Rage at the Emory Wheel

I would hope the mere mention of "JIHAD WATCH" would invited those who have never been to visit...

Dear Professor Spencer,
Thanks for all you do!

Think of it this way: You are helping to deflate the balloon of Islamic "tolerance" that is propagated - inflated - by the MSM, at least one pin prick at a time.

:)

God bless!

College students, i remember being that ignorant once on my own issues. Luckily i entered the real world, outside the reach of professors and other self-professed experts on the "world", and discovered that the world is not made up of nice people just waiting to help another, that dialogue alone is not a solution to the world's ills and that being tolerant of intolerance is a good way to get hurt.

Sharefa Aria, Ridwan Khan, Huma Mirza and Aneel Naeem are clearly individuals unfamiliar with, or in denial of, the texts of their faith.

They appear equally unfamiliar with, or in denial of, the actual letter written by Robert Spencer.

It's an astounding phenomenon -- name calling, ranting, unbridled anger from muslims without ever once addressing the texts quoted and why Robert Spencer is "wrong". It is, as Spencer predicted, always the same sweeping "taken out of context" gesture and never, ever a sensible and truthful rebuttle. Of course, that's because there is none. Isalm is what it is, and those books say what they say.

Robert - you are the Man,as usual. I wonder if these guys have any clue with whom they are dealing. They can't get away with their usual denials, lies, and rhetoric that work so well on uninformed, PC-obsessed types.

There is a term you might not be familiar with. It is 'memeoid'. A meme was defined by Richard Dawkins as a unit of information which replicates wildly in the same way a virus replicates, but using the mind as a host instead of the cells of the body. It is a play on the word 'gene'. A memeoid is someone who is infected with such virulent information that he no longer cares about his own survival. Suicide bombers are such people. They exist only to propagate the virus they are infected with. All moslems are potential memeoids and will become memeoids if their mental immune systems are weak enough.
The man who Dawkins credits with inventing the term 'memeoid' is Keith Henson, who was arrested recently for violating a California statute called Interfering with a Religion. See http://www.operatingthetan.com
This man criticized the Scientology cult and picketed their compound. Now he is facing jail. His case serves as a warning. Confine your criticism to polite and logical discourse, as Spencer does. Do not taunt, or ridicule. Memeoids are not rational and they will attack through any means available, legal or illegal.

Sharefa Aria, Ridwan Khan, Huma Mirza and Aneel Naeem, I invite you to join the collection of commenters at Jihadwatch and start telling us where we are wrong. It's so easy a caveman could do it, so I know a well schooled Emory University student could do it. Y'all dare not join; there are some very intellegent commenters who will chew you up and spit you out, figuratively and intellectually, of course.

Firstly I think the journal in question needs to be congratulated for running all these editorials and dissenting opinions.

Secondly the authours of this letter have has Robert so prophetically predicted done nothing to counter the arguments and evidence put forward by Robert. This is shameful from response from those in an academic position and should the authours of said letter be reading this you should be hanging your heads at such a contemptable counter argument, which can be summed as thus:

Those who question the tenents and doctrinal basis of Islam and its diametric opposition to Western, liberal and humanist values should consider themselves the worst of hatemongers because your questioning upsets the sensibilities of those who do practice the religion.

Absolutely pitiful. The authors objection to critical discourse is perhaps one of the largest obstacles to redressing the grievences that exist on both sides of the Islam/Jihad debate. From this perspective alone their academic status should be revoked.

People who suffer from Infidelobia are inclined to make all kinds of excuses.

Your bizarre post and the placing of it in this thread, americaningermany, tells us a lot about you. What is your motivation in presenting something so off-topic in this particular thread, one might wonder.

And one might do the right thing and ignore it and you from this point on after pondering the possibilities.

americaningermany, ask the Saudi what the Arabic word for pluralism is.

@Abraham_Lincoln:

This might come as a shock to you, but there is a community feeling here on JW. Many posters here have commented for years, I being one of those. I don't find americaningermany's question something that merits more than a polite response or no response, but I'm hardly surprised, from the snippets I've read from you thus far, that you're looking for straws to pull and chains to yank.

Left to their own devices islamists of any race will destroy America in the same way they turn any place they go into a toilet. The islamists, with their refusal to do simple things like washing their hands at the hospital or getting polio vaccines will bring misery to all of us. The result, any muslim that you come in contact with has the potential to slime you with who knows what debilitating or fatal disease. They are ruining our colleges and universities, our malls and restaurants, airports and public transportation and soon our cities as well, they are the cause of all our recent loss of rights and we will lose more in the future. The authorities have imported a cancer into our midst and I am starting to believe that the powers that be are actually trying to get us killed. I see no other way of defining it.
baconblaster,
I followed your link, Hemet=crackhead central or methlab nation. These people, if you can call them people that live in the Hemet wasteland are either on welfare, crack or both. Throw in the illegal job thieves and the rape, robbery and murder they bring (jobs Americans do not want to do) and you have the makings of a (fill in the name of your favorite ME crapistan and you could not tell the difference) American garbage dump.
americaningermany,
I have seen this before, if you are a woman you won’t have to wait long for it to find ways of making your life miserable. I have never met an islamist that wasn’t a complete piece of ****. Hey, they may exist but I have never met one. Chrysler is off my list of companies, I will buy from.

@americaningermany:

If the Saudi you're working for is a Muslim (99.9% chance), then you'll have a knot in your gut, as I would I. You'll have to weigh what's best for you versus what you can afford to do as a matter of honor. If quitting isn't viable now, you can work to make it viable later.

Here's my advice -- if something offends you at your core, then you'll be best off changing your surroundings. The opinions of others in this matter mean nothing -- because it won't change your heart.

Smart thing to do: keep silent on this matter at work, start looking for other means and when you find them, leave. In the meantime, grin and bear it.

The worst thing to do would be to put yourself in desperate financial straits over this, unless you feel there's more urgent reason to leave.

I also don't know how things work in Germany, but if you were to get yourself fired, you'd be able to claim compensation in the USA under many circumstances. There are creative solutions to every problem, you just need to examine all the possibilities....

Americaningermany, here's some advice from someone who has worked with many people from around the world, although it was always in the US. Just be cool and see what happens. Even if he is from Saudi Arabia, he could still be a marginal Muslim. There is a veeery remote possibility he is not Muslim or could even even be a Christian convert.

Find out what he eats; does he pray during the day. If you can observe him in the restroom, does he use the urinal and also use toilet paper at the urinal? Does he stand ridiculously close to the urinal? If he watches television and has a favorite beer, he might OK. Does he know the difference between beer and ale?

Here is another clue: If he is the kind of person who considers menial tasks beneath him, you might have a problem. One Iraqi I knew would always try to get someone else to make copies. He even asked my manager to make a copy of a cost estimate for him, and asked me to bring it to him from two blocks away!

Actually, I see this as a positive. By identifying

Jihadwatch.org,
Robert Spencer
and David Horowitz

once again by name in the Emory Wheel, Sharefa Aria, Ridwan Khan, Huma Mirza and Aneel Naeem have likely generated some curiosity by those not yet familiar with these sites. And I respectfully thank them for the service.

Robert opens this piece with:

"However, while the claim will be made that my quotations are 'cherry-picked,' 'out of context,' and so on, . . .

chuckle . . .voila. . .right on cue . . .

Spencer's specious arguments and David Horowitz's original ad use cherry-pickedquotes without any context to stigmatize a community, which comprises nearly one-fifth of our world population.

and of course . . .

It is apparent that Muslims, including Emory's sizable Muslim community,

the whiners response is replete with tu quoque/taqiyya ad nauseum . . .clearly pushing the dawa and demographic phases (Dawa, Demographic, Dhimmitude, Death) in the hopes that the Emory Wheel will relent, play dhimmi.

Numbers don't lie

"What other community could be compared to Mussolini's black shirts or the Nazis with impunity on the pages of a major university newspaper?

"Spencer's specious arguments and David Horowitz's original ad use cherry-picked quotes without any context to stigmatize a community, which comprises nearly one-fifth of our world population."

OK.

Roman Catholicism: all those bells and smells; all that Latin nonsense; Hail Marys, Confession...; fish on Friday; child-abusing priests; no abortion; no condoms; the IRA; et cetera, et cetera.

What a load of superstitious old tosh. What an objectionable, oppressive 'religion' Roman Catholicism is.*

Am I stigmatizing a community by saying this?

Well, if I am, I am 'stigmatizing' and oppressing myself because I am a Roman Catholic.

I am not a child-abusing priest, by the way.

This letter-writing 'committee' should try and examine the - fairly simple - propositions Robert Spencer is putting to the 'Muslim community' before firing off silly missives like this.

* My comments about Roman Catholicism are for indicative purposes only and do not necessarily reflect my beliefs.

Americaningermany -

Pelayo had a good suggestion. See what the guy is like first, he may be cool, he may be a dick, you don't know until you work with him a bit. I would be careful about opening up too much to a boss, any boss, especially if you are new on the job.

Other things to consider if the guy is a screaming prick is if you can transfer to another division wthin Daimler, you could also consider Human Resources, but i would be wary of them, they have a tendency to be all sympathetic right before they stab you in the back.

The Wheel Prints Hate Against Islam.

This is the 6th Pillar of Islam in action. Certainly the student editor has to wince, afraid of getting jumped by a half-dozen Ahmeds returning to his dorm from class after dark.

And you know the president of Emory U. is worried, darkly imagining his school being featured as a Hatemonger U. by the great globo-socialist John Stewart of the Daily Show.

* 2:61 * 2:64 * 2:96 * 4:41 * 4:47 * 4:55 * 4:160 * 5:13 * 5:41 * 17:7 * 5:59 * 59:2 * 88:1 *

There is no humor in Islam.
--- Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini

There is freedom of speech in dealing with or debating about Islam.
--- Alarmed Pig Farmer

no freedom

“…the difference between the Internet hate site jihadwatch.com and the Wheel…”

***I can see the correlation between ‘hate’ and all things ‘jihad.’ Surely any site that quotes directly from the (un)holy Qu’ran and the cult’s contemporary leaders will be dubbed ‘hateful.’

“It is apparent that Muslims,…have become…a scapegoat for terrorism, war, cavities? and whatever other ills currently plague society…” (AND OUR TEETH!)

“Like-minded bigots across the country congratulate Spencer for exposing "barbaric" Islam, while another claims Islam is not "religion, but a mental illness." Is this the kind of discourse with which we wish to define Emory?” (Ban comments now!)

***They raise a valid point. I would not want these people in my community either.

“For both the Wheel's record as well as Mr. Spencer's, we'd like to say that we (SPEAK FOR ALL) Muslims, and being maligned by the Wheel is unacceptable.”

“…we can distinguish between the religion and those who exploit (DISGUISE) it for political motives…”

***Like Keith Ellison, Darryl Issa, etc.

Keep up the great work Robert! You are pushing all the right buttons.

-XRDC

They are reduced to this transparent nonsense of Tqiyya and Tu Quoque. How else can they proceed? They know what is in the texts. They know what states, societies, families suffused with Islam are taught. They know the tenets. They know the attitudes. They are well used to the atmospherics. They just don't know how to handle those Infidels who also know those texts, those teachings, those attitudes, those atmospherics.

And there is nothing they can do to stop more and more Infidels, as they pick up their newspapers or turn on the evening news and realize how much of it is about this or that local manifestation of the world-wide and permanent Jihad -- which can only get worse, and examples of which will only proliferate -- from finding out, slowly and then more rapidly, in greater and greater numbers, about Islam. There is nothing they can do, try as they will to lie, or to hide, or to distract with irrelevancies, or by appeals to Western "guilt" and false claims of victimisation (but Islam itself, as the vehicle for Arab imperialism, is the most successful imperialist project in history, the force which caused whole peoples to jettison and ignore, or despise, their own histories, pre-Islamic or non-Islamic), and the raising of idiotic claims of "racism," to make Infidels, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and all others, everywhere and not just here in this country, refrain from finding out about Islam.

It's too late. Cat's out of the bag. The Qur'an is just a click away (www.quranbrowser.com). And so are the Hadith. And so is the Sira -- or you can read the texts about Muhammad, the Muslim texts, the texts of Qur'an and Hadith and Muslim Sira, and Muslim commentators and historians, with connective tissue and organizing principle supplied by Robert Spencer.

Nothing these people can do, except what they have been doing all along: "three Abrahamic faiths," "one of world's great religions," "hijacked" or "perverted" by "extremists," or quote, out of context, the handful of Qur'anic phrases -- "there is no compulsion in religion" and 5.22 but not 5.23 (Bush does it, Blair does it, even educated fleas do it). Why, I can write the Mosque-Outreach script for Infidels myself, and so can you, dear reader, and so can any man.

Brilliant letter, Robert.

And the deceivers could not answer and just folowed your assessment.

Wake up America.

I feel that this turn of events is very good.

The fact that Jihad Watch and Robert Spencer are mentioned in the Emory Wheel will spike the interest of the Emory community.

As for the Islamicists that are mentioned, there's probably nothing there. These guys are so full of hot air especially if they are in the academic community.

Remember Jihad Watch and Robert Spencer are removing hot air from the balloon of Islam, one prick at a time.

I feel that this turn of events is very good.

The fact that Jihad Watch and Robert Spencer are mentioned in the Emory Wheel will spike the interest of the Emory community.

As for the Islamicists that are mentioned, there's probably nothing there. These guys are so full of hot air especially if they are in the academic community.

Remember Jihad Watch and Robert Spencer are removing hot air from the balloon of Islam, one prick at a time.

Mr. Spencer what a great compliment! 4 intellectual cowards had to gang up to lie, spin, twist and whine about your work here.

Keep up the excellent information flow and to be an author like Sharefa Aria, Ridwan Khan, Huma Mirza and Aneel Naeem DOES'T MORE THAN YOUR MOTHER READING A BOOK YOU PUBLISH NEED TO READ YOUR WORK TO MAKE YOU AN AUTHOR.

These 4 are so back alley they probably drive cabs at night to make a living as they pretend being Islamic intellectuals and poets.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Some Muslim Said:

"It is our very Islamic beliefs that command us not to threaten or transgress against our fellow man, but rather to be productive members of both the Emory and greater human communities."

I read the Koran daily. I know what it says. I read the 'accepted by Muslims' commentaries on the Koran daily as well.

You, sir, are a Liar, spewing 'al taqiyya'... the Great Islamic Lie.

Hint... No One Believes You Anymore.

Some other Muslim said:

"Spencer's words inevitably dehumanize and ostracize Muslims in what should be a respectful dialogue."

No... it is Islam that dehumanizes Muslims, and it is the actions of Muslims that ostracize Muslims.

Arrogant Muslims, strutting around, lying, murdering, claiming themselves to be better than all other humans... this is YOU, Muslim. This is what YOU have made of YOURSELVES.

...and your children, and their children, and their children's children, forever, are going to pay the price, for your puffed-up, arrogance and Pride.

Convert, Submit, or Die.

Robert Spencer said:

The Emory Wheel printed it a few days later, whereupon I wrote here: "I predict right now that none of the responses will deal with the fact that this letter is made up largely of quotations from Islamic sources, except possibly to claim (falsely) that these sources are "marginal" and that no Muslims pay attention to them. However, while the claim will be made that my quotations are 'cherry-picked,' 'out of context,' and so on, no actual documentary evidence will be offered that the schools of Islamic jurisprudence do not actually teach warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers. No such evidence can be offered, because they do teach this." I might have added that I would almost certainly be personally attacked as a "hatemonger."

Robert no doubt had excellent reasons for not including the above paragraph´s content in the letter he sent to Emory. But had it been possible to include the above, it would have preemptively disarmed, to some extent, the responders, and then it would have been even more interesting to see how they would have dealt with Robert Spencer´s challenge. Probably the inadequacy of their responses would have been even more apparent.

"No Muslim at Emory is proud of Al-Qaeda, but at the same time we can distinguish between the religion and those who exploit it for political motives."

I love that: they're 'not proud' of A-Q. Yes, a pity about A-Q; maybe they'll do better in the future.

Really, you could fisk things like this till the cows come home, all to no purpose, so deep is the denial. Assuming, of course, that they aren't simply lying outright.

Regards

Sharefa Aria, Ridwan Khan, Huma Mirza and Aneel Naeem said:

the Internet hate site jihadwatch.com

To any students at Emory, whether Christian or Jewish or Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist or atheist, whether man or woman, whether gay or straight or bisexual, whether conservative or liberal or socialist or libertarian, who have come to this site as a result of curiosity after reading the article in The Wheel...

Welcome!

americaningermany

Adopt the attitude of a spy in the enemy camp. Say or do nothing to provoke any discussion of religion. Keep a log and cultivate allies if possible.

Please keep us informed as to any unusual developments. I am absolutely facinated with your situation.

AIG-

I'd have to agree with those who take the wait and see attitude. This new boss might not be as bad as you think. You'll have to view him as a person first and a Muslim second. If he does turn out to be a jackass then perhaps a transfer would help. I'm sure you're squirming in your position but then again anytime I gas up my car I squirm when I realize where my money goes.

I guess we'll be hearing less from you as a result and that stinks.

As for this article-I find it laughable that these idiots are complaining about "cherry picking" lines from the Koran. Isn't that what jihadists do all the time? Funny how THEY never get criticized for cherry picking all those "kill the infidel" lines. You simply can't win with these guys, no matter what you say.

If you just happen to come to JW/DW through the above article, have a look at islam's doings:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Big up to Robert & company. There is no shortage of hatred and outrage for this website from the Infidelophobes, and not just from "the street," not just from CAIR, but from Osama bin Laden himself. It is not because what this site says is wrong. Au contraire.

To logically pick apart the article is like punching a pillow. We've passed the point of rational discourse now, and entered the realm of "I don't care about data, this is about my views and how I feel about them. Hooray for my views!." Feel-good education, the process of attempting to make students experience a false surge of unearned self-esteem, has created minds that not only are impervious the possibility that the could be wrong about something, but that also must expend enormous amounts of energy protecting a self-confidence based on groupthink instead of real achievements. Thanks, academia, for reducing the pursuit of knowledge to nothing more than an exercise in truth-mocking narcissism.

You simply can't win with these guys, no matter what you say.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS

So very true, but that is not the main objective.

The MAIN objective is to create a fascinating intellectual fracas that uninformed Infidels will find irresistible. Once being fascinated they may then go on to seek the knowledge that will set them free.

When you engage an Islamo-nazi always be aware that someone may be watching.

The following is repetitive from a previous thread(sorry, eh?), but it is perhaps nevertheless instructive:

To Emory University Muslims:

If any Muslim from Emory reads this, especially including the 4 authors of the response in The Wheel (Sharefa Aria, Ridwan Khan, Huma Mirza and Aneel Naeem), please ask or consider how you, yourselves, RESPOND, or HAVE RESPONDED, as a muslim, to apparently pious Muslims such as those in the "islamic thinkers society" (you can google their website, if you are unfamiliar) who spout hatred and supremacism such as the following (linked from http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005049.htm?print=1 ):

"Israel won’t last long… Indeed, Allah will repeat the Holocaust right on the soil of Israel
Takbeer!
Response: Allahu Akbar!

* * *
No wonder they call you sons of apes and pigs because that’s what you are.

We know many government services are watching us
Such as the FBI…CIA…Mossad, Homeland Security…
We know we are getting on their nerves
And so are you….
So we say the hell with you!
May the FBI burn in Hell
CIA burn in Hell
Mossad burn in Hell
Homeland Security burn in hell!!

Islam will dominate the world
Islam is the only solution
Islam will dominate the world
Islam is the only solution
Takbeer!
La ilaha il Allah, Muhammad-ur Rasool Allah

* * *
Another mushroom cloud, right in the midst of Israel!
Takbeer!! Allahu Akbar! "

Do you agree with the "islamic thinkers society"? If not, please share among yourselves, how those in the "islamic thinkers society" are wrong in their deen? Please explain using whatever Muslim texts you deem appropriate how they are misinterpreting islam, and how the message of islam is not really hate-filled, bigoted, and supremacist, as is evident from the "islamic thinkers society. After all, they must be misinterpreting something? Yes? Please avoid a disingenuous response to those here at JihadWatch, which has, unfortunately, been characteristic in the past. Remember, my request is for you to ask yourselves (and answer yourselves) how YOU respond to the above material from the "islamic thinkers society".

No one can force you to do the following, but even better, you might substantively and directly respond to the "islamic thinkers society" themselves and publically -- and share that response here.

Thank you, in advance, for your assistance in opposing bigotry.

Internet hate site? Is that what this place is?
My, My you learn something every day.

I always thought this place was where one found out why others hate us.

Isn't Islamfobia a Mental State that manifists itself as a direct result of others Infidelobia?

If these "Students" really believe that this presentation is a Mis-interperation of Islam. Then one could consider that the producers would have loved their partisipation in re-formating the material so as to allow them to show how this behavior, as depicted, is so AGAINST Allahs will and teaching.

Dialog and all.

Did anyone see the following article about college students being more self-centered and narcissistic than ever. http://www.cnn.com/2007/EDUCATION/02/27/self.centered.students.ap/index.html
Is this irony?

Leftists and Islamists can't win arguments on substance, so they resort to name-calling and attempting to paint those of us that try to dissuade them from lies as KKK members or worse.

It's no small irony that this very same tactic is being attempted against me by a moonbat flapping around one of my comment threads on the Anvil today.

Keep stating it clearly and over and over Robert and Hugh. We may never win converts to the cause but we can sure as Hell wake up the "choir" to defend the homeland!

Muhammad lied.

I don't LIKE this at all. I wanted to get up, put on my coat and walk out.

Any suggestions on how I should handle this situation?

BTW, the money I earn for the work I do SUCKS.

Posted by: americaningermany

Hey..

Maybe you could claim he harrassed you in some way? First, I'd look into his history see what you can find. Then establish a pattern.. get it?

At the very least let them let you go and you go on unemployment and Hartz4. Why let only the leeches get our money we all work for.

Go and get yours!!

I know I could NOT work for a SOWdi. ugh.. that's be like being in the same room with a Brog who looks like Jabba-the-Hut.

