"GOD DAMN THOSE SWINES TO ETERNAL HELL. PEACE BE UPON YOU AND THE WORLD."

More insane rantings from people suffering from the sickness of the islamic mind.

http://www.islamcomicbook.com/

priceless,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

very funny.

you should post more of that stuff Mr Spencer.

THESE BASTARDS ARE ABUSING THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. THEY SHOULD BE HANGED FOR INSULTING OUR INTELLIGENCE, ONE GOOD THING ABOUT THIS PUBLISHING, IT HAS UNITED THE WHOLE WESTERN WORLD. GOD DAMN THOSE SWINES TO ETERNAL NOTHINGNESS-THAT-COMES-AFTER-DEATH. PEACE BE UPON YOU AND THE WORLD. JACK COSGROVE

"GOD DAMN THOSE SWINES TO ETERNAL HELL. PEACE BE UPON YOU AND THE WORLD."

You see, folks, there's no need to be confused over whether Islam is a religion of peace or of hate. Peace for Islam, and damn everyone else.

And if the site is getting that many hits, then forgive me if I post this once again (circulate widely for the purposes of public education):

The Koran says that 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); are “guilty” for disbelieving (45:31, 83:29); 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” (7:178-179); foolish and liars (7:66), liars and losers (58:18-19), in false pride and schism (38:2), the lowest of the low (95:4-6)

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm

Thanks, Mr. Spencer. I needed a good laugh!

LOL! This is just too funny!

Sadru, why did you TYPE IN ALL CAPS?

Stop yelling, you're giving me a headache.

Those are always good for a laugh, but, wow... This one's suitable for framing!

"Some of them, both supporters and foes of the jihad, don't read enough here to figure out which side we're on..."

There is no Robert but Robert and Hugh is his Vice President. Peace be upon them.

Too bad the "qibla" is Secure, Undisclosed Locationville-- one has to spin in a circle while reciting! ;)

Since late January Jihad Watch has been getting well over a million hits a day, and averaging about 30,000 unique visitors daily.

Wasn't it just last Nov when this site had a new high of 15,000,000 hits? People are eager for knowledge about Islam.LGF was bombarded by people seeking the Mohammed cartoons they had to move to a larger server.

Why doesn't the writer tell you how he REALLY feels?

Betcha can't guess who this one is:

Salam Alaikum...learn to say this since you will all have Moslems/wuslims near you.

You Amrkans will soon have Moslem/wuslim neighboors....I have run a marathon in Lahore all covered up modestly in a niqab (not burka) which is very comfortable even to the western women who think we are not free but really we are...I am a mother like Libbysmom who inshallah will soon take the shahada of the burqa...like me.

You Amrkans and westerners like to talk about freedom of the press...but you don't know the peace of the Profet Mohd (pbuh)...you will soon learn that attacking Islam will not help you...Islam will only make your lives so much better...The sister saw an image of the Profet Mohd (pbuh) and she will always be hurt by what her eyes saw...I have friends in Brixton who are peaceful Moslems but they don't work since they are entitled to help from the British and there is much racism against Islam...I am Ahmadi and very peaceful...They were peaceful in UK but now are very hurt by what Danish did to the poor young people...They have no choice but to show you that Britain is wrong even if they did not show the terrible pictures of the Mohd (pbuh)...Submit to the peace of Islam.

I hope I make a contribution to this place....It is difficult for me to post here.

Someone needs to log onto the al-Qaeda website and praise them for sticking it to those jihadi bastards, and do it with bad grammar...

It's frequently suggested these days that Muslims are culturally oblivious to free speech as it exists in Western democracies.

But don't we, even in the West, recognize--at least de facto--that there must be limits to freedom of expression, beyond those imposed by law, if we hope to live in a civilization? Not long ago Mayor Rudolf Giuliani of New York made short work of a portrait of the Madonna which the artist had ornamented with cow dung. This representation was quickly spirited from the Brooklyn Museum, no questions asked.

