How many of you Jihad Watchers have ever beheaded anyone?

I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you, but I don't think there's any chance that you'll be invited to the Hoopers' next Eid.

*LOL*

There is only one Mr. Hooper, and he used to be on Sesame Street. Big Bird is his Messenger and was brought to you by the letter "J." Peace be upon him.

I beheaded my little sister's doll when I was a kid.

She never forgave me.

*sobbing...crying* I - I - I'm sorry Mr. Spencer....I - I- raaaaped my sister's Barbie when I was 5 please im so sorry for perpetrating such a ghastly act against an innocent plastic toy! Please forgive me! I'll even accept the European Court of Human rights judgement on me to pray salat and do sijdah 5 times a day

Tushar

How can local JW/LGF readers meet up ?

I don't see a logical method or forum for potential JW/LGF activists to contact each other and organize??

Aren't we special, CAIR doesn't like some of our comments.

Cornelius.... I use to behead or blow up my dolls until my stupid relatives started asking what I *really* wanted. Of course mother wanted to know where I was getting all the cherry bombs and fire crackers.

I don't think it's being hateful to say I'd like it very much if all violent muslims vanished off the face of the planet. Ditto for ALL violent sorts and sexual predators.

Tushar Saxena -

Thanks for Eurobashing again. The European Court of Human Rights has protected us, in much the same way the the USA Supreme Court does in the USA, from some legislators and legislation that want to go too far in telling us what to do. However, I suppose the facts are just not as much fun as your rather silly prejudices - but give it a rest, it's getting very boring. Yawn.

I'm so ticked that I didn't make CAIR's list. Maybe they are reading this thread. If so....

I think someone could make good money making urinal cakes in Mohammed's likeness. I know I'd buy lots!

Is that enough for CAIR?

savetheus -

I wish we could meet up and plan some sort of peaceful action but as you say, there doesn't seem to be a logical, safe way.

No matter you link us to CAIR terrorists and ask if the authors of the comments have killed anyone to try to excuse this, the fact is these comments, altough removed -because keeping them wouldn't be good for public image, eh?- give a clair proof of how many who claim to defend democracy against that barbaric religion Islam is are actually no better than the ones they seem to hate so much. And the saddest thing is some of this human filth is Christian. And then they will have the balls to blame the Palestinians who danced the 9/11. One wonder what they would do if they were ruling their country.

So these comments do not reflect jihadwatch official policy, ok. But what about those ones?

"A complete ban on Muslim migration to the Western world (which needs to be undertaken in any case), and limits put on any contact between Muslims living in the West, who may already have obtained citizenship and -- unless they are native-born converts -- their countries of origin."

"And the first way is to put a complete stop to Muslim immigration, and to find creative ways to deport all Muslim non-citizens. These two measures would be accompanied by the creation of an environment where the practice of Islam is made not easy but difficult."

The West must "Understand how very useless is the concept of the "moderate" Muslim -- because it is impossible to know when someone's "moderation" is real or feigned"[5] and must take "specific moves to limit Muslim immigration. This can only take place if the Idols of the Age, about Diversity and Everyone Wants the Same Thing and Tolerance is Always the Only Conceivable Policy, are undermined, mocked, and shown up as the dangers they are."

"Stephen Sizar of Virginia Water, should be demanding that in Bethlehem and Nazareth, Iraqi and other Arab-speaking Christians should move in, and Muslims be moved out. The retaking of Bethlehem, by the Israelis, and its being repopulted by Arabic-speaking but non-Arab Christians, or by Christians who are from Europe or Latin America, and willing to live there to keep the place safe for the world's Christians and out of Muslim hands and inevitable Muslim domination at the expense of a Christian presence, a Christian flavor, and ultimately of Chrsitian access -- should be a cause that will also, and most usefully, serve to separate out the Christians from the islamochristians"

Authored by Fitzgerald

But you are right, why does it matter, if Hugh never deported anyone?

Of course you will say his views find no echo in your own, after all he is just the director of your site and in your own words "one of the most brilliantly insightful commentators on the scene today"!

CAIR is an organization of hypocrites. CAIR can only hope to get the website removed legally through lawsuit so that debate and criticm of Islam can be squashed. CAIR is not interested in free speech or freedom of expression. CAIR is nothing but a left-wing stooge organization with a very specific political agenda, an agenda which is not concerned with Muslim-American relations, but rather with advancing left-wing, anti-american, anti-Jewish, pro-Palestinian, and by default, pro-terror propaganda.

Oh by the way CAIR, I happen to read Arabic very well and I couldn't help but notice your Washington D.C. metro area front newspaper "Al-Nashra" and your agent (a very powerful arabic term btw), Mr. Farid Al-Ba'eeni. I see your agenda very clearly. It's ok though, keep printing this stuff, it's helping my skills out immensely. It's always good to learn left-wing political agenda in Arabic. Gives me more tools to work with.

Lol, hey Cert...I don't remember you ever responding or even being involved in any forum which had my previous posts. I don't post often though I read the site everyday many times. And yes Eurabiabashing is fun...as is Indiandhimmi bashing and american dhimmi bashing...no qualms about mocking those who deserve it. But alas..kudos to whatever they had accomplished in the past...lets hope Eurabia remains where it is - in the books...

Tushar

Ispanan writes:
"give a clair proof of how many who claim to defend democracy against that barbaric religion Islam is are actually no better than the ones they seem to hate so much."

I guess Ispanan must mean "very low reading
comprehension" in Arabic, or whatever language
it is they speak in the hole you crawled out of.
See, even if I ululated and passed out sweets
whenever some worthless mobot goes to Hell with
his pedophile prophet, that's a bit different
than killing, isn't it? And that's the whole
point of Robert's post, isn't it?

You mohammadans never miss a chance to miss the
point, or to behead Christian teenagers, or blow
up Jewish babies, or just kill infidels.

No, only using words seems to be a crime... calling for the destruction of a country or the killing of infidels doesn't seem to be noticed...

http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/PA_NEWA17968281137502318A000?source=PA%20Feed
~Griffin 'warned of Asian hell-hole'
18 January 2006

British National Party leader Nick Griffin told a crowd that white society had turned into a multiracial hell-hole as Asian Muslims aimed to conquer the country, a court has heard.

Griffin, 45, and fellow party activist Mark Collett, 24, face a series of charges arising out of speeches featured in an undercover BBC documentary on the party.

Leeds Crown Court heard that both men addressed a crowd at the Reservoir Tavern in Keighley on January 19 2004.

Rodney Jameson QC, prosecuting, told the jury that Griffin concentrated on allegations of paedophile drug rapes by Asian Muslims in Keighley during his speech.

Reading excerpts from the speeches, Mr Jameson said Griffin said white society had turned into a multiracial hell-hole and urged the crowd to vote BNP in order to ensure "the British people really realise the evil of what these people have done to our country."

Griffin, of Llanerfyl, Powys, denies two counts of using words or behaviour intending to stir up racial hatred and two of using words or behaviour likely to stir up racial hatred.

Collett, of Swithland Lane, Rothley, Leicestershire, denies four counts of the first offence and four of the alternative.

The trial continues.

.
.
Notice after Hamza's hateful words were played at his trial nothing has been said about his trial by the BBC? And he was calling for murder not asking for biased voting. Plenty more like him out there not being stopped. There is no freedom of speech in England or Australia or France or ...
.
.
. it's a crime now to state your opinion... .
. the speakers corner box won't be safe...
.
. can shutting down the blogs be far behind...

I would like to suggest that there is a badge that anyone committed to secular, western style democracy can wear in the lapel. It is plain, stark white, that is to say no lettering or design of any sort; it is half-an-inch high and between one-and-a-half and two inches long (wide); it is, therefore, rectangular. It can be made at home out of a safety pin and some white card, or plastic, and some sticky tape, or it can be purchased from an office supply store (at least, in the UK that size is available). Wearing this badge simply means that the wearer is committed to supporting secular, western style democracy and it doesn't mean anything else nor can it give any offense as there is no lettering or design of any sort on the badge. Since Mohammedanism does not support secular, western style democracy jihadists, dhimmis and others are obvious - they not only not wear it but they are refusing to wear it. Wearing this badge will also support many in the third world who strive towards freedom and have atrted to wear it.

I wish we could meet up and plan some sort of peaceful action but as you say, there doesn't seem to be a logical, safe way.

Well that seems to really limit the value of this site and sites like it. I mean I've learned alot in the past few months that I can try to relay to close friends but I'm only one voice. I don't undertsand the "safety" side of your comment? Is there a liability fear that some whack-jobs can meet here and do something illegal or what? If so I don't know why there can't be a pointer to some Yahoo (no pun intended) group.

Well. Now, we are getting somewhere. Perhaps, Robert could set up a scoreboard.

I would be disappointed if my efforts had gone unnoticed.

Oh, ... No muslims; No mosques.

It is clear what side Ispanan is on, and it's also clear the psychological manipulation Ispanan is attempting, which quickly fails here. Ispanan is more concerned about the bug on the window rather than notice that the engine is on fire. Get a clue. CAIR only wants to (try and) establish special class treatment for Muslims in order to suppress any criticism of Islam and therefore perpetuate the deception and the Jihad. Trying to prevent criticism of Islam is proof in itself that it's a major deception.

But Tushar...

If everyone could just be nicer! Why... if we were nicer, Terrorists would become peaceful, docile creatures. Hamas would lay down their weapons and drop their official policy of "driving the Jews into the Sea". Wahhabis would stop Jew-Bashing, might stop declaring them to be the descendants of "Pigs and Apes", and turn to possibly even (gasp) allowing women to show an ankle!!! Could you imagine? An ankle! How provocative! How Radical! If we were just nicer, if we would just "understand" where these jihadists are coming from, why, we couldn't help but see the honor and justification in their beheadings, rapes, murders, tortures, honor-killings, stonings, plunderings, pillagings, genocide, extortion, intimidation, kidnappings, and maimings.

I apologize to any victim of a terror attack of any sort reading this webblog if I didn't accurately describe the action against them. They are quite a rainbow you know, a Kaleidoscope of Evil, if you will.

Sorry, typo, last phrase should read "have started to wear".

A memo to CAIR:

When are you guys going to remove all those hateful passages in the Qur'an which are aimed at non-Muslims?

Never? That's what we thought.

So, who in the hell would CAIR be to talk about hateful missives anywhere (Not just here)?????

In our estimation you at CAIR are nobody to do so and thus have no rights WHATSOEVER to so much as make negative commentaries on what we write here.

**************************************

A note to everyone else: even at their most graphic, the writings in this section are TAME compared to what is said and done in the mosques by imams and other assorted Islamic "clerics". That's a FACT which CAIR doesn't want you to know.

ps- We who post comments at Jihad Watch don't encourage people to commit murder or conspire to commit murder either--in contrast to SOME PEOPLE WE KNOW AND WRITE ABOUT.....

it's a crime to be an interpreter or a journalist ...at least in the islamic world...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/17/iraq.journalist/index.html

By the way I have a proposal for everyone here.

include the jihadwatch.org website address in all of your emails going out to your friends, coworkers, family, everyone that you speak to. Example:

Take Care,

John M Doe
888-555-4444
www.johnmdoe.com
www.jihadwatch.org

They might not appreciate it at first, but they will catch on once they visit the site. The other thing is, who can resist a URL sitting right in front of their face waiting to be clicked? Tough, isn't it? It's like sitting in front of a jar of Cashews. You know if you crack that lid it's over, you'll eat the whole jar and there is nothing you can do about it. Same concept with teasing people with such a great URL.

>How many of you Jihad Watchers have beheaded anyone?

Well, there was this one time at band camp....

My dear "Ispanan,"

It might not be wise for you to pick up your material uncritically from defamation attempts at Wikipedia without checking them out first yourself.

These quotes from Hugh are taking on a life of their own among Jihad Watch haters, none of whom trouble to note that they come in the context of an article he wrote arguing against the deterrent value of the destruction of Mecca (as suggested by Congressman Tancredo), and proposing milder alternatives.

An apposite quote from the piece: "Deterrent measures that could be undertaken in the event of a chemical or nuclear attack, but without waiting in some cases for any further attacks (although further attacks will help to justify the more far-reaching among them) might include, but not be limited to...These are things that can be done, should be done, long before suggestions about 'bombing Mecca' need to be bruited about." Emphasis added, oh yes, but any fair-minded reader (yes, that means you're disqualified; I'm sorry) will see that these are a series of suggestions for an extreme circumstance, proposed as a series of deterrents to a major terrorist attack.

As for his suggestion about Bethlehem, I think it is rather utopian and unlikely, but I do not think it any more immoral than the many population exchanges that followed World War II, or others throughout history. If you think otherwise, please explain why discussion of a population exchange in this particular case is ipso facto hateful, but not hateful in Poland, Russia, Germany, Czechoslovakia, etc., in 1946.

Finally: you say, "Of course you will say his views find no echo in your own..." Actually, I won't say that. We agree on most, not all things. But you are quite wrong: he is not "the director of your site," and never has been, and while I did indeed say that he is "one of the most brilliantly insightful commentators on the scene today," I did not say he was an "infallible commentator." He states his views without censorship here, but his views are under his byline and mine are under mine. Only the mean-spirited propagandist (yes, you, sir) would assume our views are identical in all respects, for smearing purposes.

If you really want to know what I think of Muslim immigration in the West, read my books. I haven't been shy about the topic. But if you go looking for my views in the writings of those whom I consider insightful but who are not me, well, caveat emptor.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Certiorari~ you posted that you were in Paris and that the riots were not as bad as portrayed by the foreign press. Did you ever think that the riots were NOT actually IN Paris and the French press was suppressing the news? They admitted as much. Did you actually go around at night to the 30+ towns that were being burned? Have you looked at the French blogs? They seem to be telling a VERY different story than the press is telling. Like the roving bands threatening people all over and nothing being done. It seems it's a crime to complain in France these days...

Beheading -

Does throwing my programme at the off key tenor in the chorus last month at the opera count. I did get him in the neck and I think it was with the stapled side - but then again, it could have been any one of the thirty odd programmes that got chucked at him. Also, in common with most Brits, perhaps, I feel slightly guilty about burning an effigy of Guy Fawkes every November, 5th. I feel all week after such a confession to unbridled violence - I'll just have a nice cup of tea and a quiet lie down in a undisclosed darkened, secure room.

ispanan writes:
"the Palestinians who danced the 9/11"

I was in Manhattan that day...so I missed the dancing. Perhaps you have the music & choreography. It would be a good reminder of the atavistic nature of Muslim culture.

By the way, I didn't see anybody dance when the Taliban were overthrown. Didn't hear about Israelis dancing when Yassin got his. Guess its a Muslim thing.

"whom I consider insightful but who are not me.."
-- from Robert's posting above

I'm not? Now you tell me.

Like Lenny Bruce, I have never ever not one time cut off anybody's head.

No, Hugh, I am not you.

I am not even me.

Yours
Robert

I'd like to be the first one here to formaly introduce the fine, hard working foks out there at CAIR to the Internet.

Welcome to you all. Or, as most of us say here, "whalecum lolz".

Mr. Spencer, Mr. Fitzgerald -

This is getting surreal. If neither of you are the other and one of you isn't yourself where on earth does that leave the rest of us - figments of God's imagination, perhaps.

Certiorari:

Allow me to refer you to the short story "Borges y yo" -- Borges and I -- by the great Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges. You may find that it sheds some light on this admittedly confusing situation.

"I is another" -- Arthur Rimbaud

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Moneypenney,

Lenny Bruce is dead, but his spirit's living on and on.

It's a shame he never won a Golden Globe Award.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

None of you are vomiting rabbits, like in Julio Cortázar's "Letter to a Young Lady in Paris," are you?

One would want to get that checked out.

Do you think Henry VIII was a closet Muslim? After all, he had numerous wives and beheaded many of them. Oops, am I engaging in hate speech? Sorry CAIR.

And Cortazar and Borges collaborated on the stories of Bustos Domecq. No, I mean Bioy Casares. Sorry. Another glass of Jerez (de la Frontera) anyone?

Thank-you Mr. Spencer. We now really feel as if we are acting in 'Waiting for Godot'. As one of me said earlier - a quiet lie down with a cup of tea in a darkened, undisclosed, secure room. (I do not know that particular Borges story - I will look it up.)

The problem here with CAIR is what you get when you pull faces at the monkeys. They go apesh*t.

Cair's response to JW in the face of the avalanche of Islam justified crimes all across the world shows the mentality of a monkey, but then most monkeys have some sort of constant moral code towards their own species and I am probably being too harsh on the monkeys.

Mr. Spencer,

I think you left out a very important award in your 2005 jihadwatch awards. The award is "most hypocritical organization in America".

Check out CAIR's mission title from their website:
"To enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, and empower American Muslims..."

Let's see. Are any of those parts true? Any of them? They advance their "understanding" of Islam as a cover-up, CAIR has just proven to Mr. Spencer that CAIR is not interested in dialogue at all. CAIR is only interested in protecting the civil liberties of its constituency, not the civil liberties of non-muslims who would be the victims of a terror attack here or abroad, the most prominent civil liberty being the loss of one's life. I think we all know what empowering American Muslims means as well. Arming them with all the left-wing hate-america-first tools they can muster. It means emulating their golden-children, Sami Al-Arian, Randall T. Royer, and Ghassan Al-Elashi.

I do not know who is putting on the bad remarks but it only encourages them and puts Robert in a bad light so stop it. Unless, it is really someone from the other side, nothing we can do about that.

Please support the idea of getting Robert Spencer onto coast to coast am radio and interview with George Noorey.

go to contacts on www.coasttocoastam.com

I've never beheaded anyone, contemplated beheading anyone, or encouraged the beheading of anyone. The psychotic practice of beheading is a time-honored Islamic tradition, one of many sacred obscenities revered by Muslims for centuries. Since I am a member of the civilized world, not a muslim, I find beheading and all of Islam's aberrant practices repugnant.

Four years and three months ago, Islam formally introduced itself to America. Some "American" muslims were so impressed, they celebrated with great joy in our streets. These immigrants, who asked to come here, were elated at the death and destruction wreaked by their beloved "brothers." I will NEVER FORGET the sight of these despicable muslim scumbags; cheering, laughing, literally overcome with ecstacy at the carnage in NYC and the Pentagon.

I made a resolution on that horrible day, and I have not faltered, nor will I ever falter. Until the day I die, I will tell anyone who will listen about the sinister ideology of Islam. If I cannot convince my audience, I will recommend books and websites. I will do everything humanly possible to reach the maximum number of people and warn them about the scourge that is Islam. I didn't learn about Islam after the fact; I was well acquainted with its blasphemous, profane, and evil doctrine twenty-five years ago, and I knew its unspeakable malevolence would eventually force itself into our world and change it forever.

But I won't encourage people to kill muslims or even to hate muslims. I know that muslim clerics teach hate, intolerance, jihad, and superiority because that is Islam. They are merely practicing their religion, albeit a predatory, violent, hate-filled credo that should be illegal because it threatens the safety, security, and freedom of all Americans. I pray that some day it will be illegal in the U.S. I challenge Mr. Hooper of C.A.I.R. to stop me from telling the truth about his adopted religion. He cannot stop me; he cannot prevent the truth from being told and it's about to drive the lying little hypocrite insane!

The Mohammedans call us blasphemers. I have just remembered what George Bernard Shaw once said - "All great truths begin as blasphemies".

Yes, Hugh, it was Bioy Casares, not Cortázar, who collaborated with Borges on "The Chronicles of Bustos Domecq."

Bioy Casares also, if I recall correctly, was responsible for giving Borges the fateful encyclopedia volume containing the entry on Uqbar -- but perhaps it was another.

Yours
Robert

I'd really like to push the white badge thing that I posted earlier in this thread. Is really that bad an idea?

Cert,

I think a plain white badge may be misconstrued as a "white flag of surrender", I don't think you want to stumble into that interpretation. Am I way off on this?

"your honour and ladies and gentlemen of the jury
all this has been happening to me because of this guy named t bone burnett.
he's been making all this up
and i just want to say i don't believe in him
in fact i don't even think he exists"

Obscure song reference #2 of the evening.
Good night, everybody.

Borges, Cortázar... more priceless culture we'll lose if the jihadists win.

The Koran couldn't tolerate any competition for magic realism in fiction. ;)

Not all that obscure, Moneypenney.

I do recall it very well, here in my sprawling estate on the lake in Secure Undisclosed Locationville.

And by that I don't mean by the lake. I mean ON the lake.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Mr. Spencer -

No, it was Bioy Casares. It was the Anglo-American Cyclopedia, vol. XLVI, - but of course only the one that Casares showed to him. The one they found in a bookshop on Corrientes and Talcahuano contained no reference to Uqbar either.

GFB,

I doubt that Henry VIII was a Muslim, but since we're dealing with questions of identity, I know one thing: I'm Henry the eighth I am, Henry the eighth I am, I am. I got married to the widow next door. She's been married seven times before. And every one was an Henry. She wouldn't have a Willy or a Sam. I'm her eighth old man, I'm Henry. Henry the eighth I am.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Certiorari,

Thank you. Or perhaps I should say, in a small, stunned voice:

"This cannot be."

(Cf. "The Book of Sand.")

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Mr. Spencer -

"It can't be, but it is". Now, back to my darkened room on the "outskirts of Bikaner".

Certiorari:

Before you go, call Lönnrot.

The first letter of the Name has been uttered.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Shinolite,

If I did vomit rabbits,

¿Encontraría a la maga?

Just wondering.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Mr. Spencer,

I presume you mean Elias Lonnrot, the Finnish author. I have note read the Kalevala or the Kanteletar yet, so I am afraid that the refernce passes me by. Sorry to disappoint.

No, Certiorari, I meant the great detective Erik Lönnrot.

Pardon me, but I thought you had arranged a rendezvous with him at that marvelous little villa in Triste-le-Roy.

My mistake.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Mr. Spencer,

My mistake. "I have premeditated everything, Erik Lonnrot, in order to attract you to the solitudes of Triste-le-Roy". It would be nice if our journalists were all like Alonso Zunz.

Obviously my guilt at having notyet read the Elias is warping my mind - I may become Scarlachian and have to be put down.

¿Encontraría a la maga?

Pues, si Ud. la encuentre, no diga:

"ah mierda, mierda, hasta mañana maestro, mierda mierda infinitamente mierda, sí, a la hora de visita, interminable obstinación de la mierda por la cara y por el mundo, mundo de mierda, le traeremos fruta, archimierda de contramierda, supermierda de inframierda, remierda de recontramierda..."

Robert, ¿es Ud. cronopio o fama?

Cronopios and Famas/:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0811214028/102-8447142-2869723?v=glance&n=283155

I drive by a hog farm on my way to work every day. I even look at the pigs!
Does that count?

Shinolite,

Yo soy enormísimo cronopio...por supuesto.

Con respeto
Roberto

*LMAO*

Y con mucho respeto a Ud.

La Shinoliite
Cronopia profesional

Savetheus

I know a way that we could meet up. How about if all of us wore a blue scarf, and when we met one another we could mention the name of Robert Spencer.

Mr. Spencer,

The thing that worries me most is those wretched monkeys at their typewriters. If they end up producing Shakespeare by accident then surely one of them could produce the Tetragrammaton in the same way. What if some simple scientist came along and read it out loud. It just doesn't bear thinking about.

One last thing before I make myself close the browser and get some work done:

It would appear that the bear in the plumbing in Cronopios y Famas actually exists!

http://www.icbe.org/pics/icbe_bear.jpg

x_achillesheel_x -

The white badge is already established, it is the colour of purity, the colour of the virgin knight's shield, the old colour of mourning and the colour of the senator's togas. What could be more appropriate.

Shinoliite -

Shouldn't it be smoking a GENITAL, just for the really compleat picture, you understand.

Well, the ICBE (The International Center for Bathroom Etiquette) is a family site. ;)

http://www.icbe.org/icbe.shtml

found on an islamic web site.

since we're not allowed to make images of humans and animals, should children be allowed to play with toys in the shape of humans or animals?.

Answer : from an islamic site

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
With regard to those in which the shape is incomplete, in which there is only a part of the limbs or head, but the shape is not clear, there is no doubt that these are permissible, and these are like the dolls with which ‘Aa’ishah used to play. (Narrated in al-Bukhaari, 6130; Muslim, 2440).
But if the shape is complete, and it is as if you are looking at a person – especially if it can move or speak – then I am not entirely at ease with the idea of them being permissible, because this is a complete imitation of the creation of Allaah. It seems that the dolls with which ‘Aa’ishah used to play were not like this, so it is preferable to avoid them. But I cannot say that they are definitely haraam, because there are concessions granted to young children that are not granted to adults in such matters. It is natural for young children to play and have fun, they are not obliged to do any of the acts of worship so we cannot say that that they are wasting their time in idle play. But if a person wants to be on the safe side in such matters, he should cut off the head or hold it near the fire until it softens, then he should press it until the features disappear.

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?search_text_box_dsn4=23445&lv=browse&formtrans=dgn%3D4%7C&ln=eng&ds=qa&sensitivity=2&searchquestions=1&searchtitles=1&searchanswers=1&searchsources=1&pg=result&offset=0&msubmit=1&submit.x=45&submit.y=5

"Like the toys with which Aisha used to play"
-- from the posting above, quoting a Muslim website

That offers conclusive evidence that Muslims, who sometimes try to insist that Aisha was 18 or 19, know perfectly well how old she was when she caught Muhammad's eye.

Other details too -- advising the decapitation or melting, by holding to a fire, of the features on a child's doll -- are telling.

Muslim websites are full of such stuff. Grateful to the person who supplied this, and hope he offers, by posting, more.

A few years ago I didn’t know what Muslims or Islam was all about. I started reading everything I could find on the subject. The I happened to find JihadWatch and from Robert Spencer, Hugh, D.C. Watson, and may individuals who posted on this site, I learned a lot of very important information. Granted, there are some who wrote things that were rather harsh. This a free country and everyone has the freedom to express how they feel. One thing I learned when we (infidels) speak the truth, people such as CAIR accuses us of hate crimes. The articles that I have read where Mullahs and Clerics have preached hate from their mosques is the purest form of hate and inciting to violence. It is all over the world. Then they go to the US to preach their hatred and pursue their criminal activities and get caught - then they use the rights of the Constitution of the US to defend themselves. I say when does these people from these countries that are not citizens of the US have the rights of the Constitution? They are working to take the rights of the citizens away and replacing them with the Muslim agenda - pure and simple. So, CAIR thinks we are filled with hate - they are right. We hate the hate filled cult they call a religion - not the people themselves. CAIR should take a good look at all the “peaceful Muslims” who cheered and danced in the streets when the World Trade buildings went down and then called the criminal hijackers heroes. When the big earthquake hit in Pakistan - how many people from the US cheered and danced in the street? As for the beheadings - I think one of the victims was a relative of mine - CAIR you defenders of criminals I have the video of the criminals doing their dastardly deed. If you don’t believe me, I can send you a copy of it - you bunch of hateful criminals!!! You don’t like it here - go to the countries where you would be at home with the rest of them criminals and leave the people who are free to speak their mind alone. To put it bluntly - I hate criminals!!!

Borg

Doesnt seem like any here want to look at the griffen case
It is the same at FFI

http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/PA_NEWA17968281137502318A000?source=PA%20Feed
~Griffin 'warned of Asian hell-hole'
18 January 2006

British National Party leader Nick Griffin told a crowd that white society had turned into a multiracial hell-hole as Asian Muslims aimed to conquer the country, a court has heard.

Griffin, 45, and fellow party activist Mark Collett, 24, face a series of charges arising out of speeches featured in an undercover BBC documentary on the party.

Leeds Crown Court heard that both men addressed a crowd at the Reservoir Tavern in Keighley on January 19 2004.

Rodney Jameson QC, prosecuting, told the jury that Griffin concentrated on allegations of paedophile drug rapes by Asian Muslims in Keighley during his speech.

Some background to Keighley

Channel 4 News has uncovered details of an 18 month police and social services investigation into allegations that young men are targeting under-age girls for sex, drugs and prostitution in the West Yorkshire town of Keighley.

But what's explosive about the allegations is that all the young men are Asian, and all the girls are white.

The local MP, Anne Cryer, says the men's cultural background of arranged marriages is the key to understanding the problem. That's vehemently denied by Asian community leaders and by social workers.

But the mothers of some of the girls say existing legislation is not protecting their children. Our North of England correspondent Justin Rowlatt has this:

The suggestion that men are seeking out schoolgirls for sex would be controversial in any community. But the claims about what's happening here in Keighley are particularly incendiary.

Sixteen per cent of the Yorkshire town's 70,000 population is Asian. And the allegation is that what is happening here in Keighley is that Asian men are seducing young white girls.

Supt Mark Whyman, West Yorkshire Police:

"Early last year we received a variety of reports that young Asian men by young I mean in their teens to their twenties were targeting young vulnerable school girls for sex and were actually leading to prostitution in some cases."

But it's proved very difficult to tackle. Many of the girls don't see themselves as victims and the police investigation - which lasted a year and a half - has lead to just one prosecution for a serious sexual offence, a rape.

Kath Tunstall, Bradford Social Services

"I fully agree and accept that young girls are being exploited and this is a child protection issue and that's why we're taking great steps to address it. There is a frustration without any evidence to pursue prosecutions."

As far as the police and social services are concerned this is a child protection matter -- they say race is not an issue. Yet -- even if they've never been involved -- most schoolgirls in the town will tell you that cars full of Asian men waiting at the school gates have become just another fact of school life.

Gemma Meares, schoolgirl:

"You see a lot of Asian men, driving around in cars and stuff, smoking draw..."

Channel 4 News:

"What, coming to the school gates?

Gemma Meares:

"Yeah, they are come in and sit in.... with their music pumping and stuff.... "

Channel 4 News:

"What, trying to pick up young girls?"

Gemma Meares:

"Impress young girls, yeah."

Channel 4 News:

"Have you seen girls go off with these men?"

Gemma Meares:

"Er, yeah, I suppose, I've seen lasses getting in cars and driving off with them."

We've spoken to two mothers whose daughters became involved with these men. The mothers are afraid of what might happen to them if it's known they've spoken out.

They say they've tried to warn their daughters of the dangers these men pose but they believe the men are deliberately targeting impressionable girls some as young as 11 and 12.

It is claimed the men meet the girls outside the school and offer them cigarettes, drink and drugs, trying to establish a relationship.

"Julie:"

"These men are showing you what you see as a good time, tripping off in the cars, driving around in the cars, buying you booze taking you to McDonalds, Burger King throwing money at you., you know like it's no object and it's treating you. In the beginning its like a treat. But I used to say to her in the beginning, nothing in life is free."

And it's alleged the girls aren't always treated well..

"Mandy:"

"At the age of 13 she was regularly taken to Bradford to a flat. At this flat she was introduced to Es to speed and GHB. On 5 occasions I had a phone call in the middle of the night. "I'm on a street corner mum I don't know where I am. I don't feel too well tonight."

The mothers say there's no question what the men really want -- they want sex.

"Mandy:"

"We regard this as, they're paedophiles. It's a grooming. There's a grooming process. Paedophiles -- a paedophile is a man that likes having sex with a child."

There's no doubting the mothers concern, but their daughters often don't see any problems with their relationships with these men. And, if the girls are 13 or over the police can't initiate criminal proceedings without a formal complaint - and often the girls wont do that.

"Julie:"

To them, it's not abuse. To them it's a laugh. They're having fun. They're just having a laugh. Chilling. Why don't you chill mum?"

The mothers have given police a list of 57 Asian men who their daughters say are involved. Of course it's not unusual for young men -- of all races -- to seek out younger girlfriends. So is the real reason why people are so concerned about what's happening in Keighley because in this case the men happen to be Asian? .

Kath Tunstall, Bradford Social Services:

"This is a problem of young men exploiting young girls. Regardless of what the minority background is. If this was white men or black girls that is not the issue for us here. This is a child protection issue that we are all working together to tackle.

For police and social services the key problem has been the fact that girls often don't believe they are being exploited.

Supt. Mark Whyman, West Yorkshire Police:

"What I want to do with them as a police officer and a father is arrest people who abuse children who are paedophiles and who engage in hat behaviour. The difficulty we have is evidence, we need the girls because of their ages we need them to complain about what's happening to actually tell us that's happened to them and to do that in statement form and there's been a marked reluctance. We've carried out a very extensive investigation jointly with social services, we've approached the girls who've been named and there's been a marked reluctance among most of them to do that and come forward."

That's despite the fact that according to the two mothers we've spoken to sometimes this goes far beyond consensual sex within relationships. Both say their daughters have been gang raped -- one at the age of 13.

"Mandy:"

"On the fourth or fifth time of them going cruising and having a drink, her and a friend were taken to a flat, the flat door's locked, sat down drinking, the drink is spiced with GHB. All 4 men -- my daughter is taken by all four men in turn. Her whole body was shaking and she couldn't stop shaking from the effects of the drugs that she were given. My daughter said "You know what will happen mum, if we go to the police, you know what will happen". And I do know because I've had Asian men on the phone to me saying that if I send police to their house one more time then they will petrol bomb my house.

Supt. Mark Whyman, West Yorkshire Police:

"The mothers we've spoken to say their daughters have been raped, sometimes gang-raped, these are incredibly serious offences are they not, surely there's something the police can do if there widespread allegations of this kind of behaviour? The difficulty is these are allegations, the evidence is rather thin on the ground. However there are a variety of things we have done we have affected arrests we have arrested an offender for a very serious sexual offence and that will come to court and I'm sure when it's revealed what's actually gone on there that there will be preventative aspects. We're also doing disruptive activity, that means that some of these men are criminals, they are actually known to us anyway they are engaging in other criminal activity and there's things we can do with them in relation to enforcing the law, perhaps in relation to the misuse of drugs act and in other areas which will help."

Meanwhile social services are working with the girls to try to alert them to the dangers. The local MP applauds the work that's being done but is worried that by maintaining that race is not an issue, police and social services are failing to understand the real nature of the problem..

Anne Cryer MP, Keighley

"I believe there is a very strong cultural reason, it's nothing to do with the religion lets make it quite clear, its to do with the Asian culture, which wants these young men to marry these very young girls from their village, usually in Mayapore, and as with any other young men, they are seeking relationships elsewhere, and the sophisticated white woman wouldn't have anything to do with them because they understand that at the end of the day, they are just seeking sex not genuine relationships and therefore the only outlet left to them is to look for very young girls through this organised sex ring that we are seeing in Keighley."

Anne Cryer's a controversial figure who's attracted flak in the past for her position on arranged marriages. The Asian leaders Channel 4 News spoke to unreservedly condemn what's been happening but they also reject her suggestion of a cultural explanation. .

Khadim Hussain, Community Leader:

"The statistics show at the moment that its the Asian men and white girls, but the problem isn't just confined to that group, there are other groups as well. My own information is there are Asian on Asian and white on white not being picked up and we are having discussions with the authorities to actually look at the broader picture and wider picture and try to address the issue as a problem which is not just confined to Asian...."

Channel 4 News:

"Well the problem is that in the police investigation all the men the girls were naming were Asian men. I mean, is there some reason, a cultural reason maybe, why Asian men would seek out girls in this way?

Khadim Hussain, Community Leader:

"I don't think so that culture has anything to do with it, if anything we can put a reason behind it is that the fact that if you look at the psychology of these young people, if you do any research, most of those young people are with no skills or with very little skills background. And probably they are they ones who have dropped out of the system."

The mothers say the fact the men are Asian isn't an issue for them -- they say they just want this abuse stopped. They met David Blunkett in person to argue that if criminal proceedings can't be brought because their daughters won't make complaints to the police then the law needs changing.

"Mandy":

We've stuck with it and we're determined to get a change in the law to enable parents to have the right to be the complainant. When you're daughter is being used and abused and drugged and raped by these men, this is, at the end of the day, that is what we want out of this. We want a change in the law."

Today the Home Office told Channel 4 News that the Criminal Justice Bill currently before Parliament includes provision to make reported evidence or "hearsay" evidence more readily admissible. As far as the mothers are concerned the change can't come soon enough.

AND NICK GRIFFEN RISKS JAIL FOR SPEAKING OUT

Posted by: savetheus

How can local JW/LGF readers meet up ?

I don't see a logical method or forum for potential JW/LGF activists to contact each other and organize??

