoyed with, the fool who wrote in with deranged thinking on the matters of muslim playground stupidity or the guys who posted it thinking it was something we didn`t already know.

The story is not worth covering on this Excellent site.

I think Prager is on the right track, but a TRUE Muslim cannot conceptualize the answers - let alone the questions. Muslims believe us infidels are lower than animals just as firmly as we believe the sun rises in the east.

I worked with a Moroccan Muslim for 2 years. We got along fine until I took off time for Passover. When he realized I was Jewish, everything changed. A good working relationship turned to hatred and snippy comments. Finding out I was Jewish was like finding out I was a serial killer.

In the Muslim mind, it is not only acceptable to kill non-believers, it is the greatest act of Islam. Muslims cannot answer Pragers questions. True Muslims are offended at the premise of these questions. Facing them, even thinking about them is turning from Allah. This is impossible for Muslims.

They can't stop bringing up ancient history. Look at how they behave when the Crusades are brought up.

This article is a perfect example of their mindset, or results of brainwashing.

The way this kook addressed the e-mail with "Mr. Ape Pig", says alot.

If this is how they confront their critics, instead of actually looking into the inner-workings of their flawed belief system, they've got problems.

Mumbo Jambo is better received with a** in air while praying and brains left at door...

Discussion of Islam's anti-Jewish views viz. the “apes and pigs” insults is discussed at this link.
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR26

For a comical look at Mohammad’s bigotry, see the comic “Mohammed’s Believe it or Else”: For the apes, pigs, rats verses and reports, see http://islamcomicbook.com/01.htm
http://islamcomicbook.com/02.htm
http://islamcomicbook.com/03.htm

The “apes/apes and pigs” verses are 2:65-66, 5:58-60, and 7:166.

Here’s one example from an excerpt from http://al-islam.org/quran/

START OF EXCERPT

[Shakir 5:58] And when you call to prayer they make it a mockery and a joke; this is because they are a people who do not understand.
[Yusufali 5:58] When ye proclaim your call to prayer they take it (but) as mockery and sport; that is because they are a people without understanding.
[Pickthal 5:58] And when ye call to prayer they take it for a jest and sport. That is because they are a folk who understand not.
[Pooya/Ali Commentary 5:58]
The ignorant and stupid people of the book [Jews and Christians] and the infidels, mentioned in the preceding verse, make fun of the azan (call to prayers), therefore, they must not be befriended.

[Shakir 5:59] Say: O followers of the Book! do you find fault with us (for aught) except that we believe in Allah and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed before, and that most of you are transgressors?
[Yusufali 5:59] Say: "O people of the Book! Do ye disapprove of us for no other reason than that we believe in Allah, and the revelation that hath come to us and that which came before (us), and (perhaps) that most of you are rebellious and disobedient?"
[Pickthal 5:59] Say: O People of the Scripture! Do ye blame us for aught else than that we believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed aforetime, and because most of you are evil-livers?
[Pooya/Ali Commentary 5:59]
The Muslims believed in Allah and the book sent down to the Holy Prophet and also in the books sent down to earlier prophets, but the Jews and the Christians, rejecting all the books, always found fault with that which the Muslims believed.
Dhalika in verse 60 refers to the statement made in verse 59, comparing those mentioned in verse 59 with those mentioned in verse 60, who are worse than them. Verse 61, wherein the hypocrites have been referred to, should be read alongwith these verses. The words apes and swines may refer to their character which will make them appear as such in the life of the hereafter.
See commentary of al Baqarah: 65 and 256 for apes (qiradata) and false gods (taghut). Please note that cursing the wicked is a godly act.

[Shakir 5:60] Say: Shall I inform you of (him who is) worse than this in retribution from Allah? (Worse is he) whom Allah has cursed and brought His wrath upon, and of whom He made apes and swine, and he who served the Shaitan; these are worse in place and more erring from the straight path.
[Yusufali 5:60] Say: "Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!"
[Pickthal 5:60] Shall I tell thee of a worse (case) than theirs for retribution with Allah? (Worse is the case of him) whom Allah hath cursed, him on whom His wrath hath fallen and of whose sort Allah hath turned some to apes and swine, and who serveth idols. Such are in worse plight and further astray from the plain road.

END OF EXCERPT

And to think that one used to go to Emily Post's Guide to Etiquette to find, for every conceivable recipient, not forgetting the Abuna in Addis Ababa, the right form of polite address.

Justify This site:
http://justifythis.blogspot.com/2005/11/al-quds-hate-rally-london-updated.html

Carolyn2:

thanks for the great URL. I have "justifythis" bookmarked.

btw, in case you missed it on another thread, I think on DW, "Nariz" speaks to having been an "early Goldwaterite" in his youth. If Nariz ain't Giaour's new nom de plume, as you've suspected for weeks now, he's surely his "separated at birth" twin.

if this how an "educated" Muslim thinks then no wonder they're so f--ked up! Islam has an almost 1400 year history of spreading their cult by war, murder, rape, pillage and terrorism. But they are taught that it is the rest of the world that is the aggressors, so they have to defend themselves. Enough of this shit! Nuke Mecca and Medina!

Prager: Five questions non-Muslims would like answered

(1) Why are you so quiet?

Mr. X 1: “the reason why muslims are so quite is because they dont own the media and when the anti terrorist march happened in london they didnt recieve any media coverage and remember there are more muslims killed by jews, christians and hindus than non muslims killed by the muslims so thequestion should really be why dont the 4 billion non muslims protest against the terrorism carried out by so called civilised nations?”

Actually the protest (following 7/7) in London to which Mr. X refers did make the evening news (not just on the BBC but also on Canadian stations-that's where I saw the protest). Some Muslim clerics and spokesmen in Britain and Canada also expressed their condemnations of the terrorists, but other clerics and spokesmen were equivocal and some even expressed sympathy for the bombers' stated cause (the latter used the opportunity to scold the west for having troops in Iraq, and Afghanistan). But the question is general. Why are Muslims generally so quiet about condemning terrorist acts? Mr. X didn't address the question, made excuses, then tried to divert attention to unspecified terrorism carried out by non-Muslims against Muslims. The terrorist attacks against non-Muslims are supported by Islamic doctrine, so perhaps some Muslims are afraid of speaking out against these Islamically-approved attacks.

(2) Why are none of the Palestinian terrorists Christian?

Mr.X 2: “how many out of the palestinian population are resisting, the population of christians is even smaller, the christians arnt politically active in palestine and are not targeted like muslims, their churches arnt occupied and isnt there enough christian terrorism in ireland, iraq and afghanistan as was the case in the balkans.”

Doesn't answer the question. The key distinction is that Islamic doctrine requires that true Muslims carry out terrorist attacks, and it requires them to kill the Jews. (It is not just the doctrine, of course, but the teaching of Palestinian children and youth to hate the Jews, and this hatred comes from the Islamic doctrines). Christian doctrine (New Testament) contains no such requirements of believers to attack Jews or anyone else. If a Christian commits a terrorist attack, it is not supported by the New Testament.

(2) Why is only one of the 47 Muslim-majority countries a free country?

Mr.X 3. "who put these leaders there in the muslim countries in the first place, i.e al saud, who supports them and the reality is that the west is the most occupied and unfree nation in the world.”

Again, dodging the question and deflecting responsibility. When the questioner uses the word "free" this presumably means free like western democracies. And again, the answer goes back to the Islamic doctrines, sharia, etc., which forbid and punish what most people in the west consider normal acts and expressions of free will (e.g., openly criticizing authority). The countries whose governments that most closely follow the Islamic doctrines-e.g., Saudi Arabia and Iran-have among the worst human rights records against their own citizens. (Of course, the purest Islamists of all were the Taliban...enough said). Many Muslims immigrate to the west because they prefer the freedoms versus the restrictive, constrictive, unjust, and dangerous conditions in Islamic countries.

(3) Why are so many atrocities committed and threatened by Muslims in the name of Islam?

Mr X. 4: “any "free" person knows that the real atrocities have been comitted by the non muslims and they exceed those commited by muslims possibly ten folds. I mean hilter was a christian wasnt he?”

Dodges the question, rejects the premise. Again, the atrocities in question are in accordance with the Islamic doctrines and Mohammad's example. Many young Muslims (e.g., in Palestine, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.) are brainwashed by clerics and teachers who believe in these doctrines and to act in accordance with them. These young people are taught to hate, as the enemy, those who are named as the enemy in the Koran.

The reference to Hitler is a red herring. (This issue is too complex to address here). Bottom line: The New Testament doesn't support Hitler's expansionist wars and does not support the extermination of the Jewish people. In contrast, the Islamic Hadith explicitly supports the expulsion and extermination of the Jews (Notes 1 and 2, below). The Koran says to kill/convert/subjugate the non-Muslims until all religion is for Allah (2:193, 8:39). Allah sent Mohammad to conquer all other religions (9:33, 48:28, 61:9).

The number of deaths is also a complicated issue, but even here, I believe the largest number of unjustifiable murders (e.g., those carried out strictly in the name of a religion) are attributable to Islam, which again requires that aggressive expansionist jihads be waged. It has been estimated that at least 60-70 million Hindus have been massacred due to jihads waged in the name of Islamic imperialism. The largest single mass killing of POWs, involving the slaughter of 100,000 Hindus, was carried out by Muslims in strict accordance with Islamic Holy War Policy. Source (Andrew Bostom) http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14964

(4) Why do countries governed by religious Muslims persecute other religions?

Mr. X: 5: “which country is governed by islamic law? its actually the non muslims like hiter, stalin, british empire, old rome, israel, the american empire that are the real persecuters.”

Dodges the question; tries to deflect attention to other topics. Iran and Saudi Arabia are governed by Islamic laws; much of Pakistan is governed by Islamic laws. These countries persecute religious minorities (non-Muslims). As far as I'm aware, in every country where Muslims are the majority, religious minorities are persecuted officially or unofficially (anyone feel free to correct me on that). Again, this persecution of non-Muslims is in accordance with Islamic doctrine.

The reason why Mr. X dodges every question is that, as other posters have also pointed out, the answers all point to the Islamic doctrines. Mr. X probably knows this, but can't accept it, or else is deliberately trying to create diversions and smokescreens.

1...A report narrated by a man named Muslim from Abu Hurayrah, the prophet said: "The hour (of the Day of Judgement) will not begin until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. A Jew will hide behind a rock or a tree, and the rock or tree will say 'Oh Muslim, O slave of Allah! There is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!' -except for the gharqad (bow thorn), for it is one of the trees of the Jews." (Reported by Muslim, 2922). This passage was also quoted by Osama bin Laden, May 28, 1998, in an interview with John Bell of ABC News.

2...Hadith:Book 19, Number 4366: Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab:"Umar heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) say: 'I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Penninsula and will not leave any but Muslims.'"

I dont have anything to add to this discussion, I just wanted to show-off my new nick-name.

An occluded cognizance ensconced within a fictive reality.

Blinded, confused, and highly motivated. Snorting up five times a day, taking on a tank full every Friday afternoon.

Who's our Moslem? XXXX@XXXXX is our Moslem!

I mean, as opposed to Saudi Arabia where I wouldn't be allowed to drive which would make getting to my office and conducting business difficult. And where I'm not married so I'd never be able to go out of my house. (No man to escort me.) I guess I could do some kind of home based business but then I'd have to get friendly with the Fed Ex guy, which could get me stoned.
Isabellathecrusader at November 15, 2005 10:02 AM

I lived with my family in Riyadh from 1984 to 1991. Then women were not allowed to drive. Now, I do not know. Even then, we were given to understand that inside the Aramco compound the women had all the privileges as in America.

Three or more females can go out without a relative male escort. It is not that they have to be shut inside their apartments.

The female has a guardian – father, brother, husband, son, uncle etc – who look after all the needs of the female. Thus, there is no need for a female to earn. However, they do have female only institutions – colleges for women only, markets for women only, hospitals for women – and so on where the lone female could be active. Incidentally when we lived there, the hospital had both male and female doctors working in the same complex.

The companies that employ women provide transportation from residence to office and back.

The above are given just to set the record straight. As regards getting friendly with the FedEx guy, free mixing of sexes is not allowed.

I posted the following in http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/008991.php but did not get any response. Now that we have a thread dedicated to the topic, I am posting it here.

Please, as professed "hate" reducer, answer these pressing questions for us in accordance with Islam:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-prager13nov13,0,5189241.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
XRDC at November 14, 2005 05:50 PM

First and foremost, I must state that a handshake requires two hands; just one hand alone does not achieve a handshake.

The above link has raised five questions. All these questions were answered by many, but the answers were not accepted. We cannot find an answer that would make a determined rejecter to accept our answers. Having said the above, let us try.

Q5:. Why do countries governed by religious Muslims persecute other religions?

No church or synagogue is allowed in Saudi Arabia. The Taliban destroyed some of the greatest sculptures of the ancient world because they were Buddhist. Sudan's Islamic regime has murdered great numbers of Christians.

Answer 5: No church or synagogue is allowed in Saudi Arabia is a lie. It is not allowed in the open. There were baptisms conducted inside ‘Prince Sultan Air Base’ south of Riyadh. The friendly Saudi regime secretly satisfies the demands of USA and outwardly claims to implement Islam.

From an Islamic perspective, God Almighty approves Islam alone inside the Arabian Peninsula. Saudi Arabia is part of the Arabian Peninsula. So, no church or synagogue could be allowed.

The Taliban destroyed some of the greatest sculptures of the ancient world because they were Buddhist. I cannot speak for the Taliban because I have no communication from them. However, from an Islamic perspective, no open statue could be allowed. The angels do not enter a space in which there are pictures of animate objects. The prayers of a Muslim are witnessed by angels. Thus, if a Muslim has to offer prayers in a place displaying pictures of animate objects, his concentration is lost. The same applies to sculptures. What should a Muslim government do? Help their populations offer the prayers in comfort or satisfy the desire of an absent society and preserve the so called piece of art? The non-Muslims living in a Muslim land are welcome to have statues inside their buildings. Such statues do not disturb the prayer of Muslims. However, open statues are not allowed. In contrast to other religionists who pray inside their temples, churches or synagogues, the Muslims offer their prayers on time wherever they are as the whole earth – wherever it is clean – can be taken as a place of prayer. Thus, open statues do disturb the concentration of a praying Muslim.

