Arab journalists jailed over cartoons

Quote from previous article;

"Turks pelted the French consulate in Istanbul with eggs as about 2500 demonstrators shouted, "Down with America, Israel, and Denmark,"

Okay, I'm confused.
What does protesting in front of the French consulate have to do with the United States, Israel, and Denmark?
Like I've said before, Islamofeces aren't even smart enough to be stupid.

All newspapers in the following countries need to be shut down as punishment for publishing cartoons that offend Muslims:

Australia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Fiji, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Malaysia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, the United States, Ukraine and Yemen.

Clearly this "free speech" thing is waaaaay out of control.

Idea for bumpersticker:

Free Mel Blanc.

Clearly this "free speech" thing is waaaaay out of control.

Agreed good buddy. And all newspapers of countries NOT on this list should also be closed down because by Allah, you know there is someone in those countries thinking about publishing the cartoons.

I am proud to say that Canada should now be on the list.

While printing the cartoons in the first place was in bad taste, to not publish them now is cowerdly and rewards violence.

Bascially, we are saying that the next time Jews or Christians get offended by the news, they should just burn down an embassy or kill innocent people and we will stop reporting.

As a Canadian, I have to ask myself what if it was us that originally published the cartoons. (we have published way worse stuff at other religions). Would free nations leave us out in the cold, and force us to bear the full brunt of Islamic fury? Or would they stand up for free speech, tolerance, diversity, and freedom.

All free nations must unite. Denmark is a wonderful society, they don't deserve this.

A Cdn paper has published these cartoons in Calgary,Alberta! yeah for these "A True Free North"!
Those cartoons are so tame, l have so much worse, the muslims have nothing to complain about, they just need to look at their papers under government approval!

JasonR

Commentator Debbie Schussel says she won't support Denmark, because the Jyllens-Posten cartoons flap aside, Denmark has been very much the dhimmi when it comes to the "Palestinians" vs. Israel, possibly worthy of leading EU dhimmi at that and about to assume the chair of the UNSC. I don't have a link handy, but you may be able to find the link via frontpagemag.com's search.

These guys will get real hard time and I bet they are not allowed to escape the way terrorist types are. They will have to do their full sentence.

I am also proud to say Lithuania also published the cartoons. It is so crazy! In Pakistan (and other muslim nations) they can destroy Catholic churches, Burn bibles and beat priests and nuns but where is the outrage of these things? No of course what am I thinking cartoons are much more grievous! Shame on me!

This may seem like a dumn question but if the cameljockies get so infuriated about the child molesting prophut cartoons in the "FREE" world why not pack up their Jehad asses and go back to thier caves? Isn't "WESTERN" technology against their neanderthal way of thinking? NO dangit because they fly modern aircraft into skyscrapers, use the internet to communicate from their satellite linked laptops from caves....Can't we hone in on the signals and program one of the Trident subs missiles to obliterate the bastards? Where are all the techno geeks when we need them???????

This may seem like a dumb question but if the cameljockies get so infuriated about the child molesting prophut cartoons in the "FREE" world why not pack up their Jehad asses and go back to thier caves? Isn't "WESTERN" technology against their neanderthal way of thinking? NO dangit because they fly modern aircraft into skyscrapers, use the internet to communicate from their satellite linked laptops from caves....Can't we hone in on the signals and program one of the Trident subs missiles to obliterate the bastards? Where are all the techno geeks when we need them???????

"Three cheers for Australia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Fiji, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Malaysia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, the United States, Ukraine and Yemen."

And Portugal. The newspaper "O Público" published them a few days ago.

Waterdragon52 wrote:
Commentator Debbie Schussel says she won't support Denmark, because the Jyllens-Posten cartoons flap aside, Denmark has been very much the dhimmi when it comes to the "Palestinians" vs. Israel, possibly worthy of leading EU dhimmi at that and about to assume the chair of the UNSC. I don't have a link handy, but you may be able to find the link via frontpagemag.com's search.

What a funny way to argue... kind of like saying we should support Islam, the terrorist acts aside they are a peaceful people.... The thing is that it's what you do that define who you are!

Slight off topic but still free speech related: I haven't been able to reach Little Green Footballs for two days. Are they under another denial of service attack?

I'm amazed that JW/DW hasn't been targeted.

ACLU, where are you? Lord knows that the ACLU must be tired of running around chasing kids away from lunch hour bible study at public schools, removing monuments from state property, and defending freedom of speech when it suits the ACLU agenda. Why not branch out and develop an Arab Civil Liberties Union?

I'm sure based on the 'good dhimmi' status that the ACLU has for its efforts to rid the states of Christian influence, an Arab office may be well received.

Of course the ACLU could continue their work to protect muslims from the horrible profiling and the privacy concerns of surveillance in the states, while expanding efforts to rid the world of Xian influence enabling Islam to expand more rapidly.

And who knows, maybe they could come to the assistance of a few blaphemors who dared publish a friggin cartoon. But even a good dhimmi may be beheaded or bombed for this. The ACLU better check to see if it fits their free speech agenda first.

Is the mainstream press coming to their aid?

Where are the stories about their courage in the belly of the beast?

Where is PEN?

Where is the NY Times (ALLAH News That's Fit To Print)?

Where is the UN Human Rights committee?

Where is George Clooney?

Bill Clinton?

Jimmy Carter?

Al Gore?

I think we need to include in the honourable list our brothers and sisters from The Czech Republic and Lithuania.

Headline: French attack Turkish embassy in Paris pelting it with bacon and pork rinds.

The Editor of Jyllands-Posten, Carsten Juste, was offered cartoons of Prophet Jesus Christ (May Peace Be Upon Him) on April, 2003, but he refused to publish them because it might hurt the feelings of the Christians. But, he published all 12 cartoons of Muhammad (May Peace Be Upon Him) without any hesitation. Then, he gave permission to other newspapers to publish the same cartoons. Wow! Amazing! The Foreign Editor of Jyllands-Posten, Jan Lund, in his "Guardian" interview said that he was sorry for hurting the feelings of the muslims, but, not for publishing the cartoons. The same is the opinion of the Norway government and all others. They are sorry for hurting the feelings of muslims, but, on the other hand, they say that newspapers do have freedom for publishing such things. In other words, I am sorry that your father was killed, but, I am not sorry for shooting at him. Isn't that interesting!
The inequality of this world is seen in many incidents. The West talks about Gender Equality when it couldn't even swallow human equality. In Britain, back in 1989, Muslims fired a case against Salmond Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses", but, it was observed by the court that the laws regarding blasphemy are only for Christianity, not for Islam. Then, Omega 2001 and Wine Publishing Press published Dr. Anis Shorrosh's "Al-Furqan Al-Haq" or "The True Furqan" which was a big blasphemy against Islam. This product is still being sold at the Amazon Bookstore. Even a country like India, banned this devilish work, but, US & Israel are allowing to be published and sold. It is in its third print now! I and some other volunteers are doing research on this book. I, myself, found that in the 77 Surahs (Chapters) of this book, more than 1400 YES THAT IS MORE THAN ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED ABUSES to Islam, Muslims and the Prophet SAW. What could be more worse violation of Human Rights than this! and still this product is in its Third Print and sold at a big bookstore like Amazon. Interesting!
This shows that the West couldn't swallow equality of muslims. Furthermore, the Danish government claims that it is a "democractic" right i.e. freedom of speech of the newspaper. WoW! What a democratic right which violates the European Union's Human Right declarations. The Section 266b of the Danish Criminal Code reads:

"Any person who, publicly or with the intention of wider dissemination, makes a statement or imparts other information by which a group of people are threatened, insulted or degraded on account of their race, colour, national or ethnic origin, religion, or sexual inclination shall be liable to a fine or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding 2 years."