Abraham Lincoln,
"Your bizarre post and the placing of it in this thread, americaningermany, tells us a lot about you. What is your motivation in presenting something so off-topic in this particular thread, one might wonder.

And one might do the right thing and ignore it and you from this point on after pondering the possibilities.

Posted by: Abraham_Lincoln "

Mr Lincoln,

I am afraid you have the wrong end of the stick as far as americaningermany is concerned. She has posted here far more many times than I have had hot dinners. You dont know me AIG but I have read you many times. It's nice to see you back. Re your dilemma, if you can afford to walk-walk!

As long as the cults of the world demonstrate evil against civilized nations, the civilized world will conquer and destroy them; history proves it !

As long as the cults of the world demonstrate evil against civilized nations, the civilized world will conquer and destroy them; history proves it !

Posted by: Jeff

Not quite so Jeff. Remember Rome and why it fell?

We still have work to do my friend!

Why would Mercedes hire a SWOdi anyway? Are they like insane? Are they looking for a switch to BMW?

I am sick and tired of OUR Western companies and campuses giving out jobs to these truly "INFIDELS".

Yes, it is THEY who are true INFIDELS!!

They don;t belive in the 10 Comandments.

ANYONE else - Christian or not - knows that to kill is a sin. To kil in the cowardly fashion of the moslems is simply their way of paying tribute to the LORD OF DARKNESS.. alla.. a.k.a. baal.

americaningermany,

I'm not sure what the problem is.

Be a good American. Act out your American principles of tolerance for others.

Be courteous and kind. There's no reason to be otherwise.

Help him in any way you can -- short of assembling a bomb for him.

I don't see any reason why you should stop being an American just because he's an Arab Muslim. why make life miserable for him just because the culture he comes from makes life miserable for others?

He might be a working stiff just like anyone else, just trying to make a living for himself and his family.

On the other hand, if he makes any comments that offend you as an American or Judeo/ Christian, be blunt in your reply without being insulting. You don't have to leave your principle at the office door for anyone, and have every right to defend American ideals and principles, which are far superior to Islams.

In other words, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Who knows, he might not be a bad fellow, and just might learn something from you.

Bottom line: Be everything you think he should be.

'Who compared Muslims to Fascists or Nazis? '

You don't Mr. Spencer. But I always do and most of the posters here on JW would agree with me. I also believe that the 'RoP' is far worse than the Nazi's ever were. They are. To deny that means to deny reality.

The Muhammedan whiners complain about us calling their belief-system "barbaric" Islam, while another claims Islam is not "religion, but a mental illness." Is this the kind of discourse with which we wish to define Emory?

Islam is both barbaric and a mental illness. We can't do the Muhammedans no greater favor than tho help them leave the shackels of this ideology and to become decent human beings.

"It is our very Islamic beliefs that command us not to threaten or transgress against our fellow man, but rather to be productive members of both the Emory and greater human communities. "

Trouble is that there are no such Islamic beliefs. Islam divides the world strictly in believer and unbelievers. And we know the rest.

But what I really find hard to stomach is the projection:
THEY are the hatemongers, the 'RoP' itself is nothing but hatred, discrimination and incitement to first degree murder and genocide, and these people turn around and project this hatred upon us because we point it out.

How bizarre, how very bizarre!

AIG I feel for you.
I worked in GE in the 1980's for a German American Co. It was very interesting.
One bit of advice, Do Not Ever Acess This Site On Your Work Computer!

Thank you Foehammer, for stepping in there with Mr. Rudebritches. You could have spelled snippits; snippy.
Civility, as I have said before, is so evident here and so welcome and rare in todays world. The ability to have discourse and share knowledge without lording it over someone who doesn't have that knowledge is a lesson those Muslim letter writers could learn here.

Of course they won't have the nerve. Look at what happens when someone tries to overwhelm this group with disinformation or hurling insults and namecalling instead of the "Dialog" they are always claiming to desire.

When a young man came on here the other day, he was not insulted or called names. However, he was asked a lot of to-the-point questions. Which he didn't answer. He just hurled insults and namecalling.

The reaction of this community to a disinformer reminds me of an incident I witnessed a week or so after 9/11. A pilot of a small plane in the sky over the job site I was working on allegedly yelled on the pilot radio 'Death to America'. I watched the fighter planes force him down. Our community some times reminds me of those planes where two f15's looked like four. They were moving around a lot.

Aunt Bea

"Jihad Watch is in favor of freedom of conscience, equality of rights before the law, and other elements of Western societies that are contravened by Sharia. If that makes it a "hate site," then the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights are hate literature."
[Emphasis Added]

This summarizes rather neatly a vast majority of the issues involved. Muslims view anything that restricts or prohibits implementation of sharia law as actual war upon dar al-Islam. Not an impediment or obstruction but actual war, as in active aggression upon Islam itself. It is every bit as real as bullets being fired into a mosque.

In that Islamic context, America's Constitution and Bill of Rights are indeed "hate literature" in that they legally estop aspects of sharia’s enactment with force of armed response by peace officers or the military personnel of this country.

While sharia law contains many innocuous mandates regarding diet and apparel, a huge number of its dicta regarding treatment of women and those of other religions represent nothing less than a massive violation of human rights as recognized by the global community, including several Muslim majority nations.

Witness the case of Muslim apostate Abdul Rahman in Afghanistan, whose recently liberated government has supposedly embraced freedom of religion and other widely accepted human rights. What message is being sent to the international community after spilling so much of its precious blood releasing Afghanistan from the Taleban's stranglehold? What does it say when president Hamid Karzai implicitly condones the newly Christian Rahman’s death sentence when such a pronouncement is in direct violation of his nation’s agreement to uphold recognized human rights?

Such is the overweening nature of Islam and its comprehensive code of putatively moral conduct called sharia. It would be amusing to ask Sharefa Aria, Ridwan Khan, Huma Mirza and Aneel Naeem whether the Meccan passages they are so fond of citing are abrogated by the later Medinan verses. How delightful it would be to see them backpedal as the mandates of their own faith command that they stoutly defend those later, far more violent and hateful verses.

Note to americaningermany: If I recall correctly, you now have a child to support. If jobs are indeed so scarce, your child’s welfare overrides most other concerns. In the end, as with all of us, you must follow your conscience. But your obligations are no longer just to yourself or your spouse and a helpless baby is now hostage to your decisions.

Aunt Bea:

Old rule for an argument I learned early on -- "Never show up to a gunfight without ammo."

The biggest problem with the Left? They either have no ammunition or they use rubber bullets. This is why arguments don't see to go the way the Islamists expect when they show up here on JW -- too many of us know their "messenger" and his message as well or better than they do themselves, and Robert and Hugh better than any of us, I'd dare say.

As for civility, I aim to be civil most of the time, but I willingly admit that when I get confronted with tired insults right from the start, I'm more apt to get "snippy" myself nowadays, especially on my own blog. I think the message there is that my patience is wearing thin.

I think I need to strive to come by JW more often than I have in recent months. I see a lot of trolls that need chasing with a pitchfork (or hammer) and I'm just the jingo for the job.

Well, perhaps I am wrong in americaningermany's case in suspecting anything.

As many others may have noticed, I hope, the jihad dis-information dudes are rampant across the internet and post completely out of context baiting posts on many sites. Not all are as clumsy as our obvious regular "guests" here. The moderators of those sites end up confused and uncertain as to if they should delete the posts, and a tiny number of the participants at the sites are drawn into commenting in a way that can be portrayed in a very negative manner. I've seen it happen a few times but later, in a few instances, the webmasters were able to collaborate and track down the same rhetoric and baiting with IP addresses across several identities. The IP address(es), no surprise, ended up primarily emerging from Turkey, the muslim country with the most internet Jihadist users. This resulted in post-incident hacker attacks, and a few terrorist law cases are pending, or so we hear about.

My suspicion is based on that, and on americaningermany's positioning of this completely off-topic question on this particular post/thread. One which is likely to be read by more university students and academics concerned with the issue of civil liberties than any other. It could have been posted elsewhere and it would have passed without objection from me, as it is a legitimate enough question to ask. However, placed where it is, it potentially harms Jihad Watch, by creating an artificial bubble of potentially bitter responses that might promote wrong-headed perception of this site as some sort of "hate mill" when it is, clearly and by any objective measure, a "fact mill". The jihad dis-information dudes and those who support them directly or indirectly by clinging to PC and whatnot, really need some sort of way to actually smear fact mills like Jihad Watch. The truth is begining to march right on over them.

Americaningermany and others need to consider these things when making posts, in my opinion. But that is up to them, and it is my right to question them when they don't.

DebV,

that was an excellent suggestion for americaningermany about recording (or keeping a diary) of conversations...along that line (btw), there are available devices (such as Creative MuVo "mp3" players - which also feature a "record" function -- they're about 3 inches by 1 1/2 inches -- can easily fit in a pocket) great little recording devices...and very inexpensive..just a thought...

BTW, the money I earn for the work I do SUCKS.

Posted by: americaningermany

Hell.. ANYONE can get Unemployment and Hartz-IV in Germany. I say GET YOURS NOW!! You've been paying taxes and Unemployment insurance.. You just had a baby.. :-) Great time for a little vacation...

Oh you should look into a little something called "gesetzlicher Mutterschaftsurlaub". I think Mercedes may have to pay you to take off for child rearing reasons.

When it's time to go back you can see what happened to the SOWdi. Maybe he'll be gone.

I say we Westerners need to start dipping into our own Social Systems a little deeper.. why put in all this money for the moFoes?

A little off topic, every now and then we get Muslim visitors on this site and claim Islam gives equal rights to women and the works.. Usually these people pop in unexpectedly. I happen to visit a UK site called BBC.CO:UK and I found this very alarming article about the equality given to women in Pakistan under Islamic law. I think this type of treatment dished out to Muslim women, in my opinion, is wide spread throughout the Islamic countries. I let you read it ---

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6401677.stm

'Sold' Pakistani girl in appeal

The mother of a girl in Pakistan claimed by a man in lieu of a 16 year old gambling debt has appealed to the authorities for help.

The woman told journalists in the southern city of Hyderabad that she feared for her daughter's safety.

Women are often used as collateral to settle debts and feuds amongst tribesmen in rural Pakistan.

Last year, Pakistan's ruling political party introduced legislation to outlaw forced marriages under tribal customs.

Tribal justice

Nooran Bibi said her late husband had promised her daughter, Rasheeda, to one Lal Haider in lieu of a poker game debt amounting to 10,000 rupees ($164).

The mother says Rasheeda was a year old when her husband told Mr Haider that he could have her instead "when she grew up", reports the Associated Press news agency.

Nooran Bibi and Rasheeda
Rasheeda (r) with her mother and younger brother

After Rasheeda turned 17, Mr Haider had come to claim her, even though the debt had been paid off, the mother said.

She also complained that he had threatened her family if Rasheeda was not handed over.

Both families belong to a local tribe, and the case was referred to elders who ruled that the girl must be handed over to Mr Haider.

The matter is now with the local police who have registered a case against Mr Haider and the elders.

The use of women to settle blood feuds and debts in tribal society in Pakistan by promising them in marriage remains widespread despite recent reforms.

In November 2006, the ruling PML-Q political party introduced legislation in parliament to outlaw such marriages.

The new bill criminalises customs such as vanni and swara, in which young girls are given away in marriage to settle feuds and debts.

It prescribes a maximum of three years' imprisonment for offenders in these cases.

Working with Saudis

I used to work for the world's largest oil company. I worked with many Saudis and their range of beliefs is like here in the US wide. many of the ones I worked with were not extremists and greatly admired the US. One was very proud that his son was born in the US. many hold green cards. I well remember a managers meeting where we were discussing a problem with a Saudi trainee who refused to shave his beard to comply with OSHA regulations for working at a refinery (must have a clean shaven face to allow for a tight gasmask seal). The Saudi VP erupted after much discussion with "there is nothing in our religion that says we have to grow a beard. tell him he either shaves his beard or he goes home ie back to the Kingdom." Result the beard didn't get shaved and he got sent home. major disgrace as US training assignments were greatly desired

Get to know your new manager, ask him out for lunch. as others have suggested observe his actions, listen to his words take your time before judging him

Leave it to the leftists to attempt to put words in the mouths of people whose viewpoints they oppose in a vain attempt to discredit them. The Emory Wheel evidently considers this practice standard journalistic practice and itself engages in conspicuous exploitation and stigmatization by its own journalistic hand. Why would such folks as the editors and writers at the Emory Wheel quibble about WHO has the right to make use of practices of discrediting others if they feel these practices will work for them??

How many posters and writers at this site ever CLAIMED they hated anyone or anything? And so what if they DID?? How many Jihad Watch posters participate in terrorist bombings? How many Jihad Watch posters cut off human's heads? How many feel a compulsion to slaughter people on the street for any reason other than self-defense? "Hate" as the left defines it can mean anything. And it really means nothing coming from their mouths as "hate" is a generalized smear tactic. This word, if coming from the left, means virtually nothing and can safely be dismissed.

I would would like to ask the Emory Wheel:" when are Muslims going to stop killing non-Muslims and disobedient Muslims"??? I'll bet the Emory Wheel couldn't (and WON'T) give us a straight answer to this. Just more BS.

As for dialogue between the non-Islamic "unbelievers" and the Muslim world what the Emory Wheel leftists steadfastly REFUSE to face is that the Kuran prohibits Muslims from dealing honestly with the "unbelievers." In the final analysis, dialogue between the two (artificially imposed by Islamic ideology) global partitions is an exercise in futility. Islam commands that Muslims lie to "unbelevers" to accelerate Islam's global conquest through jihad and since this is "al-lah's" command it may NOT be broken by Muslims.

The editors and writers do NOT have to agree with us. They COULD however acknowlege the validitiy of an opposing point of view even if they donot agree with it. But I see little evidence indicating that the left has advanced to that level.

As for Islam, if the emory Wheel folks refuse to comprehend the danger it poses, then it's THEIR funeral. (Boo hoo hoo).

Ammara Abbasi writes:

"Islam is not at all a subdued religion"

That must be worthy of a prize for euphemism of the week.

The response of these Four Musketeers -- Sharefa Aria, Ridwan Khan, Huma Mirza and Aneel Naeem -- illustrates for the thousandth time an ongoing problem we are having in our communication effort in the War of Ideas: the problem is, how do we demonstrate that the pernicious threat emanating out of Islam pertains not merely to a small minority of extremists, but also extends more deeply (into the normative foundations of Islam) and more broadly (into a sufficiently high number of Muslims to cause concern)?

Unfortunately, while we all here may feel it's self-evident, the data that would connect enough dots to show that our concern about Islam and Muslims extends beyond a small minority of extremists suffers from three problems:

1) undue complexity, both in quantity and quality

2) insufficient organization of this complex jungle of data into a definitively authorative presentation that is both comprehensive yet also efficiently pithy

3) insufficient organization of the counter-arguments against the prevailing paradigm that axiomatically and stubbornly detaches a "small minority of extremists" from a harmless and blameless Islam/Majority of Muslims.

Thus, for example, even if people would begin to seriously entertain one of Spencer's main arguments -- that what everyone agrees is dangerously "extremist" actually pertains to traditional Islam in its texts and legal theory -- the next hurdle would remain: how can we show that a sufficient number of Muslims, sufficiently spread out around the globe, adhere to that normative extremism, such that our measures of self-defense against them must be augmented and intensified accordingly?

AIG..

I just found this little Hartz-IV Benefit Calculator. They were talking about some Egyptian terrorist who lives in Berlin AND CASHES HEFTY CHECKS every month.

They pay you per kid [the terrorist has 6!!! - talk about Germany the Cuckoo's Nest!]

They also pay your living expenses and rent.

Here, check it all out.. the German Jizyah state:

http://biallo.lycos.de/sozial/ALG2rechneri.php?zzS=i&Seite=1

What a dhimmi disgrace!!!

I say we need real Germans and other Weestern people getting on the Social Systems. The faster we DRY UP the income for the terrorists who are sucking and leeching off of us the better!!

The Hartz-IV mooching terrorist preaches in a mosk somewhere.

And HOW do you think he got into Germany in the first place? He married some stupid Blondenbimbo and the taxpayers have to pay for her idiocy!! I wish we could SUE her pants off. She ought to have to pay for this vermin - NOT US!!

In fact I really think he needs to be sent home - on the double. And take his 6 future jehadists with him!! How many people feeding these scum today will get killed by their evil brood tomorrow??!!

I read what Martin luther said about "the Turk" and the mahometan.. and what he said about the traitors who run germany.. how little things have changed... LOL LOL LOL it really is SAD.

One thing I can tell you, Martin Luther would definiely be on Jihadwatch and on Politicallyincorrect if he were around today.

He called the moslems brutal and unwilling to work. He said they treat women worse than beasts.. everything we hear about to this very day.

Le plus ça change!

As long as AIG makes sure that recording a conversation without the other party's knowledge is legal in her jurisdiction, I'd say go for it.
Posted by: DebV [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 27, 2007 03:09 PM

AIG - Where about in Germany do you work? I have read so many of your posts, I always enjoyed them, I think DebV is on the ball. Do you need to stay there?

I have a bunch of friends from Germany with whom I went to college and we had lots of fun together. They were from Berlin and Munich.

There was another person called 'GermanInAmerica' who is not been here for a while. I wonder what happened?

Note to americaningermany: If I recall correctly, you now have a child to support. If jobs are indeed so scarce, your child’s welfare overrides most other concerns. In the end, as with all of us, you must follow your conscience. But your obligations are no longer just to yourself or your spouse and a helpless baby is now hostage to your decisions.

Posted by: Zenster

Yeah exactly. She needs to spend time AWAY from muftis in the workplace. Get back some of her investment into the German Socialist Welfare State. Hey, if they pay the MoFoes to raise their kids in germany on German taxpayers' backs then why not do the same for a nice American Girl!

Her babies may one day have to put down the jehadist babies whom our enemies are busy raising in my country and in all of YOUR countries too!!

Let us drain out the social swamp BY USING IT!! We can pick up and work anythime - much better than they can!!

Once the socialist system has been drained... :-)

NO RESOUCES FOR jehadists from OUR countries!!!

Go, Kell-Ann and GRAB YOURS!!!

http://biallo.lycos.de/sozial/ALG2rechneri.php?zzS=i&Seite=1

The money you take out will be guaranteed NOT to go to jehadist activity in my country :-)

Those pro-Islam propagandists have produced their libelous ad hominem and other fallacious attacks on Spencer like clock-work, just as Spencer had predicted.

They claim the verses and quotes are cherry-picked, out of context, etc. Some writers at Islam-Watch are working on some draft rebuttals to those common Islamic apologist myths, here and here.

Any informative or critical feedback you may have that might help improve those rebuttals would be most appreciated.

For those apologists who think the bad verses from the Koran are just "cherry-picked," these links show that the Koran itself is a veritable cherry orchard of such negative verses.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/inj/long.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html

Here are some Koranic verses which are unacceptable in any context.

21:98. “Surely you and what you worship besides Allah are the firewood of hell; to it you shall come.”

[What were those slick apologists saying about tolerance?]

98:6 (Pickthall). "Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings."

9:30. "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) *fighteth against them. How perverse are they!"
*Qatalahumu

Ishaq, p. 552. (Conquest of Mecca. Muhammad destroys the polytheists' idols).
"When the apostle prayed the noon prayer on the day of the conquest he ordered that all of the idols which were round the Ka'ba should be collected and burned with fire and broken up. Fadala b. al-Mulawwih al-Laythi said commemorating the day of the conquest:
'Had you seen Muhammad and his troops
The day the idols were smashed when he entered,
You would have seen God's light become manifest
And darkness covering the face of idolatry.' "

Koranic insults: Inappropriate in any context, but the vast majority of Muslims claim they believe the Koran and therefore they do not deny the content of these insults:

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); (some Christians and/or Jews were) turned into “apes and/or pigs” (2:65-66, 5:58-60, 7:166); are like frightened donkeys chased by a lion (74:50-51), are like cattle—nay, worse than cattle (7:179), are like dogs (7:176);

--they (idolators) are unclean (9:28); have uncleanness set upon them by Allah (10:100, 6:125); the hypocrites are unclean (9:95).

--“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); evil-livers (5:59); 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" (63:4); ungrateful traitors (31:32).

---“perverted” (63:4); disgraced lives (22:9); hypocrites (4:61); are ill (84:20); have a “diseased heart” (2:10, 9:125); in false pride and schism (38:2), in schism (2:137, 2:167);

--foolish (6:35); 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, 10:100); 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 (2:6-7), and deceived by Satan (4:60);

--Allah sends devils against them to make them do evil (19:83); Allah cursed them for their unbelief (2:88-89),

--liars/they lie (2:10, 4:50, 6:28, 9:42, 16:39, 16:105, 59:11); foolish and liars (7:66), liars and losers (58:18-19),

--“losers” (5:53, 6:31, 7:178-179); among the lowest (58:20); the lowest of the low (95:4-6)

In reading those above insults, keep the following points in mind:
-these insults apply to disbelievers because they are disbelievers (disbelief in Islam is the worst crime, according to the Koran)
-the insults are assumed to be the words of Allah and are therefore true of disbelievers for all time, until the Last Day
-the disbelievers cannot do anything to improve Allah’s perception of them (He does not accept the good works of the disbelievers), except to believe in and obey Allah.
-the insulting adjectives refer to the inherent character traits of disbelievers

Oh no, not the old "out of context" ploy again.

Hey you students at Emory (I presume you are students), do your homework. The "out of context" ploy is old hat and hasnt been in use in cutting edge rebuttals for two years. Havnt you been receiving the latest Automatic updates from the mosque, how to counter Islamophobia?

This just wont do. Its E for attainment(charitable) and F for not doing the research.

Anyway, here is what I think is a flaw in the liberal argument that only a fraction of muslims are violent extremists ...

The fact is it only takes a fraction of the world muslim community to violently impose Islam on any particular place, especially if violent resistance to Islam is blocked by liberals that say Islam is a religion of peace and no threat exists...