Sadly to say we infidels dont have same as the moslems have
Mosques
Where they meet and organize

What is also sad is that the only forum that has any form of organization just happens to have a racist agenda

Anyone who cares to can find me at McDonald's in Vancouver, Canada on Jan. 26, me being the guy wearing the blue scarf. Unless there are many others. Try me at Main and Terminal St. How afraid am I of being attacked by Muslims because I'm sitting at McDonald's with a blue scarf? Ask me when you see me.

Will Muslims come in and blow up the McDonald's because I'm there? Why not? They blow up any place they feel like. They kill people at random. If you're afraid they might attack you at McDonald's, they might just get you on the subway anyway. There's no security. That day ended on Sept. 11, 2001. It's not going to get any better.

Shiva what do you expect? After the Cronulla riots the first people gaoled were white yobs who retaliated.

The stigmata attached to parties like the BNP places everyone into an automatic antineofascist mode so that anything useful that they say is not even noticed. this is the classical PC mindset which defends the "religion" Islam.

Certainly lots of young men drive around in cars near highschool gates looking for gaolbait with whom to have a deep relationship and yes some use acohol and drugs to ease it.

But when the hypocritical "holier than thou" muslims youths do it it is no accident nor mere adolescent testosterone in action. They have been told to do so as the girls are western and do not matter.

Here in Oz the local Imam said: "never contaminate muslim women before marriage but if you cannot contain yourself do so with western women". this was the advice given in a mosque to many young men several of whom were gaoled for a particularly nasty rape.

This is typical Islamic hypocrisy in action and typical gutless western politicians in action and moreover it is so blatant that it is incredible.

It is very hard to just lie down and allow the above 2 (Muslims and gutless politicians) to run you over. Maybe some of us should risk going to gaol to make a stand on the difference between racial vilification and the speaking of the truth about the distastful, dishonest and criminal behaviour by a certain group.

Shiva
Good posts, thank you for the research and comment.

Is there no one else who shares the depressing snowscape of Buffalo? *sigh*....and miles to go before I sleep...

Tushar

PS - Voltaire, the idea of uttering RS' name pricked by funny bone..sounded way too cultish...blue scarves, head figure (RS - our own Big Brother -- how does that sound?)

CAIR, we have the equivilant here in blighty called the Muslim Council of Britain, and i figure there has to be more of these 'lets make islam pretty for the media brainwashed masses' organisations around the soon to islamic globe

and despite being ever so openly exposed by their membership consisting and supporting jihad and its regular dips into terrorism etc, dimmitude etc, rapes of non muslims etc somehow our local MCB has the ear of our prime minister, who regularly ensures us, in collaberation with the MCB all muslims living in britain are really lovely and if you dont agree then your a racist scumbag, in fact our lovely Mr Blair is ever so straight forward in ensuring our home grown terrorist neighbours are being placed on the road back to civilisation and intergration with large helpings of funding and incentives plus of course regular planning permission for ever increasing mosques

which is great because we all know alleged poverty and having no million pound venue to worship at is the sole reason behind terrorism and jihad and ever since this initiative to bribe the muslims under the MCB's overviewing why of course MI5 and anti terrorist squad have literally nothing to do these days, thanks Mr Blair, the MCB and i would assume Cair for all their efforts to stop us being killed by their efforts to dhimmi us all up

and yet something is now not right when a few vocal people actually state the Haj deaths were not such a bad thing

how can this be? for a desert death relegion which sends teen disabled boys strapped with explosives to kill the infidel the christian and jew and thus meet their maker who's primed up a half a dozen virgins for them, one would have thought a few hundred off to experience the same wouldnt be seen as a bad thing and whilst us infidels might not celebrate the subsequent deaths of our own caused by the disabled teen with the body rig covered in explosives as the rest of the muslims round the world seem to, you'd think they'd be glad we support them when a few shuffle off without killing us to meet their maker and finally locate a virgin

guess there's no pleasing some folks huh, does this mean i have to cancel the bikini clad page three dancers and pork sandwiches gathering i arranged to celebrate haj and all the joy it brings yearly to an infidel like myself

we'll here's a message to Cair and to my own lovely MCB

stop your fellow death cult members cheering on our streets when they kill us, and maybe we'll all stop the party when a few more of you kick the bucket

allah akbar on that

ps: i never beheaded anybody, but if there's a job going at the next haj to save time, i'll forward my CV

Savetheus and Voltaire, help in organizing is on the way.

Stay tuned. The Blue Revolution is just beginning.

Gingerbread men, yes I am the guilty one, I bake 'em and behead'em, then I bake me some more. I even thought of videotaping one session and perhaps strike fear into the hearts of the bakery elves.

Beheaded a snowman once in grade 10, but then Cristina K. kicked my butt for damaging her snowman, but that was cool, she was cute and there's nothing like a cute girl tackling you in the snow when you're a teenager. Yupee!

Tushar in Buffalo, man that is boring.

Honestly, can't recollect any event where I would say I have harmed a living thing, unless you accept the fact that I eat Chicken and fish.

Recently a colleague of mine, who doesn't know me too well, began preaching Islam to me and how I should be a good Muslim.

He went on about how the West is evil, how Allah will help the Muslims win, how all the world should be Islamic, how all infidels should die, how Islam once ruled from the Atlantic to the Pacific, parts of Europe, India and even the United States and Carribean Islands (Yes People, he claimed it was true, man I felt like I was in a Psych ward).

Then cream of the crop was when he stated how he looks at me as a brother because I am a "Muslim". It killed him when I said "When did I say I was a Muslim? I am not a Muslim, I am a Hindu *Smile*, and a Rajput at that *Big smile*."

You had to see his face, he was shocked, angry, embarassed and replied "Why didn't you tell me?"

I was like "It was interesting to hear what you really think. Now that I know you better, I'll make sure not to fly with you."

Have I ever terrorised anyone, never, afterall I am not Muslim.

-Ayo Gorkhali!!!!

I am an American Patriot
I fought in one of America's wars
I have met America's enemys up close and personal
and I won
I am an American Patriot
I believe in my freedom of speech
that was not free
I believe in my freedom to write
that was not free
I believe in my freedom of religion
that was not free
I am an american Patriot
and we paid the price
I am an American Patriot
and I am free
Free to express myself
Free to think for myself
Free to defend myself
I am an American Patriot
and I will defend myself
From enemys foreign and DOMESTIC
If you do not like our ways
Then leave
If you try to change us
We will resist
I am an American Patriot
and I am WATCHING YOU

(PS There are many many AMERICAN PATRIOTS WATCHING YOU)

Not that I would want to excuse the attempted shutting down of free speech in any way, but I think that yes, of course, there have been things I've read in these forums which might give the CAIR the ammunition they need in order to attempt to exploit the law. (Personally I think 'hate' legislation as such is unworkable and unethical, a hideous form of thought-policing; but that's another argument altogether. Though I think that hatred is always the wrong path, people surely have the right to hate whoever they want, and to speak their minds; and the law should have no business getting involved unless that hatred leads to the commission of a criminal act.)

I wish we could concentrate solely on exposing those elements of the islamic belief system and ideology that we find troubling and fascistic, and on highlighting the media bias and cowardice that accompanies theses issues, rather than for example laughing behind our sleeves at the 345 Hajj deaths, endlessly discussing 'nuking' various people or places, or glorifying neo-nazi BNP leader Nick Griffin as some kind of free-speech martyr. (Does he have the right to say what he wants? Of course he does, and he shouldn't be on trial for it, but let's not pretend he's any sort of hero. Anyone who has read about him knows exactly where he's coming from.)

Robert's posts are essential, informative, and entirely appropriate, and most of the unmoderated content is likewise, but personally speaking I always come across one or two unmoderated contributions which sound as rabid, as extreme, and as bigoted as any jihadist propoganda.

I believe in freedom of speech, I just think sometimes that freedom allied with thoughtless aggression undermines the invaluable role this site performs and plays right into the hands of its enemies.

Do I think any of that constitutes an excuse to attempt to stifle discussion of the islamic religion by the CAIR or anyone else? Absolutely 100 percent not.

I have "hate" dreams, I dream that Saudi Arabia will be catholic, and will give money to make better churches than the Vatican, and put churches in all europe.
Greetings and thank JW, for all.

I am going to buy a blue scarf; should it be a certain shade of blue? I can not wait to meet some of you wonderful people!

My dear “Jihadwatch”:

So the only thing Hugh does is to suggest better things than bombimg Mecca! Thank God! We can rest assured that when the governments of the Western world decide to bomb Mecca, Hugh and you will be there to soften things and suggest milder alternatives! I guess we should be thankful?

You say you do not agree with him on all things. But do you agree with him on the Bethlehem issue, yes or no? You said this idea was “unlikely” and “utopian”, but you didn’t state your opinion about it. By “utopian” do you mean it is a good thing but that it will never be achieved? Then is it right both of you agree on those issues, as I said?

Why did you come up with the 1946 population exchanges? When did I talk of that? What am I talking about, 1946, or 2006?

What do these two situations have to do with eachother, anyway? The expulsions of Germans from the East Europe countries followed the end of the most destructive war that ocurred in Europe and the hatred of Germans that resulted from it. What you want for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict final solution (yes, yes, I recognize it is milder than the original one) is to deport a people who have not been the opressors, but the opressed during the past 60 years, as much as you want to hide this fact by highlighting Palestinian terrorism and conveniently leave out Israel state terrorism. So not only they have been continously crushed since the creation of Israel, but furthermore you want to expel them to create a safe Lebensraum for the Zionists.

In case some of you have any hope about, it, forget it. It will never happen. This is complete and utter dementia, as much as you think you are right while the rest of the people who don’t agree with it are brainwashed dhimmis.

“Some "American" muslims were so impressed, they celebrated with great joy in our streets”
What are you talking about?

http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm

Those people showed their solidarity with your country, that is, with you also, only to see what you say about them in return. Fortunately, people like you are the exception, not the rule.
I don’t know if American Muslims celebrated the attacks, although I do know that thousands of Americans celebrated in the sreets when the Gulf war began and bombs were killing women and children.

So just... shut up.

“Recently a colleague of mine, who doesn't know me too well, began preaching Islam to me and how I should be a good Muslim.
He went on about how the West is evil, how Allah will help the Muslims win, how all the world should be Islamic, how all infidels should die, how Islam once ruled from the Atlantic to the Pacific, parts of Europe, India and even the United States and Carribean Islands (Yes People, he claimed it was true, man I felt like I was in a Psych ward).”

So, if I understand well, a “colleague of yours” all of a sudden tell you how to be a good Muslim assuming you were one. Of course he saw your skin tone and that immediately led him to think you were Muslim (hell almost all Indians are Muslims). And also all of a sudden, without being sure if you were Muslim or not, he begins to tell you how “Infidels must die”. Like that. Bluntly. To a mere “colleague” he “assumed” to be Muslim. And he told you how Islam have once ruled “the Caribbeans”.

Am I the only one to think this is a made up story? Yeah, I guess so.

Do you know you made up this story, or do you really believe this “Muslim colleague” exists?

Do you have invisible friends, too?

Neo-nazis ~ these are the ones people at JW worry about... the ones who WILL pick up arms against us.

http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=52636194&cdi=0

Hate is a natural instinct like hunger, fear, joy, or lust. These emotions are necessary for the survival of every species. For if you do not fear, and even hate your enemies, those who are sworn to kill you, you are exposing your self to great danger.

"Recently a colleague of mine, who doesn't know me too well, began preaching Islam to me and how I should be a good Muslim.

He went on about how the West is evil, how Allah will help the Muslims win, how all the world should be Islamic, how all infidels should die, how Islam once ruled from the Atlantic to the Pacific, parts of Europe, India and even the United States and Carribean Islands (Yes People, he claimed it was true, man I felt like I was in a Psych ward).

Then cream of the crop was when he stated how he looks at me as a brother because I am a "Muslim". It killed him when I said "When did I say I was a Muslim? I am not a Muslim, I am a Hindu *Smile*, and a Rajput at that *Big smile*."
-- from a posting by Gorkhali above

Next time someone mistakes you for a fellow Muslim, have a hidden recorder at hand. Tape the whole thing. Should be useful, to all sorts of people. Clearly this colleague is a permenant security risk. Is he a citizen?

Perhaps you can find ways to meet otherswho will make the same mistake about you, and this time, you can come away with a little something to remember them by.

Robert:

I always did like Herman's Hermits. I have always enjoyed "Mrs Brown You've Got a Lovely Daughter". But please, do not sing this in front of any young, muslims males. I am sure you can understand why.

I'll speak for myself - and not for Jihad Watch - as far as being '''hateful'''...

From the Koran - CAIR's so called """"holy"""" book:

005.051 O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors {authorities]: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them for friendship is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

I HATE CAIR's god's teachings - with a PERFECT HATRED! CAIR is violating ALL international humanitarian laws for supporting such a HATE-FILLED preaching!

From the Koran - CAIR's so called """"holy"""" book:

033.061 They [non-Muslims] shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain without mercy. {Vicious Mass Murder!

I HATE CAIR's god's teachings - with a PERFECT HATRED! and CAIR is violating ALL international humanitarian laws for supporting the incitement of such brutal bloody preachings!

From the Koran - CAIR's so called """"holy"""" book:

008.067 It is not fitting for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war [slay them first] until he hath thoroughly subdued the land. {Clear Treason!!!! in America

I HATE CAIR's god - with a PERFECT HATRED!

CIAR stands for Treason in America! and is violating the Untied States of America's Constitution!

From the Koran - CAIR's so called """"holy"""" book:

002.216 Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing [war] which is good for you and that ye love a thing [peace] which is bad for you?

I HATE CAIR's god's teachings with a PERFECT HATRED! - those teachings bring war - which brings poverty, misery and sorrows!

From the Koran - CAIR's so called """"holy"""" book:

047.004 Therefore, when ye meet '''the Unbelievers''' in fight, smite at their necks. [Behead them!]

I HATE CAIR's god more than words can say! Only a MONSTER could carry such an exceedingly wicked and bloody act!

And only a MONSTER would preach it!

CAIR stands by that MONSTER - so who are they to judge ANYONE or ANYTHING when it comes to the word Hate???

"AND NICK GRIFFEN RISKS JAIL FOR SPEAKING OUT"

hattip to non-British Jihadwatch readers - Nick Griffen is the head of a fascist, racialist , white supremacist political party.

bear that in mind folks.

Personally speaking, I dont give a damn about freedom-hating Nazi scum like him.

Emoting, especially with capitalization, does not further an argument or persuade those who may visit this site, unsure of what they may think, but are open to persuasion. Those who think that they are performing a service by such postings should think again.

Those who are not weak on speaking PURE HATRED for the teachings of beheadings - incitement to carry out mass murder, treason, rape, and theft are the ones who really making any difference when it comes to Muslims blowing up major real estate, attacking night clubs, schools [even shooting children in their backs as they flee] hospitals, buses, malls etc ect ect.

i cant re-iterate this more - racialism is not the right path to beating Islam.

Islam has a very powerful propaganda weapon - the concept of the "Ummah".

We also have a concept - its called "freedom". And that is the birth right of every human being on the planet.

It seems to me that Saudi Arabia could have figured out a way to prevent Haj deaths considering that this has happened every year for over a thousand years.

As for commentary -- advocating eternal vigilance against those that threaten our existence is not bigotry nor hatred; It's common sense. I consider changes brought about to further religious accommodation for Muslims, a tiny minority, to be examples of such a threat. The practical application of their ideology has made our lives more difficult, dangerous, and uncomfortable -- totally unacceptable.

I have never beheaded anyone. I have never encouraged anyone else to behead anyone. I have never turned a blind eye towards the beheading of anyone. I have never tried to justify the beheading of anyone. I have never secretly rejoiced at the beheading of anyone.

I am not puffing up my virtue, simply because i have not committed such outrages. Most people can claim as much. I am only an average person. But as an average person, I see and hear strange things in the news every day, things that I don't understand and which disgust me with their violence, arrogance and hatred. I hope to have the courage to speak my mind, no matter what intimidation may be brought to bear.

Practicing my right to speak freely and respectfully in the face of intimidation? Now that may come to be a real virtue. Seeing this virtue spread throughout the world? Now there's a dream worth dreaming

Hugh is right that we need to collect verifiable data, from Muslims themselves, about their beliefs and values. We can get this information using a variety of techniques.

Detailed qualitative information can be obtained in one-on-one interviews.

There's plenty of information on the Muslim websites and fora (i.e., those places where non-Muslims are routinely referred to as "shaitans".)

Most immediately, though, we need a continuation of the ability to monitor mosques surreptitiously. This gives us the most vital information we need as to what the clerics are preaching, etc.

There are the PEW polls. We need similar polls to be conducted sampling Muslim and non-Muslim populations within the modern secular countries, with a more detailed set of questions. What about dishonest responses? What about responses out of ignorance? While no methods are fool-proof, there are ways to address these issues in the design of the questionnaire.

What do so-called moderate Muslims really believe about freedom of expression that is critical of Islamic ideology? Do Muslims say they believe the Koran? Are they willing to follow the Koran? Do they even know what's in the Koran? Do non-Muslims know what's in the Koran? Such questionnaires give us a chance to put a reasonable quantitative estimate to these sorts of questions.

Ispanan,

How about being participant number 1?
Here's a brief sample of some questions:
1: "Do you identify yourself as a Muslim?"
2. "Have you read the Koran?"
3. "If you answered "yes" to question 2, Do you believe all of the Koran?"
4. "If you answered "no" to question 3, which parts of the Koran do you disbelieve?"

Note: Evading these questions in your response, if you do respond, also provides information.

I'm delighted that twice at this thread a poster has brought to everyone's attention my suggestion that Arabic-speaking Christians from Iraq, and elsewhere in the Arab world who are suffering from Muslim persecution (possibly Copts, or even Maronites should they wish), and that non-Arab Christians in even greater numbers, settle in the West Bank, under Israeli protection and sovereignty, while the Muslim Arabs -- most of whom can trace their ancestry back to Arab arrivals, from 1900-1935, from Iraq, or Egypt, or what is present0-day Jordan, and not to some "since-time-immemmorial" presence of the recently-invented "Palestinian people."

It would be a good way for the world's Christians to physicaly lay claim to the Holy Land, for the Muslim persecution of local Christians, now that they no longer feel quite the need to retain the facade of such "islamochristians" as Hanan Ashrawi, Naim Ateek, and othes.

And since some of these Arab "islamochristians" are far more loyal to Islam, as the "Arab regligion," and to the agenda of Muslims, than they are to Christian interests, such a proposal would serve to exposte the real nature of their intrests and attitudes. Would or could Naim Ateek or Hanan Ashrawi or any of those burrowing within, all over the Western world, the bureaucracies of various churches, come out in favor of Christian refugees from Islam settling in the West Bank, and the Muslims, in a kind of "exchange of populations moved across the river into Jordan or Eastern Palestine? Would Ateek and Michel Sabbagh and the others of that islamochristian ilk publicly oppose the settlement of non-Arab Christians, either permanently or for limited periods (say, devout Christians willing to spend five years at a time, as human witnesses to Christ, and protectors of the Holy Land, in the West Bank)?

There is no better way to separate out the real Christians from the islamochristians who, for two reasons -- a long history of behaving as dhimmis, trying to placate the circumambient threatening Muslims, and from an identification with their supposed "Arabness" that leads them, further, to overlook the Arab Muslim mistreatment of Christians, and as "Arabs" to support or defend Islam, which is so identified, so wrapped up in, for many (not Maronites, and not Copts), with the idea of being an "Arab."

Glad to have the issue revived here, and brought again to everyone's attention. Robert may find it "utopian." I don't.

Looking for a symbol to unite anti-jihadists? I think the Culpepper flag is already in use for that purpose.
http://www.batteryhillflagcompany.com/flagpages/americanunion/culpepperflag.shtml

By the way Batteryhill flag co. just happens to provide the Culpepper flag, there are many more companies that provide the same flag. The use of the Culpepper flag by anti-jihadists is probably unknown to most of these companies....so you CAIR sorts should not blame the flag companies for any sort of imagined "hate crime".

Okay, I took the head off a mug of beer. Oh, the shame of it all. But I paid for it later, the bar tab!!

Isn't it time that CAIR sorted out their own house before criticising others?

If they want to look at real hate sites, then they should complain about the multitudinous Islamist websites hosted in America which constantly espouse violence, death (to infidels) and jihad.

People who live in glass houses should never start throwing stones.

I've yet to see CAIR stand up and wholeheartedly condemn Islamic terrorism, organise rallies against Islamic terrorism or condemn the koran which espouses the violent jihad.

They'll whine if someone spills coffee on a koran or throws it down on a table in the wrong way, but they've mentioned nothing about bibles being desecrated by Muslims, or shredded when Christian visitors go to countries like Saudi Arabia.

It's time that CAIRites learnt to assimilate, integrate and become productive members of society instead of just criticing everyone for what they perceive as "Islamophobia" when, in fact, most of the time people just tell the truth.

Minority groups should stop trying to dictate to the majority, because in the end, the majority wins!

The problem with the Culpepper Flag - fine though it is and please don't think I am insulting USA history because I'm not - is that is has no resonance elsewhere in the English speaking world. It would be nice to have a symbol that all English speakers can identify with - hopefully all anti-Mohammedans, but that might be asking too much.

Alternatively, perhaps we all SHOULD adopt the Culpepper Flag. Could some well-versed USA poster give this non-USA person some history of this particular flag (or a link to its history) please.

Ispanan -

Of course, there is always Hugh's article "Islam for the Perplexed" - not written, as far as I can tell, as an "alternative" to Tancredo's suggestion.

"The second important goal is to stop all Moslem migration from Moslem lands, to the U.S., to Canada, to Western Europe. For obvious reasons, Moslems do not migrate to Eastern Europe and Russia. If possible, not only should migration be stopped, but life can be made more difficult, if not by the government, then by private individuals, so that Moslems will be discouraged from remaining.

What do I mean? I mean that we, as private citizens, do not have to hire Moslems, we do not have to buy their goods, or make their lives, economically, more rewarding. It may seem mean, and many of you may be offended by it, and I am perfectly aware that there are nice Moslems, that there are those who simply ignore the main tenets of Islam. But as a group, the Moslems are a threat to me and those I love. Even the innocent ones, merely by being here, swell Moslem political power."

In the St. Petersburg Times article that was recently linked to on JihadWatch, Robert Spencer said that "he bans" the "racists" who visit his site. Both quotes from him. Now, I know there are many among you who will say "Muslim" is a not a race. Clearly true, but the quote was in the context of people who are bigoted against Muslims. (To put this in context, the definition of Anti-Semitism in the M-W dictionary is: "hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group." I'll assume good faith in your statement and assume you meant the same, just replacing the word "Jews" with "Muslims")

Seems that Hugh, "as a group, the Moslems are a threat to me and those I love", qualifies.

Mr. Spencer: Will you a) clarify whether you also hold similar opinions to those above and b) ban Hugh from JihadWatch as one of the "racists" you claim to abhor?

Will you also make an unconditional statement that you are against those who hold or practice "hostility toward or discrimination against any religious, ethnic, or racial group, including Muslims"?

Thank you.

I admit it - I'm guilty and I went to jail for what follows too!

I and a few of my conspiratorial compatriots "borrowed" a cast aluminum bull statue standing 6 feet (2 metres) tall and hoisted it up the flag pole of our high school. It was heavy but four dudes could easily hoist it back down - so what.

We secured it with two crytonite locks, chains and the keys twist tied to the locks. 1) So that it wouldn't come crashing down on anyone 2) So they could get it down when ready and do so without having to cut through the locks.

Unexpectedly, the police showed up just as we finished. The officers laughed their asses off - scolded us for how dangerous that appeared to be and then we spent the night in the local jail.

I'd really have to dig for the police reports - or at least the newspaper clipping of a metal bull hanging on the end of a flagpole but Robert - it's yours if I can find it!

I'm guilty of an act of terror...or at least an audacious act of reversable vandalism. Ooooooooh! I'm evil - eeeeeeeeeeeevil I tell you!

RickS,

My guess is that if you want to ensure that Spencer will (a) see your question and (b) answer it in this thread you'll have to get his attention through e-mail.

BTW, have you read the Koran yet? (I genuinely want to know).

"I would like to suggest that there is a badge that anyone committed to secular, western style democracy can wear in the lapel. It is plain, stark white, that is to say no lettering or design of any sort; it is half-an-inch high and between one-and-a-half and two inches long (wide); it is, therefore, rectangular."

-- posted by Certiorari

Certirari,

The sentiments are fine. The plain white badge turns me off, frankly. Not to be harsh, but in my view this design seems to symbolize belief in nothing.

What I would suggest in its place, is the symbol of the "White Tree of Gondor." That would be catchy (though hard to fabricate), recognizable in the world at large, and not explicitly tied to any other religion or creed (though inspired by the Judeao-Christian concepts that gave succor to liberal democracy).

And, of course, we all know who the Orcs are-- they were once elves, but were twisted into evil, ignoble, and violent opposites fanatically determined to conquer all of Middle Earth, under the rule of the monstrous Sauron. Sound familiar?

This alternative might be legally problematic, however--I am not sure about the copyright implications relative to the estate of H.R.R. Tolkien.

Archimedes -

Thank you - good idea.

Re: the Quran, yes I have read it. I don't dispute the fact that the much quoted verses are in there. I also don't think that what is in the Quran is any worse than what is found in the Bible (esp the Old Testament). All Muslims that I know believe in the Quran literally, but also have a very strong grasp of the concept of context - that much of the Quran was day to day instruction at the time it was revealed, while other partss were eternal mandates. Almost all of the verses quoted by those who want to demonize it fall into the former.

I do dispute the idea that the quoted constitute a majority of the verses, and I doubt the motives of people, like Spencer, who emphasize that without a single mention of the more positive, and common, elements of the Quran.

I also know, from first hand experience being in the Middle East, that Jihadist ideology is not widespread amongst Muslims. Nationalism explains (but does not excuse) most of the violence (Kashmir, Palestinians, Thailand, Iran, etc) better than religion. That jihadist groups have infiltrated these groups is very dangerous, I agree.

Frankly, I am as worried about Jihadists as everyone here is. I also agree with Stephen Schwartz that the Wahhabis are extremely dangerous, and they they must be stopped.

But I strongly believe that people like Hugh, who would easily be counted as an Anti-Semite if he had written the stuff he publishes about Jews instead of Muslims, are bigots of the worst kind.

And I believe Robert Spencer is trying to have it both ways - operating what I do consider to be a thinly disguised hate site while providing what I also consider to be valuable news and information about a real threat.

Certiorari, something about the Culpepper Flag rang bells, beyond Katherine Howards boyfriend and the later herbalist. I found this link on Google http://www.usflag.org/history/gadsden.html I recognise the image but not the name. It's pre revolution, quite old.
"Other authors felt the rattlesnake was a good example of America's virtues. They argued that it is unique to America; individually its rattles produce no sound, but united they can be heard by all; and while it does not attack unless provoked, it is deadly to step upon one."

I don't know what you think but I keep thinking of ZZ Top, Lynyrd Skynyrd and the whole Southern rock thing.

1. I have never ever beheaded anyone.

2. I don't think the white thingy would work, it looks like a surrender flag (or the back up flag of france - whichever you prefer).

3. I think either the flag of your country or your favorite military organization makes a better statement. I have my US Flag pin and my USMC Emblem on my lapel - both very proudly because I earned them both - the hard way.

4. CAIR needs to be declared a terrorist organization and banned from the US of A!!!!!!

5. CAIR IS a terrorist organization!!!

6. jihadwatch.org is now on the signature line of all my email!

Of course, that's J. R. R. Tolkien, not H. R. R. Tolkien.

Islam for Dhimmis
http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/fresh/showpics.cgi?islam_for_dhimmis

This is OT, but made me laugh...
http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/fresh/showpics.cgi?christmas_yet_to_come

RickS,

you wrote: "I do dispute the idea that the quoted constitute a majority of the verses, and I doubt the motives of people, like Spencer, who emphasize that without a single mention of the more positive, and common, elements of the Quran."

It is not a question of counting how many verses of the koran say this or that. You need to examine the doctrine of abrogation, which is used by islamic clerics in koranic exegesis. The later suras (those considered given to muhammad later in time, NOT, later in the ordering of the suras of the koran) are considered to be of greater weight. The later suras emphasize the supremacism inherent in islam.

you wrote: "I also know, from first hand experience being in the Middle East, that Jihadist ideology is not widespread amongst Muslims. Nationalism explains (but does not excuse) most of the violence (Kashmir, Palestinians, Thailand, Iran, etc) better than religion."

What planet do you live on? Your statement is diametrically opposed to the current reality. Nationalism plays a small role; islam and the idea of jihad explain far more.

You seem to see islam as a personal faith. It is that, for some, but islam is much more a political ideology -- a supremacist and totalitarian political ideology.

My first hand experience watching the muslim students association at a US University, demonstrated to me that nationalism is a puny part of the motivation of msa members. You might be surprised, but the conflicts you mention (Kashmir, "palestine") were brought up always in an islamic context, as issues for all muslims, irrespective of nominal nationality. Of course not all muslim students are active in the msa, but many, including the most vocal, are. They are the real representatives of islam.

My dear "RickS":

No need to email me. I have not read this whole thread but a reader alerted me to your questions.

Yes, Hugh is against Muslim immigration into Western lands. He opposes this because of the abundantly documented fact that violent jihadists operate within Western Muslim communities and that those communities have made little or no practical effort to root them out. Vague condemnations of "terrorism" that do nothing to address jihadist theological arguments not only do not cut it, but by their vagueness and obvious inadequacy raise suspicions as to their overall purpose.

As long as all that remains true, what natural right do Muslims have to settle into Western countries? Must Western governments cheerfully aid in the importation of large groups of people among whom are significant numbers who wish to remake their societies to the grave detriment of women and non-Muslims?

I personally am not in favor of ending Muslim immigration. But I believe that renunciation of any desire to implement Sharia and similar statements should be a condition of residency, and that the continuation of that residency should be contingent upon adherence to those statements. Just as former Nazis, when discovered, can be deported, no matter how long they have lived here.

This is a matter of defending universal human rights. You, on the other hand, decry it as "racist," saying, "Robert Spencer said that 'he bans' the 'racists' who visit his site. Both quotes from him."

Incomplete and inadequate quotes, indicative of the inadequacy of the whole article. As I have said many times here, comments are unmoderated. I never see 90% of them. Unless somebody brings a post to my attention, I probably will not delete it. If you wish not to be adversarial but to help in this work, send me notice of such posts, and I will delete them.

You continue: "Now, I know there are many among you who will say 'Muslim' is a not a race. Clearly true, but the quote was in the context of people who are bigoted against Muslims. (To put this in context, the definition of Anti-Semitism in the M-W dictionary is: 'hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.' I'll assume good faith in your statement and assume you meant the same, just replacing the word 'Jews' with 'Muslims')."

I am one who will say that Islam is not a race. It isn't. It is a religious ideology. People of any race can and do hold to it. I am not interested in keeping white jihadists here and deporting brown jihadists. That would be racism; it would also be asinine. To say, on the other hand, that I don't want those who want to impose Sharia law, which violates norms of human rights that are otherwise universally accepted, to be here, and that as long as a larger group does nothing to stop such people from living and working within it, that larger group is under suspicion, that has nothing to do with racism or bigotry. Bigotry is an irrational hatred of a group. I don't hate anyone; I simply oppose a murderous ideology of supremacism and oppression. Your analogy about the Jews founders on the fact that there is no global movement of Jews working to impose Jewish laws on the rest of us. Nazi Jew-hatred was essentially racial: the Nazis had all sorts of race laws to determine who was a Jew and who was not. That, sir, is racism.

If, on the other hand, the Muslim communities in the West today proclaimed their renunciation of Sharia now and forever, and acceptance of Western pluralism and peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims, and full genuine equality of rights for women, and began to manifest the truth of such statements by their actions, well, I would be the first to welcome them by the planeload into our nation. But to assume that all who arrive here have already done that when there is so much evidence to the contrary -- that is just foolhardy. And it is in that context that I read Hugh's statement that you quote: "as a group, the Moslems are a threat to me and those I love." If you read his whole article (it is not on this site, but I'm sure you can find it), you will see that he explicitly says that all Muslims are not terrorists, etc. But the problem is, again, this business of distinguishing. I have said many times that it is virtually impossible to tell a moderate from a jihadist Muslim. Some have seized on that as some kind of statement of bigotry. I can't see why it would be. It is simply a statement of fact, confirmed by the strange life paths of Maher Hawash, Fawaz Damra, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, the Lackawanna Six, and so many others. Where is the firewall? If there is one, why is it so spectacularly ineffective on so many occasions?

So finally, I will not dismiss Hugh from his position here, because he is not a racist, and because I (and he also, I am sure) would happily make, as you bid us to, "an unconditional statement that [I am] against those who hold or practice 'hostility toward or discrimination against any religious, ethnic, or racial group, including Muslims.'" Self-defense is not hostility or discrimination. Awareness of the facts of the case is not hostility or discrimination. Let the Muslims in America begin to expel and expose jihadists, working with law enforcement, and teaching pluralism and the equality of rights of all instead of the hatred of Jews and Christians that Freedom House discovered in so many mosques just last year, and I will welcome them happily. Let them stop opposing sensible measures like the monitoring of mosques for radiation, and I will applaud them.

You also say: "I also don't think that what is in the Quran is any worse than what is found in the Bible (esp the Old Testament)." You are quite wrong in this. The Qur'an contains open-ended statements calling for Muslims to wage war against all unbelievers. The Old Testament does not. What's more, traditional Islamic theology holds those statements to be valid for all time. No Jewish or Christian group teaches anything similar on the basis of the Old Testament.

And you add: "All Muslims that I know believe in the Quran literally, but also have a very strong grasp of the concept of context - that much of the Quran was day to day instruction at the time it was revealed, while other partss were eternal mandates. Almost all of the verses quoted by those who want to demonize it fall into the former. I do dispute the idea that the quoted constitute a majority of the verses, and I doubt the motives of people, like Spencer, who emphasize that without a single mention of the more positive, and common, elements of the Quran."

If you had read my books you would know that I discuss all this at great length, particularly in "Onward Muslim Soldiers." In that book I discuss the Qur'an's relatively tolerant verses and how traditional Islamic theology holds them abrogated. I am not the originator of this perspective. I just report on it. Here is a Muslim explication of it: http://www.islamworld.net/jihad.html

But at this point I am not writing this to you, because I can tell that you are not disposed to think anything but ill of me. However, I am writing it for unbiased observers who may be reading this.

You say: "I also know, from first hand experience being in the Middle East, that Jihadist ideology is not widespread amongst Muslims." That is, alas, changing.

You say: "But I strongly believe that people like Hugh, who would easily be counted as an Anti-Semite if he had written the stuff he publishes about Jews instead of Muslims, are bigots of the worst kind."

If Hugh had written about Jews what he wrote about Muslims, he would not only be a bigot; he would be a liar. But the fact that what can be truthfully said about one group cannot be truthfully said about another does not make it untrue, or bigoted. Especially when the group in question exists as a group because of its shared ideology. If that ideology has abhorrent features, that is simply a matter of fact. It must be dealt with somehow, and not allowed to continue because of fear of "bigotry" or "racism."

You say: "And I believe Robert Spencer is trying to have it both ways - operating what I do consider to be a thinly disguised hate site while providing what I also consider to be valuable news and information about a real threat."

In this you are like those who decried anti-Nazi efforts as "hatred of Germans" or anti-Communist efforts as "hatred of Russians," and you reveal yourself as just another one of those whom the ones who wish to destroy us find so useful.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Mazza che fusto.

"RickS" -- who may also be behind the Wikipedia nonsense about this site, and at least one other similar venture (verbal echoes, overlap of quotes, and so on) -- is the same fellow who kept prating about being a "Roman Catholic" whose "best friend" is an Orthodox Jew, whose in-laws are Lebanese, and whose somethingorother is something or other. Let me see if I can find what I wrote about him before. Could be fun.

I've beheaded many doves during hunting season.
I'm not sure if they were Infidels.

My dear "JihadWatch" -

How, from two short comments, can you possibly claim to know "I can tell that you are not disposed to think anything but ill of me."

And how dare you claim "you reveal yourself as just another one of those whom the ones who wish to destroy us find so useful". I reveal myself only as a person with deep beliefs in the principles on which this country was founded - liberty, equality.

Disagreement with your methods, tactics, and hatemongering does not make me a friend, ally, or sympathizer with Jihadists.

Of course, Guilt by Association is the way JihadWatch works.