Sudan’s Islamic regime has murdered great numbers of Christians. The media is not really free. The above claim is simply on the basis of media reports. We have no independent confirmation, and thus we do not respond.

Dear XRDC, let me have your response to the above answer to Q5 of the five questions. If my answers convince you that the Muslims are not at fault, God willing, I would try the other questions.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at November 14, 2005 10:44 PM

If XRDC or any other expert would respond, I would be happy to interact.

Encourage him. Encourage him to answer all the questions posed, in as fully and truthfully a manner as he has been doing. What could be better?

Hitler praised Mohammed in Mien Kaumf. Muslims are consistant Holocaust denyers. See the pattern?

That email is pathetic though not surprising. Hitler hated Christianity and he was admired by Muslims. Muslims like Hitler so much that one of the best selling books in the Muslim world is "Mein Kampf". There were also well known Muslim Nazi collaborators including The Grand Mufti. The Mufti fully supported Hitler's final solution.The connection between Muslims and Nazis was so well known that British intelligence sought to undermine Muslim support for Germany by spreading the rumor that Hitler planned to get rid of Arabs because he considered them semites too.

I dont have anything to add to this discussion, I just wanted to show-off my new nick-name.

Posted by: Mr Ape Pig at November 15, 2005 01:56 PM

A new nom de plume for one of the usual suspects, perhaps?

A new nom de plume for one of the usual suspects, perhaps?
Posted by: waterdragon52

Nope, long time reader first time poster.

I just couldnt come up with a clever nick name

Just another reason I'm glad to NOT live in a Muslim country.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7196128388&indexURL=0&photoDisplayType=2#ebayphotohosting

Most of the bikes you see in the ME just don't look like this baby.

In fact, Hitler was much interested in Islam, and particularly in the doctrine of jihad, which he may have considered similar to his notion of unending Kampf [struggle]. He discussed jihad in a friendly way with the Indian Muslim theologian, Muhammad Inayat Ali Khan [don't hold me on the spelling] who was living in Berlin in 1925 or so. This appears in a book by J.M.S. Baljon, Modern Muslim Koran Interpretation [published I think, by Brill in Leiden]. {does Baljon spell the word "moslem"?}

Further, Haj Amin el-Husseini, the British-appointed Mufti of Jerusalem in the 20s and 30s, was an eager Nazi collaborator, and took part in the Holocaust by urging the Germans to kill more Jews faster, and intervening to prevent the release of Jews --including groups of children-- from the Nazi-fascist domain. Roxane mentions him.
Husseini also encouraged the Bosnian Muslim SS division, the Handschar, which was noted for its atrocities, mass murders of Serbs, Jews, Gypsies, and even Croats.
In a pep talk to this SS division, he stated clearly that there was much in common between Islam and National Socialism. On this, see:
Joseph Schechtman, The Mufti and the Fuehrer.

I think that this information should settle the matter about Arab-Nazi ties, as well as about ideological affinities between Islam and Nazism. We have it from the horse's mouth, the Mufti.

Mohammedan ignorance never fails to amuse me!

"Perhaps we should mentio the 80,000,000 (and rising) Hindu's butchered by the self-proclaimed religion of peace."
-- posted by Daffersd

The Hindu-infidel body count, Moghuls and all, now hovers at about 75 million or so.

Thanks for correcting the url carolyn, dont know how the dot got in there

"That email is pathetic though not surprising. Hitler hated Christianity and he was admired by Muslims. Muslims like Hitler so much that one of the best selling books in the Muslim world is "Mein Kampf". "

yes roxane, in fact hitler was given an arabic name, abu ali, by his muslim followers.

They also had a saying, "in heaven allah, on earth hitler"

http://radio.weblogs.com/0109398/stories/2002/06/13/When%20Hitler%20Became.html

:

from the site

"A Mideast song popular toward the end of the 1930s crooned: "No more Monsieur, no more Mister. In Heaven Allah, on earth Hitler." The Fuehrer himself was even Islamicized under the new name of Abu Ali."

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

on the left column of my page (which I'm not cheeky enough to plug twice on the same page) there is video of hitler meeting with Al Husseini

Dear Jihad Watch,

I just registered with this site, and the very first comment I read blew my mind with its gross stupidity.

Muslims are deluded by the carefully calculated revisionist attempts over the years to turn Mohammed - a thief, liar, tyrant, demogogue, rapist, beheader, slaughterer, misogynist, pedophile lowlife into some haloed prophet of God!! (And, by the way, I wish him no peace and honor....he exemplifies evil, and evil doesn't deserve any commendations.)

Hitler was an enemy of Christianity and of Judaism. Muslims should fit into Naziism very well: conquer anybody who doesn't agree with you, wipe out all their rights, close their businesses (liquor stores, drugstores that sell contraceptives, movie producers, video stores, cartoon artists, X-rated books), ban all criticism of Islam, all churches, all sermons except from Imams, all non-Muslim marriages, all women's clothing that doesn't completely cover the female body, all dating without chaperones, all jobs for women, all American courts to be replaced with Shari'ah law.

Ask the jerk who made the original comment if he'd like to live in such a world, since he doesn't approve of ours!

Aunty Islam

Aunty,

For a peek inside the mind of a Muslim, one who comes to us in peaceful da'wa, please go to yesterday's thread Jordan calls for jihad on terrorism. There is no rant or hate in Mohideen's posts, just pure Islamic logic at its best. Just don't scrape your chin on the floor when your jaw drops.

Lots to pull apart here, but just a quick remark on Hitler and Christianity. The place where you could see his true attitudes towards the Christian faith the clearest, was in the SS. He (and Himmler) saw the SS as the bedrock of the new Aryan society that they wanted to create. They were therefore subject to stricter standards than those temporarily applied (for reasons of political expediency) to the general populace. It is therefore instructive to note that SS members were on Hitler's instructions:
* Forbidden to baptise their children
* Encouraged not to give them Biblical names
* Forbidden to marry in church
* Not given Christian burial rites
(See Bureigh, Michael 2001 The Third Reich: A new history, PAN p:194)

Hitler knew that he could not alienate a large percentage of the populace (especially the strongly Catholic South) with a full frontal attack on Christianity. It is however not beyond the realms of possibility that the above strictures would have been applied to all Germans had his demented dreams came true.

Oops! Should be Burleigh, Michael

A picture is worth a thousand words
Hitler wth Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo, the papal nuncio in Berlin, 1935On April 20, 1939, Archbishop Orsenigo celebrated Hitler's birthday. The celebrations, initiated by Pacelli (Pope Pius XII) became a tradition. Each April 20, Cardinal Bertram of Berlin was to send "warmest congratulations to the Fuhrer in the name of the bishops and the dioceses in Germany" and added with "fervent prayers which the Catholics of Germany are sending to heaven on their altars."

(Source: Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII, by John Cornwell)

Hitler greets Müller the "Bishop of the Reich" and Abbot Schachleitner

Mementoes of German solders before the Christian cross and Hitler's Brown Army attending church service

Hitler leaves the Marine Church in Wilhelmshaven.

A Cardinal marches with the NAZI's

Priests giving the Hitler Salute

I would like to believe otherwise, but it is difficult in face of facts

Hitler's Christianity is and always will be controversial, it is to expected that Christians would deny it.

And also haul out Hitler's Table Talk and other extraneous sources, the veracity of which is highly suspect (read the link)

Some Hitler Myths

Myth 1. Hitler was not a Christian

More at the above links

Nothing like preaching to the choir is there?, but lamentably such doesn't make a dent
on those that are not in the choir. Preaching to the choir has salving effects, people do need
reinforcement, but does it solve problems in the long run? In fact denial and rationalization only exacerbate
problems..(look at the Mohammadans experts in both).

But hey I'm prejudiced, and admit it, because above all else what defines me is that I am Anti Fascist and I know fascism when I smell it.

And what about those Roman Catholic fascists, like the Croats and Belgians, who were so eager to join the Waffen SS?

I would rather spend my time denouncing and taking on the real fascists, and defending the Israelis from the libel that they are NAZI's.

Lisa,

"For a peek inside the mind of a Muslim, one who comes to us in peaceful da'wa, please go to yesterday's thread Jordan calls for jihad on terrorism."

Thanks for citing that; I had stopped reading that thread before that discussion with Mohideen began to pick up steam. That particular thread should be saved and printed out by every one of us here at jihadwatch. Mohideen's responses are absolutely perfect for demonstrating the inherent, normal extremism of the so-called moderate Muslim. All we need to do now -- and it would be a monumental and complicated feat -- is show that Mohideen's ordinary extremism is the normal baseline of the vast majority of Muslims.

PS: I have identified the single core problem that unifies all of Mohideen's arguments: his insistence that Islam is a "nation" (translation of Arabic Umma) whose defense its members are obliged to defend physically. It would be okay for Muslims to feel bound to defend their Umma in the marketplace of ideas, through argument and verbal persuasion. However, it should not be okay -- and should be outlawed by the world community -- for Muslims to act out their sense of being bound to defend their Umma through any physical means whatsoever. (Note: The simple inclusion of the word "physical" will take care of the whole Sharia problem, since laws do not pose a threat when they can't be backed up by physical force.)

*peeks in from a work comp*

Ya know, nose, how are people on the left supposed to trust us if you keep insisting we're going to stab them in the back?

There's a word for your rants: Projection

Giaour reveals his real enemy, the Christian Church. He will hand islam more ammo.

Hey Giaour, are you one of those old farts who complains because there is a cross on your city seal?

Mohideen's rationalization for the destruction of the Afghan Bamyar Buddhas took my breath away. No lies, no subterfuge, just an honest explanation of how the mind of a Muslim works.

If anyone needs to be reminded of the intolerance inherent in Islam, he's given an example free of rage, vitriol, or passion.

I feel like I'm about to vomit.

I have identified the single core problem that unifies all of Mohideen's arguments: his insistence that Islam is a "nation" (translation of Arabic Umma) whose defense its members are obliged to defend physically.
Dr. Pepper at November 15, 2005 06:07 PM

Every life has the Divine given right of self-protection. Thus anyone subjected to a physical attack has the natural right to defend physically. If a thief attempts to steal even a cent from me, I have every right to attack that thief. If I die in that process of safeguarding that single cent, I become a martyr, who has escaped death. We quote Verse 154 of Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran in support.
===
2:154 And say not of those who are slain in the way of Allah: “They are dead.” Nay they are living though you perceive it not.
===

It would be okay for Muslims to feel bound to defend their Umma in the marketplace of ideas, through argument and verbal persuasion. However, it should not be okay -- and should be outlawed by the world community -- for Muslims to act out their sense of being bound to defend their Umma through any physical means whatsoever. (Note: The simple inclusion of the word "physical" will take care of the whole Sharia problem, since laws do not pose a threat when they can't be backed up by physical force.)
Dr. Pepper at November 15, 2005 06:07 PM

Thanks Dr. Pepper. The ‘War on Terrorism’ was launched blaming the Muslims for 9/11. On 9/11/2001 every television station broadcast the impact of the plane into the WTC. We were told that the Muslims had attacked, and the ‘War on Terrorism’ was launched. Now, there is a peer reviewed article suggesting that the Muslims are not necessarily the real culprits. See http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html where we find:
===
I have called attention to glaring weaknesses in the “final” reports funded by the US government and shown evidences for a likely alternative hypothesis. In particular, the official theory lacks repeatability in that no actual models or buildings (before or since 9-11-01) have been observed to completely collapse due to the proposed fire-based mechanisms. On the other hand, dozens of buildings have been completely and symmetrically demolished through the use of pre-positioned explosives. The “explosive demolition” hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not “junk science.” It ought to be seriously, scientifically investigated and debated.

A truly independent, international panel would consider all viable hypotheses, including the pre-positioned-explosives theory, guided not by politicized notions and constraints, but rather by observations and calculations, to reach a scientific conclusion. Questioning (preferably under oath) of officials who approved the rapid removal and destruction of the WTC steel beams and columns before they could be properly analyzed – and others as outlined above – should proceed in the United States.

None of the government-funded studies have provided serious analyses of the explosive demolition hypothesis at all. Until the above steps are taken, the case for accusing ill-trained Muslims of causing all the destruction on 9-11-01 is far from compelling. It just does not add up.
===

The Muslims hope that the international panel would declare the truth: the 9/11 was an inside job. Then, every Afghan and every Iraqi has the right to avenge. Since the Muslim Ummah would be replying to the unjust physical violence perpetrated on it, we hope that you would permit physical action. It was wrong on the part of America and her allies to have waged the war without due process.

When it comes to Shariah, we assert that no physical action could be taken until and unless the crime is proven to be committed by the criminal. Shariah encourages discussion among the different religions. That is why; the Muslims should accept and honor a non-Muslim neighbor outside the Arabian Peninsula.

Wow! Mohideen, I guess Allah guided the planes right to where the explosives were placed! For those of us who sat glued to the TV while we watched our fellow countrymen and women perishing and some choosing to jump rather than burn alive,we don't need anyone to tell us what "really" happened. There was no explosion when the towers collapsed and it collapsed from the top down. You are thinking of 1993.

Could you at least provide a cartoon sketch so we know when you are being serious or not?

Mohideen states (although I’m not sure why):

“First and foremost, I must state that a handshake requires two hands; just one hand alone does not achieve a handshake.”

The All-American is used by many leaders and corporate executives. It includes looking you in the eye, smiling and pumping your hand two or three times.

The two-handed shake involves the left hand grasping your wrist, arm, shoulder or neck. This shake is often used by politicians.

What Not to Do
Just as there is an appropriate way to shake hands, there are some things to avoid. For example, avoid a two-handed shake in which people use their second hand to cover the clasped hands or to enclose the other person’s one hand in their two hands. Although often done as a friendly gesture, people can misconstrue this handshake technique as motherly, controlling, or too intimate. (and don’t ask me to hold your hand while walking down the path, either!)

Now, back to the topic…

Mohideen states:

“The above link has raised five questions. All these questions were answered by many, but the answers were not accepted. We cannot find an answer that would make a determined rejecter to accept our answers. Having said the above, let us try.”

How many Muslim scholars are there with you? Or am I interacting with Golem himself?