Take Kosovo for example. The muslim individuals that committed the crimes that largely successfully ethnically cleansed most of the Serbs out represent only a small fraction of the world muslim community, and I would even wager a small fraction of the total number of Albanians in Kosovo. But the modus operandi is, small number of extremists commit the actual crimes, the "moderate" muslim majority enables the crimes by the silence and lack of assistance rendered while their non-muslim neighbors are killed, raped, and looted, and the MSM prevents aid to besieged Serbs by covering the crimes up and painting Serbs as aggressors.

Now take this paradigm and repeat in one local area after another, add the women as breeder part of Islamic ideology to it, and you can make the whole world muslim with only a few muslim extremists that actually commit the violence.

So the liberal argument is in effect like arguing that since only a fraction of Soviets serve in the Red Army, the Soviet Union is peaceful and therefore not a military threat. Because essentially the threat of the "moderate" muslim is that he is historically the guy who doesn't do anything when the muslim extremist targets your house, as the number of the "moderate" muslims increases, the extremists prey on non-muslims with more impunity because the number of people that victim can count on for effective protection decreases. Hence ethnic cleaning.

Those pro-Islam propagandists above--and I call them propagandists in part because they do not support the claims that they disseminate--in using the out-of-context claim invite an important question: What context? If the apologists are to be taken at their word, then they are implying that they know the real (or historical, alleged) context of the Koranic quotes, i.e., that they've read the Sira and sahih Hadith to find out the context of the Koranic verses. Now if these apologists have read those contexts, why don't they point to the Hadith and Sira and show us where the Islam critic's quotes are wrong? Now, for those of us who've read the sahih Hadith and Sira, it is clear that those sources only show the Koran to be even worse than it actually appears.

Otherwise, those apologist-propagandists have not read the contextual material provided only by the Sira and sahih Hadith; i.e., they are bluffing, as usual, providing the name of an argument ("out of context") instead of the substance of that argument.

I am willing to predict that if any of the above five Islam apologists cited by Robert were to join us here for conversation, they would come across no better than Will Caldwell--a self-proclaimed "moderate" who freely volunteered the information that it was permissible to force non-Muslims to convert to Islam or accept dhimmitude under "defensive" circumstances.

>Thus, for example, even if people would begin to seriously entertain one of Spencer's main arguments -- that what everyone agrees is dangerously "extremist" actually pertains to traditional Islam in its texts and legal theory -- the next hurdle would remain: how can we show that a sufficient number of Muslims, sufficiently spread out around the globe, adhere to that normative extremism, such that our measures of self-defense against them must be augmented and intensified accordingly?
Posted by: remote_control

Excellent post. I think the solution is to work on "one of Spencer's main arguments..." first. If people don't know what Islam really is in the first place, they will never appreciate the second point of how widespread the threat is. We can work on the second point only after the first is established. You gotta eat the elephant one bite at a time.

The problem I see is holding the average Infidel's attention long enough to slip in a little information. I believe 2 page information pamphlets are one answer. I have completed one consisting mostly of Ayat that every infidel should know. I plan another on Mohammad (after I read Roberts book) and maybe one on Sharia.

We have to reach people who don't read books very often. The key here is one page, double sided. This would be something that you would give to a friend, acquaintance, fellow traveler on a bus, etc.

If we don’t spread the truth who will?

the next hurdle would remain: how can we show that a sufficient number of Muslims, sufficiently spread out around the globe, adhere to that normative extremism, such that our measures of self-defense against them must be augmented and intensified accordingly? Posted by: remote_control

Take the top 5 (population) Islamic countries - Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt and Iran, and show how each of them is a basket case, as well as conditions of religious minorities in each of these countries. Then take the other countries that have significant Muslim populations even though they aren't Muslim - India, Nigeria, Israel, Russia, China, Serbia et al, and point out how in each of these countries, Muslims and Infidels are at loggerheads. Note that in the latter category, the Infidels aren't always Christian - you have Jews (Israel), Hindus (India), Buddhists (Thailand) among others.

I think the PC mindset will prevent one from entertaining step 1, until such time that Leftists are targeted, as is now the case in countries like Holland and France. But if one does accept a link between Islam and 'extremism', one may then see a link between Muslims endorsing these beliefs in a large number.

However, I don't believe that we'll be out of the woods even at that point. Instead, people will then state that Muslims in places like Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, Kyrghyzstan et al are extremists, but Western Muslims (including White Converts) are moderates (and they won't see Chechens and Albanians in the same way that they see, say, Pakistanis or Palestinians). One example of someone who seems to think that is Michael Medved: even though he has entertained Robert on a number of occasions, he seems to be of the opinion that US Muslims are okay, and here for the same reason as other people. And as long as that attitude holds, there will also be resistance to reducing Muslim immigration to the West on the grounds that if Western Muslims are moderate, Muslims settling in the West will be seen as seeking a better life, and therefore ready to discard the baggage of Islam.

Davegreybeard, Please make these available to the rest of us here on Jihad Watch!

remote,

The answer to your question re "tiny minority of extremists" myth has to be answered in part by polls and surveys. You will have to go through a great deal of statistical evidence or consult scholars who have done so. Pipes claims that "Islamists" who support violence constitute about 10-15% of Muslims.

The problem with this type of question is that people who really do support terrorist violence will tend to be cautious about admitting that on even an anonymous poll.

On the other hand, many still do support violence, and this can be gleaned from responses to other questions. In 2006, in a sample of over 45,000 "Arabs", 49.9% claimed they "supported" bin Laden. (Options were yes/no). When we take into account that many Shia support terrorism (e.g., of Hizballa) but not bin Laden, and some of the 49.9 % "Arabs" are Christians, it is reasonable to conclude that among Arab Muslims the support for terrorism is higher than 50%. There also have been specific questions asked about terrorism, e.g., in 2002 about 60% of Pakistanis supported terrorism against the west.

A better way to ask the question to get genuine responses is to ask if violence is permissible against someone who "insults Islam." In this case, 40% of Indonesians say that they themselves would use violence against someone who insulted Islam/Muhammad. Approximately 78% of British Muslims say the Danish cartoonists should be criminally prosecuted and punished; about 68% say that those who insult Islam generally should be prosecuted and punished. In other words, most Muslims believe that some kind of physical force (state-controlled or vigilante) should be used to punish those who insult Islam. About 31-36% of British Muslims answer freely on a questionnaire that apostates from Islam should be killed.

Some polls etc. have been quoted with links provided in the Resources section at I-W.

remote_control said:

how can we show that a sufficient number of Muslims, sufficiently spread out around the globe, adhere to that normative extremism, such that our measures of self-defense against them must be augmented and intensified accordingly?

I agree with the goals you point toward and with your description of the obstacles.

One short answer, I think, is to collect rigorously conducted polls of Muslims themselves. Such polls seem to have repeatedly shown that upwards of 5% of Western Muslims support terrorist attacks in their own Western countries. Apparently 1% not only support such attacks, but are even interested in actually carrying them out. In a country with a million Muslims, that´s 10,000 people who would like to commit terror. And tens of thousands more who support terror morally or otherwise. And then there are the even larger percentages, 30%, or 40% or 50%, who apparently would support the introduction of Sharia law and the legal dominance of Islam over all other religions.

But the only real answer to your question seems to be: work. Non-Muslims need to work at self-education about Islam. Then what you are looking for is really authoritative expertise, great minds that can simultaneously synthesize convincingly and also demonstrate groundedness in encyclopedic knowledge of details. Such intellectual leaders could sway the West toward its own survival, especially if they were in some sense moral leaders as well. To some extent that is surely true of Robert Spencer, insofar as he risks his life continually on behalf of what he has somewhere called the dignity of the human person, that central Western value threatened by the advance of Islam into Europe and elsewhere.

Davegreybeard, Please make these available to the rest of us here on Jihad Watch!
Posted by: fedupinamerica

Would be glad to but the format does not transfer very well when copied into this post. I usually do an attachment when I email it.

I would gladly post it on this site through Robert if there was interest and robert was willing.

They don't mind paying the Somalis to come here and have 10 babies on welfare. I worked 25 years and had several nervous breakdowns so at least I earned it.

Posted by: DebV

Too bad you had to fall ill to get it but I'm glad you got yours.

I find it galling that our guvmints are forcing us to work and feed outr ENEMIES.

By the way, MsHunt.. you were looking for a certain German in America.. you found him.

@Khaybar Oasis
Thanks for the compilation. I guess these lines just have to be repeated over and over again - just as often as "moderate" muslims keep repeating over and over again how peaceful their religion is.
I wonder what's the appropriate context for these suras to not be considered offensive... I simply can't make up any context where they couldn't de classified as hate speech or discrimination.
Apart from, well - if you consider the context that being a muslim is the precondition to be considered a human being with dignity and rights...

Islam hasn't changed much in the last thousand years so it might also be very helpful to know what generations before us thought.
What the Byzantines thought is known by the pope's citation of Manual Paleologus, a Byzantine emperor.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

I lately learnt from another comment on this site that Martin Luther neither came to an encouraging result when analyzing islam:
http://www.lutheransonline.com/servlet/lo_ProcServ/dbpage=page&GID=01031013600972584326486620&PG=01223001361006780322797517

Just wondering what it should tell us if people from different times and ages and different "context" all came up with more or less the same conclusions with regard to islam..

Robert,

How do I email you a 2 page pamphlet
"2 QUESTIONS FOR INFIDELS"? I tried director@jihadwatch.org but it is not working.

I like this piece of Fox News of Pakistan...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254920,00.html

KARACHI, Pakistan — Police are seeking ten men, including several tribal elders, accused of pressuring a Pakistani woman to hand over her teenage daughter as payment for a 16-year-old poker debt, officials said Tuesday.
In the latest case highlighting how conservative customs threaten women's rights in Pakistan, Nooran Umrani alleges that, despite paying off her late husband's debt of 10,000 Pakistani rupees (US$165), she was threatened with harm if she failed to hand over her daughter, Rasheeda.

Obviously, Islam needs to do some serious preaching of Peace and Love before the world can even recognize them as a peaceful religion.

Davegreybeard:

Director@jihadwatch.org seems to be working fine, but anyway I don't open attachments. Is it online anywhere?

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Davegreybeard

There is a project some of us are working on called 'Debating tools for Infidels'. Once you come there, you'll see goals and scope of the project. Anyway, go there, and see whether the material you have might be useful there. Beyond that, if you find the project interesting enough to participate in, feel free to contact us there. Incidentally, that offer to join is open to others on this site as well.

Khaybar

I saw the documentary 'Obsession', and in it, Pipes did provide a disclaimer that the 15% figure was admittedly only an estimate - something that the trailers to the movie conveniently left out.

Robert,

Thank you for your quick reply - I'm a little shocked!

The pamphlet opens with "Why do they hate us?" and finishes with "Have the Islamic terrorists radicalized Islam - or is it the other way around?". These questions are never directly answered. Most of the text consists of 19 Ayat such as 9:111, 9:5, 3:114, 47:35, 5:56, etc. Text is some color, bold, and underlined.

I would like to get this to you but I don't have a web site so am unsure of where to go from here.

Sincerely,
Dave

Jeff

That story is there in Dhimmi Watch.

'Debating tools for Infidels'
Posted by: Infidel Pride

Thanks for the tip! I will be there time permitting.

To JihadWatchers,

auntbea made a good point while responding to AIG: never access this site while at work. Use an anonymous proxy like this one

Emory Wheel: Why don't you steer this--the Kuran teaches first degree murder:

"And when the forbidden months have passed, slaughter the unbelievers everywhere they are found; besiege them, capture them, torture them, prepare every stratagem of warfare upon them; levy the tax upon the infidels' conversion to the ways of al-lah; lo, the ways of al-lah are indeed merciful." Muhammad, the Kuran.

Muslims tend to believe it since it is the direct teaching of al-lah. And many of them either actually practice it and/or pay other Muslims to do it for them (it's known as 'terrorism').

Try putting a spin on that.

Hugh wrote:

...and 5.22 but not 5.23 (Bush does it, Blair does it, even educated fleas do it).

Minor correction: I believe you mean 5.32 and 5.33. For those interested in this standard line of deception, I document it here: http://revuse.wetpaint.com/page/E%29+How+does+Islam+guarantee+human+rights%3F

Yes, you are right. I don't have a head for numbers, not when they are numbers to certain disturbing Qur'anic passages, and the whole Qur'an disturbs me. I'd better write them down and keep them straight.

Bush does it, Blair does it, even educated fleas do it. - Hugh

I can almost hear Louis Armstrong singing those lyrics (it's a long enough tune, what's one more verse?).

Spencer's words inevitably dehumanize and ostracize Muslims in what should be a respectful dialogue.

If you can't disrepect Islam and Moslems, then what can you disrespect.

Disrespecting and ostracizing Moslems is a duty, and free-thinking people need to better attend to this urgent task.

>Disrespecting and ostracizing Moslems is a duty, and free-thinking people need to better attend to this urgent task.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer

You're off target buddy! YOU need to explain to the folks what Islam is. Once you've done that the folks will know what to do.

You quote sources from scholars many centuries ago which without doubt was written many years ago. But if I go back to Christian texts or Jewish texts, there are many instances of domineering ideology. Remember the crusades? How about Jewish texts? Here are Halachic decrees. How come you do not comment on them?

1) Killing a GT (as well as any other Gentile, in principle, without a court hearing, at least in peaceful times) is forbidden. However, a Jew who murders a gentile (even in peaceful times and even intentionally) is not punishable by death in the human courts. According to some opinions he is not punishable at all by the human courts. But a GT who kills a Jew, purely by accident and unintentionally, must be put to death.

2) According to some opinions it is forbidden to desecrate the Shabbat to save the life of a GT unless there is a danger of animosity.

3) In all situations where one must choose to save either a Jew’s or a GT’s life or where only one of these two lives can be saved, the Jewish life must be chosen. It applies even in a situation where a criminal who is Jewish threatensing the GT’s life – even then it is forbidden to kill the Jew in order to save the GT’s life.

4) According to some opinions, if a Jew charges an exorbitant price or conceals the low quality of goods from a GT customer he does not owe the GT any compensation (as he would owe a Jewish customer). In any case, it is clear that if a GTgentile charges an exorbitant price or conceals the low quality of goods from a Jewish customer, he owes the Jew compensation.

5) According to most opinions it is forbidden for a Jew to consume some food products made by a GT.

6) According to most opinions, in all business transactions a Jew must be given precedence over a GT, even when this causes minor financial losses.

7) According to many opinions it is forbidden to lend money to GT without interest.

8) It is forbidden to delay the payment of the wages of a GT, but the prohibition is less severe than that of delaying a Jew's wages.

9) A GT may not be appointed to any ruling position over Jews. For example, he cannot be a judge in a Jewish court of law.

10) A GT is not considered a valid witness in a Jewish court of law.

11) A GT, as opposed to a Jew, may be easily sentenced to death in a court of law. This may be done by a single judge, based on the testimony of a single witness or his own admission of guilt, with no prior warning, even if the witness is a relative [of either the judge or the victim].

12) According to some opinions, if an animal owned by a Jew damages a GT's property the Jew is not required to pay any indemnity. But when an animal owned by a GT damages a Jew's property, the GT is obliged to pay full compensation.

13) A GT who robs or steals from a Jew (or anyone else) must be sentenced to death, whereas no Jew who robs or steals from anyone is ever sentenced to death. A Jew who steals from a GT must pay back only the sum that he stole, whereas a Jew who steals from a Jew must pay back at least twice the sum he stole.

14) The death penalty may be imposed on a GT who abducts a Jew, but not on a Jew who abducts a GT.

15) A GT must not observe the Shabbat, and he also must not establish for himself a religious festival or a religious day of rest. If he does he is to be beaten in punishment (and according to one opinion he is to be executed in punishment). According to one opinion he must not even establish for himself a secular day of rest or intentionally rest for a whole day.

16) A GT must not study the Torah. If he does he is to be beaten in punishment.

17) A Jew is not required to mourn (e.g. sit shiva) for his GT brother, sister (that is, the offspring of his father from a gentile woman), son or daughter (that is, his offspring from a gentile woman).

18) A Jew and a GT mustn’t be buried side by side.

19) A Jew is not allowed to eat an animal that was slaughtered by a GT, even if it was done according to all the other rules of the Jewish law.

Also, I lived in the middle east over 15 years and studied islamic law. Never once was I given a lecture on killing unbelievers. My studies were at major universities in Egypt, Morocco, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc. and also in Southeast Asia. Does that mean it doesn't exist, of course not. But it isn't the prevalent discourse taught. In Egypt, in kids are barely getting religion in schools unlike in the past.

I wonder have you examined the religious curriculum in Egypt and other muslim countries? Or have you been to public schools there? I have and I can safely say the religious studies do not include what you state on your website. The religious studies are simply rote memorization of the Quran and hadith with no critical thinking. Most students finish school with a verse of the Quran and hadith memorized.

You call islam the most intolerant religion in this world, based on certain scholars interpretation many centuries ago. Well, why were the Jews fleeing to Spain under the muslim rule from the christians. Well, I guess christianity was the most intolerable religion then.
How about the apartheid in Israel? Should we judge the Jewish religion to be the most intolerant religion based on the Jewish decrees stated above? Of course not!

We can always make any religion to fit our own agenda. Just ask the German priests during WWII, or many of the white preachers in this country during enslavement of blacks.

I have many muslim friends. They all admire the West and want to leave the Middle East. They all want what we want, safety, economic prosperity, education, peace. Are there extremist, of course there are just like in other countries you have extremist. The middle east or islam is no different.
You might argue who is doing all the killing now. The muslim, I guess you will say. Ok, lets add up the number of people we have killed since the 1960's. Well Vietnam we killed over 1 million people, supported Pinochet in Chile who killed thousands, supported governments in central america (El Salvador, Nicaragua) where over 200,000 people died. Or remember Indonesia's invasion of East Timor, we supplied arms and gave the green light where over 250,000 people died. Now add that up to how much the muslims have killed. I think we easily beat them.

Infidel Pride, Khaybar Oasis and Davegreybeard,

Thanks for your responses and input. I find myself disagreeing with many of the particulars of your responses.

#1 -- Infidel Pride, Khaybar Oasis: While polls are helpful, by their very nature and how they are perceived among the peoples of the West, I don't think they will suffice to dislodge the prevailing view that forever detaches a "small minority of extremists" from a harmless and peaceful Islam. In addition, other complicating factors forever intervene to dilute such poll figures, such as -- to pick one example -- a prevailing tendency to interpret most Muslim violence and expressions of grievance as mostly geopolitical unrest largely unrelated to Islam (with often ultimately the West to blame).

#2 -- I disagree with Davegreybeard about the order of priorities: in my view, as long as the prevailing view stands, no amount of pointing out the extremist character of Islamic foundational texts and legal traditions will ever move people out of the rut they are in that forever detaches a "small minority of extremists" from a harmless and peaceful Islam. We have to show that a majority, or even at least a sufficiently disquieting size of a minority, of Muslims are extremist. Nothing else of pragmatic substance can be done, in my view, before that begins to penetrate the public conscious.

Infidel Pride: "Pipes did provide a disclaimer that the 15% figure was admittedly only an estimate"

That should be a given: how on earth could any figure on that be anything but an estimate -- a severely rough one at that?

At any rate, even if our politically correct masses did finally agree that a sizeable chunk of Islam -- say 15% or even slightly more -- was extremist and dangerous, there would still remain a powerful tendency to suppress any actions we could undertake that would be hypersensitively perceived as initating that horrible slippery slope toward "Big Brother" methods and "genocide" against the remaining approximately 85% of Muslims.

In fact, there is a kind of perverse, though logical, dynamic afoot with the politically correct masses: the more they inch along to see the dimensions of the Islamic threat, the more -- not the less -- do they feel the need to put on the brakes to prevent that horrible slippery slope they feel the West could so easily slide down toward "Big Brother" methods and "genocide". Thus, for the foreseeable future, I predict that the politically correct masses and their elected representatives will increasingly suppress rational action, the more they learn about the ugly side of Islam. There likely will come a point after that where something finally gives. But I doubt it will be a simple process of: More Information --> More Awakening --> More Rational Actions.

>in my view, as long as the prevailing view stands, no amount of pointing out the extremist character of Islamic foundational texts and legal traditions will ever move people out of the rut they are in that forever detaches a "small minority of extremists" from a harmless and peaceful Islam.
by remote_control

The "prevailing view" must be changed by people such as ourselves. Most Infidels think that Islam itself is harmless - so terrorists must be an aberration.

If the "prevailing view" is that Islam, at its core, is extreme and violent (which you and I know it is) then it will be much easier for most Infidels to believe that most Muslims pose a threat.

americaningermany:

Sturrgart seems to be one place that is thoroughly infested with Islamofascists, just like Cologne and Berlin. I remember that from many years ago. But you can always get another job. In the Kaiserslautern/Ramstein/Landstuhl (where I used to live) the Americans are back in a big way.

Have a look around, you might find something there.

I feel for you: Wiesbaden used to be one of my favorite places in Germany. For a long time I always thought I might buy something there. I travel there frequently and just walking around the pedestrian area in the inner city is such a turnoff with all the hijabbed breeders...

No. I'll bust my balls before things turn that way in Oz. Here's paradise and I won't let them ruin that for future generations...

"You call islam the most intolerant religion in this world, based on certain scholars interpretation many centuries ago."

Tiger, I don't frequent J-W that often, but even I can see thru this argument just reading the comments above.

Spencer's main thesis is that the core of Islam, its foundational texts, lead one to extremism and violence.

That is why davegreybeard's pamphlet asks the question, "Have the Islamic terrorists radicalized Islam - or is it the other way around?"

All of us here I think wish jihadist ideology was just an old, forgotten and misguided "interpretation" of Islam.

But it isn't.

Just like the Emory quadruplets, you or your moderate islamic friends cannot - from an islamic frame of reference - disprove the jihadist "interpretation" because as Spencer has shown ad nauseum, that's what the islamic texts actually say.

put another way, the ideology that spencer is describing isn't just "certain scholars interpretation (from) many centuries ago", it's the best and most accurate interpretation of the islamic texts, which is why jihadism is such a problem TODAY.