It is convenient that there is rarely (if ever) any mention of the positive contributions of, or positive viewpoints of Muslim-Americans, on your website. But let me give a few examples. Analyst Peter Bergen recently said, based on extensive interviews "the American Muslim community has rejected the Al-Qaeda philosophy almost entirely". An editorial page writer from the WSJ has written "So does the U.S. have a "Muslim problem"? If the data above are accurate, they strongly suggest we do not; on the contrary, America's Muslims tend to be role models both as Americans and as Muslims." And CIA operative Gary Bernsten said in a recent interview that the support of Muslim Americans in the War on Terror has been invaluable. That from a person who has really been living and breathing the war.

Your attempts to paint Muslim Americans with a broad Jihadist brush is the real problem.

Could it have something to do with the fact that you even refuse to recognize Islam as a real religion? From one of your books, published I believe 2 years ago: "Islam itself is an incomplete, misleading, and often downright false revelation which, in many ways, directly contradicts what God has revealed through the prophets of the Old Testament and through His Son, Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh".

There is no disputing that there are problems. The Saudis, specifically, and their Wahhabist ideology, are the problems. And they must be dealt with forcefully. The Freedom House study you mention, for example, is entitled "Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques". It reads in part: "Within worldwide Sunni Islam, followers of Wahhabism and other hardline or salafist... movements are a distinct minority. This is evident from the millions of Muslims who have chosen to make America their home and are upstanding, law abiding citizens and neighbors. In fact, it was just such concerned Muslims who first brought these publications to our attention. They decry the Wahhabi interpertation as being foreign to the toleration expressed in Islam and injunction against coercion in Religion. They... are grateful to the United States and other Western nations for granting them religious freedom."

But you sir, and JihadWatch, have become part of the problem by making any serious conversation about these issues tainted by the evils of bigotry and hatred.

"If Hugh had written about Jews what he wrote about Muslims, he would not only be a bigot; he would be a liar."

He, sir, is both. You defend him as a truth-teller. Intellectually dishonest presentation of selective facts and figures does not the truth make.

Yepper Hugh, I am the one who was on the site once before. The Roman Catholic, with Jewish and Muslim friends. All of which was brought up by the folks on this site immediately attacking me as a "Muslim", heaven forbid.

So don't worry about looking for it. I can even point you to the article you wrote: called something like "Hugh Fitzgerald explains what this site is really for" or something like that.

RickS,

“Re: the Quran, yes I have read it. I don't dispute the fact that the much quoted verses are in there. I also don't think that what is in the Quran is any worse than what is found in the Bible (esp the Old Testament).”

The Koran is different in some key respects.

1. It requires as a religious duty that Muslims carry on jihad until all religion is for Allah—no matter how averse this may be to the non-Muslims. This jihad most definitely may be violent, if necessary (i.e., if non-Muslims refuse conversion or dhimmitude). The New Testament does not permit believers to use violence in spreading the Christian doctrine. The Old Testament does not give believers orders to conquer the world.

2. The New Testament, at the very least, provides some room for interpretation as to whether being a non-believer is at all acceptable. The Gospels are at least somewhat contradictory, allowing that good works is more important than faith. But the Koran is adamant that good works will not be accepted from non-Muslims. And despite what you may have been told, Christians and Jews are called “disbelievers” and polytheists in the Koran, so they are going to hell also.

3. Present-day interpretation of Old Testament doesn't inspire beheadings, imperialism, hatred, supremacism, misogyny, etc., while mainstream Islam either continues to support all of these elements or has failed to officially denounce the fact that the Koran orders such behaviours.

“All Muslims that I know believe in the Quran literally, but also have a very strong grasp of the concept of context - that much of the Quran was day to day instruction at the time it was revealed, while other partss were eternal mandates. Almost all of the verses quoted by those who want to demonize it fall into the former.”

With respect to the Muslims you know, I think you need to look at polls that have been conducted on these sorts of issues. There are the PEW studies, which give results for Muslims’ (i.e., of Muslims living in Muslim countries) opinions on suicide bombings.

The last sentence about the relative scarcity of bad verses is not correct. 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, retrieved December, 2005: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm ).

Even the “good” verses generally only refer to Muslims’ treatment of other Muslims. The positive sentiments are almost never extended to non-Muslims. Even when there is positive sentiment extended to non-Muslims, it is for the purpose of “warding off evil” (the disbelievers are evil) and winning them over to Islam. In other words, it is for furthering the cause of Islam, not to make genuine friendships with those who disbelieve. The Koran states repeatedly that disbelief is the worst crime in all of Islam.

The context argument doesn’t make the problems disappear. Wife beating is divinely approved, indeed, by Allah himself (4:34). In verse 22:15, Allah says that those who don’t want Mohammad to succeed in his mission in the world (i.e., to conquer all religions, destroy polytheism, vanquish disbelief) and in the hereafter should go hang themselves. In what day-to-day context would such divinely-issued verses be acceptable? Verses 33:60-62 state, among other things, that those who non-violently cause sedition against Islam (i.e., those who “spread false news”) must be seized and killed. There are of course dozens upon dozens of vicious insults against non-Muslims (e.g., “worst beasts in Allah’s sight”, evil, wicked, perverse, ignorant, fools, liars, and so on). The Koran says to never befriend the disbelievers. Over 250 separate verses condemn all non-Muslims, for all time, to hell fire/eternal torture. Christians and Jews are called "disbelievers" (9:32, 5:17) and are not protected but must be put to the sword unless they convert to Islam or accept dhimmi status (9:29-9:35).

I have discussed this context argument here.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/009821.php#comments
Better still, see Ibn Warraq’s argument (scroll down to “Out of Context”)
Ibn Warraq's three-part introduction about how to debate with Muslims.
http://challenging-islam.org/articles/warraq-debate-muslims.htm

“I do dispute the idea that the quoted constitute a majority of the verses,”

You say you dispute it. Where's your argument?

See above, skeptics link. Good verses are in the minority and the rest is just, as Ali Sina says, “fairy tales” and, I would add, filler and lame attempts at poetry (no wonder people at the time panned Mohammad). Also, as at least one poster above has noted, the doctrine of abrogation, which is mentioned in the Koran itself, cancels out the peaceful verses. This means that all of the so-called peaceful tolerant verses in the Koran are abrogated by later harsher verses, including some of those in Sura 9 (specifically, 9:5, 9:29, 9:73, etc.).

Also, you should read tafsir when you read the Koran. Words like “oppression” and “persecution” have 7th-century Islamic definitions that are not what you might expect (e.g., polytheism disbelief (shirk) is oppression, a persecution worse than warfare or slaughter in which Muslims are killed (this is in the Koran); simply, disbelief in Allah is a crime worse than killing).

My articles on Verses 5:32 and 2:256 can be found here
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/guestessays/islam_compulsion.html

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/guestessays/islam_peace.html

One article on 5:32 that predates mine is Abul Kasem’s Decifering an American Fatwa, which I cite in my article. Another is Sam Shamoun’s article, here http://answering-islam.org.uk/Shamoun/badawi_tolerance.htm This discussed “mischief” “fasad” for 5:33; mischief is disbelief/opposition to Allah.

“and I doubt the motives of people, like Spencer, who emphasize that without a single mention of the more positive, and common, elements of the Quran.”

Spencer is more than able to defend himself. However, I will add that some of the positive verses are not what they seem. For example, part of verse 5:32 says that killing a person is as bad as killing all humankind, but this verse actually only prohibits the murder of Muslims. Likewise, the “no compulsion” statement (from 2:256) is immediately followed by a condemnation of all disbelievers to hell-fire (2:257).

“I also know, from first hand experience being in the Middle East, that Jihadist ideology is not widespread amongst Muslims.”

Again, go to the PEW polls. Anecdotal experience with a limited number of people is not the same as obtaining confidential anonymous opinions from large samples of people.

“Nationalism explains (but does not excuse) most of the violence (Kashmir, Palestinians, Thailand, Iran, etc) better than religion. That jihadist groups have infiltrated these groups is very dangerous, I agree.”

I disagree that Islam is separate from nationalism. Islam is itself political, legal, social, and religious all in one. It is imperialistic in its motives (e.g., see Sura 9), and Muslims around the world identify with those in Palestine, Kashmir, etc.

“Frankly, I am as worried about Jihadists as everyone here is. I also agree with Stephen Schwartz that the Wahhabis are extremely dangerous, and they they must be stopped.”

It’s not just the Wahhabis. The Iranians are not Wahhabis; indeed, they’re Shia, not even Sunni. Muslims all over the world are wreaking havoc on the non-Muslim populations with which they come into contact. You don’t have to follow this site to realize that. Just keep your eye on a variety of news sources from across the world. Bostom discusses this issue
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/AndrewBostom60114.htm

“But I strongly believe that people like Hugh, who would easily be counted as an Anti-Semite if he had written the stuff he publishes about Jews instead of Muslims, are bigots of the worst kind.”

I disagree. This is quite an ignorant attack on Hugh. Once you understand what Islam is, you realize that this is nothing like just another religion. I agree with Hugh at least to the extent that those Muslims who are guilty of treason or plotting it should be removed (e.g., many of the fire-brand clerics should be deported or imprisoned, for starters; and we’ve seen that many members of CAIR are terrorists or have terrorist ties, as well as the usual Islamic imperialist aspirations). I also agree that we need to modify our immigration criteria and requirements to reduce the threat of sharia- and jihad-enthusiasts (i.e., those hell-bent on carrying out treason) entering our countries.

And yes, Islam is not a race. It is more accurately a nationality that recognizes no secular borders. Mohammad was not a racist; he was a religious/nationalist/imperialist/supremacist. Oh, and a misogynist. And a child molester. And an approver of mass rapes…

“And I believe Robert Spencer is trying to have it both ways - operating what I do consider to be a thinly disguised hate site while providing what I also consider to be valuable news and information about a real threat.”

This has never been my impression. However, one must not have any illusions about Islam. The Koran (and accepted hadith) advocates much of the same ideology as the Nazi party: Supremacism (by religion, not race), violent imperialism, extermination of the Jews, and so on. We should be therefore concerned about those who follow it. You're not helping anyone by attacking the messengers, Hugh and Robert, without taking the time to understand exactly what it is they are saying.

Wahhabism is a recent development in the history of Islam. Most of the imperialist massacres of non-Muslims in the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa, Central Asia, Persia and India, Eastern Europe, and Southern Europe took place before Wahhabi came along.

Archimedes -

I quite appreciate your reply, both for its content and for the tone.

I will take a look at the links you suggest, and re-read some of the passages with your notes in mind.

RS

Sorry, just saw your latest post.

Agree that Wahhabism is recent - that is a historical fact.

If we're going back in history, there are plenty of examples of massacres by people of many faiths, acting in God's name, with sanction from religious figures (Popes, Caliphs, you name them).

Dealing with the present, Wahhabism is the root of the modern evil.

R

Islamists of all stripes follow the Koran. Wahhabism is only one sect within Sunni Islam. The rulers in Iran are Shia, who also follow the Koran and follow different hadiths than the Sunnis. The rulers of Iran present a major threat (both to the rest of the world and to their own people), and they are not Wahhabis. The Bostom article goes through other examples.

Rick,

I am a Christian who, for a long time, believed that Islam was a religion of
peace that had been hijacked by the extremists. This was a belief I held for
years after 9/11. It was only from a forum I was taking part in, discussing
the antichrist that someone suggested that I look up the subject of dajjal. I
had never even known that Islam believed in dajjal or even Jesus for that matter.
I then decided to try to learn more about Islam and Mohammad. I can honestly
say that I went into it with an open mind.

After doing a lot of reading and searching I began to form the opinion that
Islam was not what I thought it was. It is a very severe religion and one that
preaches killing and intolerance. Mohammad was I believe, nothing more than a
psychopath. He is certainly nobody that should be admired or honored.

You can point to atrocities committed by all ,against innocent peoples,
and the muslims certainly own a large portion of this issue. The blame game
leads nowhere. There is one glaring difference, and this is where I draw the
line. The Bible never encourages believers to kill non believers and treat them
as hellbound scum. The Koran is full of instances of this, and what's more,
it's acted upon frequently. Let Pat Robertson make an assinine comment about
God's retribution, and he is flooded with criticism, and derision.
Let Ahmadinejad call for the destruction of Israel and the muslim world responds
with ... nothing. I can't help but believe that if you honestly look at the facts,
minus the heated rhetoric that often fills this site, you will realize there
is a diametric opposition to many things we take as simple human rights.
Let the truth, minus the political slant, set you free.

@ Ispanan: Get a life, honestly. You talk as if you have spyware around the world and can easily distinguish and know who is telling and not telling the truth. I shared an experience, no matter how outrageous it sounds, it happened. In my view it was just an incident that happened, more interesting than alarming since I understand the Islamic mindset very well.

It wasn't a "huge incident" but obviously it got under your skin because you know its true and its the mindset of many. I tend not to make it an issue of what my religion is, in public places, unless someone asks me directly. Also, many of my White/Black/Fareast-Asian colleagues thought of me as Muslim when they first met me until they saw me with a Ham sandwich and a beer, or noticed me wearing a symbol from Hinduism or Buddhism on my T-shirt, which prompted a clarification of who I am, simply out of interest and friendly talk.

Do I have invisible friends? No, but obviously you and your buddies do when you hear little voices telling you to blow yourself up so that you can score some virgins to make up for your already dismal sex life. You know there are clinics that can help you with your little problem.

@Hugh: You are so right, I should carry a little recorder that I used to use to tape University lectures in Undergrad. Its incredible that these things do happen and there is always a Radical muslim who slips up (when he someone brown with North Indian features) and yet people like Ispapan figure that by openly denying it will be the best arguement.

People like Ispapan are we refer to as "Besharam", people who deny what happened even if there was ample evidence in front of them. Anyways, point taken Hugh, and no he is not a citizen but recently he scored a visa to study in the US and should be coming to the US later this year, and this is after he referred to the US as being "Garbage, evil, land of Homosexuals etc etc etc".

-Cheers

-Ayo Gorkhali

RickS,

you wrote:"...there are plenty of examples of massacres by people of many faiths..."

islam is what it is (a supremacist and totalitarian political ideology), irrespective of any other misbehavior by any non-muslims. Your assertion is a variant of the Tu Quoque logical fallacy. Look it up. I'm sure its on wikipedia :)

you wrote:"Dealing with the present, Wahhabism is the root of the modern evil."

A root. Not "the root". The ayatollah khomeini was certainly no wahhabist. But that was already pointed out to you. A "Moderate" such as steven schwartz is certainly not wahabbist. But although he advocates methods (dawa, rather than terrorism) less violent than the wahhabis and their abetters, his goal of spreading islam is similar.

But really, wahhabism is more a flower, than a root: a twisted, hideous, flower reminiscent of a Stephen King novel; but worse, a true flower from authentic islam. It is no sport.

Ghorkali,

you wrote: "-Cheers"

Coming from the US, thanks for the wry wit, eh?

"no he is not a citizen but recently he scored a visa to study in the US and should be coming to the US later this year..."
-- from a posting above

Further details may be emailed to Robert and will eventually get to the right place.

My dear "RickS":

I gave you reasoned arguments explaining why I hold the positions that I hold.

You responded, at 2:41PM above, with ad hominem attacks and flat restatements of your assertions which, for all their vehemence, introduced no new supporting material to buttress them.

I believe that the assertions I made about you, to which you took such exception at the beginning of that 2:41 post, have been abundantly established, making any further discussion unnecessary.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Archimedes 2:50pm post should be required reading on this thread.

especially this: "Even the “good” verses generally only refer to Muslims’ treatment of other Muslims. The positive sentiments are almost never extended to non-Muslims."

Which makes them meaningless. It's easy to love one's own. Loving one's enemies is the hard thing to do and the fundamental merit of any so-called "spiritual" path needs to be judged on how it handles precisely THAT.

But since this is a "CAIR" thread, which I presume attracts more Muslim readers than would usually be the case, it is incumbent upon us to direct Muslim readers to Ali Sina's site faithfreedom.org. Every Muslim reading this thread ought to at least be familiar with Mr. Sina's (a Muslim apostate) $50,000 challenge, posted here:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge.htm

"The challenge is:

Disprove my accusations against Muhammad.

I accuse Muhammad of being:

a rapist
a pedophile (had sex with a child)
an assassin
a mass murderer
a ruthless torturer
a terrorist (I have been made victorious through terror)
a lecher
a misogynist
a narcissist
a thief and plunderer
a cult leader
a mentally deranged (was paranoid, heard voices, hallucinated of seeing jinns, Satan and angels, used to think he had sex with his wives when he did not, suffered from depression and had suicidal tendencies).

Muslims often ask: "Who will judge whether or not an attempt to disprove your accusations against Muhammad and Islam, was successful?"

My debates with Muslims are published for the world to see. Read them. Do you think anyone of my opponents had a winning argument?"

I look at every occasion on which CAIR takes Mr. Spencer on, as an opportunity to direct Muslims to Mr. Sina's internationally renowned website.

Rick asks, "And how dare you claim 'you reveal yourself as just another one of those whom the ones who wish to destroy us find so useful'."
He's right, you know. You do.
Also, asking "How dare you?" makes you sound prissy. Did you really want to sound like that?

CAIR knows anyone with a brain stem who looks at islam for what it teaches will be able to tear it apart without too much difficulty.

I have not ever even
struck a muslim
hit a muslim
been arrogant to a muslim
stolen from a muslim
Lied to a muslim
Hurt a muslim
Be-headed a muslim
Blown up a muslim

But how many people have been
Murdered by Islamic Terrorists
Beheaded by Islamo Faschists
Raped by muslim whordes
Lied to by muslims
Cheated by muslims
Blown up by muslims
Stabbed, shot, wounded by muslims..

The statistical evidence is clear.

Islam is the cause of all terrorism...

I will NEVER bow down to the demonic DEATH CULT called islam...

I would rather Fight than switch...

This posting is number 139 for this article's forum. Is this a record for jihadwatch? I love it. You can read on and on. Can anyone tell me if this is a record for number of responses?

There wew over 200 posts for artilce regarding the German hostage release.

Hugh, I agree with you, your ideas must be aired as much as possible. You must boldly fight both the political correctness and Islam apologists that prevents the Western people from doing what must be done. Don’t worry, I’m sure your ideas will be welcome. This is why I insist you go with Spencer when he shows up on TV. However, I disagree with Rick. I don’t think you are a racist. Rather, your ideas about “creative” ways to deport Muslims, making their lives “difficult”, and your suggestion of ethnic cleansing of Palestine rather approximates you to Nazi ideology, in a sort of a Mein Kampf Muslim version, without the parts about the final solution. But then I hope you understand that when you post these ideas about population exchange–which, if I am not wrong, is not due to any kind of major terrorist attack context- it doesn’t really matter that Wikipedia takes your other statements out of context, right? Anyway, they have done enough by pointing that since Spencer had posted them, they had been falsely attributed to him.Arabs arrived in Palestine in 1900?

Now that’s a hit. I actually though they were there before even the coming of Islam…

Spencer says Muslim want to force their model of societies to others, and impose the sharia, to detriment of non-Muslim and women. The only thing I have heard of about this until now is the sharia courts in Canada that don’t have any value since one can appeal to Canada normal tribunals instead. I didn’t heard of anything else. Now of course, if its happening, we would have to see what elements of the sharia will be applied, and how they will be applied. That doesn’t mean a thief will have his hands cut if he is judged as per the sharia. Even the Egypt Muslim brotherhood has a non-literal interpretation of the sharia. On a side note, I don’t know if you are aware –since you seem to think that Muslims are not very concerned with terrorism- to what extent it has increased the hate and discrimination towards them? And do you know that the main victims of islamist terrorism have been Muslims themselves?

And about the Western Muslims not respecting the rights of women… well I could only give you stories of women that escaped the mysoginism that dominates their conservative culture/family by acknowledging their rights in Islam (by exemple, refusing forced marriage, to the dismay of their families). Women in Muslim backgrounds are told to take knowledge of Islam to claim their rights. But I guess the proof Islam is so oppressive is half, if not the majority, of new Occidental converts are women.

You claim that the tolerant verses have been abrogated by “traditional Islamic theology”. What do you understand by “traditional Islamic theology”? Wahabbi sect? What do you base yourself upon to say the “entire” traditional theology abrogates those verses? What proof do you have that the vast majority of traditional scholars consider tolerant verses to be moot? A few scattered wahabis scholars? Do you really think that for each link you give me I can’t give you one to a scholar who claims the exact opposite thing?

Oh btw… by tolerant verses, do you mean those in the Sura 9. if you do, then yes, they are abrogated, since both the verses about peace with the infidels and war against them in the sura 9 refer to the specific historical context of Medina. That doesn’t include the tolerant verses in the other suras.

However, the question about whether the compulsory jihad is entirely accepted, prevalent, rare, or non-existent among scholars is completely pointless. Whether Muslims don't think armed offensive jihad is obligatory, whether they do, don’t change anything.

Frankly, do you think that when people want to do wrong, they won’t find a way to twist their holy texts in order to justify their acts?

In all times people justified religion to excuse their crimes. With Christianity, it began as far as with the pagan persecution in Rome, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the religious war Catholicism / Protestantism. Do you really think people who caused this didn’t find something in their book that they twisted, either consciously or unconsciously, to justify their acts? Do you really think that persecution against Jews, often ordered by popes themselves was not originated by the Bible assumption that Jews crucified Jesus, even if didn’t mean that Christians had to kill Jews? Then what originated it?

But no need to go back to the crusades. We have examples here, in the 20-21th century, beginning with the pope ambiguity about the genocide, the use of Bible passages by Hitler to justify it, the complicity or direct participation of several catholic priests in Europe, the Ex-Yugoslavia wars, or the Christian terrorism in North-East India. Do you really think there is no problem with Christianity? No need to take the OT, the NT himself is full of contradictions. Jesus preaches tolerance and pardon in a page, but in another verse tells he was sent to bring division; in another he says: “For these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, BRING THEM HERE AND SLAY THEM BEFORE ME”; the punishment of blasphemy is death …of course, the mainstream Christians surely have explanations about all this, but some Christian scholars did their own interpretation to justify many crimes. Do you really think there wasn’t any problematic part they could twist?

If Islam is the ultimate cause of terrorism and wars fought by Muslims, then is the genocide of Jews and Muslims in Kosovo due to Christianity because some of the Christian priesthood justified it? If Islam is the cause of slavery in Sudan, then does that mean that when the Lord Resistance Army, a Christian terrorist group who operates in Uganda, takes children as sex-slaves, it is justified by the fact the Jews in Moses times did the same with the vanquished Holy Land populations, slaying the males and keeping the girls as sex-slaves upon a command from God? Yes, it applies for the Jews, but in the NT there is no explicit condemnation of this practice, and why could they not “emulate” the Jews of Moses times? And does that mean that the LRA leader is justified in mutilating those who oppose him because the Bible says “if you eye sins, pluck it out, if you hand sins, cut it off”?

The Bible may not contain direct statements to conquer the world with the sword, no (the Koran doesn’t either) but the Christians have developed the concept of “just war”. And of course, what is “just” can be subject to many interpretations. “Just” can be a “wider defensive war” that can include war against Irak, for example. And I hope no one negates that at least some Christians have given a religious significance to the war.

But even if the concept of offensive jihad was valid and accepted by all Muslims, the fact it has nothing to do with the terrorism as it is now, for two very simple reasons:

1.The jihad is a war, and terrorism is terrorism. Al-Quaeda, don’t want to “convert” or to turn non-Muslims into “dhimmitude”, or make them pay “jiza”. They want to kill them. Simply that. Before they began putting bombs, they didn’t say: either you convert or you live as dhimmi. They put the bombs. They don’t consider their war an offensive jihad, they consider it a wider defensive one. Which brings me to my statement about interpretations above.

2.There is no single verse in the Koran, or hadiths, who condones the killing of innocents. At the contrary, it is clearly forbidden both in the Koran and the hadith. The 5:32 explicitly. Of course Archimedes will say it is not valid, but then I have discussed it time and time again, and he kept saying the same thing. I have always been fascinated by this ability that Non-Muslims have of knowing Islam better than Muslims themselves. The most funny thing is terrorists frequently DO use this verse to justify the bombings, saying “discord/desecration in the land” comprises infidels in Muslim lands, when nowhere in the Koran it supports this affirmation. Which brings me to my statement about interpretation again. If the Koran or hadiths did contain this affirmation, this would be one thing; but another, far different thing is to consider that the 3 beheaded Christian children were desecrating the land.

Arch post:

1.This verse has been time and time again proved to be only valid in the historical context. But anyway, if a Muslim scholar considers it abrogates the tolerant verses, then quote him to me. I want to know exactly who they are, if there are any.
2.Verses, once again, only valid in their context. The unbelievers who are going to hell are those who military attack the Muslims, or the hypocrites, that is, the ones who claim to worship Allah, but lie. There are many verses that say that non-Muslim, Christian, Jews will have their reward if they do good. If any Muslim scholar considers those verses to be abrogated by the ones you quoted, then quote him also, and stop compulsively repeating the same crap over and over again. And don’t come up with the idiocy about how “good” or “righteousness” means worshipping Allah.
3.You are funny. OT don’t inspire supremacism, hatred, or imperialism? What OT did you read? This is surely the most violent and racist religious text in history, and this has influenced Zionism. No they don’t commend Jews to conquer the world, it commands them to conquer Palestine, which is enough. How quickly we forget Zionist terrorism both against Palestinians and British, Haganah, unit 101, terrorism justified in the eyes of their authors by Judaism:

"Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition can
be used to disallow terror as a means of war

We are very far from any moral hesitations when concerned with the national struggle. First and foremost, terror is
for us a part of the political war appropriate for the circumstances
of today...”

Yitzhak Shamir, former prime minister of Israel

As for the rest, you lie as much. I have explained all the issues with the verses, like the wife-beating verse in a past thread. You avoided answering it, but that didn’t prevent you from going to other threads and post the same thing again. And why do you ask us for arguments if you don’t give any yourself? I already told you: if there are Muslim scholars who agree with all what you say, then quote them. I don’t care about what Ibn Warraq & Co say. if you can’t, then just shut up. As long as you don’t show proof that what you say is widely accepted among Muslim scholars, all what you say is complete BS, repeated many times, yes, but BS all the same. And if you disagree with Rick about the spread of Jihadist ideology, why do you not link us to these polls instead of telling us to search ourselves?

Rick, I agree with you, nationalism is the issue here. In Sudan, by example, the war comes merely from the traditional conflict between nomads and farmers for the access to water. As for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, same: it is wrong to see it as a Muslim-Jewish conflict rather than a Arab-Jew conflict, Arabs including Muslims and Christians. And I hope no one is stupid enough to believe that Zionists hate Christians less than they hate Muslims:

http://www.jerusalemites.org/crimes/crimes_against_christianity/index.htm

About what this site is up to, I agree with you also. This goes far beyond fighting “jihadists”. This site permanently depicts Islam and Muslims in a negative way, trying to blame just about everything bad that happens in the world to Islam. Nothing good about Islam or Muslims have been said in any thread of this site. Someone intelligent enough can see that it would only cause more hate and fear towards Muslims instead of helping realize a common effort to resolve our common problem If one really wanted to fight the extremists within Islam without causing hatred towards the general community, then he would also mention the good side of Islam and Muslim values, which in many points are similar to values such as the Christian ones, like the respect for parents, and the efforts made by Muslims to eradicate terrorism. Was it ever mentioned by any Jihadwatch member that it was a Muslim who prevented a terrorist attack in the US in 1997? But I guess you are right, and what is really intended here is to create anti-Muslim hysteria so that Hugh’s “project” could be accepted.

What true jihad is:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53018-2002Sep22.html

“@ Ispanan: Get a life, honestly. You talk as if you have spyware around the world”

“obviously you and your buddies do when you hear little voices telling you to blow yourself up so that you can score some virgins to make up for your already dismal sex life. You know there are clinics that can help you with your little problem.”

Lol, so I talk like I had a spyware around the world, but you seem to know how dismal my sexual life is. Man, I didn’t know I was being spied here, in my very bedroom. What, do you work for the FBI, or is it simply a hobby? Anyway feel free to switch to another screen if you don’t like the spectacle, or just get a good old porn magazine. If it doesn’t work, there ARE clinics that can help you with your little problem.

Now, if your experience has really happened, then my apologies. But you are not saying that this individual is representative of the mindset of the general Muslim population, right?

I also don't think that what is in the Quran is any worse than what is found in the Bible {RickS

Prove it RickS. You can't.

Here is just one of many examples as to why you can't - just 5 Scriptures [of many]

Rom 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumbling Stone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Mat 19:18 Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder

1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Mat 13:49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels [Not humans] shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just.

Jer 51:57 they shall sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake, saith the King, whose name is the LORD of hosts.

without a single mention of the more positive, and common, elements of the Quran. {RickS

Jam 3:11 Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?

Does it teach peace for this world? or does it preach war for this world? [Can not be both]

What proof do you have that the vast majority of traditional scholars consider tolerant verses to be moot? Ispanan

009.029 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya [Islamic 'tax'] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

004.101 When ye travel through the earth, there is no blame on you if ye shorten your prayers, for fear the unbelievers May attack you: For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies.

009.044 Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day ask thee for no exemption from fighting with their goods and persons. And Allah knoweth well those who do their duty.

CAIR is invading the west - accusing all who point out the truth about their religion of being hate-filled.

Who doesn't HATE the teachings of beheadings? rape? theft? lies? murder?

Those who are hate-filled - that's who!

@Ispanan:

"Now, if your experience has really happened, then my apologies. But you are not saying that this individual is representative of the mindset of the general Muslim population, right?"

Yes, it did happen and I mentioned it in passing. However, this individual along with many others represent the vast majority of what I have come across or see. Those who are moderates and open minded, openly speaking about the ills of Islam with me and how it needs to change if Muslims intend on living with others are in a minority. I know Muslims with whom I share an endearing friendship with, they are honest and admit to the fact that Islam is flawed and needs a huge overhaul before it can truly become a religion, peace hasn't even entered the equation.

There is hope only if the majority was to become moderate, educated and realize that Islam needs a huge makeover otherwise the vast majority of Muslims are fanatics. Just look at the numbers of Islamic countries and look at their Human rights records, how many Muslims who live in the West would rather choose to live in these Islamic countries. If they hate the West so much, why don't they just leave? Majority of Terrorists, beheadings, suicide bombings, systematic rape etc has been done in the name of Islamic fanatic regimes?

Now this individual was one, but he spoke for millions. I must say, I was impressed when he was able to quote verses of the Koran and speak in fluent Arabic, all I could think about was Sun Tzu’s Art of War; “Know yourself, know your enemy”.

It was classic when he said that if I didn’t pray five times a day then I am a Kafir and Allah will not forgive me. I guess he couldn’t sleep when I finally told him I am a Kafir and in my eyes he was a Malecha.

Ispanan wrote:
"Lol, so I talk like I had a spyware around the world, but you seem to know how dismal my sexual life is. Man, I didn’t know I was being spied here, in my very bedroom. What, do you work for the FBI, or is it simply a hobby? Anyway feel free to switch to another screen if you don’t like the spectacle, or just get a good old porn magazine. If it doesn’t work, there ARE clinics that can help you with your little problem."

The only reason why I could guess about your sex life is because of how you reacted to my initial message with the "Roid-Rage" and the fact that Muslims blow themselves up, not for sacrifice, but instead to score with a whole harem of virgins which indicates a "huge need to release".

You simply went on a high horse which indicated a lot of anger, which in turn could be taken as a lot of built up frustration. And no thank you Ispa, I like sticking with Jihadwatch, its the Islamic world that is addicted to Porn and illicit alcohol, and yet tries to put a show infront of the world that its innocent. Nor do I want to binge into your old porn mag collection, although I am sure you must have an impressive library. And I am glad that you KNOW about the clinics, good man, now go get something done and don't be shy.

Okay gotta run, now I'm late, DAMN!!!!

-Cheers

Prove it RickS. You can't.

Here is just one of many examples as to why you can't - just 5 Scriptures [of many]

Rom 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumbling Stone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

John 3:18: "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God (it is worthwile to note that many Christian groups believe those who don’t believe in Jesus will go to Hell)

“Mat 19:18 Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder”
[Luke. 19:27] For these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, BRING THEM HERE AND SLAY THEM BEFORE ME.

[Math. 10:34] “Do not think that I have come to make peace on earth? I HAVE NOT COME TO BRING PEACE, BUT A SWORD. “For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother.”

“1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.”

[Deuteronomy 18-22] 18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall STONE HIM TO DEATH. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and SHALL KNOW FEAR.

Now that is what I would call strict discipline!

Mat 13:49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels [Not humans] shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just.

Ezekiel 21
3 and say to her: 'This is what the LORD says: I am against you. I will draw my sword from its scabbard and cut off from you both the righteous and the wicked.
4 Because I am going to cut off the righteous and the wicked, my sword will be unsheathed against everyone from south to north.
5 Then all people will know that I the LORD have drawn my sword from its scabbard; it will not return again.'

Jer 51:57 they shall sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake, saith the King, whose name is the LORD of hosts.

Hosea 13:16 (King James) Samaria will bear her guilt BECAUSE SHE HAS REBELLED AGAINST HER GOD. They will fall by the sword; THEIR LITTLE ONES WILL BE DASHED TO PIECES, AND THEIR PREGNANT WOMEN RIPPED OPEN.

Here is a funny one:

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father FIFTY SHEKELS of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, HE MAY NOT PUT HER AWAY ALL HIS DAYS

009.029 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya [Islamic 'tax'] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

[9.13] What! will you not fight A PEOPLE WHO BROKE THEIR OATHS AND AIMED AT THE EXPULSION OF THE APOSTLE, and THEY ATTACKED YOU FIRST; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers

[2:191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out FROM WHENCE THEY DROVE YOU OUT, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

004.101 When ye travel through the earth, there is no blame on you if ye shorten your prayers, for fear the unbelievers May attack you: For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies.

[5:8] O you who believe! Be upright for Allah, bearers of witness with justice, and let not hatred of a people incite you not to act equitably; act equitably, that is nearer to piety, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is Aware of what you do.

009.044 Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day ask thee for no exemption from fighting with their goods and persons. And Allah knoweth well those who do their duty.

[60.8] Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice.

Who doesn't HATE the teachings of

beheadings?

Numbers 25:4 And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the HEADS of the people, and HANG them up before the LORD AGAINST THE SUN, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.
rape?

[Num. 31:1] And the Lord said unto Moses, “Avenge the children of the Mid’-an’ites.. They warred against the Mid’-i-an’ites, as the Lord commanded Moses, and they slay all the males. And they took all women as captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. Moses said, “HAVE YOU SAVED ALL THE WOMEN ALIVE? NOW KILL EVERY MALE AMONG THE LITTLE ONES, AND KILL EVERY WOMAN that has known a man by lying with him, BUT ALL THE YOUNG GIRLS WHO HAVE NOT KNOWN A MAN BY LYING WITH HIM KEEP ALIVE FOR YOURSELVES.
(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT) WHEN A MAN SELLS HIS DAUGHTER AS A SLAVE(…)

theft?

(Judges 5:30 NAB) They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil.

[Numbers 31:31] So Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses.

The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was

675,000 sheep,
33 72,000 cattle,
34 61,000 donkeys
and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man.
the half share of those who fought in the battle was: 337,500 sheep,
of which the tribute for the LORD was 675;
36,000 cattle, of which the tribute for the LORD was 72;
30,500 donkeys, of which the tribute for the LORD was 61;
16,000 people, of which the tribute for the LORD was 32

lies?

If a prophet’s words do not come true, he is a false prophet and must be put to death. This is true even if he has been deceived by God himself.
And if the prophet is deceived when he has spoken, I THE LORD HAVE DECEIVED THAT PROPHET, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, AND WILL DESTROY HIM from the midst of my people Israel.
murder?

.. No comment

Does that mean you hate your teachings, Beth?

It is easily understandable where the comment from the former Israeli PM came from. And it is understandable where the crimes of christianity came from. Christians who believe the Bible is the valid word of God are recognizing that they worship a god who ordered his "chosen people" to commit mass murder, kill men and women, keeping the girls "who never slept with a man" as sex-slaves, and many more. I hope no one of them will come and criticize Muhammad "crimes", because they would just lack a bit of credibility.