Q5:. Why do countries governed by religious Muslims persecute other religions? No church or synagogue is allowed in Saudi Arabia. The Taliban destroyed some of the greatest sculptures of the ancient world because they were Buddhist. Sudan's Islamic regime has murdered great numbers of Christians.

Mohideen states:

“Answer 5: No church or synagogue is allowed in Saudi Arabia is a lie.”

The question is “why are the churches persecuted?” Stop dodging the subject! I was under the impression that you were the associate of an actual professor.

If I pointed out that you never smile and you seemed to recall a time when you did, that does not make you a smiling person. Likewise, a handful of “isolated” and I do mean isolated acts of worship by OTMs (other than Muslims), does not excuse the greater persecution.

Mohideen states:

“It is not allowed in the open.”

WOW, what freedom! Yet, in America, mosques are as visible as churches and synagogues. This is the double-standard alluded to in the original question. Keeping the other religions hidden away like private parts demonstrates a level of tolerance rarely seen in the U.S.

Mohideen states:

“There were baptisms conducted inside ‘Prince Sultan Air Base’ south of Riyadh. The friendly Saudi regime secretly satisfies the demands of USA and outwardly claims to implement Islam.”

That’s great! There are calls to prayer blasted over loudspeakers in Dearborn, MI, (how about those church bells in Saudi?) Again, the double-standard.

I have news for you. There are more baptisms going on than you know. It’s called “underground”. Something Islam is not subjected to in America.

Mohideen states:

“From an Islamic perspective, God Almighty approves Islam alone inside the Arabian Peninsula. Saudi Arabia is part of the Arabian Peninsula. So, no church or synagogue could be allowed.”

From a Global perspective, that’s called Dhimmitude and it’s oppressive. This statement contradicts your earlier claim that saying Saudi allows no church or synagogue is a lie! Are you now lying, too? Did Allah approve of your taquiyaa? He did? My bad…

Mohideen states:

“The Taliban destroyed some of the greatest sculptures of the ancient world because they were Buddhist. I cannot speak for the Taliban because I have no communication from them. “

This is a cop-out. If you speak truthfully, speak for yourself. You are not sheltered from the world. Do you reject the Taliban’s teaching or prefer it?

Mohideen states:

“However, from an Islamic perspective, no open statue could be allowed. The angels do not enter a space in which there are pictures of animate objects. The prayers of a Muslim are witnessed by angels.”

Your angels don’t sound very formidable. They would not stand a chance against the heavenly host and that’s why they were cast down. Everyone witnesses a Muslims prayer, who could miss it?

Mohideen states:

“Thus, if a Muslim has to offer prayers in a place displaying pictures of animate objects, his concentration is lost. The same applies to sculptures."

Christians do not seem to have this problem. It is simple: God is the creator, He made man in his image, and man imitates the creative qualities of God. He does not create servants of his own. Pictures of animate objects are not scary to God and his Messengers. As a matter of fact, statues of His Messengers were commanded by Him to be placed on the Ark of the Covenant. The problem people had in those days (and many still do) was that they needed to see to believe. So, they cast idols to take the place of the “invisible” God. Many kings in those days (i.e. Nebuchadnezzar) cast idols of themselves as well. Speaking of which, what was the idol Mohammed’s grandfather kept along with all the others at the Ka'ba Shrine?

Mohideen states:

“What should a Muslim government do? Help their populations offer the prayers in comfort or satisfy the desire of an absent society and preserve the so called piece of art?”

Many times prayer is offered in the most uncomfortable situations. Like a prisoner waiting to be decapitated for instance. Where did the absent society go?

Mohideen states:

“The non-Muslims living in a Muslim land are welcome to have statues inside their buildings. Such statues do not disturb the prayer of Muslims.”

Again, inanimate objects will leave you alone when you pray. I would not lie about this!

Mohideen states:

“However, open statues are not allowed. In contrast to other religionists who pray inside their temples, churches or synagogues, the Muslims offer their prayers on time wherever they are as the whole earth – wherever it is clean – can be taken as a place of prayer. Thus, open statues do disturb the concentration of a praying Muslim.”

Christians don’t believe their God resides in temples made by men. They pray on all occasions (unrestricted by time of day) any position, and anywhere they need to have time with God. (I don’t know much of Jewish tradition other than Daniel praying 3 times a day on his knees.) How do Muslims get along in the U.S. with so many statues around? Wouldn’t it be conducive to prayer life to avoid such a place? Whatever you do, don’t go to New York! The angels are all underground because of the “giant” in the harbor.

Mohideen states:

“Sudan’s Islamic regime has murdered great numbers of Christians. The media is not really free. The above claim is simply on the basis of media reports. We have no independent confirmation, and thus we do not respond.”

Exactly! How can you trust a controlled media? Biased as it can be, our media reporters are not imprisoned or worse when they expose their leaders. We have high standards even though it hurts at times. Consider this: only the U.S. (and allies) would allow embedded reporters into battle with its troops. As far as Sudan goes, it’s hard to get independent confirmation when no soul was spared.

Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. –John 3:19 NIV

Mohideen states:

“Dear XRDC, let me have your response to the above answer to Q5 of the five questions. If my answers convince you that the Muslims are not at fault, God willing, I would try the other questions.”

Not at fault? What religion are they then? Why scream “allahu akbar” before an act of terror, during riots, or “striking at their necks?” Why would Palestinians exclaim “Muslims killing Muslims!” in the recent Jordan tragedy? No one is saying all Muslims are bad and I don’t blame you for what others may have done.

Why not leave the Jews to Allah himself? They are a small group and surely an earthquake, or flood, or a flock of venomous ducks can take them out. Why is the Koran used to justify killing Jews and Christians where you find them? Jews and Christians are some of the most benevolent people on the face of the earth! These murderers professing your faith are cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Maybe that’s the explanation for the hoods…

Mohideen states:

“If XRDC or any other expert would respond, I would be happy to interact.”

Experts don’t have a copyright on common sense.

My Dear Mohideen,

Where do I begin? You missed the point completely. As an American business woman, I do what I want. I don't need a guy to take care of me so the lifestyle that you describe wouldn't interest me in the least.

I drive when and where I want to, so getting your permission or waiting for the company provided transportation wouldn't interest me. And women still aren't "allowed" to drive in Saudi Arabia, just so you know.

I haven't needed a guardian since I was an older teenager, so getting my a)dad's, b)brother's, c)husband's, d)son's or e)uncle's permission to go where I want and do what I need to do wouldn't interest me.

I wouldn't be interested in working in a female only institution because my business caters to both sexes and all types of people except the arrogant and condescending. I choose who I will work with.

Living in a compound that would give me the privileges as in America would be ridiculous, don't you think, since I already have every privilege any man in America has.

You also said that from an Islamic point of view, no open statue could be allowed. Well, from my Catholic perspective they are very much allowed. It's funny that you find it hard to concentrate when you have a statue in your space. I find it easy to say my prayers in front of a statue of Our Lord or Our Blessed Mother because it helps me to concentrate. And I can pray wherever I am, just like you.

You and I have a problem, because while my religion does not require you to change your religious beliefs, yours requires me to. Your religion requires me live the way you see fit, not the way I do.

Just setting the record straight.

P.S. The thing about the Fed Ex guy was a joke. I wouldn't be interested in a lifestyle where you can't crack a joke.

Oh, I almost forgot. You didn't say anything about wearing the tablecloth. But again, I wouldn't be interested in that either.

I don't look good in tablecloths.

Nariz,

The Freethinkers site is a mix of truth and atheist perception. I say atheist perception because I have looked at most of these arguments, and they are often the half-truths of "the need to attack". I have been an avowed atheist for 41 years. I was ten when I finally could put a word to it.

Hitler was a mix of Christian, Norse Myth, and Occultism, so you could really pick and choose as to which group you want to stick . He left Christian churches alone to maintain his base (yes, even dictators have a "base"), just as the SS defined Jew carefully so as not to cause a backlash by the too many Christian Germans who had Jews in their family history. His hatred of atheism was its rejection of supernaturalism and its embrace by Communism, not because he was a devout Catholic. Given his mind, I believe cognitive dissonance was a constant regarding religion.
The site entries on Hitler completely ignore the impact of Bolshevism on Western politics and religion at that time. Hitler hated Bolsheviks, and for many in Europe of that time, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Remember, many leftist atheists embraced Hitler after the Non-aggression Pact, until Operation Barbarossa.

I will agree that Christianity is largely or entirely responsible for the anti-Semitism of the time. Yet, Stalinists were certainly anti-Semitic too. Pogrom anyone?
Darwin had nothing to do with it. Nietzsche always gets a bad rap. And I am not going to blame all Islam for Haj Amin el-Husseini. But Islam does have fascist tendencies.

Personally, I hate anything that smacks of totalitarianism or supremacist ideology. Fascism, Communism, and Islamic Republics fit the bill.
Sharia and Dhimmi are enough to convince me that Islam needs a Reformation and Enlightenment.

Mohideen,
If you in any way defended the destruction of the Afghan Bamyar Buddhas, you should be shamed and cursed by all that breathes until you repent or hide in a cave until you wither. The Taliban's arrogance, barbarism, destroyed what their ignorance could never create: a sense of wonder, beauty, and serenity; their arrogance was an insult to all who are decent.

This is great. People like Mohideen showing their true colours.

Mohideen!

How come that in between their five prayers to the most compassionate and merciful God, muslims have been managing to kill hundreeds thousands civilians?

Is Jihad ultimate aim the conquest of entire world, in order to submit it to one single authority?

About need of two hands do you refer sharia's amputations?

Mohideen!
See how lucky you are as a teacher!-

A court in Saudi Arabia has condemned a teacher to 40 months in prison and 750 lashes in 15 weeks for having “mocked Islam”. The teacher, denounced by colleagues and students a year and half ago, had discussed the Bible in class and spoken highly of Jews. The victim said the charges were made against him by fundamentalist colleagues who were against his moderate positions.

The sentence, handed down on 12 November, was published the following day by a Saudi daily. Al-Madina reported that the crime of the chemistry teacher, Mohammad Al-Harbi, was that he had promoted a “dubious ideology and declared that Jews are in the right”. The teacher is also charged with having “discussed the Gospel and not allowing students to leave class to wash before prayer”. At the time, the man was teaching in the Al-Fwailiq high school in the town of Ein Al-Juwa.

Please post more, Mohideen! Your words make everything clear to me and many others... It is very instructive, and greatly appreciated!

Encourage him. … What could be better?
Hugh at November 15, 2005 02:51 PM

Thanks Hugh. Truth might seem like failing; however, at the end Truth alone succeeds. So, even if I seem to be playing into the hands of some in this site, I think it is my duty to give the answers as I understand them. I might fail. I hope God Almighty forgives any mistakes I might make.

From http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-prager13nov13,0,5189241.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions we have:
====
(4) Why are so many atrocities committed and threatened by Muslims in the name of Islam?

Young girls in Indonesia were recently beheaded by Muslim murderers. Last year, Muslims — in the name of Islam — murdered hundreds of schoolchildren in Russia. While reciting Muslim prayers, Islamic terrorists take foreigners working to make Iraq free and slaughter them. Muslim daughters are murdered by their own families in the thousands in "honor killings." And the Muslim government in Iran has publicly called for the extermination of Israel.
====

Q: Young girls in Indonesia were recently beheaded by Muslim murderers.
Ans: Muslim murderers? From http://www.mnnonline.org/article/7980 we have:
===
Glenn Penner says, "Last week, Indonesian officials detained five people, including a former soldier over the beheading last month of three Christian girls."
…
It seemed there was a break in the case with the arrests, however, Penner adds, "On Saturday, we were disappointed to learn that those five individuals were released due to lack of evidence. To this point, we still have no idea if anyone is ever going to be held accountable."
====
It seems to be an unfounded allegation against the Muslims. Don’t we believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty when it comes to a Muslim suspect?

Q: Last year, Muslims — in the name of Islam — murdered hundreds of schoolchildren in Russia.
Ans: Wrong. The Muslims occupied the school and held the schoolchildren hostage. It was the Russians who killed them in their bungled attempt to free the hostages.

Q: While reciting Muslim prayers, Islamic terrorists take foreigners working to make Iraq free and slaughter them.
Ans: Foreigners working to make Iraq free? They are working to provide security to the occupying forces, and thus they are treated as occupying forces.

Q: Muslim daughters are murdered by their own families in the thousands in "honor killings."
Ans: This is a local custom and has nothing to do with Islam. The standard in Islam could be found from the following Tradition numbered 885 in volume 3 of Sahih Al-Bukhari:
===
Narrated Abu Huraira and Zaid bin Khalid Al Juhani
A bedouin came to Allah's Apostle and said, "O Allah's apostle! I ask you by Allah to judge my case according to Allah's laws." His opponent, who was more learned than he, said, "Yes, judge between us according to Allah's laws, and allow me to speak." Allah's Apostle said, "Speak." He (i.e. the bedouin or the other man) said, "My son was working as a laborer for this (man) and he committed illegal sexual intercourse with his wife. The people told me that it was obligatory that my son should be stoned to death, so in lieu of that I ransomed my son by paying one hundred sheep and a slave girl. Then I asked the religious scholars about it, and they informed me that my son must be lashed one hundred lashes, and be exiled for one year, and the wife of this (man) must be stoned to death." Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, I will judge between you according to Allah's laws. The slave-girl and the sheep are to be returned to you, your son is to receive a hundred lashes and be exiled for one year. You, Unais, go to the wife of this (man) and if she confesses her guilt, stone her to death." Unais went to that woman next morning and she confessed. Allah's Apostle ordered that she be stoned to death.
===

The fact that the son had confessed to having illegal sex with the wife of the master was not enough to punish the woman. In the absence of four witnesses, the witness of the codefendant counts as one witness only, she could not be punished.

If the honor killings are on girls abducted by the occupying forces and abused, such killings are wrong. Yes the families might feel dishonored in that the girl did not fight the abuser until death. However, the time and place of death are decided even before a person is born. Thus, even if the family members have not raised their hands, the abducted, and abused girl would have died, possibly a natural death.

Q: And the Muslim government in Iran has publicly called for the extermination of Israel.
Ans: This call is wrong. Prophet Israel, peace be upon him, is a Muslim, and thus we have absolutely no reason not to name a country after him. All that we seek is the country Israel has Muslim citizens only. We welcome Israel. We expect the non-Muslims living inside the Arabian Peninsula to move out so that Muslims alone live inside the Arabian Peninsula.