Yes, Hartz IV supports A LOT of muslims in Germany. They don't seem to care whether they're terrorists or not.

The big debate here now is how they did some Turkish-German wrong (Kunaz is his name) by allowing him to sit in Guantanamo for so long.

Yeah I've been following that one on politicallyincorrect.de. The Germans are SO DUMB!!! HOW on EARTH can we discuss whether a Turkish citizen who happened to live in Bremen was "mistreated" by the Big Bad USA?! What a load of crap! I thought the Germans had finally learned their lesson after the two Big Wars but I am really having my dounbts right about now. WHAT is wrong with [MOST] of us? We need a National psychiatrist.

Denk ich an Deutschland in der Nacht dann bin ich um sen Schlaf gebracht. [Think I of Germany at night - it would make me die of fright]
-Heinrich Heine

WHY are we always sucking up to our enemies and we can't be good to our friends? Or those who actually are reaching out to us? I just don't get it anymore. F*** the Germans I need a new passport.

Wer hat den Doofen Deutschen denn SO ins Gehirn geschissen?!

To JihadWatchers,

auntbea made a good point while responding to AIG: never access this site while at work. Use an anonymous proxy like this one

Posted by: deesine

Thank you deesine. I have been looking for something like this. Jihadwatch has not been a problem but I got an e-mail from Bridgett Gabriel about the time her web-site got hacked in November. I opened it and it took days to fix. Also Walid Shoebats updates often cause problems if I import them to my inbox so I only look at them in the scamblocker.
I once went into an Anti-Obama site and all H broke loose.
Aunt Bea

Fishboy,

Obviously your comments demonstrate your ignorance in the middle east and islam. Sure there are "jihadist" that want to kill non muslims. Let add up the number of "jihadists". Let say 2 million which is less than 0.2% of all muslims. We could also argue the US wanting to dominate the world also. Look how much we spend on defence, over $600 billion more than all the other countries defense budgets combined or look at the our military bases around the world. Anyone that stands in our way we will certainly kill them, for Bush and cheney definitely say so. We seek to dominate the Persian Gulf and anyone who stands in our way, we will crush them. The muslims could argue that we seek to dominate them and that violence is the dominate ideology of the west.

Also, if you know your history guess who funded Bin Laden in the beginning and trained him. We did. Guess who supported hamas initially, the Israelis to divide the palestinians.

I have been throughout the middle east and I am fluent in arabic, unlike spencer. These quotes he states are all "scholars interpretation" many centuries ago. Sure some people regard their interpretation as gospel just as certain christians or jews do the same with their religions. I wonder if Mr Spencer has studied there for long periods of time at universities and institutes across the Middle East. It doesn't appear so.

Ask yourself what civilization has killed the most in the 20th century the west or the islamic one. Do not forget WWI, WWII, hiroshima, Vietnam, Central America, all committed by christians on christians. Now add up the number of people muslims killed, muslim on muslim and christians. You would be lucky to get more than 5%. So are we to say the west is inherently more violent for the facts certainly argue so. Maybe you can answer that for me.

How about the pedophilic catholic priests? So then can he say that is inherent in the catholic religion. Or how about in the 60's in the south when I sat in a Baptist church hearing the priest describe blacks as dirty, evil, and inferior.

Every religion has its extremists and many to support it. Just study history if you have a short term memory which most people do, and you will see all followers are wrong.

Americaningermany,

How many christians died in WWI, WWII, all committed by christians on christians. Well we know over 20 million Russians who are majority christians died in WWII.

Central America is all christians. Hundreds of thousands were killed many supported by US. Did you forget Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, all supported by us? How about Pinochet in Chile? These are all christians on christian.

True, the people in hiroshima and Vietnam war were not christian but it was committed by a christian nation. I thought only the meek shall inherit the earth or you should turn the other cheek.

Well, if I add up how many people died in these in these wars, all together well we will get easily get over 50 million. In WWII we know 20 million russsian civilians died and 6 million soldiers died, 6 million jews died, close to a million Japanese died, millions of Germans died. This is all in WWII only.
How many American christians have died in the hands of muslims in the 20th century? Lets say 3000 in Sept 11, 3000 in Iraq, 250 in Beirut bombings, hijackings 200, Gulf war I 500. That isn't more than 10,000.

Well I guess looking at the facts, one would ask how come christians have killed so many people, I thought they were peaceful people?

[H]ow come christians have killed so many people, I thought they were peaceful people?

The police in the United States kill more people each year than the reverse. How can this be? I thought they were supposed to protect people?

You cite purported Jewish laws and ask why we don't comment on them. Please name one case where a Jew committed a crime against a Gentile, claimed Biblical justification, and was acquitted based on that.

The sophomoric absurdity of your assertions is glaring.

tiger,
The Christian Russians killed in WW2 were killed by Nazis, not Christians.
Hitler was brought up and confirmed as a Catholic, but he came to believe in his own divine powers. A quote from Mein Kampf: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Genuine atheists do not believe in a Lord.
Atheists are a minority, and Extropian atheists are such a small minority that they have closed shop recently due to lack of funds. Extropians are atheists who believe in boundless personal growth. They lack financial success because they focus only on rationality and science. They lack the killer instinct.
Atheists are not welcome in the military, for example see http://www.atheists.org/action/alert-09-nov-2004.html

and the saying is "there are no atheists in foxholes".
I would argue that atheists tend to act more civilized than religious types when it comes to war making and profiteering.
Some of them are refined and polite, some of them are not.
So you have met some refined and polite moslems.
When I was paying bribes to Saudi Arabians in order to have my Philippine brother-in-law released from slavery there, I discovered that to a moslem, a non-moslem has no rights. They can be quite polite about that, but they do not feel respect. They respect force.
So, in defending myself against the Moslem, I am acting in accordance with the will of Myself. I may not even be polite about it.
Walt

Davegreybeard,

"If the "prevailing view" is that Islam, at its core, is extreme and violent (which you and I know it is) then it will be much easier for most Infidels to believe that most Muslims pose a threat."

I disagree. Most people in the West have a strong tendency to superimpose a Western mentality, based on their Western history and experience, upon other cultures. Western people, profoundly secularized over the past couple of centuries (and this process increasing at a geometric progression with each succeeding generation toward the present) more or less semi-consciously look around them and see a watered-down Christianity and a majority of Christians who are not following the putatively "extreme" tenets of their scriptures and who are no longer behaving like the "extremist" Christians of the old days (witch burnings, theocratic tendencies, etc.) -- yet at the same time, these secularized Westerners see (whether rightly or wrongly) the foundational texts of Christianity and the traditions of Christianity as being extremist. So, these secularized Westerners look out at the Muslim world and reflexively transplant their own Westernized view of religion: if you can show them that "Islam, at its core [core = texts and tradition], is extreme and violent", they will simply say, well that may be the "core", but it can't be how most Muslims interpret that core now. For example, we can find a Southern Baptist preacher in a church in the Deep South who picks out only the "extreme" passages of the Old Testament (all the battle passages) and the New Testament ("if your right eye offends thee, pluck it out!") and hammers them into his congregation -- but that Baptist preacher is "twisting" his texts and tradition into a message that ignores the softer side of Christianity. (Note: this doesn't prevent many, if not most, of these same secularized Westerners from juxtaposing to this view of Christianity a contradictory paranoia about the supposedly theocratic agenda of Christians.) Same with the Muslims we can find today who are extremist: the secularized Westerners will apply their experience to the Muslim world and say those Muslims are similarly twisting their text and traditions, or at worst are trying to revive an old extremism that no longer pertains among most of the world's millions of Muslims.

With these types of secularized Westerners -- who are the majority and who think in politically correct terms -- one will continually hit a brick wall with this issue unless one can show that the majority of Muslims today are extremist. Nothing less will dislodge our prevailing paradigm. Other factors that make this prevailing paradigm so strong are:

1) it is ideologically ensconced within a larger politically correct framework, which is dominant and mainstream

2) the implications of realizing that the majority of Muslims today are, in fact, extremist are frightening to the secularized politically correct Westerner, for they conjure up "Big Brother" tactics and the slippery slope to mistreating whole peoples en masse, which then would lead inexorably to "genocide", not to mention the specter of "bigotry" and "racism" against Third World peoples (Muslims)

tiger,

Your comments are misdirection and tu quoque .

However, if, as you claim, normative islam, as it is understood now by muslims, is opposed to the supremacism and bigotry evident in jihadi actions and words, then it should be easy for your muslim friends, and muslims everywhere, to refute, on islamic grounds, the supremacist words and violent actions of jihadis. Unfortunately, honest and well argued refutations are difficult for me to find (it is easy to locate apologists whose target audiences are non-muslims -- but that is not what I am looking for).

Perhaps you could suggest to your friends to develop islamically based criticism of jihadi actions. Please remember that the jihadis are themselves well acquainted with the koran, hadiths, sira, etc, and act on their understanding, knowledge and belief in these texts.

It would certainly be interesting to see a well reasoned or well argued criticism, by muslims, of their colleagues in the ummah, who kill and terrorize in the name of islam.

Tiger, I hadn't realized that all those wars you mentioned were religious wars. Now maybe if you had gone to the old whipping boy of the Crusades, you might have a point, although trying to assert much continuity between Crusade era Europe and the modern post-Enlightenment west is tenuous at best.

While you are searching history looking for atrocities committed by 'Christian' powers, you might want to also read up on the greatest genocide of all time which was carried out by Muslims against Hindus in the Indian sub-continent.

Nobody said the wars were religious or christians wars. All wars are essentially fought over resources and economics. People at times use religion or other ideologies to unite the people. Christians killing christians or muslims killing muslims, it all comes down to resources and power.

With regards to hitler, it does not make any difference if he was christian or not. The vast majority of Germans were and they were the ones doing the killing. Who fought in the german army-- christians. The catholic church even supported it. Who fought in Vietnam and killed women and children-american christian soldiers? If christians, in general, are so peaceful, how can you account for all the killings done by christians. It doesn't have to be in the name of christianity but remember it is christians who did the killing.

I look at facts and the number of deaths in the 20th century which at this time the west is supposed to be civilized and christianity had undergone reformation yet christian people (soldiers, society) have killed more people than any other society in the 20th century. You can't argue with facts.

You talk about muslims want to dominate the world, but who has military bases all over the world, who invades sovereign countries, overthrows government? Simply look at the west and you will get your answers and western civilization is based upon christianity not islam.

Sure there are muslim terrorists but we trained them, funded them, and set them loose. Now they are coming home to roost. Are muslims perfect, of course not. Have they committed terrorism, of course they have , but compared to the west it is minuscule.

If the muslim religion is so violent, how come the jews fled europe to muslim spain? How come when the jews were getting gased in WWII, we limited their immigration to the US and did not bomb aushwitz? How come when christian americans settled in the US, they slaughtered the Native Americans? How come when I was in church in the 60's the preacher was telling me black people are evil, uncivilized, dirty?

Does that mean christianity is an evil and violent religion? Some might argue yes but I would argue its followers are but not necessarily the religion. The same could be said for muslims.
I always find it amazing how everyone here has such a short term memory with regards to their history.

Saturnine,

You want an example of jewish law, well in israel, if a jew kills a palestinian, he receives a much lesser sentence compared to the palestinian if he kills a jew. It is all well documented in israel.

Listen to the Tuqoque the Tiger:

If the muslim religion is so violent, how come....

yada yada yada.

... if a jew kills a palestinian, he receives a much lesser sentence compared to the palestinian if he kills a jew. It is all well documented in israel.

Unsurprisingly, you did not answer my question.

@tiger

anaa bachki Arabiya jidaan!

So what?

I've read all the Koran in the original Arabic. Believe me, it's even more violent in the original Arabic.

=====
In Judaism, Jews are the Chosen People
In Islam, Arabs are the Chosen Race
In Christianity, Humanity is the Chosen Race.

Which religion is the most universal?

=======
Go read the following:

ISLAM AND THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK*
By Anwar Shaikh

http://www.freeman.org/m_online/may98/shaikh.htm

>I disagree. Most people in the West have a strong tendency to superimpose a Western mentality, based on their Western history and experience, upon other cultures.
Posted by: remote_control

But I DO agree with you on the problem, just not in how to attack it. This is why my pamphlet right below "2 Questions for Infidels" has the passage:

"What we wish, we readily believe, and what we ourselves think, we imagine others to think also." - J. Caesar

ISLAM 101 FOR TIGER

FROM: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50753

GLOBAL JIHAD
Terror called 'product'
of Arab society
Saudi official: 'This is a one-dimensional culture, a culture of tyranny'
Posted: June 23, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

In stark contrast to the Arab world's many defenders of jihad, a member of Saudi Arabia's Shura Council says terrorism is the product of a flaw in Arab-Muslim culture in which "the other" does not deserve to live.

Translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute, or MEMRI, a May 23 broadcast on Saudi TV's Channel 1 has the interviewer asking Saudi Shura Council member Ibrahim Al-Buleihi the following: "Some elements in Arab and Muslim societies have intensified the hostility towards Arabs and Muslims, through their acts of violence and terrorism, to the point that we see images of slaughtering the other – American or European – live on TV."

Al-Buleihi responded:

In my opinion, we should not describe these people as deviant. This is the product of our culture. …

They are the product of a culture that believes the other does not deserve to live, and is an absolute enemy with whom no understanding is possible. …

There is a fundamental flaw in our culture that leads to this behavior. This ideology, which was advocated by Sayyid Qutb [a 20th century Egyptian intellectual associated with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood], and which is implemented by those who kill innocent people – women, children, and people who have done nothing wrong – did not emerge out of thin air, but is the product of this culture. This is a one-dimensional culture, a culture of tyranny – tyranny in culture, in politics, in society, in the family, and in everything.

The "other" does not have to be someone completely different. When we disagree with someone, even over a shoe-shine, we regard him as the "other," we boycott him, we excommunicate him, defame him, level accusations at him, and so on.

tiger,

Apparently, I was not completely correct in describing your comments as misdirection and tu quoque . They are that, but are also substantially false. Your "it is all well documented" blather, provided without any documentation, is yet another demonstration of fallacious argument: an appeal to some nonexistent, but supposed, authority, or body of supposed knowledge.

My bad.

As you write above, "You can't argue with facts." Note: I mean that somewhat differently than you did above. I mean it as a plain statement of dishonesty by you.

And, to paraphrase yourself: does this mean "tiger" is a dishonest individual acting in bad faith? Some might argue yes.

I wouldn't disagree.

Alert-----[موسليم] على سترويد
(muslim on steroids)....danger, danger...

Del,

Nobody said there weren't problems in the muslim society. But ask yourself who turned a blind eye to the Saudi education system and the tyranny in Saudi Aruabia, we did. Who created Bin laden? Who supported Saddam? We did.
What did you do 20 yrs ago to oppose this, I am sure nothing. I was writing articles criticizing our support. We supported the extremist for our own interest and we let them go. Now we are occupying and invading the middle east so we are providing the perfect excuse according to them to attack us.
Look at Western/Christian society. You had the blacks in south africa oppressed by white, many religious christians, and blacks in the states oppressed again supported by many white churches. Is racism inherent in christianity?

With regards to christians killing christians I never said it was a religious war, I simply wanted to point out that christians (the West) in the 20th century have killed more people by a huge margin than any other religion or society. That is a fact. Again are christians simply prone to violence because of the religion or society? Why don't you explain this too me. If christianity is so peaceful how come we killed so many people. Should not the religion had guided us differently? The muslim terrorist do not even come close statistically to us in killing.

If I look at the bible, I can take many passages to promote an extremist ideology and kill non-christians. Every religion can be manipulated to serve a leader's self interest.

"Again are christians simply prone to violence because of the religion or society? Why don't you explain this too me."

....Christians do not attack, they counterattack...and in todays world it is Islam that is attacking (if you call Islam a religion)...لا يخون إعتقادك (do not betray your beliefs)...

>Every religion can be manipulated to serve a leader's self interest.
Posted by: tiger

Absolutely correct tiger, doubt anyone here would contest that point.

But the MAIN point is Islam does not need to be "manipulated" not at all, not one little bit.

9:123 “Believers! wage war against such of the infidels as are your neighbors, and let them find you rigorous: and know that God is with those who fear him.”

tiger,

On what basis of evidence do you write to me, "What did you do 20 yrs ago to oppose this, I am sure nothing"?

If your statement, concerning yourself, "I was writing articles criticizing our support" is true, I would be happy to I read any such articles. Please provide reference(s).

But again, this latest comment by you is again misdirection and tu quoque , leavened with assorted half truths and perhaps a few generalities which are somewhat true.

You write: "If I look at the bible, I can take many passages to promote an extremist ideology and kill non-christians."

You could. But, if you were to do that, you would quickly find strong public criticism from Christians, on Christian grounds, for your assertions.

Where is the strong criticism, on muslim grounds, by muslims, and aimed at jihadis acting in the name of islam?

The statement by the Emory students Sharefa Aria, Ridwan Khan, Huma Mirza and Aneel Naeem, "No Muslim at Emory is proud of Al-Qaeda" is quite mealy-mouthed, beside not being necessarily true. Has the mind of every muslim at Emory been read through some sort of "vulcan mind-meld" [that's a small star trek joke]? Probably not.

Why don't they criticise the jihadis in public, on islamic grounds? Can't they? One of them is purportedly the president of the Emory muslim student asociation. Isn't it reasonable to expect she has some grasp of islam and its texts, even if she lacks any real religious authority or standing (as she is young and female)?

The four Emory student authors further have the gall to pose islam as not bigoted toward "non-Muslims, women and homosexuals".

Where is their criticism of muslim preachers such as Al-Qaradawi, who stated, concerning homosexuality: "...Having said this, I should stress here that Muslim jurists have held differing opinions concerning the punishment for this abominable practice. Should it be the same as the punishment for fornication, or should both the active and passive participants be put to death? While such punishments may seem cruel, they have been suggested to maintain the purity of the Islamic society and to keep it clean of perverted elements." Qaradawi is not an utter fool. He writes with care and leaves wriggle room for his minions and followers to defend him. It is clear to me, from this quote, that he is suggesting, but trying to not be entirely straightforward, death for homosexuals [and no, I'm not gay].

linked from: http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/01/12/the_quality_of_ken_livingstones_defence.php

one can link to the islamonline fatwa by Qaradawi from there.

Al-Qaradawi has great prestige, particularly among muslims with exposure to, or in, the west. In fact, a foolish acquaintance-friend of mine once used Al-Qaradawi as an example of a "moderate muslim cleric", simply because he is despised by saudi wahhabis, since he is their rival and has a few modernist tendencies (for example, he speaks to non-muslims). Talk about perversion. Perversion of reality it was.

In spite of your misdirection, this thread is not about any other religions or ideologies. It is about islam, its defects, and the unwillingness, or inability, of its believers to honestly confront those defects.

exsgtbrown,

If I remember correctly, christians slaughtered each other in WWII. True, Nazism existed but the vast majority of soldiers were christians. Remember Mussolini and the italians who were much more religious, well they invaded many countries. Remember Vietnam, as far as I can remember we invaded their country, not vice versa. Remember Panama, we invaded their country. Remember South Africa they invaded and occupied Namibia and killed over 500,000 people. Remember Iraq, who invaded who.

With regards to articles, in the 1980's those were letters to the editor and op-ed pieces but as you the computer wasn't as available then so I do not have copys. Whether you believe me or not really makes no difference to me, the point is though the West supported and created Bin laden into a mass murderer, and where is the criticism of islam then. They were called freedom fighters. Remember Regan meeting the mujahideen in the white house. Or how about the taliban in houston a few months before Sept 11 meeting with Unocal, where was the outrage in the press here about that. I challenge you to find a press article in the US criticizing the taliban's visit.

With regards to condemnation of terrorism, muslims all the time criticize and condemn it. Articles are written in the local paper here by muslim's condemning it. CAIR routinely condemns it, Qaradawi condemned Sept 11 and the killing of innocents. Al-Azhar condemns it. Unfortunately, though the muslims do not run the press here, and what makes the news are the extremists not the moderates.

Anyway, what difference does it make anyway if they condemn it. Will it change the extremists, I seriously doubt it. Do you think Bin Laden cares what other muslims think about his ideas? The people who should really apologize and who we should put on trial are the ones who created them. If we didn't train them, finance them, and support oppressive tyrannical leaders we wouldn't be in this mess today. The average muslim didn't create them or was responsible for their actions, the west was. How come we don't expect apologies and condemnation from catholics for the pedophilic preachers. I have a catholic friend. I didn't demand he write letters and get on tv condemning them. I know he did not do it and does that mean he supports it.
Davegreybeard

with regards to manipulation in Quran. Lets look at the bible.
"When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you may nations...then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy." Deuteronomy 7:1-2,
"...do not leave alive anything that breaths. Completely destroy them...as the Lord your God has commanded you..." Deuteronomy 20:16,

"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. Joshua 6:21

The quote from the quran was during the wars in the arabian peninsula and that was typical of warfare. Then the quran and hadiths made stipulations during war and not to harm the environment, women, children, old men.

And what is the matter with you that you do not fight in the cause of Allah and for those weak, ill treated and oppressed among men, women and children whose only cry is; 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors and raise for us from you one who will protect and raise for us from you one who will help"
(Surah An-Nisa 4:75)

"There is no compulsion in religion. The right path has indeed become distinct from the wrong. So whoever rejects false worship and believes in Allah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allah is All Hearing, All Knowing"
(Surah Al-Baqarah 2:256)

If anyone killed a person not in retaliation for murder or to spread mischief in the land, it would be as if he killed the whole of mankind. And (likewise) if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the whole of mankind"
(Surah Al-Maaida 5:32)

And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you. But do not transgress the limits. Truly Allah loves not the transgressors"
(Surah Al-Baqarah 2:190)

Again you haven't answered me why have the christians killed the most human beings in the 20th century.

tiger,

More misdirection and islamic-apologist tu quoque . You are shameless.

