As many as 60 cars still burn nightly in France

Just another sign that poverty is the problem, lack of heating oil.

/sarc

The BBC actually used the 'M' word in this rather odd news item, entitled 'Young and Muslim: The French exchange '.

This autumn riots and violence broke out across France, prompting people to ask what had gone wrong. At the heart of the debate is France's relationship with its minorities and, in particular, the largest such group - French-born children of North African immigrant parents.

The UK faced similar questions following riots in northern towns in the summer of 2001, when large groups of predominantly Pakistani-Muslim young men vented their anger on the streets.

All this week the BBC World Service's World Today programme has been following two young Muslim students - one French and one British - around each other's troubled areas to try and find out what went wrong.

Yes, what could French-born children of North African parents possibly have in common with English-born children of Pakistani parents? And do you really need an exchange visit to find out?

On a somewhat lighter note, perhaps this is the reason the French are burning their cars. A survey by viewers of the British automotive program Top Gear revealed that 7 of the worst 10 cars were French.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/survey/last_10.shtml

7 of the worst 10 cars were French

And the most irritating car adverts. Remember Papa and Nicole?

Can anyone point me to articles about the French people reaction to the Muslims and violence? Are the locals even at least upset at what is happening to their country?

-Joe

I just have some questions for the people who blames the France riots on Islam just because the majority of the rioters were muslim, and they are very simple ones:

1. The US suffered riots in the 90's, and more violent than these ones. Are they due to Islam? Are all the afro-americans muslim?

2. Mosquees were burned during the France riots. Is this also due to Islam?

3. Non muslim people (like "pure" french), who had also taken part in the riots, have been arrested. Do they belong to the "jihadist" movement as well?

I await your answers impatiently.

Now if we could only get the terrorists to shove these burning verhicles up the French's arses we'd be in business!

The terrorists can burn the entire country of France off the map. See if I care.

Responding to Ispanan:

1. The US suffered riots in the 90's, and more violent than these ones. Are they due to Islam? Are all the afro-americans muslim?

No, no and no.
Arson attacks in LA didn't include churches mosques or synagogues. Arson also didn't include thousands of vehicles and not one single woman on a bus was set on fire.

2. Mosques were burned during the France riots. Is this also due to Islam?

Most likely in retaliation for the churches or synagogues that were also burned.

3. Non muslim people (like "pure" french), who had also taken part in the riots, have been arrested. Do they belong to the "jihadist" movement as well?

Liberal Dhimmis can do all sorts of stupid things - especially French Dhimmis.

It is impossible to be Muslim and French. They are mutually exclusive states of being. One can swear allegiance to either the Islamic canon or to the French constitution, not to both because they are mutually exclusive at their foundation. The French constitution vests sovereignty in the people. Legislative power is granted to the people in the form of a parliamentary government. The Law of France proceeds from the citizens of France. At its very core it is the embodiment of the Law of Man, Enlightened Man, Liberated Man, Rational Man. To accept the Law of Man a Muslim must necessarily admit to the abdication of the shari'a and abandon the sovereignty of Allah over the Enlightened citizen. Veritas.

Ispanan:

The riots you refer that occurred in the USA during the 1990s took place in Los Angeles during 1992. I was there.

At that time no intensive investigations were made into these riots (or if there were this was never reported), so any hard evidence on this matter is unavailable.

These riots actually had a theme: The African-American community's resentment over an incident involving LAPD police brutality on an African-American man named Rodney King (as seen on a home-made video) and an unsatisfactory outcome of a jury trial where several LAPD officers were tried for the beating of Rodney King--and basically allowed to walk. The African-Americans generally felt the officers should have been convicted.

However, Los Angeles DOES possess a very large Muslim population of African-Americans. The areas where the rioting was most intense (the Southern and Central portions (the rioting actually started at the intersection of Florence and Normandy Avenues) contain sizeable populations of Muslim Afro-American people. In view of the fact that the riots looked to observers as if they had been carefully planned (some observers--some of whom I knew personally-- of the incident felt that the mobs always seemed to know where exactly to go next and what it was going to do next) there is reason to suspect pre-planning may have taken place. We do not know the names of the individuals who began the rioting in southern and central Los Angeles, so it is not possible to establish with any certainty that they were Muslims. But it is far from being ruled out.

The LA riots happened after the first Gulf War and after Saddam Hussein had declared a jihad against the United States. There had been sightings of Ousamah bin Laden IN Los Angeles after the declaration of that fatwa. (I didn't say bin Laden was there actually, merely that there were reports of people claiming to have seen him there at that time). If the LA riots were Muslim-instigated it would not be far-fetched in view of the facts that 1-) such destructive riots would be in line with jihadist warfare strategies against the infidels and 2-)such riots are commonplace in many Islamicized countries.

Events like the French and LA riots showing this magnitude of destructive behavior are VERY abnormal in developed western democracies. They are much more in character with Islamicized countries where such serious social instablity is commonplace.

"Arson attacks in LA didn't include churches mosques or synagogues. Arson also didn't include thousands of vehicles and not one single woman on a bus was set on fire."

No, they were pacific protests, excepting the millions dollars and the dozens of lives it costed.

"Most likely in retaliation for the churches or synagogues that were also burned."

So if I understood well, some french go on a muslim quarter full of dangerous terrorists, burn a mosquee under their nose, and escape alive! Is this the explanation, or may there be another, more credible one?

"Liberal Dhimmis can do all sorts of stupid things - especially French Dhimmis"

Thanks, only this last answer made my point. Every time people make stupid statements such as this, they are only disacrediting themselves before the people who visits this forum.

Ispanan,

The French rioters shouted the Muslim war cry "Allah Akbar" while destroying "infidel" property.The shouts of "Allah Akbar" as well as the rioters care in targeting "infidel" property have both been noted in the press. So yes Islam was responsible.

Ispanan said:

"So if I understood well, some french go on a muslim quarter full of dangerous terrorists, burn a mosquee under their nose, and escape alive! Is this the explanation, or may there be another, more credible one?"

Excuse me Ispanan, but did you just fruedian slip/admit that these rioters are "dangerous terrorists"?

"Every time people make stupid statements such as this, they are only disacrediting themselves before the people who visits this forum."

Whom is discrediting whom?

Ispanan:

Your point is well taken. Ghetto blacks riot as much as muslims do. Blacks yell "burn baby burn" , while muslims yell "alahu akbar". They reproduce at similar rates and have similar levels of illiteracy. So why pick on muslims?

The main difference is that while ghetto blacks listen to gansta rap, drink Thunderbird, smoke crack and then beat their women, muslims prostrate themselves five times a day while they face mecca before they beat their women.

Robert or hugh please keep the previous post up:

GFB
hey man - no need to make a broad racial and theological assumption like this here. People unite here to face the threat of a global caliphate and it has nothing to do with race, creed, sex or social position. I'd rather eliminate all ghettos but that's for the future.

Right now, no one here believes that all Muslims are terrorists anymore than we believe all African Americans smoke crack so please - consider that we're all human and attack the ideology instead.

Interested: you say

7 of the worst 10 cars were French
And the most irritating car adverts. Remember Papa and Nicole?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do remember. Was not this Cleo Renault?

The English saying is:

"Red sky at night shepherd's delight
red sky in the morning shepherd's warning"

The French version should be

“Red sky at night Renault is burning, red sky in the morning muslims are still rioting”

(For American readers, Renault is a French car)

"Liberal Dhimmis can do all sorts of stupid things - especially French Dhimmis"

"Thanks, only this last answer made my point. Every time people make stupid statements such as this, they are only disacrediting themselves before the people who visits this forum."

Only to those who wish to find that. Anyone who credits or discredits a site based on a brief exchange and a couple of comments in the comments section, rather than gaining an overall and balanced picture, is simply finding what they want to see.

"The French rioters shouted the Muslim war cry "Allah Akbar" while destroying "infidel" property."

Generalizations, yet again, that is the mistake you people constantly do. Were ALL of the rioters heard shouting this? ALL? Or just a minority?

And I would like you to explain this about the infidel property, seeing how they mainly burned the properties of their OWN neighborhoods.

"Excuse me Ispanan, but did you just fruedian slip/admit that these rioters are "dangerous terrorists"?"

I thought it was clear that I was being sarcastic.

Ispanan:

Do you consider smashing a 24-inch television set over a person's head to be PACIFISTIC?
Since when is a violent act of murder "PACIFIC?" A girl in Beverly Hills was shot in the back while at an ATM by members of a rioting mob. How pacific.

If synagogues or church WERE missed it was most likely by accident or by armed citizens keeping them at bay (that did help finally stop the rioters). At the height of the rioting at least 1500 structures were burning.

60 persons died in the LA riots. At the height of the riots. Most of these were willful homicides inflicted by rioters.

And for your information churches in the southern and central portions of Los Angeles have been suffering heavy vandalism for years now.

I in no way find your arguments persuasive or even sympathetic.

Ispanan,France was NOT in desperate need of these desperate Islamic guys from Arab and west Africa. Yes, I know full well 99 percent of these rioters were muslim.Most of them,came to France by night boats,and landed up in these ghettoes. Yes, when you dont have proper doccuments, no one will give you jobs. I ask Ispanan one question- Before comming to France, are these guys living in luxurey? Did France invited them?Why you select only christian countries,when there are so many ofyour own oil rich muslim countries ? Your Islamic countries never let a christian,Jew or a hindu to immigrate,and even the native non muslims are treated like animals. Ispanan,with what face you people not only enter our countries, but DEMAND your way of life? West and America has learnt a big lession by your behaviour in recent times.- The Hindus,Jews,Busdhist,and chritians make best,reliable,and trustworthy immigrants. They will never find fault in every thing,while enjoying a royal life her,never burn churces,cars,buildings,subways,and never ever" kill the hand that feeds."

To gain a perspective on the level of Muslim extrtemism throughout the globe
More than 3500 Islamic terror attacks since 911.
November 2005
134 Jihad attacks
716 Dead Bodies
1077 Critically Injured
yes of course the Riots in france were arranged by the CIA whose agents posed as young "alienated" muslims to reinforce the case for the liberation of Iraq!
http://thereligionofpeace.com/default.htm#attacks

with all these burning cars, riots, it will affect France's tourist industry. and with it hitting the French pocket book, decline of monies coming into the country, they must just serious with this islam cult and ship them all out!!

Ispanan: "Generalizations, yet again, that is the mistake you people constantly do. Were ALL of the rioters heard shouting this? ALL? Or just a minority?"

Who is "you people"? The very sentence reeks with irony. Love it.

No, not all the rioters were heard shouting "Allah Akbar". Some of them where burning cars instead, and then they swapped.

Ispanan,

Attempts to distance Muslims from the French riots have been tried without success. The rioters use of the Muslim war cry "Allah Akbar" was reported both in the European and Arab press.You also had Imams intervening to try to stop the rioting (without success). The rioting occurred all over France not just in the Muslim neighborhoods which is how the property of non-Muslims was targeted . Even in Muslim neighborhoods it was non-Muslim businesses that were targets as this report posted right here at JW shows:

But - and this is the crucial difference between the different generations of rioters - most of those living in the French ghettoes are Muslims and have grown up during a period of Islamic radicalisation. Many of the youths hurling petrol bombs on Parisian estates look up to a slightly older group of mosque stalwarts. These men are capable of being forces for both good and mischief; there have been examples from the past fortnight of situations calmed, but also of attackers acting under their direction, so that Muslim-owned businesses, a halal butcher's shop and a kebab joint, for example, are spared, while a bank branch and symbols of another France are targeted.

Obviously the dhimmi French aren't really interested in stopping the violence. Ruthlessness is called for in this situation.

Any doubts that Islam had nothing to do with the french riots can be satisfied by the fact that the governement encouraged muslims organisations to back a fatwa asking them to stop.

And by the video clip that can be seen by clicking on the top left red panel of this site http://www.france-echos.com/

Black is white and white is black,
cover the truth, the mohammedans are back.
Burning and beheading are called good,
for in allah's cause they fight,
as the muslim brotherhood.
They're having a meeting tonight,
about us you can be sure,
they want what we have without any work,
They want booty, land, slaves who submit.
Then the desert sands follow,
the earth is left, devastated and hollow.

Good is evil and evil is good,
the muslim sisterhood
are shrouded as in death,
making more mouths to feed,
only suffering is their lot in this life
as a mohammedan's wife, slave to his need.

Ispanan there is really no comparrison to the two other than they were both riots. The rioters in LA weren't demanding the establishment of religious Muslim enclaves under sharia law as the French rioters are. If a Mosque was burned it was probably because of fire on other buildings nearby spreading because rioters shot at firefighters and police so they stayed away and let it burn, retaliation by non-Muslims or Muslims could have set fire to the Mosques to shift blame away from themselves. Sunnis have bombed Shia mosques in other countries, so it is possible. It was reported on the news that Muslims targeted non-Muslim owned businesses in their districts as well as churches. Also the riots in France have resulted in the deportation of over 25,000 illegal Muslim aliens in France back to North Africa. The riots in LA had no deportations. The riots in LA were over rather quickly. The French riots are still going on.

And he urged "the greatest caution" ahead of the end-of-year holidays which regularly see outbursts of violence in suburbs of France's major cities.

There is a story there, missed by Jihad Watchers.

Regular end of year outbursts of violence.

What is at end of year? Christman.
Regular means like clockwork.
Suburbs of major cities in France are Muslim enclaves.

Do you get the picture now.

As regards trying to debate with Muslims like Ispanan, forget it. Part of a Madrass education is how to argue with kafirs. I call it illogic 101.

Following is plagarized from another forum, but the subject is a Muslim apologist.

For example:

1. You say the sky is blue.

2. I agree the sky is blue.

3. Muslim points out that the sea is actually more green than blue, but appears blue because it reflects the sky.

4. You and I each question the relevance of that, if we're game to take the bait that day.

5. Muslim posts and article on light refraction.

6. We renew our question as to why it's relevant.

7. Muslim checkmates us by saying that without a complete understanding of light refraction (like the one she got when she used to manage a group of physicists) we aren't qualified to comment on the color of the sky.

8. We counter that that's absurd and that the sky appears obviously blue.

8(a). Muslim Googles "sky blue", hits "I'm Feeling Lucky" and cuts and pastes the result into the thread without reading it.

8(b). We waste time reading the article, only to find out that it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

8(c). Muslim then asks a question whose answer is contained in the googled article.

8(d). We point out that the article has no relevance to the discussion.

8(e). Muslim attempts to argue that it does and in doing so slips up and reveals that she hasn't read it.

8(f). We draw attention to the error.

9. Muslim tells us that the sky on Mars is red.

10. We question the relevance.

11. Muslim posts an article on Mars.

12. Go to step 6 and repeat ad nauseum.

See how simple the system is?

No matter what you say, they have an excuse and answer. Don't judge the Koran by Muslim behavior, and don't judge Muslim behavior by the Koran.

They have mastered the art of circular reasoning and avoidance.

The Koran is the word of Allah because it says so in the Koran is the world of Allah because it says so in the Koran is the Word of Allah.

(Actual fact, Koran does claim it is the uncreated word of Allah).

This is circular reasoning par excellence, and there is absolutely no discussion or rational argument with folk who are raised on such logic and reasoning, they are slippery than a mercury.

Also why did Saudi prince al-Walid bin Talal call Rupert Murdoch and exert his influence to make Murdoch change the FOX news headline banner from "Muslim Riots" to "Civil Riots"? http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47771
Damage control because the truth makes Muslims look bad?

yes, nariz, circular,
round,like a wheel,
round and round the words of allah go,
telling us we're bound for hell as
an infidel but not if we follow mo.

reasoning?
who needs to reason?
why think when it's all in the books?
or ask an imam, they know,
they've been educated
in some of the finest universities
in the poorest third world countries,
and brainwashed before they're three.

“I ask Ispanan one question- Before comming to France, are these guys living in luxurey? Did France invited them?”

If you would have really examined the subject, you would realize this doesn’t apply –the people involved in the riots were born in France, and thus French citizens on their own right, but citizens treated a second-class citizens, because there is no way they will get a job when their employer finds where they come from –and that applies for all the inhabitants of these suburbs, Muslim or not. That, and the diminishment of the subventions the government gave to suburbs organizations are the major cause for the riots.

“Your Islamic countries never let a christian,Jew or a hindu to immigrate”

Where did you get that from?

“The Hindus,Jews,Busdhist,and chritians make best,reliable,and trustworthy immigrants. They will never find fault in every thing,while enjoying a royal life her,never burn churces,cars,buildings,subways,and never ever" kill the hand that feeds."

Oh, yeah, go ask the Europeans what they think about the oriental Europeans, like Rumanians, they will tell you if they are more reliable than Muslims.

To gain a perspective on the level of Muslim extrtemism throughout the globe
More than 3500 Islamic terror attacks since 911.
November 2005
134 Jihad attacks
716 Dead Bodies
1077 Critically Injured
yes of course the Riots in france were arranged by the CIA whose agents posed as young "alienated" muslims to reinforce the case for the liberation of Iraq!

To gain a perspective on the level of Occidental extremism throughout the globe since 9/11:

100 000 “collateral damages” during the Iraq invasion
A ruined country
Use of chemical weapons against Iraqi cities, the American government first denying, and then admitting it.
Abu Graib
Guantanamo
Etc

But of course, these events were arranged by Al-qaeda whose agents committed those crimes to deteriorate the image of the occidental democracies!

Btw I take by your name you may be French. If that is the case, do you agree with the comments about French made above, or is it just that you prefer to argue with me instead?

“The rioters in LA weren't demanding the establishment of religious Muslim enclaves under sharia law as the French rioters are”

Really? Wow, I think I missed that part. Could you point me to an article where they are demanding this?

“If a Mosque was burned it was probably because of fire on other buildings nearby spreading because rioters shot at firefighters and police so they stayed away and let it burn, retaliation by non-Muslims or Muslims could have set fire to the Mosques to shift blame away from themselves.”

What the hell are you trying to say there? That didn’t make any sense.

“Also the riots in France have resulted in the deportation of over 25,000 illegal Muslim aliens in France back to North Africa. The riots in LA had no deportations. The riots in LA were over rather quickly. The French riots are still going”

Where would they have deported them? To Africa? And yes, seeing how 60 were dead during the LA riots, and one in the France riots, thank God the LA riots ended “quickly”.
“As regards trying to debate with Muslims like Ispanan, forget it. Part of a Madrass education is how to argue with kafirs. I call it illogic 101.”

Yes, when someone disagrees with you, its useless to debate with him, since you are obviously right –I know, people such as Muslims or leftists have that annoying habit of not listening to reason.