Section 140 reads as follows:-

"Those who publicly mock or insult the doctrines or worship of any religious community that is legal in this country, will be punished by a fine or incarceration for up to 4 month."

Wow! Quite interesting, Eh... Democratic right?!

In the same way, the Norwegian government also made a similar excuse for the newspaper, that the newspaper cannot be compelled... Section 142 of the Norwegian Penal Code reads as follows:-

""who publicly insults or in an offensive manner shows contempt for any religious creed...or for the doctrines or worship of any religious community lawfully existing here."

This shows the mentality of the West. The West itself has shown its extremism and fundamentalism and infact, the coverage of this issue, by this website i.e. Jihad Watch, is even adding spices!
Mr. Sentinel has labelled my arguments as lacking a "rational" aspect... Gr8!
This website itself is spreading a lot of hatred against Islam. You are insulting the doctrine of Jihad, when there is nothing bad in it. I gave a long comment before in which I discussed this issue...
Other brothers are insulting Islam and muslims in various ways... On guy said: "How many burnt virgins will one get in hell..." Some else said: "There are no prophecies in the Koran..." Did the Prophet Jesus (Peace Be Upon Him) told you to insult other religions?
The Europe has shown its meaniness in many ways... 50 years ago they killed hundreds of thousands of Jews... In 1990s, in Bousnia Herzegovnia, it showed its meaniness... I read a few incidents which occured there in a magazine:
(1) The abdomen of some pregenant women were busted open and after taking out everything, was sewed by thread and needle!
(2) Fathers were naked and sons were compelled to chew private parts of their fathers!!! Yuck!!!
(3) Children were killed and their parents were compelled to drink their blood!
(4) The heads of some people were cut off from their bodies and then, some christians were "playing footballs" with these heads!
(5) In the city of "Grad", 70 people were burnt to death!
(6) Orthodox christians destroyed no less than 70 mosques!
(7) According to a newspaper report of 30th Oct. 1992, in 6 months, 10,000 muslims were killed!
(8) One day 8,000 muslims died, on which, they was a grand festival in the church!
(9) One boy was ordered to commit adultery with the dead body of her mother!
(10) Sarajhuka Institute of Islamic Research was burnt which contained more than 1.5 million books and articles of Islam and Muslims.
(11) From some of the graves, three layers of dead bodies were recovered!
And there will be thousands of other such incidents which European christians must have done... "By their fruits shall they be identified..." The West is clearly being identified by their deeds. I, swear by God, you won't be happy on the Day of Resurrection!
Now, coming to the South Asian history... The British estalished a company "East India Company" and then, illegally gained foothold in the Subcontinent. They, then, very cleverly arrested the Mughal Emperor and sent him to Burma. After the 1857 revolt, many events took place... A few are listed below:-
(1) 51,200 ulema (scholars) were hanged with trees!
(2) For several days, muslims were killed openly.
(3) Some of the dead bodies, were sewed into the bodies of pigs...
(4) Some of the dead bodies were burnt...
(5) Some dead bodies were fitted in cannons and blasted off!
(6) The Jam`ai Mosque of Dehli was converted into a weapons depot!
(7) 24 prince were hanged on the same day in Dehli!
(8) Dehli was evacuated of Muslims... their properties and belongings were destroyed... their life was endangered...
Suffice to say that the West has shown its reality quite a number of times!
Without looking at your own face, you raise finger on our doctrine of Jihad. We reigned Spain for so many years, but, now it is filled with Christians. If we wanted, we could have converted everyone to muslim by force. Mughals reigned South Asia for so many years, but, they did not force everyone to become muslim...
Thomas Caryle, the famous historian, observes in his book "Heros and Hero Worship": 'The
sword indeed, but where will you get your sword? Every new opinion, at its starting is precisely in a minority of one. In one man’s head alone. There it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it, there is one man against all men. That he takes a sword and try to propagate with that, will do little for him. You must get your sword! On the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can.'
Islam has spread on the East Coast of Africa; which forces went there to convert people forcefully to muslims? Indonesia contain the maximum number of muslims... Which Muslim army went to Malaysia and Indonesia? Similarly, there are 14 Million Arab Coptic Christians i.e. christians since generations... why did Muslims leave them, if they used the sword?
Suffice to say what De Lacy O'Leary observes in his book "Islam at the cross-road", page 8, 'History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated.'
Infact, Meriam Webster Dictionary tells us that the word 'fundamentalism' was originally used for an American Protestant Movement that arose in the earlier part of the 20th century!
You accuse Islam that it permits polygamy, but, don't fail to see that women population outnumber male population... In the USA, women outnumber men by 7.8 million. New York alone has one million more females as compared to the number of males, and of the male population of New York one-third are gays i.e sodomites. The U.S.A as a whole has more than twenty-five million gays. This means that these people do not wish to marry women. Great Britain has four million more females as compared to males. Germany has five million more females as compared to males. Russia has nine million more females than males.
If every man got married to one woman, there would still be more than thirty million females in U.S.A who would not be able to get husbands (considering that America has twenty five million gays). There would be more than four million females in Great Britain, 5 million females in Germany and nine million females in Russia alone who would not be able to find a husband.
Suppose my sister happens to be one of the unmarried women living in USA, or suppose your sister (God Forbid) happens to be one of the unmarried women in USA. The only two options remaining for her are that she either marries a man who already has a wife or becomes public property. There is no other option. All those who are modest will opt for the first.
Furthermore, in Western society, it is common for a man to have mistresses and/or multiple extra-marital affairs, in which case, the woman leads a disgraceful, unprotected life. Infact, on average, every american has 8 sexual partners... The same society, however, cannot accept a man having more than one wife, in which women retain their honourable, dignified position in society and lead a protected life.
You accuse Islam that it keeps women behind a veil, but, fail to see the consequences of a veil-less society like America. The sexologist, Alfred Kinsey, clearly unveiled the horrible picture of the American culture.
You say that you unveil women for liberalism, but, this is a meaningless argument, thanks to the actions of the French government. If you were really preaching liberty of women, you would have given the liberty to cover heads or uncover them, but, the French government forced them to uncover their heads, which shows that their intentions are only seeing women naked... more like nudism.
You say that we are against Gender Equality. First of all, you ignore what your own scriptures say... then, you talk about Equality. Equality means two things are 100% same, so that they can be replaced by each other. Male and female are different in so many aspects; thus it is meaningless to talk about equality.
However, the Qur`an preaches equity. Give duties to genders, according to their abilities, and then, give them rights, according to their duties.
You object that according to the Shar`iah, women will inherit one-half that inherited by men. But, you fail to understand the Islamic system, which puts absolutely no economic duty no the female. You also ignore the fact that 'Maher' is given by husbands to wives at the time of marriage, but, you don't object here that why is 'Maher' being given when the woman has no economic responsibility; she does not have to spend money on her residence, food, shelter, cloth, etc. Thus this Maher compensates for the inheritance rule. The man has to give Maher and the woman has to receive and in this way, the half-inheritance rule is compensated for. You look only at one side of the picture, but, are oblivious of what is on the other side!
Suffice to say friends, REFRAIN FROM BASELESS INSULT OF ISLAM & MUSLIMS, PLEASE!
Also, one last thing to remember: NO ONE HAS YET ANSWERED MY ARGUMENTS!
___
NOTE TO ROBERT SPENCER

You have not answered my mails...

Abdul Rehman-

That has got to be one of the most incoherent rants I've ever read. Hmm...so you truly believe that polygyny is the solution to the "unmarried American women" situation?

You are SO mentally challenged if you think that we Westerners will ever find your loathesome practices acceptable!!