You write: "Whether you believe me or not really makes no difference to me, the point is though"

Of course. But the point is really: why should anyone believe what you write? Scattered bits are true, but anything such thing, written by you, is tainted, by your consistent dishonesty and misdirection.

You write: "With regards to condemnation of terrorism, muslims all the time criticize and condemn it. Articles are written in the local paper here by muslim's condemning it. CAIR routinely condemns it, Qaradawi condemned Sept 11 and the killing of innocents. Al-Azhar condemns it."

Various muslims at various times have nominally condemned something they refer to as "terrorism" against "innocents" in public statements aimed at non-muslims. In my experience, their intended meaning of "terrorism" and "innocent" does not match my, nor a reasonable observer's, meanings of those words.

My request, if you paid attention in good faith, is not that muslims condemn "terrorism" against "innocents". We already know that jihad, in all its forms, is understood by muslims as non-terrorism. Any criticism of "terrorism" is therefore not criticism of jihad. Except to naive non-muslims, that is, assisted in their naivete by disingenuous apologists for islam, such as yourself.

My request is, for muslims to criticize, in-the-muslim-public-arena(s), other muslims' supremacist and bigoted understanding of islam. I don't want to see CAIR hold press conferences where they invite AP, AFP, Reuters. I want CAIR to hold press conferences where they invite al-Jazeera, and the muslim public, and then criticize the supremacism inherent in statements such as "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future...But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education [that last word should more accurately be written as da'wa -- proselytising propaganda, or, an invitation to islam]." It is just great that CAIR does not currently advocate violence, but their goal, long term, is sharia as the source of law in the United States. Such a goal is astounding to many people. Beyond astounding, that goal is unacceptable to anyone who cares about freedom.

Oops. That quote is from the top dog of CAIR himself, Ibrahim Hooper, before he became quite so experienced.

Perhaps CAIR won't be holding that press conference after all.

tiger,

In my immediately preceeding comment, I neglected to respond to your, "Anyway, what difference does it make anyway if they condemn it."

The only realistic way islam can actually change is for muslims themselves to change it. Press conferences aimed at non-muslims are fraudulent. The debate must be within islam and among muslims. Currently there is little real debate. Do you know of any self identified muslim who is opposed, in principle, to sharia becoming the law of the land in UK, or USA, some time in the future? I don't. Any such individual would seem to be non-muslim, rather than a muslim believer. But once in a while someone might pop up. One hopes.

If muslims do not criticize defects in islam, or even acknowledge them (the most glaringly obvious defects being its inherent supremacism and bigotry toward non-believers in its division of the world into dar-al-islam and dar-al-harb), islam will never change. That is, unless it then provokes a horrible, destructive, world war and gets itself obliterated. From an academic viewpoint, one might then be able to say "islam has changed".

Tiger - this is a long thread and I'm heading to bed and I won't claim to have read every post in this sequence but I feel I have read enough of your posts to ask you a question. Do you not see any moral difference in the various REASONS that human beings kill eachother? Your entire argument cites statistics on people killing eachother but seems to leave out the central issue - WHY?

According to your entire logic policemen are as evil as the people they kill. Does it matter in your moral calculation WHY people kill? Is there no difference at all in your moral calculation between those who kill in order to subjugate others under the 7th century morals of Sharia law (which include stripping everyone but Muslim males of their human rights) versus those, like Americans who killed a lot of people to prevent totalitarians, like Hitler and the Communists or Saddam from gaining absolute power over everyone else? So the cop, who is entrusted to protect the rights of others to pass unmolested in the street is really no different in your mind than the rapist and the killer, so long as their death toll comes up equal in the end. That makes no sense. Your whole argument skips over the ends that each is seeking to establish in their motivation for shedding blood. Of course everyone will claim to be killing for a good reason but rational people will actually evaluate those reasons objectively and come to a conclusion about good and evil - and fighting evil unfortunately requires killing people. I noticed above that you cited all the bloodshed among Christians circa WWII. But whether or not Hitler called himself a Christian or not, you are leaving out of your total bloodshed calculation that a great many Christians actually fought against Hitler because they believed he was morally wrong and that their fight against him accounted for the statistics you cite as evidence of "Christian" violence. If we saw a similar scenario in the Muslim world, wherein large numbers of Muslims fought against Muslim totalitarians, there is no way we would lump those people in with the Muslims they were fighting against. We are perfectly capable of grasping the difference between blood shed on behalf of advancing the cause of human rights and freedom (the American civil war, eg. - all Christians) and blood shed on behalf of advancing tyranny.

That is really the only distinction that matters as far as I am concerned. So show me the wars that Muslims have waged in the aims of advancing human freedoms (including the freedoms of infidels) - and then I might actually think you have a valid point.

Caroline,

"Do you not see any moral difference in the various REASONS that human beings kill eachother? Your entire argument cites statistics on people killing eachother but seems to leave out the central issue - WHY?"

I've had Leftists not only do what you describe tiger as doing, but go even further and equate deaths caused by jihadist terrorism with deaths caused by automobile and plane accidents!

First, I assume you are american or least from the west. Do you condemn the US/Britain's invasion of Iraq, creating Bin Laden, supporting dictators in the middle east, supporting Saddam? Where was the outcry from the so called peaceful christians in the West in the 1980's. I rarely saw it. If you do that is great, if you don't that makes you a hypocrite. Remember these killings are done in the name of your government, country, and by christians. Also, how come you still refuse to condemn the western governments for creating these extremist groups? That is where the blame should be. Oh, how we always have a short term memory.

I have been to the middle east, all the muslims I know condemned 911 and expressed horror but in the middle east protests are for the most part banned and most people are apolitical for they are afraid of getting imprisoned, thanks to the US support of dictatorships. So you see very little protests from muslims. Most clerics are controlled and contained by the state. The ones that do speak out get imprisoned or marginalized by the state for the state does not want anyone to gain mass support. Look at Amr Khaled he has been pretty much banned from Egypt. He gave lectures to muslims on being nice, helping others, sharing, educate yourself, respect others, doing hard work, quit smoking, etc. He stayed completely away from politics yet he was essentially deported from egypt because he was developing a mass. Is there intolerance in the middle east and islam of course there is. Just as you have intolerance here during the beginning of the war if you spoke out.

Here is a quote from the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia on 911

"These explosions which have taken place in the US are nothing but strike of injustice, oppression and tyranny which are not in agreement with Shariah of islam." Sheik Abdul-Azeez Aal ash-Sheik, grand mufti of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and head of the Council of Senior Scholars, speaking about the 9-11 terrorist attack. Here is the link http://www.fatwa-online.com/news/0010917.htm

There are many more.

When Timothy Mcveigh did the bombing, he was a right wing christian. Where was the mass protests from christians? When eric rudolph bombed abortion clinics where were the mass protests from christians?

When I went to Baptist church I don't ever remember our church condemning passages in the bible I stated above or condemning this passage

Exodus 32:26-28: "Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men."

Many people consider the bible genocidal.

How come it is expected of muslims to condemn certain statements or passages in their book but not christians? When I questioned my priest on the bible, he said it was the word of god so you cannot question it.

Muslims when they came to this country were apolitical and many uneducated. They avoided the media and politics, remnant behavior from their home countries. So when 911 happened many are starting to wake up and become more involved and form organizations.

With regards to the Cair quote show me the source of the quote for I have never heard it before.
I am not an apologist for Islam or any other religion, I simply look at the facts, and the facts show that Western civilization has killed, invaded, and overthrown more that any other society or religion. Look at the facts and add up the number of people killed in the 20th century. Why is that? Why have christian societies done this? Is it something inherent in the ideology? You still have not answered me.

If you go to egypt, there is a monastery in Sinai it is one of the oldest ones in the world and has the one the best christian libraries in the world. I wonder how it survived so long. Also, I wonder how the richest man in Egypt is christian and the christian control much of the gold and diamnond trade in egypt. I thought the muslims would have killed him by now.

In this country this a growing right wing evangelical christian movement that believes in armageddon. They want the jews to all gather in israel so they can all convert to christianity or perish. Where are the mass protests from christians about that? I haven't seen it.

Tiger: "Whether you believe me or not really makes no difference to me, the point is though the West supported and created Bin laden into a mass murderer, and where is the criticism of islam then. They were called freedom fighters."

Tiger - the explanation for that seems pretty obvious to me. The U.S. was completely occupied in fighting another totalitarian system altogether - namely communism - and its entirely likely that they understood next to nothing about Islam - as they display their complete ignorance about it now. Look at their naivete' quite recently, in actually thinking that Sistani was a moderate!

The U.S. isn't God! I think the whole world has realized that at this point! It's just a big messy beurocratic system subject to the same sorts of flaws that, for example, the French elites were subject to when they let all those Muslims into France - and if anyone should have understood Islam - it was the French! But obviously they didn't understand their lifelong adversary. You are making the big mistake of underestimating the sometimes benign nature of human ignorance.

I will reiterate again - MOTIVES MATTER! And before you go imagining that American motives are the worst of all - I will pre-emptively reject that line of argument. That's where I certainly believe that human beings are more alike than different in their capacity for greed and self-interest etc. But political systems certainly differ in their capacity to reign in and check those base human motives and objectively speaking, the US system has arguably the very best means for checking those base human motives and insuring that when we use aggression, things are more on the "up and up" because of all those checks and balances than is certainly the case in evaluating the motives of the world's various despots.

So I would again reiterate - motives matter! You can't simply cite a bunch of statistics of people killing eachother and ignore the goodness or badness (or quite often merely the sheer ignorance) in those motives. Otherwise you are lumping in the violence that was shed in the American civil war, which ended slavery in the United States, with Hitler's use of violence in order to exterminate the Jews, all in the same pot with other Christians' shedding their own blood in order to end Hitler's reign of tyranny. Do you really see no difference there?

And if you can now see that difference and step back for a moment from the argument you have been making, can you possibly see a difference between Muslims shedding blood in order to institute 7th century Islamic law throughout the world (and never EVER fighting on behalf of non-Muslims to advance the cause of human rights) and our shedding blood in order to defeat theocracy, slavery, and totalitarianism in all its forms? And factually we have actually come to the defense of Muslims on that score - in Kuwait, in the Balkans, and in Iraq. Give me ONE example of where Muslims have shed blood to help infidels, because doing so would advance the cause of human freedom.

tiger,

You wrote: "With regards to the Cair quote show me the source of the quote for I have never heard it before."

answer: April 4, 1993 Minneapolis Star Tribune. The top dog in the dog and pony show at CAIR spent quite some time in Minnesota prior to Washington.

You wrote: "How come it is expected of muslims to condemn certain statements or passages in their book but not christians?"

Your apparent willful obtuseness about what I write is perhaps not obtuseness, but mere dishonesty. As I wrote above, what I want is for muslims to openly criticize the bigotry and supremacism within the muslim community, in order for islam to "reform", so as to avoid further destruction and bloodshed throughout the world, among both muslims and non-muslims. Only muslims can change islam. See an above comment by me. Sure some saudi cleric criticized bin-laden after 9/11. Bin-laden opposed the saudi regime and the saudi regime opposed bin-laden, all long before 9/11. That is not equivalent to saudi clerics opposing the supremacism within islam. Just a spat between rivals who each want sharia to be supreme.

As for responding to your further misdirection and tu quoque (you should really look that up, eh?):

You have demonstrated quite enough bad faith throughout this thread that I am unwilling to go down the tangents of your misdirection.

Tiger - it's rare that I can't even read to the end of a post because I want to vomit. My guess ( and I could be entirely wrong) is that you are a Muslim raised in the west (probably the US). You could pass as a leftist but my bet is on you being a second generation American Muslim.

The US supported dictators in the ME - blah blah blah. One of UBL's major grievances by the way. And so we took out one of the ME's most heinous dictators in 3 weeks - everything Muslims, including UBL complained about, and what was the Muslim world's almost universal reaction, including so many "moderate" Muslims in the Islamic world? Their response was to cheer on the "insurgents", in other words Muslims killing Muslims (not to mention systematically destroying infrastructure in Iraq) at a rate and on a scale that is simply obscene. Sorry. You ain't gonna pin that on us. That whole line about resenting our support of dictators in the ME has been blown out of the water by Muslims themselves. Now that we've all seen that lie with our own eyes, the question is - where are you going to take the pity party from here? Tall order, cause basically no one is buying it now.

Caroline,

First, I never mentioned anything about police men or deaths caused by them. I am talking about wars perpetrated by governments and supported by christians. Policemen and government sponsored wars are 2 separate thinks.
If you think wars are fought for freedom and human rights, then you have a warped view of history. Wars are fought over resources and power. WWII was fought over control of Europe. We were afraid the german were getting too much power. Right up to the beginning of the war wall street was in bed with the Nazis. Even after the war we conspired against the russsians with the Nazis. If it was about tyranny or human rights, how come we did not bomb aushwitz or let more jews into this country.True, many christians opposed the war yet the church in germany supported it, how is that.

How about in WWI where bankers in New York, Germany and England funneled tens of millions of dollars to the Bolsheviks, who killed an estimated 20 million Russian Orthodox Christians between 1917 and 1945.
How about the Vietnam war. We killed over a million people, to fight against communism. Who gave us that right? How about ask a young vietnamese whose family was slaughtered in the war, don't you agree it was the moral thing to do. We have the moral high ground because we are fighting communism so it is ok to kill your family. That makes a lot of sense. If we are so opposed to communism, how come we deal with china. Well, they are willing to open up their markets unlike vietnam, so wars are essentially about resources and power.

Imagine if the Chinese came here and said we hate capitalism and we are going to free you from the tyranny of captilalism and make the US a socialist country which is more equitable according to them. What would you do? How about if they slaughtered your family by mistake in the process? Well morally that is ok, because they are achieving a higher and more noble goal.

What right did we have to go into Iraq? The iraqis never asked an invasion. If we are so concerned about freedom, human rights, how come we continued to support Saddam after he gased the Kurds. Or how about the support for Turkey who have killed over 100,000 kurds. How come we didn't invade them. How about indonesia and east timor?
The list goes on and lets not forget our intervention in central america.

Of course you think the west's intervention was all for noble causes so there is no moral equivalence in killing. Well how about if the Russians invaded the US to free the blacks from racism and oppression in the 1950's and as a consequence of that killed 100,000 people. Isn't that what we did in Iraq. By your logic that would be fine, for it is fighting "on behalf of advancing the cause of human rights and freedom".

I never said Muslims fought wars on advancing human rights for those wars essentially do not exist. We would not be in iraq if there was no oil. If iraq was like Rwanda, we could care less. We have an ideology that we have interests around the world and we have to protect it. Oil is the main one. Listen to dick cheney's speeches prior to him being vice president or US government plans in 1973 to occupy the oil fields to protect the world's oil. I thought each country controls there own resources. That is only true if you are the US. Imagine if the Mexicans said that they have to protect their interests in Texas for they are running out of oil.

Of course there are moral differences when a cop kills a killer or a rapist versus the rapist or the killer killing the cop. But if I invade your country or house whether you like it or not and no matter what the reason then morally your killing is much more legitimate than me killing you either by mistake or intentionally. For, i have invaded your space without permission, so you have the right to defend yourself.

Tiger: "But ask yourself who turned a blind eye to the Saudi education system and the tyranny in Saudi Aruabia, we did"

Muhammad and his 4 rightly guided caliphs basically cleansed the Arabian peninsula of Jews and Christians over 1,000 years ago. The United States has existed for slightly over 250 years now and you want to pin the blame for the Saudi education system on us?

Geez. Who are you? For a minute there I thought you must be a second generation Muslim American. Maybe you really are just a 25 year old white offspring love-child of Haight-Ashbury 1960's hippy radicals who maybe did a few too many drugs? What other explanation could there possibly be for not only your historical ignorance but also your very bizarre sense of white, Christian (probably male), western guilt?

Tiger: "I never said Muslims fought wars on advancing human rights for those wars essentially do not exist."

You are right about that. Those wars DO NOT EXIST. And frankly, that says a great deal. As to the rest of it, of course it is ugly. But you have to look at how ugly it would be had the Nazis won (unless you were priveleged enough to be a healthy Aryan). And you have to look at how ugly it would be if the Communists won (we have the numbers to demonstrate that). And NOW - and the entire purpose of this website - you have to look at how ugly it would be if the Muslims won!

I would not dismiss out of hand in advance that there would come a day when I would welcome a greater power than us coming and using violence to "free us" from a tyranny that has enslaved us. But that day hasn't come. The proof of that is in the pudding everyday that most of the world flees THERE to come HERE. There may well come a day when that situation is reversed but it isn't here now. And in the meantime, the biggest threat to Europe certainly and here, close on its heels, is ISLAM.

So as long as that is factually the case in the real world and in the present (not in the past, and not in the hypothetical future), what is your point?

Caroline,

I thought president bush said anyone who supports terrorist will be prosecuted and brought to justice. Well, how come he will not prosecute his father, Reagan, rumsfield for supporting terrorism. Didn't they support Bin Laden, Saddam. Didn't we supply arms to them, provided intelligence, financial support. Why don't you answer that? Aren't you for justice?

Regarding muslims killing muslims of course it is wrong,for no one is disputing that but it is simply about power. It is no different from serbia and the croates slaughtering each other for they are all fighting for power.
I like your logic of taking out the dictator. It is ok to support him and let him kill thousands of people as long as he serves our interest. Then all of a sudden he turns against us, so we take him out. Remember Noriega. That makes a lot of sense.

Also, we didn't shed blood for Kuwaiti's freedom or iraq's freedom. It is about oil. Kuwait at the time would not let women vote and it is a dictatorship. If there was no oil Kuwait or Iraq we would not be there. How come we did not invade south africa, namibia, east timor, turkey, Rwanda. No oil or other strategic interests. How come we overthrew a secular democratically elected government in Iran in the 1950's, well, because he wanted to nationalize the oil and the british were going to lose out. I guess your short term memory does not go back that far.
With regard to the balkans, how come we did not lift the embargo against the bosnians so they could get arms to defend themselves and we intervened in the end, well by then the war was almost over and it was at a stalemate. It suited our interests at that time, for we did not want Serbia to become too powerful and they were nationalizing government industries and not willing to auction them off.

I never said muslims fought war to free others, for like i said wars are fought over power and resources.
Why don't you answer these questions? I stated above. So far I haven't seen anything convincing.

Also, I am not muslim fyi.

Caroline,

There isn't all that much to be gained by speculating on another anonymous commenter's background. But what the hay. :)

tiger's phrasing does not seem typical native-born USA to me. I would go with immigrant. Possible 2nd generation. No more than that. Seems more male than female.

As for the bizarre sense of western guilt, I don't think tiger actually has that. tiger exhibits more self-righteousness than guilt. tiger is merely trying to teach that guilt to others.

Anyway, Good Night.

Caroline,
I never said the saudi education system was our fault, I simply said we support the saudis and turn a blind eye to their education system as long as they serve our interests.

With regards to the killing of jews and christians in the arabian peninsula, the majority of people were idol worshipers who initially killed and oppressed muslims. Muslims fought back and won. Of course there were mistakes on both sides. Let us not forget that we slaughtered the native americans when we came here.

also, what difference does it make who i am or where i come from. Why does it bother you? I never asked you were.

Tiger - I would never again support our going to war to help Muslims. The Iraq war has taught me that Muslims deserve despotism and that they get the leaders they deserve. I think most Americans would agree with that assessment at this point. Happy now?

"Also, we didn't shed blood for Kuwaiti's freedom or iraq's freedom. It is about oil. Kuwait at the time would not let women vote and it is a dictatorship."

Obviously it was my mistake, as it was many Americans, to imagine that Kuwaitis as a people actually mattered. As you have pointed out, they were a thoroughly sucky people. Not worth any of the lives we may have shed. Ditto for the Muslim lives we saved in the Balkans at the expense of the Serbs, whom we ruthlessly sold out. I greatly regret that and am deeply ashamed.

As to Bush and Rumsfeld - I agree. He and others should be prosecuted inasmuch as they have supported the interests of the Saudis and the Pakistanis and Muslim interests in general.

"I like your logic of taking out the dictator. It is ok to support him and let him kill thousands of people as long as he serves our interest. Then all of a sudden he turns against us, so we take him out."

If he is an evil dictator, I am interested in hearing your objections to taking him out even when it happens to serve our self-interests. You must be aware at this point, however, of the sheer number of people who regret that we ever took out Saddam. I must surmise that you would agree with those folks. You aren't interested in right or wrong, however. It's funny though how your guilt could come to coincide in a practical sense with those who couldn't care less about the Iraqis or Muslims, although for altogether different reasons.

"I never said muslims fought war to free others, for like i said wars are fought over power and resources."

How coincindental then that in the entire history of Muslim wars, not one of their wars ever resulted in freeing others, when so many of our own wars, ostensibly fought soley for the same reasons - power and resources - actually resulted (inadvertently and quite coincidentally I suppose) in doing just that (i.e. freeing others).

"With regards to the killing of jews and christians in the arabian peninsula, the majority of people were idol worshipers who initially killed and oppressed muslims. Muslims fought back and won."

I reckon it's that kind of comment that makes me speculate that you're a Muslim. But you're right that it makes no difference. I really don't care. In fact, seems rather unlikely in retrospect. I could comment about your apparent Baptist upbringing and the influences that might have had, but I won't. Muslims, leftists and guilty Christians just tend to blend into one undifferentiated soup these days anyway.

AIG - I had no problem with your comment way earlier. No regular poster here would have had a problem with it. My only concern was whether you had revealed too much information about yourself that might have made you recognizable to either your new boss or your coworkers. Your safety was the only thing that concerned me in your posting what you did.

tiger

Were WWII, the Vietnam War and the various other examples of Christians killing people you mentioned motivated by Christianity? Were the people who started those wars doing it out of religious conviction? Did they, at any point, cite Biblical passages to support their actions? Did their goals in the wars have anything to do with Christianity as a religion?

Unless you can truthfully answer "yes" to these questions, your attempt to compare these wars to the Islamic jihad is entirely invalid.

Whether tiger is some guilt-ridden leftist loon or a jihadi in diapers is indeed irrelevant at this point.