Oh, by the way, I agree that the sky is blue –on a cloudless day of course- so Im sorry to say your illogic 101 is totally unvalidated.

"What the hell are you trying to say there? That didn’t make any sense."
Is English your primary or secondary language? Let me explain this slowly:
If a fire is started in a building next to a mosque and the people who started the fire shoot guns at the firefighters so the firefighters cannot get to the fire to put out the fire then the fire can spread to the mosque and set the mosque on fire also, even though the mosque was not the intended target originally.
Secondly, Muslims have bombed their own mosques, as in Iraq, Sunnis bombing Shia mosques, so why can't they set fire to a mosque and blame Christians?
Understand? Or do I need to use smaller words?
"Where would they have deported them?" Ignoramus. You deport illegal aliens, not citizens. Skin color is not the issue. Nationality is the issue. The point you try to ignore is that many of the rioters in France are Muslims from Algires and North Africa who are there illegally.

This same grovelling, dribbling, snivelling rupert - who seems to love money & power above all else - who caved in to the miserable lying, death-loving, mysoginistic moslems. This same man?[a generic term only} backs a lying right wing conservative government here in Oz. This same government has sent troops to both iraq and afghanistan.
What a seemingly twisted individual eh? numbat

Ispanan I meerly suggested the possibility. If Sunis bomb Shiite mosques, why not? Or is something like that beyond your ability to comprehend? Of course it was probably Christians screaming "allah akbar" by your twisted logic! Just the kind of assinine stupidity I would expect from someone who thinks the Quran, a book with no prophecy in it, qualifies Mohammed as a prophet. Of course the Quran also tells Muslims they are superior when they have contributed nothing of value to modern society. LOL! You are good for a laugh kid!

Ispanan, you need to watch your foul mouth kid. Those kind of insultds will not be tolerated on this, or any decent board any more than it would in public. If the Muslim workers in Spain don't like their working conditions, why don't they leave and go back where they came from? Because it is worse where they came from than it is in Spain. All Muslim nations are third world countries, not because of some imagined plot by the Jews, but because Islam keeps its believers enslaved in a 7th century mentality. Muslim nations are impoverished because they follow Islam. That is why they have never made the advances Western nations have.

Sebastien merci... I was going to give them the link to the "allah ou akhbar" video as well...

Joe: yes the locals do care ! People were mad of anger and they still are. Wait until 2007.

Mosquees burning ? Where, when ? The tiniest incident involving a mosquee becomes a national drama in France, so if some mosquees had burnt, I would have known it.

Most rioters were young Muslims from North Africa and Black Africa (not all of them, but most of them) and most of them were under 18 so anyway, not in age of having a job so.... I wonder why "unemployment" was invoked to explain their outburst.

I work in a place with Muslim people and they were all rejoicing (openly) during the riots. One of them said "I hope they will also burn Paris" (of course, no consideration for my presence)

I also went to "youth" web sites during the riots and God, they hate us (some of their web sites or "blogs" have been closed down during the riots for "racial hatred").

The people who burnt, killed and threw stones were mainly Muslim. Sorry if reality is reality.

Lastly, I liked the humour of our government... they kept saying: "it has nothing, NOTHING to do with Islam" and at the same time, they were entertaining the Muslim authorities in all the palaces of the Republic to apologise to them and finally, calmed everybody down with millions of euros...

Too bad the journalist of CNN had not the courage to film the events... instead she kept safe in a nice area of Paris and interviewed a kind rapper who spoke perfect English and who explained to her that the youth were demonstrating because the French are racist. And she said "do you think it is the new hip hop generation ?" But ok I understand, if she had gone to the suburbs she might have been injured by less kind rappers of the "hip hop generation".

Strange times we are living, when victims are ignored and criminals praised...

Ispannan, while you're defending AFrican workers, research why Islam still permits slavery and why Saudi Arabia has blocked every attempt by the UN to ban slavery worldwide. Also tell us why the word "abeed" in Arabic means both slave and black, and then tell us about Mohammed's slaves, how he called them "raisinheads" and how he said one black slave looked like Satan.

joiesauvage, lots of people haven't heard, but the North African Muslim youth has actively resisted becoming French, even going as far as creating their own language. They speak many French words backwards, like reading Arabic, right to eft and they call it "Ebara", French for Arab, "Arabe", but spelled backwards. It is not solely France's fault that they are not assimilated into the French culture. Of course the unholy, ignoble Quran tells Muslims not to have anything to do with the cultures they inhabit, in suras 4:144 "O you who believe, you shall not ally yourselves with the disbelievers, instead of the believers. Do you wish to provide GOD with a clear proof against you?"
and 3:118: O ye who believe! Take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks: They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin: Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: What their hearts conceal is far worse. We have made plain to you the Signs, if ye have wisdom.

And about the French "racism"... As a 30 years old French citizen, I cannot accept that accusation as I have never met a racist person in France.
The French are not racist, it is one of the less racist nation on the surface of the earth. It welcomed millions of people from North Africa, gave them one of the highest State subventions in the world, cured them freely, allowed them to speak and to follow whatever faith was theirs. The Muslims are welcomed in France ! The foreigners are a chance for France.
People who are not welcomed are those who openly say their hatred towards France and who detroy other people's property, who aggress people every day in the suburbs because they are "white" or "jews" or "french" or women who do not wear a bloody veil. You should hear the lyrics of their rap songs. Those ones are certainly not welcomed and it is not racist to say it.
We welcome anybody as long as they respect the others and live according to a decent level of civilisation.
As for those who keep complaining about being so unhappy in France, and that France is such an injust country, why don't they leave France ? They are allowed to leave France. I would leave France if I thought it was hell on earth.

Bohemond_1069 I am French, I know how they speak, I know they speak Arabic between them, and sometimes even to me... It would not be a problem if on the other hand they did not assassinate old men or burn old women in the street.

To anybody who is wondering what is the state of minf of the French today: we are furious. We are concerned. And you will see it in 2007.

joiesauvage

i went to paris with my japanese girlfriend, i have never experienced racism as what i encountered in paris before. one scene i remember a youth on the eiffel tower squinting his eyes to pretend to be a jap and saying "aaaahhhso".

Euhh... where has my last comment gone?

leom sorry about that ! i said that I have never met a racist person, but maybe I have been lucky. My point was that a country which welcomes people and gives them a living and cures them and allows them to have their own culture cannot be called "racist".

joiesauvage,

Thanks for your posts, given that you have lived in France all your life, and therefore know what you're talking about.

leom,

I'm always troubled to hear examples of racism, such as what you've described, as well as the racist and bigoted comments that the rioters were making.

Ispanan,

You have shown us, many times, that you are reckless and have no shame. I saw your post before it got deleted. In it, you were apparently throwing another one of your temper tantrums and using foul language (see Robert's disclaimer at the top of the comments section). You should not be surprised.

Ha, and when sheik call me as-hole, it is not considered slanderous? Funny how you apply rules differently for each person!

Bohemond:

Saying that it was Muslims of different confessions who burned their own mosques proves again how little you know about the subject. All the rioters were of northern African ascendance, and in North Africa every Muslim is Sunni. The number of shi’a or other Islamic confessions Muslims is practically 0. now about your suggestion that Muslims have burned their mosques to put the blame on Christians, I wont comment it, as it is so ludicrous that it does need any comment. however I have to comment this:

“All Muslim nations are third world countries, not because of some imagined plot by the Jews, but because Islam keeps its believers enslaved in a 7th century mentality. Muslim nations are impoverished because they follow Islam. That is why they have never made the advances Western nations have.”

Now I will apply your marvellous logic, and elaborate:

· All Animist nations are third world countries because they follow Animism
· All Buddhists nations are third world countries because they follow Bhuddism
· All Hinduist nations are third world countries because they follow Hinduism

Btw the Muslim civilization gave Occident advances that were essential for his posterior progress (medicine, mathematics…). Renaissance occurred thanks to Muslim civilization.

Wildjoy (sorry but I just think it is so much cooler than “joiesauvage” :P):

You have no clue about mosques burning in France? Well that’s, weird, I searched google and find a whole list about it. But maybe this was not real and I was suffering some kind of hallucination? Anyway here is the link:

http://www.google.es/search?hl=es&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=mosques+attacked+France&meta=

Folks,

This “100 000 “collateral damages” during the Iraq invasion” due to "Occidental extremism throughout the globe since 9/11" that Ispanan cites is not accepted as a credible figure.

The Lancet study has been discredited. The estimate was based on a much smaller sample taken within the Sunni Triangle, and the reports did not distinguish among the dead in terms of civilian vs. military. On top of the other problems (see the linked articles) the margin of error on the 100,000 estimate was 92%. In other words, statistically, it’s garbage.

See Myth #1 regarding the 100,000 deaths estimate.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Articles/11Myths.htm

http://www.logictimes.com/antiwar.htm

http://www.logictimes.com/civilian.htm

This is in no way diminishes the importance of the civilian deaths. My point is simply that people should report accurate figures. This 100,000 figure is not accurate according to these up-to-date sources.

joiesauvage,

Here are a couple of examples of that hate rap from the "disenchanted youth" we've been hearing about.

Diane West writes about Islamofascist anti-French hate rap music.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20051110-080159-7881r.htm

"There is the rap band Sniper (nice), which, not incidentally, was unsuccessfully sued in 2004 by Mr. Sarkozy for violence and incitement in the song "La France." Sniper sings: "We're all hot for a mission to exterminate the government and the fascists... France is a b- and we've been betrayed... We f- France, we don't care about the Republic and freedom of speech. We should change the laws so we can see Arabs and Blacks in power in the Elysee Palace. Things have to explode."

“…rapper Mr. R has titled this song -- integrate this? "France is a b-, don't forget to f- her to exhaustion. You have to treat her like a whore, man!... France is one of the b- who gave birth to you... I am not at home and I don't give a d-, and besides the state can go f- itself. I pee on Napoleon and General de Gaulle... F- cops, sons of whores..."

Anti-white racism in France

http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/005/446loxwa.asp

Ispanan,

These are for you. I believe you were saying something, in a previous thread, about Islam's historical fine treatment of religious minorities?

Religious Minorities Under Islam Historically in Europe
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5016

Global Jihad Policy
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14578
This one backs it up
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18732

This one deals with Islamic treatment of POWs and non-combatants.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14964

Ispanan says : "You have no clue how many mosques are burning in France" And for reference,Ispanan has given the web site reference of 'mosque attack in france'. But the funniest part is, when I went to that site, the report was on a suspected attack of a SINGLE OUT OF USE MOSQUE.! No one was there inside that mosque,and no damage to life or property!. One out- of -use mosque damage Vs thousands of burnt cars,nine burnt churches,and two damaged synagaugs!! What a discovery to prove that even muslims suffered!. This is what they teach the muslims in Islamic Madarasas- The Koranic law of "TAQIYYA- DECEPTION"-Just tell lies in such a way,the infedels will believe it.! Ispanan,please go to the site of Ali Sina ( faith freedom.org)and get yourself free from the evil clutches.You will have peace of mind like the thousands ,who have done before. Good luck.

Ispanan,

In a previous thread, you tried to blame the Holocaust on Christian teachings. This is false. There is nothing in the New Testament that even remotely calls for the extermination of the Jews. (The most you will find are some anti-Semitic statements, but no calls for killing, no calls for subjugation, nothing). The issue is doctrinal support. Turn to the Islamic texts. The Hadiths do call for the expulsion of the Jews and calls specifically for their extermination.

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.

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.'"

This general policy of jihad against the Jews (and Christians) is stated in Sura 9. It is open-ended, and it is not abrogated.

9:29 “Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute [jizya tax] readily, being brought low.”

According to Sura 9, the idolaters are also to be put to the sword, and they are given no dhimmitude option here. (Verse of the Sword)

9:5 “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”

The conquering of all religions, no matter how averse this may be to the non-Muslims, is the overriding goal of Islam, according to the Koran.

Allah and his messengers will conquer (58:12). Ultimate goal: defeat/kill/convert/subjugate all unbelievers until all religion is for Allah (2:193, 8:39). Allah sent Mohammad (and his followers) to conquer all other religions (9:33, 48:28, 61:9). For a discussion of these verses of imperialism, which call for real battle, not some inner struggle, see http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/ultimate_goal.htm

9:33 “He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse.”

Also, you seemed to be surprised when sheik said that Mohammad had been victorious with terror. Why are you surprised? Here's the quote (and there's more like it):

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220: Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).

Ispanan,

Last myth for today. "Renaissance was thanks to Muslim civilization.." Sorry we must bust this myth.

http://www.ninevehsoft.com/fiorina.htm

BTW, just think about that. Have you actually read the Islamic texts (Koran, Hadith, Sira)? Do you seriously think that there is anything in there that contributes to Art, Science, Mathematics? This is absurd. (Mohammad did not even allow pictures of living things). Do you want to know Mohammad's level of thinking?

Exhibit 1.
Bukhari:V2B24N555 “I heard the Prophet say, ‘Allah hates for you for asking too many questions.’”

Exhibit 2.
Childish vindictiveness: disbelievers make fun of believers, but the final laugh will be on the disbelievers (83:29-36).

Exhibit 3.
Mohammad says menstruation is an illness (2:222)

Exhibit 4.
(Christians and/or Jews are) turned into “apes and/or pigs” (2:65-66, 5:58-60, 7:166).

Exhibit 5.
In his early phase as a self-proclaimed prophet, people dismissed Mohammad and mocked him (e.g., they considered him a “mad poet,” see 37:36). Mohammad cursed them (Allah would doom them (37:33)).

And you think this genius contributed the the Renaissance?

Ispanan I researched your claims that "mosques were burned". I found one in Clichy-sous-Bois where a tear gas grenade went off on 30 Oct. NO mention of it burning. The news reported that a mosque in Carpentras had 2 firebombs thrown in it by an "unknown assailant". They did virtually NO damage. As far as I can tell, NO mosques were burned to the ground or destroyed. By 17 November one dozen Christian churches were burned, ransacked or otherwise defiled by Muslim rioters. Synagogues were burned in Leon, Strasbourg, Toloun, Bondy, Bagnolet, La Courneuve, Julien-La Croix, Toulouse, Paris, Noisy-Le-Sec, and Marsielles.
You also claim "...Muslim civilization gave Occident advances that were essential for his posterior progress (medicine, mathematics…). Renaissance occurred thanks to Muslim civilization..."
That is a lie that is commonly repeated by Muslims and Muslim apologists. Muslim armies invaded lands that had been Helenized by the Greeks, notably Alexander the Great, and taught Greek mathematics, science, medicine and art centuried before Mohammed was born. Archimedes, Pythagoras, Euclid, and Diophantus of Alexandria, considered to be the father of ancient algebra, these Greeks were the fathers of modern math, not Arabs. Even the so called "Arabic numbers" are actually Hindu and were brought to the Greek trained mathematicians by Muslim traders. Muslims copied the Byzantine cathederals and architecture incorporating the Christian originated domes into their mosques. In many insances they simply converted the churches into mosques after they slaughtered the Christians. Prior to the invasion of Christian lands all mosques were open, like the kaab in Mecca still is. Islam is not an innovator or creator, meerly a copier. At one point after being defeated by Christian armies, the caliph ordered all books except the Quran destroyed. His reasoning was that anythign that added to the Quran was superfluous and not needed, and if it contradicted the Quran it was heretical. Islmaic society has contributed nothing of value to modern society. Electricity, radio, television, telephones, cars, airplanes, rockets, medicines, science, all advanced without any Islamic influence. Even in Buddhist countries Televisions and cars are produced. In Islamic countries, nothing. No TV's, no cars, no stoves, air conditioners, nothing. If not for oil Muslim nations would have even less thatn they do. Even the oil they have was found and developed by Western society. The princes keep the money they get from their countries oil reserves to build palaces for themselves while the majority of their people live in poverty.

joiesauvage

but i did have a lovely french girlfriend earlier to that and i do love the french people, very cultural and family oriented!

i was devastated to hear about the riots, and still the flames burn.

viva la francais!!!

Iraqi civilian deaths estimates.

“How many civilians have died since the onset of the war in Iraq? There are varying reports, but the consensus appears to be between 3,000 on the low end and 30,000 people on the high end (here and here). An excellent argument can be made that these numbers are wildly inflated (the ratio of men to women killed in these supposedly random collateral events is a curious 10:1), however, for the purpose of debate, let us grant this claim and assign validity to the running tally kept on iraqbodycount.net:
[gives an estimated range of 26521 – 29873 deaths]”
-brackets added.

http://www.logictimes.com/antiwar.htm

Would it have been better under Saddam's regime? Based on the average rate of deaths under his regime, if had Saddam and his party been left in power, the number of civilian casualties in the same period of time would have been higher than the Iraqbodycount estimates.

Ispanan:

“…Occidental extremism throughout the globe since 9/11:”

Do you include going after Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the category of “Occidental extremism”? Perhaps you would prefer we did nothing and let them kill us? “Throughout the globe”? No.
But Islamic atrocities, terror, and death threats, all ordered by the Koran, are being carried out around most of the globe. (The Islamists are not attacking or threatening the Arctic and Antarctic).

“100 000 “collateral damages” during the Iraq invasion”

You lied. See previous refutations.

“A ruined country”

I personally did not agree with the initial bombing of Iraq, but you neglect to mention that attempts to rebuild the country and establish security are being thwarted by Islamists only.

You also neglect to mention that, to the dismay of the Iraqi women, other Islamists have brought in elements of sharia law. They will not accept anything but an Islamist government. How can you blame this travesty on the Americans, who would have wanted a free democracy where women have equal rights?

You neglect to mention that things could easily have been worse if Saddam had not been removed. You also neglect to mention that much of the killing going on there, since the initial invasion, would not be happening at all except for Saddam Sunni loyalists and various Islamic insurgents/terrorist groups.

”Use of chemical weapons against Iraqi cities, the American government first denying, and then admitting it.”

Don’t you mean Fallujah, whose ‘ordinary citizens’ slaughtered and mutilated western security workers’ bodies deliberately in front of the camera in order to further traumatize the victims’ families and enrage non-Muslim societies all around the globe? Those people who, instead of worrying about and apologizing for the brutality, or trying carefully to reduce the death and suffering, celebrate it with glee and yells of Allahu Akbar, and call for more and more killing? A city where every effort has been made to evacuate civilians?