Mohideen,

Regarding your “inside job” theory on the WTC collapse, the most Jones suggests as a hypothesis is that there were explosives set inside the building. He does not accuse the U.S. government of doing an inside job.

With that said, how credible is Jones? The credibility of experts is a crucial matter. And how much weight should we give to this “peer review” you talk about?

The journal in which Jone’s article is to be published is not a scientific journal on physics, or engineering, nor materials science. It is not even a scientific journal. It is a journal of Marxist thought!!!!

How many engineers and physicists, I wonder, were involved in the peer review? If this is such a plausible hypothesis, why is this article to be published in a journal of Marxism and not a journal of physics or engineering? And given the importance of this hypothesis, shouldn’t we see it published in a high profile journal like _Science_?

You said:
“The "explosive demolition" hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not "junk science." It ought to be seriously, scientifically investigated and debated.”

Here’s some information for readers:

Steven E. Jones, (2006). "Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?," The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, Research in Political Economy, Volume 23, P. Zarembka, editor, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006.

RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY

Series Editor:
P. Zarembka , State University of New York at Buffalo, NY, USA

Description
The research is founded on analyzing society in a manner consistent with classical Marxism. International in scope, the annual volumes deal primarily with economic and political issues and the unity between them. Both theoretical and empirical works are included. While published papers must be appropriate for developing class analysis of society, they need not be explicitly Marxist.
(ISSN: 1061-7230)

http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/bergeson/physics1/atomic/jones_cv.htm

Stephen E. Jones’

RESEARCH INTERESTS

Sonoluminescence
Solar Cooking
Archaeometry
Evidence for Christ's Visit in America
-------------------------------------------------
Yes, you read that last one correctly. Just one of the hypotheses Jones’ is exploring.

I will leave you with a quote that I think that you should contemplate.

“Arguments are like men: some are pretenders.”

-Aristotle

Mohideen,

You are missing the point. In the modern world, all groups (religious or non-religious) fall within their respective secular nation-states, under the structure of separation of religion and politics.

Under the umbrella of a secular nation-state, any group (religious or non-religious) that feels threatened (physically or otherwise) is to take their case to the secular authorities of the government of their nation-state to which they belong. The secular authorities will then protect that group when it has decided they really need protection under the laws of that nation-state.

There are two main jobs of any government of any nation-state:

1) to ensure the best socio-economic infrastructure for their citizens to live in as much physical comfort as possible

2) to ensure the protection of their citizens from physical harm and extreme vilification ("extreme vilification" to be determined under secular, nor religious, laws).

It is not the job of any group (religious or non-religious) within any nation-state to arrogate to themselves #2 -- except under two extraordinary circumstances:

a) where representatives of their own nation-state are physically persecuting them against international laws (example, the actions taken by Saddam Hussein against his own people);

b) where a foreign power invades the nation-state in which the group members are citizens AND when, AND ONLY WHEN, the secular government of that nation-state is failing to do its job of defending its own citizens.

Caveat to b) -- Actions such as characterized by the majority of "insurgent" attacks by Iraqi Muslims (including suicide-bombings against innocent people & civilians, kidnapping of innocent people & civilians, beheadings of innocent people & civilians) against the American and pro-American Iraqi forces -- even if it could be proven that they are justly fighting an unjust invader -- are not permissible in the modern world, period. And such insurgent actions are justly to be fought against.

Secondly, if "insurgents" are fighting in order to institute a nation-state that is based upon

1) an internal system that would physically and economically coerce and punish its own citizens based on religious laws

and

2) a trans-national group that has an ethos that believes that defending that group should not be handed over to the secular authorities of the government of their particular nation-state as a member of the family of nations under modern secular international laws,

then:

the cause for which those "insurgents" are fighting should be deemed to be hostile to the modern world.

Correction to my #2:

("extreme vilification" to be determined under secular, NOT religious, laws).

Mohideen, Mohideen, Mohideen,
You just wear me out, (that means you make me tired)
Prophet Israel, peace be upon him, is a Muslim, and thus we have absolutely no reason not to name a country after him. All that we seek is the country Israel has Muslim citizens only. We welcome Israel. We expect the non-Muslims living inside the Arabian Peninsula to move out so that Muslims alone live inside the Arabian Peninsula.
No he wasn't. He was a Jew, as were all the prophets and Jesus Christ. Muslims did not appear on the scene until the middle of the next century after the resurrection of Jesus. islam is a new invention of mohammad.

Mohideen,

I am reposting this multiple part question on this thread for you to answer so that the most number of people can see my questions and your answers. I repeat, your answers to my questions are most valued, and I thank you for your time in preparing your responses.

Question:

If an individual person poses no threat in anyway to himself or to any other member of society or to the society at large, can there ever be any justification for ending the life of this individual, either by a member of such society acting upon his own volition and convictions or by judicial and executive authorities of such society acting upon the law and proscribed penalties of that society:

A. should this person maintain a personal belief in contradiction to an opposing belief held by a majority of the society?

B. should this person persist in maintaining a personal belief in contradicition to an opposing belief held by a majority of the society subsequent to evidence being presented to this person that his belief is false and the belief held by the majority of society is true?

C. should this person publically proclaim as true a personal belief that is in contradiction to an opposing belief that a majority of the society believe to be true?

D. should this person publically proclaim and maintain as true a personal belief that is in contradiction to an opposing belief that a majority of the society believe to be true even if previously this person also proclaimed the opposing belief to be true?

Mohideen,

You said:
“Shariah encourages discussion among the different religions.”

Cite me a credible source that says “Shariah” encourages such discussions between religions, where the religions include, for example, Muslims and Jews having an open, fair, and honest discussion.

In any case, the Koran says that Muslims should not believe the non-Muslims. How can they then have a true dialogue with people of other religions, yet still obey the Koran? Do you obey the Koran, Mohideen? Perhaps you just pretend to have a dialogue? Perhaps you just pretend that you follow the Koran?

[Shakir 3:73] And do not believe but in him who follows your religion. Say: Surely the (true) guidance is the guidance of Allah-- that one may be given (by Him) the like of what you were given; or they would contend with you by an argument before your Lord. Say: Surely grace is in the hand of Allah, He gives it to whom He pleases; and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing.
[Yusufali 3:73] "And believe no one unless he follows your religion." Say: "True guidance is the Guidance of Allah: (Fear ye) Lest a revelation be sent to someone (else) Like unto that which was sent unto you? or that those (Receiving such revelation) should engage you in argument before your Lord?" Say: "All bounties are in the hand of Allah: He granteth them to whom He pleaseth: And Allah careth for all, and He knoweth all things."
[Pickthal 3:73] And believe not save in one who followeth your religion - Say (O Muhammad): Lo! the guidance is Allah's Guidance - that anyone is given the like of that which was given unto you or that they may argue with you in the presence of their Lord. Say (O Muhammad): Lo! the bounty is in Allah's hand. He bestoweth it on whom He will. Allah is All-Embracing, All-Knowing.

One more question (two parts), Mohideen:

Do you agree with the Koran that the overarching goal of Islam is to kill/convert/subjugate all non-Muslims until all religion is for Allah (2:193, 8:39)? Do you agree that Allah sent Mohammad to conquer all other religions (9:33, 48:28, 61:9)?

Muslims did not appear on the scene until the middle of the next century after the resurrection of Jesus. islam is a new invention of mohammad.
Ooops, I meant to say the next millenium

Carolyn2,
Right on. The silliest, most ridiculous, self-serving, not to mention deluded, claim in Islam is that "they were all Muslims too".
They weren't Muslims, they were Jews, and then there were Christians too. But no Islam, no Muslims. Not until much later. Judaism and Christianity are older, less violent religions.
Islam is a johnny-come-lately religion, as Middle East religions go. You could even say it's a corruption of those earlier religions, given the lack of the Golden Rule, for example.
Hate to point this out, but most of those Muslim lands were originally Christian and Jewish lands. Islam did a lot of defense the first few hundred years didn't it? Defensively aggressive? War is peace? Hate is love?
Keep those posts coming, Mohideen.

Mohideen,

You’re not yet done question 5, and still haven’t answered the other 4 questions. Many posters have questions. We certainly value what you have to say, even though, as you can see, we don’t agree with you.

I have a morality quiz which I use sometimes when we have Muslim posters such as yourself. Non-Muslims can do the quiz easily. I have not yet had a Muslim complete the quiz. Perhaps you are different. Please try it.

Here are just four morality-testing questions. What I am asking of you is to indicate whether you morally accept or reject what is described in the verse(s) from the Koran or reports from the Hadith. To be fair, I'll commit to my own moral opinion of the verse(s) or report(s) too.

1. How Mohammad Dealt With Critics.

37:34 Lo! thus deal We with the guilty.
37:35 For when it was said unto them, There is no God save Allah, they were scornful
37:36 And said: Shall we forsake our gods for a mad poet?
37:37 Nay, but he brought the Truth, and he confirmed those sent (before him).
37:38 Lo! (now) verily ye taste the painful doom -
37:39 Ye are requited naught save what ye did -
37:40 Save single-minded slaves of Allah;

Here we see that Mohammad condemned critics to a painful doom. I guess he didn't have a good counter-argument for his critics. Otherwise, instead of making angry childish threats, Mohammad would have produced a brilliant rebuttal to be immortalized in the Holy Koran. Why can't he show them that his Allah is better than their gods? Why would they judge the prophet to be a "mad poet"? What did he then do about these critics? He had many of them assassinated, see http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Enemies/index.html
My first question concerns just one of those critics, a very elderly man named Abu Afak. Do you morally approve of Mohammad's ordered assassination of Abu Afak?

My answer: I unequivocably condemn and reject Mohammad's barbaric actions in having that critic put to death.
Your answer: ?

2. Mohammad's Final Policy Toward the Jewish People.

A report narrated by a man named Muslim from Abu Hurayrah, the prophet said:
"The hour (of the Day of Judgement) will not begin until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. A Jew will hide behind a rock or a tree, and the rock or tree will say 'Oh Muslim, O slave of Allah! There is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!' -except for the gharqad (bow thorn), for it is one of the trees of the Jews."
(Reported by Muslim, 2922). This passage was also quoted by Osama bin Laden, May 28, 1998, in an interview with John Bell of ABC News.

Also from the Hadith:
Book 19, Number 4366:
Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab:
"Umar heard the Messenger of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) say: 'I will expel the Jews and Christians from the ARABIAN PENINSULA and will not leave any but Muslims.'"

My answer: I unequivocably condemn and reject Mohammad's vicious policy of hate and genocide against the Jews and Christians.
Your answer: ?

3. Mohammad's Ultimate Policy Toward Disbelievers.

The worst possible sin is disbelief in or denial of Allah 10:17, 11:18-19, 18:15, 32:22. Disbelief or turning away from Allah is a persecution worse than warfare (2:217) or slaughter (2:191). The worst thing a person can possibly do in this world is to disbelieve in Allah. (In excess of 200 separate verses condemn disbelievers to hell-fire). Nowhere does the Koran say that disbelievers should not be killed, except where there is a temporary strategic benefit to Islam to keep the disbelievers alive (e.g., as slaves to be bought or sold, or as taxed dhimmis, etc.). Disbelief is the crime. Killing disbelievers is not a crime at all. This is confirmed in secondary texts, e.g.,

"Killing disbelievers is a small matter to us..." Tabari IX:69.

It is well-known that many verses in the Koran order the killing of various kinds of disbelievers (4:89-91, 9:41, 9:5, 61:11, etc.). Believers must honour their duty to Allah and fight the disbelievers in battle, or else they'll be punished in hell (2:216, 8:15-16, 9:39).

My answer: I unequivocably condemn and reject Mohammad's vicious policy of hatred and murder.
Your answer: ?

4. Mohammad's Conduct as a Husband.

Wife beater:

(Trans., Shakir). 4:34: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

(Note, do not be fooled by Yusufali's translation, which says beat (lightly); "lightly" is purely an addition of Yusufali).

Pedophile and violent abuser of a child:

Marriageable age in some Islamic countries for females is nine years of age. This follows Mohammad's pedophilic example, because the age at which he "consummated" his marriage with Ayesha was 9. (He married her when he was in his fifties and when she was 6; he fantasized about her when she was five. He also was interested in other females, actually infants, who could potentially be his mates. This pattern fits the profile of someone with pedophilic tendencies).

Ayesha said "I have not seen anyone suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!"
Bukhari. Note: The "green" adjective is apparently in reference to the bruising from all the beatings.

Ayesha said: "He (Muhammad) struck me (Aisha) on the chest which caused me pain." Muslim, no. 2127. Mohammad's young wife Ayesha tells of how the prophet struck her hard enough to cause pain (and an enduring memory of the event).

My answer: I unequivocably condemn this barbaric pedophile’s actions.
Your answer: ?
------------------------------------
I will await your answers.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph

This guy, Mohideen, can't be for real, can he?

Maybe he is, as the British say, "having us on".

It makes me want to change my posting name to miss piggy and declare my love for pork and all things infidelic.

Archimedes,

I've been impressed by your ability to marshal copious yet always precisely pertinent Islamic data. Would you be interested in collaborating on writing both the pamphlet you suggested, as well as the small booklet I suggested? To be candid, I would see my role in such a collaboration as more of an editor, proofreader and overall "packager" of the presentation, though I would help with research if you could guide me. The advantage of a collaboration is that it can help motivate and hone the execution of a project.

Let me know what you think at my email, paulkmts@yahoo.com

Every life has the Divine given right of self-protection. Thus anyone subjected to a physical attack has the natural right to defend physically. If a thief attempts to steal even a cent from me, I have every right to attack that thief. If I die in that process of safeguarding that single cent, I become a martyr, who has escaped death. We quote Verse 154 of Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran in support.
===
2:154 And say not of those who are slain in the way of Allah: “They are dead.” Nay they are living though you perceive it not.
===

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at November 15, 2005 07:10 PM

Does "every life" include the lives of non-muslims? The statues in Afghanistan had been there for centuries and harmed no one. They were even tourist attractions at one time, bringing much needed revenue to a destitute area. That revenue helped MUSLIMS although as usual, they did nothing to earn or deserve it.