Given his dishonesty, tu quoque, and inability to make relevant distinctions, he's shown himself to be either unable or unwilling to reason correctly, which means the chances of him changing his mind based on further discourse are about zero ;o)

But the good words of caroline and the others will perhaps change the mind of some lost Emory student who wandered onto this thread? One can hope :o)

Hoo Boy! I'm glad tiger is correcting us, Jihadwatchers. He's right - WE'RE TO BLAME! For so much immorality and darkness. Forget about resisting the spread of Islam's leaden cloak. Wow, this member of a shame culture (Islam) sure is determined to try to "guilt trip" us. Good psychological game, and gently gently is his trolling style, so people follow in good faith. And it's all rubbish. Kinda like his initial statements. Remember them? The "Talmud."

So tiger, can you furnish the "source" for your list of "Talmud" statements? The Talmud is availiable online - I just googled and saw more than one. Even jihadis and stormfronters would want the credibility that citing sources provides, (as we here do with koran quotes, by linking to online koran sites).

So how about documenting your opening hate screed, which I gather is deeply embedded in your thinking, and the relevance of which (were it true) is unclear. Oh, and if it is true, then back it up.

Even a little.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm

Muslims hate the truth.....especially when it concerns Islams plan for world domination and enslavement of the Non Muslims....The Islamic peoples of the world are engaged in ethnic cleansing on a massive scale...Some Islamic followers are indeed violent, some are vocal, some claim to be moderate, some are relatively silent,some assume different identities in an attempt to confuse or mislead the Non Muslims, but all seek the death of the Non Muslim....

...The anti American Tiger says:

"With regards to condemnation of terrorism, muslims all the time criticize and condemn it. Articles are written in the local paper here by muslim's condemning it. CAIR routinely condemns it, Qaradawi condemned Sept 11 and the killing of innocents. Al-Azhar condemns it. Unfortunately, though the muslims do not run the press here, and what makes the news are the extremists not the moderates."

......he is wrong, Muslims do not criticize or condemn Muslim violence...generally they endorse it,or remain silent,I have seen no Muslim protests voicing opposition to Muslim Violence or condemning a beheading here or a stoning there or a seemingly senseless killing (i.e. the slaying of an icecream vendor or the beheading of a garbage collector). Those precious few Muslims who do stand up and cry out against the Muslim violence are immediately have a fatwah demanding death (a death warrant issued by Muslims). CAIR does not condemn Muslim Violence,,,In fact, if you research all the CAIR press releases, the Only condemnations you will see against Muslim Violence are those few instances where it appears coalition forces may have struck a target incorrectly identified as a terrorist target...the military goes to extreme lengths to avoid such situations...CAIR routinely condemns attacks against Muslims (not the other way around).Tiger is again mistaken when he suggests Muslims do not get press coverage....They get excellant press coverage, They are allowed to publish articles, give speeches, and to protest openly in the streets...In fact, there are several Muslim professors teaching Islam in our schools (much to my distaste)....

Tiger has a distorted sense of history and a great hate for America...his words and tone clearly show it....He has no clue about the joys of freedom or the cost of freedom....The cost of freedom is buried in the ground....It is true American has fought many battles, but the battles fought have never been for control of the land or its peoples...Everywhere America has fought , people have benefited unlike Islam where people just suffer and die....It is clear too, that Tiger is Anti Christian and Anti JEw....

I conclude Tiger may be a younger person full of hate....Hate for all things held holy by Non Muslims and hate for the ideals of free people and hate for Christianity, and hate for perceived injustices by Christianity, and probably hate for his own woeful life....He must be either a Muslim or a Muslim wannabee....HE certainly is not a Christian or a real American...He will get people killed....
:

"How come we did not invade south africa, namibia, east timor, turkey, Rwanda. No oil or other strategic interests"

Tiger - I guess you've never heard of the principle of enlightened self-interest. The way you see things one should only shed the blood of one's children provided one has absolutely nothing to gain by doing so. But show me any other powerful nation that does that - Russia? China? The Islamic ummah? None of them. I assume you would want us to intervene in Darfur now in order to prove our moral bona fides. But then wouldn't doing that kill some Darfurians and as you pointed out above it wouldn't be fair to kill their families (not to mention adding to this calculus of Christians invading and killing people that you've laid out above)? Ironically, it is the US alone that has tried to get what is happening in Darfur labeled as genocide and it is the Arab bloc of the UN (as well as China) which is blocking that. But I suppose according to your calculus, our failure to intervene in Darfur is as evil as the actions of those actually perpetrating the genocide.

I think you have a totally unrealistic assessment of human nature from an historical and comparative perspective. It is fascinating to entertain what the world would look like if the US didn't exist and we had China, Russia and Islam all competing to be the world's superpower. I can't recall where I read it but there was an article out there somewhere which looked at actual murder rates among tribal and primitive people ("noble savages")killing eachother and which concluded that if you extrapolated those rates into the modern world proportionally, something like hundreds of millions of people would be getting massacred today. I'll have to try and find the actual article when I get home from work today.

Caroline,

Again you never addressed why we fought these wars. They were not for freedom and history has shown that especially in Vietnam. WWI, WWII were about power. But the point is if Christians/western society is suppose to be very peaceful why we have killed so many people. Can't we resole our problems peacefully? Remember WWII was christians slaughtering christians. As for hiroshima, it was one of the few christian towns in Japan.

Now add up all the people christians have killed in the 20th century and add up all the people muslims have killed, how come such a huge discrepancy. I never said christians killed in the name of the religion, but if christians were peaceful people their religion would have for the most part let them resolve the conflicts peacefully. Again address this point. I would expect the more civilized the society, religion, and culture, there would be less killings, less wars.
With regards to Iraq and trying the leaders, I am for trying everyone the US and Iraq leaders who committed crimes. The point about Iraq is we supported the dictator and provided financial support when he was slaughtering his people but that was ok at the time. Now we go in and look at the mess that has resulted. Now we have contributed to killings of at least 100,000 iraqs. I am sure you will say that is the muslims killing muslims but we are responsible for security in this country and before we should have gone in, we should have anticipated all possibilities and prepared for it.

With regards to who I am, again what difference does it make, why don't who stick to the issues and answer some of the questions I asked.
Why do I live here, well I was born here and it is my country and if it is doing something wrong I would like to change that for the good.

Do I think intervention is ever warranted, of course it is. WWII fighting the Nazis and the Japanese was certainly warranted. But the point is the Italians/Germans were christians so how could they have been so barbaric? Hiroshima wasn't for why should the innocent children and women suffer for something they had no control of and how as christians could we drop a bomb on incinerate hundreds of thousands of civilians. Vietnam wasn't for they never attacked us and we cannot force others do adapt a free market system because we disagree with their system.

If you look at history though essentially all interventions in the name of human rights, saving the downtrodden is always out of economic self interest, otherwise we would have intervened in rwanda, south africa, east timor, the kurds in turkey, the list goes on.

But why don't you answer my questions regarding the russians invading us to help the blacks or the chinese invading us to change us to socialism, for isn't that we did in vietnam.

"Can't we resole our problems peacefully"

Islam cannot do this...

"Again you never addressed why we fought these wars."

to preserve the values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..

WWI was basically just a power struggle fueled by an arms race initiated by Germany....Once the shooting started, the Allies (essentially Britain,USA,and others)fought to preserve the other countries individual rights to live in their own country with their own rules. It was never a "Christian war" as you may infer.The war was a successful one in that no country lost its identity or sovereingty. No country ended up under the control of another..

WWII was (in Europe)ignited by extreme Nationalism and racist fascism fueled by German aggression. Once again the allies stepped in to preserve the individual countries sovereign rights to self control and self identity.Once again it was never a "Christian war"

WWII was (it the Pacific theatre) (and was actually the second Indo China War) was Fuel by Japanese aggression towards the Chinese,BRitish,Dutch and American concerns. Japan sought to seize land.Once again the Allies stepped in to preserve the rights of the individual countries including China, Korea, The Phillipines, Indonesia, and even the aggressor Japan..Once again, It was Not A Christian War.

In Vietnam , the US stepped in to preserve South Vietnams desire to remain free from Communism. It was a loss the US suffered, but not a military loss, it was lost because the anti war activists at home complained, (not unlike todays democrats in the war in Iraq)...again it was not a Christian war...

A great number of Christians participated as did great numbers of other religious sects.however, none of the conflicts were religious in nature unlike the conflict we see today...Islam is making todays conflicts a religious one.Islam is also seeking to confiscate land, Islam is seeking to ethnically cleanse all other religions, Islam is truly seeking world domination...

...Islam will fail....do not try to say previous conflicts were religious conflicts,,,they were not....do not try to say The US or Britain fought to conquer and claim land...they did not, do not try to say the US or Britain sought to enslave or ethnically cleanse anyone...they did not...

....Tiger, you are misguided and a poor judge of history...Go back to your Islamic slavemasters and make your report...

American in germany,

With regard to the vietnam war as far as I can remember we invaded them not vice versa. If you are alluding to the Tonkin affair, that turned out to be a fabrication by the US government to invade Vietnam.

exsgtbrown

With regard to muslims condemning violence/terrorism, it is done in letters to the editor, Cair condemns killings of all innocent, they even intervened to get the american woman reporter released from iraq. British muslims also tried to intervene to get the hostages released. Hamza Yusuf a prominent muslim scholar here in the US condemned it and met president Bush.

Also, you say muslim do not condemn terrorism, have you done a poll in this country to back that up. If so, show me the results. Have you asked the majority of muslims in this country or worldwide about there opinions about terrorism? Show me the results. If not, how can you make general statements about them. Did we demand all catholics to condemn the pedophilic priest? I do not remember a poll asking them their opinion on the priests or whether they condemn it.

Anyway why should the muslims condemn Bin Laden, they did not create him, we did. We should be condemning our government for creating a mass murderer to suit its interests. It doesn't matter if he is speaking in the name of islam, for anyone can say anything they want.

The right wing evangelical christians believe in armageddon and want the jews to all mass in israel so they can convert to christianity or god will bring about armageddon killing them all. How come you do not demand bush disassociate himself from them and how come we are not condemning the right wing christians who are very prominent in this country.

Lets not be hypocritical.

Caroline, exsgtbrown, and anyone else,

It is clear to me that "tiger" does not post in good faith, nor with sincerity. That is based on its disingenuous and false content. But further, if one looks at its phrasing and diction, it is quickly obvious that tiger is not an American, and is not part of the "we" that it speaks of in trying to have "us" apologize, for whatever pretext it produces.

My mental picture of tiger is of a 20 something phreak in an internet cafe in Cairo. It likely has two hands. One hand is above, on the keyboard, trying to yank our chains. The other hand is somewhere lower, also trying to yank on something. But with some difficulty.

Concerning phrasing and diction, does anyone know any actual Baptists who would say, as tiger does above, "...when I sat in a Baptist church hearing the priest describe..."?

Just curious.

exsgtbrown

Again I never said it was a christian war. I said how could christians who are suppose the most civilized society compared to the muslim kill each other in WWI, WWII. In Vietnam we went to prop up the south again for economic reasons not for benevolence. But again look at the results, over 1 million vietnamese died. Sure it was war, but explain it to the kid who lost a leg or saw his family slaughtered by us, again the vast majority of people who did this were christians but it was not a christian war. But how come christians are doing the majority of killings in the 20 th century compared to anyother religion or society. You still have not given a convincing answer. Again it is not a christian war. If christian society was suppose to peaceful, loving, meek, why did the christians in europe slaughter each other, why did the serbs slaughter christians and muslim, why did we slaughter the native americans, enslave the blacks which was whole heartedly supported by the church, etc.

good catch del, on the "Baptist priest"(!)

"As for the bizarre sense of western guilt, I don't think tiger actually has that. tiger exhibits more self-righteousness than guilt. tiger is merely trying to teach that guilt to others."

I would say two things:

1) Western guilt is not bizarre, it is grievously all too common in the West.

2) Self-righteousness is not functionally contradictory to this common sense of Western guilt: they go hand in hand, because the Westerner who feels shame and guilt has his eye on a Utopian, transformed West, an "Amerika" purged of all its sins, through Revolution, once Communist, now perhaps Islamic, or some incoherent mixture of the two... Indeed, what better way for a white Westerner to be purged of the shame and guilt he has than to be conquered by a "brown" and non-Western people who have a "superior" system of "justice" untainted by our Western sins?

"Again I never said it was a christian war."

You keep emphazing Christians as if only Christians were involved.. In all the conflicts you mention there were a great variety of "religious entities" participating. The wars were not fought by Christians just to run up the body count as you infer, nor were the conflicts fought to enslave anyone, nor to take away anyones rights... all of which the Islamic terrorists are seeking to do today....If you care to discuss world history body counts , you will find Muslims are responsible for more deaths than Christians.(if you insist on body counts as defined by religion)...Ironically Muslims have killed more Muslims than Muslims killed by other religious entities....

You keep referring to "WE",,, please clarify just who "We" could be....

"But how come christians are doing the majority of killings in the 20 th century compared to anyother religion or society."

Please provide your numbers and the sources for your numbers in order for others to see.

"slaughtered by us" ,, ...this infers you think we (are your referring to Christians or just Americans in general)intentionally seek to kill innocents (like the Muslims who do)....

...Once again , prove your point, give some specific examples....
"

"You will also find MUslims throught their history (despite calling themselves the most civilized society )have been involved in more conflicts than Christians...According to Muslims , Islam is the best society and the most aggreable to the people...

" I said how could christians who are suppose the most civilized society ....kill".3

...once again, you miss the point, religion was not a factor...you keep trying to say no religion,but your tone and words say otherwise...

...you will convince no one....Tell your Islamic cleric....He will convince no one either...

To Caroline, americaningermany, exsgtbrown, fishboy, del, and all the others who have displayed so much excellent logic and scholarship – THANK YOU.

Tiger, thank you for showing up to provide the scratching post, upon which the claws of freedom are honed.

There has been much speculation on what type of animal “tiger” is - here is my guess.

He is a NEOCOM. The new communist/socialist that has all the answers to form the new social order. He is far superior in intellect and moral standing to any of us here. This type of animal has the following beliefs that are like a religion to him (though he would never admit it):
· All religions are an impediment to the new
social order and will be ignored and eventually
discarded, except Christianity.
· Christianity must be actively demonized, as it
is the most responsible for the evils in the
world.
· There is no such thing as freedom in the
American sense; this is a myth useful to
corporations to keep the people down so they
can be exploited.
· Capitalism is inherently evil, the “wealthy”
must pay, socialism is the answer
· There are no real core values (except as listed
above). All questions regarding morals,
government policy, etc. will be decided on the
spot by enlightened, superior beings like
the “tiger”

Tiger is simply an Islamic brainwashed fool, an Anti American zealot, and someone who loves the sound of his own voice...He knows nothing about the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution,He knows little of Christianity,and even less of world history...He is entitled to his opinion as useless as it is....We see him for what he is....troll....

Caroline, Del, and other who've sparred with tiger, thanks.

Remote,

re polls. Yes, they're helpful. No, they're (alone) not sufficient, but they are an important kind of evidence to have in one's tool-kit in this war of ideas, particularly in regards to this "moderate majority" claim. They are the primary source of evidence to be used in answering questions re what % of Muslims today believe with regard to ________. To go into a debate without using such evidence, it seems to me, would be most unwise. At the very least, to fail to cite poll/survey evidence leaves the opportunity open for the Muslim apologist to cite polls on soft questions (e.g., questions about Muslims "fitting in" and "culture clashes" etc.; polls funded by the pro-Islamic leftist media organizations like BBC, CBC, NY Times, etc.) which make Muslims mostly look moderate and make the west look bad. For every kind of evidence we present, apologists have their sources too. We have to show that ours are better and more convincing. I am not willing to cede ground, holding back an important source of evidence, and basically give the apologists a free ride just because poll/survey evidence is not perfect. Nothing is perfect, and nothing we say will be left unchallenged by apologists. We need to anticipate what they say--and I think we already have a pretty good idea of what they will say in most cases--and have the rebuttal prepared and fully sourced so as to overwhelm the opposition.

Indeed, what better way for a white Westerner to be purged of the shame and guilt he has than to be conquered by a "brown" and non-Western people who have a "superior" system of "justice" untainted by our Western sins?
Posted by: remote_control

I agree 100%!

These people usually cannot be persuaded by logic because their belief is not based on logic, it is based on emotion.

Such individuals are sometimes useful as a foil so that the foolishness of their position may be exposed to others watching the fray.

Thanks to the posters here and the resident staff, one can learn and be prepared...It becomes easier and easier to decipher the BS dished out by the Muslims and their appeasist slug sympathizers...Muslims hate the truth, they really hate it when you can back up your side....you know you have hit a nerve when they start calling you a Nazi, a zionest,a crusader, imperialist, or other names....you know you have hit a nerve when they cannot answer YES/NO type of question....You know you have hit a nerve when you can quote historical fact....you know you have hit a nerve when you demonstrate a knowledge of Islamic terms/tactics.....you know you have hit a nerve when the Muslim becomes Irate when you refused to swoon to his flowery language and deceitful promises....the Muslims hate it when they know you know.....

Memo TO "Tiger":

Muslim Indonesians murdered more than one million Christian people on their own territory in 1965 and the Indonesian Armed Forces were quite capable of invading Timor all by itself even if the US hadn't stood by Jakarta at that time. The US actually didn't have much say in what went on in Indonesia. It is the mosques and military that control Indonesia despite the spins the libs try to put on the situation here.

Islam itself is responsible for more than 300 MILLION MURDERS in its 13 century-long history of bloodshed. These are the murders we KNOW ABOUT. It is certain there are countless others in areas where such genocide escaped records(or was expunged from the records by conquering Muslims). In the twentieth century, the Islamic countries slaughtered at least 60 million Christians on their own (or adjacent territories). In addition, Muslims nations have recently been engaged in slavery, human trafficking, wmd trafficking, narcotics trade, widespread persecution, mass torture and much, much more.

Greece lost 95% of its territory to invading Muslim conquerors in recent centuries. Nine civilizaations at least have been wiped from the earth by islam. More may yet follow.

On and on it goes.

There is nothing the western world has done (and clearly not by America) to compare with Islam's record of sheer evil!

do not forget the Armenian genocide during WWI:

While there is no clear consensus on how many Armenians lost their lives during what is called the Armenian genocide, there is general agreement among Western scholars that over a million Armenians may have perished between 1914 and 1918. Estimates vary between 300,000 (the Turkish claim) and 1.5 million (the Armenian claim),

....hey tiger...guess who killed all these peoples...HINT...IT was NOT THE cHRISTIANS...

hang tight more info to follow.....

hey tiger; more Armenian deaths .....

from 1894 to 1897, 200,000 Armenians were killed. .....

....deaths from the hands of NON Christians....

Hey tiger:...

1915-1918 Assyrian Genocide c.275,000 Ottoman Empire The Assyrians of northern Mesopotamia forcibly relocated and massacred by Ottoman and Kurdish forces

...more deaths attributed to NON Christians...

Hey tiger....

1916-1919 Pontian Greek Genocide c.353,000 Ottoman Empire Massacres of Pontic Greeks by the Young Turks' government.

...More deaths attributed to NON Christians...

Hey tiger...

1931-1945 Japanese biological warfare program 3,000 to 200,000[11] East Asia An official program of medical experimentation on humans that resulted in thousands of deaths during the Second Sino-Japanese War and World War II.[12]

,,,,MOre deaths attributed to NON Christians...

Hey Tiger,

1947 British India c.1,000,000 British India After partition of United India, about 1 million Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims were killed in the aftermath.

...more death attributed to Non Christians.

Hey tiger,,,

....there are hundreds of more listings.....just thought you might want to know...

Tiger (T),

T: “The quote from the quran was during the wars in the arabian peninsula and that was typical of warfare. Then the quran and hadiths made stipulations during war and not to harm the environment, women, children, old men.”

The contents of both those sentences are false, in just about every respect.

1. Conspicuously, the Quran does not explicitly forbid the killing of non-Muslim women, children, or old men (it does, however, explicitly forbid the killing of Muslims 4:92-93). The Quran is generally a vague book and does not talk about such specific details as Tiger implies, but it does explicitly state that Muhammad had permitted fighting in what were (under the pre-Islamic agreements) the forbidden months. Not only was this not typical, but the case in question was a raid on a caravan where the Muslims had robbed the caravan, killed people, stole booty, and took captives. Then “Allah” (2:217) came down with a verse justifying the whole thing and Muhammad claimed possession of the booty and captives.

2. “not to harm the environment”.

Actually, the Koran itself permits Muslims to destroy property such as trees (see Sura 59, with tafsirs; also see the Hidaya in regards to jihad, destroying crops, trees, gardens, etc. is permitted). The Sunnah shows that Muhammad ordered the destruction of the vines, etc., of the people of Ta’if, thereby cutting off their food supply in order to starve them out and compel them to embrace Islam.

3. “not to harm women and children.” There was a general prohibition against killing women and children that was not due to any compassion of the Muslims but rather because the women and children were part of the war booty to be divided up among the Muslims and Muhammad (or Islamic authority) as property. They were turned into slaves or dhimmis, if they were not executed according to the whims of the Muslim leader. Muslim jihadists could take non-Muslim women captive and rape them, all under Muhammad’s direct supervision and approval. They could sell the women or force them to marry them; everyone else was enslaved or put under dhimma. Muhammad ordered the execution of women who had mocked him; he also ordered the execution/assassination of two singing girls who had sung mocking lyrics about him. Subsequently jurists used Muhammad’s example at al-Ta’if, where he used mangonels against the fortressed community thereby subjecting women and children indiscriminantly to the possibility of being killed, as permission to carry out the same kinds of attacks against communities, explicitly permitting the killing of women and children. Moreover, old men, women, children captives could be killed for engaging in “verbal fighting” against Islam, i.e., saying negative things about Islam, insulting Muhammad etc. In any case, there is no penalty against a Muslim who happens to kill women and children in jihad fighting.