I don’t support the use of chemical weapons in a context where civilians might be affected. That said, we are in a war against people who will stop at nothing, and would enjoy nothing in the world more than to slaughter and torture all non-Muslims, simply for no other reason than that we are not Muslims. Those Islamists are even killing other Muslims, claiming that the victims are not true Muslims or not Muslim enough, etc.

The Islamist attack us for the crime of being non-Muslim (and the Koran says disbelief is the worst crime). There is no such thing as an innocent civilian in the Koran. There are only Muslims and the "guilty" non-Muslim "beasts."

”Abu Graib, Guantanamo.”

…which contain terrorists, enemy combatants, criminals, and clear suspects. There are investigations, worry, etc., from Americans and westerners, about the well-being of said rogues and suspects. Try to compare this to Koran-inspired beheadings of civilian hostages (who are not regarded as civilians in Islam), which are celebrated by the killers.

“But of course, these events were arranged by Al-qaeda whose agents committed those crimes to deteriorate the image of the occidental democracies!”

No one ever claimed that. You are attacking an imaginary argument (straw man fallacy).

Ispanan,

In the previous thread you said to sheik,

"You are not allowing or forbidding anyone to get away with anything, nor you or the other people who post here will achieve any of what you want to achieve."

The people at this site want Islamic Koran-based terrorism, tyranny, violence, rape, threats, archaic restrictions, etc. to stop. To achieve this, radically reconstructing or totally repudiating the Islamic doctrines is one of the necessary ingredients. Another is to solve the problem of the radical clerics (who are merely conveying the Koran), dictators, officials, teachers, and parents who propagate, maintain, and enforce the Islamic doctrines of hate. Certain groups, such as terrorist groups and militant Islamic regime leaders, for all practical purposes, must be killed or captured--they leave us no other option.

Do you agree with us, or not?

I can really feel for Joiesauvage. When we talk about France's problem, we should recall that certain French politicians, soit de gauche, soit de droite [both right and left], helped create the current problem. Giscard d'Estaing, a so-called conservative, brought in many North African immigrants, making various specious excuses for doing so.

More recently, the previous socialist govt, in which Hubert Vedrine, son of a Vichyite official father, was foreign minister, prepared the way for the present aggression against French society. This is because that govt allowed Arab attacks in France on Jews and Jewish institutions, starting in early October 2000. These attacks included the burning of several synagogues and other Jewish institutions. When it came to Jews, there was no such thing as an innocent civilian, in the eyes of the Arabs and of the pro-Arab French political activists, left and right [i.e., Pascal Boniface, etc.]. The major French TV, radio, and press encouraged hatred for Jews by falsely reporting what was happening in Israel, and portraying Israel as being brutal to Arabs. This kind of agitprop could not help but stir up the Arab population in France against Israel and the local Jews. Leila Shahid, one of the PLO/PA's stable of talented liars, was repeatedly a guest of the French media on nearly every or every channel and radio frequency, allowed to spew her lies right and left. Moreover, she agitated against French Jews in her clever way. After one of the first attacks on a synagogue [in Trappes, near Paris, I believe], she was invited onto a news program on France 2 or TV5. She was shown film of a burned synagogue. She was asked if that were not antisemitism. She answered, shamelessly lying, "Ce n'est pas l'antisemitisme." That is, burning a synagogue was NOT antisemitism, according to the official PLO/PA spokeswoman in France, as much or more of a superliar as Chirac is a supermenteur. This could only encourage such burnings. Yet Leila Shahid continued to be invited over and over to speak on TV, radio, to the press, etc. The socialist govt did not do much to stop or prevent the attacks on Jews, and the next, "right-wing" govt did better, but not by much. As one might have expected, after the Arabs in the banlieues had gotten away with violence against Jews, they concluded that they could get away with violence against French society in general. It seems that they were right in their reckoning. So the French authorities and establishment helped pave the road to the present assaults on French society.

Eliyahu,

I'm glad you brought us back on topic. There is a long list of circumstantial evidence, documented throughout much of November on jihadwatch and dhimmiwatch, that supports the thesis that Islam is a key factor in the riots. With all of that, Bat Ye'or's thesis provides the context necessary to understand this conflict.

Eurabia Defined. Andrew Bostom Relates Bat Ye’or’s Thesis to the Riots in France.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4987

For anyone researching the Islamic aspect to the riots in France, the "iris" site contains a huge compilation of articles.

http://www.iris.org.il/blog/archives/561-Evidence-the-Paris-Riots-Are-Actually-the-French-Intifada.html

The Islamic aspect is not the only factor, but it ultimately may be the key factor contibuting to the conflict. The anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-French aspects confirm this. The strong anti-white racism has also been neglected in the mainstream media.

Leom,
Thank you for loving France XXX.

Ispanan,
I wanted to answer you but Rafia and Bohemond_1069 did it better than I could have (thank you to them).

Eliyahu,
I am impressed by your knowledge of France... well people from outside often understand better than people from inside... for obvious reaons.
Are you Jewish ? If yes (or even if not !), you will be interested in the new "polémique" which has just enflamed our mediocre columns... It is about one of our most honest "intellectuals", Alain Finkielkraut, Jewish, who has always stood against any kind of racism / fascism. He dared tell some Israeli newspaper that the Paris rioters were "Blacks and Arabs", and immediately: "reductio ad hitlerium", as we say now (= he was accused of hitlerism, fascism etc). He is in big trouble now, as some "associations" are signing "pétitions" for him to dismiss from his "émission" at France Culture (the very left wing, pseudo intellectual, politically correct Parisian radio).
He is not the first one to be "reducted to Hitler". Before him and with him, there was the novelist Renaud Camus (accused of "antisemitism"), Philippe Muray (another novelist who enjoys making fun of the French journalists), Nicolas Sarkozy (who dared send the police in the banlieues), Maurice Dantec (another novelist, a bit mad this one), Oriana Fallaci, Jean Raspail. etc. A historian recently created a scandal because he had dared say in his book that slavery had also been practiced by black people against other black people...

The only crime of those people ? they derived from the official Dogma.

Trouble is this time, Alain Finkielkraut is really respected by his readers, and cannot decently be accused of racism. People wrote to the newspapers who are accusing him (mainly "Le Monde", "Libération" and "Le Nouvel Observateur"), to claim their anger that such a honest man could be humiliated this way and publicly insulted.

It is just an example of what is happening in France: freedom of speech is disappearing. Being Jewish is not sufficient. You can be Jewish and still be accused of being "nazi". Actually, the accusators (probably feeling that they are almost finished) have dramatically increased their hatred, irrational attacks against anybody who does not agree with their Doxa. (A sign that they are almost dead ?)

I feel very sad for Finkielkraut but at the same time, it is so gross that it can only reveal the true nature of the accusators: mediocre journalists, full of hatred and unable to even debate. Finkielkraut is clearly superior to them, his culture and open mindedness and reputation are superior.. and he writes better.

All those people who have been "reduced to Hitler" are now called the "neo cons" by the left wing press, very proud of having found a new label for all those renegates. Trouble is, those people are good people ! One of them said "well I feel flattered to be called a neo con if it is to figure amongst people like Finkielkraut or Renaud Camus" !

Are things changing in France ? The accusation of Finkielkraut helps making the Parisian microcosmos even less credible.

I believe (I hope) that in America, you have more respect for freedom of expression. When Renaud Camus was ostracised in France, the American universities were still entertaining him, arguing that "we Americans are not antisemitic as we fought against Hitler during the war and hence we dont have to accuse everybody of antisemitism to make us feel better + we think that feedom of expression is important".

Anyway... what was the real Crime of Finkielkraut ? He said IT, the FORBIDDEN thing... he said the word "MUSLIM", he said "the rioters are Muslim", which made everybody tremble and get funny and shout "you RACIST !!" .... a racist Jew... a racist Christian, a racist gay, a racist neo con, a racist anything... but never: a racist Muslim ! As Archimedes said: there is a strong racism in the rap songs but hey, guys, caution: this is ART !!! (caution: this is ISLAM ! DONT EVEN THINK ABOUT IT !)

Those contradictions, however, are becoming too gross... that is why I am not so pessimistic... I know that more and more people will happily let themselves ostracised by our "Pensée Unique" and be proud of it ! There will be more than one Socrates...

Excerpts from the above-cited link on Racism/hate against white French.

Mugged by la Réalité
From the April 11, 2005 issue: The unreported race riot in France.
by Olivier Guitta
04/11/2005, Volume 010, Issue 28

Excerpt From Page 1

On March 8, tens of thousands of high school students marched through central Paris to protest education reforms announced by the government. Repeatedly, peaceful demonstrators were attacked by bands of black and Arab youths--about 1,000 in all, according to police estimates. The eyewitness accounts of victims, teachers, and most interestingly the attackers themselves gathered by the left-wing daily Le Monde confirm the motivation: racism.
Some of the attackers openly expressed their hatred of "little French people." One 18-year-old named Heikel, a dual citizen of France and Tunisia, was proud of his actions. He explained that he had joined in just to "beat people up," especially "little Frenchmen who look like victims." He added with a satisfied smile that he had "a pleasant memory" of repeatedly kicking a student, already defenseless on the ground.
Another attacker explained the violence by saying that "little whites" don't know how to fight and "are afraid because they are cowards." Rachid, an Arab attacker, added that even an Arab can be considered a "little white" if he "has a French mindset." The general sentiment was a desire to "take revenge on whites."
Sometimes petty theft appeared to be the initial motivation. One or two bullies would approach a student and ask for money or a cell phone. Even if the victim complied right away, they would start beating him or her. A striking account was provided by Luc Colpart, a history and geography teacher and member of the far-left union SUD. Colpart said the scenes of violence were so disturbing that he could not sleep for days. He saw students being beaten or pulled by the hair. He stressed that assailants who stole cell phones smashed them in front of their victims: "It was a game. Hatred and fun."
Colpart, who is active in anti-racist causes, confirmed that "these were racial assaults," and the attackers used "far-right slurs, violent and racist." One black student he saw come to the defense of a fellow student under attack by three blacks was called "a white sellout" by the assailants. Some scores of victims were taken to hospitals. Those who were interviewed confirmed that they had been caught up in an "anti-white" rampage and that the cops did nothing to protect them.
In response to this event, a group of leading public figures, along with 1,000 high school students, issued a statement denouncing "anti-white" pogroms. Among them were the philosopher Alain Finkielkraut, the journalist Jacques Julliard from the weekly Le Nouvel Observateur, former minister of public health and founder of Doctors Without Borders Bernard Kouchner, bestselling Iranian-born author Chahdortt Djavann, the journalist Ghaleb Bencheikh, and the film director Elie Chouraqui. At a press conference announcing the release of the statement on March 25, Finkielkraut denounced Francophobia and Judeophobia

Excerpt from Page 2
…Beneath the radar are other incidents, seemingly petty, yet telling, such as one I happened to witness in a Paris department store a few months back. A woman was pushing her baby in a stroller down an aisle. Behind her was a well-dressed, prosperous-looking Arab woman in a hurry. Suddenly the Arab woman pushed the mother, saying, "Move, dirty Frenchwoman" ("Dégage, sale française"). The familiar epithet "dirty Jew" is apparently being extended for more general use.
“Another remarkable verbal innovation is the use of the word "Gaulois"--an inhabitant of Gaul, the part of the Roman Empire that became France--to identify the non-Jewish, non-Muslim, non-black French. Today, the term is used mostly by Muslims and blacks, but, amazingly enough, French whites are starting to pick it up as the rift between ethnic communities grows wider. Journalist Stéphanie Marteau, in an online interview about her new book on Muslim France, for example, speaks of "the Gaulois vote."
Nowhere are the new tensions more obvious than in schools, as documented in a report on the Islamization of French schools delivered to the minister of education in late 2004 by the inspector general of national education, Jean-Pierre Obin. Not publicly released at the time, it has since been leaked and posted on the website Proche-Orient.info.
Obin discusses the attitudes of Muslim students, some as young as first graders. He reports, for instance, that Muslim students, asked their nationality, answer, "Muslim." When they are told that this is not a nationality and they are French, some insist that they can't be French since they are Muslim. This should come as no surprise. The presidential commission that examined the issue of secularism in 2003 reported that "extremist groups are working to test the Republic's strength and push some young people to reject France and her values."
Obin concludes his report with an appeal to the lucidity and courage of French leaders. So far, however, the Chirac administration has shown little willingness to address the new racism. It was similarly slow to recognize the largest wave of anti-Semitic vandalism to hit France since the 1930s. And Chirac personally blundered last July 14, when, in the course of his traditional Bastille Day press interview, he distinguished between "our Jewish and Muslim compatriots" and "just plain French." Jacques Chirac must know that fraternity is one of the pillars of the French Republic. If it crumbles, the whole house will collapse.
--------------
End of Excerpts.

Link
http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/005/446loxwa.asp

Archimedes... thank you for that.

"A striking account was provided by Luc Colpart, a history and geography teacher and member of the far-left union SUD. Colpart said the scenes of violence were so disturbing that he could not sleep for days".

I saw Colpart on TV not so long ago in a show called: "Is there an anti white racism ?" (thank you for the question mark...)I can tell you Colpart was still traumatised and trembling when he was telling his story. However -and it is all the ambiguity of the socialists -he was still unable to admit that there is a real problem and the debate was going on: "IS THERE an anti white racism" as if it was even questionable. Same for one of the high school kids who had been beaten up: during the demonstration, some "youth" told him "dirty white ass France belongs to the Arabs" and hit him. But the high school kid concluded like this: "I think we must be tolerant and accept eveybody as they are"... Brainwashing, delightful brainwashing...

But those things are happening everyday. Why do you think so many "gaulois" are leaving the banlieues (when they have enough money) ? You should hear the stories people tell. Constant aggressions, insults, stones thrown to girls called "sluts" because they do not wear a veil, rapes, threats... and the boys who rape can be 11 years old.

A friend of mine was an "instituteur" (teacher) in one of the hottest "banlieue" and I remember, I always got depressed when he was telling me what was going on there (it was a few years ago). Kids answering him in Arab, threatening him... when he asked "what job do you want to do when you are big" they answered: "I want to get the State subventions like dad, I dont have to work".

Archimedes... thank you for that.

"A striking account was provided by Luc Colpart, a history and geography teacher and member of the far-left union SUD. Colpart said the scenes of violence were so disturbing that he could not sleep for days".

I saw Colpart on TV not so long ago in a show called: "Is there an anti white racism ?" (thank you for the question mark...)I can tell you Colpart was still traumatised and trembling when he was telling his story. However -and it is all the ambiguity of the socialists -he was still unable to admit that there is a real problem and the debate was going on: "IS THERE an anti white racism" as if it was even questionable. Same for one of the high school kids who had been beaten up: during the demonstration, some "youth" told him "dirty white ass France belongs to the Arabs" and hit him. But the high school kid concluded like this: "I think we must be tolerant and accept eveybody as they are"... Brainwashing, delightful brainwashing...

But those things are happening everyday. Why do you think so many "gaulois" are leaving the banlieues (when they have enough money) ? You should hear the stories people tell. Constant aggressions, insults, stones thrown to girls called "sluts" because they do not wear a veil, rapes, threats... and the boys who rape can be 11 years old.

A friend of mine was an "instituteur" (teacher) in one of the hottest "banlieue" and I remember, I always got depressed when he was telling me what was going on there (it was a few years ago). Kids answering him in Arab, threatening him... when he asked "what job do you want to do when you are big" they answered: "I want to get the State subventions like dad, I dont have to work".

sorry posted twice...

joiesauvage, merci des mots de sorte mon ami (thank you for the kind words my friend). Evariste Galois was a young Frenchman who did more for le Algebra than all the Islamic world combined. L'Islam est la religion des barbares, des fous et des imbéciles (Islam is the religion of barbarians, madmen and fools).

joiesauvage,

We are fortunate to have your posts. Unfortunately, I think most people where I live (Canada) have no knowledge of what is happening in Europe. Our mainstream media is similar to France's--very politically-correct and afraid to criticize Islam. Your media seems to know the problem but is covering it up, and our media is naive.

I complained to two of the main television broadcasters here (CTV and CBC) because they kept talking about how racism was a cause of the riots in France. This one-sided, simplistic discussion of racism gives people the impression that this is simply a problem of white French being racist against the Arabs and Blacks. (And therefore reducing their employment opportunities, keeping them segregated, etc.). I thought that this was terrible insult to the French people. By then I was well aware (thanks to websites such as fjordman's and JW's) of the problem of the predominantly Muslim hatred against whites and Jews in France. I also complained to the Canadian broadcasters about their reference to "France's failed Integration policy". They don't realize that traditional Islam requires that Muslims do not integrate with any other culture. They also did not realize the history and government ideology that motivated the development of separate enclaves originally.

To approach the story properly required their journalists to dig deeper, spend more time in France, research the history of the immigration and integration policies. Of course, they also had to research Islam. But political correctness, which has become established as a form of bigotry, probably prevented them from researching further, and certainly restricted what they reported.

We too had so-called expert commentators claiming that Islam had nothing to do with the riots. But if had they read the Koran, they would have seen the Muslim/non-Muslim social apartheid policy. They would also have found in the Koran the clear and consistent incitement to hatred against all non-Muslims. This is a recipe for social unrest.

Had they studied the history of Islam, without the apologist filters, they would understand that there is a consistent theme of conflict whenever Muslims come into contact with non-Muslims. There is a recurring theme, which goes all the way back to Mohammad, of some (non-violent) words or deeds of non-Muslims causing Muslims to become terribly offended and violent. The Muslim violence then can lead to deaths of non-Muslims. In response to those deaths, non-Muslims fight back...and so the cycle of violence continues. At any time, a cycle of violence can be triggered because some strict Muslim, somewhere, is offended. Because there are so many things that are offensive to Islam, there will always be trouble until Islam is either reformed radically or else rejected totally.

Ispamem not around today? Maybe he is at vespers ;-)

Archimedes:

1.It is understandable that those same people who bash Muslims intend to make revisionism about the crimes committed against them. Lets say the Lancet study is false (even tough it doesn’t mean automatically the number was inferior but that it could be either lower, or HIGHER). We would anyway have to add the indirect victims, like the ones killed by the lack of infrastructures (hospitals). We would also have to add the victims of depleted uranium bombs. And finally we would have to add the victims of the 12 years embargo that the ONU, under the pressure of the US, imposed on Iraq: an embargo who directly caused the death of 5000 Iraqi less than 5 years old childs per month. In total, the victims of the embargo, adult and children, were some 1 500 000, to which we must add the misery of the rest of the population. The embargo who affects the civil population, especially the children is qualified as genocide by the Geneva Convention, and as such 3 administrators of the embargo resigned their posts, accusing the UN of genocide. Now you can make all the revisionism you want, link me to all sorts of studies, but that wont change the fact that Occident has killed far, FAR more innocents than the Islamist terrorists ever did.