Indelicate references to the Holocaust invariably meet with condemnation on all sides, and B'nai Brith is ever watchful that certain lines are not crossed.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, too, is perpetually on guard.

At Harvard University--where, alas, people should know better--the University community was forced, during the 1960s and in the name of freedom of speech, to tolerate distasteful parodies of the Nativity put on in the undergraduate houses during the Christmas season. I remember being part of a graduate-student delegation to then Dean of Students Archie Epps to protest. These Nativity enactments, gratuitously mocking Christians, were quickly terminated. The question of freedom of speech was never debated at Harvard in the aftermath.

Why, one wonders, is Islam expected to tolerate abuses which we Christians and Jews will not countenance in our own regard?

Finally, how many Americans of Polish extraction, like the present writer, are indifferent to being portrayed as ignoramuses in an endless repertoire of jokes at Polish expense? How much prejudice has the unflattering stereotype, thus created in the exercise of freedom, engendered?

Dear Dr. Gajewski,

Thank you for your thoughtful remarks.

Actually Giuliani denounced the Ofili piece, but it remained in the Brooklyn Museum. After all, it was a matter of free speech. "Piss Christ" by Serrano and many other examples show that your assertion that "Islam is expected to tolerate abuses which we Christians and Jews will not countenance in our own regard" is based on a false premise. Christians and Jews peacefully tolerate abuses and insults in the West all the time.

What's more, how many Poles have rioted, burned down buildings, or killed innocent people because of Polish jokes?

Cordially
Robert Spencer
Director, Jihad Watch

Ferdinand Gajewski -you are making a false comparison between islamic outrage and that from the west at images of Christ as a homosexual or the Virgin Mary being defacated on and very mild satyrical cartoons.
Even as an agnostic i am revolted by such portrayals and demand that they be merely removed from public view as they are undoubtedy malicious . But i do not demand the execution of the "artists" or the torching of museums that exhibit them. Nor would millions of Catholics make such demands either.

"But don't we, even in the West, recognize--at least de facto--that there must be limits to freedom of expression, beyond those imposed by law, if we hope to live in a civilization?"

Dr. Gajewski,

You have completely lost your mind, sir. Please tell me you are not edjucating our youth on a university campus somewhere in the United States.

Please visit http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch immediately. Do not pass GO.

Thank you.

If these so call artist that insult Christian than the Prophet Christ would have being burned at the strake in the 16 th century by both Protant and Chatho side. The Pope and Marther Luther might even gotting together peaceful in Rome to have than burning with that artist that put Christ in a jar of
piss as the burning guess of honoring being burned to than cheering crowd of Christian.

defenderofislam

"If these so call artist that insult Christian than the Prophet Christ would have being burned at the strake in the 16 th century"

That's the best you can do is reach back 500 years.
Geez with Islam I only have to go back to last week.
And self amputate something for butchering the King's English.

Foehammer

Agree with you all the way. Looks like DefenderofIslam was one of the good doctor's students. LOL! Both are conveying the same message(I think)and both would be wrong.

I wonder if Defender is really Hugh trying to give his guests another gobblygook lesson? I've read the damm thing 5 times and I still can't decipher it. Doesn't matter, whoever this is, cracks me up!

Why, one wonders, is Islam expected to tolerate abuses which we Christians and Jews will not countenance in our own regard?

No such demands have or are being made.
As has been proven, there have been many portrayals of the Prophet from within Islam itself which are not considered idolitary.
No Statues have been sculpted, No paintings or watercolors, merely cartoon drawings. Certainly no cartoons that can match those appearing regularly in pubs such as Al Ahram of egypt, which portray Jews making bread from the blood of gentiles.
And do we see Jews or Christians attacking the Egyptian and other ME embassies in London or elsewhere?
Do we see Christians attacking mosques for the insults that see heaped on them by Muslim clerics , even those mosques built on the remains of desecrated and destroyed Churches?