Gee...and you wonder why Mr. Spencer doesn't answer your emails!!!!

Dunno whether I should feed this troll, but...

You imply that there is such a vast female majority, but no Abdul, no:

____________________________________________

Sex ratio USA, CIA Factbook 2006.

at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.05 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.72 male(s)/female
total population: 0.97 male(s)/female (2005 est.)

_____________________________________________

The female majority you refer to are grannies. Women live longer. At age group 15-64 there is no majority whatsoever.

"Any person who, publicly or with the intention of wider dissemination, makes a statement or imparts other information by which a group of people are threatened, insulted or degraded on account of their race, colour, national or ethnic origin, religion, or sexual inclination shall be liable to a fine or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding 2 years."

posted by Abdul.

You poorly document some past atrocities and use them to defend an anti-Enlightenment, power-seeking, politico-religious creed whose past history is not any less blood-soaked then the history of the West.

Christians: Jesus reduced in status...INSULT

Jews: sabbath breakers, slayers of prophets, word-changers, ever bent on new deceits, furthest away from faith, transformed into apes and swine...INSULT

Hindus: unforgivable sin of polytheism...INSULT

Homosexuals: disposable, perverted sinners...INSULT

Women: weaker in religion, allowed to be beaten, diseased due to their monthly period, majority of the population in Hell.

ALL are publicly insulted and degraded by your own texts, on account of Gender, religion, and sexual inclination. Where are the fines and imprisonment?

In addition to this:

--direct orders to fight those who do not forbid what the prophet did or believe as he did.

--war booty is lawful and pure (including captured women)

--lashing of fornicators out of wed-lock

Dear Abdul,

You state that you and others have uncovered 1400 abuses of Islam, Muslims, and the Prophet (PB&J), and ask, “What could be more worse violation of Human Rights than this!"

Well, Bunky, the decapitation of other human beings for any reason, but especially in the name of Mo's good buddy Al, comes immediately to my mind.

Shall I go on, you idiotic twit?

HA! What a joke! This guy truly is an idiot. Looking for any excuse and and straw to grasp at to try and defend his wicked religion. (which im sure he considers his duty) His good use of English means to me he is either a "revert" or an educated Muslim. (A rare bird indeed) The easiest thing for him to refute is his belief in polygamy. Anyone who knows about science (do any Muslims?) knows that the birth rate is 49% male to 51% female. meaning that at marrying age (for Muslims isn't that 6 years old?) the ratio is virtually 1 to 1. Any man who marries more than one woman takes away a woman from someone else. Leaving an unmarried angry, unlaid, "fanatic" male who will probably blame it on jews! The only time the ratio is better is when women reach 70!! So go ahead my Haji friend, marry all the 70 year old women you want!! AS to the So called "non-atrocities" of Islam against infidels. Those races and tribes who have felt your oppresion and LIVED know well enough that you are a liar. Ask any Balkan person, any Spaniard any Hindu any Sikh
any Armenian

huh, my post was cut off half way down? I had a lot more to say to this idiot but now it's lost when i posted, oh well. Wel i can still remeber the last thing i wrote. Abdul, you seem to want to prove all errors against Islam. Is there anything that is wrong with Islamic culture at all? Anything that they practice that must be changed? Anything the seems to be OK with Muhammud that should be stopped? Have the Muslims Armies ever committed any evil wrong things ever? I would guess your answer to be, 'no'.

Abdul Rehman said

Suppose my sister happens to be one of the unmarried women living in USA, or suppose your sister (God Forbid) happens to be one of the unmarried women in USA. The only two options remaining for her are that she either marries a man who already has a wife or becomes public property. There is no other option.

To which Finn replied

The female majority you refer to are grannies. Women live longer.

Well, you wouldn't want your elderly grandmother (God Forbid) to be public property would you? No, it is our duty, each and every one of us (heterosexual only!) men from age 8 to 80, to marry as many of these elderly women as possible. We have to keep the nudismists from seeing the naked heads of grannies.

Mr Rehman says:

Suppose my sister happens to be one of the unmarried women living in USA, or suppose your sister (God Forbid) happens to be one of the unmarried women in USA. The only two options remaining for her are that she either marries a man who already has a wife or becomes public property. There is no other option. All those who are modest will opt for the first.

This is a PERFECT example of the sick mentality of Muslims toward women: they are "property", to be owned. A female is owned by her father, and then by her husband, and then by her eldest son. This is crudely degrading, much more so than anything the Western world can impose. In Islam, she can also be owned as a SLAVE!!

Here's a news-flash, Rehman: an unmarried woman in the West is NOT "public property". She is her OWN person. She has autonomy: she is the one who decides where she will work, where she will drive to, where she will shop, where she will be educated. And, most importantly, she makes the choice of which man she wants. If there is mutual interest on the part of BOTH a single man and a single woman, she has as much right as the man to make that decision.

Now, the Muslim man cannot handle this: his mind gets frazzled!! He cannot control his lust, and if he sees a woman whom he thinks is not being sufficient OWNED by another man, he believes he has the GOD-GIVEN RIGHT to take her by force. The mentality is: "She is offering herself."

Bull-shit.

Until you Muslim men can learn to treat women like equal human beings, I consider you to be subhuman savages who cannot be trusted in civilized society to control yourselves.

Auzubillah-e-min-as-Shaitaan-ir-Rajeem
Bismillah-ir-Rahman-ir-Raheem

Hi & Blessings to all.
I am sorry for this late reply. I was busy in study and other things; I will have first paper on 6th March. Its weekend and I have found sometime to reply you back.

Kafira wrote:
>>> Hmm...so you truly believe that polygyny is the solution to the "unmarried American women" situation?

I truly believe that polygyny is the only MODEST solution to that issue... otherwise, some will say let them open strip clubs... Some may say let them become lesbians... Some may say they should not marry... etc etc.

Friend "Finn" has given some interesting facts... The facts which I provided were those which I heard from Dr. Zakir Naik... I will look into this issue later... Also, population is not the only reason why Islam has permitted limited polygyny; there will be other reasons, which I don't know and God knows better...

Mr. ChinCheck wrote:-

>>> You poorly document some past atrocities and use them to defend an anti-Enlightenment, power-seeking, politico-religious creed whose past history is not any less blood-soaked then the history of the West.

FIRST OF ALL, I AM VERY HAPPY TO KNOW THAT YOU AGREE THAT THE HISTORY OF THE WEST IS BLOOD-SOAKED!!!! Atleast, someone agreed with me on this issue!
You are referring to the Danish Penal Code as "some past atrocities"... I wonder what Danish people will think if they read this! This is the Penal Code and not atrocity; rather, the Penal code is used for driving away atrocities. Also, if there is a gulf between the actions of a nation and its own law, then this is hypocrisy...
Also, you are referring to Human Rights as "past atrocities"... Such blasphemy laws are even included in International Covenants and even in the European Union's Human Rights Declaration!
You have also said that our past history is blood-soaked... First of all let me tell you that there is a difference between "Just" killing and innocent killing. If you think that our history is filled with "Just" killing, then it is OK, but, if you mean that we kill innocent people and treat them unjustly, then this is wrong. Even if someone did that, then it was his own personal fault; Islam does not permit innocent killing. If you want, I can give ayats (verses) from the Qur`an, as well as ahadith (plural of hadith: sayings/actions of the Prophet SAW).
Then, you wrote:-

>>> Christians: Jesus reduced in status...INSULT

Nope... Look at these ayats from the Qur`an:-

"Then the angels called him, while he was standing in prayer in the praying place: "Allah gives you glad tidings of John, confirming the Word from Allah (Jesus), noble, keeping away from sexual relations with women, a Prophet, from among the righteous." [Aal-e-Imran 3:39]

"When the angels said: "O Mary! Verily, Allah gives you the glad tidings of a Word (Jesus) from Him, his name will be the Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and in the Hereafter, and will be one of those who are near to Allah. He will speak to the people in the cradle and in manhood, and he will be one of the righteous." [Aal-e-Imran 3:45-46]

"And He (Allah) will teach him (Jesus) the Book and Wisdom, (and) the Torah and the Gospel. And will make him a Messenger to the Children of Israel (saying): "I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, that I design for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah's Leave; and I heal him who was born blind, and the leper, and I bring the dead to life by Allâh's Leaae. And I inform you of what you eat, and what you store in your houses. Surely, therein is a sign for you, if you believe." [Aal-e-Imran 3:48-49]

There are a lot other verses which give a respectful place to Jesus (May Peace Be Upon Him) in Islam. Infact, Jews insult him more by calling him (God Forbid) a bastard.