Islam is a fable, created by a demon with the help of Satan. It chills me to the bone to realize that there are several million people like you taking up valuable space in my beloved country. You, your religion, and your fellow muslims are the scourge of the earth and you do not deserve to live in a free and prosperous society among decent, generous, kind-hearted people. You deserve only the bounties produced by your filthy religion--------poverty, illiteracy, superstition, ignorance, and misery. Your supremacist delusions and your death cult mentality are utterly revolting.

You have succeeded in doing something I didn't think was possible; you have intensified my hatred and revulsion for Islam. May God have mercy on you and your pathetic, delusional, brainwashed ilk.

Mohideen's Justification for Destruction of Buddha statues.

Mohideen said:

"The Taliban destroyed some of the greatest sculptures of the ancient world because they were Buddhist. I cannot speak for the Taliban because I have no communication from them. However, from an Islamic perspective, no open statue could be allowed. The angels do not enter a space in which there are pictures of animate objects. The prayers of a Muslim are witnessed by angels. Thus, if a Muslim has to offer prayers in a place displaying pictures of animate objects, his concentration is lost. The same applies to sculptures. What should a Muslim government do? Help their populations offer the prayers in comfort or satisfy the desire of an absent society and preserve the so called piece of art? The non-Muslims living in a Muslim land are welcome to have statues inside their buildings. Such statues do not disturb the prayer of Muslims. However, open statues are not allowed. In contrast to other religionists who pray inside their temples, churches or synagogues, the Muslims offer their prayers on time wherever they are as the whole earth - wherever it is clean - can be taken as a place of prayer. Thus, open statues do disturb the concentration of a praying Muslim."

I have to add my moral condemnation of these barbaric acts of destruction and your seeming inability to feel any empathy for Buddhists. I could say more, but I won’t. Instead, I’ll ask you to meditate on this:

Your statements have reminded me of something about Mohammad. Based on my readings of some of the Hadith reports, I believe it is possible that Mohammad had difficulty suppressing distracting thoughts. I suspect he had, among other problems, something like an obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Perhaps Buddhist meditation could have helped him some. If a mere Buddhist monk, through meditation, can gain control over thought, why can’t Mohammad, who is supposed to be a prophet of Allah? Why does Mohammad have to go to the extreme of physically eliminating images and sculptures, etc., instead of simply thinking about something else? Why does he have to make up bogus explanations about “angels not coming into the room where there are pictures”, etc.? Is he so mentally feeble? I guess the Taliban suffered from the same malady. Anyways, here’s an example of what I’m talking about.

Hadeeth volume 7, book of dress 72, No. 5574
- Narrated Anas:
“Aisha had a thick curtain (having pictures on it) and she screened the side of her house with it. The Prophet [Mohammad] said to her, "Remove it from my sight, for its pictures are still coming to my mind in my prayers."”

if have posted these same 5 questions on islamic web forum. you are very lucky to even get a reply. all i ever get is threats.

Dear all who have responded to my posts above,

I have answered questions 5 and 4 already. Question 5 in my repost from another thread at 2.43 pm on November 15, 2005 in this thread above and question 4 in my post at 9.00 pm on November 15, 2005 above.

I like to interact through email instead of online chat or telephone. The reason is both online chat and telephone require immediate response and do not permit research, analysis, and verification before giving the reply. In email, we have the freedom to carefully think our reply.

This site also gives time to reply. However, every thread has a definite life. It might not be possible for me to answer all the points raised within the life of this thread. So, I hope to answer as many as I could in this thread. The unanswered issues would hopefully be handled by me in a site that is accessible to search engines. God Almighty willing, I plan to post the issue first and respond. Thus, kindly perform a search on your query to find my response. Thanks.

Just Google if you want to know how Mohideen feels about Mo and his religion.

Type in Mohideen+Ibramsha to read his previous posts. Don't forget to click on "search with omitted results included" to get full results.

Results will show he believes everything Mo did was justified. Even killing Safiyas family and raping her since it brought her to islam. His comments about 7/7 are like his comments about 9/11.

If he is a moderate then fanatics are like Charles Manson.

Watching the Borg
-"Mo says We Are Borg"

Mohideen (and those who want to continue discussion with him),

I have the perfect place on the Web for a discussion format -- it's the Examined Life philosophy forum. Lots of space there, and there is already a thread there on the problem of Islam.

http://examinedlifejournal.com/discus/

(just select "Last Day" from the tree on the left; no passwords necessary and you can create any nickname you want)

Unlike this format at jihadwatch, the Examined Life threads do not disappear under an avalanche of new threads every day.

Your statements [Mohideen's] have reminded me of something about Mohammad. Based on my readings of some of the Hadith reports, I believe it is possible that Mohammad had difficulty suppressing distracting thoughts. I suspect he had, among other problems, something like an obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Posted by: Archimedes at November 16, 2005 12:03 AM

Archimedes:

I'm not an expert on psych disorders, but I think Mo had a lot more affecting him than OPD. To be such a violent megalomaniac, devoid of any real empathy for his victims would require a heavy degree of sociopathy and a possible mood disorder driving the grandiosity that allowed him to claim to be directly connected to God.

Nariz,

The photo op was not invented by Bill Clinton. Fact is, Hitler hated Christians and Christianity.

I've seen politicians shake hands who would just as soon cut each other with steak knives.

The Christians who appeared with Hitler or supported him are the ones with some explaining to do.

You are confusing Hitler being a Christian with Christians supporting Hitler and Hitler using his associations with them for propaganda purposes.

See, the Anglican Church supporting totalitarian Muslims.

We have considered questions 5 and 4 already. From
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-prager13nov13,0,5189241.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
we have:
===
3) Why is only one of the 47 Muslim-majority countries a free country?

According to Freedom House, a Washington-based group that promotes democracy, of the world's 47 Muslim countries, only Mali is free. Sixty percent are not free, and 38% are partly free. Muslim-majority states account for a majority of the world's "not free" states. And of the 10 "worst of the worst," seven are Islamic states. Why is this?
===

All praise be to God Almighty. We must thank Mr. Prager for giving us the good news that just one out of the 47 Muslim majority countries is a free country.

By free, we believe the country has full democracy: a democracy in which power mongers compete in an election; an election in which the advertisements persuade the voter to vote; in some democracies, the vote is manipulated, as suspected in Ohio in the 2004 Presidential election in America.

We would like to quote Tradition numbered 263 in volume 9 of Sahih Al-Bukhari:
===
Narrated Abu Musa
Two men from my tribe and I entered upon the Prophet. One of the two men said to the
Prophet, "O Allah's Apostle! Appoint me as a governor," and so did the second. The
Prophet said, "We do not assign the authority of ruling to those who ask for it, nor to those who are keen to have it."
===

So, the so called democratic elections in which the power mongers compete have no place in Islam. Does it mean, there is no democracy in Islam? Democracy, in which the opinion of all those who matter is considered was started by the Muslims fourteen hundred years back. We quote two Traditions to establish the above claim.

Quoting Tradition 817 of volume 8 of Sahih Al-Bukhari, we have:
===
Narrated Ibn Abbas
I used to teach (the Qur'an to) some people of the Muhajirin (emigrants), among whom there was 'Abdur Rahman bin 'Auf. While I was in his house at Mina, and he was with 'Umar bin Al-Khattab during 'Umar's last Hajj, Abdur-Rahman came to me and said, "Would that you had seen the man who came today to the Chief of the Believers ('Umar), saying, 'O Chief of the Believers! What do you think about so-and-so who says, 'If 'Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such-and-such person, as by Allah, the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr was nothing but a prompt sudden action which got established afterwards.' 'Umar became angry and then said, 'Allah willing, I will stand before the people tonight and warn them against those people who want to deprive the others of their rights (the question of rulership).' "

'Abdur-Rahman said, "I said, 'O Chief of the believers! Do not do that, for the season of Hajj gathers the riff-raff and the rubble, and it will be they who will gather around you when you stand to address the people. And I am afraid that you will get up and say something, and some people will spread your statement and may not say what you have actually said and may not understand its meaning, and may interpret it incorrectly, so you should wait till you reach Medina, as it is the place of emigration and the place of Prophet's Traditions, and there you can come in touch with the learned and noble people, and tell them your ideas with confidence; and the learned people will understand your statement and put it in its proper place.' On that, 'Umar said, 'By Allah! Allah willing, I will do this in the first speech I will deliver before the people in Medina.' "

Ibn Abbas added: We reached Medina by the end of the month of Dhul-Hijja, and when it was Friday, we went quickly (to the mosque) as soon as the sun had declined, and I saw
Sa'id bin Zaid bin 'Amr bin Nufail sitting at the corner of the pulpit, and I too sat close to him so that my knee was touching his knee, and after a short while 'Umar bin Al-Khattab came out, and when I saw him coming towards us, I said to Said bin Zaid bin 'Amr bin Nufail, "Today 'Umar will say such a thing as he has never said since he was chosen as Caliph." Said denied my statement with astonishment and said, "What thing do you expect 'Umar to say the like of which he has never said before?"

In the meantime, 'Umar sat on the pulpit and when the call-makers for the prayer had finished their call, 'Umar stood up, and having glorified and praised Allah as He deserved, he said, "Now then, I am going to tell you something which (Allah) has written for me to say. I do not know; perhaps it portends my death, so whoever understands and remembers it, must narrate it to the others wherever his mount takes him, but if somebody is afraid that he does not understand it, then it is unlawful for him to tell lies about me. Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam the stoning of married person (male & female).

I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, 'By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah's Book,' and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed. And the punishment of the Rajam is to be inflicted to any married person (male & female).

And no doubt after the death of the Prophet we were informed that the Ansar disagreed with us and gathered in the shed of Bani Sa'da. 'Ali and Zubair and whoever was with them, opposed us, while the emigrants gathered with Abu Bakr. I said to Abu Bakr, 'Let's go to these Ansari brothers of ours.' So we set out seeking them, and when we approached them, two pious men of theirs met us and informed us of the final decision of the Ansar, and said, 'O group of Muhajirin (emigrants)! Where are you going?' We replied, 'We are going to these Ansari brothers of ours.' They said to us, 'You shouldn't go near them. Carry out whatever we have already decided.' I said, 'By Allah, we will go to them.' And so we proceeded until we reached them at the shed of Bani Sa'da. Behold! There was a man sitting amongst them and wrapped in something. I asked, 'Who is that man?' They said, 'He is Sa'd bin 'Ubada.' I asked, 'What is wrong with him?' They said, 'He is sick.' After we sat for a while, the Ansar's speaker said, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' and praising Allah as He deserved, he added, 'To proceed, we are Allah's Ansar (helpers) and the majority of the Muslim army, while you, the emigrants, are a small group and some people among you came with the intention of preventing us from practicing this matter (of caliphate) and depriving us of it.'

When the speaker had finished, I intended to speak as I had prepared a speech which I liked and which I wanted to deliver in the presence of Abu Bakr, and I used to avoid provoking him. So, when I wanted to speak, Abu Bakr said, 'Wait a while.' I disliked to make him angry. So Abu Bakr himself gave a speech, and he was wiser and more patient than I. By Allah, he never missed a sentence that I liked in my own prepared speech, but he said the like of it or better than it spontaneously. After a pause he said, 'O Ansar! You deserve all (the qualities) that you have attributed to yourselves, but this question (of Caliphate) is only for the Quraish as they are the best of the Arabs as regards descent and home, and I am pleased to suggest that you choose either of these two men, so take the oath of allegiance to either of them as you wish. And then Abu Bakr held my hand and Abu Ubada bin Abdullah's hand who was sitting amongst us. I hated nothing of what he had said except that proposal, for by Allah, I would rather have my neck chopped off as expiator for a sin than become the ruler of a nation, one of whose members is Abu Bakr, unless at the time of my death my own self suggests something I don't feel at present.'

And then one of the Ansar said, 'I am the pillar on which the camel with a skin disease (eczema) rubs itself to satisfy the itching (i.e., I am a noble), and I am as a high class palm tree! O Quraish. There should be one ruler from us and one from you.'

Then there was a hue and cry among the gathering and their voices rose so that I was afraid there might be great disagreement, so I said, 'O Abu Bakr! Hold your hand out.' He held his hand out and I pledged allegiance to him, and then all the emigrants gave the
Pledge of allegiance and so did the Ansar afterwards. And so we became victorious over
Sa'd bin Ubada (whom Al-Ansar wanted to make a ruler). One of the Ansar said, 'You have killed Sa'd bin Ubada.' I replied, 'Allah has killed Sa'd bin Ubada.' Umar added, "By Allah, apart from the great tragedy that had happened to us (i.e. the death of the Prophet), there was no greater problem than the allegiance pledged to Abu Bakr because we were afraid that if we left the people, they might give the Pledge of allegiance after us to one of their men, in which case we would have given them our consent for something against our real wish, or would have opposed them and caused great trouble. So if any person gives the Pledge of allegiance to somebody (to become a Caliph) without consulting the other Muslims, then the one he has selected should not be granted allegiance, lest both of them should be killed."
===

Every person must be consulted before taking the decision regarding the Caliph. As far as possible, the decision should be one of consensus. That was what happened in the selection of the first Caliph. Please notice that Caliph Abu Bakr, Allah be pleased with him, suggested two other individuals and did not seek it himself. Contrast this behavior with that of the democracy in America where the candidates for the Presidency plan for a number of years to claim that they alone deserves to rule. This causes every candidate to become a power monger. Such an election is outside the fold of Islam.

We quote Tradition 50 in volume 5 of Sahih Al-Bukhari indicating another valid practice of selecting the ruler.
===
Narrated Amr bin Maimun
I saw 'Umar bin Al-Khattab a few days before he was stabbed in Medina. He was standing with Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman and 'Uthman bin Hunaif to whom he said, "What have you done? Do you think that you have imposed more taxation on the land (of As-Swad, i.e. 'Iraq) than it can bear?" They replied, "We have imposed on it what it can bear because of its great yield." 'Umar again said, "Check whether you have imposed on the land what it cannot bear." They said, "No, (we haven't)." 'Umar added, "If Allah should keep me alive I will let the widows of Iraq need no men to support them after me." But only four days had elapsed when he was stabbed (to death). The day he was stabbed, I was standing and there was nobody between me and him (i.e. Umar) except Abdullah bin 'Abbas. Whenever 'Umar passed between the two rows, he would say, "Stand in straight lines."