NO the cartoon incidents are a call to arms. A testing of the resolve of muslims throughout the world to defend and fight for the honor of Islam for even the slighest of perceived insults from the Infidel.
A test they have passed with flying colors!
It is but a dress rehearsal for what is to come later.

"You Amrkans and westerners like to talk about freedom of the press...but you don't know the peace of the Profet Mohd (pbuh)...you will soon learn that attacking Islam will not help you...Islam will only make your lives so much better...The sister saw an image of the Profet Mohd (pbuh) and she will always be hurt by what her eyes saw" quoted above..

Not only talk about free speach, but use it without a thought.

The sister would probally not prefer to explore history a bit, as the "profet" was rendered in books and paintings for hundreds of years.

And not just by the west.

My question is how many that did so were attacked (and killed?) by islam, the way a small newspaper is today.

Islam will only make your lives so much better...

Please read, oh please read Nonie Darwish's article in today telegraph.uk

The cartoons did not cause the disease of hate that we are seeing in the Muslim world on our television screens at night - they are only a symptom of a far greater disease.

Indeed, with Denmark set to assume the rotating presidency of the UN Security Council, the flames of the cartoon controversy have been fanned by Iran and Syria. This is critical since the International Atomic Energy Agency is expected to refer Iran to the Security Council and demand sanctions

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/02/12/do1205.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/02/12/ixop.html

QUESTION

Can someone explain how it is possible to be getting over a million hits a day, with only 30,000 unique visitors, as Spencer says? Doesn't that mean the average number of hits per visitor is over 30? Maybe I'm not understanding what a 'hit' is.

A survey on the Muhammad cartoons that hasn't yet been overtaken:

http://www.consumerpromotionzone.com/?cid=yJQvZkcx2p0&u=b6a30e25eef363927577c9df4b6dc503&=

Was The Mohamed Cartoon Okay To Publish?

Yes! 83 %

No Way! 17 %

To the faux Polish-named guy, Ph.d.-

As someone whose relatives were murdered by the Third Reich and the Soviets (some distant great-uncles died in the Katyn Forest slaughter of the officer corps by the Russians) when both the Nazis and Commies attacked Poland in 1939 (somehow the Soviet part of the invasion always gets glossed over) I find your 'intelligence' at about the level of one of the droll Polish jokes my father used to laugh at.

As someone whose last name got me the monicker "alphabet soup" when I was in the military, let me add you to the jokebook (with my Dad's favorite):

The was a Frenchman, an Italian, and a Ph.d named Gajewski lost in the Sahara desert together. The Italian has a bottle of wine, the Frenchman a loaf of bread, the Ph.d named Gajewski was carrying a car door.

The Italian said: "When I get hot and tired, I take a swig of my wine." The Frenchman said: "When I am hungry and warm, I have a bite of my bread." Ph.d Gajewski looked at them with mocking scorn, thumped on the door, and said: "When I am hot and exhausted, I just roll down my window."

Free speech even has to include dissembling fools claiming to have Ph.d's, too.

(Ga-JEW-ski, indeed.)

profitsbeard
Last Name: Gajewski
Polish: habitational name for someone from any of the various places named Gaj (from gaj ‘grove’), Gajew, or Gajewo.
over 18,000 live in the US
Ferdinand is not of Polish origin
However there are eight in the USA most in Michigan.
This Man is probably a Genuine
Gajewski.
Some of my (unknown) Polish relatives were murdered at Jedwabne so i understand your bitterness.

Can someone explain how it is possible to be getting over a million hits a day, with only 30,000 unique visitors, as Spencer says? Doesn't that mean the average number of hits per visitor is over 30? Maybe I'm not understanding what a 'hit' is. - posted by Eduardo

We hardcore types print out Hugh's particularly informative posts and snort them. 30 "hits" a day requires building up some tolerance.