2. Excepting the fact that I rather said that under Islam minorities were treated far better than in other parts of the world, that this article don’t mention how the minorities were treated in Christian Europe, and that it is a right-winged site, yeah, that’s ok.

3. The very fact that Jews crucified Jesus, along with other anti-Semitic statements pretty much encourages anti-Semitism, and it is the cause of the several pogroms that took place in Europe, many of them supported by the Church. There have even been anti-Semitism writings from members of the Church. Hitler, to justify the Holocaust, used passages from the Bible. And now this is where it gets funny. You say: “There is nothing in the New Testament that even remotely calls for the extermination of the Jews. (The most you will find are some anti-Semitic statements, but no calls for killing, no calls for subjugation, nothing)”. Wow, now that makes really a big difference! If the Bible is far more tolerant towards Jews than Koran, then why were they persecuted under Christian rule more than under Islamic rule? Why did the Genocide happen? And why were the Christian Germans ok with it?

You quote hadiths as calling for the killing of Jews, yet the hadiths are in most part historical recits, some of them are of dubious authenticity, but not religious doctrine. You quoted verses, I will quote you others:

"If your Lord would have desired so, all the inhabitants of the Earth, absolutely all of them, would have believed. And you want to force them to believe?”

“There is no place for coercion in religion”

"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over a white - except by piety and good action"

"Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause."

"O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other (not that you may despise each other). Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. "

"To kill one innocent human being is like killing the entire humanity; and to save one life is like saving all of humanity"

We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets, from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another among them, and to Allah do we bow our will (in Islam).

"Those with Faith, those who are Jews, and the Christians and Sabaeans, all who have Faith in Allah and the Last Day and act rightly, will have their reward with their Lord. They will feel no fear and will know no sorrow."

"Only argue with the People of the Book in the kindest way - except in the case of those of them who do wrong - saying, 'We have Faith in what has been sent down to us and what was sent down to you. Our God and your God are one and we submit to Him."

Since these verses cannot be abrogated either, this means that the verses who talk of war / fight either must not be taken literally (for example, fight to convert means rather a fight with “the heart and the word”), either must be taken in a particular context, by example the “infidels” mentioned in many of these texts refer to the Meccans, who attacked Muhammad and his followers. That's the explanation really. Now of course, Islam, like every other religion, can be interpretated in a way to do mishief. Crimes such as forced conversions, slaughters etc. were done by Muslims just as much as by Christians. Anyway, about the Muslim expansion, I will give you two examples: in the Middle-East they were called and helped by the Jews and conquered the region with the passivity of the Christians, tired from the oppression of the Christian orthodox Byzantine empire. Same in Spain, where they were called by one of the two factions opposed in the civil war that was taking place.

In many regions, like Sub-saharian Africa, Central and South-East Asia, Islam was spread peacefully, by Muslim missionaries.

I read your article. Not only it was ridiculously biased, but it also falls short of saying that Assyrians, that almost NO ONE has ever heard about, were the most brilliant civilization to ever exist. And if the author says the Arabs merely took the knowledge that Assyrians had left in the Middle East, then I wonder: if so, why the Byzantine Empire, who was far more advanced than the Arabs at the time of the conquest of the Middle East, had not took this knowledge before? Why was it only, amazing coincidence, when the Arabs emerged as a Muslim people and conquered the region, than that “Assyrian” knowledge began to be “copied” by Arabs? Many advances were due to the Muslim-Arab civilization, although it is true that it has transmitted (after translating them, that is) knowledge that was already present before their coming, in many cases after improving it. That also is called “advancement”. I will post something about all this in a different post, as it is quite long.

Under Islam, the Arabs, originally a patchwork of tribes constantly in war with each other, built a civilization that was in its time the most advanced, rich and powerful of the world. They transformed Baghdad, initially a Persian village, into the fabulous city of the 1001 Nights. At the beginning of the IX century, this city, among other things, had 1000 graduated doctors, a great free hospital, an excellent water canalisation system, sewers, a regular postal system and banks which had branches in so far away places such as China. Cordoba, the capital of the Spanish-Muslim caliphate was with 500 000 inhabitants the biggest European city besides Byzance, had street lighting, schools which attracted people from all Europe. Did you hear about the Alhambra? The Cordoba Mosque? Was this kind of building seen in any other civilization before?

But you are right, THERE WAS NEVER AN ARAB-MUSLIM CIVILIZATION.

You say there is nothing in Islam to encourage science etc. and you are wrong. There are other passages, but this one suffices: “Seeking knowledge is a duty upon every Muslim.”.

“Perhaps you would prefer we did nothing and let them kill us? “Throughout the globe”?”

You mean, like they are doing in Iraq right now?

You say rebuilding is thwarted by Islamists, but this is only partially true: rebuilding was already low or non existant before the actual insurgency begin. Anyway, the insurgency now mainly focuses on fighting the Iraqi and American forces, not activities such as sabotaging the oil extraction facilities (which they did do before). You had enough time to rebuild. And if Iraq has became a heaven for terrorists, this is because you were not able to deal with the Post war correctly, as your government recognized.

The hatred for American that many Iraqis feel should not surprise you: not only they had Sadam (that Occident supported during many time)but Occident starved them during 12 years with the embargo in which, it is said, even powdered milk couldn’t be sent to Iraq because it could serve to make WMD. On the other hand, when the Kurds, the Shia, and dissident units from the Iraq army raised against Sadam after the Gulf war, the US, who had incitated them to do that, didn’t help them, letting women and children be gazed by Sadam.

“I don’t support the use of chemical weapons in a context where civilians might be affected. That said, we are in a war against people who will stop at nothing”

But is using chemical weapons and lying about it because you know how much of an atrocity it is stopping at anything? Is it any different from terrorists killing and mutilating corpses?

“Abu Graib and Guantanamo contain terrorists, enemy combatants, criminals, and clear suspects. “

Oh yeah I guess IT IS BECAUSE OF THAT YOU RELEASE SOME OF THEM. But tell me, why comparing your actions to those of Muslims and the Koran? Don’t you say how bad they are? Why saying “yeah, we do that, but they do worse”? In what manner torturing, raping, bombing, using chemical weapons, starving an entire people to death, killing a whole family because the americans soldiers pull the trigger a bit too quickly make you any better than them?

Sheik:

Kaliphate.com? Oh Im sorry! I didn’t think that sites like CNN were a pro-Muslim site! God, I wasn’t aware of how deep the tentacles of Muslim jihadism ran in the Occidental world!

As for saying that 99% of Europeans don’t want mosques, I regret to say this to you, but as much as you would it to be true, well… no. Wishful thinking -you think and hope all the Europeans think as you, but they simply don't, and they NEVER will, just forget about it.

“India is way ahead of any Islamo-hole, and those that can't lift themselves out of the dirt are, as always, the Muslims”

This was the funniest, and at the same time the stupidest comment you have spouted so far. So lets take India and compare it to an average Muslim country practically with no reserves of oil, lets say, Morocco:

HDI: Human Development Indicator

Marroco:

HDI: 0,557 (the HDI of Iran, paradigm of Islamo-hole, is 0,758)
Rank according to HDI: 125
Average lifespan: 65,7
Per capita income: 3 477

India:

HDI: 0,451
Rank according to HDI: 139
Average lifespan: 61,6
Per capita income: 1 422

Way ahead of any Islamo-hole, indeed.

Now this becomes serious: you are not only insulting someone who is arguing with you, but also insulting and mocking the practices of people who had nothing ever to do with you. Since you seem to be of Indian origin, I could make humorous comment about how the Hindus worship cows, but that would mean to put myself at your level, and this is something I will NOT do :)

Now I see you show as well a marvellous logic! Let me summarize:

ME: Muslims were the authors of important achievements
YOU: one of them was not Muslim and Muslims destroyed a library, so they didn’t make any achievement.

Btw what is going to happen in France in 2007?

I think I have made all my points, so I will say this and then I'm finished with this thread:

Right-winged people like you is persuaded that there is nothing wrong in their society. All is perfect, everyone who wants to earn a living can, there are opportunities for everyone. The poor, unemployed, etc are so because they are lazy, there is no other explanation, and so the Afro-Americans are lazy and don’t want to integrate, this is why the riots of the 90’ happened. There is absolutely no racism or discrimination in America. Same for France: the riots occurred, not because they are lazy, but because most of them were Muslims (that’s a more credible excuse than the poverty one, especially in the current context). The suburban youths have exactly the SAME possibilities of being employed than the “straight” French one. Really?

Do you not think things such as discrimination, poverty, margination in ghettos… could lead people to violence and delinquency? Yeah, many of the rioters just wanted to cause trouble, and there is a culture of violence in these suburbs , but I think it is not any different from the one in the US black suburbs; there was a feeling of desperateness and tiresomeness subjacent to the riots. And they are French CITIZENS, so don’t come with this “they can return to their countries” BS. No one can negate that there is a degree of integrism but why do you have to blame it all on Islam? Did all the riots of history occur because of Islam? Why, if it was caused by Islam, did the Muslim authorities issue fatwas to stop the riots? Do you know their role in talking with the youngs to stop the riots? Do you really think that because some of them shouted “Allah Akbar” this means the riots are due to Islam teachings? In WWII the Germans prayed to God before entering the battles, does than mean that they started the war because of Christian teachings? How many of those ridiculous arguments can you people bring?

Now, about the Renaissance:

The Arab-Islamic culture played its leading part in the best way possible in building world scientific renaissance. Arab and Moslem scholars translated Greek heritage and other kinds of scientific heritage which had preceded them in history into the Arabic language which was the language of science and culture. Arab and Moslem scholars left their mark on the European Renaissance. The imprint of the Arab-Islamic culture was predominant, noticeable and effective in many scientific, intellectual and cultural fields. Arab and Muslim scholars invented the numerical system; the figure Zero; the decimal system; the theory of evolution-one hundred years before Darwin; pulmonary circulation -three centuries before Harvey. They discovered gravity and the relationship between weight, speed and distance severa1 centuries before Newton; they measured the speed of light, calculated the angles of reflection and refraction, computed the circumference of the earth, and determined the dimensions of heavenly bodies. They invented astronomical instruments, discovered high seas, and laid down the foundations of chemistry.

The Arab-Islamic culture preserved the Greek culture and safeguarded it from loss and destruction. Had it not been for Arab intellectuals and scholars, people would not have been able to get hold of many Greek works, the original version of which was lost. These works were preserved in Arabic. The West had been very busy studying the Arab culture even after its prestige declined in Spain, two or more generations later, until it reached modern times. The Arab-Islamic culture fascinated a great many Westerner, for translation from Arabic did not cease during and after the Renaissance in spite of the direct Contact with the Greek world and civilization as of the middle of the thirteenth century A.D. when Greek books began to be translated directly into Latin without help from Arabic translations. The Arab culture had its Own worth and personality. It produced many a thing which the Greek culture could not produce in all fields: additions, commentaries, inventions, and Arab discoveries unknown to the Greeks(16).

The translation movement from the Arab-Islamic culture, which helped Europe pullout of the dark Middle Ages into the modern enlightened age, was not confined to the translation of ancient knowledge only -Greek, Indian, Babylonian and Egyptian -from Arabic books into Latin. Christian Europe also translated purely Arab knowledge and transferred patterns from Islamic civilization and from Islamic faith into its public and
private life.

The Arabs and Muslims were the epitome of modern science in every sense of the word. They were the pioneers of modem scientific methods. From the Arab-Islamic culture. European intellectuals and scholars acquired more than just information. They acquired scientific mentality.

It was the dazzle of the magnitude of influence which the Arab-Islamic culture had on European Renaissance, culture and sciences which prompted a German thinker and scientist to come out openly with the truth and say: "That flourishing civilization, whose enlightenment had inundated Europe for many centuries, is truly amazing; for this civilization was not an extension of the vestiges of past civilizations, or of local civilizational skeletons of some importance, or a borrowing from, or an imitation of an existing civilizational mode, as was the case with other cradles of civilization in other countries in the East. It is the Arabs who, with their culture, contrived this magnificent civilization(19)."

While Europe was buried in the darkness of the Middle Ages, the Islamic-civilization (the cradle of the Arab-Islamic culture) was at its apogee. Islam greatly contributed to the advancement of science, medicine and philosophy. As Will Durant said in his book, The Age of Fai1h, "Moslems contributed effectively in all fields. A vicenna was one of the greatest scientists in medicine, al-Razi a most eminent physician, al-Bayruni a most distinguished geographer, Ibn al-Haitham a most celebrated optics scientist, and Ibn Jabir a most famous chemist." Besides, the Arabs were the pioneers of education and teaching. On this point, Durant had this to say, "When Roger Bacon presented his theory in Europe five hundred years after Ibn Jabir, he said that he was indebted to the Maghrebis in Spain who took their knowledge from the Moslems in the East. European Renaissance thinkers and, scholars owed their advent, genius and progress to the giants of the Islamic world.

I think it's a mistake to see the riots or pogroms against non-Muslims in France as anti-white rather than anti-kufar. The riots may take the form of attacking whites, and expressions of hate for whites as such may be part of it. But what seems to drive it all is the jihad attitude, a hatred and contempt for non-Muslims. Likewise, the riots in Australia are motivated first and foremost by anger against humiliations and aggressions perpetrated by Arab-Muslims, although here too the mob attacked, according to reports, swarthy people without necessarily knowing their ethnic identity or religion.

Bernard Lewis wrote a whole book, Race and Slavery in Islam [or some such], about Muslim/Arab attitudes toward race and skin-color. You can glimpse those attitudes in the Thousand and One Nights, in the framework story about Shahrazad and in the Tale of the Ensorcelled Prince, and probably in other tales in the collection.

As for Ispanan's apologetics, let us assume that he is right about those whose names he cites. Now the question is, Has there been any Muslim thinker to make a contribution to general civilization since Ibn Khaldun [died 1406]?? I can't think of anybody. Can Ispanan give us some recent names, that is, somebody since 1406?

Ispanan,

"It was the dazzle of the magnitude of influence which the Arab-Islamic culture..."

LOL! Please do develop a more critical approach! What you've presented is extremely weak and has already been refuted by previous posts.

And please do take up Eliyahu's challenge.

Ispanan,

“those same people who bash Muslims”

I don’t bash all Muslims, just those who follow the hate-filled doctrines of the Koran and the general anti-infidel sentiment of the Islamic doctrine. The definition of Muslim is, in practice, much wider than the category of people who actually follow the bad stuff in the Koran. Lots of Muslims don't even know about the bad stuff.

I criticize Islam and believe it should either be radically reconstructed or repudiated completely (see my discussion with Haidon). However, if Koran-inspired Muslims would keep their religion as a personal matter and did not use force and threats and oppression to make others conform to their beliefs, I would have no problem with them. In fact, I would not care about what Islamists are doing if what they are doing doesn’t hurt anyone else and if they don’t force it on anyone else.

I focus on Islam because Islam is followed in its original form by some zealots today who are causing a lot of problems and are threatening all people in all countries. (I cite, for a simple example, that no person anywhere in the world can publicly criticize Islam without the chance of receiving death threats. One can safely criticize any religion in public, except Islam).

Remember, too, that Muslims are the victims of strict Koran-based Islam. Don’t you care about them? Do you care about the people, or the religion? (Morally, you have to decide which is more important to you). Or are you a hard-core Islamist, that thinks moderate Muslims are hypocites/apostates should be killed?

“Lets say the Lancet study is false (even tough it doesn’t mean automatically the number was inferior but that it could be either lower, or HIGHER).”

It isn’t just inaccurate. It is now known to be false. The upper estimate is about 30000. You lied by quoting the “100,000” without checking your facts.

“In total, the victims of the embargo, adult and children, were some 1 500 000, to which we must add the misery of the rest of the population. The embargo who affects the civil population, especially the children is qualified as genocide by the Geneva Convention, and as such 3 administrators of the embargo resigned their posts, accusing the UN of genocide.”

You’re simply making a wrong assumption about what my views are. I never supported the embargo, precisely because it would impact the civilian population and have no effect on Saddam. (read my post).

During the embargo, Saddam could have spent his money on his people instead of building palaces, monuments to himself, etc.

“but that wont change the fact that Occident has killed far, FAR more innocents than the Islamist terrorists ever did.”

You compare the entire “Occident” to what? Do you include all deaths due to various kinds of warfare, tyranny, etc., not just terrorism. Have you ever heard of Sudan? How about Bangladesh (early 1970s)?

And if you want to go back in history, take a look at the number of deaths in India when the Jihadists made their violent expansions into India. Or do you prefer to ignore this information? Over a 250-year period, Islamists slaughtered 60-70 million Hindus. Perhaps the largest slaughter of POWs in history occurred in India, and was proudly recorded by the Islamist leader (100,000 captives were put to the sword).

Another reason why your comparison is not valid: Terrorists deliberately set out to target civilians. They also deliberately immerse themselves in civilian populations to ensure maximum collateral damages.

“Excepting the fact that I rather said that under Islam minorities were treated far better than in other parts of the world, that this article don’t mention how the minorities were treated in Christian Europe, and that it is a right-winged site, yeah, that’s ok.”

You didn’t provide any evidence that minorities were treated better under Islam.

You obviously didn’t read the links. You claim “right-winged site” and think this gives you licence to ignore the evidence cited. And as far as this alleged good treatment, I believe you are talking about the people that Islam let live (as dhimmis or slaves). As for whether this treatment was better than how other cultures treated their minorities, go back and study the history of Persia and look at how Cyrus treated religious minorities (he treated them very well). Now take a look at the history of how Islamists have treated the Zoroastrians. And then take a look at how the Muslim jihadists slaughtered the Hindus over the centuries. Is that your idea of “better treatment?”

As has been pointed out many times on this site, which you don’t seem to read, the Koran requires that religious minorities be either killed, converted, or subjected to the humiliating dhimmi status. There is no such instructions in the New Testament. Muslims who persecute minorities are following the Koran. Christians who persecute minorities are not following the New Testament.

“The very fact that Jews crucified Jesus,”

According to the Gospels, a mob of (mostly?) Jews yelled for Jesus to be put to death, but it was the Romans who made the decision and killed him. “The Jews” did not crucify Jesus, much as you would like to believe this. If you believe in the Bible, then it was all pre-ordained anyway and it is not "the Jews'" fault. In any case, Christ taught forgiveness to all people, not just believers.