>>> Jews: sabbath breakers, slayers of prophets, word-changers, ever bent on new deceits, furthest away from faith, transformed into apes and swine...INSULT

These are historical facts and MOST IMPORTANTLY, JESUS (MAY PEACE BE UPON HIM) SAID HIMSELF:-

"At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat.
But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?" [Matthew 12:1-4]

You can find a lot of similar verses in the Bible...

>>> Hindus: unforgivable sin of polytheism...INSULT

The same Jews and Christians say... Also, they don't consider it an insult, because, they don't believe it is a sin.

>>> Homosexuals: disposable, perverted sinners...INSULT

One of the Prophets, Loot/Lute (I don't know what Christians call him) was a contemporary of Abraham (PBUH) and told his people that homosexuality is a henious sin. His nation still did not abstain from that sin, due to which they had to face the Wrath of God. According to some research, their ruins have been found at the shores of the Dead Sea. Btw, thieves and murderers are considered to be perverted sinners and are beaten/killed. This is because they are considered to be unethical; they lost their dignity when performing this act. Every nation has its own "Code of Ethics" and so, some consider homosexuality a sin and some don't consider it.
Homosexuality is also bad from the scientific point of view. The first case of Acute Immuno Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) was reported in Homosexuals. Similarly, recent researches show that it causes anal infections, STDs, etc.

>>> Women: weaker in religion, allowed to be beaten, diseased due to their monthly period, majority of the population in Hell.

Firstly, women are PHYSICALLY weaker BY NATURE, not by religion.

"And women shall have rights, similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable..." [2:228]

"Verily, the Muslims men and women, the believeing men and women, the men and the women who are obedient, the men and women who are truthful, the men and the women who are patient, the men and the women who are humble, the men and the women who give alms, the men and the women who observe fasting, the men and the women who guard their chastity (from illegal sexual acts) and the men and the women who remember Allah much with their hearts and tongues; Allah has prepared for them forgiveness and a great reward." [33:35]

So, you see women are weaker by nature, as the Holy Qur`an says, 'Arrijaalo Qawwamuuna Alan nisaa' i.e "men are (physically) stronger than women." Anyone who has knowledge of Science will accept this fact; for example, in Feb. 2001, Researchers at the University of Michigan Health System found that the arrangement of ligaments at the knee region is different in males and females, making females more susceptible to injury... and there are a lot more similar differences. All in all, men are stronger, by nature, than females. Thats why Islam gives men more duties than females; as they have more duties, so, husbands have more rights. On the other hand, women have less duties e.g., they have economic security in Islam and so, they don't have to worry about their food, shelter, cloth, etc. Thus they have been given rights according to their duties. So, the Holy Qur`an preaches 'Equity' not equality. Equality exists where two things are 100% equal, but, this is not the case in humans, so, Gender Equity is better than Gender Equality.
Coming to the next point i.e. beating women. Women are not allowed to be beaten, unless, they become disobedient and arrogant and two previous methods have failed:-

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allah and to their husbands), and guard in the husband's absence what Allah orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity, their husband's property, etc.). As to those women on whose part you see ill­conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allah is Ever Most High, Most Great." [4:34]

From this verse, it is clearly seen that righteous women cannot be beaten and if anyone beats them, this is a sin and he will be held accountable on the Day of Resurrection. Infact, according to a hadith, that man will not be forgiven unless his wife, herself, forgives him for that! Narrated Abu Huraira (RAA) that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, 'The one most perfect in his faith is he whose conduct is best and the best amongst you is he who behaves best towards his wife.' (Tirmidhi) If wives are disobedient, husbands should first admonish them; if they still continue in their arrogance, they should refuse to share their beds. If both these methods fail, then he CAN beat her, but, this beating should be light. If she bleeds, or there is a mark on her skin, or her bone is fractured, or he beats her face, then this beating will only add to his sins and he will be held accountable by Allah on the Day of Judgment. Light beating is only and only permissible in these circumstances; furthermore, it is always more virtuous to behave and treat wives nicely. As we can see in the ayat above, the beating is only for returning them to obedience. If someone thinks that beating will not be useful, then it should be avoided.
As regards menustruation, etc. it is not disease. Allah has permitted women not to worship or fast, etc. during menses; it is better for women, because, if they had to pray, fast, etc. then this would put extra burden on them.
Lastly, women are not put in hell, just because they are women. The Holy Qur`an is abundantly clear on this issue:-
"'This is because of that which your hands had forwarded. And verily, Allah is not unjust to His slaves.'" [8:51]
"So whosoever does good equal to the weight of an atom (or a small ant), shall see it. And whosoever does evil equal to the weight of an atom (or a small ant), shall see it." [99:7-8]
"Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." [2:62]
This ayat is only talking about the Jews and Christians of their times; otherwise, it should be noted:-
"And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him..." [3:85]
Coming back to the women issue, it is clear that women & men are equally accountable if they commit sins or do righteous deeds... If a greater population of women is in hell, this is because of what their hands have forwarded; Allah is not unjust.

>>> Direct orders to fight those who do not forbid what the prophet did or believe as he did.

Nope... you are 100% wrong. Read my comment at this link:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010205.php
I have answered the proofs which are forwarded to prove this viewpoint. I RECOMMEND YOU TO READ MY COMMENT AT THIS LINK! PLEASE!

>>> war booty is lawful and pure (including captured women)

War booty is not only lawful in Islam, but, in several other religions. Infact, this argument can go against you, if I replace 'lawful and pure' with 'unlawful and impure'...
As far as captured women are concerned, let me remind you that Solomon (PBUH) had 900 CAPTIVES & 100 WIVES! Furthermore, take a look at some verses from your own scripture! These are from the Book of Deuteronomy, Old Testament:-

"When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her (have intercourse), and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her." [Deuteronomy 21:11-14]
NOTE: All verses are from KJV Bible.

So, what do you say now pal!

>>> lashing of fornicators out of wed-lock

Islam has prescribed a punishment which is much lesser than that prescribed by the Bible; again the verses from the Book of Deuteronomy:-

"If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you." [Deuteronomy 22:23-24]

Now, coming to the issue of lashing; it is a good moment to educate you about the Psychology of Islamic punishments. When a man commits intercourse with a woman, he gets intense pleasure and feels it throughout his body. This pleasure, later, invites him to have intercourse with other women and it may get to a point where he may even commit rape. The Islamic punishment of lashing the unmarried adulterer and adulteress, is thus a good punishment because it makes him/her feel pain throughout his/her body. This feeling of pain overrides the feeling of pleasure and the next time, a person thinks about adultery and the intense pleasure, he also is reminded of the intense pain and thus, in this way, he/she stays away from adultery.

MataMoros wrote:

>>> His good use of English...