They get you when you're young, man, and then you're hooked. I mean, it could happen to you:

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e256/shinoliite/b4710d53.jpg

... Seriously, though, a "hit" is any time a web page is loaded, whether it's the first time ever, or if someone hits reload, or returns more than once in a day.

The disproportional number of hits to unique visitors is because of people like me who, being hooked thusly, check Jihad Watch when they check their email.

That is, often. :)

"Indelicate references to the Holocaust invariably meet with condemnation on all sides, and B'nai Brith is ever watchful that certain lines are not crossed." --from Ferdinand, who may believe that listing "PhD" will disguise his crude, superficial assessment...

Mohammad with bomb on his head cartoon versus holocaust cartoon.

Mohammad told his followers that to "slay themselves" (4:66) in the cause of making Allah's religion superior was most commendable (slay or be slain for Allah, 4:74, 9:111). He told them to use whatever means they could to the utmost of their power to accomplish this (8:60, 9:41, 9:5). Modern-day Islamists have made the association between Mohammad's instructions. The cartoonist, interviewed, indicated that his intent was to refer to the jihadists who linked the prophet Mohammad to suicide bombing. This is fair and reasonably accurate based on the Islamic texts and is based on what the jihadists themselves say about what they do. The non-Muslim victims, by the way, are not depicted in the Mohammad-bomb cartoon.

In the holocaust, a Mohammad-like figure named Hitler murdered millions of Jews. There is no prohibition on making cartoons of Hitler, but any morally sound individual would not mock the victims of Hitler. Likewise, no morally sound individual would mock the victims of Mohammad, or the victims of the suicide attackers who believe they are following his orders. Many people in the Islamic world jump for joy and express great mirth when non-Muslims are slaughtered. Many people in the Islamic world have mocked the victims, e.g., making a cartoon with Hitler in bed with Anne Frank.

One American professor freely referred to the victims of Sept. 11 as "little Eichmans," and there was a fury over that, but no violent demonstrations, no mass uprisings by the American people, and he has not been killed. I believe he still has his job, educating the youth of America.

Ferdinand, do you understand the difference between a murderous tyrant and the victims of the murderous tyrant? Do you believe that making fun of a dictator is morally equivalent to making fun of the innocent victims of the tyrant? There's no question that mocking innocent victims is immoral.

Mohammad as martyr is consistent with his own stated desires in the hadith (Sahih Bukhari), and with the instructions given to his followers, and with the followers' modern-day jihadist actions.

The upshot of all of this is that making fun of the victims of the Holocaust would be morally reprehensible (indeed, evil). But it could be morally acceptable to mock Hitler and Mohammad. It is not wrong to mock a bad man. The problem is simply that much of the world does not yet recognize that Mohammad was a bad man, one of the worst in history.

P.S.
We do permit the Koran to be published. The Koran is an atrocious book of hate, but we don't block it's publication. By that informal standard, the Mohammad cartoons are clearly "acceptable" (i.e., should not be subject to formal or informal ban).

Dr. Ferdinand Gajewski:

You are right to criticize the culture at large, which seems far too willing to allow the mockery of Poles. Our same society would be far less tolerant about such speech if it were directed at members of a minority group. However, if you are suggesting that there ought to be limitations to freedom of expression with respect to religious or political speech, you are opening the door to Islamic tyranny. Moslems are abusing the very institutions our ancestors fought so hard to build.

I am a homosexual and have endured some verbal attacks in the past. I will use my own personal interests as evidence that I do not desire the squelching of free speech. I suspect you will admit I much more likely to be subjected to insults than you are as a Pole. However, in spite of that, I would not ask this society to enact a hate speech statute. I believe in a free market of ideas where free speech is the remedy for painful speech. I will not tolerate attacks on free speech by liberals who want to enact "hate speech" statues any more than I will tolerate it from religious conservatives who want nothing more than to prevent the depiction of religious material that many might find offensive.