One last addendum to "RickS":

You say: "It is convenient that there is rarely (if ever) any mention of the positive contributions of, or positive viewpoints of Muslim-Americans, on your website. But let me give a few examples. Analyst Peter Bergen recently said, based on extensive interviews "the American Muslim community has rejected the Al-Qaeda philosophy almost entirely". An editorial page writer from the WSJ has written "So does the U.S. have a "Muslim problem"? If the data above are accurate, they strongly suggest we do not; on the contrary, America's Muslims tend to be role models both as Americans and as Muslims." And CIA operative Gary Bernsten said in a recent interview that the support of Muslim Americans in the War on Terror has been invaluable. That from a person who has really been living and breathing the war."

Bergen and Bernsten are right: in Lackawanna, for example, members of the Muslim community tipped the FBI on the Lackawanna Six. I applaud that, and say, more, more.

Unfortunately there are other currents. Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani testified before a State Department Open Forum in 1999 that 80% of American mosques were controlled by extremists. This has never been proven false or even investigated. Freedom House, for all its kind words about American Muslims, found hair-raising material in American mosques.

Are some Muslims aiding anti-terror efforts? Yes. Does that fact mean that no Muslims in the U.S. are trying to hinder those efforts? No. Is there any concerted effort on the part of American Muslims in general to aid in anti-terror efforts and expel jihadists from their communities? No.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

My dear "Ispanan":

"Spencer says Muslim want to force their model of societies to others, and impose the sharia, to detriment of non-Muslim and women. The only thing I have heard of about this until now is the sharia courts in Canada that don’t have any value since one can appeal to Canada normal tribunals instead. I didn’t heard of anything else."

I invite you to read this site more frequently. You will hear about more.

"On a side note, I don’t know if you are aware –since you seem to think that Muslims are not very concerned with terrorism- to what extent it has increased the hate and discrimination towards them?"

Are you referring to the CAIR hate crimes report? If so, are you aware of how manipulated and inflated the data is in it? I refer you to articles posted here and elsewhere establishing this.

"And do you know that the main victims of islamist terrorism have been Muslims themselves?"

You seem to have missed the many articles I have posted here about Sunni-Shi'ite violence.

"And about the Western Muslims not respecting the rights of women… well I could only give you stories of women that escaped the mysoginism that dominates their conservative culture/family by acknowledging their rights in Islam (by exemple, refusing forced marriage, to the dismay of their families). Women in Muslim backgrounds are told to take knowledge of Islam to claim their rights. But I guess the proof Islam is so oppressive is half, if not the majority, of new Occidental converts are women."

I have written about that. I expect you did not see what I wrote.

Do you deny that honor killings are on the rise in Britain and all over Europe?

"You claim that the tolerant verses have been abrogated by “traditional Islamic theology”. What do you understand by “traditional Islamic theology”? Wahabbi sect?"

No. Pre-Wahhabi tasafir: Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Al-Jalalayn, etc. I explain this at length in my book "Onward Muslim Soldiers."

"What do you base yourself upon to say the “entire” traditional theology abrogates those verses?"

Please specify where I said this.

"What proof do you have that the vast majority of traditional scholars consider tolerant verses to be moot? A few scattered wahabis scholars?"

No. See above.

"Do you really think that for each link you give me I can’t give you one to a scholar who claims the exact opposite thing?"

Good. Where do these scholars exercise a dominant influence today?

"Oh btw… by tolerant verses, do you mean those in the Sura 9. if you do, then yes, they are abrogated, since both the verses about peace with the infidels and war against them in the sura 9 refer to the specific historical context of Medina. That doesn’t include the tolerant verses in the other suras."

Good. Where is this the dominant perspective today? Why are the Wahhabis able to make inroads against it?

"However, the question about whether the compulsory jihad is entirely accepted, prevalent, rare, or non-existent among scholars is completely pointless. Whether Muslims don't think armed offensive jihad is obligatory, whether they do, don’t change anything."

Actually it does. If they do think this, Muslim/non-Muslim conflict will continue as long as they continue to think it.

"Frankly, do you think that when people want to do wrong, they won’t find a way to twist their holy texts in order to justify their acts?"

This has been done throughout history.

"In all times people justified religion to excuse their crimes. With Christianity, it began as far as with the pagan persecution in Rome, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the religious war Catholicism / Protestantism. Do you really think people who caused this didn’t find something in their book that they twisted, either consciously or unconsciously, to justify their acts?"

No, these wars were generally not justified by reference to Christian texts or doctrines.

"Do you really think that persecution against Jews, often ordered by popes themselves was not originated by the Bible assumption that Jews crucified Jesus, even if didn’t mean that Christians had to kill Jews? Then what originated it?"

There is no unanimity on this. After all, the Church has condemned this view. And many Popes condemned it throughout history. Yet by contrast no Islamic madhhab has condemned offensive jihad.

"But no need to go back to the crusades. We have examples here, in the 20-21th century, beginning with the pope ambiguity about the genocide, the use of Bible passages by Hitler to justify it"

Please specify. Also note which Christian sects understood those Bible passages the way Hitler did.

"...the complicity or direct participation of several catholic priests in Europe, the Ex-Yugoslavia wars, or the Christian terrorism in North-East India. Do you really think there is no problem with Christianity?"

No, I don't.

"No need to take the OT, the NT himself is full of contradictions. Jesus preaches tolerance and pardon in a page, but in another verse tells he was sent to bring division; in another he says: “For these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, BRING THEM HERE AND SLAY THEM BEFORE ME”"

Why has this verse never been interpreted by Christians at any place or time, even when they were slaughtering people, as a mandate for slaughter? Why aren't there armed Christian groups committing violence because of this verse today?

"...the punishment of blasphemy is death …of course, the mainstream Christians surely have explanations about all this, but some Christian scholars did their own interpretation to justify many crimes. Do you really think there wasn’t any problematic part they could twist?"

The punishment for blasphemy in Christianity is not death. If you think it is, please specify which Christian sects have executed blasphemers lately.

"If Islam is the ultimate cause of terrorism and wars fought by Muslims, then is the genocide of Jews and Muslims in Kosovo due to Christianity because some of the Christian priesthood justified it?"

No, because the justification by priests is not the same thing as the basing of the entire action upon established doctrine.

"If Islam is the cause of slavery in Sudan, then does that mean that when the Lord Resistance Army, a Christian terrorist group who operates in Uganda, takes children as sex-slaves, it is justified by the fact the Jews in Moses times did the same with the vanquished Holy Land populations, slaying the males and keeping the girls as sex-slaves upon a command from God?"

Besides the LRA, what Jews or Christians are doing this today? What Churches hold that such actions by the LRA are justified by Christianity? If not, why not?

"Yes, it applies for the Jews, but in the NT there is no explicit condemnation of this practice, and why could they not “emulate” the Jews of Moses times?"

Then why don't more? Why is there a worldwide jihadist movement, in virtually every country, versus Tim McVeigh and some nuts in Uganda?

"And does that mean that the LRA leader is justified in mutilating those who oppose him because the Bible says “if you eye sins, pluck it out, if you hand sins, cut it off”?"

What Church teaches this? Please be specific.

"The Bible may not contain direct statements to conquer the world with the sword, no (the Koran doesn’t either)"

On the contrary, see 2:193, 9:5, 9:29, etc. etc.

"...but the Christians have developed the concept of “just war”. And of course, what is “just” can be subject to many interpretations. “Just” can be a “wider defensive war” that can include war against Irak, for example. And I hope no one negates that at least some Christians have given a religious significance to the war."

You seem not to have noticed our position on the war in Iraq.

"But even if the concept of offensive jihad was valid and accepted by all Muslims, the fact it has nothing to do with the terrorism as it is now, for two very simple reasons:"

I never said it was accepted by all Muslims.

"1.The jihad is a war, and terrorism is terrorism. Al-Quaeda, don’t want to “convert” or to turn non-Muslims into “dhimmitude”, or make them pay “jiza”. They want to kill them. Simply that. Before they began putting bombs, they didn’t say: either you convert or you live as dhimmi. They put the bombs. They don’t consider their war an offensive jihad, they consider it a wider defensive one. Which brings me to my statement about interpretations above."

On the contrary; that is just what Al-Qaeda wants to do. Bin Laden has invited the U.S. to accept Islam -- the first stage of Dawa before Jihad -- on several occasions. Hamas too: see here: http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009589.php

But you're right. They do consider their war a defensive jihad. Their desire to reestablish the caliphate, however, indicates a desire to create the context for offensive jihad.

"2.There is no single verse in the Koran, or hadiths, who condones the killing of innocents. At the contrary, it is clearly forbidden both in the Koran and the hadith. The 5:32 explicitly. Of course Archimedes will say it is not valid, but then I have discussed it time and time again, and he kept saying the same thing. I have always been fascinated by this ability that Non-Muslims have of knowing Islam better than Muslims themselves. The most funny thing is terrorists frequently DO use this verse to justify the bombings, saying “discord/desecration in the land” comprises infidels in Muslim lands, when nowhere in the Koran it supports this affirmation. Which brings me to my statement about interpretation again. If the Koran or hadiths did contain this affirmation, this would be one thing; but another, far different thing is to consider that the 3 beheaded Christian children were desecrating the land."

This is all irrelevant. The jihadists have made it clear on many occasions that they don't consider Westerners or various non-believers to be innocent. Until peaceful Muslims can establish that they are indeed innocent in a way that refutes the jihadist arguments in an effective way, the violence will continue.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Ispanan,

I see Robert has addressed many of your points. I will respond to those specifically addressing me.

I asked you not to respond to me until you’d read the Koran. Have you read the Koran yet? I don’t believe so, because I’ve seen no evidence that you’ve read it. You’ve not quoted a single verse. I will help you (see below). And when you quote verses and hadiths, cite the numbers.

As usual, your replies to me, and the other posters, is mostly insult and evasion. At the same time, you demand full respect from other posters, and then you get upset when some of them insult you back. Remember your temper tantrum after your exchange with Bohemond? You stamped your feet and demanded that I say something to Bohemond, otherwise, you warned, you would not continue to post here.

As usual, you claim to have provided arguments and evidence in some unknown past posts. This is pure bluff. But people aren’t likely to waste their time going back to see how many times you’ve made this bluff. That's why you think you can bluff your way out of trouble.

I post this not for you, Ispanan, but for other posters wh may want some material.

“There is no single verse in the Koran, or hadiths, who condones the killing of innocents.”

First, let’s deal with Innocence.

I think you are trying to use modern secular definitions of innocent. That’s not in the Koran. Define “innocent” in Koranic terminology. According to the Koran, disbelievers are “guilty” (45:31, 83:29) of disbelief, which is the worst crime (10:17, 11:18-19, 18:15, 18:57, 29:68, 32:22, 39:32, 61:7).

Read this and tell me if you think the Koran treats disbelievers as innocent:

Disbelievers (non-Muslims): are “worst of created beings” (98:6), are “miscreants” (2:99, 24:55), are the worst beasts in Allah’s sight (8:22, 8:55); (Christians and/or Jews are) turned into “apes and/or pigs” (2:65-66, 5:58-60, 7:166); (idolaters are) unclean (9:28); “evil” is upon them (16:27), evil (2:91, 2:99); “wicked” (80:42, 9:125); the “wrong-doers” (42:45, 2:254, 5:45); evil-doers (42:44); they have no good in them (8:23); on the side of Satan and are fighting for him (4:76-77); of the party of Satan (58:19); Allah assigns them devils for protecting friends (7:27); they choose devils for protecting friends (7:30); are partisan against Allah (25:55); “enemy” and “perverted” (63:4); disgraced lives (22:9); hypocrites (4:61); have a “diseased heart” (2:10, 9:125); are ill (84:20); deaf, dumb, and blind, and have no sense (2:171); deaf and dumb and in darkness, Allah sends them astray (6:39); have no sense (5:103); a folk who do not understand (9:127); their fathers were unintelligent and had no knowledge or guidance (2:170, 5:104); are “a folk without intelligence”/ “most ignorant” (8:65, 6:111); losers who are deceived by Allah (2:6), and deceived by Satan (4:60); liars/they lie (2:10, 9:42, 16:39, 16:105, 59:11) “losers” (7:179); foolish and liars (7:66), liars and losers (58:18-19), false pride and schism (38:2).

Even “good works” won’t help the disbelievers. Allah doesn’t care about good works from non-Muslims; they are going to hell anyway.

Disbelievers who do good works do so in vain, because they are going to hell anyway (5:5, 18:104-106, also 18:30, 33:19, 47:1, 47:32). Their works are as ashes blown away by the wind; they have no control over what they have earned (14:18).

59:4 YUSUFALI: "That is because they resisted Allah and His Messenger: and if any one resists Allah, verily Allah is severe in Punishment."

This is what you hide behind your back when you tell people that the Koran teaches peace and tolerance.

Next, Condoning of Killing Innocent People.

1.Condoned? At times, Allah does it himself!
Allah boasts of having carried out multiple genocides throughout history to wipe out the disbelievers (17:17, *10:13, 38:3, 32:26). Allah has destroyed whole towns/townships of disbelievers (7:4, 17:16, 21:6, 18:59, 28:58, 46:27). (How could the whole town or whole generation be guilty? This would include children and babies!). Allah brings death through disaster upon those who disbelieve and dismiss his words as fable (16:22-26); He strikes at the foundation of their building, causing their building to collapse on them. I guess you will say that, in all of these massacres, these people are not innocent because they disbelieved in Allah? Allah saves the lives of the believers only.

2. Consider this verse. Allah tells those who think Mohammad will not be victorious in the world and the hereafter that they should commit suicide (they should take a rope and go hang themselves).
22:15 “Whoso is wont to think (through envy) that Allah will not give him (Muhammad) victory in the world and the Hereafter (and is enraged at the thought of his victory), let him stretch a rope up to the roof (of his dwelling), and let him hang himself. Then let him see whether his strategy dispelleth that whereat he rageth!”

Allah condones the suicide of disbelievers.

3. Of course, much of Sura 9 orders the waging of war against idolaters, Jews and Christians, disbelievers generally, hypocrites, and apostates. This type of war is not an inner struggle. The context of the whole Sura refers to war.

4. [Shakir 8:12] “When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.”

I guess the people in that caravan that Mohammad raided (the “battle” of Badr) were not innocent?

5. From the Book of Jihad:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 73:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin Abi Aufa: Allah's Apostle said, "Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords." Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 50: Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet said, "A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah's Cause in the forenoon or in the afternoon is better than the world and whatever is in it."

Fighting in Allah’s cause means fighting to make Allah’s religion conquer all others. Note to Ispanan: Innocent people get killed in the process.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 3, Number 125: Narrated Abu Musa: A man came to the Prophet and asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What kind of fighting is in Allah's cause? (I ask this), for some of us fight because of being enraged and angry and some for the sake of his pride and haughtiness." The Prophet raised his head (as the questioner was standing) and said, "He who fights so that Allah's Word (Islam) should be superior, then he fights in Allah's cause."

6. Extermination of the Jews. Are any of the Jews “innocent,” Ispanan?

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."

7. Condones the deaths of idolater children; Muslims should not intervene to stop it.

6:137 “Thus have their (so-called) partners (of Allah) made the killing of their children to seem fair unto many of the idolaters, that they may ruin them and make their faith obscure for them. Had Allah willed (it otherwise), they had not done so. So leave them alone with their devices.”

8. Requires the slaughter of many people, no matter what, before captives are taken. Once captives are taken, they have the option of surrendering to Islam.

8:67 It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

Why must Mohammad's men do this? To make an example of the disbelievers (8:57) in order to terrorize other disbelievers. Mohammad knows one of the keys to his success is terror.

59:13 SHAKIR: "You are certainly greater in being feared in their hearts than Allah; that is because they are a people who do not understand."

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)."

Believers, of course, must emulate the prophet.

9. Are alarmists, those who “spread false news” to stir up sedition against Islam, innocent? (That would include many of us who are trying to alert people to the dangers of Islamic ideology). In my book, they’re innocent. In your book, Ispanan, they’re guilty and deserving of the death penalty.

33:60 “If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbours in it but a little while.
33:61 Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.
33:62 That was the way of Allah in the case of those who passed away of old; thou wilt not find for the way of Allah aught of power to change.”

10. Killing of critics and satirical poets and singers.Another similar passage along the same theme also threatens eternal damnation to critics who dismiss Mohammad mockingly (37:34-40; the mockers and critics called him a "mad poet"). In those passages (and in 33:57-58), Mohammad condemned critics and mockers to a painful doom. In order to clarify whether Mohammad only meant they should be damned (i.e., by Allah) or, in addition, actually killed by believers, it is necessary to examine the Hadith and Sira. According to careful scholarly analyses of these Islamic sources, Mohammad had many of these critics and mockers assassinated or executed, e.g., see 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 . Because the Koran states that Mohammad is an example that (male) believers should emulate (33:21), the killing of critics and satirists of Islam is obligatory.

11. Why does Mohammad think it’s okay to kill people we (non-Muslims) would now regard as innocent? It might have something to do with Mohammad’s value system: To Mohammad, disbelief was worse than killing a Muslim. Disbelief or turning away from Allah is a persecution worse than warfare (2:217) or slaughter (2:191). For a discussion of 2:191, see http://www.faithfreedom.org/faq/70.htm

“At the contrary, it is clearly forbidden both in the Koran and the hadith. The 5:32 explicitly. Of course Archimedes will say it is not valid, but then I have discussed it time and time again, and he kept saying the same thing.”

Actually, my main point about 5:32 is that it does not forbid the killing of non-Muslims. This is not my personal opinion. I’m quoting what Ibn Kathir says in his tafsir. (Do you know who Ibn Kathir is?). Also see Abul Kasem’s discussion of Ibn Kathir’s interpretation of 5:32—it does not forbid killing of non-Muslims. http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/AbulKasem50808.htm . The Koran explicitly forbids the murder (intentional killing) of Muslims (4:93), but there is no such statement with regard to non-Muslims! In addition, Spencer (you know, the guy who runs this site and wrote the book that I suggested you read, P.I.G. to Islam, 2005) cites examples from historical interpretations indicating that there is no application of the law of retaliation when a Muslim kills a non-Muslim (cited on p.84. See Reliance of the Traveller (1999), laws o1.0, o1.1, o1.2. This text is still accepted by al-Azhar University in Egypt. Also see Muslim Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1970)). From the Muslim Commentary (1970), “Since Islam regards non-Muslims as on a lower level of belief and conviction, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim…then his punishment must not be retaliatory death, since the faith and conviction he possesses is loftier than that of the man slain. A fine may only be exacted from him.”

“I have always been fascinated by this ability that Non-Muslims have of knowing Islam better than Muslims themselves.”

Yes, it is interesting. I believe the main reason is that those Muslims who show up to post at this site have not read the Koran, or else are in denial about what the complete text says. You also seem to hold the arrogant assumption that one must be a believer in the Koran to understand it and criticize it. I disagree with your chauvinistic, bigoted view. The issue is simply how well one knows the material. Also, your lack of belief in Christianity has never stopped you from criticizing the Bible. Why do you use a double standard, allowing you to criticize the Bible, but disallow non-Muslims from criticizing the Koran.

However, since you do believe the Koran, the you believe in hell. Do you think it is morally acceptable for Allah to give the maximum punishment for disbelief, even if the disbelievers do good works?

When you do get around to reading the Koran, check out this site. They have read their Korans, and here's where it led them. http://www.apostatesofislam.com/index.htm

“The most funny thing is terrorists frequently DO use this verse to justify the bombings, saying “discord/desecration in the land” comprises infidels in Muslim lands, when nowhere in the Koran it supports this affirmation. Which brings me to my statement about interpretation again.”

Interesting that you should think this is “funny.” Anyways, you’re wrong again. Verse 8:73 states clearly that the disbelievers, by their mere presence, cause confusion and corruption/mischief in the land. When bin Laden et al attack Muslims, they may be in violation of 5:32-33, but not when they attack non-Muslims. Attacking non-Muslims for mischief/corruption is 100% approved by 5:32-5:33, provided this is beneficial to the ultimate goal of Islam, which is mentioned in 9:33, 48:28, 61:9.

Why do you think Allah wiped out all those people, in the above list of verses? Why do you think he says he punishes the disbelievers using the hands of the believers (8:17)? We know in that context (a raid on a caravan) that Mohammad was after revenge, booty, women, etc., but what’s Allah’s excuse? Disbelief is the reason. Allah wants to punish disbelief.

Here is a link you might find educational: http://answering-islam.org.uk/Shamoun/badawi_tolerance.htm Scroll down to Shamoun’s discussion of “mischief” fasad in 5:33.

SHAMOUN EXCERPT:

5:33. The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief(fasadan) in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement, S. 5:33 Shakir
The above passage threatens those who aim for mischief with execution, crucifixion, the cutting of their hands and feet, or exile. The question is what exactly does the word mischief imply or convey? For the answer we now turn to several Muslim sources:
Fasad
Fasad, literally 'corruption', in Qur'anic terminology, means creating disorder and corruption earth BY FOLLOWING A PATH OTHER THAN GOD’S. Islam maintains that true peace and happiness emanate ONLY THROUGH THE OBSERVANCE OF GOD’S COMMANDS and through making a conscious effort to see that His laws alone are implemented in every sphere of life. Fasad occurs when man violates God's laws and disobeys Him. Fasad may therefore be partial as well as total; partial when one disregards God's law in one aspect of life while acknowledging His sovereignty in other spheres. If a society is based on the denial of God, that society is bound to be a corrupt and exploitative society - hence full of fasad. (Glossary of Islamic Terms; capital emphasis ours)
Ibn Kathir's tafsir on Quran 5:33 says:
The Punishment of those Who Cause Mischief in the Land
Allah said next, ...

'Wage war' mentioned here means, OPPOSE AND CONTRADICT, and it includes DISBELIEF, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Volume 3, p. 161; online edition; capital emphasis ours)
In Ibn Kathir's tafsir on verse 2:11-12 he writes:
Meaning of Mischief
In his Tafsir, As-Suddi said that Ibn `Abbas and Ibn Mas`ud commented, ...

"They are the hypocrites. As for, ...
, that is DISBELIEF AND ACTS OF DISOBEDIENCE." Abu Ja`far said that Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said that Abu Al-`Aliyah said that Allah's statement, ...
, means, "Do not commit acts of disobedience on the earth. Their mischief is DISOBEYING Allah, because whoever disobeys Allah on the earth, OR COMMANDS THAT ALLAH BE DISOBEYED, he has committed mischief on the earth. Peace on both the earth and in the heavens is ensured (and earned) through obedience (to Allah)." Ar-Rabi` bin Anas and Qatadah said similarly. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) Volume 1, Parts 1 and 2 (Surat Al-Fatihah to Verse 252 of Surat Al-Baqarah), abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; First Edition: January 2000], pp. 131-132; online edition; capital emphasis ours)
And:
Types of Mischief that the Hypocrites commit
Ibn Jarir said, "The hypocrites commit mischief on earth BY DISOBEYING THEIR LORD on it and continuing in the prohibited acts. They also ABANDON WHAT ALLAH MADE OBLIGATORY AND DOUBT HIS RELIGION, even though He does not accept a deed from anyone EXCEPT WITH FAITH IN HIS RELIGION and certainty of its truth. The hypocrites also lie to the believers by saying contrary to the doubt and hesitation their hearts harbor. They give as much aid as they can, against Allah's loyal friends, and support those who deny Allah, His Books and His Messengers. This is how the hypocrites commit mischief on earth, while thinking that they are doing righteous work on earth."
The statement by Ibn Jarir is true, taking the disbelievers as friends is one of the categories of mischief on the earth... (Ibid., p. 132; online edition; capital emphasis ours)
Clearly then, mischief or fasad entails disbelief and disobedience to Islam, that those who deny that Islam is true, or that Muhammad is a true prophet, and who may call into question Muhammad’s religion, are being mischievous. They are to come under the severe punishment and penalty for refusing to embrace Islam and/or for calling its veracity into question. Is it any wonder that Muhammad commanded Muslims to fight those who do not prohibit what Islam prohibits in surah 9:29? Here, again, is the passage:
Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) NOR FORBID THAT WHICH HAS BEEN FORBIDDEN BY ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. ISLAM) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. Hilali-Khan
Thus, a careful reading of the Quran leads us to conclude that fighting against Muhammad isn’t restricted solely to physical, military expeditions. It also includes challenging the truth claims of Islam and Muhammad’s prophethood. In other words, people must not call into question Muhammad’s truth claims, but simply blindly follow what he has commanded or, as in the case of Jews and Christians who are permitted to live under Islamic rule, remain silent about their disbelief in him. Otherwise, they will be viewed as causing mischief in Muslim land, thereby fighting against Allah and his messenger, and coming under the judgment of the Quran. If the Jew or Christian agreed not to question Islam, or refrain from trying to convert any Muslim, then he/she could retain his/her personal belief as long as the jizya, or taxation, be paid.
The very immediate context of surah 60 itself substantiates this interpretation since we read there that:
If they come on you, they will be enemies to you, and stretch against you their hands AND THEIR TONGUES, to do you evil, and they wish that you may disbelieve. S. 60:2
The reference to "THEIR TONGUES" clearly alludes to the criticisms directed against Muhammad by the unbelievers, i.e. that the unbelievers challenged his prophetic claims as well insulted him for trying to foist this scam on them. Those who would dare challenge Muhammad and critique his religion are enemies that must be vanquished.
Further substantiation for this understanding can be seen from the way Muhammad treated those who exposed him as a false prophet, or as a fraud. Most, if not all, of them were brutally killed simply because they spoke out against Muhammad’s prophetic claims, or for satirizing him in poetry. Here is a link which provides detailed documentation regarding this very point.

END OF SHAMOUN EXERPT

Ispanan,

"1.This verse has been time and time again proved to be only valid in the historical context. But anyway, if a Muslim scholar considers it abrogates the tolerant verses, then quote him to me. I want to know exactly who they are, if there are any."

Re Abrogation. I've already explained it. You don't even know what it is. You don't even know that your Koran says it 2:106, 16:101. Please do read it!

Here's one scholar (cited in Spencer, 2005, p. 24-27) for you, Ibn Kathir: "(Sura 9:5) abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, every term...no idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah (the ninth Sura) was revealed." Several other Islamic scholars are cited in Spencer's book.

Mainstream Islamic scholars apply the principle to resolve contradictions between verses. Look it up. But perhaps you, Ispanan, think that there is no contradiction between 9:5 and 2:256? No compulsion in religion, but if you're an idolater, convert or be put to the sword?

As for those minority of scholars who reject abrogation, this hardly solves the trouble (e.g, 2:256 is still followed by 2:257 which condemns disbelievers to hell-fires). Many of the good verses aren't what they seem to be, many do not even refer to non-Muslims. And what good is an ideology that punishes people with the maximum penalty simply for not believing in a god (i.e., not believing the words of a man about an alleged god)? As I've already shown, the good verses are vastly outnumbered by bad ones. Moreover, the good verses are very minimal, dealing with things like superficial politeness to the disbelievers, etc (you might try that out sometime).

"2.Verses, once again, only valid in their context. The unbelievers who are going to hell are those who military attack the Muslims, or the hypocrites, that is, the ones who claim to worship Allah, but lie. There are many verses that say that non-Muslim, Christian, Jews will have their reward if they do good. If any Muslim scholar considers those verses to be abrogated by the ones you quoted, then quote him also, and stop compulsively repeating the same crap over and over again. And don’t come up with the idiocy about how “good” or “righteousness” means worshipping Allah."

Actually, that's what the Koran says: Doing good first and foremost means worshipping Allah without partners or rivals. The Jews and Christians ascribe partners to Allah, therefore they are going to be punished for their crime (9:29-9:35). They must accept Islam, or else accept dhimmitude, or be put to death. Allah does not forgive disbelief, ever, at all (5:36-37), nor should Muslims ever forgive the disbelievers, until the latter convert to Islam (60:4), which is the only acceptable religion (3:85). I've already shown in the above post that disbelievers' good works are not accepted by Allah. Your Koran says it.

"3.You are funny. OT don’t inspire supremacism, hatred, or imperialism? What OT did you read?"

What sentence of mine did you read? I said the OT didn't inspire those atrocities today. What I meant was that no one today interprets the OT as giving them permission for those atrocities. In contrast, millions of Muslims all over the world use the Koran to justify or indeed commit atrocities. They can do this because the commands of the Koran are open-ended. It is a mission to all mankind and violence is clearly an option on the table if the disbelievers refuse Islam.

Here's some verses of imperialism for you.

34:28 And We have not sent thee (O Muhammad) save as a bringer of good tidings and a warner unto all mankind; but most of mankind know not.

[A "warner" of what?]

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.

48:28 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. And Allah sufficeth as a Witness.

61:9 He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion however much idolaters may be averse.

58:20 Lo! those who oppose Allah and His messenger, they will be among the lowest.
58:21 Allah hath decreed: Lo! I verily shall conquer, I and My messengers. Lo! Allah is Strong, Almighty.
8:39 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.
2:193 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.

110:1 When Allah's succour and the triumph cometh
110:2 And thou seest mankind entering the religion of Allah in troops,
110:3 Then hymn the praises of thy Lord, and seek forgiveness of Him. Lo! He is ever ready to show mercy.

Some Hadiths

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 73:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin Abi Aufa: Allah's Apostle said, "Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords."

Any historical context updates, Ispanan, as to whether Paradise has upgraded the weaponry under which it is shaded?

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 50: Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet said, "A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah's Cause in the forenoon or in the afternoon is better than the world and whatever is in it."

Sahih Bukhari volume 4, Book 52, Number 46. “I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, ‘Allah guarantees that He will admit the Muslim fighter into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and booty.’”

When did Allah ever say he cancelled on this deal?

Historical Interpretations (all abundantly backed up by Sura 9, and still followed by jihadists and sharia enthusiasts all over the world today).

Islam's mission to the world is an imperialistic one, as described by contemporary scholar Bassam Tibi:

"At its core, Islam is a religious mission to all humanity. Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the world. "We have sent you forth to all mankind" (Q. 34:28). If non-Muslims submit to conversion or subjugation, this call (da'wa) can be pursued peacefully. If they do not, Muslims are obliged to wage war against them. In Islam, peace requires that non-Muslims submit to the call of Islam, either by converting or by accepting the status of a religious minority (dhimmi) and paying the imposed poll tax, jizya. World peace, the final stage of the da'wa, is reached only with the conversion or submission of all mankind to Islam...Muslims believe that expansion through war is not aggression but a fulfillment of the Qur'anic command to spread Islam as a way to peace. The resort to force to disseminate Islam is not war (harb), a word that is used only to describe the use of force by non-Muslims. Islamic wars are not hurub (the plural of harb) but rather futuhat, acts of "opening" the world to Islam and expressing Islamic jihad. Relations between dar al-Islam, the home of peace, and dar al-harb, the world of unbelievers, nevertheless take place in a state of war, according to the Qur'an and to the authoritative commentaries of Islamic jurists. Unbelievers who stand in the way, creating obstacles for the da'wa, are blamed for this state of war, for the da'wa can be pursued peacefully if others submit to it. In other words, those who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them. Only when Muslim power is weak is "temporary truce" (hudna) allowed (Islamic jurists differ on the definition of "temporary”).”
(Source: Tibi, Bassam. (1996). War and Peace in Islam, in Terry Nardin (ed.) The Ethics of War and Peace: Religious and Secular Perspectives. (pp. 129-131). Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press).

This policy is again confirmed in the Shafi’i Sunni manual “Reliance of the Traveler,” which is still officially endorsed by Sunni Islam's most respected authority in the world, the Al-Azhar University in Cairo. The manual states that jihad is “a communal obligation” to make “war against non-Muslims.” It also states that "the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians...until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax . . .” Moreover, “The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim.” If there is no caliph, jihad must still be carried out. (Source: Ahmed ibn Naqib al-Misri (1999). Reliance of the Traveler (‘Umdat al-Salik): A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law. (Translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller). Beltsville, MD: Amana Publications. See law numbers o9.0, o9.1, o9.6, o9.8, and o9.9).

Luk 19:11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.

Luk 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.

Luk 19:13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.

Luk 19:14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this [man] to reign over us.

Luk 19:15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.

Luk 19:16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.

Luk 19:17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.

Luk 19:18 And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds.

Luk 19:19 And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.

Luk 19:20 And another came, saying, Lord, behold, [here is] thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:

Luk 19:21 For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.

Luk 19:22 And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, [thou] wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:

Luk 19:23 Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?

Luk 19:24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give [it] to him that hath ten pounds.

Luk 19:25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)

Luk 19:26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.

Luk 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me.

Ispanan,

this verse is from the parable about the nobleman going to a far country to receive a kingdom and leaving some money entrusted to his servants.
He, upon returning, rewards or punishes the servants according to how well they have invested the money.

It is a parable about how we are all expected to "show a profit" according to the gifts God has given us.
When Christ returns he will judge us according to our deeds.
All those who reject his Lordship will suffer eternal death.
That is my understanding.

It can in no way be interpreted as a carte blanche authority for Christians to kill unbelievers in Christ.

Also, all those Old Testament quotes were for a different era...a more barbaric time thousands of years ago.
There is a whole New Testamet now.
The New Testament is about God's mercy and compassion in the form of Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Saviour.

The verses you quote from the Old Testament relate to specific times and places and circumstances. They are not open-ended as are the numerous references in the Qur'an to killing, terrorizing and torturing infidels.

Jihadists are today using the following verses to justify the waging of jihad against unbelievers...
Christians (good Christians) are not using the Bible to justify war against unbelievers...that's the difference.

The Qur'an is just so full of this hateful stuff.
Here's some that refer to jihad.
Let's not go into all the verses that deal with terrosrism, war, murder, torture, etc. etc. etc.
My stomach can only handle so much of the Qu'ran at a time.