You surprised me; I was thinking that someone may point out some mistakes! Also, I was tired of hearing insults, insults and only insults, so, I must appreciate you for you have (surprisingly) posted the very first GOOD comment about me, A MUSLIM!

>>> ...means to me he is either a "revert" or an educated Muslim. (A rare bird indeed)

I was born on April 2, 1989 in Peshawar, Pakistan. Our educational system is real bad; it does not educate us well about Islam. Most "educated" people of Pakistan don't even know how to raise hands in Salat at the very beginning! When I was in 8th & 9th classes, we used to think & talk about the low status of Muslims in the world and how it can be made better. Then, in Matric, I started hearing a guy "Dr. Israr"; he was not a scholar, but, delivered lectures, wrote books, etc. regarding Islam and had made an organization. I became very fond of him and got knowledge of Islam. Then, on their forum a guy named "Muhammad Umar" (May God Bless Him!) came and changed my view of Islam greatly. Most of the knowledge which I had obtained through Dr. Israr was completely wrong; Umar corrected me. In the literature of that organization, fire of heart was kindled against traditional scholars "ulema, mullah, moulanas, etc." But, this guy changed my views; why most people hate these scholars is because they cannot distinguish b/w who is a scholar and who is not.
I am 100% sure that if you try to discuss something about Islam with the Hanafi Deobandi scholars, you will lose in the discussion. Darul Uloom Deoband produces the most authentic scholars in the whole subcontinent; but, I guess that the British hate this institution because their founders fought against the British in the 1857 revolt.

>>> The easiest thing for him to refute is his belief in polygamy. Anyone who knows about science (do any Muslims?) knows that the birth rate is 49% male to 51% female. meaning that at marrying age (for Muslims isn't that 6 years old?) the ratio is virtually 1 to 1. Any man who marries more than one woman takes away a woman from someone else. Leaving an unmarried angry, unlaid, "fanatic" male who will probably blame it on jews! The only time the ratio is better is when women reach 70!!

I provided you with those statistics which I heard from Dr. Zakir. (Did he lie? I guess these were outdated facts...) I know of the birth rate, but, females can survive more germs, diseases, etc. as compared to males, for example, males have twice more chance of Sickle Cell Anemia and similar diseases than females.
But, I guess protecting my population argument now is not correct... It has almost fallen apart! I will soon have a discussion with a Mufti at Jamia Ashrafia, Lahore on this issue. Allah is Hakeem (full of wisdom) and I am sure there will be a lot of other reasons why limited polygyny is allowed in Islam.

"...and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but ye know not." [2:216]
"...And they will never compass anything of His (God's) Knowledge except that which He wills..." [2:255]

Right now, I would like to spurce up this discussion. I want to educate you about limited polygyny in Islam. First of all, ISLAM IS THE ONLY RELIGION WHICH HAS SET A LIMIT OF 4 FOR POLYGYNY. The Bible permits polygyny! Polygyny is permitted in Judaism. According to Talmudic law, Abraham had three wives, and Solomon had hundreds of wives. The practice of polygyny continued till Rabbi Gershom ben Yehudah (950 C.E to 1030 C.E) issued an edict against it. The Jewish Sephardic communities living in Muslim countries continued the practice till as late as 1950, until an Act of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel extended the ban on marrying more than one wife.
Many Hindu religious personalities, according to their scriptures, had multiple wives. King Dashrat, the father of Rama, had more than one wife. Krishna had several wives.
In earlier times, Christian men were permitted as many wives as they wished, since the Bible puts no restriction on the number of wives. It was only a few centuries ago that the Church restricted the number of wives to one.

"If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:
But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his." [Deuteronomy 21:15-17]

This was a commandment given by the LORD to the Children of Israel and it can only be fulfilled if a man has more than one wife. Jesus Christ (PBUH) said himself: 'Think not I am come to destroy the law or the Prophets (PBUH)...' [Matthew 5:17]
Solomon (PBUH) had hundreds of wives; Abraham (PBUH) had three wives. If Jesus (PBUH) restricted this number to 1, then this would mean that a previous commandment was abrogated which is not possible. (Mattew 5:17)
Thus Jesus (PBUH) advised his followers to marry none or one, only because it was a higher level of piety; this is not a restriction. This is confirmed by many places, e.g.

"When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;
Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites." [Deuteronomy 17:14-18]

Thus Qur`an is the only religious scripture which puts an upper limit of 4 on polygyny. No other religious scripture puts this restriction whether it be the Vedas, the Ramayan, the Geetha, the Bible, etc.
Similarly, QUR`AN IS THE ONLY SCRIPTURE WHICH TELLS IT FOLLOWERS TO MARRY ONLY ONE WOMAN IF HE CANNOT DEAL JUSTLY WITH MORE THAN ONE. 99.99% of the non-muslims are ignorant of this fact and they just keep on criticizing Islam.
This text is found in Surah an-Nisa:-

"...Marry women of your choice, two or three, or four BUT IF YOU FEAR THAT YOU SHALL NOT BE ABLE TO DEAL JUSTLY (WITH THEM), THEN ONLY ONE..." [An-Nisa 4:3]

You also wrote:

>>> Anyone who knows about science (do any Muslims?)...