When he saw no defect (in the rows), he would go forward and start the prayer with
Takbir. He would recite Surat Yusuf or An-Nahl or the like in the first Rak'a so that the people may have the time to join the prayer. As soon as he said Takbir, I heard him saying, "The dog has killed or eaten me," at the time he (i.e. the murderer) stabbed him. A non-Arab infidel proceeded on carrying a double-edged knife and stabbing all the persons he passed by on the right and left (till) he stabbed thirteen persons out of whom seven died. When one of the Muslims saw that, he threw a cloak on him. Realizing that he had been captured, the non-Arab infidel killed himself. 'Umar held the hand of 'Abdur-Rahman bin Auf and let him lead the prayer.

Those who were standing by the side of 'Umar saw what I saw, but the people who were in the other parts of the mosque did not see anything, but they lost the voice of 'Umar and they were saying, "Subhan Allah! Subhan Allah! (i.e. Glorified be Allah)." Abdur-Rahman bin Auf led the people a short prayer. When they finished the prayer, 'Umar said, "O Ibn 'Abbas! Find out who attacked me." Ibn 'Abbas kept on looking here and there for a short time and came to say. "The slave of Al Mughira." On that 'Umar said, "The craftsman?" Ibn 'Abbas said, "Yes." 'Umar said, "May Allah curse him. I did not treat him unjustly. All the praises are for Allah Who has not caused me to die at the hand of a man who claims himself to be a Muslim. No doubt, you and your father (Abbas) used to love to have more non-Arab infidels in Medina." Al-Abbas had the greatest number of slaves. Ibn 'Abbas said to 'Umar. "If you wish, we will do." He meant, "If you wish we will kill them." 'Umar said, "You are mistaken (for you can't kill them) after they have spoken your language, prayed towards your Qibla, and performed Hajj like yours."

Then Umar was carried to his house, and we went along with him, and the people were as if they had never suffered a calamity before. Some said, "Do not worry (he will be all right soon)." Some said, "We are afraid (that he will die)." Then an infusion of dates was brought to him and he drank it but it came out (of the wound) of his belly. Then milk was brought to him and he drank it, and it also came out of his belly. The people realized that he would die. We went to him, and the people came, praising him. A young man came saying, "O chief of the believers! Receive the glad tidings from Allah to you due to your company with Allah's Apostle and your superiority in Islam which you know. Then you became the ruler (i.e. Caliph) and you ruled with justice and finally you have been martyred." 'Umar said, "I wish that all these privileges will counterbalance (my shortcomings) so that I will neither lose nor gain anything."

When the young man turned back to leave, his clothes seemed to be touching the ground.
'Umar said, "Call the young man back to me." (When he came back) 'Umar said, "O son of my brother! Lift your clothes, for this will keep your clothes clean and save you from the punishment of your Lord." 'Umar further said, "O 'Abdullah bin 'Umar! See how much I am in debt to others." When the debt was checked, it amounted to approximately eighty-six thousand. 'Umar said, "If the property of 'Umar's family covers the debt, then pay the debt thereof; otherwise request it from Bani 'Adi bin Ka'b, and if that too is not sufficient, ask for it from Quraish tribe, and do not ask for it from any one else, and pay this debt on my behalf."

'Umar then said (to 'Abdullah), "Go to 'Aisha (the mother of the believers) and say: "Umar is paying his salutation to you. But don't say: 'The chief of the believers,' because today I am not the chief of the believers. And say: "Umar bin Al-Khattab asks the permission to be buried with his two companions (i.e. the Prophet, and Abu Bakr)."
Abdullah greeted 'Aisha and asked for the permission for entering, and then entered to her and found her sitting and weeping. He said to her, "'Umar bin Al-Khattab is paying his salutations to you, and asks the permission to be buried with his two companions." She said, "I had the idea of having this place for myself, but today I prefer 'Umar to myself." When he returned it was said (to 'Umar), "'Abdullah bin 'Umar has come." 'Umar said, "Make me sit up." Somebody supported him against his body and 'Umar asked ('Abdullah), "What news do you have?" He said, "O chief of the believers! It is as you wish. She has given the permission." 'Umar said, "Praise be to Allah, there was nothing more important to me than this. So when I die, take me, and greet 'Aisha and say: "Umar bin Al-Khattab asks the permission (to be buried with the Prophet), and if she gives the permission, bury me there, and if she refuses, then take me to the grave-yard of the Muslims."

Then Hafsa (the mother of the believers) came with many other women walking with her.
When we saw her, we went away. She went in (to 'Umar) and wept there for sometime.
When the men asked for permission to enter, she went into another place, and we heard her weeping inside. The people said (to 'Umar), "O chief of the believers! Appoint a successor." Umar said, "I do not find anyone more suitable for the job than the following persons or group whom Allah's Apostle had been pleased with before he died." Then
'Umar mentioned 'Ali, 'Uthman, AzZubair, Talha, Sad and 'Abdur-Rahman (bin Auf) and said, "Abdullah bin 'Umar will be a witness to you, but he will have no share in the rule.
His being a witness will compensate him for not sharing the right of ruling. If Sad becomes the ruler, it will be alright: otherwise, whoever becomes the ruler should seek his help, as I have not dismissed him because of disability or dishonesty." 'Umar added, "I recommend that my successor takes care of the early emigrants; to know their rights and protect their honor and sacred things.

I also recommend that he be kind to the Ansar who had lived in Medina before the emigrants and belief had entered their hearts before them. I recommend that the (ruler) should accept the good of the righteous among them and excuse their wrong-doers, and I recommend that he should do good to all the people of the towns (Al-Ansar), as they are the protectors of Islam and the source of wealth and the source of annoyance to the enemy. I also recommend that nothing be taken from them except from their surplus with their consent. I also recommend that he do good to the 'Arab bedouin, as they are the origin of the 'Arabs and the material of Islam. He should take from what is inferior, amongst their properties and distribute that to the poor amongst them. I also recommend him concerning Allah's and His Apostle's protectees (i.e. Dhimmis) to fulfill their contracts and to fight for them and not to overburden them with what is beyond their ability." So when 'Umar expired, we carried him out and set out walking. 'Abdullah bin 'Umar greeted ('Aisha) and said, "'Umar bin Al-Khattab asks for the permission." 'Aisha said, "Bring him in." He was brought in and buried beside his two companions.

When he was buried, the group (recommended by 'Umar) held a meeting. Then
'Abdur-Rahman said, "Reduce the candidates for rulership to three of you." Az-Zubair said, "I give up my right to Ali." Talha said, "I give up my right to 'Uthman," Sad, 'I give up my right to 'Abdur-Rahman bin 'Auf." 'Abdur-Rahman then said (to 'Uthman and 'Ali), "Now which of you is willing to give up his right of candidacy to that he may choose the better of the (remaining) two, bearing in mind that Allah and Islam will be his witnesses." So both the sheiks (i.e. 'Uthman and 'Ali) kept silent. 'Abdur-Rahman said, "Will you both leave this matter to me, and I take Allah as my Witness that I will not choose but the better of you?" They said, "Yes." So 'Abdur-Rahman took the hand of one of them (i.e. 'Ali) and said, "You are related to Allah's Apostle and one of the earliest Muslims as you know well. So I ask you by Allah to promise that if I select you as a ruler you will do justice, and if I select 'Uthman as a ruler you will listen to him and obey him." Then he took the other (i.e. 'Uthman) aside and said the same to him. When 'Abdur-Rahman secured (their agreement to) this covenant, he said, "O 'Uthman! Raise your hand." So he (i.e. 'Abdur-Rahman) gave him (i.e. 'Uthman) the solemn pledge, and then 'Ali gave him the pledge of allegiance and then all the (Medina) people gave him the pledge of allegiance.
===

From the above, we conclude the following:
1. No power monger should be given authority. Thus, the current democratic elections in which every candidate has to seek the position is not Islamic.
2. The current ruler has the authority to nominate his successor when he is about to relinquish his authority. It could take the form of appointing a single individual as was indicated indirectly by Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, when he insisted that Abu Bakr, Allah be pleased with him, lead the prayer when Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was sick. This practice of appointing the next ruler was done by the first Caliph Abu Bakr, Allah be pleased with him, when he appointed the second Caliph, Umar, Allah be pleased with him. Or the departing ruler could indicate a group from which the next ruler is selected as done by Caliph Umar, Allah be pleased with him.

What a pity the above practices are not followed now. We venture to suggest the following for the selection of the ruler. Every individual with voting right writes-in the name of the person of his / her choice and drop it in the ballot box. This process is carried out initially at the smallest level, from among the people attending prayers in a mosque. If a single individual is chosen by more than 50% of the voters – the total voters, and not just those who voted – that individual becomes the leader of that group. If not, the three most favored are voted on. If one secures the required votes, he is selected. If not, the two most favored among the three are voted on. If one of them gets the required votes, he is selected. If it does not happen, the better of the two is voted on. If he gets the required votes, he is selected as the leader. If he fails, the process is done all over again. This process is continued until a clear choice emerges. We expect this process to converge very soon in practice, even though theoretically it could be a drawn out selection.

Once the leaders of all groups are selected, the leaders assemble together and select one among them or anyone else in the community as their leader. This process continues until the final leader is selected.

For example, if there are 10 mosques in a town, the congregation of each mosque selects a leader. These 10 leaders meet and select the leader for the town. The leaders of every town in the county meet to select the leader of the county. The leaders of the counties meet to select the leader of the state. The leaders of the states meet to select the leader of the Muslim nation, who becomes the Caliph. Once the Caliph is identified, he has the authority to decide the procedure of selecting his successor.

The most important condition is that none can canvass to become a leader at any level. We believe such a process would eliminate all power mongers and thus the leader would be more interested in serving the populace than in exercising authority.

Let us not forget that in a Caliphate, the Caliph does not make any law for which a solution already exists in the Holy Quran, the Sunnah, the practice of the righteous Caliphs, the consensus opinion of the learned. Only in that rarest of the rare problem that is not already covered, the Caliph takes the decision. Even that decision is subject to challenge and approval by the community.

So, we are very happy that out of the 47 Muslim majority nations, only one is a free country. All praise be to God Almighty.

[Q5 answered at 2.43 pm on November 15. Q4 answered at 9.00 pm on November 15.]

Waterdragon,

Definitely. Mohammad was probably a classic psychopath, inability to experience empathy with the victims, etc., as I said "among other problems." Such tendencies toward violent psychopathology could be studied today, with the technology we have now. Violent psychopaths show abnormally muted autonomic nervous system response when presented with stimuli that would be upsetting to most people.

In any population, you'll have a certain percentage of people with such tendencies. Perhaps these individuals are especially attracted to Islam and, in particular, to the most violent aspects. At the same time, Islamic ideology emphasizes strongly the depersonalization and indeed demonization of non-Muslims, which may drive some people further toward "psychopath-like" behaviours and thoughts.

The man Mohammad, if he existed, certainly had an array of problems. Mohideen seems to be in the same category of psychopath with inability to experience empathy for innocent (i.e., what we would consider innocent) victims. On the other hand, Mohideen may simply be a poser trying to distract us and waste our time. It's hard to know if we're learning anything or whether he is just snowing us.

Mohideen,

Prove to us you are not just a poser here to waste our time, snowing us with a lot of material. We've seen many like you before who follow the same basic pattern: Nonresponsive and evasive. Be direct and concise, giving us your honest opinion. Allah cannot fault you for giving an honest and direct opinion

You said,

"Let us not forget that in a Caliphate, the Caliph does not make any law for which a solution already exists in the Holy Quran, the Sunnah, the practice of the righteous Caliphs, the consensus opinion of the learned. Only in that rarest of the rare problem that is not already covered, the Caliph takes the decision. Even that decision is subject to challenge and approval by the community."

How is this supposed to be good for non-Muslims?

You also lied earlier about the Beslan massacre. The terrorists claimed they came to Beslan to die; they intended to blow everyone up, men, women, and school children. You also neglected to mention the fact that the terrorists killed many people who were being held hostage, that girls were raped by the terrorists (this is standard practice for Islamists), that dead bodies were thrown out the window by the terrorists who were deliberately trying to cause maximum outrage among the victimes' families and the community. That's what Islamic terrorists do: they target and attack women and children, causing the deaths to be as outrageous and as gory as possible, in order to attract maximum attention and outrage.

Mohideen,

Don't forget, you have a lot of questions to answer. At the very least, you can make an attempt at answering my morality quiz (see above). Again, stick to the question and answer directly and concisely.

From his various posts above: The regal "we" says it all -- strongly in need of anti-psychotics -- what to do about the larger Muslim menace? THIS is who we have welcomed into our borders -- this is who you have living down the street from YOU -- or perhaps next door -- THIS is what we have contaminated our precious homelands with --

This is "moderate" Islam incarnate... Even the way he's attempted to take over the site is so SPLENDIDLY ISLAMIC -- a microcosmic example of what they're up to in our lands... Spewing Koranic swill all over the place -- I can picture how he imagines himself -- sitting here at the center, drawing the attention of all kinds of silly posters who imagine they can "reason" with this troglodyte -- asking him questions, attempting to have a dialogue while he engages in his monotonous solopsisms about Islam...

This man is not only sick with a disease -- HE IS A DISEASE -- The presence of such persons in the West is a dangerous symptom of a speading virus -- they will never change - their religion is immutable -- their positions are unchangeable -- they are undeterrable -- And like other undeterrables we must begin to consider drastic measures to stem the tide of their infectious presence here on earth...

Waste of time. To become a Muslim you have to pawn your brain in the nearest mosque. This guy is ranting without making a single point. Infact, Islam attracts only these kind of human beings(?) because whoever can think for themselves would not be caught anywhere near a mosque.

So 'Abdur-Rahman took the hand of one of them (i.e. 'Ali) and said, "You are related to Allah's Apostle and one of the earliest Muslims as you know well. ,

How can the earlier prophets fit in here?

This voting system would work for a small group, but not for a whole country. What you describe is still a form of democracy just on a smaller scale. You assume that everyone belongs to a group where they would meet the potential future leader to know him enough to send him to the next level and then each on the next level would know or have to take time to get to know the next level and so on. That would take endless time in a large country. This whole system was set up for a tribal mentality only. And with each assasination of each leader (or death) it would have to start again. Unless appointed by the previous leader which is a form of monarchy without the nepotism.