“other anti-Semitic statements pretty much encourages anti-Semitism,”

These are statements of some of the apostles, and they are anti-Semitic statements, as I said. But that’s all. They are bigotted statements. But nowhere is there a call for believers to take it upon themselves to kill, convert, or subjugate Jews, or all non-Christians.

Violent imperialistic statements are, however, in the Koran. Also, the Koran contains the claim that the Jews killed the prophets wrongly (the equivalent of what you are (falsely) claiming), and the Koran contains numerous anti-Semitic and anti-Christian statements.

All non-Muslims are condemned to hell-fire, according to the Koran. Non-Muslims are the worst beasts in Allah’s sight, etc.

I’ve read both the Koran and the New Testament. Both are flawed, in my opinion. However, the Koran is far worse. The overall message of the Koran is destroy, kill, hate, oppress everything and everyone that is not Muslim. The overall message of the New Testament is one of compassion, reconcilliation, love thine enemy, etc. The Koran doesn’t stack up. On the balance, it’s evil. Do you really want to invite a comparison between Jesus and Mohammad?

“it is the cause of the several pogroms that took place in Europe, many of them supported by the Church. There have even been anti-Semitism writings from members of the Church.”

My point was clear, Ispanan. Nothing that was done as far as executions and persecutions of religious minorities was supported by the New Testament. You seem to have difficulty accepting that point.

“You say: “There is nothing in the New Testament that even remotely calls for the extermination of the Jews. (The most you will find are some anti-Semitic statements, but no calls for killing, no calls for subjugation, nothing)”. Wow, now that makes really a big difference!”

It does make a big difference. The New Testament contains some bigotted statements about Jews (which are made by apostles, not Jesus). It does not say kill, convert, subjugate Jews.

Maybe you think that bigotted statements are morally equivalent to the Koran, Hadith, and Sira policy of genocide and extermination.

The Koran contains bigotted statements about Jews (conveyed by Mohammad as the word of Allah). The Koran says that believers must kill, convert, or subjugate all non-Muslims until all religion is for Allah. The New Testament doesn’t say that Christianity should be spread by believers through violent means.

“If the Bible is far more tolerant towards Jews than Koran, then why were they persecuted under Christian rule more than under Islamic rule? Why did the Genocide happen? And why were the Christian Germans ok with it?”

You simply don’t grasp the point. What is “Christian” about it if the actions are not in line with the New Testament?

And you forgot to ask: Why were so many Muslims okay with it? Why is Mein Kampf still so popular in Islamic countries? Why do so many Muslims want Israel and its people wiped right off the map? Could it be Koran-based anti-Semitism?

“You quote hadiths as calling for the killing of Jews, yet the hadiths are in most part historical recits, some of them are of dubious authenticity, but not religious doctrine.”

They’re your Hadiths, Ispanan. The Hadiths I’ve reported are no less credible than the Koran. And they are 100% consistent with the Koran’s policy toward non-Muslims: Hate, Kill, Convert, Subjugate all Non-Muslims. This is also consistent with the Sira. What more can I tell you? Read your own religious texts before making these kinds of statements.

“You quoted verses, I will quote you others:”

Not so fast. Address those verses instead of trying to hide from them. It’s your Koran; if you are a believing Muslim, you have the burden of defending it. Haidon admits to the problems (sort of). Why can’t you?

"If your Lord would have desired so, all the inhabitants of the Earth, absolutely all of them, would have believed. And you want to force them to believe?”

Allah chooses to send some people astray, then punishes them for it. All non-Muslims, who reject Mohammad’s revelations, and fail to reject partners, and fail to believe in the Last Day, will go to hell, period.

“There is no place for coercion in religion”

You may be silly enough to cite this snippet from 2:256 without 2:257, but you are guilty of hiding scripture from the infidel (that’s accepted, though, if your goal is to lie to us about Islam for the purposes of furthering Islam’s cause). In any case, I have addressed 2:256 in detail in previous posts.

In Islam, “belief” is tied together with obedience and fear (8:1-2). This involves coercion. But I need go no further than verse 4:34 than to show that there is compulsion (or coercion) in the Koran-based Islamic religion. But for good measure, I’ll refer you back to 9:33, cited in my previous post.

"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over a white - except by piety and good action"

This is a positive sentiment. Tell me what verse you are citing, and whose English translation you are using. (My translation doesn't contain any reference to people's skin colour, except of course those who are burnt in hell).

And tell me what is meant by “piety” and “good action” (or good works/deeds). The Koran is clear, as I pointed out in my posts in response to Haidon, that non-Muslims who think they do good works are not accepted by Allah. At least the New Testament is ambiguous on this ‘good works’ versus faith’ issue.

"Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause."

Cite me the verse number. In any case, Allah has not made the non-Muslims' lives sacred (they are unclean, worst beasts, evil, lead disgraced lives, etc.). The “just cause” can include any sin/crime in which a non-Muslim significantly transgresses Islam.

Your next quote, about “righteous,” is dealt with by the same point as above. Non-Muslims are not considered righteous; they’re evil, wicked, perverse, etc.). For references, see my posts to Haidon in the previous thread—you know, that thread where you accused me of saying nothing and where you tried to attribute the Koran’s internal contraditions to me. You will find many points and citations relevant to what you are arguing, in your "kilometers length" posts, here.

"To kill one innocent human being is like killing the entire humanity; and to save one life is like saving all of humanity"

Again, I simply am astonished that you would be silly enough to quote this snippet here. I’ve addressed this in detail. The whole verse is found at 5:32. The part that you cite originates from the commentary (on the outcome of the story of Cain and Abel) of a Jewish rabbi (not a prophet). Mohammad probably learned about it from the Jews, not from Allah.

Secondly, you excluded the parts (in verse 5:32) about “corruption on earth” and “prodigals in the land.” 5:32 must be read with 5:33 to find out the Islamic penalties. One of the three punishments listed for corruption on earth is death. Thus, killing is permissible for corruption on earth and/or war against God; both are huge flexible categories that could include anything that goes against Islam. Ergo, 5:32 permits what most non-Muslims would consider murder.

“We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets, from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another among them, and to Allah do we bow our will (in Islam).”
“…and to Allah do we bow our will (in Islam).””

See above re “coercion” (or compulsion) in religion. The Koran contradicts itself many times.

"Those with Faith, those who are Jews, and the Christians and Sabaeans, all who have Faith in Allah and the Last Day and act rightly, will have their reward with their Lord. They will feel no fear and will know no sorrow."

Note “those with Faith…all who have faith in Allah…” To believe in Allah, Mohammad has to be accepted as a true prophet (his particular account of the Last Day also has to be accepted). Those who don’t accept Mohammad’s revelations are considered evil. According to the Koran, anyone who doesn’t accept Islam goes to hell, period. Only Islam is acceptable (3:85).

"Only argue with the People of the Book in the kindest way - except in the case of those of them who do wrong - saying, 'We have Faith in what has been sent down to us and what was sent down to you. Our God and your God are one and we submit to Him."

If I may say so, Ispanan, in previous posts, you did not practice what the Koran preaches. Anyways, the Koran says that the people of the Book are wrong about the interpretation of their book, and they assign partners to Allah. Also note “those who do wrong”. Those who reject Mohammad’s revelations are evil; the disbelievers are the wrong-doers.

“Since these verses cannot be abrogated either, this means that the verses who talk of war / fight either must not be taken literally (for example, fight to convert means rather a fight with “the heart and the word”), either must be taken in a particular context, by example the “infidels” mentioned in many of these texts refer to the Meccans, who attacked Muhammad and his followers.”

1. The majority of Islamic scholars accept the doctrine of abrogation. As I cited in my posts to Haidon, the Koran itself contains the verses that are taken as supporting abrogation.

In any case, most of the verses that you’ve cited, with the exception of 5:32-5:33, are considered to be abrogated. And unfortunately, the verses calling for violent religious war and oppression in Sura 9 are not abrogated. (Except by some Ahmadis, but that’s a separate issue, and even among them, there is not an agreed consensus about the status of obligatory jihad).

2. Even if they aren’t abrogated, or if you reject abrogation altogether, you still have the problem of the overall message of hate in the Koran, which is expressed in all kinds of different contexts. You still have the problem of the overall goal of Islam (see my above post on this), which is to conquer all other religions no matter how averse this may be to non-Muslims. This is the overriding goal, the final goal, the strategic goal. Everything else in the Koran is just description of tactics serving this goal.

3. You have to use Hadiths and the Sira to get those contexts. And you need to ask yourself, why are Mohammad and his men in so much trouble, fighting, in so many battles? Mohammad raided caravans and called this holy war. He waged wars of aggression.

“Now of course, Islam, like every other religion, can be interpretated in a way to do mishief.”

Really? Zen Buddhism? Jainism? And do you mean to reject Sura 9 (take 9:123, e.g.)? Do you mean to reject 4:34 (wife-beating verse)?

“Crimes such as forced conversions, slaughters etc. were done by Muslims just as much as by Christians.”

Cite your evidence, sources. In any case, the Koran instructs followers to engage in jihad and forced conversion is part of that (again, see Sura 9). The most Christ says in the Gospels is he tells his followers to go out and spread his message. That’s all. No violence, no force is to be carried out by believers in their mission.

“In many regions, like Sub-saharian Africa, Central and South-East Asia, Islam was spread peacefully, by Muslim missionaries.”

Cite your sources. Many areas in Africa were forcibly invaded, with slaughter, over centuries. This is touched upon in my cited article by Bostom and is discussed in more detail in The Legacy of Jihad, by Bostom (ed.).

“Many advances were due to the Muslim-Arab civilization, although it is true that it has transmitted (after translating them, that is) knowledge that was already present before their coming, in many cases after improving it.”

Name these advances that are due to Islam. The main contribution of the Muslims appears to be that they kept some of the old knowledge, and yes, copied it. Surely, Muslims contributed some things, due to their own intellectual contributions. But how is Islam supposed to have helped this? Do you see the distinction I’m making? There’s nothing in the Koran, Hadith, or Sira that contributes to Art, Science, Math, Philosophy, etc. What in the Islamic doctrines encourages people to follow these intellectual and aesthetic pursuits freely? (Emphasis on freely). Otherwise, we are talking about Muslims who have made contributions outside of what is in the Islamic texts. And couldn’t a much easier case be made that Islam has held Muslims back? Isn’t it true that Muslims made the most progress when they were departing from the Islamic texts, or at least takng very liberal, non-literal interpretations, and not letting Islam take over their lives?

“But you are right, THERE WAS NEVER AN ARAB-MUSLIM CIVILIZATION.”

I didn’t say that. That must be froanother post.

“Under Islam, the Arabs, originally a patchwork of tribes constantly in war with each other, built a civilization that was in its time the most advanced, rich and powerful of the world. They transformed Baghdad, initially a Persian village, into the fabulous city of the 1001 Nights. At the beginning of the IX century, this city, among other things, had 1000 graduated doctors, a great free hospital, an excellent water canalisation system, sewers, a regular postal system and banks which had branches in so far away places such as China.”

This “patchwork of tribes” as you so contemptuously call them seems to have gotten along well enough to have worshipped together at the “inviolable place of worship,” which Mohammad violated when he smashed the idols. He destroyed all of those religions and created a monopoly, bringing in all the tithes to him and “Allah” and the Muslims. Of course, to get that information, you have to go to the Hadith and Sira. Mecca and Medina had Jewish and Christian subpopulations, among the other religious subpopulations, before Mohammad and his successors exterminated them or expelled them.

Again, nothing in the Koran, Hadith, or Sira about cultural renaissance. Medicine: Dr. Mohammad says menstruation is an illness, remember?

Re “excellent water canalisation system, sewers”

This knowledge was based on Romans and Greeks, not Islam.

“Seeking knowledge is a duty upon every Muslim.”

Cite me the verse number. If seeking knowledge leads to something that conflicts with the Koran’s claims, in reality, the Muslim could be killed. According to the Koran, if seeking knowledge leads you to disbelief, then you will go to hell for the crime of disbelief. You don’t allow for the possibility that reading the Koran carefully is what has led some Muslims to become apostates. Check out the apostatesofislam website. And if seeking knowledge is important for Muslims, according to the Koran, why are strict Muslims so sensitive about investigations into the Koran’s origins?

Re: Rebuilding Iraq.
You accept that the Islamists that I mentioned are thwarting the rebuilding efforts. No one else is thwarting the rebuilding efforts.

“Anyway, the insurgency now mainly focuses on fighting the Iraqi and American forces,”

1. What about all of the slaughter of innocent civilians?
You think this killing of Iraqi and American forces is okay? My point was that if the insurgents/terrorists and Sunni Saddam loyalists (and other of the various militant groups) ceased, we wouldn’t have any bloodshed, the Americans and others could go home. You don’t seem to realize that the Islamists in question want to prolong this. Why do you think they keep targetting police and security forces, who are there to protect Iraqi citizens. The Islamists in question want Iraq to be a disaster. They don’t care. Their vision of Islam matters more to them than human life.

“You had enough time to rebuild. And if Iraq has became a heaven for terrorists, this is because you were not able to deal with the Post war correctly, as your government recognized.”

Who’s “you”? As I said, I didn’t agree with the initial bombing campaign, and I did not agree with the sanctions. I told you that already. I am not a member of the U.N., and I am not a member of the U.S. government. I am a mere citizen of Canada who has no more control over this than do you. But the fact is, the U.S.-led coalition is there, and yes I support the soldiers, and want them to succeed. I want the project of establishing security and democracy in Iraq to succeed. I’m on the U.S.-coalition side, against the Islamists. This does not mean I agree with every method used. You have to read my posts before you start attributing views to me. You are attacking an imaginary argument.

Thus far, it is the violent Islamists who have prevented security from being established, and it is the Islamists who have brought in elements of sharia law. Do you want sharia, Ispanan?

“The hatred for American that many Iraqis feel should not surprise you:”

Who said I was surprised? I’m not. Who is surprised that a significant percentage of Iraqis hate the U.S., Britain, etc.? Their hatred should be directed at the insurgents that have drawn out this violence for over two years+.

Look, a significant percentage of Muslims living in Islamic countries will hate non-Muslim countries. That’s just the way it is, and it is reinforced by daily hate propaganda in their media and in their schools and mosques.

If, in the 1991 Gulf War, we had not gone in and defended Kuwaitis from being slaughtered, Islamists would be hating us because we let Saddam away with it. Saddam’s forces continued to fire on British and U.S. jets all throughout the 1990’s, long after the war had allegedly ended. Saddam was a dangerous nut-case, and one way or another, eventually, he had to be dealt with. Billions and billions of the infidels dollars were spent trying to contain Saddam.

The fact is, Islam teaches Muslims to hate non-Muslims. Period. Some Muslims don’t follow that, others do.

“that Occident supported during many time)but Occident starved them during 12 years with the embargo in which, it is said, even powdered milk couldn’t be sent to Iraq because it could serve to make WMD.”

There you go with “Occident” again! The U.N. approved it. I didn’t. And all of that starvation could have been avoided if Saddam had used his money on that instead of on palaces, monuments to himself, weapons, torture, bribes, etc.

“On the other hand, when the Kurds, the Shia, and dissident units from the Iraq army raised against Sadam after the Gulf war, the US, who had incitated them to do that, didn’t help them, letting women and children be gazed by Sadam.”

I’m aware of that story, and, if true, I certainly don’t agree with anyone violating such an agreement. But in your statement, you want the U.S. to come to the rescue of the Iraqis. What is it that you want the U.S. to do for them? Leave them alone, intervene, what? A significant percentage of Iraqis will hate the U.S. and the west no matter what they do. Why should the lives of U.S. soldiers be available to be disposed of every time Islamic sects have wars with each other? You hate them, but you expect them to come and give their lives for you, and you do nothing but complain about it. You ask them to wage war, then complain that there are casualties.

“But is using chemical weapons and lying about it because you know how much of an atrocity it is stopping at anything? Is it any different from terrorists killing and mutilating corpses?”

Yes. It’s simple. Terrorists attack civilians in order to increase violence and hatred and destroy all efforts at peace. The coalition is taking great pains to target enemy combatants, and is trying to minimize civilian deaths, in the efforts of establishing security and democracy.
The terrorist/insurgents hide and move among civilians with two possible goals in mind: 1. Simple protection because it is less probable that they’ll get killed among civilians, and 2. if the coalition has no other choice but to attack, civilians will be killed and then their group can use this as fuel for further hate against the infidel coalition.

Why do you think al-Qaeda slaughtered almost 3000 civilians on Sept 11? They did it because they want there to be hatred and war between Muslims and infidels. They don’t want peace, except if everyone is their brand of Islamic.

“Oh yeah I guess IT IS BECAUSE OF THAT YOU RELEASE SOME OF THEM.”

Like I said, some were suspects (please do read my posts before responding). This is a basic aspect of justice that some people are taken as suspects to determine if they are guilty. It happens all the time; no system is perfect. You also neglect to mention that some of those released could not be convicted or held, but went right back to their terrorist activities.

“But tell me, why comparing your actions to those of Muslims and the Koran? Don’t you say how bad they are? Why saying “yeah, we do that, but they do worse”?

Well, Islamists who follow the Koran do worse things, yes.

“In what manner torturing, raping”

That’s stretching the definition of rape (what happened at Abu Graib), but for the sake of argument, I’ll accept that. No, I do not for one second justify it. Nor do the Americans. The vast majority of the American public was outraged over this. The American military and judicial system has prosecuted the people involved--and they should go further, in my opinion.

If you want to see rape, go back and look at what Mohammad did to a nine-year-old girl, and a 17-year-old Jewish girl whose family Mohammad and his men had just slaughtered. Yes, it is worse. No, Muslims will not prosecute Mohammad any time soon. Yes, the Koran does permit what Mohammad and his men did; you can’t use the old ‘I don’t believe the Hadith’ argument.

“bombing, using chemical weapons,”

Like I said, I don’t support chemical weapons where civilians can be affected. I don’t even support chemical weapons generally because of all the other problems associated with them. What more can I say? You don’t read it. You don’t listen.

“starving an entire people to death,”

See previous responses.

“killing a whole family because the americans soldiers pull the trigger a bit too quickly”

Like I said, you want Americans to come in and save the Iraqis using military power, but you want everything to be perfect. An American pilot dropped a bomb that killed several Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. It’s called an accident, and these happen in war, and the soldiers who make the mistakes are held to account.

Examples like this, an accident, just show that you will use anything as an excuse to hate the Americans. No matter what happens, you think it is the fault of the Americans, Israel, the “occident”, etc.