Sahih Muslim, Book 19, 4321 (also 4322, 4323).
"It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them." {also see Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256}

T: “And what is the matter with you that you do not fight in the cause of Allah and for those weak, ill treated and oppressed among men, women and children whose only cry is; 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors and raise for us from you one who will protect and raise for us from you one who will help"
(Surah An-Nisa 4:75)”

“Ill-treated and oppressed” is a broad category that includes not just the usual forms of ill-treatment and oppression as we would understand them in the west, but extends beyond that to include insults to Islam and Muhammad, mockery of Islam, prevention of sharia law being implemented, disbelievers disrupting the da’wa effort by raising embarrassing questions in front of the naïve would-be converts to Islam, etc. That is all "oppression" in Islamic ideation. Muslims are permitted in Islamic law and Sunnah to kill those who criticize Islam publicly or those who announce their leaving of Islam (apostasy) publicly.

T: "There is no compulsion in religion. The right path has indeed become distinct from the wrong. So whoever rejects false worship and believes in Allah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allah is All Hearing, All Knowing"
(Surah Al-Baqarah 2:256)

The apologetics about this verse, which in context was in reference to non-Muslims (it is variously cited in the Sunnah in reference to a woman from the Ansar who wanted to raise a child Jewish, or in reference to one of Muhammad’s threats to the Jews of Khaybar), not Muslims, are addressed here. Apostates are put to death according to Islamic law today, yet those who support the execution of apostates will insist that there is “no compulsion in religion”. Obviously those are just nonsensical PR statements, such as in the Koran where it states Allah is forgiving and Merciful (while he burns all the disbelievers in hell-fire and tortures them just because they are disbelievers, e.g, see 2:257 for starters).

T: “If anyone killed a person not in retaliation for murder or to spread mischief in the land, it would be as if he killed the whole of mankind. And (likewise) if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the whole of mankind"
(Surah Al-Maaida 5:32)

The apologetics about this verse have been addressed here. The key phrase is mischief/corruption (fasad) in the land. This, together with 5:33, gives the death penalty for adultery, homosexuality, criticism insult or mockery of Muhammad or Islam, public apostasy, marriage between a non-Muslim man and Muslim woman, and “sedition” against Islam (i.e., vocal dissent under the Muslim state).

T:“And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you. But do not transgress the limits. Truly Allah loves not the transgressors"”
(Surah Al-Baqarah 2:190)

Again, the Islamic conception of “those who fight you” includes those who merely criticize Islam, or who announce their apostasy publicly, or who oppose sharia law. Anyone who breaks Islamic law is a "transgressor." Also, claims about ‘defensive jihad” have been refuted here.

way to go K.O...

I found the article I was referring to earlier. I was way off in my numbers. The estimate is that "Two billion war deaths would have occurred in the 20th century if modern societies suffered the same casualty rate as primitive peoples, according to anthropologist Lawrence H Keeley, who calculates that two-thirds of them were at war continuously, typically losing half of a percent of its population to war each year"

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HG04Aa02.html

I bring this up merely to throw a cold bucket of water over Tiger's (feigned?) western guilt (and the the "myth of the noble savage") and to reiterate that as an obvious utopian, he seems to have very little understanding of human nature as it actually and historically, has existed.

Aww, c'mon, remote_control,

EVERYONE knows Baptists STAND when they listen to their priests speak. :-)

I just got a chance to go back to the original Emory Wheel article and read the entire comments thread. Wow. To me THAT was the best thread ever! There were such strong debaters there - like Alex Parker - whose name I've never seen here. I recognized some of the names but not others and I wonder some are regular posters here who post under other monikers. If not, I hope they’ll consider joining our little online community!

BTW Tiger - you keep asking me to give an explanation for the wars we Americans fought as you are completely unconvinced that freedom of others could play any calculus in such a decision. You seem to want to reduce our decision to go to war to some very simple one liner, like - "We invaded Iraq for the oil. We did not invade Iraq for the benefit of spreading freedom. Previously we supported Saddam and that proves it." The reason I referred to "enlightened self-interest" above, is because you only seem to understand black and white thinking of the sort "we win, they lose" or vica versa. The fact that you cannot envision a "win-win" situation lends credence to the idea that you might in fact be a Muslim (not that it should matter as you rightly point out - it's just a curious parlor game in an anonymous situation like this that is hard to resist playing and del appears to be a pretty good player on that score :-)).

But OK - to address your question and to illustrate what I mean by "enlightened self-interest, here are the reasons that I personally think we went to war in Iraq.

1. The US indeed has a long history of supporting the status quo in the ME.
2. 9/11 demonstrates the blowback from that policy.
3. Saddam Hussein is working to develop WMD's. (later verified by the Duelfer report)
4. The sanctions we are applying are killing millions of innocent Iraqis because Saddam is managing to get around them for his own benefit.
5. We need to remove the sanctions on humanitarian grounds, but if we do so, Saddam is quite likely to resume active work on his weapons programs (a conclusion that the Duelfer report verified).
6. Post 9/11 we cannot tolerate the possibility of such WMD's falling into radical Muslim hands. But neither, on humanitarian grounds, can we continue to maintain these sanctions indefinitely. (Hey - and UBL happened to cite these sanctions, not to mention our support of despots like Saddam, as one of his main grievances for attacking us so we can actually remove both grievances simultaneously with one blow)
7. We are technically still at war with Saddam as he is firing regularly at our overflights, violating the cease-fire agreement we agreed upon after Gulf I, when we allowed him to stay in power.
8. Saddam has violated 17 UN resolutions relating to coming clean about his weapons program.
9. Pursuant to #6, the international community is permitting a petty tyrant to flaunt international law with impunity, which undermines the UN as an effective international body, setting a bad precedent for other future despots.
10. Saddam is a son-of-a-bitch with a vicious human rights record. His prisons are notorious the world over.
11.Many Iraqi dissidents do indeed want us to remove the SOB.
12. Since iraqis live in a completely totalitarian society, it is impossible to guage their feelings directly on this matter, perhaps we should listen to what the dissidents have to say.
13. Historically, it does appear to be the case that democracies do not tend to wage war against eachother. Hence, we need to replace the status quo in the ME with a sort of “ domino democracy theory”.
14. If we can topple Saddam, the evidence is there for a strong liberal democratic movement in the ME, such that liberal Iranians might be enabled to topple the Iranian theocracy from within if we can manage to establish a bona fide democracy next door.
15. Iraq is the perfect place to implement the start of this liberal “domino theory” because it has arguably the largest and most secularized Muslim population in the ME.
16. Iraq is indeed a major conduit to the world’s oil supplies and if radicals or a despot tried to shut off the spicket, this would certainly affect us Americans but it would also without a doubt affect all of the world. In fact, the vulnerable peoples of the world would rapidly starve to death much quicker than we more affluent peoples would. But we live in an interconnected world now so what happens to our US economy will have a cascading effect upon the entire world.
17. Our military is the best in the world. We can pull this off.
18. It’s a win-win situation for everyone.
19. Go for it.

Only Tiger – what they failed to factor in was ISLAM. And its brutal willingness to slaughter 100,000 Iraqis in order to maintain its totalitarian control over its followers, no matter how many people they have to kill.

Of course you want to pin that death toll on us. You want to pretend that there is no such thing morally as a “win-win” situation. You want to vilify the west and make excuses for barbarians.

That is just ONE war – for which I have tried to explain to you that Americans can wage war for “enlightened self-interest” – which essentially refers to a “win-win” situation. I strongly suspect that others could mount a similar defense about other bloody wars Americans have fought – including the Civil War (fought for economic reasons certainly, but without a doubt the moral issue of slavery played a huge role) and WWII as well – for which global power issues obviously played a role but in which case you cannot possibly dismiss the moral calculus factored in, anymore than you can dismiss it where the Iraq war is concerned.

The advantage I have in laying out the rationale for our going to war in Iraq is that I observed it all personally and so I can verify what I saw unfolding in the lead-up to our decision to go to war. I wasn’t alive during the Civil war or WWII or other wars and neither am I an historian but I have little doubt that real historians could explain to you a similar “win-win” calculus in those decisions.

Now in response – YOU give me one example of a war which Muslims have fought which factored in the human rights of its adversaries. Oh sure – of course we here all realize that Sharia law is “divinely” mandated and that Muslims actually imagine that they are fighting for “freedom” when they kill people for the aim of imposing 7th century Sharia law upon the entire planet. But they’re idiots. Utterly delusional. The question is – What is your excuse for defending them?

One more thing Tiger - up there somewhere you appeared to cite the "pottery barn" theory vis a vis our responsibility for the wide scale violence in Iraq subsequent to our invasion. The problem with that is that it is is precisely folks like you who would have screamed the loudest had our soldiers been given realistic "rules of engagement" that would have allowed them to shoot looters and folks speeding through checkpoints from the get-go. What is the purpose of more troops if folks like you and the NYT (via anti-American propoganda) effectively ham-string any real-world tools at getting things under control? We never needed more troops. We needed an understanding that the troops we had there needed to be able to USE force in order to get things under control. They already had sufficient firepower. But they were hamstrung by the likes of you from using it. But while the NYT rung their hands for like 36 days straight over panties on the head, the Islamists were free to kidnap people and do stuff like DRILL HOLES IN THEIR HEADS with power tools and dump their bodies in the street, while meanwhile famous liberal western artists mounted art shows displaying the "panties on the head" brutality of American soldiers at Abu Ghraib. So why aren't YOU folks partly responsible for those 100,000 Iraqi deaths? Your liberal la-la land ignorance and squeemishness is very MUCH responsible for that death toll we now see in Iraq, along with all the "moderate Muslims" out there who yammered on about the indignities of "occupation", when the fact is that our soldiers removed Saddam in 3 weeks and started rebuilding infrastructure and painting schools within a few weeks of April 9, 2003. Here we are 4 years later and we, who are actually alive to witness it, already see the attempts to rewrite history from a moral perspective, casting Americans as insane imperialists who invaded Iraq for the oil and then proceeded to slaughter 100,000 Iraqis for their own selfish, barbaric imperialistic ends.

Caroline,

I LOVE it!

Thanks Davey. None of us should sit back and let the modern sophists spin their insane lies of moral equivalence. Our troops are in an absurd situation created by modern liberals like Tiger, and whether or not he is actually a Muslim is irrelevant, as his arguments are ultimately indistinguishable from those of the American and European left.

Sorry - Dave (rather than Davey):-)

Caroline,

You can call me what you wish, I am at your feet.

Khaybar Oasis,
Obviously you are interpreting verses the way you want to which you are wholly entitled to. Other scholars I have read interpret it differently which is fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Now lets look at the bible. How about these quotes

"...do not leave alive anything that breaths. Completely destroy them...as the Lord your God has commanded you..." Deuteronomy 20:16,

"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. Joshua 6:21
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 6:14 Corinthians 6

14 Like a hunted gazelle,
like sheep without a shepherd,
each will return to his own people,
each will flee to his native land.

15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through;
all who are caught will fall by the sword.

16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
their houses will be looted and their wives ravished. Isaiah 14-16

13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Deuteronomy 13
Now reading these I can easily conclude christianity is about intolerance, killing non-christians, even infants in isaiah. Of course that can be my interpretation. Yours I am sure is different which is fine. So applying that to the quran some people will interpret it as harsh, intolerant at times but merciful other times. Others will interpret everything as intolerant, violent. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Don't tell me I am taking these passages out of context for I am can say the same about the quran. Many people I know read the bible and think it has genocidal parts and is intolerant of non-christians. Others simply ignore these passages and pick out the merciful ones. Others cherry coat them and continue on. Who is right?

Your interpretation of the quran is your own opinion and you are certainly entitled to it just as others are entitled to their opinion in calling the bible genocidal and intolerant. If you tell scholars provide a different interpretation the same goes for islam or any other religion.

Oh I forgot to mention blasphemy

10 Now the son of an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father went out among the Israelites, and a fight broke out in the camp between him and an Israelite. 11 The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name with a curse; so they brought him to Moses. (His mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri the Danite.) 12 They put him in custody until the will of the LORD should be made clear to them.
13 Then the LORD said to Moses: 14 "Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. 15 Say to the Israelites: 'If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible; 16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death. Leviticus 10-16

Caroline,
What right did we have to go in Iraq. We had no UN mandate. You are going to tell me about the oppressed Iraqi and Saddam violated UN resolutions. Well Israel has been violated UN resolutions since 1967, killing and oppressing Palestinians. Turkey violates UN resolutions occupying northern cyprus and oppressing the Kurds. You talk about dictators, we supported many around the world (Pinochet, Suharto, Mobarek) the list goes on. Many of them killed hundreds of thousands of people. It is amazing how we cherry pick human rights.

Ok lets take your logic that it is ok to invade Iraq and free the Iraqi people. Well how about if the Russians or Chinese invaded us during the 1950's to free the blacks from oppression would that be justifiable. By your logic it would be ok. Or if bush was a brutal dictator, would the Russians, French, Chinese be justified invading us and occupying us. I do not think so.

You talk about weapons of mass destruction where are they? How come we did not invade North Korea for we know they have them. I thought they are part of the axis of evil with a brutal dictator. But you forgot one thing, no oil. Read this article http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/21/ING0H5LTDA1.DTL

"By 2010 we will need [a further] 50 million barrels a day. The Middle East, with two-thirds of the oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize lies." - US Vice President Dick Cheney, then Halliburton chief executive officer, London, autumn 1999
Or "Oil is unique in that it is so strategic in nature. We are not talking about soapflakes or leisurewear here. Energy is truly fundamental to the world’s economy. The Gulf War was a reflection of that reality."http://www.energybulletin.net/559.html

The man who would one day help conduct a war in Central Asia told a 1998 crowd at the right-wing Cato Institute about the black gold that lay beneath the waters there and the importance of teasing it from the politically volatile countries. "The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratic regimes friendly to the United States," Cheney said. He condemned the U.S. sanctions placed on potentially oil-rich countries like Azerbaijan, Iran, Iraq, and Libya. http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0142,gray,29319,6.html
Does that clarify why we fought the Gulf war I or was it to free the Kuwaiti people from Saddam so they can live with the dictator family Al-Sabah.

You talk about Iraqi dissidents supporting the invasion, well how about the majority of people, can you produce evidence they supported it. There were polls after the invasion and the vast majority wanted the US out.

You talk about overflights and the no fly zone , there is no legal mandate for it. The UN never authorized the no fly zone so you basis for war fails there. You doubt me, go to the UN site and show me a resolution authorizing it. So actually the US bombing of Iraq was illegal

How come we are so compassionate now and what did you in the 1980's when he gased the Kurds. Well Rumsfield was shaking his hand and Reagan gave him export credits.

You talk about the 100,000 iraqis being killed, according to the geneva convention, the occupying power bares the ultimate responsibility for security. If you can't handle it, don't invade.

Let us compare Iraq now to before the invasion. Well over 100,000 people died, oil output is below pre-war levels, electricity hardly works, you have a civil war now. If the US invaded, kept the army, hired iraqis rather than foreigners to do the work, reconciled the Sunnis with the Shiites, and set a date for withdrawal I seriously doubt we would be in such a mess. Why do you think they got rid of Jay Garner, for he did not want to disband the army.

With regards to indonesia, sure muslims killed east timorese and it is dispicable but we armed them and gave them the green light. Kissinger in 1973 told them to invade only after I leave the country. So we are just as guilty. But again lets add up the number of people killed by the West (christians) lets say WWI with over 20 mill russians dying, WWII 35 mill, Vietnam 1 mill, Korea war lets be conservative 200,000, the balkans 1 mill, central america/south america 1 mill in civil wars, blacks in south africa 500,000, blacks in namibia 500,000 so around 66 million give or take a few.
Now lets add up the muslim killings iran/iraq war 1 million, israel/palestine, 300,000, lebanese war 300,000, the armenians 500,000. Lets add 7000 for 911 and current war and another 70,000 government and civilian clashes, and 500,000 for east timor so I get around 3 million. Lets take the ratio it is over 20/1. Obviously that is such a big ratio again if the West is so civilized and peaceful, how come they have killed so many people. I thought in christianity only the meek shall inherit the earth or turn the other cheek. If the average muslim is so violent how come they haven't killed 60 million people.

I also forgot to include the colonial period of europe. Remember France and algeria or England and india.
You ask about muslim fighting wars to free infidels, who did the jews while running away from the christians in spain go to. I think it was the muslims. During the crusades when the european christians killed muslims and arab christians, who protected the christians. I think the muslims. Did other times the muslims kill christians of course they did and vice versa. But neither religion or people is more violent.

Tiger,

you can prattle on about how the koran is really honestly NOT a book that makes muslims decide to kill kaffirs as a religious act. BUT YOU DON'T NEED TO CONVINCE US, YOU NEED TO CONVINCE JIHADIS.

You can cherry pick violence referring passages in the Bible, but no one is faced with Christians or Jews who think they must kill others as a religious act. Does not exist. That's the difference.

Sadly, many many muslims believe in murdering non-muslims as an expression of islamic piety. That's jihad, the sixth pillar of Islam. And it's the surest way to Islamic paradise with hot babes galore (or boys). Consequently hundreds of millions have been murdered and oppressed.

How do you feel about that? What have you done THIS WEEK TO CONVINCE THE JIHADIS THEY ARE WRONG? If peace is really your goal, then you must convince them that they are misinterpreting the Koran, Sira, and Sahih Hadith. You are guilty of full knowledge of how those teach committing such evil acts, so either you are sympathetic to its supremacist goal or you fight to defend your innocent kaffir neighbors, out of decency.

So tell me, this week - just this one week - what have you done?

ps. tiger,

I notice you shied away from publicising the copy/paste source for the "talmud" junk, or otherwise linking a source. Something to hide? Of course you know that even if it had been legitimate, it would be from some tribal society of many centuries ago, while the Jihad is right now today, and tomorrow. Kind of a huge difference.

So what have you done this week? Well?

caroline,

My point is that any religion can be manipulated to justify anything killings. I could take the quotes above from the bible and kill anyone who is blasphemous and justify it in the name of christianity. I could take the quotes and make christianity into a barbaric religion. I can do the same for islam or any other religion. Or how about the whites in south africa who many were conservative christians yet justified racism and killing of blacks. Does that make me think all whites from south africa are like that of course not for I am very open minded.
I have traveled extensively around the world and met many people of all types of cultures, religions, color. Every place I have been I have seen good and bad people In the middle east I have met intolerant, rude, crazy people. I have also met many gracious, helpful, educated, tolerant people. I have hitched rides with people, been invited to their houses, been invited to weddings, birthday parties. I can honestly say the vast majority of people I have met in the middle east were decent, respectful, gracious, peaceful people. Hardly anyone has guns. I found the generosity, respect, etc. no different than the West. The average muslim i have met is struggling to make a living and build a better life. Are there terrorists and intolerant clerics, of course there are. The average muslim cares only about building a future. They always inquire about the US and the latest movies, songs, cellphones, cars. The vast majority admire the west and its accomplishments. They all want to eat out at Mcdonalds, chilis, hardees, etc. If the muslims hated the nonbelievers so much how come these businesses thrive there.
You defeat the terrorists ultimately by taking away their support. Which means getting the average muslim on your side through improving their economic well being, free press, human rights, none which exist in the ME because of dictators we support.

I was homeschooled and taught to question authority and always look at both sides of the issue. I learn through the socratic method. I do not expect most people to agree with me but take a step back and examine the other side of any issue. There are 2 sides to any issue.

Caroline excellent post and follow-up post. As you can see, tiger is indefatigable -- both in stamina and in the maintenance of his brainwashing. His posts provide as good an example as any of the prevailing PC template out there, so if you're beginning to feel exhausted by the frustration of hitting a brick wall, just think of tiger not as an actual human being against whom you are playing tennis, but as a tennis-ball machine that happens to be helping you improve your serve, forehand, backhand and (hopefully) match point.

WestwardHo,
I never said the Quran was a book that does not say kill the infidels. I said you can interpret the way you want just as I can interpret the bible both ways.
Well Eric Rudolph did in the name of christianity, South Africans did. The average christian does not have too, the government will.

also, if you know any arabic jihad comes from the word ijtihad which simply means to struggle in your daily life, no lying, backbiting, stealing, cursing. The terrorist extend it to fight wars and it is not a 6th pillar of Islam.

You want to defeat the jihadist, well gain the support of the average muslim and take away the jihadist basis of support as I stated above. you can only defeat an ideology through education and provide a better economic alternative. If you bash the average muslim or their religion, you will throw them into the arms of the terrorist.

The link you want is below. This is by a jewish israeli who was a chemist. The original post from me was sent email by a friend. He has published a book and it is on amazon.

ACCORDING TO THE JEWISH religion, the murder of a Jew is a capital offense and one of the three most heinous sins (the other two being idolatry and adultery). Jewish religious courts and secular authorities are commanded to punish, even beyond the limits of the ordinary administration of justice, anyone guilty of murdering a Jew. A Jew who indirectly causes the death of another Jew is, however, only guilty of what talmudic law calls a sin against the 'laws of Heaven', to be punished by God rather than by man.

When the victim is a Gentile, the position is quite different. A Jew who murders a Gentile is guilty only of a sin against the laws of Heaven, not punishable by a court.1 To cause indirectly the death of a Gentile is no sin at all.2

Thus, one of the two most important commentators on the Shulhan Arukh explains that when it comes to a Gentile, 'one must not lift one's hand to harm him, but one may harm him indirectly, for instance by removing a ladder after he had fallen into a crevice .., there is no prohibition here, because it was not done directly:3 He points out, however, that an act leading indirectly to a Gentile's death is forbidden if it may cause the spread of hostility towards Jews.4

A Gentile murderer who happens to be under Jewish jurisdiction must be executed whether the victim was Jewish or not. However, if the victim was Gentile and the murderer converts to Judaism, he is not punished.5

All this has a direct and practical relevance to the realities of the State of Israel. Although the state's criminal laws make no distinction between Jew and Gentile, such distinction is certainly made by Orthodox rabbis, who in guiding their flock follow the Halakhah. Of special importance is the advice they give to religious soldiers.