Watching the Borg
- and the religion of anarchy

Sheik,
He is claiming Jacob who became Israel, was a muslim. Ludicrous
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/p22.htm

jsla,

Re: Mohideen

“drawing the attention of all kinds of silly posters who imagine they can "reason" with this troglodyte -- asking him questions, attempting to have a dialogue while he engages in his monotonous solopsisms about Islam”

I disagree with you in that Mohideen is demonstrating the perverse reasoning behind Islamic atrocities. As Hugh said,
"Encourage him. Encourage him to answer all the questions posed, in as fully and truthfully a manner as he has been doing. What could be better?"

Everytime someone like Mohideen comes on here, this gives us an opportunity to EDUCATE. The dialogues are primarily a demonstration to others. These posts are increasingly viewed by the general public (400,000 hits per day), not just by the regular readers who've seen dozens of "Mohideens" come and go. The primary intention, at least for me, is not to try and reason with Mohideen. Rather, Mohideen is an example who illustrates our case against Islam, just like the poster who addressed Mr. Spencer as "Mr. ape-pig". We can say the Islamists are bad, and we can show they bad. Showing is often more convincing than just telling.

In addition, we need to expose the lies of people like Mohideen, and not let them go unchallenged.

I think Mohideen's case is also consistent with the topic of the main thread: the inability of Islamists to answer Prager's questions, which represent non-Muslims' questions generally.

"400,000 hits per day..."
-- from a posting above

More, much more, now.

The True Believer who does not bob and weave and feint, but stands straight up and tells you just what a True Believer Truly Believes, is not so much in order to enlighten those here who will engage him or likeminded unsophisticated True Believers in "dialogue" (god, what a word -- should now be reserved for "the play's dialogue" or "The Dialogues of Plato"), but to put the performance on record, for all to see. Not much time or effort should be spent, just enough to have him make the point. That's it.

I know...

I think the point is most often made in a moment, not by flooding threads with 1001 arabian quotes... I too begged the splendid specimen to publish more -- But I think our garrulous twirly bird posters, by rearguing the same tired out smarm again and again and AGAIN!!! make readers fall into catatonic fugues -- The simple lessons by example are completely lost.

It's an editorial comment, and one which I probably should not make. These threads are not really edited... I guess I'm hoping to encourage a little less silliness from certain posters here... But that is probably absurd...

Mo said "The angels do not enter a space in which there are pictures of animate objects. The prayers of a Muslim are witnessed by angels." There is absolutely no proof to support this absurd claim. Muslims also believe that if a woman or a dog passes in front of them while they are praying their prayers will not reach Allah. That means by their reckoning a woman or a dog is more powerful than Allah, to be able to block prayer. Mo, do you realize that "Allah" was originally the name for the piece of meteorite in Mecca that was once one of Mecca's 360 gods? It was elevated to main god status by Mohammed and all the other false gods were abolished. Ask yourself this question: would the true God allow His name to be connected with any false idols? The God of the bible said that He would never share his glory with any other. Would the true God not know that the sun does not "set in a muddy well" as the Quran says? Would the true God have a prophet who makes no prophecy in God's name? Mohammed made not one single prophecy in the quran. You are following a false prophet and a false god. Your defense of your cult is wearing as thin as a beggar's clothes. You cannot defend the brutal murder and decapitation of three innocent schoolgirls or any of the thousands of other atrocities committed in the name of your religion.

GREETINGS infidels! No one religion has done more to basterdize itself with suicide bombers and there ilk,than yes,youve guessed it "ISLAM".Yee shall be know by your fruits!IE: a good tree produces good fruit,And a bad tree procudes bad fruit!.SUICIDE BOMBERS and jew haters.The uk and american govts need to tell the masses the real reasoning behind the terrorists logic!.ITS called the koran,these terrorists are following the letter of this filthy evil book to the word.Jihad is legitimate,kill the unbeliever,infidels,jews etc!.God is good at exposing satan though,i see it on my tv screen everyday,and its called islam. pps The good prophet couldnt write,he had a scribe for that!!"Whilst eyeing up a young pearl one day"(young arab boy)the prophet was trying to think of a new name for his religion.His scribe heard him mumble.....I-SLAM BUTTS!looking at the young pearl!! and so I-SLAM was born! respect prophet dirtywicker

Not a bad letter considering it was written by a killer-ZOMBIE!!

From http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-prager13nov13,0,5189241.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
we find:
===
(2) Why are none of the Palestinian terrorists Christian?
If Israeli occupation is the reason for Muslim terror in Israel, why do no Christian Palestinians engage in terror? They are just as nationalistic and just as occupied as Muslim Palestinians.
===

From http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=21107 we find that the Christian Palestinians are just 3% of the Palestine population inside the Palestine land. Out of the 100%, 97% are Muslims and 3% are Christians. Accordingly, the exposure is proportional to the population. We naturally would not hear the Christians in Palestine attacking the Israelites simply because they are too few.

There is another reason: emigration. The Christians emigrate very easily. Whatever chances of the emigration for the Muslims in Palestine is closed by the ‘War on Terrorism.’ So, a population without any way out and persecuted by Zionists has no option but to retaliate.

If the suggestion is that the Muslim Palestinians are violent because of their religion, it is wrong. Israeli occupation is the major cause of the Muslim resistance inside Israel. Resistance is not terror.

We have answered questions 5, 4, and 3 already in this thread.

the Christian Palestinians are just 3% of the Palestine population inside the Palestine land. Out of the 100%, 97% are Muslims and 3% are Christians.
And why is that? muslims can't live with any other people, so the Christians have to leave their historic roots.

It is documentated that both Hitler and Saddam engaged in statanic rituals.

Both were exceedingly evil.

Islam is a cult of evil as evidenced by what is written in the Qu'ran.

Life is about "good" vs "evil", but many refuse to see it that way as they worship the "intellect"
and resort to "psycho-babble".

And things spring from the spiritual.

Correction to my Post:

"All things spring from the spiritual"

"We have answered questions 5, 4, and 3 already in this thread."

Mohideen, you remind me of another split-personality. You don't mind if we call you "LEGION" do you?

9Then Jesus asked him, "What is your name?"

"My name is Legion," he replied, "for we are many." 10And he begged Jesus again and again not to send them out of the area.

11A large herd of pigs was feeding on the nearby hillside. 12The demons begged Jesus, "Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them." 13He gave them permission, and the evil spirits came out and went into the pigs. The herd, about two thousand in number, rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned."- Mark 5:9-13

Mohideen,

You wrote:

Israeli occupation is the major cause of the Muslim resistance inside Israel.

As a nation-state recognized by the United Nations, Israel has every right to occupy its sovereign territory inside Israel. Therefore, Muslim resistance insided Israel is in violation of international law and an incontrovertable instance of Muslim aggression against a sovereign nation-state. Accordingly, Israel has every right under international law to defend against attacks incurred on its territory and retaliate extra-territorially.

The toughest question from
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-prager13nov13,0,5189241.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
===
1) Why are you so quiet?

Since the first Israelis were targeted for death by Muslim terrorists blowing themselves up in the name of your religion and Palestinian nationalism, I have been praying to see Muslim demonstrations against these atrocities. Last week's protests in Jordan against the bombings, while welcome, were a rarity. What I have seen more often is mainstream Muslim spokesmen implicitly defending this terror on the grounds that Israel occupies Palestinian lands. We see torture and murder in the name of Allah, but we see no anti-torture and anti-murder demonstrations in the name of Allah.

There are a billion Muslims in the world. How is it possible that essentially none have demonstrated against evils perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam? This is true even of the millions of Muslims living in free Western societies. What are non-Muslims of goodwill supposed to conclude? When the Israeli government did not stop a Lebanese massacre of Palestinians in the Sabra and Chatilla refugee camps in Lebanon in 1982, great crowds of Israeli Jews gathered to protest their country's moral failing. Why has there been no comparable public demonstration by Palestinians or other Muslims to morally condemn Palestinian or other Muslim-committed terror?
====

a) Last week's protests in Jordan against the bombings, while welcome, were a rarity.
Ans: The crucial word is ‘rarity.’ The demonstration in Jordan is a rarity. This demonstration is possibly the first demonstration for ages. The reason: no gatherings are allowed in the Arab land.

The protests in Amman must have had the blessings of the Government of Jordan. The picture in http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/01B6B2DA-875B-4665-A091-57B52A18333B.htm shows quite a few pictures of Abdullah II. What is the need for the pictures of Abdullah II? In our opinion, the protests were encouraged if not ordered by Abdullah II. In that news report, we also find:
===
Drivers of vehicles decorated with the colourful Jordanian flags and posters of Jordan's King Abdullah II honked their horns.
===
It is clear that the protest is not a genuine one of public anger, but an organized one by the Government of Jordan.

The answer to ‘Why are you so quiet?’ inside the Muslim world is that the rulers had not sanctioned the protests so far. When it comes to Israel, the attitude of the OIC is well known. The anger against Israel is many times greater than the anger against the terrorists. So, there is no protests in the Muslim world.

There is another reason: most of the Muslim leaders are not confident that their public would not revolt against them if the public understands that they could indeed protest. It is the survival instinct of the rulers that there would be no protests however unjust the bombings might be.

b) This is true even of the millions of Muslims living in free Western societies.
Ans: Some like I feel that the majority of the bombings are the psyops of intelligence agencies of the US and her allies. Yes, the 9/11 blame is still thick.

Some feel that in a country like USA where the Muslim lobby is virtually non-existent, there is no point in organizing protests.

For some the fear that such protests might be misconstrued as an implicit support to Israel might hold them back.

Dear XRDC,

Are you saying that when the demonic Moslems, called Legion, went into the pigs, the pigs couldn't stand it and ran over the cliff and killed themselves by drowning? Maybe that's why Moslems hate pigs so much.

Not even pigs want to be Moslems.

Some feel that in a country like USA where the Muslim lobby is virtually non-existent, there is no point in organizing protests.

posted by a delusional, mendacious muslim

You have got to be kidding!!!! Non-existent? The Arab/muslim lobby in America is a vast network consisting of over one hundred special interest groups relentlessly clamoring for attention, special privileges, and recognition. And have you counted the Islamic advocacy organizations lately?! There must be one for every ten muslims.

You are either an idiot or psychopathic liar. But hey, it would suit all of us just fine if every poor, pitiful, persecuted muslim in America left the country in a huff, never to return. I'm sure there are much nicer countries just dying for a few million more muslims to enhance their societies by going on welfare and engaging in polygamous marriages that spawn dozens of muslim brats and future holy warriors. If I were a muslim, God forbid, I wouldn't tolerate for one minute being treated as an equal to infidels.

The U.S. is a big place. It's going to take decades, maybe centuries, for muslims to conquer the Great Satan. Give it up and go back to your Islamic hellhole where you belong.

Mo, when America was attacked on 911 it wasn't the Jews who were celebrating, congratulating each other, shooting guns in the air and handing out candy to children. It was Muslim countries that celebrated the deaths of thousands of innocent people. You can try to deny the fact that it was Mohammed Atta and 18 other Muslims who flew the planes shouting "Allahu Akbar", but Bin Laden bragged about it to his friends on tape, and we have the tape. It was a Muslim who murdered Theo Van Gogh, it is Muslims who are burning Paris, slaughtered three little girls because they went to Christian schookl during Ramadan, and it is Muslims who have perpetrated over 3,000 attacks against non-Muslims around the world since 911, all in the name of Allah and Islam. Yours is a sick cult of death, murder and terrorism that is based on lies and deceit, masquerading as a religion of peace and tolerance. Mohammed was a liar and a Murderer and the Muslims of today are following in his footsteps.

Is the cold war over?

The first Gulf War demonstrated the impotence of the USSR and sealed its fate. What triggered the collapse of the USSR? Many would agree that it was the brilliant execution of the proxy war in Afghanistan by the CIA against the KGB.

Col. Tom Bearden does not think so. In page 2 of http://www.cheniere.org/articles/Yakuza%20threat%20including%20tsunamis%20-%20final%20w%20edits%201%20website%20a.doc
he states the following:
===
In 1997, again the U.S. would have been utterly destroyed on two occasions had it not been for the same little nation. Several professional colleagues and I played a desperate role in both those incidents; they were frighteningly real but also totally unreported in the news media. Indeed, our own intelligence agencies had no inkling that a full strategic Soviet superweapon attack to destroy the United States was imminent on each of the occasions (the second of which would have occurred on May 1, 1997). The May Day for 1997 would have been the “big one”, had the FSB/KGB not been checkmated by “an offer it could not refuse”  delivered once again by the friendly nation. During those critical periods when every hour on the clock seemed a week in length, the hostile armada that would have struck us included the Japanese Yakuza and Aum Shinrikyo teams on site in Russia, operating leased KGB/FSB strategic scalar interferometers against the U.S.
===

In our opinion, the KGB could not match the combination of the CIA and the Mujahideen during the 80s. The KGB withdrew strategically collapsing the USSR but retaining itself in Russia. The friendship between Putin and Bush had delayed the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by Russia. The ratification by Russia indicates the return to confrontation and the victory of the KGB over the civilians inside Russia.

On September 11, 2001, the prestige of the CIA was destroyed by the so called impeccable planning and execution by Osama bin Laden. Nonsense. To us, OBL still continues to be the darling of the CIA. The entire so called terrorist attacks are sanctioned by the CIA.

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111601881.html
we find:
===
The president's recent speech, for instance, conflates all sorts of terrorist incidents -- from Israel to Chechnya -- neglecting that they are specific to their regions and have nothing to do with al Qaeda. Every bombing somehow becomes an attack on Western values "because we stand for democracy and peace." Oh, stop it!
===

Is Bush out of his mind? Is the threat reported by Col. Tom Bearden in page 48 of the URL given already, and quoted below possible?
===
According to the present Yakuza/KGB/FSB and international terrorist plans, their actions are expected to reduce the U.S. to lying prostrate and helpless two years from now. With a U.S. nation in utter chaos and ruin, and economically already collapsing catastrophically, a touch-up with the FSB/KGB quantum potential weapons (the most powerful weapons on earth, but possessed by at least five nations) will quickly dud every nuclear weapon, ICBM, nuclear bomber, nuclear power plant, nuclear submarine propulsion system, etc. on the planet . The dudding will take about 10 minutes, although an hour or so seems to be allotted for it. This is “pulling the dragon’s teeth and claws.” The conventional strategic military power (ICBMs, nuclear bombs and warheads, and nuclear subs etc.) will be suddenly dudded and effectively wiped out, to exist no more. All that giant strategic apparatus will be just so much trash on the garbage dump of history.