But the Islamic terrorists target civilians, chop off their heads, rape them, dismember them, etc., and then laugh about it, celebrate, and praise Allah for the reward they will receive for killing the infidels.

When will you, Ispanan, even hold one Islamic terrorist, tyrant, rioter, assassin to account? Have you ever objected to Islamic terror? State your position.

“…make you any better than them?”

Don't be silly. It’s got nothing to do with anyone being “better” than any other person. Countries have not only a right but a responsibility to defend their citizens. If that means we have to go to Afghanistan to hunt down Al-Qaeda and Taliban, then yes, we need to do that.

In your future replies, Ispanan, if you must, I request that you actually read my post. If the subject is the Koran, cite the verses properly. Like I said, you are reckless and you have no shame. This is evident in your responses.

Eliyahu,

"I think it's a mistake to see the riots or pogroms against non-Muslims in France as anti-white rather than anti-kufar. The riots may take the form of attacking whites, and expressions of hate for whites as such may be part of it."

I agree. It is an attack against the French, be they atheist or agnostic, Christian, Jewish, or other non-Muslim religion. These rioters do not have to read a word of the Koran. All they have to absorb are the general attitudes of hate, and "us vs them" segregation that are central to the Islamic doctrines (as conveyed socially, from parents, from the mosque, from the ever-present al-Jazeera, and from the media sources and attitudes such as those you cited earlier).

But whatever the explanation of the causes, is descriptively true that this is a clash between the Muslim nation and the French nation.

Eliyahu,

...just to clarify what I mean by "I agree": The role of Islam in this case is tied up with a separatist Muslim-nationalistic element. Anti-infidel and anti-French co-occur as aspects of the same phenomenon.

Archimedes- Bravo!! You deserve a standing vovation from the entire 'right' thinking people of the globe!.

Rafia,

Thanks for those generous words. It seems I am "right-wing" on this issue, even though I'm a lefty on others.

Ispanan,

If you do decide to return to the thread after all, here are some references that are pro-Muslim.

…Some progressive Islamic scholars argue that true Islam is a peaceful, tolerant religion that respects women’s rights (e.g., Sheikh Ahmed Subhy Mansour
http://www.eyewitnessspeakers.org/DrAhmedMansour.asp ). Likewise, Thomas Haidon argues that a non-literalist reinterpretation of the Koran, and a rejection of Hadiths, will reveal Islam’s peaceful, tolerant core (see http://www.freemuslims.org/links.php ).

While I believe these authors are well-intentioned and hope they are successful, the main stumbling block is the Koran itself. There are, according to an on-line skeptical annotation of the Koran, 403 verses showing religious Intolerance, 529 verses showing Injustice, 331 verses showing Cruelty and Violence, 51 verses showing disrespect or mistreatment of Women, and only 62 verses showing what would generally be considered Good moral values (Source: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm ).

Ispanan,

You said:

“I read your article. Not only it was ridiculously biased,”

Biased? Give me one example of anything the author said that is historically incorrect.

And now for the reason why I flagged your statement...

“…but it also falls short of saying that Assyrians, that almost NO ONE has ever heard about, were the most brilliant civilization to ever exist.”

Making this arrogant sarcastic remark against the Assyrians is reprehensible. Do you want to know why “almost no one” has ever heard of them? 1. Lack of knowledge of world history, 2. The Islamists throughout history have nearly exterminated them, 3. Islamic apologists claim some of the Assyrians’ contributions as Islamic—one of the main points of the linked article. (The Assyrians who were not wiped out or assimilated by Islam are currently oppressed by the mad mullahs of Iran).

Like I said, you’re reckless, and you have no shame.

Ispanan,

You said:
“You quote hadiths as calling for the killing of Jews, yet the hadiths are in most part historical recits, some of them are of dubious authenticity, but not religious doctrine. You quoted verses, I will quote you others:”

"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over a white - except by piety and good action"

It's not a Koranic verse. It’s from Hadiths (see Note 1). I am impressed with it. However…

The main social problems with Islamic doctrine (Koran, Hadith, Sira) are not racism. The main social problems are (1) religiously-based apartheid and hatred, (2) gender inequality, (3) slavery.

Note that statements about gender equality are absent. You will also not read Mohammad saying that Muslims have no superiority over non-Muslims and non-Muslims have no superiority over Muslims.

You will find in the Koran, however, the assertion that Muslims are the best people (3:110) because of their belief in Allah only and strict adherence to Islam. But the non-Muslims are the worst beasts in Allah sight, etc., as I have cited many times.

In Sunni Islam at least, racism does appear.

Apostate and writer Abul Kasem writes:

“Why should we consider Islam as Arab/Bedouin imperialism? Here is the answer.
You see, the ultimate goal of the Islamists is the creation of a Pan Islamic world, which must be ruled by a caliph (the Islamists call it the Khilafat movement) who will be responsible to enforce Islamic laws (Sharia) globally. So, what are the requirements to be a caliph?—you might ask. According to Islamic law, (ref: Reliance of the Traveler, published by Amana Publications, Bettsville, Maryland, 1999, pp.640-642, law number o25.3) the mandatory qualifications of an Islamic caliph are: 1. must be a Muslim 2. must be a male 3. must be from the Quraysh tribe of the Arabs 4. must be a freeman (i.e., not a slave) 5. must be of sound mind. This provision of Islamic law means that the world—the Pan Islamic world, must be ruled by an Arab (from the Quraysh stock, probably from Saudi Arabia or Jordan) and no one else.”

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/AbulKasem51205.htm
-------------------------------------------

Note 1. (search phrases).

“A 4. The Last Sermon of the Prophet -peace be upon him- is known as Khutbatul Wada’. It is mentioned in almost all books of Hadith. Following Ahadith in Sahih al-Bukhari refer to the Sermon and quote part of it. See Al-Bukhari, Hadith 1623, 1626, 6361). Sahih of Imam Muslim also refers to this Sermon in Hadith no. 98. Imam al-Tirmidhi has mentioned this Sermon in Ahadith nos. 1628, 2046, 2085. Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal has given us the longest and perhaps the most complete version of this Sermon in his Musnad, Hadith no. 19774.”

Archimedes if "Ispam'em" chooses to believe the lies of the Quran and hadith as well ass the current Muslim propaganda about how they are "superior", let him. His ridiculous arguments illustrate his own arrogance and ignorance. The muslims are still technilogically backward which is why they not only have not developed any of the modern artifacts of Western civilization, but why they stilll have to have Western technicians in their countries to make them work and maintain them.

Bohemond,

You're right; time to give Ispam'em a rest.

Chere Joie,
Je suis un Juif habitant la ville sainte, site du Mont du Temple.
I know about France TV because I get 3 French stations [inc. Arte] on Israeli cable TV.

By the way, I have seen some of the scurrilous Stalinist waste matter cast at Alain Finkielkraut. Yes, this filth seems the same in many languages.

Archimedes I believe Ispanan is experiencing a phenomena known as "cognitive dissonance": the discomfort felt when knowledge already learned (and assumed to be true) is confronted with new knowledge which contradicts the old. It would be like showing someone who believed the earth to be flat that the earth is a globe, or someone who believed the earth to be the center of the universe that the sun is actually the center. Muslims are told in the Quran that they are superior to all other people. They are taught that the caliphate was the height of civilization and that Western civilization got its' knowledge from the Islamic. When they arrive in the West they are not only not acknowledged as superior, but often shunned, mocked and treated as culturally, socially and mentally (and sometimes racially) inferior by those whom they are taught are inferior. What they learned in their culture is ridiculed and looked upon with contempt. They are forced to grapple with the realization that the societies they came from are in fact inferior to those in the West. They attempt to reconcile these contradictions with arguments like those posed by Ispanan and others here over time that Islamic culture is at least morally superior to the West and that the West is standing on the achievements laid down by Muslims. The fact that we can so easily refute their claims only adds to their frustration and anger. Pity the poor fool.

At the contrary, Arch, “je suis en pleine forme!” (sorry, I don’t know how it is said in English, so I said it in French, but our common friend Bohemond can kindly translate it :P)

I cant understand why I didn’t notice this:

“According to Sura 9, the idolaters are also to be put to the sword, and they are given no dhimmitude option here. (Verse of the Sword)”

Lol, so tell me, what are the Muslims supposed to do with the unbelievers, finally? Kill them or put them under dhimmitude? Make up your mind please!

“Lots of Muslims don't even know about the bad stuff. “

Exactly. Actually, many Muslims do not have an accurate knowledge of the Koran: by example it is nor rare that in rural areas, the clerics have made no more than 2 years of scholarship about Islam, their knowledge being just enough to lead the priers, and some passages of the Koran. This is why some Muslims believe the terrorist doctrines, because they are given a biased, distorted, and incomplete version of the Koran, only its most violent aspects that are taken out of their specific context.

“Or are you a hard-core Islamist, that thinks moderate Muslims are hypocites/apostates should be killed? “

Don’t begin with this kind of idiocy, ok? :)

“It isn’t just inaccurate. It is now known to be false. The upper estimate is about 30000. You lied by quoting the “100,000” without checking your facts.”

The 100 000 is an approximation: it could be 70 000, 80 000… but it could be even HIGHER. The fact it is false doesn’t mean the actual number is lower. Could you tell me where you got the 30 000 from?

“During the embargo, Saddam could have spent his money on his people instead of building palaces, monuments to himself, etc.”

That’s precisely the point: Sadam managed to convince the Iraq population that all of their problems were due to the embargo, this is why he could keep the few money left and blame it on Occident; if there wouldn’t have been an embargo, he couldn’t have done that without people actually realize what was going on. Euh, well, anyway, what palaces and monuments?

“You compare the entire “Occident” to what? Do you include all deaths due to various kinds of warfare, tyranny, etc., not just terrorism. Have you ever heard of Sudan? How about Bangladesh (early 1970s)? “

I was referring to the number of innocent deaths in Iraq, compared to the deaths by the terrorists.

"Over a 250-year period, Islamists slaughtered 60-70 million Hindus. Perhaps the largest slaughter of POWs in history occurred in India, and was proudly recorded by the Islamist leader (100,000 captives were put to the sword)."

On that matter, link me to where you found that (not dhimmiwatch or any stuff like that, thanks) then we will discuss it. Anyway, we must consider if this number does not include Hindus converted to Islam, and if this number includes the Mongol conquests, such as Tamerlan’s conquests. Although they were Muslim, the Mongols were already a violent people before their conversion and they didn’t have anything Muslim, except the name. The war was not motivated by religion, but by pure desire of conquest.

“Another reason why your comparison is not valid: Terrorists deliberately set out to target civilians. They also deliberately immerse themselves in civilian populations to ensure maximum collateral damages.”

Embargo and uranium weaponry is also deliberate.

“You didn’t provide any evidence that minorities were treated better under Islam.”

Well, do you want me to talk about the expulsion of Jews from France, England, Spain? The forced conversion of Muslims moors and their expulsion from Spain? The pogroms in Europe which killed thousands of Jews? Was there an holocaust in the Islamic world? Do you know where the Jews went when they were expulsed? Did you hear about the Jewish Golden Age in Muslim Spain?

“I believe you are talking about the people that Islam let live (as dhimmis or slaves). “

Time to clarify the dhimmitude:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/009343.php

“As for whether this treatment was better than how other cultures treated their minorities, go back and study the history of Persia and look at how Cyrus treated religious minorities (he treated them very well). Now take a look at the history of how Islamists have treated the Zoroastrians. And then take a look at how the Muslim jihadists slaughtered the Hindus over the centuries. Is that your idea of “better treatment?”

Obviously I wont spend my time studying any history to prove your point, so, since you brought this point, bring me the information.

“As has been pointed out many times on this site, which you don’t seem to read”

Euh, yes, well, I read this site, but reading it and actually believing what it says are very different things.

“These are statements of some of the apostles, and they are anti-Semitic statements, as I said. But that’s all. They are bigotted statements. “

Yeah, well, the fact that they are bigoted don’t change that these statements are there, and served for the killing of Jews in Christian countries.

“Violent imperialistic statements are, however, in the Koran. Also, the Koran contains the claim that the Jews killed the prophets wrongly (the equivalent of what you are (falsely) claiming)”
I actually didn’t see that, could you point me to it?

“The Koran contains numerous anti-Semitic and anti-Christian statements. “

Nope, I don’t really know how to say it, but no… look at the verses I gave you.

“All non-Muslims are condemned to hell-fire, according to the Koran. Non-Muslims are the worst beasts in Allah’s sight, etc.”

Neither. Not only Muslims must respect Christian, Jews, etc. but the ones condemned to hellfire are the “hypocrites”: those who say to believe in God, but lie in private and treat those who believe of idiots, do evil, etc. I think all this is in the sura 2.

“My point was clear, Ispanan. Nothing that was done as far as executions and persecutions of religious minorities was supported by the New Testament. You seem to have difficulty accepting that point. “

No, I have accepted it. I know it doesn’t call for extermination and persecution, but people who did those things used these statements to justify their crimes. Much like people interpreted the Koran wrongly to do the same things. You DO seem to have difficulty accepting that point. Oh, and btw why do you keep talking only about the NT? As far as I remember, the Bible comprises the Ancient Testament as well, which is not like the new one in any point (much more violent than the Koran)

The Koran contains bigotted statements about Jews (conveyed by Mohammad as the word of Allah). The Koran says that believers must kill, convert, or subjugate all non-Muslims until all religion is for Allah.

Nope, you really don’t get it, and I’m growing tired of repeating the same thing over and over. The war that the Koran allows is purely defensive, just as this verse shows: “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out.”

“You simply don’t grasp the point. What is “Christian” about it if the actions are not in line with the New Testament? “

Exactly! And what is “Muslim” about it as well if these actions are not in line with the Koran? You don’t seem to grasp that point either.

“And you forgot to ask: Why were so many Muslims okay with it? Why is Mein Kampf still so popular in Islamic countries? Why do so many Muslims want Israel and its people wiped right off the map? Could it be Koran-based anti-Semitism?”

Could it be because of the oppression of Palestinians by Israel?

“They’re your Hadiths, Ispanan. The Hadiths I’ve reported are no less credible than the Koran. “

This very statement proves you have no clue about Islam, either be it Koran, hadiths, or whatever else. If you did, you would know that many hadiths are of dubious authenticity (some of them even contradict themselves). Any Muslim will tell you that. This is why when someone uses a hadith to prove a point, he sometimes precises that the hadith is “authentic”.

“Not so fast. Address those verses instead of trying to hide from them.“

You didn’t get that part about how these verses must only be accepted in a specific context, did you? I will give just an example, oh, and you when you don’t quote the entire verses, don’t tell me to quote all of mine, ok? ;)

“So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know.”

IDOLATERS REFERED TO IN THIS VERSE IS A GROUP AMONG IDOLATERS IN MECCA WHO HAD MADE AN AGREEMENT OF MUTUAL PROTECTION WITH MUSLIMS AND THEN LATER CONSPIRED AGAINST MUSLIMS, THUS BREAKING THE AGREEMENT. DID YOU GET IT?

Furthermore the Koran commands to be merciful if they want to stop the hostilities. Questions?

"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over a white - except by piety and good action"

“My translation doesn't contain any reference to people's skin colour, except of course those who are burnt in hell.”

Was this an intent of comical statement or...?

And tell me what is meant by “piety” and “good action”

I cant really help you there, so take a dictionary, search “piety”, “good”, and “action”.

"Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause."

“Cite me the verse number. In any case, Allah has not made the non-Muslims' lives sacred (they are unclean, worst beasts, evil, lead disgraced lives, etc.). The “just cause” can include any sin/crime in which a non-Muslim significantly transgresses Islam.”

“just cause” is a “just cause ” or, if you prefer, the opposed of “unjust”. Now of course, the fact that someone thinks beheading 3 children is a just cause is a far different matter.

“The part that you cite originates from the commentary (on the outcome of the story of Cain and Abel) of a Jewish rabbi (not a prophet). Mohammad probably learned about it from the Jews, not from Allah.”

If a rabbi said it, that doesn’t change anything, since Muslims are ok with the prophets who came before Mohammad (and who follow the same God). This is a mandatory statement, like the other ones.

” killing is permissible for corruption on earth and/or war against God; both are huge flexible categories that could include anything that goes against Islam. Ergo, 5:32 permits what most non-Muslims would consider murder.”

War against God is “war”, or if you prefer, “armed conflict”. Corruption on the Earth has the meaning of “mischief”: banditry, murder, etc. Its truly growing tiresome. If you keep this kind of idiotic arguments about how red can be interpreted as blue, Im off.

“See above re “coercion” (or compulsion) in religion. The Koran contradicts itself many times.”

What exactly is the contradiction there?

"Those with Faith, those who are Jews, and the Christians and Sabaeans, all who have Faith in Allah and the Last Day and act rightly, will have their reward with their Lord. They will feel no fear and will know no sorrow."

“Note “those with Faith…all who have faith in Allah…” To believe in Allah, Mohammad has to be accepted as a true prophet.”

What part of “it is the same god” do you not get?

1. Considering that the abrogation refers to hadiths, and that there is a verse in the Koran warning against only acknowledging some parts of it, yeah, that’s right.

“In any case, most of the verses that you’ve cited, with the exception of 5:32-5:33, are considered to be abrogated.”

By who? You?

2. Yes, this is the final goal –just as with Christianity- which must be achieved through peaceful means, as the verses above show.

3. No, he didn’t –I don’t know how else to say this neither, but he didn’t wage wars of aggression.

“Now of course, Islam, like every other religion, can be interpretated in a way to do mishief.”

“Really? Zen Buddhism? Jainism? And do you mean to reject Sura 9 (take 9:123, e.g.)? Do you mean to reject 4:34 (wife-beating verse)?”

Zen Buddhism is not even a religion, and I don’t know what Jainism is. But anyway, take a look at the Sri Lanka civil war (Hindus - Buddhists). Buddhism didn’t provoke it, but didn’t prevent it neither –that proves my point even more. As for the wife-beating verse, Im glad you mentioned it. To be brief, the husband can only beat his wife when there is “nushuz” or a behaviour who is deeply disturbing or threatens the family NOT when she disobeys her, and the beating must no bruise nor leave marks, nor even give pain; it must not be done in the face or in other sensible places; if the husband exceeds himself (or is the one committing nushuz), she can denounce him, and then the law of retaliation is applied (he is beaten).

“In many regions, like Sub-saharian Africa, Central and South-East Asia, Islam was spread peacefully, by Muslim missionaries.”

“Cite your sources.”

Was there a Muslim invasion of Indonesia? Central Asia? North of China?