Qur’an 2:216 “Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims), though you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and like a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not.” [Another translation reads:] “Warfare is ordained for you.”
Qur’an 4:95 “Not equal are those believers who sit at home and receive no injurious hurt, and those who strive hard, fighting Jihad in Allah’s Cause with their wealth and lives. Allah has granted a rank higher to those who strive hard, fighting Jihad with their wealth and bodies to those who sit (at home). Unto each has Allah promised good, but He prefers Jihadists who strive hard and fight above those who sit home. He has distinguished his fighters with a huge reward.”
Bukhari:V4B52N44 “A man came to Allah’s Apostle and said, ‘Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad in reward.’ He replied, ‘I do not find such a deed.’”
Bukhari:V1B2N25 “Allah’s Apostle was asked, ‘What is the best deed?’ He replied, ‘To believe in Allah and His Apostle Muhammad.’ The questioner then asked, ‘What is the next best in goodness?’ He replied, ‘To participate in Jihad, religious fighting in Allah's Cause.’”
Qur’an 33:22 “Among the Believers are men who have been true to their covenant with Allah and have gone out for Jihad (holy fighting). Some have completed their vow to extreme and have been martyred fighting and dying in His Cause, and some are waiting, prepared for death in battle.”
Bukhari:V4B53N412 “Allah’s Apostle said on the day of the conquest of Mecca, ‘There is no migration now, only Jihad, holy battle. And when you are called for Jihad, you should come out at once.’”
Bukhari:V4B52N311 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘There is no migration after the Conquest of Mecca, but only Jihad. When you are called by the Muslim ruler for Jihad fighting, you should go forth immediately, responding to the call.’”
Muslim:C28B20N4631 “I heard Muhammad say: ‘I would not stay behind when a raid for Jihad was being mobilized unless it was going to be too hard on the believers. I love that I should be killed in Allah’s Cause; then I should be brought back to life and be killed again.’”
Qur’an 9:111 “Allah has purchased the believers, their lives and their goods. For them (in return) is the Garden (of Paradise). They fight in Allah’s Cause, and they slay and are slain; they kill and are killed.”
Bukhari:V4B52N196 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, “None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.”’”
Qur’an 47:4 “So, when you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah’s Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam.”
Qur’an 9:91 “There is no blame on those who are old, weak, ill, or who find no resources to spend (on Jihad, holy fighting), if they are sincere (in duty) to Allah and His Messenger.”
Qur’an 9:122 “It is not proper for the Believers to all go forth together to fight Jihad. A troop from every expedition should remain behind when others go to war.”
Bukhari:V4B52N46 “I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, ‘The example of a Mujahid [Muslim fighter] in Allah’s Cause—and Allah knows best who really strives in His Cause—is like a person who fasts and prays without ever stopping. Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid in His Cause into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty.’”
Bukhari:V4B52N50 “The Prophet said, ‘A single endeavor of fighting in Allah’s Cause is better than the world and whatever is in it.’”
Noble Qur’an 2:190 Footnote: “Jihad is holy fighting in Allah’s Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite.”
Bukhari:V4B52N65 “A man came to the Prophet and asked, ‘A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them fights in Allah’s Cause?’ The Prophet said, ‘He who fights that Allah’s Word, Islam, should be superior, fights in Allah’s Cause.’”
Muslim:C40B20N4676 “Jihad Is Compulsory.”
Bukhari:V4B52N284-5 “When the Divine Inspiration [Qur’an surah]: ‘Those of the believers who sit at home,’ was revealed, Maktum came to the Prophet while he was dictating the verse. ‘O Allah’s Apostle! If I were able, I would take part in Jihad.’ So Allah sent down revelation to His Apostle: ‘...except those who are disabled, blind, or lame.’”
Muslim:C40B20N4676 “Believers who sit home and those who go out for Jihad in Allah’s Cause are not equal.”
Bukhari:V4B52N54 “The Prophet said, ‘Were it not for the believers who do not want to be without me, I would always go forth in army-units setting out for Jihad.’”
Bukhari:V4B52N216 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Were it not for fear it would be difficult for my followers, I would not have remained behind any army units. But I don’t have riding camels and have no other means of conveyance. No doubt I wish I could fight in Allah’s Cause and be martyred and come to life to be martyred again.’”
Bukhari:V4B52N231 “Allah’s Apostle came to Mecca the day of the Conquest riding his she-camel on which Usama was riding behind him.” [Muhammad was lying.] Bukhari:V4B52N59 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘By Him in Whose Hands my soul is! Whoever is wounded in Allah’s Cause...and Allah knows well who gets wounded in His Cause...will come with his wound having the color of blood but the scent of musk.’”
Bukhari:V4B52N45 “Someone asked, ‘Allah’s Apostle, who is the best among the people?’ He replied, ‘A believer who strives his utmost in Allah’s Cause with his life and property.’”
Bukhari:V4B52N48 “The people said, ‘Allah’s Apostle! Acquaint the people with the good news.’ He said, ‘Paradise has one hundred grades which Allah has reserved for the Mujahidin who fight in His Cause.’”
Bukhari:V4B52N66 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Anyone whose feet get covered with dust in Allah’s Cause will not be touched by the Hell Fire.’”
Bukhari:V4B52N137 “The Prophet said, ‘Paradise is for him who holds the reins of his horse to strive in Allah’s Cause with his hair unkempt and feet covered with dust. If he is appointed in the front line, he is perfectly satisfied with his post, and if in the rear, he accepts it.’”
Bukhari:V4B51N47 “‘What causes you to smile, O Allah’s Apostle?’ He said, ‘Some of my followers who in a dream were presented to me as fighters in Allah’s Cause on board a ship amidst the sea caused me to smile.’”
Bukhari:V4B51N72 “Our Prophet told us about the message of our Lord: ‘Whoever amongst us is killed will go to Paradise.’ Umar asked the Prophet, ‘Is it true that our men who are killed will go to Paradise and the Pagan’s will go to the Hell Fire?’ The Prophet said, ‘Yes.’”
Bukhari:V4B51N73 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Know that Paradise is under the shade of swords.’”
Bukhari:V4B52N80 “Muhammad said, ‘Allah welcomes two men with a smile; one of whom kills the other and both of them enter Paradise. One fights in Allah’s Cause and gets killed. Later on Allah forgives the killer who also get martyred in Allah’s Cause.’”
Bukhari:V4B52N287 “The Emigrants and the Ansar said, ‘We are those who have given a pledge of allegiance to Muhammad that we will carry on Jihad as long as we live.’”
Bukhari:V4B52N94 “The Prophet said, ‘Whoever spends two things in Allah’s Cause [his life and his wealth], will be called by all the gatekeepers of Paradise. They will say, “O so-and-so! Come here.”’ Abu Bakr said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Such persons will never be destroyed.’ The Prophet said, ‘I hope you will be one of them.’”
Bukhari:V4B52N130 “Aisha said, ‘Whenever the Prophet intended to proceed on a raid he used to draw lots amongst his wives and would take the one upon whom the lot fell. Once, before setting out for Jihad, he drew lots and it fell on me; so I went with him.”
Bukhari:V4B52N43 “Aisha said, ‘Apostle! We consider Jihad as the best deed. Should we not fight in Allah’s Cause?’ He said, ‘The best Jihad for women is the Hajj done as I have done it.’”
Bukhari:V4B52N134 “We used to take part in holy battles with the Prophet, providing his fighters with water and bringing the killed and the wounded back to Medina.”
Bukhari:V4B52N175 “He heard the Prophet saying, ‘Paradise is granted to the first batch of my followers who will undertake a naval expedition.’ The Prophet then said, ‘The first army amongst my followers who will invade Caesar’s City will be forgiven their sins.’”
Bukhari:V4B52N178-9 “The Prophet said, ‘One of the portents of the Hour is that you will fight people wearing shoes made of hair. And you will fight the Turks, a broad-faced people with small eyes, red faces, and flat noses. Their faces will look like shields coated with leather.’”
Bukhari:V4B52N182-4 “Allah’s Apostle invoked evil upon the infidels, saying, ‘O Allah! The revealer of the Holy Book, defeat these people and shake them. Fill the infidels’ houses and graves with fire.’”
Bukhari:V4B52N259 “Allah’s Apostle sent us on a mission as a army unit and said, ‘If you find so-and-so and so-and-so, burn both of them with fire.’”
Bukhari: V4B52N203 “I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, ‘We are the last but will be the foremost to enter Paradise.’ The Prophet added, ‘He who obeys me, obeys Allah, and he who disobeys me, disobeys Allah. He who obeys the chief, obeys me, and he who disobeys the chief, disobeys me. The Imam is like a shelter for whose safety the Muslims should fight.’”
Bukhari:V4B52N208 “My brother and I came to the Prophet and asked to migrate. He said, ‘Migration has passed away.’ I replied, ‘For what will you accept our pledge of allegiance?” He said, ‘I will take the pledge for Islam and Jihad.’”
Bukhari:V4B52N220 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror. While I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.’ Allah’s Apostle has left the world and now we are bringing out those treasures.”
Bukhari:V4B52N267 “The Prophet said, ‘Khosrau will be ruined. There won’t be a Persian King after him. Caesar will be ruined. There will be no Caesar after him. You will spend their treasures in Allah’s Cause.’ He proclaimed, ‘War is deceit.’”
Bukhari:V4B53N386 “Umar sent Muslims to great countries to fight pagans. He said, ‘I intend to invade Persia and Rome.’ So, he ordered us to go to [the Persian King] Khosrau. When we reached the enemy, Khosrau’s representative came out with 40,000 warriors, saying, ‘Talk to me! Who are you?’ Mughira replied, ‘We are Arabs; we led a hard, miserable, disastrous life. We used to worship trees and stones. While we were in this state, our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or pay us the Jizyah tribute tax in submission. Our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says: ‘Whoever amongst us is killed as a martyr shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever survives shall become your master.’”
Tabari IX:49 “Muhammad urged the Muslims by way of a meeting to help cover the expenses of Jihad in Allah’s Cause. The men provided mounts in anticipation of Allah’s reward.”
Ishaq:602 “The Apostle always referred allusively to the destination which he intended to raid. This was the sole exception, for he said plainly that he was making for the Byzantines because the journey was long, the weather was hot, and the enemy was strong.” Ishaq:603 “The Apostle went forward energetically with his preparations and ordered the men to get ready with all speed. He urged Muslims to help provide the money, mounts, and means to do Allah’s work. Those who contributed earned rewards with Allah.”
Tabari IX:76 “Malik has reported to me that you were the first from Himyar to embrace Islam and that you have killed infidels, so rejoice at your good fortune.”
Qur’an 047.033 “Believers, obey Allah, and obey the Messenger! Those who disbelieve and hinder men from the Cause of Allah, He will not pardon. Do not falter; become faint-hearted, or weak-kneed, crying for peace. You have the upper hand.”
Muslim:C29B20N4636 “The Messenger of Allah was asked: ‘What deed could be equivalent to Jihad in the Cause of Allah? He answered: ‘You do not have the strength to do that deed.’ The question was repeated twice or thrice. Every time he answered: ‘You do not have the strength to do it.’ When the question was asked for the third time, he said: ‘One who goes out for Jihad is like a person who keeps fasts and stands in prayer forever, never exhibiting any weariness until the Mujihid returns from Jihad.’”
Muslim:C29B20N4638 “As I was (sitting) near the pulpit of the Messenger a man said: ‘I do not care if, after embracing Islam, I do not do any good deed (except) distributing drinking water to pilgrims.’ Another said: ‘I do not care if I do not do any good deed beyond maintenance service to the Sacred Mosque.’ Yet another said: ‘Jihad in the Way of Allah is better than what you have said.’ When prayer was over, I entered (the apartment of the Prophet) and asked his verdict about the matter. It was upon this that Allah, the Almighty and Exalted, revealed the Qur’anic Verse: ‘Do you make the giving of drinking water to the pilgrims and the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque equal to (the service of those) who believe in Allah and strive hard and fight Jihad in His Cause. They are not equal. Those who believed and fought Jihad in Allah’s Cause with their wealth and their lives are far higher in degree with Allah.’”
Muslim:C30B20N4639 “The Messenger said: ‘Leaving for Jihad in the Way of Allah in the morning or in the evening will merit a reward better than the world and all that is in it.’”
Muslim:C32B20N4646 “Muhammad stood up among his Companions to deliver his sermon in which he told them that Jihad in Allah’s Cause and belief in Allah were the most meritorious of acts. A man stood and said: ‘Messenger, do you think that if I am killed in the Way of Allah, my sins will be blotted out?’ The Messenger said: ‘Yes, in case you are killed in Allah’s Cause and you always fought facing the enemy, never turning your back upon him.’ The man asked (again).’ The Messenger said: ‘Yes, if you always fought facing the enemy and never retreated. Gabriel has told me this.’”
Bukhari:V4B52N104 “The Prophet said, ‘Good will remain in the foreheads of horses for Jihad for they bring about a reward in Paradise or booty.’”
Bukhari:V4B52N105 “The Prophet said, ‘If somebody keeps a horse in Allah’s Cause motivated by His promise, then he will be rewarded for what the horse has eaten or drunk and for its dung and urine.’”
Ishaq:470 “We attacked them fully armed, swords in our hand, cutting through heads.”
Ishaq:385 “Amr Jamuh was a very lame man. He had four lion-like sons who were present at the Apostle’s battles. At Uhud he came to the Prophet and told him that his sons wanted to keep him back and prevent his joining the army. ‘Yet, by Allah, I hope to tread in the Heavenly Garden of Paradise despite my lameness. The Apostle said, ‘Allah has excused you, and Jihad is not incumbent on you.’ Then Muhammad turned to his sons and said, ‘You need not prevent him. Perhaps Allah will favor him with martyrdom.’ So the lame old man went into battle and was killed.”
Tabari VII:144/Ishaq:426 “The Muslims bivouacked for the night and were taken by surprise. So the Muslims took up their swords [not Qur’ans] to fight them, but the Lihyans said, ‘We do not want to kill you. We only want to get some money by selling you to the Meccans. We swear by Allah’s Covenant that we will not kill you.’ ‘By Allah,’ Asim said, ‘we will never accept a an agreement from an unbelieving infidel.’ They fought until they were killed.”
Bukhari:V4B52N153 “The properties of the Nadir which Allah had transferred to His Apostle as Booty were not gained by the Muslims with their horses and camels. The properties therefore, belonged especially to Allah’s Apostle who used to give his family their yearly expenditure and spend what remained thereof on arms and horses to be used in Allah’s Cause.”
Tabari VII:162 “There is a difference of opinion as to which of his expeditions [terrorist raids] took place after the one against the Nadir. Some say Muhammad remained in Yathrib for two months before leading a raid on Najd.”
Ishaq:445 “The rules of the Prayer of Fear were revealed during this raid [4:102]. The Messenger divided the Companions into two groups; one stood facing the enemy while the other stood behind the Prophet. He magnified Allah by shouting ‘Allahu Akbar.’ Then he and those behind him performed a rak’ah and prostrated themselves.” [Magnifying Allah is “The Prayer of Fear”—appropriate for a terrorist dogma. It is comprised of shouting: Allahu Akbar—Allah is Greatest!]
Ishaq:455 “‘I summon you to Allah, to His Messenger, and to Islam.’ Amr replied, ‘I have no use for these.’ So Ali said, ‘Then I summon you to fight.’ Amr replied, ‘Why, son of my brother? By Allah, I do not want to kill you.’ Ali shouted, ‘But I, by Allah, want to kill you.’ Amr jumped from his horse and advanced toward Ali. The two fought until Ali killed Amr. He shouted, ‘Allahu Akbar!’” Ishaq:456 “As he returned to the Apostle smiling with joy [for having killed his uncle] Jumar asked him if he had stripped Amr of his armor. ‘No,’ Ali answered. ‘I saw his private parts and was ashamed.’”
Bukhari:V4B52N68 “When Allah’s Apostle returned from the battle of the Trench, he put down his arms and took a bath. Then Gabriel whose head was covered with dust, came to him saying, ‘You have put down your arms! By Allah, I have not put down my arms yet.’ Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Where to go now?’ Gabriel said, ‘This way,’ pointing towards the tribe of Qurayza. So Allah’s Apostle went out towards them.” Bukhari:V4B52N280 “When the Qurayza were ready to accept Sa’d’s judgment, the Apostle sent for him. Sa’d proclaimed, ‘I give the judgment that their men should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners.’ The Prophet remarked, ‘O Sa’d! You have judged them with the judgment of King Allah.’”
Ishaq:485 “Muhammad found that the Lihyan had been warned. They had taken secure positions on the mountaintops. After he failed to take them by surprise as he intended, he said, ‘If we go down to Usfan, the Meccans will think we have come to [terrorize] them.’” Ishaq:486 “If the Lihyan had remained in their homes they would have met bands of fine fighters, audacious warriors who terrorize. They would have confronted an irresistible force glittering like stars. But they were weasels, sticking to the clefts of rocks instead.”
Ishaq:489 “Do the bastards think that we are not their equal in fighting? We are men who believe there is no shame in killing. We don’t turn from piercing lances. We smite the heads of the haughty with blows that quash the zeal of the unyielding [non-Muslims]. We’re heroes, protecting our war banner. We are a noble force, as fierce as wolves. We preserve our honor and protect our property by smashing heads.”
Tabari VIII:48 “Then he set out at full speed after the enemy—he was like a beast of prey.”
Ishaq:490/Tabari VIII:51 “When Allah’s Messenger heard about the Mustaliq gathering against him he set out and met them at one of their watering holes near the coast. The people advanced and fought fiercely. Allah caused the Mustaliq to fight and killed some of them. Allah gave the Apostle their children, women, and property as booty.”
Muslim:B19N4292 “Aun inquired whether it was necessary to extend an invitation to submit to Islam before murdering infidels in the fight. Nafi told me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger made a raid upon Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. This Tradition was related by one who was among the raiding troops.”
Tabari VIII:56/Ishaq:493 “According to Aisha: ‘A great number of Mustaliq were wounded. The Messenger took many captives, and they were divided among all the Muslims.’”
Muslim:C26B20N4614 “I saw Allah’s Messenger twisting the forelock of a horse with his fingers as he was saying: ‘A great benefit. A reward for rearing them for Jihad. The spoils of war have been tied to the forelocks of horses.’”
Muslim:C28B20N4626 “Merit Of Jihad And Campaigning In Allah’s Cause: The Apostle said: ‘Allah has undertaken to look after the affairs of one who goes out to fight in His Way believing in Him and affirming the truth of His Apostle. He is committed that He will either admit him to Paradise or bring him back to his home with a reward or his share of booty. If a person gets wounded in Allah’s Cause he will arrive on the Day of Judgment with his wound in the same condition as it was when it was first inflicted; its color will be blood but its smell will be musk perfume. If it were not too hard on Muslims I would not lag behind any raid going out to fight in the Cause of Allah. But I do not have abundant means to provide them (the Mujahids [Islamic terrorists]) with riding beasts, nor have they all have the means (to provide themselves with the weapons of Jihad). I love to fight in the Way of Allah and be killed, to fight and again be killed and to fight and be killed.’”
Tabari VIII:123/Ishaq:515 “Allah’s Apostle besieged the final [Jewish] community until they could hold out no longer. Finally, when they were certain that they would perish, they asked Muhammad to banish them and spare their lives, which he did. The Prophet took possession of all their property.”
Bukhari:V5B59N510 “Allah’s Apostle reached Khaybar at night. It was his habit that, whenever he reached an enemy at night, he would not attack them till it was morning. When morning came, the Jews came out with their spades and baskets. When they saw the Prophet, they said, ‘Muhammad! O dear God! It’s Muhammad and his army!’ The Prophet shouted, ‘Allahu-Akbar! Khaybar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a nation, evil will be the morning for those who have been warned.’”
Bukhari:V5B59N516 “When Allah’s Apostle fought the battle of Khaybar, or when he raided any other people, we raised voices crying, ‘Allahu-Akbar! Allahu-Akbar!’”
Tabari VIII:130 “The Prophet conquered Khaybar by force after fighting. Khaybar was something that Allah gave as booty to His Messenger. He took one-fifth of it and divided the remainder among the Muslims.”

Ispanan,

"Verses, once again, only valid in their context. The unbelievers who are going to hell are those who military attack the Muslims, or the hypocrites, that is, the ones who claim to worship Allah, but lie."

1. You agree with sending people to hell for hypocrisy? Those hypocrites have no choice but to lie, because otherwise the could be killed (or at very least condemned, ostracized) for open apostacy.

2. Not just military attack. See verses 33:57-58; those who annoy the prophet, Allah, or Muslims will go to hell/painful doom. As I cited above, those who dismiss Mohammad's words as fable or as the words of a mad poet will go to hell.

Do you see now, Ispanan, why I asked you to read the Koran before responding to me?

Ispanan,

I see you are now citing verses (to Beth, I think). Very good. I will reply shortly.

Ispanan,

[9.13] “What! will you not fight A PEOPLE WHO BROKE THEIR OATHS AND AIMED AT THE EXPULSION OF THE APOSTLE, and THEY ATTACKED YOU FIRST; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers”

Sher Khan provides a discussion of Mohammad’s treaty breaking (descr. 9:1-17), includes copy of the treaty http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/SherKhan60114.htm . It is shown here that it was Mohammad that broke the treaty first.

Ali Sina also provides a discussion of this treaty breaking (you neglect to mention the opening verses of this Sura, where Mohammad-Allah absolves himself of any obligation whatsoever to abide by the treaty) http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/Waqasp3.htm
In that article, Sina also cites 8:58, which allows Muslims to break treaties even if they only suspect or fear treachery from the other side. The treaty violation revealed in Sura 9 illustrates the Islamic jihad policy, as pertaining to the condition where Muslims are in a strong position militarily, e.g., Muslims should not call for peace when they have the upper hand (47:35). Another reason to seriously doubt the validity of such treaties, regardless of the relative military strength of the Muslims, is that the Koran orders Muslims not to believe the non-Muslims (3:73), who are referred to as liars (e.g., 2:10, 9:42, 16:39, 16:105, 59:11). Thus, because the Koran says disbelievers are liars, Muslims at any time can claim they fear treachery from the other side (8:58), and can therefore use this divinely-approved excuse for breaking a treaty! Historically, treaties have been interpreted by Islamic scholars to be merely temporary tactical manoeuvres that could be overruled within the overriding long-term strategic, global jihad.

[2:191] “And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out FROM WHENCE THEY DROVE YOU OUT, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.”

Disbelief or turning away from Allah is a persecution worse than warfare (2:217) or slaughter (2:191). For a discussion of 2:191, see http://www.faithfreedom.org/faq/70.htm , which includes tafsir.

Here are the verses with my comments in [brackets].
2:190 “Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.”
[note: Mohammad thought he was perfectly justified in raiding caravans, executing and assassinating poets, allowing mass rapes, taking women and booty. He apparently never admitted that he himself as responsible or wrong for these crimes. If anyone retaliated for what he’d done, he’d claim they were beginning hostilities. Everything Mohammad does is supposedly pure and justified by Allah, but if the disbelievers try to retaliate, that’s evil, hostility, etc. Mohammad says disbelief is the worst form of aggression against Allah]
2:191 “And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.”
[Why were Mohammad and his goons “driven out” in the first place? Because of their terror tactics, banditry, etc.]
2:192 “But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”
2:193 “And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.” [If they all desist from the worst form of persecution (shirk, polytheism, disbelief), and they surrender to Islam, then stop hostility against them, except for they the wrong-doers (disbelievers generally who continue in their disbelief)].

“004.101 When ye travel through the earth, there is no blame on you if ye shorten your prayers, for fear the unbelievers May attack you: For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies.”
“[5:8] O you who believe! Be upright for Allah, bearers of witness with justice, and let not hatred of a people incite you not to act equitably; act equitably, that is nearer to piety, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is Aware of what you do.”

As for hatred, see 60:4. (already cited in prev. post). The verse 5:8 says to not let hate interfere with your judgement. It does not say “Don’t hate.” The believers must still hate the disbelievers.

In the he Koran “act equitably” means that believers are merciful to each other but are act hard against the disbelievers (48:29). We’ve seen how the Koranic ideals of justice in 5:33, 5:38, and 9:29, 9:5, 9:73-74, etc. Allah condemns people to eternal hell-fire for dismissing the words of Mohammad as fable. That’s fair according to the Koran.

Here’s more Koranic justice:
42:10. All disputes must be referred to Allah. (Koran, Islamic Law).
18:26. No one may share in Allah’s government (Koran, Islamic Law).
5:45 “And We prescribed for them therein: The life for the life, and the eye for the eye, and the nose for the nose, and the ear for the ear, and the tooth for the tooth, and for wounds retaliation. But whoso forgoeth it (in the way of charity) it shall be expiation for him. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are wrong-doers.”

009.044 “Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day ask thee for no exemption from fighting with their goods and persons. And Allah knoweth well those who do their duty.”
[60.8] “Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice.”

Respect is not the same thing as friendship. “Show kindness” does not necessarily mean “be genuinely kind.” At most, he’s telling them to act polite. Anyways, maybe you should read the whole Sura. Here’s how it concludes:
60:13 “O ye who believe! Be not friendly with a folk with whom Allah is wroth, (a folk) who have despaired of the Hereafter as the disbelievers despair of those who are in the graves.”

Noticing a theme here? Allah is wroth with the disbelievers. That’s what most of the Koran is about.

Also, put your kindness comment against the weight of what the Koran says more generally.

Muslims must _____________ the non-Muslims/disbelievers: fight/oppose/shun/strive against/regard as the enemy/never help/never befriend/sever family ties with/never compromise with/never obey/never forgive/chastise/curse/be ruthless toward/be stern toward/etc. 3:118; 3:28, 3:56; 3:87-88, 4:50, 4:63, 4:101, 4:139-140, 4:144, 5:54, 5:57, 8:65, 9:14, 9:23, 9:29, 9:73-74, 9:123, 25:52, 28:86, 31:7, 33:48, 45:7-8, 48:28-29, 53:29, 58:5, *58:22, 60:1, 60:4, 60:10, 60:13, 63:6, 66:9, 68:8-9, 76:24, 84:24. Note that the “never help” (28:86) command means that Muslims’ good works are limited to helping other Muslims or to otherwise pursuing Islam’s interests.
4:144 "Believers, do not choose the unbelievers rather than the faithful as your friends. Would you give Allah a clear proof against yourselves?"

Next, 60:8 has been abrogated by Sura 9, if you subscribe to abrogation.

“And for whatever verse We abrogate or cast into oblivion, We bring a better or the like of it; knowest thou not that God is powerful over everything?” S. 2:106 Arberry
“And when We exchange a verse in the place of another verse and God knows very well what He is sending down -- they say, 'Thou art a mere forger!' Nay, but the most of them have no knowledge.” S. 16:101 Arberry.

Here is tafsir which also expresses the view that the verse has been abrogated (note the second-last sentence).

“God does not forbid you in regard to those who did not wage war against you, from among the disbelievers, on account of religion and did not expel you from your homes, that you should treat them kindly (an tabarrūhum is an inclusive substitution for alladhīna, 'those who') and deal with them justly: this was [revealed] before the command to struggle against them. Assuredly God loves the just.”
http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=60&tAyahNo=8&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0

Verse 60:8 is discussed by Shamoun here.
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Shamoun/badawi_tolerance.htm

Shamoun: “In conclusion, we must say that surah 60:8-9 really doesn’t establish the position of certain Muslims that Islam tolerates the existence of other religions. The passage directly conflicts with other verses which command offensive aggression against non-Muslims, which means that the Quran is contradicting itself, or these passages must be explained in a way in which both statements are true. In this paper, we tried to present the different ways in which this can be done; and yet no matter which position a Muslim opts for, he/she is left with the inescapable conclusion that Islam does not treat the advocates of other religions fairly and equally.”

John 3:18: "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God (it is worthwile to note that many Christian groups believe those who don’t believe in Jesus will go to Hell) RickS

Here is one of the 5 Scriptures I already gave to you [which is why I gave them]:

Mat 13:49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels }}}} [Not humans] shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just.

And what is 'hell' RickS ?

Jer 51:57 they shall sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake, saith the King, whose name is the LORD of hosts.

And so - where is it written that humans are to slay other humans?

At the end of the world - the angels [not humans] carry out that command.

[Math. 10:34] “Do not think that I have come to make peace on earth? I HAVE NOT COME TO BRING PEACE, BUT A SWORD. “For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother.” RickS

Hbr 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Rev 13:10 he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the Sword. {of God] for it was written:

Mat 19:18 Thou shalt do no murder

The daughters are cities:

Eze 16:46 And thine elder sister is Samaria, she and her daughters that dwell at thy left hand: and thy younger sister, that dwelleth at thy right hand, is Sodom and her daughters.

And who is the 'mother' RickS?

Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

They will fall by the sword; THEIR LITTLE ONES WILL BE DASHED TO PIECES, AND THEIR PREGNANT WOMEN RIPPED OPEN. RickS

And where in that Scripture is it saying to all humans -

"This commanded of you to carry it out against all who don't believe in Me. I will punish you and put others in your place if you do not go forth"? {How are you getting that message RickS?

Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience

1Jo 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

Isa 46:3 Hearken unto me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, which are borne by Me from the belly, which are carried from the womb.

Isa 46:4 Even I [the Lord] will carry, and will deliver you. {from the grave...

Eze 37:12 Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.

RickS? The God of the Bible says...

Isa 55:9 As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.

God Commands BOTH the angels AND the humans.

The angels [not humans] are to carry out the final punishment of the unrighteous.

Every scripture that gave - is a parable. Parables that are NOT without Scriptures to show what they mean.

In NO way - have you RickS, proven by the Word of God - that humans are to be violent with each other. In fact - quite the Word of God teaches to the contrary:

1Th 5:15 See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good.

Deu 32:39 See now that I [GOD], even I, am He, and there is no god with Me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.

And since God already ordained that ALL humans must visit the grave {an indisputable fact] - what Scripture exists that can justify those who think themselves worthy of filling them?

Psa 89:48 What man is he that liveth, and shall not see death? shall he deliver his soul from the hand of the grave?

The God Who did not forget to mention Palestine for end times [and Who condemned it Isa 14:31 ] - has the power over the graves - and He says - murderers are not coming up out of them.

The True God leaves Nothing undone:

2Pe 3:16 speaking in them [the Scriptures] of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Eternal death

And so there you have it RickS - CAIR's lame accusations - Destroyed by the 'Sword' of God - The God Who did not forget to mention Palestine for end time.

The god of the Koran - who preaches rape, theft, treason, lies and murder - DID forget to mention Palestine.

he gave NO writings to explain away his teachings of "smiting at the necks" of the non-Muslims.

CAIR loves darkness - and so they set themselves to attacking that which shines Light upon their darkness.

They EVEN have a name for it: Islamophobia

But they suffer from Truthophobia, and will attack anyone who scares them with it.

“As usual, your replies to me, and the other posters, is mostly insult and evasion. At the same time, you demand full respect from other posters, and then you get upset when some of them insult you back.”
I am disappointed, Arch, you say I mostly insult and evade. But then why do you keep wasting your time with me if I don’t bring any argument? Oh, btw I never insulted you. At the contrary, considering the things that are said here, I think I am pretty cool. You, however, don’t hesitate to say all sorts of things about Muhammad. But don’t worry. I guess you have the right to insult someone who represents a lot for all Muslims, but , however you are offended when a Muslim “insults” you. Who has the double standard here?
And about my “specter” “tantrum” with Bohemond, and you pretending he hadn’t insulted me, go reread the thread and tell me if him writing “pity the poor fool” is not an insult. If you don’t consider it, you don’t care I call you like this, right?
And about my “demand” and “feet stumping” you actually think I was serious?
“As usual, you claim to have provided arguments and evidence in some unknown past posts. This is pure bluff.”
Only because you say it. Like I say, I provided evidence and you ignored it, and kept repeating the same thing in another thread. About Aisha. About dhimmi law. About the wife-beating verse. All of it in the “60 cars still burning” thread
“Why do you use a double standard, allowing you to criticize the Bible, but disallow non-Muslims from criticizing the Koran.”
Not really, you can criticize it as much as you want, but a different thing is if you are right or not. And btw my criticism of the bible was directed to the people who says to be Christian and criticizes elements of Islam when there is far worse in the Bible.
As for the rest, oh my God… I won’t even think of answering it (and you can’t think what you want). Besides the 5.32 you linked me to Abu Kasem. He told that the verse was not valid in Islam, when I said, and I think Robert himself agreed with me, that the verse was used by the terrorists to justify the killing of civilians saying they had “desecrated the land”. If this verse is only valid for Jews, why do the terrorists mention it??? Would it be that Abu Kasem has no idea about what he is talking about, as I said about non-Muslim scholars who seem to know Islam better than Muslims?
About Ibn Kathir, I don’t know if what he says about 5:32 is true or not, I will have to check it. Anyway, as I will mention it in another post, it is pointless to discuss it, since people will always find a way to justify their crimes: even if 5:32 only applied to Muslims, the terrorists still break it, since they kill Muslims as well as non-Muslims.
And, finally, two questions, I have asked you almost 5 times in past threads, and you didn’t answer:
-If, Islam is such a bad religion, then WHY DOES IT ATTRACT SO MANY WESTERN PEOPLE?
-And if Islam commands to kill every non-Muslim out there, then HOW IT IS THE JEWS WERE STILL ALIVE AFTER 1300 YEARS OF MUSLIM RULE? why did the Golden age of Judaism take place in Muslim Spain?
And I think that’s really enough…

“I invite you to read this site more frequently. You will hear about more.”

What if you point me to a recent thread about it, instead?

“Are you referring to the CAIR hate crimes report? If so, are you aware of how manipulated and inflated the data is in it? I refer you to articles posted here and elsewhere”

Nothing to do with CAIR. I live in Spain. I refer to cases like this of a Muslim woman who lost a son in the 11-M bombings and was then called “terrorist” as she walked the streets. I don’t know if CAIR data are manipulated but anyway, can you tell what you consider “elsewhere”? Care to link me to such articles?

“You seem to have missed the many articles I have posted here about Sunni-Shi'ite violence ”

What does it have to do with my question? I was mentioning conflicts like Algeria civil war, which caused many deaths and was due to Muslim fundamentalism.

“I have written about that. I expect you did not see what I wrote”

This is supposed to be a debate. Why you don’t answer my question instead of asking me to read your books?

“Do you deny that honor killings are on the rise in Britain and all over Europe?”

What do honor killings have to do with Islam?

“Good. Where do these scholars exercise a dominant influence today?”

Well, maybe their influence can be seen through the vast majority of Muslims who aren’t looking for an infidel to kill / subdue right now?

“Actually it does. If they do think this, Muslim/non-Muslim conflict will continue as long as they continue to think it.”

Yourself answered this. You affirm there is no possible way terrorists can base themselves on Christian doctrine, yet they still committed their crimes in name of religion. Do you think that, if in someway Islamist terrorists can be convinced that the jihad offensive theory is not valid, terrorism will stop? If terrorists of other faiths committed crimes without basis on their religion, why should Islamist terrorism stop, even in there no religious ground for it anymore?

“No, these wars were generally not justified by reference to Christian texts or doctrines”

Really? Do you think it wasn’t justified by how the Protestantism was viewed as “heretic”, or a “blashemy”? But even if there was no specific doctrine that justified it, the fact is there was opposite religions fighting each other, even if like you say it was not justified by doctrine. Which brings me to the point above.

And you said “not generally”

“There is no unanimity on this. After all, the Church has condemned this view. And many Popes condemned it throughout history. Yet by contrast no Islamic madhhab has condemned offensive jihad.”
You said it yourself: “there is no unanimity on this”. And when you are talking of maddhab not condemning offensive jihad, does jihad mean defensive jihad as it is specified in sura 9? Then of course no Muslim will condemn that, as no one will renounce to a war to defend oneself, right? Wasn’t there a worldwide condemnation of terrorism in Muslim world?

As I told, the views about jihad can be better seen through the Muslims who don’t follow the calls of the terrorists. But If the Muslim world would begin a full scale war on the West, then yes, I would agree with you.

“Do you really think there is no problem with

Christianity?"
No, I don't.

Yet there are. Then how do you explain the persecution of Jews? The Christian terrorism in Northeast India? The threats against abortionists in USA? And the slavery in the West until late XIX due to the NT verses about slaves?

“Why has this verse never been interpreted by Christians at any place or time, even when they were slaughtering people, as a mandate for slaughter? Why aren't there armed Christian groups committing violence because of this verse today?”

This is not only this verse: there are others, in the NT and the OT. And frankly, I doubt that you know for sure if they are using this verse to justify their actions or not. OBVIOUSLY they are motivated by something, or they wouldn’t do it. They are / weren’t all mad, right? Or am I right, and terrorist act will always be justified no matter what the religious texts say about it?

“Then why don't more? Why is there a worldwide jihadist movement, in virtually every country, versus Tim McVeigh and some nuts in Uganda?”

I think it is wrong to consider Islamist terrorism as motivated by religion rather than by “Muslim nationalism”, having its causes on some events of the 20th century, the main one being the creation of the state of Israel. If not, why are terrorists groups, as we know them now, only recent? It is also likely that either because of difficulty to integrate, margination by the country, or both, Muslims in foreign countries feel frustration and are susceptible to be recruited by terrorists. In any case, the creation of Israel has provoked a deep sentiment of humiliation in the Muslim world, but especially in the Arab world, and its resolution is an essential step to weaken terrorism.
Why was there Jewish terrorism? I don’t know if the Jewish texts, although rather violent, justified it. But many Jews, included a former Israel PM, justified it in accordance to religious texts. I think it was mostly due to the deep hatred between Arab and Jews, and I do think the present situation is similar. Instead of a Jewish - Arab conflict, we have a Muslims - Israel / West conflict. And when you have such deep hatred, people will always commit and justify the worst acts. And no doubt that the suicide bombings against Israel are accepted and justified by many Muslims, even if Islam forbids it, just as terrorism was accepted by many Jews during the fight for the creation of Israel.

This is my whole point: it has nothing to do with religion. Do any Muslim sect condone what is being done to south Sudanese population?

“What Church teaches this? Please be specific.”

Well, it is in the Bible… as I said, when a group of people want to justify their acts by religion, they will always find a way, no matter if the majority or the minority of their religious scholars agree with them.

“On the contrary, see 2:193, 9:5, 9:29, etc. etc ”
Where it is specifically stated in those verses than Muslims have to conquer “all the world” “by force”?

About the caliphate, honestly, I consider this is nothing but a fanciful idea. for this to be viable anyway, the majority of the Muslims would have to support with Bin Laden which, I hope you realize it, will never happen.

But then if I am right, you agree that terrorism has nothing to do with offensive Jihad and is merely a distortion of the concept of the defensive one. So it’s all about distorting the original meaning of religious texts.

“This is all irrelevant. The jihadists have made it clear on many occasions that they don't consider Westerners or various non-believers to be innocent. Until peaceful Muslims can establish that they are indeed innocent in a way that refutes the jihadist arguments in an effective way, the violence will continue”

Exactly, we agree, this is irrelevant. Because the terrorists have to distort an originally good-intentioned verse to justify their acts. Knowing this, do you really believe they will listen to anything the moderates Muslims will say to them, since anyway, they will say they are traitors to the West?

And how exactly do you intend the peaceful Muslims to convince them anyway? How do you intend to convince someone who consider blowing up or beheading children is a just act?

Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you

Why did Jesus says this?