Yes, Muslims have knowledge about science. Infact, our Qur`an contained even that knowledge which was unknown at that time. Dr. Keith L. Moore was amazed at the Embryological facts contained in the Qur`an...
Btw, DON'T YOU REMEMBER YOUR OWN SCIENTIFIC HISTORY, DO YOU? What your priests did in Nicolas Coppernicus' time! How they burnt Giordano Bruno, who refused to accept the Church's established model of the universe! These priests even killed the first female mathematician Hypatia, so, who should be ignorant of science? These priests burnt several libraries of science. You guys remained under a dark age when your religion was in authority. The Bible contained errors & mistakes and no one can deny it! Your religion gave you false picture of the universe and then, the French Revolution of 1789 and Industrial Revolution completely over-thrown the Church; Kant dumped all the remaining hope for religion. Due to this reason, philosophies of Secularism and Enlightenment were developed. All these philosophies made the presumption that religion is essentially opposed to the working & progress of a state and that, science, progress, development, etc. are in conflict with following a religion. Thus Secularism reduced your religion to a mere private affair. But, the torch bearers of Enlightenment were so-unenlightened, because, they painted all religions with the same brush! They made the presumption about all religions, including Islam, but, it was sheer fallacy!
You were sleeping in the Europe long time ago... It was only when people from Italy and other European countries came to Muslim Spain and here, they obtained knowledge from the Universities of Cordova, Tolerado and Granada. So, you are indebted to us for scientific knowledge. Jabir bin Hayyan was the father of Chemistry. Ibne Sina was considered the greatest of his times in both the East and the West in the field of medicine. Abul Qasim was the best surgeon of his times. Ibne Nafees described blood circulation two centuries before William Harvey did. Ibne Jahiz, in his book "Al-Hayawan", described the seasonal immigration of fishes in Tigris River. Ibne Haitham described the laws of reflection, in his book "Kitab-ul-Manazir", and corrected the Greek conception of vision by locating Retina as the seat of vision; six centuries before Isaac Newton. Abu Ali Seena said: 'No object begins to move or comes to rest by itself...', but, no European gave him any credit. Abu Musa Al-Khwarzimi developed the decimal system and laid the foundations of trignometry and algebra. Experimentation was developed by the Arabs, but, Frier Roger Beacon is considered its founder. Such name-replacing is seen in a number of places, e.g. Celcius is considered to be the founder of the Celcius scale, but, most people don't know that he described 0 C to be the Boiling Point and 100 C to be the Melting Point of Water!
Islam was 100% in harmony with the scientific spirit! It had that power which raised an unlettered tribalist society to a nation more powerful than the super-powers of that time! Both presumptions which form the foundations are enlightenment & Secularism are denied in Islam's case; they were correct only for Christianity. Muslims started to fail because they did not hold fast to the commandments of the Qur`an, just like the Children of Israel did, and finally, Muslims faced the Wrath of Allah in various forms, e.g. Tatar invasion, British invasion, etc. Secularism can be denied in Islam because Islam is not opposed to the progress of a nation; Islam secures the progress of a nation. It lays the foundation of a society by putting emphasis on the family law. It provides golden principles in the fields of economy, politics and education; Islamic Banking and similar subjects are only due to research on these golden principles of the Qur`an. Christianity was in need of enlightenment, because, it contained mistakes & errors, which needed to be corrected. That was not the case with Islam! Qur`an provided those scientific knowledge which was unknown at that time! The Qur`an told that all planets, stars, etc. are floating. At that time, no one could verify this, but, now no one can deny it. Keith L. Moore was amazed at the embryological facts of the Qur`an. Maurice Boukay also was moved by the scientific miracles of the Qur`an. The Qur`an is a living miracle!
'The Law of Islam is stationary!', is a very oft repeated comment of Christians, but, this is not a defect. Evolution is required only for those things which are worn out; which contain mistakes and errors, which become outdated as time passes, but, the Holy Qur`an has been revealed by the one whose has complete knowledge over all things. This law needs no evolution. Consider the below example:
In the field of economics, interest was considered to be "unnatural and immoral" by Aristotle. Then, it became the foundation of banking; economics evolved and Capitalism became the best system. Then, people developed the philosophy of Communism to eliminate the unequal distribution of wealth and other evil effects. But, this economic system came out to be disastrous; the champions of Capitalism declared it their win, but, still its evil effects are annoying people. According to an estimate, 90% of the wealth of the world is in the hand of only 5% of the people. The bad effects of interest on the economy have now become crystal-clear and even the economists Mr. Abbas Mirakhor and Mohsin H. Khan of the Research Department of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) observed: 'As shown in a recent paper by Khan (1985) this (Islamic interest-free) system of investment deposits is quite closely related to proposals aimed at transforming the traditional banking system to an equity basis made frequently in a number of countries, including the United States.' Peter Warburton also preferred this system and discussed the theories of Fisher, Minsky, J. Presley & P. Mills in this respect. Prof. John Gray of Oxford University, in his recent book "False Dawn: The Delusions of Capitalism", on p.62 writes: 'Most significantly, perhaps transactinos on foreign exchange markets have now reached the astonishing sum of around $1.2 trillion a day, over fifty times the level of the world trade. Around 95 percent of these transactions are speculative in nature, many using complex new derivative's financial instruments based on futures and options... This virtual economy has a terrible potential for disrupting the underlying real economy as seen in the collapse in 1995 of Barings, Britain's oldest bank.' He further adds on p.188 of that book: 'Financial derivatives have grown, more or less from standing starting in the early 1970s, to a $64 trillion (that's $64,000,000,000,000) industry by 1996. How do you imagine a number that big? You could say that if you laid all those dollar bills end to end, they would stretch from here to the sun sixty-six times, or to the moon 25,900 times.'
The world swung from one extreme to another and then, back and forth, until now it seems to be moving in that direction where the Holy Qur`an pointed, 1400 years ago. Imam Ghazzali, in his master-piece work, "Ihya-ul-Uloom-e-Deeniya", Vol.IV, p.88-89 rightly pointed out that the reason why Riba (interest) is prohibited is because money is a medium of exchange, not a commodity. This statement of Imam Ghazzali was made 900 years ago. The henious error made by the modern theories of interest is that they treat it as a production commodity, but, Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, labelled it as "dead stock". Ludwig von Mises has described that the reason why money is considered a production commodity, is because it cannot be considered to be a consumption good, but, now the economists have begun to realize this error. Morgan Guarantee Trust Company, the 6th largest bank in the U.S. has admitted that the banking system has failed to 'finance either maturing smaller companies or venture capitalist' and 'though awash with funds, is not encouraged to deliver competitively priced funding to any but the largest, most cash-rich companies.'
Economists have begun to realize the wickedness of interest; the Holy Qur`an therefore declared it impermissible 1400 years ago.
The summary of the interest-based banking is that the banks only forward loans to the most rich capitalists; according to the 1999 annual report of the State Bank of Pakistan (our country), loans were forwarded to only 0.034% of the account-holders! It happens everywhere; this money is the 90% input in most factories, but, the interest taken back is around 10%. 80% of the profit, which was the bank's right, is "stolen" away by the capitalist, and even the remaining amount of money is practically eliminated, because, the capitalists add the interest to the cost of production and in this way, the bank practically gets no profit at all. When it gets such low amounts of profit, it forwards a very small portion of this to the public. The (already present) deposit of the account-holder is devalued, because, of increase in prices. Thus the funds which come from 99% of the society, 90% of it inevitably ends up with the capitalists, while a very small proportion of it is returned back to the account-holders. People criticize that in the Islamic Banking, loss has to be beared by the banks; but, they fail to see that they always bear "loss" in the present system, even though there may not be any loss! The bank and even the general public has to bear the "loss" of the capitalist, even though there may not be any loss! Yeah, this is no joke! The capitalist gets his factory insuranced and to pay the premium amount of the Insurance, he divides the premium on the number of items and adds this amount to the cost of production. Thus the banks and everyone else faces an "always loss" situation, even if there is no loss! In Islamic banking, the banks don't become "charity" institutions! They get transformed into joint ventures with the factories; there are various methods of partnership available e.g., Musharakah, Mudarabah, etc. A bank will have partnerships with several factories; in this way, it will actively take part in the practical & real economy and not "virtual" economy. The people who deposit amounts; their amounts will be used in such partnerships; much more profit will be earned than before; cost of items will be controlled. Thus the depositers will get high, though variable, amounts of profit. This profit will not be created "virtually", but, will ensure that the money was actually used in some productive activity. The interest which is earned, has nothing to do with production; it is a fixed amount which is taken, even though there may not be any production, or (as usual) there may be 8 times more profit, whereas, the lender gets much smaller amounts. In Islamic banks, it is practically impossible that all partnerships will suffer loss at the same time; it can hardly occur in practical life. If one partnership suffers a loss, other may earn huge profits and in this way, there will usually be a net profit. This will be variable, but, it has much benefits; the depositers will thus get variable profits, but, hardly would suffer loss!
The last hope of implementation of this Just Economic System in Pakistan, was the 1999 historical judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which clearly declared interest to be impermissible. It was a 1050 page biggie and three persons viz. Justice Khalil-ur-Rahman, Justice Wajiuddin and Justice Maulana Mufti Sheikh-ul-Hadith Muhammad Taqi Usmani wrote it. Most of the points given above have been taken from the 250 page judgment written by Maulana Mufti Taqi Usmani. This judgment could have caused the implementation of Islamic banking and presented to the world, this brilliant and just economic system, but, our perverted president Musharraf, who was in zeal of bowing infront of America, dismissed the two judges. Justice Khalil-ur-Rahman died unfortunately and new judges were "imported" from England by Musharraf into the Federal Shariat Court. When UBL fired a petition against the 1999 judgment, it took a few months for the court to attend, but, when a petition was fired against interest, it has not been attended by those imported judges, uptil now (about 4 years!).
This was an example to prove that the Islamic law is not worn out! Muslims were given such perfect laws by God, 1400 years ago, which are still implementable, but, the muslims themselves didn't give that much attention to the law; they crossed limits, due to which they fell down to such a low position. Today, the muslims have a general "inferiority complex" and they feel ashamed to follow their own religion. There are hardly any "well-educated" muslims in Pakistan, who know about such economic benefits of their own religion.