“Isn’t it true that Muslims made the most progress when they were departing from the Islamic texts, or at least takng very liberal, non-literal interpretations, and not letting Islam take over their lives?”

Could you please explain me that?

“This “patchwork of tribes” as you so contemptuously call them seems to have gotten along well enough to have worshipped together at the “inviolable place of worship,” which Mohammad violated when he smashed the idols. “

Again I don’t know how to tell it, but they WERE constantly at war with each other. That doesn’t mean there were not moments of peace. And about the idols, do you know how the pre-Islamic Arabian society was? Do you know Islam was a revolution for that time considering it allowed the women to possess, inherit and improved considerably their social status in a society where they received less consideration than camels?

“Medicine: Dr. Mohammad says menstruation is an illness, remember?”

Again these idiotic arguments? He said that because it was something that impairs them, no, it is not an “illness” as we understand it today.

"This knowledge was based on Romans and Greeks, not Islam."

Perhaps, but that surewas one of the few civilizations to have it and use it. Btw I think they also invented pharmacies, or at last improved them.

“You don’t allow for the possibility that reading the Koran carefully is what has led some Muslims to become apostates.”

And it led others who weren’t Muslims before to become it. Different people, different thinking.

“why are strict Muslims so sensitive about investigations into the Koran’s origins?”

Euh.. I don’t know about that.

“What about all of the slaughter of innocent civilians? - You think the killing of Iraqi and American forces is okay? ”

I forgot to precise it, but I meant it as well, obviously. And no, I do not think it is ok, though we must differentiate terrorists for insurgency proper –they are not the same. Some focus on causing terror, but some focuses on fighting the forces they see as “invaders” or “complices” of the invaders. Some will justify it, some wont. All are not terrorists proper, nothing is black and white in this war.

”Saddam’s forces continued to fire on British and U.S. jets all throughout the 1990’s, long after the war had allegedly ended. “

Yeah, well, but don’t forget he was firing on the jets who were bombing Iraq.

“Saddam was a dangerous nut-case, and one way or another, eventually, he had to be dealt with. Billions and billions of the infidels dollars were spent trying to contain Saddam. “

And billions were spent helping him against Iran (WMD, etc.). Not saying you are ok with it, just reminding you of the facts.

"But in your statement, you want the U.S. to come to the rescue of the Iraqis. What is it that you want the U.S. to do for them? Leave them alone, intervene, what? A significant percentage of Iraqis will hate the U.S. and the west no matter what they do. Why should the lives of U.S. soldiers be available to be disposed of every time Islamic sects have wars with each other? You hate them, but you expect them to come and give their lives for you, and you do nothing but complain about it. You ask them to wage war, then complain that there are casualties."

First I never said I hated them. Now, if they had helped the Iraqis when they raised against Sadam, the panorama would be VERY different now. The Iraqis hate US and Great Britain for the treason and other crimes. Second, if the invasion had been carried by the ONU, the Iraqis wouldn’t think so much that the US went to war for the oil (especially now that it is proved there was no WMD in Iraq). As well, the post war wouldn’t have been so disastrous. As if invasion was better than letting Sadam in power? I don’t think so, especially seeing how the situation is, and the possibilities of a future open civil war. After all, the tortures committed by Saddam don’t seem very different from what was done in Abu Graib –this was the symbol of the torture of Saddam regime and this has considerably contributed to deteriorate the image of the US even more. And last, Saddam kept the terrorists at bay, now Iraq has become a heaven for them.

“The coalition is taking great pains to target enemy combatants, and is trying to minimize civilian deaths, in the efforts of establishing security and democracy. “

Read my statements about chemical weapon used in Iraq and DU bombs. That doesn’t precisely minimize civilian deaths.

”If you want to see rape, go back and look at what Mohammad did to a nine-year-old girl, and a 17-year-old Jewish girl whose family Mohammad and his men had just slaughtered; you can’t use the old ‘I don’t believe the Hadith’ argument.”

Go look the thread under this one for a full explanation on this. Oh btw in Iran paedophiles are thrown off a cliff.

“It’s called an accident, and these happen in war, and the soldiers who make the mistakes are held to account.”

Euh, not always, when that Spanish journalist was killed by a tank when he was filming from a floor on that hotel, during the war, the tank conductor wasn’t held to account (and many more cases). As well, that Israeli commander who shot a Palestinian little girl was just accused of “negligent behaviour” or some other BS like that. Not saying that you accept it, but the difference is that while terrorists do not represent any democratic government, military tribunals do, and are supposed to do better; you cant expect not to cause hate with that. What must be done is to ask the same retribution for the terrorists that the “legal” terrorists. You said you didn’t agree with all the things I said before, but did you protest against that? Do you know if your government took part by example in the sanctions, and did you (or would you, given the case) still support it (vote) after that?

The main social problems with Islamic doctrine (Koran, Hadith, Sira) are not racism. The main social problems are (1) religiously-based apartheid and hatred, (2) gender inequality, (3) slavery.

You are right, these would be important social problems (well, excepted slavery). However they are not caused by Islam, altough the hadiths, sharia, etc who are merely interpretations / stories / falsified stories do cause it. The sharia in particular must be totally reworked, as it must be continuously adapted to the circumstances of the time Muslims live in (this is what is called “iytihad”). About women, this is only partially true –women endure discrimination yes, but that happens in all the parts of the world. In the course of history, there has even been Muslim women who lead armies (one of them was in the battle of Yarmak if I remember well). In the current times, 4 Muslim countries have been lead at one point by a woman; another example, in Iran they make up for 60% of university students. And before I tell you of statements about equality, check the New Testament and tell me if there is any in Christianity, in the NT women are ordered to be obedient to their husbands.

“This provision of Islamic law means that the world—the Pan Islamic world, must be ruled by an Arab (from the Quraysh stock, probably from Saudi Arabia or Jordan) and no one else”

Well, considering that the greatest hero of Muslims was Saladin, who was Kurd, yeah, that’s right. That proves just how credible this guy is, he quotes Islamic law, which is NOT the Koran. Oh, and btw I think the Morocco king is Berber.

“Note 1. (search phrases).”

Euh?

Rafia:

Well, I think you are being unjust. I know I’m wrong, but I have done my best to prove my points and I think I DO deserve at least some consideration for all my efforts as well!

As for the riots. The culture of violence, racism, and misogynism is not due to Islam. The French suburban culture is due to the US Afro American "gangsta" culture, who was adopted in France suburbs and superimposed to the ambient of margination, frustration, poverty and delinquency that already existed. And as such the traits of the gangsta culture –violence, machism, valuation of delinquency- were even more exacerbated and adapted to the Muslim-Arab culture backgroud: mysoginism, for example, expresses itself through all the veil issues, but it could simply express itself in another manner in another culture. On the other hand, in a context where the suburban youths unequivocally feel themselves margined, and thus, inferior, mysoginism and racism give them some kind of relief, as they make them feel superior –over women, and over “white” French. You can imagine what the riots meant for them: for the first time, they could “defy” and cause “fear” to the French, be "someone". It doesn’t mean, that they shouldn’t be punished, but there are deeper causes here who must be dealt with. As well, it must be considered if the Arab culture, traditionally mysogine (it was before the coming of Islam) has a part in it. The violations are not caused by Islam. Violation is specifically one of the 5 crimes punishable according to the Koran. This is an atrocity that nothing can justify and must be severely dealt with.

Oh, and yes, Islam serves as well as an element of identity for them, and a mean to further differentiate themselves from "white" french, this is why they say they are Muslim when asked for their nationality.

Bohemond:

It is only natural that when people like you is not able to argue in a civilized manner, he resorts to not only name-calling, but also despise against culture, country etc. apparently in an attempt to offend, and to hurt. Archimedes at last is intelligent enough to hold a debate, you aren’t (and you know it). But the most funny thing is it doesn’t offend me, at the contrary: you amuse me, as well as people like Sheik or Seamystic (see end of the thread under this one for a good laugh!). Lol,Im sure you have seen the post in the other tread and have been looking in Internet during 2 hours for something like the cognitive dissonance thing, and thinking of an ingenious text. You are a buffoon. You believe you are being clever, yet all you can come up with is this confused gibberish (btw, you impressed me; I didn’t think that the Sun was at the center of Universe! Do you actually believe it is true, genius ?). Furthermore some guys mocked your own country in this thread and you didn’t even respond. What you suffer is actually very simple: plain old stupidity.

To answer adequately I could post a funny text called “The military history of France”, but since it’s a bit offending for French and pretty much off-topic, I wont.

“they are not only not acknowledged as superior, but often shunned, mocked and treated as culturally, socially and mentally (and sometimes racially) inferior” ”

so tell me: DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS RACISM AND DISCRIMINATION IN OCCIDENT?

And now Archie, in your next post I demand you criticize Bohemond behaviour just as you criticized mine, saying I was "reckless" and had "no shame" (even saying it two times, just so you were sure in case we didn't get it the first time). I will not tolerate to be treated differently than him! So, I hope you will reprehend Bohemond behaviour just as you reprehended mine, this will be an essential condition for me staying in this thread.

Thanks

Ispanan,

“I cant really help you there, so take a dictionary, search “piety”, “good”, and “action”.”

I think you know it’s not so simple as that. As I’ve pointed out before, the Koran’s definitions of these terms are different than those in other religions, and different than modern secular definitions. This also applies to words like ‘hostilities,’ ‘oppression,’ ‘persecution,’ ‘aggression,’ etc. E.g., in the Koran, disbelief is considered aggressive defiance against Allah. (Ibn Kathir even lists disbelief as war against Allah). According to the Koran, disbelief in or denial of Allah is the worst crime, as I have cited so many times (10:17, 11:18-19, 18:15, 32:22).

“Nope, I don’t really know how to say it, but no… look at the verses I gave you.”

I believe I went through all of the non-redundant verses and even the Hadith you had in there.

BTW, on abrogation, that is widely accepted among Islamic scholars. Reformists like Haidon want to get rid of it, but abrogation is still mainstream, and the verses to support it are in the Koran.

“The war that the Koran allows is purely defensive,”

Mohammad raided caravans and called this defensive jihad.

BTW, there was a comment you had about 9:5 and 9:29. Verse 9:5 does not offer the dhimmi status, but verse 9:29 does. Again, that’s in the Koran, not my contradiction.

There was also a point about the racism in the Reliance of the Traveler (re Arab-only caliphate). Abul Kasem is certainly not ignorant. he is a former Muslim who knows the texts in extensive detail. You should learn more about him. Anyways, this arab supremacy is still a part of Sunni Islam. And as I said, the Koran does not contain that racial equality statement (it’s from Hadiths).

“If you did, you would know that many hadiths are of dubious authenticity (some of them even contradict themselves). Any Muslim will tell you that. This is why when someone uses a hadith to prove a point, he sometimes precises that the hadith is “authentic”.

This statement only shows that you are a true believer and are giving the Koran a free pass when it comes to establishing the factual authenticity. All this stuff about the Koran being valid and Hadith not being valid is very sketchy. All of the Koran and Hadith were each collected from scattered writings long after Mohammad died. Read Ibn Warraq’s works on this. Also keep in mind that you are talking about spiritual or occult claims. You say Mohammad is a prophet of Allah? Prove it!

As a non-Muslim, I look at this situation and I see that most believing Muslims think the Koran (or most of it) is valid (factually, and morally). The burden of proof for Muslims is to show the non-Muslim that everything (or most of the important stuff) in the Koran is true.
In any case, I do play by the mainstream Muslim rules about the Hadith. The hadith I cited regarding the extermination and expulsion of the Jews are both Sahih Muslim and/or Sahih Bukhari (extermination of the Jews is reported in both, at least). Generally, that’s considered valid. It is also consistent with Mohammad’s imperialistic goal (9:33, 48:28, 61:9) and the harsh means, if necessary, to achieve it (2:193, 8:39). (For a critical assessment of these verses, see Arlandson. Don’t dismiss him because he’s Christian. Muslims who say Islam is Religion of Peace need to be able to refute his arguments http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/ultimate_goal.htm ).

“(Archi said)“My translation doesn't contain any reference to people's skin colour, except of course those who are burnt in hell.”
“Was this an intent of comical statement or...?”

Yes, comical, but also conveying some information. The Koran does not contain an explicit statement about equality of people with respect to skin colour. The Koran mentions that the faces of the disbelievers will be blackened (part of the punishment/humiliation). The racial equality statement you cited was from a hadith, as I pointed out in another post.

“War against God is “war”, or if you prefer, “armed conflict”. Corruption on the Earth has the meaning of “mischief”: banditry, murder, etc. Its truly growing tiresome. If you keep this kind of idiotic arguments about how red can be interpreted as blue, Im off.”

Are you calling the Koran and Mohammad idiotic? Yes conflict, if against Muslims or Islam. But this category goes way beyond violent acts, even as implemented today in places like Saudi Arabia and Iran. Read Ibn Kathir’s tafsir of war against God/Allah for 5:33. War against God and corruption on earth are huge categories that can include non-violent offences. Also see Ibn Kathir on 8:73, which refers to corruption/mischief in the land. You need to go into what the Koran’s words and phrases mean in Islamic terms, rather than trying to put modern secular democratic values and interpretations on them. Also keep in mind that Mohammad (Allah) damned critics and poets, simply for their words against Islam. We know from the Islamic texts (Koran, Hadith, Sira) that he had critics and satirical poets assassinated for their words against Islam (Sources: http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Enemies/index.html , http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/free_speech.htm , http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/dead_poets.htm ). The Koran is clear that (male) Muslims must emulate the example of the prophet Mohammad (33:21), and therefore are obligated to kill (non-Muslim) critics of Islam.

Also note on 2:256 (no compulsion) and 5:32 (anyone who killeth), you need to be better prepared to debate these with non-Muslims. Also, viz. 5:32, I already pointed out that the rabbi was not a prophet. This was the rabbi’s commentary on scripture. Even so, even if we assume Allah guided the rabbi and the verse is valid (divine origin), I pointed out that ‘corruption on earth’ is so broad that almost anything non-Muslims could do (e.g., criticize Mohammad) that is deemed as going against Islam could be taken as just cause for killing someone. This is the real problem with the verse, as far as non-Muslims are concerned. 5:32 (with 5:33) permits what non-Muslims would consider murder.

“(Archi said: “Medicine: Dr. Mohammad says menstruation is an illness, remember?””
“Again these idiotic arguments? He said that because it was something that impairs them, no, it is not an “illness” as we understand it today.”

It’s not an argument. It’s what the Koran says. It says illness. Dr. Mohammad also thought that a man’s sperm originates in the kidney area (as stated in the Koran, and discussed at the apostatesof islam website). Check it out! A great site.

“Oh btw in Iran paedophiles are thrown off a cliff.”

Who’s definition of paedophilia do they use? Mohammad’s? Khomeini’s (the late imam had some pretty bizarre writings on this, which you can google)? This is a problem that some Islamic countries still need to address viz. legal age of marriage of females.

Look, Mohammad had sex with a 9-year-old. I assume you condemn that. The only way you can get around that, is to reject the hadiths that refer to events, to Aisha’s age, etc.

“The sharia in particular must be totally reworked, as it must be continuously adapted to the circumstances of the time Muslims live in (this is what is called “iytihad”).”

Total reworking would be progress, but I’d rather see the whole thing abandoned. Simpler to start from a modern standard. To ease the transition, keep some of the outward Islamic culture, belief in Allah, and a few basics, but otherwise start over on a modern moral foundation.

“About women, this is only partially true –women endure discrimination yes, but that happens in all the parts of the world. In the course of history, there has even been Muslim women who lead armies (one of them was in the battle of Yarmak if I remember well). In the current times, 4 Muslim countries have been lead at one point by a woman; another example, in Iran they make up for 60% of university students. And before I tell you of statements about equality, check the New Testament and tell me if there is any in Christianity, in the NT women are ordered to be obedient to their husbands.”

Actually, both the Koran and Bible look bad re women’s rights and status (go to the skeptics annotated site, and you’ll see both the Quran and Bible annotated, see “Women”). But the NT doesn’t haven’t a wife-beating verse. 4:34 does refer to obedience, and even says a “fear” of disobedience is just cause.

“(your quote of Bohemond) they are not only not acknowledged as superior, but often shunned, mocked and treated as culturally, socially and mentally (and sometimes racially) inferior”” “And now Archie, in your next post I demand you criticize Bohemond behaviour just as you criticized mine, saying I was "reckless" and had "no shame" (even saying it two times, just so you were sure in case we didn't get it the first time).”

If your style is to insult people, there’s not much else I can do but offer a strong suggestion. It’s your responsibility. Bohemond is describing his opinions on the social psychology of the Islamic pride and what happens when Islamists come into contact with western culture. They do face racial prejudice, in some cases, but my reading is that he is describing that, not approving of it. (I will add, as we’ve seen, westerners also face racial and ethnic discrimination from some Muslims). If Bohemond thinks western culture is superior, he has a right to say so, just as you (and the Koran) have a right to say Islam is superior to other religions. Bohemond is quite capable of defending himself on this.

This is all I want to say on this (now old) thread.

Ispam'em "vous êtes plein de de vous-même" or as we say in English, "you are full of yourself". You obviously do not have the intelligence or the command of the English language to understand the point I was making, using the sun as an example. Find someone who does speak English and get them to explain it to you. Have them use small words and speak slowly. "Cognitive dissonance" is taught in Psychology in college, which I took many years before you were born. I did not have to look for it for 2 hours as you did, but I'm glad you learned something in this exchange. You have failed to respond to the facts about mosques not being destroyed as the churches in France were, you have failed to respond to the lies in your quran about Jesus, as well as the obvious lies in it about the sun setting in a muddy pool or a blood clot becoming an embryo. You have failed to defend your faith as the unholy, ignoble quran commands. You pretend to rant about racism and discrimination but you ignore the fact that in Islam the word "black" and the word "slave" are the same word; "abeed". Mohammed had black slaves, called them raisinheads, and said the devil looked like one of his blacks. There is more racism in Muslim countries than in "Occident" (LOL! Again your "English" is so amusing!). I have that on first hand experience from black and Filippino friends who have lived in muslim countries. Many muslim countries still have slavery, but the United States fought a war to end slavery. Or are you ignorant of that fact also? Of course you will just find something new to complain about. You will ignore the issues I have raised here, because the truth is too painful for you to face and you are incapable of answering it adequately, as children are. It is not your fault you have been educated beyond the limits of your intelligence. You are a text book example of cognitive dissonance. You are a buffoon, but you may have a great future as a mime, or building Renaults when you grow up. Too bad French cars aren't good enough to be sold in the USA any more, but bonne chance, mon ami, bonne chance!