Hbr 10:30 For we know Him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto Me, I will recompense, saith the Lord.

The Koran teaches the opposite way to be:

009.005 fight and slay the Pagans '''wherever''' ye find them [throughout the earth} 004.100, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war.

God is the Life Giver. Therefore, only He has the right to take it.

It is the angels of God [NOT HUMANS] who will destroy the wicked in the end.

The Koran cannot stand up to the Bible - without being destroyed.

You can not sit at the table of the humanitarians and sit at the Koran's table too.

Both the New Testament AND the Koran prove that fact.

Ispanan,

Re your last two questions in your post to me, already dealt with. Muslims proportionately grew in population and, compared to them, the Jews were reduced. As we speak, Palestinians are following the Hadiths and Koranic verses that require that they wage warfare against the Jews.
As for the reason why some westerners are taking up Islam, where are your statistics? Do these stats show that more westerners are converting to islam than other religions (or to no religion)? Here's the thread in which I did already respond to you on both questions.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/009677.php#comments

Regarding Mohammad, everything I say about Mohammad is backed up by the Koran, Hadith, and Sira. These are your texts, not mine. Am I insulting him by reporting what he said and did, according to your own texts? Why should you be worried about "insult" when a much greater crime is committed, such as Mohammad allowing mass rapes? This is your level of mentality. You don't care that Mohammad allowed rapes, but you're worried that someone should point that out. Is it insult to say "Hitler was a mass murderer"? Mohammad was a mass murderer according to the Hadith and Sira, and this attitude justifying the Killings is laid out in the Koran. Why do you defend Mohammad. Even the Koran admits that Mohammad sinned (48:1). Why can't you admit what the Koran says?

Regarding "corruption/mischief," this is still punishable by death today in some Islamic countries. You claim verse 5:32 was intended to be peaceful, but you leave out the "corruption/mischief" part. You have no basis for your claims about the verse. You are just expressing your personal opinion without backing it up with references from knowledgeable scholars and without having an understanding of the Koran. So you are trying to trick people by not quoting the whole verse. This verse doesn't protect non-Muslims, at all. Non-Muslims are guilty of disbelief. The 'corruption on earth' exception leaves open a huge loop-hole so that disbelievers may be punished. Ibn Kathir says War against God and mischief/corruption includes disbelief. The Koran backs him up because it says time and time again that disbelief is the worst crime. What goes through your head, Ispanan, when Allah says disbelief is worse than killing? Doesn't it register with you? Don't you see the words on the page?

Here are the verses, because you seem to have a real hard time finding your way to a Koran. Here it is. Your book. Love it or leave it.

5:32 “For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah’s sovereignty), but afterwards lo! Many of them become prodigals of the earth.”
5:33 “The only reward for those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;”

So, talking about mental level, eh?

Muslims proportionately grew in population and, compared to them, the Jews were reduced

What nonsense are you talking about? What reduction? I guess I will have to repeat my question, in caps, so perhaps you will get it: WHY, IF THE MUSLIMS WERE COMMANDED TO KILL THE JEWS, DID THEY ALLOW THEM TO REMAIN DURING 1300 YEARS? WHY DIDN’T THEY KILL THEM SINCE THEY WERE IN LARGELY SUPERIOR NUMBERS? WHY DID THEY LET THE JEWS EXPELLED FROM EUROPE COME TO THE MUSLIM LANDS? AND FOR THE THIRD TIME, WHY WAS THERE A THING CALLED JEWISH GOLDEN AGE IN MUSLIM SPAIN?

“Palestinians are following the Hadiths and Koranic verses that require that they wage warfare against the Jews”

I don’t know what mental level I have, but what I know if you have no grasp on reality. Do you really believe the Palestinians wouldn’t fight Israel without the Koran? Do you really believe there is no other causes? Do you not believe the actions of Israel have anything to do with it?

“As for the reason why some westerners are taking up Islam, where are your statistics? Do these stats show that more westerners are converting to islam than other religions (or to no religion)? Here's the thread in which I did already respond to you on both questions”

Funny, I think it is the same thread where I gave the quotes explaining it. Did you see my story posted about the Scottish Muslim woman?

Did you read the story about the expansion of Islam in Rwanda? Then explain me, why would have the Muslims done that? Why would they have hidden this persecuted people? Why would have they helped them, if all unfidels deserve nothing better than death? COULD YOU EXPLAIN ME?

And why do you keep saying the same thing about Muhammad? Why do you assume I accept he is all this what you say, when I simply... lol… and I don’t know how to tell it DO NOT AGREE?

“What goes through your head, Ispanan, when Allah says disbelief is worse than killing?”

Again, how must I tell you that I DO NOT AGREE?

And why did you not answer my question?

If 5:32 only concerns Muslims, then WHY DO THE TERRORISTS TARGET OTHER MUSLIMS?

Robert, here is a link to Christian terrorism in North East India:

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/christian_terrorism_in_northeast_india.htm

Robert, here is a link to Christian terrorism in North East India Ispanan

They can say they are Christians till blue in the face - but if they don't speak and live according to the Christian Scriptures - they aren't Christians - no matter how much they claim to be.

1Th 5:15 See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.

Hbr 10:30 For we [true Christians] know Him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto Me, I will recompense, saith the Lord.

The same can be said about Muslims. They can say they are Muslims till blue in the face - but if they don't speak and live according to the Koran's writings - they aren't Muslims - no matter how much they claim to be:

005.051 O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors {authorities]: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them for friendship is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

009.014 Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you to victory over them, heal the breasts of Believers.

009.044 Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day ask thee for no exemption from fighting with their goods and persons. And Allah knoweth well those who do their duty.

002.216 Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing [war] which is good for you and that ye love a thing [peace] which is bad for you?

009.039 Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place.

047.004 Therefore, when ye meet ''the Unbelievers'' in fight, smite at their necks. [Behead them!]

Any Muslim who disagrees with those commands of their 'allah' is not a Muslim - no matter how much they claim to be.

Ispanan,

Before Mohammad got started, there were no Muslims, zero. Got it? Up until that time, there were plenty of Jews living in the Arabian Peninsula, according to the Islamic texts. Got it?

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

See above link. In the world now there are now 1.3 billion Muslims and only 14 million Jews. Got it?

“What nonsense are you talking about? What reduction?”

I said it was a comparative reduction. You need to get the words right before you respond.

“WHY, IF THE MUSLIMS WERE COMMANDED TO KILL THE JEWS, DID THEY ALLOW THEM TO REMAIN DURING 1300 YEARS?”

Dhimmitude, as specified in 9:29. Also keep in mind the goal of Islam. If dhimmitude is beneficial to Islam, then it’s good. Conversion is also an option, that is, another way of removing the Jews, Christians, and other disbelievers. Dhimmitude is onerous enough that it pressures the dhimmis to convert to Islam.

“WHY DIDN’T THEY KILL THEM SINCE THEY WERE IN LARGELY SUPERIOR NUMBERS?”

See dhimmitude, 9:29. Also, as I said, they did kill many Jews, and this was reported in Mohammad’s time (read the Hadtihs and Sira).

“WHY DID THEY LET THE JEWS EXPELLED FROM EUROPE COME TO THE MUSLIM LANDS?”

This is something that has never really been accepted by the majority of Muslims in the region, and you know it.

“AND FOR THE THIRD TIME, WHY WAS THERE A THING CALLED JEWISH GOLDEN AGE IN MUSLIM SPAIN?”

See dhimmitude, above. Also, Muslims let the Jews live because the Jews were providing their work and intellectual contributions, as well as income (through jizya tax) paid to the Muslims. As for why it is called a “golden age,” this is largely a fantastic idea, an exaggeration.

“Do you really believe the Palestinians wouldn’t fight Israel without the Koran? Do you really believe there is no other causes? Do you not believe the actions of Israel have anything to do with it?”
There are multiple causes. But Islam is the key problem. What instigates each cycle of violence and what maintains it? Palestinians launch rockets daily into Israel. Each time there is a lull in the violence, and there appears to be peace progress, there is a terrorist attack. Palestinian terrorists deliberately attack women and children in order to provoke the most outrage. The terrorists want there to be constant enmity between Israel and Palestine. They want to drive Israel into the sea, and this has always been their intent.

You, and many people, have difficulty grasping the idea that some people are evil. They want to do bad things. They like it when there’s blood and death. It makes them happy. Haven’t you watched them? This is what the terrorists want. They want to destroy Israelis. That's all.

The whole state, and much of the middle east, is soaked in anti-Israel, anti-American, anti-West, anti-infidel propaganda. Jews are referred to routinely as apes and pigs in the mainstream media. The Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim collection hadith which I cited for you, which calls for the extermination of the Jews, is cited in the Palestinian media, in a celebratory manner. Hitler is extraordinarily popular among the Palestinians, and Hitler’s Mein Kampf is popular throughout the Islamic countries in the Middle East and, also, in Turkey.
Children in the Palestinian schools are taught to hate the Jews. Many parents teach their children, from an early age, to want to kill the Jews. At the centre of all of this hate propaganda is the Koran, the book of pure hate against non-Muslims. Of course the terrorists exploit it for political purposes. But it erroneous to think that Islam is separate from the political purposes. Mohammad used Islam for political (and military) purposes. That’s basically what Islam is: A militant nationalism. The Koran is a licence to hate, subjugate, convert, and, if necessary, kill non-Muslims. It needs to be repudiated 100%, and start over.

“Funny, I think it is the same thread where I gave the quotes explaining it. Did you see my story posted about the Scottish Muslim woman?”

No, I asked for statistics, not cute anecdotes. What are the numbers, based on large samples of anonymous respondents, that show that, in the West, conversions to Islam are occurring at a higher rate than to other religions and to no religion (non-believer/agnostic/atheist)?

“Did you read the story about the expansion of Islam in Rwanda? Then explain me, why would have the Muslims done that? Why would they have hidden this persecuted people? Why would have they helped them, if all unfidels deserve nothing better than death? COULD YOU EXPLAIN ME?”

Keep in mind that conversions are an option. You keep misunderstanding what I say. The ways to achieve Islam’s goal, according to the Koran, are through conversion (offer of islam through dawa), subjugation (dhimmitude or slavery), or, if the two previous options are not accepted then the non-Muslim person is to be put to death. That’s Sura 9 policy, in your Koran.

“And why do you keep saying the same thing about Muhammad? Why do you assume I accept he is all this what you say, when I simply... lol… and I don’t know how to tell it DO NOT AGREE?”

I cite your Islamic texts to simply show what they say about Mohammad. But you don’t believe them?

This shows Mohammad’s attitude toward women:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion."

Here is Mohammad’s attitude toward rape of female captives. He allows it. In fact, he and the men are only concerned about coitus interruptus, not about the terrible crime of raping the women.

Sahih Bukhari: Volume 9, Book 93, Number 506:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
That during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relation with them without impregnating them. So they asked the Prophet about coitus interruptus. The Prophet said, "It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection." Qaza'a said, "I heard Abu Sa'id saying that the Prophet said, 'No soul is ordained to be created but Allah will create it."

Here are the verses in the Koran that allow the men to have or take captive young women as sex slaves.
Allows Muslim men to take girl-slaves for sex. (23:1-6, 33:50-52, 4:24, 70:1-30).

Believe me, Ispanan, I’m just reporting, just quoting. You can deny it all you want, but it won’t go away. If Mohammad were alive today, he’d be tried as a war criminal.

“Again, how must I tell you that I DO NOT AGREE?”

2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

Persecution is worse than slaughter. I don’t know how it can be any clearer than that. I’ve cited tafsir for this above in previous posts in this thread. Here is Ali Sina, who cites Ibn Kathir’s tafsir. see http://www.faithfreedom.org/faq/70.htm ). Persecution is shirk, polytheism, disbelief.

2:217 They question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel His people thence, is a greater with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing. And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can. And whoso becometh a renegade and dieth in his disbelief: such are they whose works have fallen both in the world and the Hereafter. Such are rightful owners of the Fire: they will abide therein.

Again, persecution is worse than killing.

The Koran says disbelief is the worst crime. It does not say murder is the worst crime. If killing a man is like killing all of humanity, then disbelief is worse than killing all humanity. Disbelief results in a lost soul (it goes to hell). A soul is more important to Allah. The soul is more important in Islam then the life of the person. The life of the world doesn't matter much; it's the life of the hereafter that matters in Islam. This is clear. If you don't believe me, take what I just said to your cleric or imam and have him read it.

“If 5:32 only concerns Muslims, then WHY DO THE TERRORISTS TARGET OTHER MUSLIMS?”

They consider them disbelievers! Therefore, killing them is permissible. Some Sunni consider Shia disbelievers (rejecters), and some Shia consider the Sunni disbelievers.

Various sects within Sunni Islam consider the others disbelievers (e.g., Wahhabis consider almost everyone else disbelievers).

Beth,

"They can say they are Christians till blue in the face - but if they don't speak and live according to the Christian Scriptures - they aren't Christians - no matter how much they claim to be."

Good point. I've been trying to explain that to Ispanan, but he doesn't listen.

SORRY MISSED ALL THE FUN BUT Have been hitting the slops and the Gluevine and all the warmth of the Fireplaces thinking about all the earthquake victims still in tents but, they are in a mulsum country WHY are the pakis not bringing them south could it be they don't want them to know about running water in homes and tollets??

Well CAIR is pissed about JW/DW because people who write here point out what is really in the qu-ran??

Like?

Qur’an 9:97 “The Arabs of the desert are the worst in unbelief and hypocrisy, and most fitted to be in ignorance of the command which Allah hath sent down to His Messenger.”

WHY THEY GO TO KILL IRAQIS BAD IRAN AND OTHERS

Qur’an 3:60 “The Truth (comes) from Allah alone. So be not of those who doubt, waver or dispute. If any one disputes in this matter with you, now after knowledge has come to you, say: ‘Come! Let us gather together our sons and women among ourselves. Then let us earnestly pray, and invoke the curse of Allah on those who lie!’”

NOW THIS IS A GOOD ONE WHAT ABOUT IRAN SAYING POPIES ARE TULIPS??

Qur’an 3:55 “Allah said, ‘Jesus, I will take you and raise you to Myself and rid you of the infidels (who have forged the lie that you are My son).… Those who are infidels will surely receive severe torment both in this world and the next; and none will they have as a savior for them.” [Interesting, considering...]

SO WHAT IS THE LIE THAT CAIR TELL THE MSM??

Qur’an 5:72 “They are surely infidels who say; ‘God is the Christ, the Messiah, the son of Mary.”

OH MY SO CAIR DOES LIE WHEN THE GET ON TV??

Bukhari:V4B56N814 “There was a Christian who embraced Islam and he used to write the revelations for the Prophet. Later on he returned to Christianity again he used to say: ‘Muhammad knows nothing but what I have written for him.’”

OH YEA THATS RIGHT HE COULDN'T WRITE BUT AS THE STORY GOES THEY [MULSUMS] KILLED THIS POOR MAN??

Bukhari:V4B55N657 “Allah’s Messenger said, ‘Isa (Jesus), the son of Mariam, will shortly descend amongst you Muslims and will judge mankind by the law of the Qur’an. He will break the cross and kill the swine [Jews] and there will be no Jizyah tax taken from non-Muslims. Money will be so abundant no one will accept it. So you may recite this Holy Verse: “Isa (Jesus) was just a human being before his death. On the Day of Resurrection he (Jesus) will be a witness against the Christians.”’”

NOW THAT AINT WHAT CAIR SAYS??
SHAME SHAME
JUST LET THEIR BOOKS DO THEIR TALKEN

Qur’an 4.171 “O people of the Book (Christians), do not be fanatical in your faith, and say nothing but the truth about Allah. The Messiah who is Isa (Jesus), son of Mariam, was only a messenger of Allah, nothing more. He bestowed His Word on Mariam and His Spirit. So believe in Allah and say not Trinity for Allah is one Ilah (God)…far be it from His Glory to beget a son.”

SO CAIR TELLS ANOTHER LIE??

Qur’an 48:11 “The desert Arabs who lagged behind [in fighting] will say to you (Muhammad): ‘We were engaged in (looking after) our flocks and our families.’ We have prepared for them a Blazing Fire!”

THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE USING TO CALL TO FIGHT NOW!!

BUT WHERE IS ubl HIDDING WITH WOMEN IN IRAN??

” Qur’an 4:89 “They wish that you would reject Faith, as they have, and thus be on the same footing: Do not be friends with them until they leave their homes in Allah’s Cause. But [and this is a hell of a but...] if they turn back from Islam, becoming renegades, seize them and kill them wherever you find them.”

ANOTHER THING CAIR DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW

Qur’an 9:38 “Believers, what is the matter with you, that when you are asked to march forth in the Cause of Allah (i.e., Jihad) you cling to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? Unless you march, He will afflict and punish you with a painful torture, and put others in your place. But you cannot harm Him in the least.”

ANOTHER THING CAIR DOESN'T WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW

Qur’an 9:45 “Only those ask for exemption (from Jihad) who believe not in Allah and whose hearts are in doubt, so that they are tossed to and fro. If they had intended to march out to fight, they would certainly have made some preparation and readied their equipment; but Allah was averse to their being sent forth; so He made them lag behind. ‘Sit you among those who sit.’ If they had marched with you, they would not have added to your (strength) but only (made for) discord, spying and sowing sedition. There would have been some in your midst who would have listened to them. But Allah knows well those [peace-loving Muslims] who do wrong and are wicked.”

SO THIS IS WHAT CAIR IS DOING SPYING AND SOWING SEDITION

REMEMBER THE ROSENBURGS WHERE HANGED FOR THE SAME THING??

Qur’an 9:48 “They had plotted sedition before, and upset matters for you until the Decree of Allah [to fight] became manifest, much to their disgust. Among them are many who say: ‘Grant me exemption to stay back at home (exempted from Jihad). And do not tempt me [with promises of booty].’ Have they not fallen into temptation already? Indeed, Hell surrounds them.”

SO IS THIS TRUE IT IS ALL WHO MUST BE ISLAMIC TERRORIST SHAME ON YOU CAIR

Qur’an 9:77 “He punished them by putting hypocrisy in their hearts until the Day whereon they shall meet Him, because they lied to Allah and failed to perform as promised. Allah knows their secrets. Those who slander and taunt the believers who pay the zakat (for Allah’s Cause) voluntarily and throw ridicule on them, scoffing, Allah will throw back their taunts, and they shall have a painful doom. Whether you ask for their forgiveness or not, (their sin is unforgivable). If you ask seventy times for their forgiveness Allah will not forgive them.”

SO IT IS A SCAM ALL FOR MONEY

Qur’an 9:93 “The (complaint) is against those who claim exemption [from fighting] while they are rich. They prefer to stay with the (women) who remain behind (at home). Allah has sealed their hearts. They are content to be useless. Say: ‘Present no excuses: we shall not believe you.’ It is your actions that Allah and His Messenger will observe. They will swear to you by Allah, when you return hoping that you might leave them alone. So turn away from them, for they are unclean, an abomination, and Hell is their dwelling-place, a fitting recompense for them.”

WONDER IF OTHER MULSUMS WILL NOW LOOK AT ubl WHO SITS HOME WITH HIS WOMEN IN IRAN IN A SAFE PLACE WHILE HE SENDS OTHERS TO KILL IRAQI WOMEN AND CHILDREN SHAME ON IRAN AND CAIR FOR SENDING OTHERS TO KILL THE IRAQI PEOPLE SHAME SHAME

Qur’an 9:97 “The Arabs of the desert are the worst in unbelief and hypocrisy, and most fitted to be in ignorance of the command which Allah hath sent down to His Messenger. Some of the Bedouins look upon their payments (for Allah’s Cause) as a fine and wish disasters to fall on you (so that they might not have to pay). Yet on them be the disaster of evil.”

YEP A CON JOB

Malaysia Arrests Key Figure in Nuclear Trafficking
NewsMax.com Wires
Friday, May 28, 2004
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia – A Sri Lankan businessman accused of brokering black market deals for nuclear technology was arrested Friday in Malaysia, government officials said.
Buhary Syed Abu Tahir, who allegedly worked with disgraced Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan to sell nuclear secrets to rogue states, was detained for threatening Malaysia's national security, officials told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.
Tahir is the most senior known member of Khan's network to have been arrested since details about its operations to sell nuclear know-how and equipment to Libya, Iran and North Korea came to light earlier this year.
Khan was pardoned by Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf after admitting wrongdoing and pleading for clemency.

REMEMBER CAIR HATES THEM TOO??

THEY DON'T WANT THE TRUTH TO GET OUT AND HAVE MANAGED TO PLAY THE VICTIM IN EUROPE AND NOW THE FRENCH WILL HAVE TO USE THEIR NUKES TO PROTECT THEMSELFS
NO CAIR CAN NOT BE ALLOWED TO DO IT HERE IN THE USA

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO STAY THE COURSE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM AMEN

PS
I will miss Mustang Sally

PSS
I hear that Gallyaway is on a new show on all 4s some how this does not suprize me??

One point Archimedes and it may seem trivial to you and many others but not myself.

As an agnostic I do not care about the OT one iota (except as a general ancient history read). Nor do I especially care about the NT (useful re history of the church) except as it passes on the humanitarian teachings of JC.

A true Christian should attempt to follow the essence of JC's teachings throughout his/her life, i.e., pacifism, altruism, charity, kindness etc.

Some feel that a God is needed for this but that is another argument.

As a philosophical Christian or a secular humanist I try to follow it, literally when I was young but relatively when I grew wise to the world and its ways.

However I am not as perfect as he was and hence I am not prepared to go docilely to the gas chambers or the colosseum if by the hand of a conscienceless, fanatical enemy.

Pacifism only works if the other side has a conscience and the Jews (and Gypsies, Poles etc) showed how easy pacifism makes it for a relentless enemy. Hence despite being an essentially nonagressive pacifist there are things that I am prepared to fight for, especially my family and my home, my friends and if necessary my state.

So to my point: it makes NO difference what the Christian (and here I mean only the NT NOT the OT) scriptures say as other than JC’s self evident teachings they are irrelevant.

Christian philosophy is a state of mind conditioned by JC’s teachings, an altruistic attitude towards all others: end of subject.

This is the SOLE reason that the current Earth for all of its problems is the best place to live now that it has ever been in our known recorded history and that is DESPITE the best attempts of Islam to destroy this.

Certainly there will be points of order requiring a look at the NT now and then but really
they are not necessary except to the obsessed who need specific direction at every step.

Islam on the other hand, via the Koran, hadith etc is a textbook on how to behave in everyday situations; a detailed list of “musts” and “must nots”. It is a rigidly inflexible system of rules posing as ethics which force otherwise intelligent human beings to behave like dark age barbarians and which so anaesthetises their critical analytical capacity that they can actually defend the most ludicrous behaviour and the most violent savagery without even realising just how incongruous and how anomalous is their position. It also has the tendency of all organised religions to be scanty with the truth.
However unlike most other religions it is not capable of evolving from its barbaric roots into something better as its locked in trivia mindset makes this impossible as its attitude to truth.

For anyone not brainwashed by madrassas or not born with some insecure need to feel part of something very controlling, Islam is quite honestly a disgusting religion and I would prefer the honest barbarism of a New Guinea cannibal to the hypocrisy, violence and lies of Islam. However it is a “control freak’s” paradise. If you want a life where every 4 hours is marked by a semicastrate screaming at you, where whatever you eat, drink, think is pre-ordained then it is for you. If you wish a religion where there is no truth except what you imam says then it is for you. If you have a need to hurt people, steal from them kill them and wish to not feel remorse then become a Muslims and do it to unbelievers with abandon and congratulations from your local imam.

True Christianity is a way of thinking and of treating others.

Islam is a Dark Age textbook on not thinking but just doing what the “prophet” says or what the commentators think he may have or could have said or beware the consequences.

Islam’s current violence speaks for itself. What can you expect from it but this? It has always been so.

Any violence from Christians is unforgivable unless in a war situation ( and none of this dar al-Islam or dar al-harb garbage) or for defence of self, family or others, the Christian churches in earlier times were very poor carriers of JC’s cross but they have mostly evolved (not all) back to the truer way of his ideals.

Don’t worry about quotes from anywhere just look at them and their pernicious behaviour which they always feel a need to justify without actually looking at what they are doing. It is the same “razzia” ethos of loot , slaves and violence which funded the first jihad (that of 632 on) and which is funding this new one.

Until Islam repudiates violence, brainwashing, dar al-harb and stops inflicting its needs upon others it does not even deserve to be treated as a religion but a creed of hate.

Do you know what is in the Muslim’s room 101?

A complete, original and unexpurgated (i.e. as said by Muhammad, not edited by Othman), native(to that person) language version of the Koran. Can you imagine the screams when he reads it?

Ispanan,

On the issue of insults:

"So, talking about mental level, eh?"

I was referring to your mentality, moral mentality (with regard to ethics). The example that I used referred to the fact that you were alleging that people here such as myself were "insulting" Mohammad, yet you were not worried about what the Hadiths and Koran say about Mohammad. The example that I used was Mohammad's approval of rape, which is stated in the Hadiths and is clearly implied in the Koran (girl-slaves, captives, sex-slaves).

This is a very common response of Muslims when these things are pointed out, from the Islamic texts themselves, about Mohammad. Then, when the non-Muslim points out Mohammad's behaviour, the Muslim accuses the non-Muslim of making an insult.

So you are worried about people "insulting" the prophet, but you are not worried about what Mohammad did and what the Koran approves? What I'm questioning is your moral thinking ability. What are your priorities? You let Mohammad away, without criticism or objection, for his allowance of mass rapes and forced impregnations, but you are upset that someone points this out!

"Oh, btw I never insulted you. At the contrary, considering the things that are said here, I think I am pretty cool."

Really? I don't think so. In most threads you are calling people idiots, etc.

"As for the rest, you lie as much."

Go back through this thread, and you'll see I've backed up everything I've said, according to the Koran, Hadith, and according to the opinions of Islamic scholars.

“And don’t come up with the idiocy about how “good” or “righteousness” means worshipping Allah.”

LOL! That's what the Koran says! You keep accusing me of idiocy, when it is the Koran's own statements that you are attacking. You have not read the Koran, so you think I'm making this up! Anything in the service of Islam is "good" and "righteous." That is a consistent principle throughout the Koran.

“As long as you don’t show proof that what you say is widely accepted among Muslim scholars, all what you say is complete BS, repeated many times, yes, but BS all the same.”

See above.

Look, Ispanan, insult me as much as you want, call me every disgusting name in your book (and there are plenty), but don't lie. Especially don't lie about what's in your own book.

Given what you've claimed about that poor misunderstood wife-beating verse, I thought I'd include this excerpt from one of my articles:

Mistreatment of Women

There are many examples of coercion in Muslim and non-Muslim women's lives due to Islam. Allah (Mohammad) may replace wives who criticize their husband (66:5). Wives who are false (i.e., show the slightest sign of disbelief in Allah) to their husbands are to be killed by Allah (66:10). The wives of disbelievers will also be doomed with their husbands (37:22-31). Muslims (women or men) may not marry any person of the idolater religions (2:221), unless the idolater converts to Islam. Women guilty of lewdness (adultery) 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). Muslim men are permitted to have or take female captives and slaves for sex (4:24, 23:6, 33:50-52). According to the Hadiths, some of these women were acquired as “spoils of war.” They were taken captive, raped, and in some cases forcibly impregnated:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
That during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relation with them without impregnating them. So they asked the Prophet about coitus interruptus ['azl]. The Prophet said, "It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection." Qaza'a said, "I heard Abu Sa'id saying that the Prophet said, 'No soul is ordained to be created but Allah will create it." Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 93, Number 506 (also see Sahih Muslim Book 8, Number 3373).

While this most abominable form of coercion is certainly not unique to Islamic warfare, the prophet does not condemn it. “Allah” also has nothing to say on the matter. The men and the prophet are only concerned about whether or not coitus interruptus is acceptable.

Throughout the Koran, women are treated very badly, unfairly, and as inferior (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). Note that 4:34, the notorious wife-beating verse, does say "beat" her (or hit, or scourge). At least 10 available respectable translations of the Koran say "beat" (or scourge, or hit). A discussion of 4:34 and the word "beat" can be found at http://answering-islam.org/Silas/wife-beating.htm . Here is the verse:

4:34. “Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.”

The Hadiths confirm Mohammad's wife-beating policy [I add my comments in brackets]:

"Ayesha said "I have not seen anyone suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" Sahih Bukhari. vol. 7, book 72, no. 715. [The "green" adjective is in reference to the bruising from the beating. In this incident, Ayesha brought to the prophet’s attention a woman who had been badly beaten by her husband in a domestic quarrel. In response, the prophet did not condemn the beating, and “Allah” did not substitute a new verse in place of the 4:34].

"...He (Muhammad) struck me (Aisha) on the chest which caused me pain...” Sahih Muslim, book 4, no. 2127. [Mohammad's child-wife Ayesha tells of how the prophet intentionally struck her hard enough to cause pain, and an enduring memory of the event].

"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.

This latter report illustrates how severely women are compelled to follow the Islamic religious code in being subservient and obedient to their husbands (and it shows Mohammad's misogyny).

Marriageable age in some Islamic countries for females is nine years of age. Obviously, a child does not have the capacity to form a proper consent, but is under a religiously-based compulsion or coercion to accept it. This follows the prophet Mohammad's 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 or 7 years of age. Sources: Sahih Muslim Book 8, Number 3311; Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236; Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65; also see Tabari IX:131).

Archimedes, for your last post, I cannot but answer only one thing:

No

:)

however, tell me the Muslim countries where the marriageable age is 9, his legality / illegality, the scholar justification for it, if it exists (no, not the hadiths, I already mentioned what was my problem with the hadith!), the non-Muslim countries where the marriageable age is the same, and why the marriageable age is so low if this is not a Muslim country. Thanks.

Now with your other post:

What have you been trying to do with these last posts, Beth? To tell me that what happened in the bible verses I put there didn’t happen? What are you trying to tell there? That Jews in Moses time didn’t kill those people and rape these little girls? That God didn’t order the disobedient children to be stoned? That raped women weren’t sold to their rapists for 50 shekels? That the NT doesn’t condone slavery? Are you really trying to ignore all this by quoting verses that have nothing to do with the verses I quoted? What interpretation of them are you desperately trying to make? Do you really believe it can seem another thing that it really seems? Do you really deny what is in your book while you accuse the Koran?

They do not rely on Christianity because you say it. Your Bible is full of contradictions. They can find enough in it to justify their acts. The OT, the verses of the sword (yes, the Christian ones)… Jesus forbids evil, yes, but then, as Archimedes himself said, “evil” can mean many things, right? And when it is told in the Bible those who don’t believe in God will “go to hell” (supported by many Christian churches), it is the same thing that unbelievers in Islam “going to hell”. What are you trying to tell me? That they didn’t find anything in the Bible to back up their acts?

Archimedes, as I said, you have no grasp on reality. You actually seem to think that Muslims have been following a twisted plot throughout the history to take over the entire world, and that each of their actions respond to this plot. If you really think this, then you are seriously disturbed man. Seek help.

Your obsession with Islam and the Koran is almost sickly, posting the same things, verses, links over and over again in the same threads. Not only that, but you want to force your vision of Islam to others, asking me “how can I believe disbelief is worse than slaughter” and all these idiocies when I never said that, and when the only thing you base yourself on are the sayings of anti-Muslims and ONE Muslim scholar that the majority of terrorists never heard of and don’t need him to justify their acts anyway.

“As for why it is called a “golden age,” this is largely a fantastic idea, an exaggeration.”

The only fantasy is in your mind. I guess this answers also to a sort of conspiracy done by Muslims and western dhimmis to distort the story of Islam and make it look better than the evil religion it was? The Golden Age has been studied by scholars who know more about history than you do, although you have difficulty recognizing anything that don’t match your ideas.

“There are multiple causes. But Islam is the key problem. What instigates each cycle of violence and what maintains it? Palestinians launch rockets daily into Israel. Each time there is a lull in the violence, and there appears to be peace progress, there is a terrorist attack. Palestinian terrorists deliberately attack women and children in order to provoke the most outrage”

Funny how you say “multiple causes” but you don’t say what these are. But I guess for you Israel has no fault in this. When they take their land, destroy their houses, crops, expel them, use children as human shields, kill or torture them, this has absolutely nothing to do with it. And I guess Sharon visiting that Mosque explanade (sic?) and the intifada beginning just after is also Islam’s fault for breaking the peace? And I see your ignored my comment about Jewish terrorism. SO WAS THERE JUSTIFIED JEWISH TERRORISM OR NOT?

“It needs to be repudiated 100%, and start over.”

This confirms me you are not right in your head if you seriously say that. What nonsense are you spouting? What starting over? What do you mean? To just erase it and write it again? To just say “well, God said this, but now he says that”? What the hell goes through your head?

2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

“The Koran says disbelief is the worst crime. It does not say murder is the worst crime. If killing a man is like killing all of humanity, then disbelief is worse than killing all humanity. Disbelief results in a lost soul (it goes to hell). A soul is more important to Allah. The soul is more important in Islam then the life of the person. The life of the world doesn't matter much; it's the life of the hereafter that matters in Islam. This is clear. If you don't believe me, take what I just said to your cleric or imam and have him read it. “

Once you explain me how “drive them out of the places whence they drove you out” fits with this sura ordering the conquest of the world, I will believe all what you say. And also give me proof that the vast majority of Muslims and Muslim scholars agree than slaughter is justified by disbelief. As for the rest, mainly ramblings. Are you just mentally ill, to not understand what I say and repeat the same thing over again? And did you read anyway what I wrote in my response to Spencer about finding justifications for terrorism?

“If 5:32 only concerns Muslims, then WHY DO THE TERRORISTS TARGET OTHER MUSLIMS?”

They consider them disbelievers! Therefore, killing them is permissible. Some Sunni consider Shia disbelievers (rejecters), and some Shia consider the Sunni disbelievers"

Good, then WHY HAS THERE BEEN WARS BETWEEN MUSLIMS COUNTRIES OF THE SAME SECT OVER THE YEARS?

Oh, and look at 6:159 and tell me what verses abrogate it, and the number of Muslim scholars who supports this abrogation in order to justify the killing of Muslim “heretics”.

Why to keep discussing with you? You say that I don’t believe people are evil, yet you seem to think that every Muslim IS evil, and the only thing we think of is of converting, killing or subjugating infidels. Why bother? I could ask you why there are Muslim countries who don’t have any dhimmi law to force unbelievers to convert, I could refute all your points, but what for?

Zathras: As for your idiocies about “dark age barbarianism”, “brainwashing” “Guinea canibalism” and I don’t know what more, go preach that to the Terrorists in North East India, the Bible thumpers who support death penalty, and the African Christian countries where listening music can get you to jail and children are killed because their parents think they are possessed by the devil.

You can try to work with the moderate Muslims, recognize and promote the good aspects of Islam as it is now and fighting its bad aspects; or you can hopelessly try to completely discredit it. What do you choose?

I’m gone from this thread. I expected Robert to answer my post, but I guess he won’t come back. Anyway, Archimedes, to show you I can also spam –but not always with the same thing- here are some interesting things for all of you.