Without question there are legal limits to speech. I do not want to engage into a simplistic constitutional debate about free speech. However, what I think you were implying is a need for self-imposed restriction on speech. Perhaps you would ask the cartoonists, or the media entities that republish them - or whomever else is engaging in "offensive" speech - to simply refrain from doing so. If there are to be such self-restrictions, Islam will not be subjected to sufficient scrutiny. Islam is not being challenged from within Moslem world. In spite of that, you seem to be perfectly willing to eliminate any possible outside criticism of Islam. Those of us, with most certainly the staff at JD/DW included, who have read extensively about Islam, demand that Islam be exposed, subjected to criticism, and hopefully reformed or extinguished as a threat to civilization. Do not take attempt to take our only (peaceful) weapon away from us, whether through self retrain or otherwise. The result is the same: censorship. We will not allow it.

Kafir, Esq.

chevalier de st george-

How can someone not like a good joke? Especially at your own expense?

I mean, if they aren't within the Islamic no-wit zone.

Which is why I remain suspicious of Gajewski Ph.d's bona fides. His sense of humor doesn't ring true.

A Christianized Jewish buddy of mine (his family converted about the time of Kopernik) told me this one many moons ago:

"How can you be sure Jesus was Jewish? Because his mother thought he was God, and he went into his father's business."

I guess that would start riots if it were about "how can you be sure Mohammad was Muslim"?

No humor, no peace!

There is no Robert but Robert and Hugh is his Vice President. Peace be upon them.

kafir unbeliever, I'm assuming that you were quoting from a deleted message:

"I am a mother like Libbysmom who inshallah will soon take the shahada of the burqa...like me."

Not sure who wrote that, but I'm sitting here laughing at the thought that a Muslim is claiming to be a dog's mother. Libby is my sable collie.

Libby's mom, who has a burqa allergy

Is there an echo in here, Sandracottus? :D

Shinoliite, that may have been an echo, but it really was the funniest post I've read today. Good on you!

la illa Robert Hugh e rasul e Robert

La Ilaha Illa Robert, Hughun Rasul Allah

OPPPS

Hughun Rasul Robert!!!!!!!

Shinoliite -- thanks for the explanation -- do you know if clicking the back button, and going to a page of Jihad Watch you were already on, counts as a hit? One is not reloading when one clicks the back button...

Islam is a blight upon the world.
Islam must reform itself or be destroyed.
If the cartoon arab street wants a fight, who are we to deny them a well deserved pummeling ?
Hell, let's kick em from here to Khartoum (or is that Mecca ?).
Jolly good Nigel, bring on the blighters.

Eduardo -

Some hit counters will record it every time a page is returned to. Not sure exactly how that works-- in my moderate experience with building websites for my own amusement, I've always gone for the free, cheap counter. ;)

But it sure sends the numbers up in a hurry.

Dgene - you just reminded me:

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Khartoum_Controversy

And:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:Rms.jpg

The sister saw an image of the Profet Mohd (poopbeuponhim) and she will always be hurt by what her eyes saw...
Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever
___

No doubt. Aparently he had fleas, dyed his hair with red henna, and stunk real bad from lack of bathing.

This is what the noble hadith tells us, so it can't be considered an insult to the pedophile rock prophet.

I hardily thank sanju and the rest of violent, irrational ilk for showing any reasonable people that Muslims are just a bunch of violent, hypocrtical savages who want to force their hate faith on everyone else.

La Ilaha Illa Robert, Hughun Rasul Allah

Posted by: Sandracottus
___

It's "al ilah ta 'ala" (the god most high) which was later contracted to "al lah" (the god) Allah's real name is Sin or Hubal(the moon god- Sin- seems most apropriate)father of Al-lat, al-Uzza,' and Manat, daughters of al ilah ta 'ala(the god most high)which Mohammad himself confirmed in the koran.