>>> So go ahead my Haji friend, marry all the 70 year old women you want!!

This shows that the Western are half-blind when it comes to marriage; you ignore the most important principle of marriage: MUTUAL CONSULTATION & AGREEMENT. You criticize the muslims that look! a 50 year old guy is marrying a 6 year young girl, but, fail to see that the 6 year girl himself is marrying the 50 year guy; it is not a one-way, it is a two-way road! At marriage, BOTH MEN & WOMEN ARE ASKED if they agree to marry each other. You guys make fun of those old people who marry young women and vice versa, but, you ignore that the old man does not compel the young women; they decide theirselves. You guys don't pay attention when a 70 year old black non-muslim rapes a 7-year girl. Here are a few facts from the 1995 National Crime Victimization Survey of the U.S. Department of Justice and the National Domestic Violence Hotline Fact Sheet and Statistics:-
(1) Women age 12 or older annually sustained almost 5 million violent victimizations in 1992 and 1993.
(2) Women and girls ages 12 and up annually reported about 500,000 rapes and sexual assaults, almost 500,000 robberies, and about 3.8 million assaults.
(3) Of the 5328 women murdered in 1990, FBI data indicate that about half or more of them by a husband or boyfriend.
(4) According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP), 876,000 women were raped in 2002.
(5) According to an FBI report, published in 1992-1993, 640940 women were raped averaging about 1756 rapes/day.
(6) A 1993 national poll found that 34% of adults in the United States report having witnessed a man beating his wife or girlfriend and that 14% of women report that a husband or boyfriend has been violent with them.
These are only some facts; there will be a lot more...

>>> Those races and tribes who have felt your oppresion and LIVED know well enough that you are a liar. Ask any Balkan person, any Spaniard any Hindu any Sikh any Armenian...

You guys say that we force everyone to become muslims. Then, tell me how these inhabitants are still non-muslims. Had muslims forced everyone then it would have been impossible that non-muslims could have existed. We reigned Spain for so many years, but, now it is filled with Christians. If we wanted, we could have converted everyone to muslim by force. Mughals reigned South Asia for so many years, but, they did not force the Hindus to become muslim...
Thomas Caryle, the famous historian, observes in his book "Heros and Hero Worship": 'The
sword indeed, but where will you get your sword? Every new opinion, at its starting is precisely in a minority of one. In one man’s head alone. There it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it, there is one man against all men. That he takes a sword and try to propagate with that, will do little for him. You must get your sword! On the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can.'
Islam has spread on the East Coast of Africa; which forces went there to convert people forcefully to muslims? Indonesia contain the maximum number of muslims... Which Muslim army went to Malaysia and Indonesia? Similarly, there are 14 Million Arab Coptic Christians i.e. christians since generations... why did Muslims leave them, if they used the sword?
Suffice to say what De Lacy O'Leary observes in his book "Islam at the cross-road", page 8, 'History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated.'
If you read our history, you will find that most of the people accepted Islam because of the sublime character of the muslims. Now-a-days, most muslims (including me) have lost that sublime character and so, we are facing this worst status in the world.
Ram Gopal, a Hindu, writes on page 1 of his book "Indian Musilms: A Political History (1858-1947)" published by the Asia Publishing House in London in 1959:

'Persuasion, according to the fragments of evidence collected in the 19th century, played a much greater part than force (in spreading Islam).'

When Muhammad bin Qasim entered Sindh, he behaved and treated the people here so nicely and justly, that everyone became fond of him and many people accepted Islam. When Imam Shafi`i (RA) died, 60,000 Jews & Christians accepted Islam at his funeral prayer; which sword was there to force all of them? (Think with a cool mind...)
Even the people of Mecca were highly influenced by the character of the companions of the Prophet (SAW), after the treaty of Hudaybiah. The Companions (May Allah Be Pleased With Them All) loved him alot. When he trimmed his nails & hair, his companions (RAA) used to collect them and keep them safely. When he used to make Wudu (ablution), the companions (RAA) did not allow even a single drop of that water to fall on the ground. Even when the Prophet (SAW) spit, the companions (RAA) used to take it on their faces and bodies! It was this character which influenced people to accept Islam.
Umar ibn Khattab (RAA), the second pious rightly guided caliph, during his caliphate, saw a Jew (Dhimmi) who was hungry and was wearing old worn out clothes. Umar (RAA) immediately gave him money, clothes and sacs of floor, etc. from the Ba`it-ul-Maal.
Lastly, if any muslim ever forced non-muslims to accept Islam by the edge of the sword, then this is clearly repungant to the Holy Qur`an:-
'There is no compulsion in religion...' [2:256]
If you still say that I am a liar, then you are completely wrong. I cite ayats and ahadith to prove a point.

NOTE!!! Judge a religion by its original sources. If you want to judge Islam, judge it by looking at the Qur`an and Sunnah, at the Prophet (SAW) and his pious companions (RAA). Don't judge Islam by looking at the muslims of today; don't judge it by me. I also follow the same principle regarding Christianity: I don't judge it by your comments (idiot, clown, etc.) I judge it by its sources: 'In everything therefore treat people the same way you want them to treat you...' [Matthew 7:12]

>>> This is a PERFECT example of the sick mentality of Muslims toward women: they are "property", to be owned. A female is owned by her father, and then by her husband, and then by her eldest son. This is crudely degrading, much more so than anything the Western world can impose. In Islam, she can also be owned as a SLAVE!!

Firstly, scroll up and read verses of Chapter 21 of the Book of Deuteronomy which I mentioned earlier in this comment. Thus your scripture allows taking women as captives.
Coming to your argument that muslims think woman is "property" to be owned, is completely wrong. Males are also taken as captives; does this mean that they are property to be owned? Solomon (AS) had 900 captives, so, what do you say about him?
When the Prophet (SAW) was leaving this world, the last words which were on his lips were: 'to Establish Salat and deal justly with slaves.' In his famous sermon at Friday, 10th of Zul Hijja, he said to the pilgrims: 'Treat your slaves justly; feed them with such food as you eat yourself and clothe them with such clothes as you wear yourself.'
Husbands or fathers do not own wives/daughters; they protect her modesty and give her security.

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other..." [4:34]

>>> Here's a news-flash, Rehman: an unmarried woman in the West is NOT "public property"... Now, the Muslim man cannot handle this: his mind gets frazzled!! He cannot control his lust, and if he sees a woman whom he thinks is not being sufficient OWNED by another man, he believes he has the GOD-GIVEN RIGHT to take her by force. The mentality is: "She is offering herself."

The concept of a "property" or "commodity" to be exact, fits very well in the Western society. People can "buy" the respect, dignity, modesty of women. Prostitutes and sex-working is considered to be a respectful profession; as early as 1949, UN tried to decriminalize prostitution. All you have to do is to put some money in the pocket of women and you can buy the sexual services to fulfill your lusts.
Here is an extract from the article "Sexual Revolution" from the Wikipedia Encyclopedia. You can read it at: http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/sexual_revolution

'Advances in the manufacture and production of rubber made possible the design and production of condoms that could be used by hundreds of millions of men and women to prevent pregnancy at little cost. Advances in steel production and immunology made an abortion a safe and harmless way of ending pregnancies. Advances in chemistry, pharmacology, and knowledge of biology, and human physiology and all sorts of new drugs led to the discovery and perfection of oral contraceptives also known as "The Pill". Purchasing an aphrodisiac and various sex toys became "normal". Sado-masochism ("S&M;") gained popularity, and "no-fault" unilateral divorce became legal and easier to obtain in many countries during the 1960s and 1970s.
All these developments took place alongside and combined with an increase in world literacy and decline in religious observances. Old values such as the notion of "be fruitful and multiply" rooted in the Bible, for example, were cast aside as people continued to feel alienated from the past and adopted the life-styles of modernizing westernized cultures.'