As I already said… Islam can defend itself pretty well! ;)

NOW WHAT ISLAMOPHOBES SAY ABOUT MUSLIMS??
SHAME SHAME
JUST LET THEIR ACTIONS DO THEIR TALKEN

Rights and obligations of the dhimmis under Islam:

Rights:

Protection of life, wealth and honor by the Muslim state (even against other co-religionist states)
Right to reside in Muslim lands
Right of worship according to their own religion
Right to choose their own religious leaders (patriarchs for Christians, exilarchs and geonim for Jews)
Subject to the approval of the Muslim authorities, who sometimes blocked candidates or took the side of the party that offered the larger bribe[7]
In Saudi Arabia, where no religion apart from Islam is officially recognized, this right is moot
Right to work and trade
Right not to be enslaved
Not always respected, as the application of the devshirmeh under the Ottomans demonstrates
Void, should the dhimmi rebel
Obligations:
Paying jizyah (a poll tax applied to non-muslims)
Paying kharaj (a land tax applied initially to dhimmis but extended in the early 8th century to cover certain classes of land regardless of the cultivator's religion)

Restrictions:

No building new non-Muslim houses of worship, or expand existing locations
No displaying non-Muslim symbols on the outside of their existing houses of worship
No praying non-Muslim prayers, perform non-Muslim rituals, wear symbols of their faith visibly on their clothing, or preach non-Muslim faiths in public
No publishing or sale of non-Muslim religious literature
No asking Muslims to join them in worship
Dhimmis were sometimes subject to other restrictions. Each of the following were forbidden to dhimmis at some point somewhere in the world:
Holding public office
In reality, many non-Muslims held high positions in Muslim states, including Samuel ha-Nagid in Spain, as well as others in Egypt, Iraq, and the Ottoman Empire
Bearing weapons
Riding camels or horses (also rarely enforced)
Building houses of worship higher than mosques
Mourning loudly
Dressing in the same way that Muslims dressed
Dress codes, such as requiring all members of a given religion to wear a particular colour turban or other distinguishing clothing, were sometimes—but not always—enforced, so that dhimmis would be visibly distinct from Muslims; the practice is not found in the Qur'an or hadith
Exemptions:
Exemption from paying zakah "alms to the poor"
Exemption from military service
Exemptions from religious duties and laws specific to Muslims

There is obviously laws who attempts against the rights of non-Muslims. However these laws are comprised in the sharia (Islam law based based on Koran interpretation), and most of them are not reflected in the Koran, like the one who forbids the non-muslims to have a public office. However it is also obvious they had certain privileges. As well non-muslim are exempted from the zakah, a taxe only imposed to Muslims. Let's see what these taxes are exactly:

Jizya was applied to every free adult male member of the People of the Book, and/or non-Muslim living in lands under Muslim rule. There was no amount permanently fixed for it, though the payment usually depended on wealth: the Kitab al-Kharaj of Abu Yusuf sets the amounts at 48 dirhams for the richest (e.g. moneychangers), 24 for those of moderate wealth, and 12 for craftsmen and manual laborers.2 Females, children, the poor, and hermits were exempt from it. The disabled and elderly were exempt unless they were independently wealthy, as were mendicant monks—those living in productive monasteries had to pay. In addition, if a non-Muslim chose to serve in the army, he would be exempt from the jizya.

Now let's see what is the Zakat, the take imposed only on Muslims:

There are two main types of zakât:

Zakât on self (zakât fitr or fitrah) is a per head payment equivalent to cost of around 2.25 kilograms of the main food of the region (this may be wheat, dates or rice, depending on the place) paid during the month of Ramadan by the head of a family for himself and his dependents to the zakât collector (amil).

Zakât on wealth (zakât mal) comprises all the other types of zakât, such as on business, on savings, on income, on crops, on livestock, on gold, on minerals, on hidden treasures unearthed, etc.

Zakât is distributed among 8 asnaf (categories) of people:

Fakir - One who has neither material possessions nor means of livelihood.
Miskin - One with insufficient means of livelihood to meet basic needs.
Amil - One who is appointed to collect zakât.
Muallaf - One who converts to Islam.
Riqab - One who wants to free himself from bondage or the shackles of slavery.
Gharmin - One who is in debt (money borrowed to meet basic, halal expenditure).
Fisabillillah - One who fights for the cause of Allah.
Ibnus Sabil - One who is stranded in journey.

What does all this mean?

- The discrimination about taxes is untrue -both Muslims and non-Muslims have their own taxes to pay.

- Muslims have the obligation to defend the society while non-Muslim have none.

- If the non-Muslims decide to do the military service, like the Muslims, they would be exempted from their taxe, which MEANS THEY WOULD ACTUALLY PAY LESS THAN MUSLIMS.

- The liberty of cult is allowed, yet restrained.

Anyone can see these laws were an authentic revolution considering the time in which they were born. Furthermore, we have to consider these aren't even laws prescribed by the Kuran, but by the sharia, and in this sense, and considering the sharia has harder laws than the Koran, this represents a considerable advancement. Now of course, these laws weren't always respected, but evidently, this cannot in any way be blamed on Islamic religion.

Dhimmis in Islam vs. minorities in non-Muslim societies

Some non-Muslim but monotheistic societies in the medieval period had comparable laws. For instance, after Europe became Catholic, severe and harsh restrictions were imposed on European Jews before Islam came to Spain. However, the Arian Visigoths of Spain had been tolerant of Jews, a tradition that lingered in post-Visigothic Septimania, exemplified by the career of Ferreol, Bishop of Uzès (died 581). Visigothic persecution of Jews had to wait for the conversion to Catholicism of the Visigothic king Reccared. The same synod of Catholic bishops in 633 that usurped the Visigothic nobles' right to confirm the election of a king declared that all Jews must be baptised. Then the Visigothic Code (or Forum Judicum) was introduced, with an entire book dedicated to laws concerning Jews. It forced Jews not to prevent their children from baptism, prohibited them from celebrating Passover, undergoing circumcision, marriage of relatives, observing dietary laws, reading books that the Christian faith rejects, and testifying against Christians—as well as forbidding Christians from defending or protecting Jews, and forcing Jews to abstain from labor on Sundays and Christian holidays: see Visigothic Law Code.
Dress codes and other restrictions were forced by Christians on Jews, as well as Muslims in Europe. In Spain they were enforced, and penalties were levied if mudejars did not observe them. As early as 1215 the Fourth Council of the Lateran under Pope Innocent III issued a decree that Muslims and Jews shall wear a special dress to distinguish them from Christians.

OMG SO UNBELIEVERS COULD PAY LESS TAXES THAN MUSLIMS ????

WOMEN IN ISLAM VS. THE JUDEO - CHRISTIAN TRADITION

1. INTRODUCTION

Five years ago, I read in the Toronto Star issue of July 3, 1990 an article titled "Islam is not alone in patriarchal doctrines", by Gwynne Dyer. The article described the furious reactions of the participants of a conference on women and power held in Montreal to the comments of the famous Egyptian feminist Dr. Nawal Saadawi. Her "politically incorrect" statements included : "the most restrictive elements towards women can be found first in Judaism in the Old Testament then in Christianity and then in the Quran"; "all religions are patriarchal because they stem from patriarchal societies"; and "veiling of women is not a specifically Islamic practice but an ancient cultural heritage with analogies in sister religions". The participants could not bear sitting around while their faiths were being equated with Islam. Thus, Dr. Saadawi received a barrage of criticism. "Dr. Saadawi's comments are unacceptable. Her answers reveal a lack of understanding about other people's faiths," declared Bernice Dubois of the World Movement of Mothers. "I must protest" said panellist Alice Shalvi of Israel women's network, "there is no conception of the veil in Judaism." The article attributed these furious protests to the strong tendency in the West to scapegoat Islam for practices that are just as much a part of the West's own cultural heritage. "Christian and Jewish feminists were not going to sit around being discussed in the same category as those wicked Muslims," wrote Gwynne Dyer.

I was not surprised that the conference participants had held such a negative view of Islam, especially when women's issues were involved. In the West, Islam is believed to be the symbol of the subordination of women par excellence. In order to understand how firm this belief is, it is enough to mention that the Minister of Education in France, the land of Voltaire, has recently ordered the expulsion of all young Muslim women wearing the veil from French schools!1 A young Muslim student wearing a headscarf is denied her right of education in France, while a Catholic student wearing a cross or a Jewish student wearing a skullcap is not. The scene of French policemen preventing young Muslim women wearing headscarves from entering their high school is unforgettable. It inspires the memories of another equally disgraceful scene of Governor George Wallace of Alabama in 1962 standing in front of a school gate trying to block the entrance of black students in order to prevent the desegregation of Alabama's schools. The difference between the two scenes is that the black students had the sympathy of so many people in the U.S. and in the whole world. President Kennedy sent the U.S. National Guard to force the entry of the black students. The Muslim girls, on the other hand, received no help from any one. Their cause seems to have very little sympathy either inside or outside France. The reason is the widespread misunderstanding and fear of anything Islamic in the world today.

What intrigued me the most about the Montreal conference was one question : Were the statements made by Saadawi, or any of her critics, factual ? In other words, do Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have the same conception of women? Are they different in their conceptions ? Do Judaism and Christianity , truly, offer women a better treatment than Islam does? What is the Truth?

It is not easy to search for and find answers to these difficult questions. The first difficulty is that one has to be fair and objective or, at least, do one's utmost to be so. This is what Islam teaches. The Quran has instructed Muslims to say the truth even if those who are very close to them do not like it: "Whenever you speak, speak justly, even if a near relative is concerned" (6:152) "O you who believe stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor" (4:135).

The other great difficulty is the overwhelming breadth of the subject. Therefore, during the last few years, I have spent many hours reading the Bible, The Encyclopaedia of Religion, and the Encyclopaedia Judaica searching for answers. I have also read several books discussing the position of women in different religions written by scholars, apologists, and critics. The material presented in the following chapters represents the important findings of this humble research. I don't claim to be absolutely objective. This is beyond my limited capacity. All I can say is that I have been trying, throughout this research, to approach the Quranic ideal of "speaking justly".

I would like to emphasize in this introduction that my purpose for this study is not to denigrate Judaism or Christianity. As Muslims, we believe in the divine origins of both. No one can be a Muslim without believing in Moses and Jesus as great prophets of God. My goal is only to vindicate Islam and pay a tribute, long overdue in the West, to the final truthful Message from God to the human race. I would also like to emphasize that I concerned myself only with Doctrine. That is, my concern is, mainly, the position of women in the three religions as it appears in their original sources not as practised by their millions of followers in the world today. Therefore, most of the evidence cited comes from the Quran, the sayings of Prophet Muhammad, the Bible, the Talmud, and the sayings of some of the most influential Church Fathers whose views have contributed immeasurably to defining and shaping Christianity. This interest in the sources relates to the fact that understanding a certain religion from the attitudes and the behaviour of some of its nominal followers is misleading. Many people confuse culture with religion, many others do not know what their religious books are saying, and many others do not even care.

2. EVE'S FAULT ?

The three religions agree on one basic fact: Both women and men are created by God, The Creator of the whole universe. However, disagreement starts soon after the creation of the first man, Adam, and the first woman, Eve. The Judaeo-Christian conception of the creation of Adam and Eve is narrated in detail in Genesis 2:4-3:24. God prohibited both of them from eating the fruits of the forbidden tree. The serpent seduced Eve to eat from it and Eve, in turn, seduced Adam to eat with her. When God rebuked Adam for what he did, he put all the blame on Eve, "The woman you put here with me --she gave me some fruit from the tree and I ate it." Consequently, God said to Eve:

"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you."

To Adam He said:

"Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree .... Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life..."

The Islamic conception of the first creation is found in several places in the Quran, for example:

"O Adam dwell with your wife in the Garden and enjoy as you wish but approach not this tree or you run into harm and transgression. Then Satan whispered to them in order to reveal to them their shame that was hidden from them and he said: 'Your Lord only forbade you this tree lest you become angels or such beings as live forever.' And he swore to them both that he was their sincere adviser. So by deceit he brought them to their fall: when they tasted the tree their shame became manifest to them and they began to sew together the leaves of the Garden over their bodies. And their Lord called unto them: 'Did I not forbid you that tree and tell you that Satan was your avowed enemy?' They said: 'Our Lord we have wronged our own souls and if You forgive us not and bestow not upon us Your Mercy, we shall certainly be lost' " (7:19:23).

essential differences. The Quran, contrary to the Bible, places equal blame on both Adam and Eve for their mistake. Nowhere in the Quran can one find even the slightest hint that Eve tempted Adam to eat from the tree or even that she had eaten before him. Eve in the Quran is no temptress, no seducer, and no deceiver. Moreover, Eve is not to be blamed for the pains of childbearing. God, according to the Quran, punishes no one for another's faults. Both Adam and Eve committed a sin and then asked God for forgiveness and He forgave them both.

3. EVE'S LEGACY

The image of Eve as temptress in the Bible has resulted in an extremely negative impact on women throughout the Judaeo-Christian tradition. All women were believed to have inherited from their mother, the Biblical Eve, both her guilt and her guile. Consequently, they were all untrustworthy, morally inferior, and wicked. Menstruation, pregnancy, and childbearing were considered the just punishment for the eternal guilt of the cursed female sex. In order to appreciate how negative the impact of the Biblical Eve was on all her female descendants we have to look at the writings of some of the most important Jews and Christians of all time. Let us start with the Old Testament and look at excerpts from what is called the Wisdom Literature in which we find:

I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare....while I was still searching but not finding, I found one upright man among a thousand but not one upright woman among them all" (Ecclesiastes 7:26-28).

In another part of the Hebrew literature which is found in the Catholic Bible we read:

"No wickedness comes anywhere near the wickedness of a woman.....Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die" (Ecclesiasticus 25:19,24).

Jewish Rabbis listed nine curses inflicted on women as a result of the Fall:

"To the woman He gave nine curses and death: the burden of the blood of menstruation and the blood of virginity; the burden of pregnancy; the burden of childbirth; the burden of bringing up the children; her head is covered as one in mourning; she pierces her ear like a permanent slave or slave girl who serves her master; she is not to be believed as a witness; and after everything--death." 2

To the present day, orthodox Jewish men in their daily morning prayer recite "Blessed be God King of the universe that Thou has not made me a woman." The women, on the other hand, thank God every morning for "making me according to Thy will." 3 Another prayer found in many Jewish prayer books: "Praised be God that he has not created me a gentile. Praised be God that he has not created me a woman. Praised be God that he has not created me an ignoramus." 4

The Biblical Eve has played a far bigger role in Christianity than in Judaism. Her sin has been pivotal to the whole Christian faith because the Christian conception of the reason for the mission of Jesus Christ on Earth stems from Eve's disobedience to God. She had sinned and then seduced Adam to follow her suit. Consequently, God expelled both of them from Heaven to Earth, which had been cursed because of them. They bequeathed their sin, which had not been forgiven by God, to all their descendants and, thus, all humans are born in sin. In order to purify human beings from their 'original sin', God had to sacrifice Jesus, who is considered to be the Son of God, on the cross. Therefore, Eve is responsible for her own mistake, her husband's sin, the original sin of all humanity, and the death of the Son of God. In other words, one woman acting on her own caused the fall of humanity. 5 What about her daughters? They are sinners like her and have to be treated as such. Listen to the severe tone of St. Paul in the New Testament:

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I don't permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner" (I Timothy 2:11-14).

St. Tertullian was even more blunt than St. Paul, while he was talking to his 'best beloved sisters' in the faith, he said: 6

"Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil's gateway: You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert even the Son of God had to die."

St. Augustine was faithful to the legacy of his predecessors, he wrote to a friend:

"What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman......I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children."

Centuries later, St. Thomas Aquinas still considered women as defective:

"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence."

Finally, the renowned reformer Martin Luther could not see any benefit from a woman but bringing into the world as many children as possible regardless of any side effects:

"If they become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that's why they are there"

Again and again all women are denigrated because of the image of Eve the temptress, thanks to the Genesis account. To sum up, the Judaeo-Christian conception of women has been poisoned by the belief in the sinful nature of Eve and her female offspring.

If we now turn our attention to what the Quran has to say about women, we will soon realize that the Islamic conception of women is radically different from the Judaeo-Christian one. Let the Quran speak for itself:

"For Muslim men and women, for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in charity, for men and women who fast, for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah's praise-- For them all has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward" (33:35).

"For Muslim men and women, for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in charity, for men and women who fast, for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah's praise-- For them all has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward" (33:35).
"The believers, men and women, are protectors, one of another: they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil, they observe regular prayers, practise regular charity, and obey Allah and His Messenger. On them will Allah pour His Mercy: for Allah is Exalted in power, Wise" (9:71).

"And their Lord answered them: Truly I will never cause to be lost the work of any of you, Be you a male or female, you are members one of another" (3:195).

"Whoever works evil will not be requited but by the like thereof, and whoever works a righteous deed -whether man or woman- and is a believer- such will enter the Garden of bliss" (40:40).

"Whoever works righteousness, man or woman, and has faith, verily to him/her we will give a new life that is good and pure, and we will bestow on such their reward according to the best of their actions" (16:97).

It is clear that the Quranic view of women is no different than that of men. They, both, are God's creatures whose sublime goal on earth is to worship their Lord, do righteous deeds, and avoid evil and they, both, will be assessed accordingly. The Quran never mentions that the woman is the devil's gateway or that she is a deceiver by nature. The Quran, also, never mentions that man is God's image; all men and all women are his creatures, that is all. According to the Quran, a woman's role on earth is not limited only to childbirth. She is required to do as many good deeds as any other man is required to do. The Quran never says that no upright women have ever existed. To the contrary, the Quran has instructed all the believers, women as well as men, to follow the example of those ideal women such as the Virgin Mary and the Pharoah's wife:

"And Allah sets forth, As an example to those who believe, the wife of Pharaoh: Behold she said: 'O my lord build for me, in nearness to you, a mansion in the Garden, and save me from Pharaoh and his doings and save me from those who do wrong.' And Mary the daughter of Imran who guarded her chastity and We breathed into her body of Our spirit; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of His revelations and was one of the devout" (66:11-13).

4. SHAMEFUL DAUGHTERS ?

In fact, the difference between the Biblical and the Quranic attitude towards the female sex starts as soon as a female is born. For example, the Bible states that the period of the mother's ritual impurity is twice as long if a girl is born than if a boy is (Lev. 12:2-5). The Catholic Bible states explicitly that:

"The birth of a daughter is a loss" (Ecclesiasticus 22:3).

In contrast to this shocking statement, boys receive special praise:

"A man who educates his son will be the envy of his enemy." (Ecclesiasticus 30:3)

Jewish Rabbis made it an obligation on Jewish men to produce offspring in order to propagate the race. At the same time, they did not hide their clear preference for male children : "It is well for those whose children are male but ill for those whose are female", "At the birth of a boy, all are joyful...at the birth of a girl all are sorrowful", and "When a boy comes into the world, peace comes into the world... When a girl comes, nothing comes."7

A daughter is considered a painful burden, a potential source of shame to her father:

"Your daughter is headstrong? Keep a sharp look-out that she does not make you the laughing stock of your enemies, the talk of the town, the object of common gossip, and put you to public shame" (Ecclesiasticus 42:11).

"Keep a headstrong daughter under firm control, or she will abuse any indulgence she receives. Keep a strict watch on her shameless eye, do not be surprised if she disgraces you" (Ecclesiasticus 26:10-11).

It was this very same idea of treating daughters as sources of shame that led the pagan Arabs, before the advent of Islam, to practice female infanticide. The Quran severely condemned this heinous practice:

"When news is brought to one of them of the birth of a female child, his face darkens and he is filled with inward grief. With shame does he hide himself from his people because of the bad news he has had! Shall he retain her on contempt or bury her in the dust? Ah! what an evil they decide on?" (16:59).

It has to be mentioned that this sinister crime would have never stopped in Arabia were it not for the power of the scathing terms the Quran used to condemn this practice (16:59, 43:17, 81:8-9). The Quran, moreover, makes no distinction between boys and girls. In contrast to the Bible, the Quran considers the birth of a female as a gift and a blessing from God, the same as the birth of a male. The Quran even mentions the gift of the female birth first:

" To Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. He creates what He wills. He bestows female children to whomever He wills and bestows male children to whomever He wills" (42:49).

In order to wipe out all the traces of female infanticide in the nascent Muslim society, Prophet Muhammad promised those who were blessed with daughters of a great reward if they would bring them up kindly:

"He who is involved in bringing up daughters, and accords benevolent treatment towards them, they will be protection for him against Hell-Fire" (Bukhari and Muslim).

"Whoever maintains two girls till they attain maturity, he and I will come on the Resurrection Day like this; and he joined his fingers" (Muslim).

5. FEMALE EDUCATION ?

The difference between the Biblical and the Quranic conceptions of women is not limited to the newly born female, it extends far beyond that. Let us compare their attitudes towards a female trying to learn her religion. The heart of Judaism is the Torah, the law. However, according to the Talmud, "women are exempt from the study of the Torah." Some Jewish Rabbis firmly declared "Let the words of Torah rather be destroyed by fire than imparted to women", and "Whoever teaches his daughter Torah is as though he taught her obscenity"8

The attitude of St. Paul in the New Testament is not brighter:

"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

How can a woman learn if she is not allowed to speak? How can a woman grow intellectually if she is obliged to be in a state of full submission? How can she broaden her horizons if her one and only source of information is her husband at home?

Now, to be fair, we should ask: is the Quranic position any different? One short story narrated in the Quran sums its position up concisely. Khawlah was a Muslim woman whose husband Aws pronounced this statement at a moment of anger: "You are to me as the back of my mother." This was held by pagan Arabs to be a statement of divorce which freed the husband from any conjugal responsibility but did not leave the wife free to leave the husband's home or to marry another man. Having heard these words from her husband, Khawlah was in a miserable situation. She went straight to the Prophet of Islam to plead her case. The Prophet was of the opinion that she should be patient since there seemed to be no way out. Khawla kept arguing with the Prophet in an attempt to save her suspended marriage. Shortly, the Quran intervened; Khawla's plea was accepted. The divine verdict abolished this iniquitous custom. One full chapter (Chapter 58) of the Quran whose title is "Almujadilah" or "The woman who is arguing" was named after this incident:

"Allah has heard and accepted the statement of the woman who pleads with you (the Prophet) concerning her husband and carries her complaint to Allah, and Allah hears the arguments between both of you for Allah hears and sees all things...." (58:1).

A woman in the Quranic conception has the right to argue even with the Prophet of Islam himself. No one has the right to instruct her to be silent. She is under no obligation to consider her husband the one and only reference in matters of law and religion.

6. UNCLEAN IMPURE WOMAN ?

Jewish laws and regulations concerning menstruating women are extremely restrictive. The Old Testament considers any menstruating woman as unclean and impure. Moreover, her impurity "infects" others as well. Anyone or anything she touches becomes unclean for a day:

"When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening" (Lev. 15:19-23).

Due to her "contaminating" nature, a menstruating woman was sometimes "banished" in order to avoid any possibility of any contact with her. She was sent to a special house called "the house of uncleanness" for the whole period of her impurity. 9 The Talmud considers a menstruating woman "fatal" even without any physical contact:

"Our Rabbis taught:....if a menstruant woman passes between two (men), if it is at the beginning of her menses she will slay one of them, and if it is at the end of her menses she will cause strife between them" (bPes. 111a.)

Furthermore, the husband of a menstruous woman was forbidden to enter the synagogue if he had been made unclean by her even by the dust under her feet. A priest whose wife, daughter, or mother was menstruating could not recite priestly blessing in the synagogue. 10 No wonder many Jewish women still refer to menstruation as "the curse." 11

Islam does not consider a menstruating woman to possess any kind of "contagious uncleanness". She is neither "untouchable" nor "cursed." She practises her normal life with only one restriction: A married couple are not allowed to have sexual intercourse during the period of menstruation. Any other physical contact between them is permissible. A menstruating woman is exempted from some rituals such as daily prayers and fasting during her period.

7. BEARING WITNESS

Another issue in which the Quran and the Bible disagree is the issue of women bearing witness. It is true that the Quran has instructed the believers dealing in financial transactions to get two male witnesses or one male and two females (2:282). However, it is also true that the Quran in other situations accepts the testimony of a woman as equal to that of a man. In fact the woman's testimony can even invalidate the man's. If a man accuses his wife of unchastity, he is required by the Quran to solemnly swear five times as evidence of the wife's guilt. If the wife denies and swears similarly five times, she is not considered guilty and in either case the marriage is dissolved (24:6-11).

On the other hand, women were not allowed to bear witness in early Jewish society. 12 The Rabbis counted women's not being able to bear witness among the nine curses inflicted upon all women because of the Fall (see the "Eve's Legacy" section). Women in today's Israel are not allowed to give evidence in Rabbinical courts. 13 The Rabbis justify why women cannot bear witness by citing Genesis 18:9-16, where it is stated that Sara, Abraham's wife had lied. The Rabbis use this incident as evidence that women are unqualified to bear witness. It should be noted here that this story narrated in Genesis 18:9-16 has been mentioned more than once in the Quran without any hint of any lies by Sara (11:69-74, 51:24-30). In the Christian West, both ecclesiastical and civil law debarred women from giving testimony until late last century. 14

If a man accuses his wife of unchastity, her testimony will not be considered at all according to the Bible. The accused wife has to be subjected to a trial by ordeal. In this trial, the wife faces a complex and humiliating ritual which was supposed to prove her guilt or innocence (Num. 5:11-31). If she is found guilty after this ordeal, she will be sentenced to death. If she is found not guilty, her husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing.

Besides, if a man takes a woman as a wife and then accuses her of not being a virgin, her own testimony will not count. Her parents had to bring evidence of her virginity before the elders of the town. If the parents could not prove the innocence of their daughter, she would be stoned to death on her father's doorsteps. If the parents were able to prove her innocence, the husband would only be fined one hundred shekels of silver and he could not divorce his wife as long as he lived:

"If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, 'I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,' then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. The girl's father will say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said I did not find your daughter to be a virgin. But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity.' Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of the town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you." (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)

8. ADULTERY

Adultery is considered a sin in all religions. The Bible decrees the death sentence for both the adulterer and the adulteress (Lev. 20:10). Islam also equally punishes both the adulterer and the adulteress (24:2). However, the Quranic definition of adultery is very different from the Biblical definition. Adultery, according to the Quran, is the involvement of a married man or a married woman in an extramarital affair. The Bible only considers the extramarital affair of a married woman as adultery (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22, Proverbs 6:20-7:27).

"If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel" (Deut. 22:22).

"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death" (Lev. 20:10).

According to the Biblical definition, if a married man sleeps with an unmarried woman, this is not considered a crime at all. The married man who has extramarital affairs with unmarried women is not an adulterer and the unmarried women involved with him are not adulteresses. The crime of adultery is committed only when a man, whether married or single, sleeps with a married woman. In this case the man is considered adulterer, even if he is not married, and the woman is considered adulteress. In short, adultery is any illicit sexual intercourse involving a married woman. The extramarital affair of a married man is not per se a crime in the Bible. Why is the dual moral standard? According to Encyclopaedia Judaica, the wife was considered to be the husband's possession and adultery constituted a violation of the husband's exclusive right to her; the wife as the husband's possession had no such right to him. 15 That is, if a man had sexual intercourse with a married woman, he would be violating the property of another man and, thus, he should be punished.

To the present day in Israel, if a married man indulges in an extramarital affair with an unmarried woman, his children by that woman are considered legitimate. But, if a married woman has an affair with another man, whether married or not married, her children by that man are not only illegitimate but they are considered bastards and are forbidden to marry any other Jews except converts and other bastards. This ban is handed down to the children's descendants for 10 generations until the taint of adultery is presumably weakened. 16

The Quran, on the other hand, never considers any woman to be the possession of any man. The Quran eloquently describes the relationship between the spouses by saying:

" And among His signs is that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that you may dwell in tranquillity with them and He has put love and mercy between your hearts: verily in that are signs for those who reflect" (30:21).

This is the Quranic conception of marriage: love, mercy, and tranquillity, not possession and double standards.

9. VOWS

According to the Bible, a man must fulfil any vows he might make to God. He must not break his word. On the other hand, a woman's vow is not necessarily binding on her. It has to be approved by her father, if she is living in his house, or by her husband, if she is married. If a father/husband does not endorse his daughter's/wife's vows, all pledges made by her become null and void:

"But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand ....Her husband may confirm or nullify any vow she makes or any sworn pledge to deny herself" (Num. 30:2-15)

Why is it that a woman's word is not binding per se ? The answer is simple: because she is owned by her father, before marriage, or by her husband after marriage. The father's control over his daughter was absolute to the extent that, should he wish, he could sell her! It is indicated in the writings of the Rabbis that: "The man may sell his daughter, but the woman may not sell her daughter; the man may betroth his daughter, but the woman may not betroth her daughter." 17 The Rabbinic literature also indicates that marriage represents the transfer of control from the father to the husband: "betrothal, making a woman the sacrosanct possession--the inviolable property-- of the husband..." Obviously, if the woman is considered to be the property of someone else, she cannot make any pledges that her owner does not approve of.

It is of interest to note that this Biblical instruction concerning women's vows has had negative repercussions on Judaeo-Christian women till early in this century. A married woman in the Western world had no legal status. No act of hers was of any legal value. Her husband could repudiate any contract, bargain, or deal she had made. Women in the West (the largest heir of the Judaeo-Christian legacy) were held unable to make a binding contract because they were practically owned by someone else. Western women had suffered for almost two thousand years because of the Biblical attitude towards women's position vis-à-vis their fathers and husbands. 18

In Islam, the vow of every Muslim, male or female, is binding on him/her. No one has the power to repudiate the pledges of anyone else. Failure to keep a solemn oath, made by a man or a woman, has to be expiated as indicated in the Quran:

"He [God] will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; Or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths you have sworn. But keep your oaths" (5:89).

Companions of the Prophet Muhammad, men and women, used to present their oath of allegiance to him personally. Women, as well as men, would independently come to him and pledge their oaths:

"O Prophet, When believing women come to you to make a covenant with you that they will not associate in worship anything with God, nor steal, nor fornicate, nor kill their own children, nor slander anyone, nor disobey you in any just matter, then make a covenant with them and pray to God for the forgiveness of their sins. Indeed God is Forgiving and most Merciful" (60:12).

A man could not swear the oath on behalf of his daughter or his wife. Nor could a man repudiate the oath made by any of his female relatives.

10. WIFE'S PROPERTY ?

The three religions share an unshakeable belief in the importance of marriage and family life. They also agree on the leadership of the husband over the family. Nevertheless, blatant differences do exist among the three religions with respect to the limits of this leadership. The Judaeo-Christian tradition, unlike Islam, virtually extends the leadership of the husband into ownership of his wife.

The Jewish tradition regarding the husband's role towards his wife stems from the conception that he owns her as he owns his slave. 19 This conception has been the reason behind the double standard in the laws of adultery and behind the husband's ability to annul his wife's vows. This conception has also been responsible for denying the wife any control over her property or her earnings. As soon as a Jewish woman got married, she completely lost any control over her property and earnings to her husband. Jewish Rabbis asserted the husband's right to his wife's property as a corollary of his possession of her: "Since one has come into the possession of the woman does it not follow that he should come into the possession of her property too?", and "Since he has acquired the woman should he not acquire also her property?" 20 Thus, marriage caused the richest woman to become practically penniless. The Talmud describes the financial situation of a wife as follows:

"How can a woman have anything; whatever is hers belongs to her husband? What is his is his and what is hers is also his...... Her earnings and what she may find in the streets are also his. The household articles, even the crumbs of bread on the table, are his. Should she invite a guest to her house and feed him, she would be stealing from her husband..." (San. 71a, Git. 62a)

The fact of the matter is that the property of a Jewish female was meant to attract suitors. A Jewish family would assign their daughter a share of her father's estate to be used as a dowry in case of marriage. It was this dowry that made Jewish daughters an unwelcome burden to their fathers. The father had to raise his daughter for years and then prepare for her marriage by providing a large dowry. Thus, a girl in a Jewish family was a liability and no asset. 21 This liability explains why the birth of a daughter was not celebrated with joy in the old Jewish society (see the "Shameful Daughters?" section). The dowry was the wedding gift presented to the groom under terms of tenancy. The husband would act as the practical owner of the dowry but he could not sell it. The bride would lose any control over the dowry at the moment of marriage. Moreover, she was expected to work after marriage and all her earnings had to go to her husband in return for her maintenance which was his obligation. She could regain her property only in two cases: divorce or her husband's death. Should she die first, he would inherit her property. In the case of the husband's death, the wife could regain her pre-marital property but she was not entitled to inherit any share in her deceased husband's own property. It has to be added that the groom also had to present a marriage gift to his bride, yet again he was the practical owner of this gift as long as they were married. 22

Christianity, until recently, has followed the same Jewish tradition. Both religious and civil authorities in the Christian Roman Empire (after Constantine) required a property agreement as a condition for recognizing the marriage. Families offered their daughters increasing dowries and, as a result, men tended to marry earlier while families postponed their daughters' marriages until later than had been customary. 23 Under Canon law, a wife was entitled to restitution of her dowry if the marriage was annulled unless she was guilty of adultery. In this case, she forfeited her right to the dowry which remained in her husband's hands. 24 Under Canon and civil law a married woman in Christian Europe and America had lost her property rights until late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. For example, women's rights under English law were compiled and published in 1632. These 'rights' included: "That which the husband hath is his own. That which the wife hath is the husband's." 25 The wife not only lost her property upon marriage, she lost her personality as well. No act of her was of legal value. Her husband could repudiate any sale or gift made by her as being of no binding legal value. The person with whom she had any contract was held as a criminal for participating in a fraud. Moreover, she could not sue or be sued in her own name, nor could she sue her own husband. 26 A married woman was practically treated as an infant in the eyes of the law. The wife simply belonged to her husband and therefore she lost her property, her legal personality, and her family name. 27

Islam, since the seventh century C.E., has granted married women the independent personality which the Judaeo-Christian West had deprived them until very recently. In Islam, the bride and her family are under no obligation whatsoever to present a gift to the groom. The girl in a Muslim family is no liability. A woman is so dignified by Islam that she does not need to present gifts in order to attract potential husbands. It is the groom who must present the bride with a marriage gift. This gift is considered her property and neither the groom nor the bride's family have any share in or control over it. In some Muslim societies today, a marriage gift of a hundred thousand dollars in diamonds is not unusual. 28 The bride retains her marriage gifts even if she is later divorced. The husband is not allowed any share in his wife's property except what she offers him with her free consent. 29 The Quran has stated its position on this issue quite clearly:

"And give the women (on marriage) their dower as a free gift; but if they, Of their own good pleasure, remit any part of it to you, take it and enjoy it with right good cheer" (4:4)

The wife's property and earnings are under her full control and for her use alone since her, and the children's, maintenance is her husband's responsibility. 30 No matter how rich the wife might be, she is not obliged to act as a co-provider for the family unless she herself voluntarily chooses to do so. Spouses do inherit from one another. Moreover, a married woman in Islam retains her independent legal personality and her family name. 31 An American judge once commented on the rights of Muslim women saying: " A Muslim girl may marry ten times, but her individuality is not absorbed by that of her various husbands. She is a solar planet with a name and legal personality of her own." 32

11. DIVORCE

The three religions have remarkable differences in their attitudes towards divorce. Christianity abhors divorce altogether. The New Testament unequivocally advocates the indissolubility of marriage. It is attributed to Jesus to have said, "But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery" (Matthew 5:32). This uncompromising ideal is, without a doubt, unrealistic. It assumes a state of moral perfection that human societies have never achieved. When a couple realizes that their married life is beyond repair, a ban on divorce will not do them any good. Forcing ill-mated couples to remain together against their wills is neither effective nor reasonable. No wonder the whole Christian world has been obliged to sanction divorce.

Judaism, on the other hand, allows divorce even without any cause. The Old Testament gives the husband the right to divorce his wife even if he just dislikes her:

"If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled" (Deut. 24:1-4).

The above verses have caused some considerable debate among Jewish scholars because of their disagreement over the interpretation of the words "displeasing", "indecency", and "dislikes" mentioned in the verses. The Talmud records their different opinions:

"The school of Shammai held that a man should not divorce his wife unless he has found her guilty of some sexual misconduct, while the school of Hillel say he may divorce her even if she has merely spoiled a dish for him. Rabbi Akiba says he may divorce her even if he simply finds another woman more beautiful than she" (Gittin 90a-b).

The New Testament follows the Shammaites opinion while Jewish law has followed the opinion of the Hillelites and R. Akiba. 33 Since the Hillelites view prevailed, it became the unbroken tradition of Jewish law to give the husband freedom to divorce his wife without any cause at all. The Old Testament not only gives the husband the right to divorce his "displeasing" wife, it considers divorcing a "bad wife" an obligation:

"A bad wife brings humiliation, downcast looks, and a wounded heart. Slack of hand and weak of knee is the man whose wife fails to make him happy. Woman is the origin of sin, and it is through her that we all die. Do not leave a leaky cistern to drip or allow a bad wife to say what she likes. If she does not accept your control, divorce her and send her away" (Ecclesiasticus 25:25).

The Talmud has recorded several specific actions by wives which obliged their husbands to divorce them: "If she ate in the street, if she drank greedily in the street, if she suckled in the street, in every case Rabbi Meir says that she must leave her husband" (Git. 89a). The Talmud has also made it mandatory to divorce a barren wife (who bore no children in a period of ten years): "Our Rabbis taught: If a man took a wife and lived with her for ten years and she bore no child, he shall divorce her" (Yeb. 64a).