When this was exposed to the world by Rushdie in his book "satanic verses", Korans were quickly abrogated, and a fatwah was issued on Rushdie. Slowly, Ishaq's accounting of this fact is being slowly edited and filtered out, ( additional verses added to lamely explain how the devil got to Mohammad and "made" him say those things, although it appears he didn't realize it for over a year as he enjoyed the bribe money from the qu'arish) as are many of his accountings of the life and sayings of Mohamhead.

Their name calling does make you laugh.
So long as it stays there.
__________
Islam seems to be churning out these extremist nuts, like automatic weapon fire.

If they think that they are going to turn the world into the Islamic Sham - that their own countries run under, they are mistaken.
_________
With all their discipline and prayer - why have they not created something useful in this world? It seems that their biggest aim is to take over – regardless.

Image the whole world being locked down into the thoughtless mutterings - to a God that we were forced to believe in or be killed.

In today’s world shouldn’t Islam feel shame - that it desires this?

We should not be surprised, as this was the nature of the Islamic prophet; he imposed himself on women or girls who did not want him and people who did not believe in his way, he converted by fear of death.

His followers of today - in a time when there has never been greater freedom for the individual or development in science and in thought – those who blindly recite the Islamic text do not grasp the value of the right of the individual.

And work instead to violently exercise control – through fear – those who are non-believers.

We are paying the Jiza, with the loss of our freedoms.
_________
I put it to you that beliefs in our rights and our freedoms - are also our religion.
Do we not believe in them?
Do we not hold them to be true?
Then therefore we should be prepared to defend them, even more so - than this group wishes to take them away.

Amen

Mullahmasher

All that Arabic nonsense -

Let's hang that Moon God back in the Desert.

Here is the 'uncyclopdia' entry for Salman Rushie

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Salmon_Rushdie

To bring back the heated war between "Board members vs. Dr. Ferdinand Gajewski": I'm afraid this itself is a good example of what is happening in the middle east today.

A good poster has given his idea to us, let's label it, "Western Idea", and this board, lets label it, "Arabs", has visciously attacked it in a very demeaning way. Is this some sort of hate site? I think we have forgot the purpose of this board, to bring awareness about jihad, and not to deject any other poster who thinks otherwise.

I'm not saying all of you are like this, however, for certain members (you know who you are), post your comments without viscious insults.

Flame me if you must,
lastmanstanding

Also, just an interesting pattern:

Muslims in the Middle East tend to be more violent because their system of government is based on Islamic ideals. However, when you take away the islamic government, i.e, an American born muslim, they tend preach the peaceful side of the religion more.

This alone should identify the problem, not the religion itself, but the extremity in which it is practiced. Islam too is open to interpretation, as the more violent passages of the Quran can be taken as literally as the reader wants.

The same can be applied to the U.S, of course, to a lesser extent: Christians in the North east and west of the U.S generally don't take bible tales as literally as people in the south, who still believe in Creationism.

hey lostmanstanding,you dont need flames.. you need a good dousing! how many Christians have you heard taking heads of its opponents? you have it totally wrong..Christians stand for rights of all living people and those unborn. have you read Robert Spencer's book comparing what Jesus said vs what Mohammud said? that is just a start. you need to really think before you step in it!

Please read more carefully before you post.

I explicitly said "to a lesser extent".

My post was intended to convey a similarily in treatment of dissenters. Look at the christian right in the south, who essentially dispise any religious dissenters in their community. A lot of students in southern schools who are not Christian end up depressed and dejected because of such treament.

Also, please note how the Islamic religion is a relatively younger religion than Christianity. I personally believe every religion, like humans, have
"phases" or so to speak: christianity had its own violent phase in the middle ages, where you cannot disagree that many innocent people were beheaded in holy wars and purges.

Sadru must be one of them moderate muslims I keep hearing about.

In all fairness you have to agree with lastmanstanding of this note.

Christianity is 2000 year old and Islam is 1500 and now Islam is acting like Christianity did 500 years ago.