This paragraph is the best possible way to summarize the Western mentality. Killing of children in the womb of women by abortions is considered to be 100% legal. What was the sin of that child which was in the womb? Science tells us that sperm and ovum are living and the zygote formed is also living. This is the level of your crudeness and ignorance!

"When the sun will stop radiating heat & light. And when the stars shall fall; And when the mountains shall made to pass away; And when the pregnant she-camels shall be neglected; And when the wild beasts shall be gathered together; And when the seas shall become as blazing Fire (or shall overflow); And when the souls shall be joined with their bodies; And when the female (infant) buried alive (as the pagan Arabs used to do) shall be questioned. For what sin she was killed?" [81:1-8]

Development of condoms also shows the level to which you can fall to fulfill your lusts.
Coming to your argument that muslim men can take women forcefully into marriage is based on sheer ignorance of Islam:

"O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will, and you should not treat them with harshness, that you may take away part of the Mahr you have given them, unless they commit open illegal sexual intercourse. And live with them honourably. If you dislike them, it may be that you dislike a thing and Allah brings through it a great deal of good." [4:19]

So, you see that if anyone forcefully marries a woman, he will be accountable on the Day of Judgment.

>>> ...she is the one who decides where she will work, where she will drive to, where she will shop, where she will be educated. And, most importantly, she makes the choice of which man she wants...

You guys don't understand that at the time of marriage, men and women have equal right to marry or separate; if a woman does not want to marry, she can refuse to marry. Our Prophet (SAW) said: 'Marry women to husbands of their choice.' Then, coming to the argument where she will work, etc. I want to tell you that Islam gives women much higher rights! Islam gives SIMILAR rights to women as men, not SAME rights i.e. Equity, not a blind equality. Both men and women are equal in their humanity, in their accountability before Allah, in their responsibility to perform their assigned tasks and be judged based on their performance.
But their assigned tasks are not the same. They have been given different capabilities by their Creator and the tasks based on those capabilities. This differentiation is not an error that needs to be corrected. It is the only basis for building a healthy and prosperous society.
Islam liberates a woman from the modern tyranny of having to become a man in order to get a sense of self worth and achievement. In Islam, women don't have to do jobs and run factories to get their earning. They don't have to become a "father" as well as a mother; they don't have to feed babies on milk, as well as, work in offices. It is the responsibility of the husband to provide for the family. Islam has freed the women from this responsibility so she can take care of the home. All efforts to snatch this freedom and economic security from the women and forcing them out of the home into the labor force must be resisted.
Infact, in the West, most women find prostitution & working in pornographic films to be the easiest way to earn money. In this way, they not only lose their modesty, dignity, respect, but, also destroy family values. Such professions break the bond of love b/w wives and husbands and ultimately, destroys the family system. When the family system collapses, the whole society collapses; what will happen to a building if all bricks broke out?
UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) in Article 16, sub-section (3) reads: 'The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society...' Bill Clinton said during his times, 'After me, most of the people of America will be born without any wedlock.' If family is the natural and fundamental group, then why family values have been shattered by the West? Why "no-fault" unilateral divorces have become legal and easier to obtain in the West? Why people are made to revolt against the family system? Why is family system considered to be "outdated and worn out"?
Homemaking is a very honorable job and a serious responsibility; it is the foundation on which healthy societies can be built. The societies that disrespect homemaking lose the homemakers and result in broken homes as can easily be witnessed in many parts of the world. It should be recognized that the trend to belittle the task of homemaking is anti-family and anti-society and must be curbed.
It is a Muslim woman's right to dress modestly, wear hijab, and refuse to be put on display. This right must be accepted universally and any effort to restrict this right must be recognized for what it is: Religious discrimination and/or persecution. Most Westerns have tried to fulfill their lusts by asking women to throw away clothes under the veil of "Liberty and Freedom". This intention is 100% clear, thanks to the actions of the French government, which proved that they want "one way liberalism" i.e. the liberty to take off clothes, not to put on, for fulfilling their lusts.
The West have made women an item to fulfill their lusts. Wherever they want to advertise a product, they accompany it with pictures of women. Wikipedia Encyclopedia rightly notes:-

"Doctor Sigmund Freud of Vienna unmasked the roots of human behavior as being rooted in the libido. This new modern "science" of psychoanalysis revolutionized an entire culture's self image. Victorian prudishness was shoved aside by a new consciousness of a sex drive. Men had an Oedipus complex and women had penis envy according to Freud. The mother's breast was the source of all later erotic sensation. This new philosophy was the new intellectual and cultural underpinning ideology of the new age of sexual frankness."

This is the real force driving all "Liberty of Women" and "Gender Equality" ideologies. Some more extracts from the same article to unveil the Western ideology:

"Beautiful women and extremely handsome men were rigorously selected to become movie stars and when they were cast in movies with romantic scenes of love, kissing, hugging, and flirting, an entire culture was transformed as it became more acceptable to show feelings of affection in public...
The invention of television made it possible for scenes of love and romance to be broadcast into any home with a "TV". A whole genre of actors arose who were particularly well-endowed with charisma and "sex appeal". Thus an entire culture arose which was steeped in and eroticized by movie and TV culture, far removed from the more inhibiting times of an "old fashioned" morality rooted in "Bible-thumping" religion...
Famous names in entertainment became not just "stars" but also "goddesses". Beautiful women such as Marilyn Monroe, Raquel Welch, Brigitte Bardot, Jane Fonda, Sophia Loren, Madonna and later young imitators, were explicit in casting a sexual aura about themselves as actresses and to the celebrity-hungry media. A love scene in every movie was accepted as the norm..."

It seems that the words 'modesty, shy, respect, dignity, etc' have disappeared from the West's dictionary! More excerpts...

"A new culture of "free love" with tens of thousands of young people becoming "hippies" arose who preached the power of love and the beauty of sex as part of ordinary student life. This was part of a counter culture that exists to the present. It became acceptable for colleges to allow co-educational housing where male and female students commingled freely...
Explicit sex on screen and acceptance of frontal nudity by men and women on stage became the norm in many American and European countries, as the twentieth century ended. Special places of entertainment of striptease and lap dancing proliferated. The famous Playboy Bunnies set a trend. Men came to be entertained by topless women at night-clubs which also hosted "peep shows".
Pre-marital sex was openly adopted and if pregnancies did occur then abortion was easily available.
Music which influenced the young became more sexually explicit."

From these excerpts, it is not very difficult to see that the West has been trying its utmost to fall day-by-day to fulfill their lusts. Since, the past 50 years, most developments have only been towards open sexuality.
But, the question may be raised as to why this happened? The answer may be given by citing a short extract from the same article:

"All these developments took place alongside and combined with an increase in world literacy and decline in religious observances..."

Thus the Western culture immerged due to lack of piety, dignity and sublime character, in the whole nation. This increased to such an extent that the whole society accepted a Sexual Revolution. These desires towards open sex are not newly born; every human has these animal instincts, but, the only thing which differentiates humans from animals is to control these instincts. Only then can we call ourselves HUMANS, otherwise, we are no more than mere animals. Islam preaches to CONTROL these animal instincts, NOT CRUSH THEM. This is infact the most moderate path in this regard.

Enough for now... This post has grown extremely huge!
Good bye... Take care of yourselves!
May God guide you towards the Right Path! (Ameen)