Archimedes, two old sayings I would like to pass on to you in reference to Ispam'em:
1) Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
2) Never argue with a fool. Passersby might not be able to tell who is the fool.
Both apply to "le petit imbécile".
You are right. This thread is a waste of time to try and teach that idiot anything beyond his (or her) ability to learn. In addition to the cognitive dissonance I already mentioned above, Ispamem displays displaced anger and aggression, denial, guilt transference, an innate inability to learn, and other mental abnormalaties inconsistent with normal, rational behavior.
In short, your typical muslim.

“As I’ve pointed out before, the Koran’s definitions of these terms are different than those in other religions, and different than modern secular definitions.”

Yes, because you say it.

I don’t really know what more to say. I have explained you about the hadiths, you are back with the hadiths again. I have explained about the abrogation, you are back with the abrogation again. I have explained you about the defensive war, you are back with the caravans again. I have explained you about the context of the verses, you are back with the verses again. I have said the explanation about Mohammad was in the thread under this one, you are back with Mohammad again. This is obviously a waste of time, since no matter how many times I refute your arguments, you will say the same things over and over again. Oh btw I see you completely ignored my comments about Iraq.

Bohemond:

This is truly wonderful! Each time you post, I am persuaded you cannot do worst, but you always amaze me. You dont imagine how fun this is to me, the more you try to answer to my posts, the more desperate, idiot, and pathetic you look. You are merely playing in my hands and thats great. Now lets see: you say I didnt answer the points about mosques and Jesus. What, have you read the whole thread again to see which points I answered and which I didnt? ROFL. Anyway, if you want me to respond these, go on, and search the info about Islam lying about Jesus, and bring it to me. Btw the Bible says the world was created in 7 days, what do you say about that?

But the stupidest thing ever is that you say Islam is racist because in Arabic “black” and “slave” can be said in one word. Which is even more hilarious considering that the only racist-religious Muslim organization (“Nation of Islam”) is actually... BLACK!!! I dont think you have any black or Filipino friend (or any friend at all for that matter). You said “many” Muslim countries still have slavery; tell me which ones. Oh and yeah, the US fought a war to end slavery and they were also the only country to have segreation laws for Blacks in the 50’. Now lets see. It seems that each time your confusion increases. Tell me, what does that mean, “educated beyond my intelligence”? Cant you see it doesnt have any meaning? Cant you see the extent of the idiocy you have spouted? Do you really want this owning to continue???

You said you learned psychology “years before I was born”, yet you are no more than an insecure 16 years-old who needs to increase his self-estime by feeling himself superior insulting other people on the net. Admit it, you are a loser. Im sure you are the typical guy that tells jokes in class and nobody laughs. The guy everyone mocks and points the finger at. The guy who is beaten up each Saturday night and then goes home asking himself “why me?”. You have no friends, no social relations, and the only thing that can slightly light the dark pit that your life is is your nightly chat on the messenger with that hot 23 years old girl called Veronica and who is actually a 40 years old gay trucker named Bernard. All your life you have failed, and those rare days you safely insult other people on the net and actually think you have “won” are the only days when you can turn your computer off with a smile, go to bed, and think for yourself: “at last today I won”.

Ispanan,

1. Context of Verse 9:5.

Ali Sina discusses the context of 9:5.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/Waqasp3.htm

2. Example of Koran's Definitions

You need to look at what is called tafsir. There are such interpretations available online. Here is an example. Ali Sina discusses the verses that say that disbelief is a "persecution" worse than killing.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/faq/70.htm

Abul Kasem discusses examples of "oppression" http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/AbulKasem51205.htm ).

3. This link addresses Ispanan's claims that people at this site and others like us will not succeed. (Ali Sina sounds optimistic).
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/PaulSperry51215.htm

4. Hadiths Regarding the Extermination of the Jews. These Hadiths (in Bukhari and Muslim) are considered valid by mainstream Islam.

Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6985.
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177.
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

Ispanan,

Here's what your Koran and Hadith say about women.

Treated very badly/unfairly/as inferior (2:228, 2:223, 4:3, 4:11, 4:14, 4:15, 4:19, 4:20, 4:24, *4:34, 4:176, 24:31, 63:9, 64:14-15, 70:10).

*4:34 does say “beat” her (or hit, or scourge). Some apologists have tried to weasel out of this by claiming that the Arabic word does not say “beat” or means a light symbolic hitting (Yusufali added the adjective “lightly,” but this is his addition; it is not in the Koran). At least 10 available respectable translations of the Koran say “beat” (or scourge, or hit). In 4:34, beating is the last in a progression of increasing punishments named in 4:34. A discussion of 4:34 and the word “beat” can be found at http://answering-islam.org/Silas/wife-beating.htm

Women are unclean. If a man has touched a woman at all before prayer time, he must wash up before doing the prayer. If he can’t find water, he should wash himself with dirt (5:6; 4:43).

Woman’s testimony is worth half a man’s (2:282).

Women (and children and the “feeble”) are unable to devise a plan (4:98).

Allah (Mohammad) may replace wives who criticize their husband (66:5).

No intermarriage allowed between Muslim men and idolatresses, nor between Muslim women and idolaters, unless the idolaters/idolatresses convert to Islam (2:221); idolaters/idolatresses would tempt the Muslim spouse toward the Fire of hell.

Women guilty of "lewdness" must be confined to the house until death (4:15).

Women must wear covering veils except when they are with their immediate family (24:31, 33:59).

On the Last Day, pregnant women will suffer miscarriages, and nursing mothers will abandon/forget their infants (22:2).

Mohammad says menstruation is an illness (2:222)

A Muslim man’s wives are a tilth to him, so he can go to his tilth as he wishes (2:223).

Allows Muslim men to take girl-slaves for sex. (23:6, 33:50)

"I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-Fire were women....[because] they are ungrateful to their husbands and they are deficient in intelligence. " (The Prophet Muhammad) Sahih Bukhari vol. 2 book 24, no. 541

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 consumated 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. This 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. vol. 7, book 72, no. 715. (The “green” adjective is in reference to the bruising from the beating).

“…He (Muhammad) struck me (Aisha) on the chest which caused me pain....” Muslim, book 4, no. 2127. (Mohammad’s child-wife Ayesha tells of how the prophet struck her hard enough to cause pain (and an enduring memory of it)).

Was Mohammad “aroused” by infants?
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/AyeshaAhmed50918.htm

Ibn Ishaq: Suhayli, 2.79: In the riwaya of Yunus Ibn Ishaq recorded that the apostle saw (Ummu’l-Fadl hen she was baby crawling before him and said, ‘If she grows up and I am still alive I will marry her.’ (ref.10, p. 311)

Muhammad saw Um Habiba the daughter of Abbas while she was fatim (age of nursing) and he said, "If she grows up while I am still alive, I will marry her." (Musnad Ahmad, Number 25636)

I don’t understand. I truly don’t understand this obsession you have to make look Islam as bad as possible, to take every verse or hadith and go look to every anti-Muslim site out there, and look for anyone who has written something bad about it, then come here again and write down every verse and every hadith. I showed you all the verses about religious tolerance, but no way, you have taken this one verse and went looking for that twisted 2 pages story about if whether he attacked first or not. You completely ignored the other verses who preached religious tolerance, being unable to explain what they are doing there, except that, for no other reason than “because you say it”, they are “abrogated”. When I gave you the explanation about the wife-beating verse, you had, yet again, to recur to Muslim bashers who apparently have truly a better understanding of Islam than the own Muslims do, even tough PRACTICALLY ALL of the Muslim scholars share the same explanation I gave you before ***. No one of you mention the verse about how there must be love and mercy from husband and wife to each other, how they are a support for each other, and how they are guardians of each other, you only mention the “bad” verses, and for you the good are either “abrogated” or somehow (also because you say it) mean something else than they mean. A simple answer just to answer to you whole post: anti-Muslims keep and keep saying with an almost sickly obsession that the woman is beaten when she disobeys to his husband. This is not true for the simple fact that the word “nushuz” which as I explained before is more a “disturbing treatment” than disobedience. And the simple one thing which proves it is the Koran PROTECTS THE WOMAN AGAINST THIS SAME BEHAVIOUR COMMITTED BY HIS HUSBAND. Nushuz has the same meaning for male and female: nasty, violent behaviour. The husband should be treated the same as woman would be treated if she had a manifestly “nasty”, but it would be ridiculous to pretend that the woman physically punishes his husband, so instead she should seek the protection from law. The prohibition to cause her pain while beating is not a product of Islam apologists, as you say, but from the Islamic law. I see as well than when quoting the verse about Muhammad wives, you didn’t quote the one above who said he “sought to please his wives”. What about him getting a better wife? If a wife is bad to his husband, then he should choose another, just as a woman must leave a man if he mistreats her. Her are some hadiths:

· "How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then embrace (sleep with) her? (Al-Bukhari, English Translation, vol. 8, Hadith 68, pp. 42-43).
· "I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)".
The most disturbing thing is you keep saying over and over again how what Islam seems to say is not what he actually says. But did I show any of the things you mentioned? Did I advocate for forced conversion? For the killing of the Jews? I repeat you again: if the Koran preaches the extermination of the Jews, then what are they still doing there? The Muslims had in many times the occasion to kill them as they were a small minority and had no means to defend themselves, even tough the mainstream policy since the birth of Islam has been tolerance towards all non-Muslims. Why? Did they not follow their religion? Did they do that because God commanded to exterminate all non-Muslims, or it is rather a delusion that only you believe and desperately wants to force on Muslims, even tough NONE of the normal Muslims agree with these ideals you claim the Koran possesses? Do you want to make them believe that they religion command to do things than they KNOW it doesn’t? do you know their religion better than them? For you Muslims are all “Islam apologists”?

I certainly wont read the story of this guy about this verse, and spend my time doing a story to contradict him, as you would just put me another story, and so on, and we would be like that during years. I could as well search Intenet to verify if that story about Joseph marrying Mary when he was 80 and she was 12 (which is accepted by the eastern Church) is true, but not only I don’t want it, but that would be a ridiculous waste of time. It seems also like if I had only debated about Islam. You didn’t respond to any of my other points. You didn’t either seem to recognize all the good that Islam did. Did you see my post about the dhimmitude? Did you know that altough per sharia law infidels had less rights than Muslims they were exempted from military service, meaning that actually it was the MUSLIMS who had the duty to fight and die for them? Do you know that the zakat, only payable by Muslims, did help the poors to survive throughout the years? Are you aware of how Islam improved the status of women In Arabia?

This is obviously a waste of time and I finished discutting with you. My points are proven enough. But just a tip, when looking for info, seach wikipedia, and not sites like this, just as you wouldn’t like to search your info in Islamic sites. Pretty much all of mine comes from there. This is a neutral enciclopedy anyone can edit if his information is *actually* more reliable. That’s all. Oh, and one more thing who shows your funny interpretation of verses:

"Women (and children and the “feeble”) are unable to devise a plan (4:98)."

Really?

[4.98] Except the weak from among the MEN and the children who have not in their power the means nor can they find a way (to escape).

Ispanan,

1. This site (plus DW) is about Islam, Jihad, and dhimmitude, and is paid for out of Spencer's own pocket and from donations. Surely, this is not for your personal insults and tantrums (e.g., re your responses to Bohemond, which are excessive).

2. Wikipedia must be read with a policy of "reader beware". Stick to the experts. Read multiple sources. Check to see if the original sources back up what is said. The fact that wikipedia can be edited by anyone has some merits, but also some drawbacks.

3. To even have this discussion, I'm giving you a free pass. Look, I am an atheist. I don't believe in any of the revealed religions, even though they may have some good points that overlap with common moral values. I'm saying "let's assume mainstream Islam's interpretation of the Koran, hadith, and Sira are true. Now let's examine the morality issues." The Islamic texts are 100% hearsay--Mohammad's scribes say they heard it from Mohammad who heard it from Gabriel who heard it from Allah--and the core texts were not assembled until long after Mohammad's death, allowing for much corruption of the texts. (These texts could have been altered by same principle as wikipedia's texts are edited--everyone puts in their own agenda). This all assumes, of course, that Mohammad even existed. This is not necessarily true (i.e., not proven) that the man existed.

4. Verse 4:98.
[Pickthal 4:98] Except the feeble among men, and the women, and the children, who are unable to devise a plan and are not shown a way.

My reading was of Pickthall's translation, which essentially equates a woman's intelligence with that of a child or a "feeble" man. However, you're right, from other translations, 4:98 does not support my paraphrase. Because of this disagreement between translations, I will not use that particular verse in the future. Thanks for pointing that out.

Nevertheless, Mohammad did view women as less intelligent, and this is clear in the valid Hadith (which I cited above, (re women's intelligence), and this is also clear in the other parts of the Koran (e.g., woman's testimony is worth half a man's; men are made to excell over women, etc.). In other words, Koran (most valid) and Bukhari Hadith (usually considered valid) are consistent on Mohammad's negative view of women.

5. Wife-beating.

You cited:
""How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then embrace (sleep with) her? (Al-Bukhari, English Translation, vol. 8, Hadith 68, pp. 42-43).
· "I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)"."

Mainstream Islam puts the Koran as more valid than any hadith. The one you cite from Bukhari is ambiguous (Mohammad asks a question, he does not give clear judgement and does not give an order from Allah) and the one from Abu-Dawud contradicts the Koran (4:34).

Verse 4:34 is clear. There is no way around it; it is supposed to be the word of Allah, and it is a divine commandment.

6. The fact is that if the Koran was a morally good document, it wouldn't have all of these problems. A very small percentage of good verses, most of which only apply to Muslims (not non-Muslims) does not make for a morally good document. A modern ethical treatise would not allow men to take women captives as sex slaves. Face it, Ispanan, the Koran is just too much trouble to salvage. You have no choice but to reject major parts of it.

7. Ali Sina and Abul Kasem are former Muslims. They know at least as much as any Muslim scholar about the Koran, Hadith, and Sira. Ibn Warraq is also an apostate. If Islam is so great, why did they leave it? If Islam is so great, why does Mohammad (Allah) have to threaten people, coercing them to remain Muslims? Why does Allah condemn the disbelievers to hell/painful doom over 250 times in the Koran?

8. Sina's analysis of 9:5 shows that it was not a defensive war. Besides, as you'll see if you read his article (which I cited) that Muslims are allowed to break a treaty even if they only fear treachery on the other side. The koran also says Muslims should not believe the disbelievers and that the disbelievers are liars. Finally, the Koran says do not call for peace when you have the upper hand. Keep in mind the ultimate goal of Islam, as cited earlier (9:33, and other verses), to conquer all religions no matter how averse this may be to non-Muslims.

Ispanan,

Re 4:98. Conflicting translations?

In English, Pickthal’s (4:98) “Except the feeble among men, and the women, and the children, who are unable to devise a plan and are not shown a way,”

This excuses three (3) categories of people: feeble men (category a), women (category b), and children (category c). Hence, a straightforward reading is that the verse means that all three categories of people are excused because they lack the ability to “devise a plan,” or lack the ability to find a way. This amounts to equating womens’ abilities to those of children and feeble men.

In other translations, e.g.,
Yusuf Ali (4:98) “Except those who are (really) weak and oppressed - men, women, and children - who have no means in their power, nor (a guide-post) to their way.”

This says that all people (one category)—-men, women, and children—-are excused (for failing to find a way) if they are weak and oppressed.

Hence, there are conflicting interpretations (see below). You be the judge as to which one is correct:

http://www.submission.org/quran/webqt.php?indata=4+98&t%5B%5D=1&t%5B%5D=2&t%5B%5D=3&t%5B%5D=4&t%5B%5D=5&t%5B%5D=6

Khalifa
Exempted are the weak men, women, and children who do not possess the strength, nor the means to find a way out.

Yusuf Ali
Except those who are (really) weak and oppressed - men, women, and children - who have no means in their power, nor (a guide-post) to their way.

Pickthal
Except the feeble among men, and the women, and the children, who are unable to devise a plan and are not shown a way.

Shakir
Except the weak from among the men and the children who have not in their power the means nor can they find a way (to escape);

Sher Ali
Except such weak ones among men, women and children, as are incapable of adopting any plan or of finding any way to escape.

"Progressive Muslims"
Except for those oppressed from the men, women, and children who could not devise a plan nor could be guided to a way.
-------------------------------------

Also see Ibn Kathir’s tafsir

http://mquran.org/en/a.46056.html (also click back to the previous page there)

Excerpt
-------------------------------------------------

(They (angels) say (to them): "In what (condition) were you'') meaning, why did you remain here and not perform Hijrah (They reply: "We were weak and oppressed on the earth.'') meaning, we are unable to leave the land or move about in the earth, (They (angels) say: "Was not the earth of Allah spacious enough for you). Abu Dawud recorded that Samurah bin Jundub said that the Messenger of Allah said, (Whoever mingles with the idolator and resides with him, he is just like him.) Allah's statement, (Except the weak) until the end of the Ayah, is an excuse that Allah gives for this type of people not to emigrate, because they are unable to free themselves from the idolators. And even if they did, they would not know which way to go.This is why Allah said(Who cannot devise a plan, nor are they able to direct their way), meaning, they do not find the way to emigrate, as Mujahid, `Ikrimah and As-Suddi stated. Allah's statement, (These are they whom Allah is likely to forgive them,) means, pardon them for not migrating, and here, `likely' means He shall, (and Allah is Ever Oft-Pardoning, Oft-Forgiving). Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Hurayrah said, "While the Messenger of Allah was praying `Isha', he said, `Sami` Allahu Liman Hamidah.' He then said before he prostrated,(O Allah! Save `Ayyash bin Abi Rabi`ah. O Allah! Save Salamah bin Hisham. O Allah! Save Al-Walid bin Al-Walid. O Allah! Save the weak Muslims. O Allah! Be very hard on Mudar tribe. O Allah! Afflict them with years (of famine) similar to the (famine) years of the time of Prophet Yusuf.)'' Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu An-Nu`man said that Hammad bin Zayd said that Ayyub narrated that Ibn Abi Mulaykah said that Ibn `Abbas commented on the verse, (Except the weak ones among men), "I and my mother were among those (weak ones) whom Allah excused.'' Allah's statement, (He who emigrates in the cause of Allah, will find on earth many dwelling places and plenty to live by.) this encourages the believers to perform Hijrah and abandon the idolators, for wherever the believer emigrates, he will find a safe refuge to resort to”
-------------------------------------------------END OF EXCERPT