So now when Islam comes with its religious - believe it or else force, but for the West it is like we have been there and done that before.
____________________________
But it demonstrates the state of Islam - where it desperately has to control all its followers – it is on its dying breathe. I happen to have some old pics from National Geographic mag. of the Yemen in the 1970's. And the women were wearing more colourful clothing – versus now where almost every Islamic woman in required to wear the Black Shroud - I suppose to show their absolute loyalty to the group - but this is something that has never happened before in the whole of Islam’s history. It’s an exaggeration of faith.

In a last gasp attempt to gain absolute control - I think all the evidence points to the fact that Islam are just about to loose control. The masses will never be controlled like this again. It is a kind of the height of Islam – before its decline.

But I think that it is going to be good for them - they need freedom of thought, this at is at the heart of science. Would the God they claim is so Merciful - wished them to be stuck using only the limited knowledge found in the Koran fro 1500 years ago. Because information or new ideas are not found in the Koran – they are prevented from using it – and in most places development is Kaput.

There’s no talking sense to them at the moment because they are in a religious fervor - save for the oil rich nations, in most Islamic countries their people are uneducated, and they are so backwards that we - honestly can not imagine their mindsets. For example, your mother is illiterate and she looks up to your father as if he is next to god, and they have a family of 5 on a meager wage, what he might make in a week - we might accidentally spend in the supermarket, when we went in for one item and picked up a few more.

When these people's surviving children go to school, their lessons are almost entirely centred on reciting the Koran. For the most part forget about progress, forget about learning information which might improve basic conditions of life. This is the use of a Western style education system to create, not scientist, or elite thinkers, but religious automatons.

With all the oil wealth that the Arabs have taken in - seems the most they have to show for it is a few hotels complexes in Dubai. Once Japan became wealthy, Korea and several of the other countries in that region also become rich. Now China is becoming wealthy. These areas in Asia are creating enormous wealth and they don't have oil.
___________________________________

What is wrong in the Islamic areas?
___________________________________
With all the oil wealth going into that region, we should hold the Arabs responsible, for educating their people. The Arabs are in Europe throwing their money around - buying football stadiums and hotels - all for pleasure - while their North African brothers - who so desperately want to identify themselves as being Arab, too - are practically starving, within the site of Europe. Here the Berber people - forgo good advice from Europe, to cling to the hope of one day being officially recognized as Arab and possibly the wealth that comes with it. [Basically these people are dreaming – living in an illusion.]
So their schools systems and systems of governing try to be Arab - and they are poor as hell as a result - and they will tell you that they are poor because they don't have oil.
______________________________

Religion has its limits or rather its place - and I think Saudi Arabia - in future is going to have to take more responsibility for people who come underneath it. To educate them in a way to reduce the serious stench of poverty and the donkey cart governing systems in these Muslim nations.
_____________________________

RE: ...... don't take bible tales as literally as people in the south, who still believe in Creationism.

The intellectual genius Albert Einstein stated
that "it is obvious as I study the nature of the Universe, that things did not happen by chance, but surely was created by a superior being"

By creationism, I mean the whole:

"god created the earth and every animal on it in 7 days", not the actual creation of the universe

At least Dr. Gajewski knows which side we are on so PhD not wasted.

"There is no Robert but Robert and Hugh is his Vice President. Peace be upon them."

Another T-shirt design :-)

Is it anti-social and therefore sinful for Jews or Muslims, and particularly for Christians, to indulge their legitimate right to freedom of speech when: 1) the speech is uncharitable (if in doubt, Christians may refer to the Sermon on the Mount and to St. Paul), 2) one has given sufficient reflection to one's action, and 3) one has given full consent of the will to the uncharitable utterance?

(When uncharitable expression comes from the mouths of the stupid, ignorant and mentally incompetent such persons are presumably not culpable in the eyes of the Most High.)

My initial post, incidentally, concerned abuse of Muslims in the West and not Muslim abuse of the West. It was puzzling that so many posters changed the subject.