Wives, on the other hand, cannot initiate divorce under Jewish law. A Jewish wife, however, could claim the right to a divorce before a Jewish court provided that a strong reason exists. Very few grounds are provided for the wife to make a claim for a divorce. These grounds include: A husband with physical defects or skin disease, a husband not fulfilling his conjugal responsibilities, etc. The Court might support the wife's claim to a divorce but it cannot dissolve the marriage. Only the husband can dissolve the marriage by giving his wife a bill of divorce. The Court could scourge, fine, imprison, and excommunicate him to force him to deliver the necessary bill of divorce to his wife. However, if the husband is stubborn enough, he can refuse to grant his wife a divorce and keep her tied to him indefinitely. Worse still, he can desert her without granting her a divorce and leave her unmarried and undivorced. He can marry another woman or even live with any single woman out of wedlock and have children from her (these children are considered legitimate under Jewish law). The deserted wife, on the other hand, cannot marry any other man since she is still legally married and she cannot live with any other man because she will be considered an adulteress and her children from this union will be illegitimate for ten generations. A woman in such a position is called an agunah (chained woman). 34 In the United States today there are approximately 1000 to 1500 Jewish women who are agunot (plural for agunah), while in Israel their number might be as high as 16000. Husbands may extort thousands of dollars from their trapped wives in exchange for a Jewish divorce. 35

Islam occupies the middle ground between Christianity and Judaism with respect to divorce. Marriage in Islam is a sanctified bond that should not be broken except for compelling reasons. Couples are instructed to pursue all possible remedies whenever their marriages are in danger. Divorce is not to be resorted to except when there is no other way out. In a nutshell, Islam recognizes divorce, yet it discourages it by all means. Let us focus on the recognition side first. Islam does recognize the right of both partners to end their matrimonial relationship. Islam gives the husband the right for Talaq (divorce). Moreover, Islam, unlike Judaism, grants the wife the right to dissolve the marriage through what is known as Khula'. 36 If the husband dissolves the marriage by divorcing his wife, he cannot retrieve any of the marriage gifts he has given her. The Quran explicitly prohibits the divorcing husbands from taking back their marriage gifts no matter how expensive or valuable these gifts might be:

"But if you decide to take one wife in place of another, even if you had given the latter a whole treasure for dower, take not the least bit of it back; Would you take it by slander and a manifest wrong?" (4:20).

In the case of the wife choosing to end the marriage, she may return the marriage gifts to her husband. Returning the marriage gifts in this case is a fair compensation for the husband who is keen to keep his wife while she chooses to leave him. The Quran has instructed Muslim men not to take back any of the gifts they have given to their wives except in the case of the wife choosing to dissolve the marriage:

"It is not lawful for you (Men) to take back any of your gifts except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah. There is no blame on either of them if she give something for her freedom. These are the limits ordained by Allah so do not transgress them" (2:229).

Also, a woman came to the Prophet Muhammad seeking the dissolution of her marriage, she told the Prophet that she did not have any complaints against her husband's character or manners. Her only problem was that she honestly did not like him to the extent of not being able to live with him any longer. The Prophet asked her: "Would you give him his garden (the marriage gift he had given her) back?" she said: "Yes". The Prophet then instructed the man to take back his garden and accept the dissolution of the marriage (Bukhari).

In some cases, A Muslim wife might be willing to keep her marriage but find herself obliged to claim for a divorce because of some compelling reasons such as: Cruelty of the husband, desertion without a reason, a husband not fulfilling his conjugal responsibilities, etc. In these cases the Muslim court dissolves the marriage. 37

In short, Islam has offered the Muslim woman some unequalled rights: she can end the marriage through Khula' and she can sue for a divorce. A Muslim wife can never become chained by a recalcitrant husband. It was these rights that enticed Jewish women who lived in the early Islamic societies of the seventh century C.E. to seek to obtain bills of divorce from their Jewish husbands in Muslim courts. The Rabbis declared these bills null and void. In order to end this practice, the Rabbis gave new rights and privileges to Jewish women in an attempt to weaken the appeal of the Muslim courts. Jewish women living in Christian countries were not offered any similar privileges since the Roman law of divorce practiced there was no more attractive than the Jewish law. 38

Let us now focus our attention on how Islam discourages divorce. The Prophet of Islam told the believers that:

"among all the permitted acts, divorce is the most hateful to God" (Abu Dawood).

A Muslim man should not divorce his wife just because he dislikes her. The Quran instructs Muslim men to be kind to their wives even in cases of lukewarm emotions or feelings of dislike:

"Live with them (your wives) on a footing of kindness and equity. If you dislike them it may be that you dislike something in which Allah has placed a great deal of good" (4:19).

Prophet Muhammad gave a similar instruction:

" A believing man must not hate a believing woman. If he dislikes one of her traits he will be pleased with another" (Muslim).

The Prophet has also emphasized that the best Muslims are those who are best to their wives:

"The believers who show the most perfect faith are those who have the best character and the best of you are those who are best to their wives" (Tirmidthi).

However, Islam is a practical religion and it does recognize that there are circumstances in which a marriage becomes on the verge of collapsing. In such cases, a mere advice of kindness or self restraint is no viable solution. So, what to do in order to save a marriage in these cases? The Quran offers some practical advice for the spouse (husband or wife) whose partner (wife or husband) is the wrongdoer. For the husband whose wife's ill-conduct is threatening the marriage, the Quran gives four types of advice as detailed in the following verses:

"As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, (1) Admonish them, (2) refuse to share their beds, (3) beat them; but if they return to obedience seek not against them means of annoyance: For Allah is Most High, Great. (4) If you fear a break between them, appoint two arbiters, one from his family and the other from hers; If they wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation" (4:34-35).

The first three are to be tried first. If they fail, then the help of the families concerned should be sought. It has to be noted, in the light of the above verses, that beating the rebellious wife is a temporary measure that is resorted to as third in line in cases of extreme necessity in hopes that it might remedy the wrongdoing of the wife. If it does, the husband is not allowed by any means to continue any annoyance to the wife as explicitly mentioned in the verse. If it does not, the husband is still not allowed to use this measure any longer and the final avenue of the family-assisted reconciliation has to be explored.

Prophet Muhammad has instructed Muslim husbands that they should not have recourse to these measures except in extreme cases such as open lewdness committed by the wife. Even in these cases the punishment should be slight and if the wife desists, the husband is not permitted to irritate her:

"In case they are guilty of open lewdness you may leave them alone in their beds and inflict slight punishment. If they are obedient to you, do not seek against them any means of annoyance" (Tirmidthi)

Furthermore, the Prophet of Islam has condemned any unjustifiable beating. Some Muslim wives complained to him that their husbands had beaten them. Hearing that, the Prophet categorically stated that:

"Those who do so (beat their wives) are not the best among you" (Abu Dawood).

It has to be remembered at this point that the Prophet has also said:

"The best of you is he who is best to his family, and I am the best among you to my family" (Tirmidthi).

The Prophet advised one Muslim woman, whose name was Fatimah bint Qais, not to marry a man because the man was known for beating women:

"I went to the Prophet and said: Abul Jahm and Mu'awiah have proposed to marry me. The Prophet (by way of advice) said: As to Mu'awiah he is very poor and Abul Jahm is accustomed to beating women" (Muslim).

It has to be noted that the Talmud sanctions wife beating as chastisement for the purpose of discipline. 39 The husband is not restricted to the extreme cases such as those of open lewdness. He is allowed to beat his wife even if she just refuses to do her house work. Moreover, he is not limited only to the use of light punishment. He is permitted to break his wife's stubbornness by the lash or by starving her. 40

For the wife whose husband's ill-conduct is the cause for the marriage's near collapse, the Quran offers the following advice:

"If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best" (4:128).

In this case, the wife is advised to seek reconciliation with her husband (with or without family assistance). It is notable that the Quran is not advising the wife to resort to the two measures of abstention from sex and beating. The reason for this disparity might be to protect the wife from a violent physical reaction by her already misbehaving husband. Such a violent physical reaction will do both the wife and the marriage more harm than good. Some Muslim scholars have suggested that the court can apply these measures against the husband on the wife's behalf. That is, the court first admonishes the rebellious husband, then forbids him his wife's bed, and finally executes a symbolic beating. 41

To sum up, Islam offers Muslim married couples much viable advice to save their marriages in cases of trouble and tension. If one of the partners is jeopardizing the matrimonial relationship, the other partner is advised by the Quran to do whatever possible and effective in order to save this sacred bond. If all the measures fail, Islam allows the partners to separate peacefully and amicably.

OH MY GOD THE JUDEO CHRISTIAN TRADITION VS ISLAM !!!!!!!!!!

Zathras,

I agree with the gist of your post. I'll just comment on one statement there.

"Don’t worry about quotes from anywhere just look at them and their pernicious behaviour which they always feel a need to justify without actually looking at what they are doing. It is the same “razzia” ethos of loot , slaves and violence which funded the first jihad (that of 632 on) and which is funding this new one."

First, about the quotes, myself and others at this site have said many times that a Muslim does not even have to have read the Koran, to pick up the general policies of "us versus them" hatred (including self-identification with the in-group), demonization of disbelievers, misogyny, and so on. They can learn all of this by the time they are 6 years old simply from the culture, particularly in countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.

Second, cultures evolve, unless there is something holding them back. It is rigid adherence to the policies of the Koran that is holding back cultural evolution in the societies we call Islamic. Three key elements that have prevented these cultures from developing into something freer for their peoples are (1) the harsh penalties against hypocrites and apostates of Islam, (2) the harsh penalties against open criticism of Islam, and (3) the restrictions on women's rights and freedoms. The logical consequence, I expect, of the removal of these penalties and restrictions is that the Koran will be largely repudiated and rejected. The Islamic governments, as well as local cultures, will not allow this to happen. But people have to take it upon themselves to make this happen; that is, make sure at least restrictions (1), (2), and (3), for starters, are removed. Muslims have a moral responsibility to expose and repudiate the Koran, but so do non-Muslims. Non-Muslims have this responsibility because, for one thing, if we don't demolish the Koran now under conditions of relatively free expression, the non-Muslims who are now being born are going to be living under its rule.

Third, critics will say what they will about Islam, but Muslims will deny or twist all of it. It's the 'religion of peace,' the terrorists are distorting it, etc. We've seen these tactics time and time again. It is necessary to present quotes from the Islamic sources, understood as Muslims scholars understand them, in order to show that what we say about Islam is true. Islamic apologists are very slippery. Some of them are exceptionally smooth when they talk to the media. They sound convincing and authoritative to those non-Muslims who've never read the Koran. They seemed convincing to me, before I'd read the Koran. And in debates, they will pull every trick in the book. Even Ispanan here, who apparently has not read the Koran, tries to imply there is some contextual interpretation that excuses the wife-beating verse! This is why it is important to quote the Islamic texts. Non-Muslims are convinced by evidence, not by authority, not by expressions of opinion, but by presentation of the evidence. It is the non-Muslims in the majority in our societies that need to be educated. Moderate Muslims have been of very little help so far. Indeed, they have 1400 years to tame Islam, and overall they have failed thus far. We need to focus on the majority of non-Muslims, and this will influence government policies with regard to containing, removing, or diffusing/dismantling its threat. This majority of non-Muslim opinion will put social pressure on the moderate Muslims to get moving on reform, rejection of sharia, terrorism, etc.

EXPERIENCES OF A RECENTLY CONVERTED HINDU WOMAN

by Sister Noor

This article was written by the author a few years ago, when she was in her second year at the University of Essex

I came from a purely Hindu family where we were always taught to regard ourselves (i.e. women) as beings who were eventually to be married off and have children and serve the husband-- whether he was kind or not. Other than this I found that there were a lot of things which really oppressed women, such as:

·If a woman was widowed, she would always have to wear a white sari (costume), eat vegetarian meals, cut her hair short, and never re-marry.
·The bride always had to pay the dowry (bridal money) to the husband's family.
·And the husband could ask for anything, irrespective of whether the bride would have difficulty giving it.

Not only that, if after marriage she was not able to pay the full dowry she would be both emotionally and physically tortured, and could end up being a victim of "kitchen death" where the husband, or both the mother-in-law and the husband try to set fire to the wife while she is cooking or is in the kitchen, and try to make it look like an accidental death. More and more of these instances are taking place. The daughter of a friend of my own father's had the same fate last year!

In addition to all this, men in Hinduism are treated literally as among the gods. In one of the religious Hindu celebration, unmarried girls pray for and worship an idol representing a particular god (Shira) so that they may have husbands like him. Even my own mother had asked me to do this. This made me see that the Hindu religion which is based on superstitions and things that have no manifest proof [1], but were merely traditions which oppressed women could not be right.

Subsequently, when I came to England to study, I thought that at least this is a country which gives equal rights to men and women, and does not oppress them. We all have the freedom to do as we like, I thought. Well, as I started to meet people and make new friends, learn about this new society, and go to all the places my friends went to in order to "socialise" (bars, dance halls, ...etc.), I realised that this "equality" was not so true in practice as it was in theory.

Outwardly, women were seen to be given equal rights in education, work, and so forth, but in reality women were still oppressed in a different, more subtle way. When I went with my friends to those places they hung out at, I found everybody interested to talk to me and I thought that was normal. But it was only later that I realised how naive I was, and recognised what these people were really looking for. I soon began to feel uncomfortable, as if I was not myself: I had to dress in a certain way so that people would like me, and had to talk in a certain way to please them. I soon found that I was feeling more and more uncomfortable, less and less myself, yet I could not get out. Everybody was saying they were enjoying themselves, but I don't call this enjoying.

I think women in this way of life are oppressed; they have to dress in a certain way in order to please and appear more appealing, and also talk in a certain way so people like them. During this time I had not thought about Islaam, even though I had some Muslim acquaintances. But I felt I really had to do something, to find something that I would be happy and secure with, and would feel respected with. Something to believe in that is the right belief, because everybody has a belief that they live according to. If having fun by getting off with other people is someone's belief, they do this. If making money is someone's belief, they do everything to achieve this. If they believe drinking is one way to enjoy life then they do it. But I feel all this leads to nowhere; no one is truly satisfied, and the respect women are looking for is diminishing in this way.

In these days of so called "society of equal rights", you are expected to have a boyfriend (or you're weird!) and to not be a virgin. So this is a form of oppression even though some women do not realise it. [2]When I came to Islaam, it was obvious that I had finally found permanent security. A religion, a belief that was so complete and clear in every aspect of life. Many people have a misconception that Islaam is an oppressive religion, where women are covered from head to toe, and are not allowed any freedom or rights. In fact, women in Islaam are given more rights, and have been for the past 1400 years, compared to the only-recently rights given to non-Muslim women in some western and some other societies. But there are, even now, societies where women are still oppressed, as I mentioned earlier in relation to Hindu women.

Muslim women have the right to inheritance. They have the right to run their own trade and business. They have the full right to ownership, property, disposal over their wealth to which the husband has no right. They have the right to education, a right to refuse marriage as long as this refusal is according to reasonable and justifiable grounds. The Qur'ân itself, which is the word of Allaah, contains many verses commanding men to be kind to their wives and stressing the rights of women. Islaam gives the right set of rules, because they are NOT made by men, but made by Allaah; hence it is a perfect religion.

Quite often Muslim women are asked why they are covered from head to toe, and are told that this is oppression--it is not. In Islaam, marriage is an important part of life, the making of the society. Therefore, a woman should not go around showing herself to everybody, only for her husband. Even the man is not allowed to show certain parts of his body to none but his wife. In addition, Allaah has commanded Muslim women to cover themselves for their modesty: "O prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) over their bodies (when outdoors). That is most convenient that they could be known as such (i.e. decent and chaste) and not molested." (Qur'ân 33:59)

If we look around at any other society, we find that in the majority of cases women are attacked and molested because of how they are dressed. Another point I'd like to comment on is that the rules and regulation laid down in Islaam by Allaah (God) do not apply just to women but to men also. There is no intermingling and free-running between men and women for the benefit of both. Whatever Allaah commands is right, wholesome, pure and beneficial to mankind; there is no doubt about that. A verse in the Qur'ân explains this concept clearly: "Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and protect their private parts (i.e. from indecency, illegal sexual acts); that will make for greater purity for them. And Allaah is well aware of what they do. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and protect their private parts (from indecency, illegal sexual intercourse); and that they should not display their beauty and ornaments...." (Qur'ân, Surah "Al-Nur" 24:31)

When I put on my hijaab (veil), I was really happy to do it. In fact, I really want to do it. When I put on the hijaab, I felt a great sense of satisfaction and happiness. Satisfied that I had obeyed Allaah’s command. And happy with the good and blessings that come with it. I have felt secure and protected. In fact people respect me more for it. I could really see the difference in behaviour towards me.

Finally, I'd like to say that I had accepted Islaam not blindly, or under any compulsion. In the Qur'ân itself there is a verse which says "there is no compulsion in religion"[3]. I accepted Islaam with conviction. I have seen, been there, done that, and seen both sides of the story. I know and have experienced what the other side is like, and I know that I have done the right thing. Islaam does not oppress women, but rather Islaam liberates them and gives them the respect they deserve. Islaam is the religion Allaah has chosen for the whole of mankind. Those who accept it are truly liberated from the chains and shackles of mankind whose ruling and legislating necessitates nothing but the oppression of one group by another and the exploitation and oppression of one sex by the other. This is not the case of Islaam which truly liberated women and gave them an individuality not given by any other authority.

Sister Noor has been a muslim for over a year and a half and is currently in her second year of undergraduate study in the Department of Biology.

WHAT, A HINDU WOMAN CONVERT TO ISLAM BUT COULD IT JUST BE A RARITY ???????

A Woman on a Mission

Sidra Khan reports on Aisha Bhutta's bid to convert the world to Islam
The Guardian, Thursday 8th May 1997

Aisha Bhutta, nee Debbie Rogers, is serene. She sits on the sofa in big front room of her tenement flat in Cowcaddens, Glasgow. The walls are hung with quotations from the Koran, a special clock to remind the family of prayer times and posters of the Holy City of Mecca. Aisha's piercing blue eyes sparkle with evangelical zeal, she smiles with a radiance only true believers possess. Her face is that of a strong Scots lass - no nonsense, good-humoured - but it is carefully covered with a hijab.

For a good Christian girl to convert to Islam and marry a Muslim is extraordinary enough. But more than that, she has also converted her parents, most of the rest of her family and at least 30 friends and neighbours.

Her family were austere Christians with whom Rogers regularly attended Salvation Army meetings. When all the other teenagers in Britain were kissing their George Michael posters goodnight, Rogers had pictures of Jesus up on her wall. And yet she found that Christianity was not enough; there were too many unanswered questions and she felt dissatisfied with the lack of disciplined structure for her beliefs. "There had to be more for me to obey than just doing prayers when I felt like it."

For a good Christian girl to convert to Islam and marry a Muslim is extraordinary enough. But more than that, she has also converted her parents, most of the rest of her family and at least 30 friends and neighbours.

Aisha had first seen her future husband, Mohammad Bhutta, when she was 10 and regular customer at the shop, run by his family. She would see him in the back, praying. "There was contentment and peace in what he was doing. He said he was a Muslim. I said: "What's a Muslim?".

Later with his help she began looking deeper into Islam. By the age of 17, she had read the entire Koran in Arabic. "Everything I read", she says, "was making sense."

She made the decision to convert at16. "When I said the words, it was like a big burden I had been carrying on my shoulders had been thrown off. I felt like a new-born baby."

Despite her conversion however, Mohammed's parents were against their marrying. They saw her as a Western woman who would lead their eldest son astray and give the family a bad name; she was, Mohammed's father believed, "the biggest enemy."

Nevertheless, the couple married in the local mosque. Aisha wore a dress hand-sewn by Mohammed's mother and sisters who sneaked into the ceremony against the wishes of his father who refused to attend.

It was his elderly grandmother who paved the way for a bond between the women. She arrived from Pakistan where mixed-race marriages were even more taboo, and insisted on meeting Aisha. She was so impressed by the fact that she had learned the Koran and Punjabi that she convinced the others; slowly, Aisha, now 32, became one of the family.

Aisha's parents, Michael and Marjory Rogers, though did attend the wedding, were more concerned with the clothes their daughter was now wearing (the traditional shalwaar kameez) and what the neighbours would think. Six years later, Aisha embarked on a mission to convert them and the rest of her family, bar her sister ("I'm still working on her). "My husband and I worked on my mum and dad, telling them about Islam and they saw the changes in me, like I stopped answering back!"

Her mother soon followed in her footsteps. Marjory Rogers changed her name to Sumayyah and became a devout Muslim. "She wore the hijab and did her prayers on time and nothing ever mattered to her except her connections with God."

Aisha's father provd a more difficult recruit, so she enlisted the help of her newly converted mother (who has since died of cancer). "My mum and I used to talk to my father about Islam and we were sitting in the sofa in the kitchen one day and he said: "What are the words you say when you become a Muslim?" "Me and my mum just jumped on top of him." Three years later, Aisha's brother converted "over the telephone - thanks to BT", then his wife and children followed, followed by her sister's son.

It didn't stop there. Her family converted, Aisha turned her attention to Cowcaddens, with its tightly packed rows of crumbling, grey tenement flats. Every Monday for the past 13 years, Aisha has held classes in Islam for Scottish women. So far she has helped to convert over 30.

The women come from a bewildering array of backgrounds. Trudy, a lecturer at the University of Glasgow and a former Catholic, attended Aisha's classes purely because she was commissioned to carry out some research. But after six months of classes she converted, deciding that Christianity was riddled with "logical inconsistencies". Unlike Aisha, Trudy has chosen not to wear the hijab, believing it to be a masculine interpretation of the Koran. Her family don't know that she has converted.

"I could tell she was beginning to be affected by the talks", Aisha says. How could she tell? "I don't know, it was just a feeling."

The classes include Muslim girls tempted by Western ideals and needing salvation, practising Muslim women who want an open forum for discussion denied them at the local male-dominated mosque, and those simply interested in Islam. Aisha welcomes questions. "We cannot expect people blindly to believe."

Her husband, Mohammad Bhutta, now 41, does not seem so driven to convert Scottish lads to Muslim brothers. He occasionally helps out in the family restaurant, but his main aim in life is to ensure the couple's five children grow up as Muslims. The eldest, Safia, "nearly 14, alhamdulillah (Praise be to God!)", is not averse to a spot of recruiting herself. One day she met a woman in the street and carried her shopping, the woman attended Aisha's classes and is now a Muslim.

"I can honestly say I have never regretted it", Aisha says of her conversion to Islam. "Every marriage has its ups and downs and sometimes you need something to pull you out of any hardship. But the Prophet Peace by upon him, said: 'Every hardship has an ease.' So when you're going through a difficult stage, you work for that ease to come."

Mohammed is more romantic: "I feel we have known each other for centuries and must never part from one another. According to Islam, you are not just partners for life, you can be partners in heaven as well, for ever. Its a beautiful thing, you know."

OMG 30 PEOPLE IN A ROW CONVERTED IN SCOTLAND BUT COULD THAT JUST BE SOME VILLAGE IDIOTS ??????

ALLAHU AKBAR [God is Great], Allahuakbar!” called Muhammad Hannini as about 15 worshipers gathered Sunday in a mosque in the basement of a home in Richmond Hill, Queens. Instantly, they knelt and touched their heads to the floor, a gesture symbolizing submission to God in Islam.

The eight women bent in prayer a few feet behind the men were dressed in scarves and long dresses or ankle-length skirts. "You should see my humanity, my compassion, my devotion to God coming through the surface, not my body,” said Sunni Rumsey Amatullah, who became Muslim a quarter century ago.

The women say they consider the veil and modest dress symbols not of oppression but of liberation. They say the emphasis on the female body in the Western world, with all its manifestations in popular culture, has led to the sexual objectification of women. And, despite their own often problematic relationships with men, they say their religion treats each gender equally, though not identically.

Like Amatullah -- who was born Cheryl Rumsey in Jamaica, Queens, and raised Episcopalian -- these women are among the estimated 20,000 Americans a year who since the mid-'90s have adopted Islam, a religion that has been receiving much attention since the Sept.11 terrorist attacks.

Despite the persistent image of the oppressed Muslim woman, about 7,000 of those converts each year are women, according to the report of a study led by Ihsan Bagby, a professor of international studies at Shaw University in Raleigh, N.C. The study was financed in part by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, based in Washington. About 14,000 of the total number of converts in 2000, the report found, were African-American, 4,000 were white and 1,200 were of Hispanic descent. (Members of the Nation of Islam were not included in the study.)

What is the religion's draw for women? "The .tightly structured way of life, the regular set of responsibilities, where you know what you believe and you know what you do, attracts some women,” said Jane I. Smith, professor of Islamic studies at Hartford Seminary in Connecticut and author of "Islam in America” (Columbia University Press).

With laws for almost every aspect of life, Islam represents a faith-based order that women may see as crucial to creating healthy families and communities, and correcting the damage done by the popular secular humanism of the past 30 or so years, several experts said. In addition, women from broken homes may be especially attracted to the religion because of the value it places on family, said Marcia Hermansen, a professor of Islamic studies at Loyola University in Chicago and an American who also converted to Islam.

Next Saturday, the women, along with Muslims around the world, will celebrate the festival of Eid ul-Adha marking the end of hajj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca. They "don't see the structures as repressive,” Hermansen said. "They see them as comforting and supportive.”

Choosing Islam can also be a type of "cultural critique” of Western materialism, she said. "Islam represents the beautiful, traditional, grounded and authentic”

"It is Allah talking to you directly,” said Amatullah, 50, the director of an HIV prevention program at Iris House, a health-care organization in Harlem. She said she converted after leading a wildly hedonistic lifestyle for several years. "It's a spiritual awakening. What happens is you're in a fog and you don't know you are in a fog, and when it clears up you say, ‘Hey, I thought it was clear back there,'” she said. "My friend's husband gave me the Quran in my early 20s, because he thought I was too wild.”

At first, Amatullah said, she paid little attention, but she was profoundly affected when she started delving into the book. Still, it took about five years and a great deal of contemplation, she said, before she became truly interested in Islam and came to believe the Quran was the divine truth. She said she also was impressed by the rights women had under Islam in seventh-century Arabia, a time when women in most other cultures had virtually no power over their lives.

"Islamic law embodies a number of Quranic reforms that significantly enhanced the status of women,” according to John Esposito, a professor and director of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University and author of "Islam: The Straight Path” (Oxford University Press). "Contrary to pre-Islamic Arab customs, the Quran recognized a woman's right to contract her own marriage.

"In addition, she, not her father or male relatives, as had been the custom, was to receive the dowry from her husband. She became a party to the contract rather than an object for sale,” Esposito wrote. "The right to keep and maintain her dowry was a source of self-esteem and wealth in an otherwise male-dominated society. Women's right to own and manage their own property was further enhanced and acknowledged by Quranic verses of inheritance which granted inheritance rights to wives, daughters, sisters and grandmothers of the deceased in a patriarchal society where all rights were traditionally vested solely in male heirs. Similar legal rights would not occur in the West until the 19th century.”

Esther Bourne, a 46-year-old accountant in Manhattan, was raised Catholic by her American mother after her British father died when she was 6. Spiritually inclined from a young age, she said she first read the Quran in her mid-20s, because her former husband, a Muslim, owned a copy. "I would go in and out of it,” she said.

By her mid-30s, after ending an abusive relationship and enduring the tragic death of a man she loved dearly, Bourne said she began a spiritual quest that included classes on Islam at a mosque on Manhattan's Upper East Side. "When the teachers would explain, my heart just accepted it,” she said. "The heart believed it.”

In 1992, at the age of 36, Bourne took her shahada, the profession of faith that is the first of the five pillars of Islam. "I don't have panic anymore, and if some misfortune happens, I just accept the decree from Allah,” Bourne said.

"You slowly adjust yourself to an Islamic way of life, thinking about God, doing good deeds,” Amatullah said. "Some days I do it better than others.”

Amina Mohammed, a 58-year-old dental assistant at the Veterans Administration hospital in St. Albans, has been a Muslim for more than 20 years. She was born Doris Gregory, the daughter of an American Indian .mother and a Jamaican father, and was raised as a .Lutheran. She said she stopped going to church when she was 16.

Two years later, she began an active spiritual quest by reading about Buddhism, Hinduism and American Indian religions, but, she said, none of them was what she was looking for -- a way to pray to one God in one form. "I was so disappointed,” she said. "I knew that there was a correct religion, but I just hadn't found it. But I believed in God -- I was no atheist.”

In her mid-30s, after two failed marriages and two daughters -- who are now 27 and 33 -- she said she felt a desperate need for spiritual direction and coincidentally was exposed for the first time to Islam. "This is what I had always felt in my heart,” she said.

For about three years she studied the religion; she began to cut down on dating and to cover her head occasionally. Then she went to a mosque in Manhattan and "saw women from different countries and from different races praying together,” she said. "I thought this is how it should be on earth.”

Amatullah, who lives in St. Albans, has been married and divorced three times since she converted to Islaam. Her first husband was from Sudan, the second was from Egypt and the third was Italian-American; all were Muslim. Allaah gives both men and women the right to divorce, she said, and she initiated each split.

Although the Qur'ân does not prohibit women from gaining an education or having a career, the converts said, it is a woman's primary responsibility to take care of her children.

"Look at the Western society of today with the breakdown of family, the mother being out of the home and the children being alone,” said Bourne, who is single and has a 28-year-old son. "I had problems because I practically had to raise my son alone.”

Their faith, the three converts said, has not been shaken by the Sept. 11 attacks, carried out by men who said they were acting as Muslims. The distortion of Islam by extremists and terrorists, the women stressed, should not lead to the condemnation of a great religion.

"To kill innocent lives,” Amatullah said, "is anti- Islamic.”

“these women are among the estimated 20,000 Americans a year who since the mid-'90s have adopted Islam”

DOESN’T LOOK LIKE SOME VILLAGE IDIOTS TO ME !!!!!!!

Status of women in Pakistan

Pakistan is the first Muslim country to elect a woman (Benazir Bhutto) as a Head of Government. Women are well represented in politics and in many upper-middle-class professions. Nevertheless, within Pakistan, there are wide diversities and divergences between provinces and territories, and between urban/metropolitan areas and remote rural localities. The complexity of these is daunting.

While Pakistani women continue to struggle for advancement, they have made strides by a number of measures. Among these are the rising numbers of women in well-paid professional occupations, increased activism by feminist groups, and a recent rapid reduction in the number of children per woman. Women in Pakistan have progressed in various fields of life such as politics, education, economy, services, health and many more. The Pakistani women of today enjoy a better status than most Islamic and Middle Eastern women.

Pakistan is the only country to have a Female Major-General in the army; Pakistan is the only Muslim country to have women fighter pilots in its Air Force/Military; Pakistan fares much better then all its neighbors, many Western European countries and the USA, when it comes to women's representation in the Parliament and local governments; a MINIMUM of 33% seats have to be occupied by women, by law. Pakistani women have always played a very important part in its society. Asma Jehangir, the human rights activist is a great Pakistani woman. Nowadays, you see Pakistani women excelling in all facets of life; they are in the police, in the Commando unit of the police and security forces, they lead corporations (e.g. Unilever Pakistan,) they are respected journalists etc.

There are many good role models to young girls on various Pakistani Television channels who are females, such as singers and talented actresses in Pakistani TV dramas.

Yet much more remains to be done in terms of equal rights and protection as well as amendments to biased and defunct Hudood Laws.

OH MY !!!!!!!!

THAT IS TRUE JIHAD

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53018-2002Sep22.html

WHAT DO YOU THINK ARCHIE DOESN’T SEEM ALL THESE PEOPLE MOCK MUHAMMAD LIKE IN MECCA

Part of the Muslim tribe
Butterfly hunter
Camel rider

GOD BLESS ISLAM FREEDOM FIGHTERS IN RWANDA, IRAK AND ELSEWHERE GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO STAY THE COURSE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND SPREAD TRUE ISLAM IN THE WORLD ALLAHU AKBAR

Ispanan,

“And I guess Sharon visiting that Mosque explanade (sic?) and the intifada beginning just after is also Islam’s fault for breaking the peace?”

This just demonstrates that you share the same irrational mentality as the terrorists. Cite one reason, based in sound rational moral principles, as to why Sharon should not be allowed to attend this site. You say “How dare he attend the site! Therefore the terrorists must now immediately start slaughtering woemn and children!” Congratulations, Ispanan, you’ve just made yourself candidate material for Hamas.

“(no, not the hadiths, I already mentioned what was my problem with the hadith!),”

LOL! Oh no! Not the Hadiths! You think that gets you out of trouble! You never did say why you reject the Hadith, but you think the Koran is valid? Why should anyone believe the Koran? Because you say so? Because a high percentage of Muslims who’ve never read it say so? Because “Mohammad” said so? Besides, you’ve been caught in another lie, because you yourself have cited hadith. Remember you tried to slip an hadith in with some Koran quotes, and thought I wouldn’t notice? Remember you tried to say Mohammad was not racist, and you brought in that wonderful quote from that hadiths, saying black, white, arab, non-arab, are all equal? (Of course, Mohammad is still as bigoted as ever concerning all non-Muslims). How can you say whether or not Mohammad was racist without using the Hadith? You also tried to use a hadith concerning wife-beating, but you must admit that the Koran overrules the hadith when there is a clear contradiction. That’s a Muslim rule, not my rule. You just use whatever you feel like, without respecting the Koran, and without respecting your own scholars.

You talk about the context. Without the hadith and sira, the historical context is gone. Explain verses 33:60-62 without hadith. Without hadith, it just says hypocrites, those of “diseased heart” (figure out exactly who that refers to without using hadiths), and “alarmists/agitators” will be seized and slain, and this law of Allah’s will never change. How do you explain the orders to kill in 4:89-91, without using the hadiths to explain what’s happening, and who are the “renegades”/”apostates”? Oops! Does that mean your Koran is not self-explanatory and clear? Tell me how you can follow the instruction to emulate the conduct of Mohammad (33:21) without hadith and sira? Oh my! Does that mean your Koran is not complete?

“You actually seem to think that Muslims have been following a twisted plot throughout the history to take over the entire world, and that each of their actions respond to this plot.”

Actually, I don’t think all Muslims have been doing that, and I don’t think all Muslims believe in taking over the world. Again, you are simply ascribing statements to me that I did not make.

But many of the Muslims have been on an imperialistic mission, by their own account. Read Bostom’s The Legacy of Jihad and you will get some idea of what your brethren in religion have been doing. (I suspect you won’t, but, you must realize, I’m not merely addressing you). You reject hadith, but maybe you will believe what the Muslim historians themselves have to say, and Bostom’s volume cites many of them.

“the only thing you base yourself on are the sayings of anti-Muslims and ONE Muslim scholar that the majority of terrorists never heard of and don’t need him to justify their acts anyway.”

I’m aware of evasion and trickery and lies from certain Muslim apologists,

I’ve read multiple tafsir for almost all of the verses I’ve posted. I’ve cited the commentary, in my posts over various threads, of multiple Muslim scholars. Like I said, you don’t know much about your own religion. If you don’t know who Ibn Kathir is, this just demonstrates your lack of knowledge about Islam.

“Your obsession with Islam and the Koran is almost sickly, posting the same things, verses, links over and over again in the same threads.”

You obviously don’t like it when I cite verses. Shouldn’t you, as a Muslim, be thrilled that the words of the holy Koran are being presented?

Actually, for me, it’s a side project. I leave the heavy lifting to experts like Spencer, Warraq, Sina, etc. What I’m doing is collecting and compiling material for a website of my own, so as I'm working on that I post some of the material here and elsewhere so that readers can pick up quotes and use them when debating Muslims or when trying to convince their naïve non-Muslim friends about how bad Islam really is.

Honestly, I have no interest in Islam whatsoever, except insofar as I am interested in brainwashing. I think it is a disgusting ideology. The only reason I'm dealing with it is because our leaders and most of our scholars have failed us.

Unfortunately, we haven’t had many knowledgeable Muslims come here to correct anyone. From my experience on this site and on others, they lose debates all the time in writing because all the critics need to do is hold up the Koran or hadith, and watch the apologists do wild gymnastic contortions and evasions to try and deny what is being presented.

Ispanan,

"WHAT DO YOU THINK ARCHIE DOESN’T SEEM ALL THESE PEOPLE MOCK MUHAMMAD LIKE IN MECCA"

In Pakistan today, they're not allowed to mock Mohammad. Did you forget that? And did you forget what Mohammad did to those who mocked him in Mecca and Medina? And did you forget the Koranic verses and Hadiths that require that those who mock Mohammad be executed?

Whatever advances there are in Pakistan today, they represent a gradual departure from Islam, not a return to it