At that point, the Yakuza gleefully plan to participate in the “methodical destruction of the United States” the terminal part of the operations phase. They will be freed to just blast away at will with their scalar interferometers, as they wish, to continue to the full destruction of the United States.

The intention of this unholy war against us, by both the recognized terrorists and the Yakuza/Aum Shinrikyo (the Aum Shinrikyo is now known as Aleph) is to kill every American (and every Israeli also) men, women, children, babies, all of us.

We will see the operational unleashing of this terrible plan, beginning during the next two years, gradually increasing in intensity, and finishing in the early part of the third year with the catastrophic economic collapse of the United States. Once the economic collapse is complete and the nation is in utter chaos, the sudden dudding of all our nuclear weapons, power plants, and nuclear propulsion systems will be the coup de grace that leaves us a hapless target. The rest of it is a turkey shoot, to simply execute us and finish us off.
===

The article by Col. Tom Bearden was written for the third anniversary of the 9/11, and thus the expected time of the ‘turkey shoot’ is November, 2006. The period when Congress is to be elected!

Why do I write this? We can continue our game of slinging mud on Islam, and calling it a false religion. One aspect of Islam is very much needed now, for all of us. That is, the time and place of death of every one of us is decided and recorded at the 12th week of our conception. None will live one second more. None will die one second early.

Turkey shoot or no turkey shoot, we all – each and every one of us – shall live our full lives. One fact that has not been overcome by medical technology is that “death is certain for every one who is born already.”

Should we cow to blackmail or should we see the blackmailers eye to eye? My plea is let the Muslims help us. Read the Holy Quran and evaluate it, if for nothing else, just to overcome the fear of death.

If spending $100 or so to buy the ALIM CD is beyond the reach, visit http://www.searchtruth.com/ and read about Islam online.

Yes, the debate about Islam can continue.

As to the situation of Christians living under "palestinian authority" rule, Justus Weiner, who wrote the famous expose of Eddie Said in Commentary, has written a book or booklet on this situation. It is available on-line. See the press release below:

Press Release, November 17, 2005

Dear Friend:

The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs is proud to offer the following link is to Professor Justus Reid Weiner's new Monograph Human Rights of Christians in Palestinian Society. It is a 1.4 megabyte PDF file. You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to open the file, but it is available online without charge.

http://www.jcpa.org/christian-persecution.htm

Following is a short thumbnail sketch of the Monograph:
On the heels of the Gaza disengagement, which was intended to empower the Palestinian Authority to improve the lives of its people, few journalists have reported on the acutely trying times facing the Christians residing in areas "governed" by the Palestinian Authority. In his book, Professor Weiner, Scholar in Residence at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, provides an in-depth look into the nearly uninterrupted persecution of Christians throughout the decade since the Oslo peace process began.

Living amidst a xenophobic Muslim population plagued by endemic violence bordering on anarchy, the Christians have shrunk to less than 1.7 percent of the population in the Palestinian areas. “Tens of thousands have abandoned their holy sites and ancestral properties to live abroad, while those who remain do so as a beleaguered and dwindling minority," Weiner said.

"Their plight is, in part, attributable to the adoption of Muslim religious law (sharia) in the constitution of the Palestinian Authority. Moreover, the Christians have been abandoned by their religious leaders who, instead of protecting them, have chosen to curry favor with the Palestinian leadership.” Professor Weiner's book reveals and analyzes why this persecution - largely ignored by the international community, the media, and even the human rights organizations - has metastasized to the extent that it threatens the very existence of this 2000-year-old community.

Thank you in advance for taking the time to read this very important and pertinent Monograph. This Monograph is also available in hardcopy.
---I have not read this monograph, so I cannot endorse it. However, Dr Weiner's research on Said was impeccable, and therefore I recommend this new book.

FEAR

Fear! Strike terror into the heart of the Infidel!

Oh Allah! How do we get the Infidel to fear us?

Use wildly exagerated conspiracies, without any factual support, to install fear in the Infidel; then they will find freedom from fear in Islam!

Kill the Infidels' children; then they will find freedom from fear in Islam!

Make them fear Islam; then they will freedom from fear in Islam!

Make them embrace Islam; then they will freedom from fear in Islam!

Once the Infidel embraces Islam use fear to keep them in Islam.

Mohideen, is that the best you can do? Tell us that Islam is so fatalistic, that in Isalm every good and every evil is preordained by Allah's will that it reduces our brain to nothing more than some worthless intenstinal appendage? Reducing us to nothing more than the instict of animals who fear its master?

God, our Creator, gave us the powers of self-awareness, thought and logic as our distinguishing characteristics from all other animal life. God, our Creator, gave us his love and asks that we only love him in return. Through such love God and following his commandment to love everyone else as we love ourselves, God installs us with hope, a purpose to live and improve our lives. Our reward for following these two commandments from which all other law of the prophets derives, is eternal spiritual communion with the Creator.

This hope, this inner spirituality, this reason to embrace life and live is universally found in both Deisitic and non-Deistic traditions for it is indeed basic to human life itself. Islam, like other supremecist totalitarian ideologies, strike fear into its non-adherents to cause them to submit and fear into its adherents for the same reason, continued submission.

Those that have been given hope, and not fear, do not fear death, they celebrate life.

Mo, I have read your Quran. Compared to the Word Of God in the Bible, reading the Quran is like snorkeling through a sewer. There are many incorrect things in the Quran, which I included in my posts above. You pretend to ignore them. What are you afraid of? Are you incapable of defending your faith? You said "the time and place of death of every one of us is decided and recorded at the 12th week of our conception." A purely Muslim belief which has no basis in fact, or in God's word. Think about it. Does God know EVERYTHING, before it happens? To include one's birth and death? To say that it is unknown before the 12 week is to say that God doesn't know the future, which is blasphemy. The God of the bible knows everything before it happens. He doesn't have to wait until the 12th week of conception. You have failed to defend your faith as required by Islam. The Quran says Allah has no sons. But he had 3 daughters,didn't he? Until Mohammed realized he screwed up and decided he could get out of his mistake if he said he was tricked by Satan. Was a true prophet of God ever tricked by Satan? Especially since Mohammed is supposed to be the last, greatest prophet? why was he so easily fooled then? Thte Quran says Jesus did not die on the cross. Jesus prophesied his death, burial and resurrection. The bible has eyewitness accounts of those who saw him. The men and women who saw Jesus died rather than lie for the Jews and Romans and say He did not die and was not risen from the dead. The Quran has nothing to back up its claims. You have failed to defend Islam. When weighed on judgement day you will be found short.

Mo, I bet you've never really read the bible, have you?

Mo, I bet you've never really read the bible, have you?
Bohemond_1069 at November 17, 2005 03:46 PM

I have read a few parts. Now, I perform search to understand the message of the Holy Bible on a topic of my interest.

You said "the time and place of death of every one of us is decided and recorded at the 12th week of our conception."
Bohemond_1069 at November 17, 2005 03:40 PM

The angel guarding the womb asks certain questions and the answers are given. The decision that I referred to is with respect to the angel, not with respect to the knowledge of God Almighty. Muslims know that God Almighty knows all.
===
2:255 Allah! There is no god but He – the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permitteth? HE knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) Before or After or Behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He willeth. HIS Throne doth extend over the heavens and the earth, and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory).
===

Instead of conveying the information in my own words, I might have as well quoted Tradition 430 in volume 4 of Sahih Al-Bukhari:
===
Narrated Abdullah bin Musud
Allah's Apostle, the true and truly inspired said, "(The matter of the Creation of) a human being is put together in the womb of the mother in forty days, and then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period, and then a piece of flesh for a similar period. Then
Allah sends an angel who is ordered to write four things. He is ordered to write down his (i.e. the new creature's) deeds, his livelihood, his (date of) death, and whether he will be blessed or wretched (in religion). Then the soul is breathed into him. So, a man amongst you may do (good deeds till there is only a cubit between him and Paradise and then what has been written for him decides his behavior and he starts doing (evil) deeds characteristic of the people of the (Hell) Fire. And similarly a man amongst you may do (evil) deeds till there is only a cubit between him and the (Hell) Fire, and then what has been written for him decides his behavior, and he starts doing deeds characteristic of the people of Paradise."
===

Thanks to God Almighty who persuaded Bohemond_1069 to point out my fallacy: instead of 120 days, I had stated 12 weeks. What a blunder!

Thanks Bohemond_1069.

What did I miss? Did Satan fart?

If an individual person poses no threat in anyway to himself or to any other member of society or to the society at large, can there ever be any justification for ending the life of this individual, either by a member of such society acting upon his own volition and convictions or by judicial and executive authorities of such society acting upon the law and proscribed penalties of that society:

A. should this person maintain a personal belief in contradiction to an opposing belief held by a majority of the society?

B. should this person persist in maintaining a personal belief in contradiction to an opposing belief held by a majority of the society subsequent to evidence being presented to this person that his belief is false and the belief held by the majority of society is true?

C. should this person publicly proclaim as true a personal belief that is in contradiction to an opposing belief that a majority of the society believe to be true?

D. should this person publicly proclaim and maintain as true a personal belief that is in contradiction to an opposing belief that a majority of the society believe to be true even if previously this person also proclaimed the opposing belief to be true?
Lisa at November 15, 2005 09:27 PM

I cannot answer this question for any unspecified belief system. God Almighty willing, I hope to answer with respect to Islam, and Islam alone; that too for a person living outside the Arabian Peninsula only. What follows does not apply to any who insists on living inside the Arabian Peninsula.

The choices A, B, and C above are permitted; the individual cannot be punished. However, with respect to D, the case of an individual who had accepted Islam after reaching the age of puberty, if that individual later claims to profess some other belief, the following Tradition numbered 17 in volume 9 of Sahih Al-Bukhari applies.
===
Narrated Abdullah
Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In
Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."
===

Mohideen, a human fetus does not start out as a blood clot. Science has proven that. Again Muslim tradition is not just inferior, but wrong. Address the questions I posed to you. There is no evidence Mohammed is a prophet of God or that a piece of meteorite in Mecca is a god, though there is ample evidence that rock is the Allah Muslims worship. You have not proved any of what you quoted about what your cult teaches about angels, or anything. You are simply rambling. Keep up this meaningless chatter and I have no doubt you will be banned from this site permanently.
If a woman miscarries after 3 days of being pregnant, does God not know? Does God not know a woman is pregnant even before she does? Your traditions and beliefs are laughable. You have been told a bunch of old fables and fairy tales and made to believe they constitute religion. The Quran says Jesus did not die on the cross. Jesus was a prophet. He prophesied His death, burial and resurrection. Read Deuteronomy 18:21 in the Old Testament. It establishes the standard for a true prophet of the True God. If Jesus even made one false prophecy He could not have been a prophet, since God's standard is 100%. The people who saw Jesus die on the cross knew it was him. They saw him rise from the dead. It made such an impact on them that they chose death rather than lie about it and live. The Quran has no first person, eye witness testimony of Jesus. Either the Quran is a lie or Jesus is a liar. If Jesus is a liar He is not a prophet and the Quran is wrong again.

Bohemy & KKK,

You both make excellent points. And here are some questions I've been thinking about since we started posting here several days ago.

Does Mohideen really believe this stuff he's saying? He sounds like he does,which is puzzling. Except for the ridiculous 72 virgins thing, (and really, could you base your whole life on that?) what appeal does Islam have for anyone?

Why are some American women embracing Islam? That one totally snows me. I see regular, American women in the suburbs of America, wearing the scarf or the whole get up and I think, wow, that girl probably went to Catholic school for 12 years, went to college, drove her car, did things with her friends, etc., and then decided that the only way to happiness was to turn to Islam? What appeal could Islam have for any free woman in the United States?

Maybe the woman in question got caught up in the sexual revolution, found it distasteful and retreated to the "safety" of a religion that will literally destroy you if you cross the line on that subject. Or maybe these women who choose Islam do so because they don't think they can make it on their own and they like the idea that the male will "look after all the needs of the female." (How about Nadia the poet's need to express herself? I guess Moslem men pick and choose what a woman really needs.)

The point being, I need to understand where this enemy is coming from, not so I can embrace his beliefs but so I can find ways to combat them, beat them into submission and finally eradicate them from the face of the world. It won't be enough to try and peacefully co-exist. We've already seen how that doesn't work.

And are Moslem men so shallow that sex is so important for them, not to be enjoyed by their wives so it seems, then they produce children, including daughters who they appear to love when they are little but feel free to kill when they become women if the daughters do anything to make the family look bad, even if it's just in their heads? Talk about worrying about what everybody thinks! But seriously, could the submission to this religion of peace be something that these men feel they cannot get away from, cannot think freely about? Or is there an underlying sinister plan that none of us are supposed to know about and if so, what will these people have if they ruled the whole earth. Systematic, terminal misery? I don't get it.

Hugh, help me out here.

Isabell,

Your statement

Or maybe these women who choose Islam do so because they don't think they can make it on their own

applies to all women who find themselves in an abusive relationship and refuse to leave it. These women then formulate the most illogical rationals in thir own mind to justify only the reasons for staying in the relation.

Mohideen is not interested in debating the Quarn and the bible, or in finding out which one is true. He is told by the Quran and his Imams that he is superior to non-Muslims and specially chosen, and he undoubtedly believes it. He is only interested in quoting the Quran to try and make some converts to Islam or to defend Islam to insure his entry into paradise since Islam has no guarantee of salvation unless a Muslim dies fighting for the cause. Mohideen must therefore try to earn his salvation, as with all man made religions. He is on his own little Jihad, his personal "fight" for his ticket to heaven. Unfortunately he has already failed to adequately defend his beliefs here, so he will still come up short on judgement day when his "god" weighs his sins against his good deeds. Pity, but it is his choice, and he will bear the judgement for his actions.