Since even the minimal interdiction against murdering a Gentile outright applies only to 'Gentiles with whom we [the Jews] are not at war', various rabbinical commentators in the past drew the logical conclusion that in wartime all Gentiles belonging to a hostile population may, or even should be killed.6 Since 1973 this doctrine is being publicly propagated for the guidance of religious Israeli soldiers. The first such official exhortation was included in a booklet published by the Central Region Command of the Israeli Army, whose area includes the West Bank. In this booklet the Command's Chief Chaplain writes:

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jewhis5.htm#The%20Laws%20Against%20Non-Jews

By the way, my post above assumed that tiger is a muslim. If I was mistaken, then OK that's clarified. But the essence of my point still stands (as does tiger's non-response to my initial posting of March 1,:22 AM).

It's nice that you've met nice muslims in your travels, tiger. Robert Spencer would certainly agree that there are many very nice muslims (as would I). JihadWatch really doesn't judge or criticise muslims per se. It openly discusses the warmongering and supremacist doctrines in the islamic scriptures. And sometimes their reflections in the cultures, laws, and "atmospherics" of societies which follow those doctrines closely. It's islam, and not the person in whatever country who's trying to survive/succeed etc. Sadly, they're not mitigating the army of jihadis that do exist, and they may usually be distinctly passive about it, even if the jihad is waged on you or your neighbors. Something to consider.

Tiger,

You write (T:)
"Khaybar Oasis, Obviously you are interpreting verses the way you want to which you are wholly entitled to. Other scholars I have read interpret it differently which is fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Now lets look at the bible."

Not so fast. You did not address any of my claims directly in substance. You try to dismiss them all with the sweeping claim that all of this is simply a matter of interpretation and that I am only using my own interpretation. That's not correct. The interpretation I was citing the the post above is provided by respected Muslim scholars, Muslim jurists. You would know that had you studied those sources. The "interpretation" is (a) well-supported by the Islamic texts themselves (especially, the Hadith and Sira support that interpretation of the Quran), and (b) is enshrined in Islamic law, is detailed in the Sahih Hadith and Sira, and is accepted in mainstream Islamic scholarship today (and has been for the past approx. 1400 years). This isn't subjective interpretation on my part. This is Islamic policy in the real world and has been throughout Islamic history. My sources document this extensively.

T: "How about these quotes"

I agree that those quotes describe terrible policies. However, they are irrelevant. Bad quotes in the Old Testament don't make Islam look good. On the contrary, Islam incorporates some of those policies which mainstream Judaism and Christianity rejected long ago as either historically isolated (not general policies to be followed today) or (in the case of Christians) obviated in some way by the New Testament.

T: "Now reading these I can easily conclude christianity is about intolerance, killing non-christians, even infants in isaiah. Of course that can be my interpretation."

No, you can't conclude that about Christianity because to do so would be empirically false. No Christian Church or organization, nor Christians, accept such Old Testament policies as applicable today. (That cannot be said of Muslims, see below).

T: "Yours I am sure is different which is fine. So applying that to the quran"

Applying that to the Quran? No; you are comparing apples and oranges. Jews and Christians in the name of their religion do not follow such policies today. Nor do they interpret such passages as applicable today.

T: "some people will interpret it as harsh, intolerant at times but merciful other times. Others will interpret everything as intolerant, violent. Everyone is entitled to their opinion."

Of course, but, to be valid, opinions must be supported by the facts, evidence. You are using an example in which you draw conclusions about "Christianity" based on a few quotes from the text, but those quotes are not actually followed by Christians today, nor is there any significant movement of Christians working to revive such Old Testament policies.

T: "Don't tell me I am taking these passages out of context for I am can say the same about the quran."

No; again, you can't fairly say that about the Quran unless you showed that the verses were taken out of context inappropriately to show a view that is not representative of what most Muslims or mainstream Islam actually believe. For example, you took 5:32 out of context inappropriately, failing to quote the whole verse, and failing to inform readers what mainstream Islamic scholarship defines as "mischief/corruption." The verse is uninterpretable without the Islamic definition of "mischief/corruption," which I provide at the source I cited in my previous post.

T: "Many people I know read the bible and think it has genocidal parts and is intolerant of non-christians. Others simply ignore these passages and pick out the merciful ones. Others cherry coat them and continue on. Who is right?"

I reject the doctrines as immoral and incredible; and whatever good is in them can be found elsewhere without all the negative baggage attached. But as to who is right? Whoever can best prove their case based on the evidence, reasoning, and, on moral questions, sound moral principles.

T: "Your interpretation of the quran is your own opinion and you are certainly entitled to it just as others are entitled to their opinion in calling the bible genocidal and intolerant."

Again, I gave you the mainstream Islamic interpretation. This reflects actual policies. People really are put to death today, for example, for "corruption on earth" based on 5:32-33.

T: "If you tell scholars provide a different interpretation the same goes for islam or any other religion."

Yes, interpretations vary, but that is besides the point. Mainstream Islam (most scholars, jurists) today maintains, as it has for approx 1400 years, that apostates should be killed, that blasphemers (those who insult Islam or Muhammad) should be given the death penalty or other major penalty, that offensive jihad fighting against Christians, Jews, and others to spread Islam is acceptable policy, and so on. About 31% of British Muslims think apostates should be put to death. (It is unknown what % think apostates should be punished in other ways--as they are punished in some Islamic countries). About 68% of British Muslims think those who criticize or mock Islam should be criminally prosecuted and punished. 61% of British Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal. About 50% of them support polygamy (man with multiple wives). 49.9% of "Arabs" say they support bin Laden (options yes/no, poll taken in fall 2006). Over 40% of Indonesian Muslims say they personally would carry out violence against anyone who insulted Islam/Muhammad. I could go on and on with stats, but I think by now the point should be clear: How Muslims and mainstream Islam interpret(s) their scripture is different from how Christians or other groups interpret theirs.

[Some sources for the stats above here ].

T: "Oh I forgot to mention blasphemy"

...which only Islam today officially punishes; hence my criticism of Islam. When Christians and Jews start putting people in jail or cutting off hands or killing people for blasphemy, or start advocating such policies, or making death threats and assassination attempts against those who criticize the Bible, I will start criticising their "interpretation."

tiger,

You wrote above, way back yesterday (or was it the day before?): "I lived in the middle east over 15 years and studied islamic law."

You also chided us above, recently: " if you know any arabic jihad comes from the word ijtihad which simply means to struggle in your daily life, no lying, backbiting, stealing, cursing."

Is that really what ijtihad means? Really?

Ok. My mental picture has changed. You're not in Cairo anymore. You're in beautiful Karachi. A small request, though: please don't switch your typing hand.

What is particularly entertaining is your utter shamelessness in propagating your message, and your propaganda. Please continue.

Caroline,

Thank you for your comments...an addition to your sequence of reasons of what led up to the invasion of Iraq is:

The UN sanctions, which limited saddam's ability to rearm and produce WMDs, were about to expire, and unlikely to be renewed, except in token form, courtesy of the French, Russians and Chinese on the UN security council. My impression is that the un-likelihood of renewal precipitated the decision to attack Iraq.

But hey: how 'bout this robot? I think I prefer "mo-bot" to Davegreybeard's "neocom", but that has some zing (bling?) too.

Well, this is a strange source indeed. Let's see.

This guy has declared himself a prophet. The "final" one, in fact. Interesting.

Hmm, "Branhamism." I checked wikipedia -
"A central teaching of these 'Believers' is the idea that Branham was the final major Prophet to the Christian Church "
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branhamism)

And pretty strange stuff on their website? Read this closely:

Index - The Revelation of the Seven Seals

Revealed to and preached by William Branham, the angel to the Laodicean Church Age and the Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6, by the Lord Jesus Christ between March 17-24, 1963, after the close of the Seventh Church Age.

Your site also contains a huge library of conspiracy theory
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/weekdx.htm
That enough conspiracy theory for you there?

And a lenthy tract on "History of God's Bible and the so-called Jews."
In this part I just look briefly. Noticed a point in the middle begins:
"Speaking to Christ's end-time Bride regarding the Words of Jesus, the prophet William Branham said, "Here is a verse that will bear considerable thought, not only because...."

What is that???

So I guess you accept this fully. Well, don't believe everything you read on the web - there are some pretty twisted things there. (Hmm, is this your religious background, didn't sound like it, but don't know. Or just a fellow traveler you identify with.)

Real sources are available (see my first post). Our arguments refer to real sources - the online koran, etc. Yours could be too, except they aren't. (Not in this case anyway, other than as a source for this strange "Branhamism", of course.)

"As you can see, tiger is indefatigable -- both in stamina and in the maintenance of his brainwashing." - remote_control

Exactly. Tiger's goal is not to arrive at the best understanding of reality. His goal is to "win" the debate by wearing down his opponents in two ways:

1) By constantly opening many new issues which contain deliberate misrepresentations; and

2) By refusing to concede any points made by the opposition correcting his misrepresentations.

Bottom line: I hope Democracy spreads like a virus in the Middle East and creates real competition for jihadist ideology.

However, watching people like Tiger "argue" their case makes me wonder if all of this is going to end very badly, because he at once represents the bankruptcy of Western liberals and the brainwashing of Middle Eastern jihadists.

Regardless of whichever he is, he reminds me that the West may well not wake up until there is a *real* terrorist attack, one that is existence-threatening; and that the Islamic world may well not engage in meaningful reform until several hundred million Muslims are dead.

I hope Democracy works its magic in the Middle East, even if it only subtly undermines the basis for the imam's power.

But the sheer dishonesty, the disdain for the truth, and the resolute unwillingness to reason properly of the 'Tigers' of this world remind me that we may be in for a very rough ride.

fishboy,

Yes. That is a good summary of what is at hand, although also unfortunate.

tiger reminds me somewhat of a minion of Lyndon Larouche I interacted with in the past. Robotic, and so completely convinced of his own correctness that he transcended standard self-righteousness. However, minions of Larouche tend to be a little more combative and angry than this tiger, who keeps plodding along, plodding along.

Also some similarity to chomskyrobots in their transcendent "righteousness".

These are all examples of what remote_control correctly termed as brainwashing.

the vibe from tiger, for me, is definitely muslim, yet not knowledgeable. Rote and cut and paste, with the inevitable errors. His English spell checker seems to work, though, with the inevitable homonym errors.

"Fascinating", my uncle might say.

Tiger could be from Pakistan...sounds like it to me...One thing is clear, he is full of hate, completely devoid of love or compassion for other human being (especially non Muslim),completely narrow minded with regards to history, absolutely hostile, completely anti freedom, and he spews venom typical of an Islamic terrorist...I have no doubt that he bangs his head five times a day...

I think he is Christianophobic......

Khaybar Oasis
Thanks for your response. It is amazing how you can cherry pick verses from the bible and say they are not relevant today. If a christian says that the bible is the word of god, how can you take out certain passages and say they are no longer valid and relevant. Well then by the same logic, I can negate 3/4 of the bible and say it longer suites my lifestyle. Who is to say I am right or wrong? The church, well the church condoned slavery and racism.
Maybe I should consult the pedophilic catholic priests and they can tell me.
You talk about apostates, give me a number of people killed by muslims for changing their religion. I am sure it will add up to the 6 million jews killed in the holocaust by christians for simply being jews , or the number of blacks killed by the KKK which was supported by the church or the number of Bosnians muslims killed just recently by the Serbs.

How can the church cherry pick verses from the bible and say well you don't need to worry about it or practice it. The right wing evangelical christians I have met tell me the bible is the world of god and you cannot change or negate anything. They believe in armageddon and tell me aids is gods punishment for homosexuality. They hold a lot of power with the bush administration.

Sure there is ignorance in mainstream islam. Every quote from the quran you interpret with your own thoughts and ideas which is fine. The vast majority of muslims and scholars I have met with interpret it differently.

It is amazing how people here love to assign labels on people for that usually means they have nothing else to say. If that makes you feel great and lofty, label all you want. I like to stick to the issues though.

I hope you have a peaceful and successful day.

Muslim actions by Muslims following the directives in the Qur'an (just in the last 30 days),,, a partial list,,,,,

"The vast majority of muslims and scholars I have met with interpret it differently."

...It would appear to me...Islamic Muslims interpret the Qur'an exactly as it is written.....

Where are the Christian attacks......

Date Country City Killed Injured Description
3/2/07 Pakistan Multan 3 8 A bicycle bomb targets an anti-terror judge, killing at least three people.
3/2/07 Chechnya Lada 2 1 A policeman and his wife are slaughtered in an ambush by Jihad warriors on their vehicle.
3/1/07 Somalia Mogadishu 1 0 Islamic insurgents kill the bodyguard of a government official.
3/1/07 India Kishtwar 2 0 A man and his father are killed inside their home by Harkat-ul-Jehad Islami terrorists.
3/1/07 Iraq Baghdad 16 4 At least two separate terror attacks leave sixteen people dead.
3/1/07 Afghanistan Farah 3 48 Taliban terrorists detonate a bomb by remote control, killing at least three civilians. Ten children are among the injured.
3/1/07 Afghanistan Garmser 1 0 An Afghan doctor is kidnapped and murdered by extremists.
3/1/07 Iraq Fallujah 7 6 Seven people at a wedding party are murdered by a terrorist bombing.
2/28/07 Iraq Baghdad 12 23 Two car bombs, one a suicide blast and the other at a vegetable market, leave at least a dozen people dead.
2/28/07 Iraq Muqdadiya 2 0 Two brothers are shot to death by sectarian terrorists.
2/28/07 Thailand Pattani 1 0 A 59-year-old teacher is gunned down by Islamic terrorists.
2/28/07 Iraq Baghdad 16 0 Ten victims of sectarian violence are found murdered in the captial; six in Mosul. Two were beheaded
2/28/07 Iraq Habaniya 4 14 Jihadis lob mortars into a residential area, killing four people.
2/28/07 Thailand Pattani 1 0 A 48-year-old Buddhist is brutally shot to death by Muslim militants.
2/28/07 Thailand Narathiwat 1 0 Muslim militants shoot a middle-aged rubber worker to death by the side of the road.
2/27/07 Iraq al-Baaj 4 6 A suicide bomber walks into the reception area of a cement company and kills four other people.
2/27/07 Iraq Baghdad 16 42 At least sixteen people are murdered in various attacks by Islamic terrorists.
2/27/07 Afghanistan Bagram 23 11 A Fedayeen suicide bomber blows apart two-dozen innocent lives.
2/27/07 India Wagoora 1 0 A man who was shot by the Mujahideen a week earlier succumbs to his injuries.
2/27/07 Pakistan Jandola 1 0 A teacher is abducted and beheaded by militant Muslims, who then dump his body in a sack.
2/27/07 Pal. Auth. Gaza 3 0 Three prostitutes are gunned down in suspected honor killings by religious fundamentalists.
2/27/07 Iraq Mosul 7 42 Seven people are murdered when a suicide truck bomber detonates along a city street.
2/27/07 Algeria Ain Rich 3 0 Three security officers are killed in separate attacks by Islamic fundamentalists.
2/26/07 Afghanistan Khost 1 7 A policeman is killed when he tries to stop a suicide bomber from entering a station.
2/26/07 Iraq Baghdad 6 31 Six people are killed when Islamic terrorists bomb a public works factory.
2/26/07 Iraq Baghdad 4 0 A Scottish man is among four killed by a roadside bomb.
2/26/07 Afghanistan Kandahar 2 1 A suicide bomber kills two civilians.
2/26/07 Saudi Arabia Medina 4 0 A 17-year-old boy is among four French nationals brutally gunned down by Islamic purists.
2/26/07 Iraq Baghdad 25 0 Twenty-five people are murdered in sectarian attacks within the Religion of Peace.
2/25/07 Israel Hebron 1 0 An Isreali settler is stabbed to death by Palestinian militants.
2/25/07 Iraq Baghdad 42 55 Suicide bombers strike a university, slaughtering at least forty innocents in the reception area.
2/25/07 Iraq Mosul 24 0 Sectarian factions go on a killing spree, taking down at least two dozen Iraqis.
2/25/07 Iraq Baghdad 19 4 Nineteen people are murdered by Islamic terrorists in various attacks.
2/25/07 Pakistan Kahan 3 0 A woman and two children are killed when Taliban-backed militants fire a rocket into a home.
2/24/07 Thailand Pattani 1 4 A 28-year-old civilian is gunned down by Muslim militants in front of his home.
2/24/07 India Habbaniyah 1 0 The Mujahideen gun down a cop.
2/24/07 Iraq Habbaniyah 52 110 Over fifty innocent people are massacred by suicide bombers, who drive through the wall of a mosque on their way to paradise.
2/24/07 Iraq Baghdad 23 33 Multiple Jihad attacks leave about two dozen people dead.
2/23/07 Thailand Narathiwat 1 0 A 24-year-old man is murdered by Muslim radicals while sitting in a tea shop.
2/23/07 Somalia Mogadishu 9 20 At least three separate attacks by Islamic militias leave nine civilians dead.
2/23/07 Chechnya Gudermes 5 3 Five police officers are killed in a bombing by Jihad fighters.
2/23/07 Philippines Lamitan 1 0 Abu Sayyaf suspected in the murder of a man riding his bicycle.
2/23/07 Iraq Baghdad 6 8 A child is among six people killed by Islamic terrorists.
2/22/07 India Wahipora 1 0 A man is abducted by the Mujahideen, who kill him in captivity.
2/22/07 India Damhal Khushipora 1 0 Terrorists shoot a civilian to death.
2/22/07 Iraq Kirkuk 5 0 Five people are kidnapped, tortured and shot to death by sectarian rivals.
2/22/07 Pakistan Allah Bux Brohi 2 0 Two girls are hacked to death by their families for premarital sex.
2/22/07 Thailand Narathiwat 1 1 A civilian is shot to death in a drive-by shooting by Muslim gunmen.
2/21/07 Thailand Narathiwat 1 1 Islamic radicals fire on two brothers, killing one.
2/21/07 Thailand Narathiwat 1 0 Militant Muslims shoot a teacher to death as he is riding to work.
2/21/07 Sudan Umm Dhai 20 0 Arab militias backed by the Islamic Republic massacre another twenty villagers.
2/21/07 Afghanistan Shindand 1 2 A female Spanish soldier is killed when Islamic radicals explode a mine under her truck.
2/21/07 Thailand Narathiwat 1 0 A 55-year-old Buddhist woman is shot to death by Muslim radicals.
2/21/07 Somalia Mogadishu 2 0 Two men are gunned down by suspected Islamists in separate attacks.
2/21/07 Iraq Najaf 11 38 Sunni terrorists murder eleven people with a suicide bomb blast.
2/21/07 Iraq Baghdad 20 0 Twenty victims of sectarian hatred are found around the capital.
2/21/07 Pakistan Tank 1 0 A tribal elder is killed in his home by al-Qaeda backed militants.
2/21/07 Pakistan Badar 1 0 A civilian is gunned down in what appears to be a random terror attack.
2/21/07 Iraq Baghdad 6 73 Six people are killed in a chlorine bomb attack by freedom fighters.
2/20/07 Pakistan Gujranwala 1 0 A woman is shot to death by an Islamic extremist for not wearing a head scarf.
2/20/07 Somalia Mogadishu 16 40 Islamic militias rain down mortars on areas of the city, killing at least sixteen residents.
2/20/07 Iraq Baghdad 7 15 A suicidal Sunni attacks a Shia funeral procession, killing seven innocents.
2/20/07 Iraq Taji 5 138 Islamic terrorists explode a truck near a restaurant, spreading chlorine gas over an area.
2/20/07 Iraq Baghad 10 31 Two Jihad bombings, one a gas station and the other at a vegetable market, kill ten innocent people.
2/20/07 India Anantnag 2 0 Two guards are killed by the Al-Mansooran terrorist group.
2/20/07 USA Nashville, TN 0 1 A Muslim cab driver runs over a Christian after arguing about religion. The young man's ankle and hip are broken by the vehicle.
2/20/07 Thailand Songkhla 1 0 A village chief is gunned down by Islamic radicals.
2/20/07 Iraq Baghdad 33 0 Thirty-three victims of sectarian hatred within the Religion of Peace are found in the capital and in Mosul.
2/19/07 Pakistan North Waziristan 1 0 Islamists cut off a man's head, hands and feet. Dumping the body along with a note.
2/19/07 Thailand Yala 1 1 Another bombing kills another Thai. This time a soldier leaving his home.
2/19/07 India Moghal Maidan 1 2 A security patrol is brutally ambushed by the Mujahideen.
2/19/07 Iraq Tal Afar 4 5 A 12-year-old boy is among four people killed when terrorists booby-trap a house.
2/19/07 Iraq Mosul 8 0 Eight people are kidnapped and shot to death by sectarian rivals.
2/19/07 Iraq Dhuluiya 5 10 A suicide bomber murders five other people.
2/19/07 Iraq Baghdad 30 40 Ten people are killed in twin roadside blasts and a minibus attack, and another twenty victims of sectarian violence are found elsewhere.
2/19/07 Iraq Ramadi 11 4 Two Fedayeen suicide bombers kill eleven other people along a city street.
2/18/07 Thailand Pattani 3 0 Three Chinese Buddhists are gunned down in a brutal assault by Islamic radicals.
2/18/07 Iraq Baghdad 60 131 Sixty Iraqis shopping at a market are blown to bits by Islamic Freedom Fighters. Over a hundred others are injured.
2/18/07 Afghanistan Farah 4 2 Four policemen are killed in a suspected Taliban bomb attack.
2/18/07 Thailand Yala 3 24 Three more people are killed in separate bombings.
2/18/07 Thailand Narathiwat 1 22 Islamists stage a series of bombings against karaoke bars, killing at least one person.
2/18/07 Iraq Baghdad 7 11 Seven people are murdered in at least two separate Jihad attacks.
2/18/07 Pakistan Turab Gholato 2 0 Two children are killed by a landmine planted by Taliban-backed militants.
2/18/07 Iraq Balad 6 0 The bodies of six victims of sectarian hatred are found around the country.
2/18/07 Somalia Mogadishu 1 2 Islamic gunmen attack a car carrying Somalis, killing at least one.
2/18/07 Somalia Mogadishu 4 0 A car explosion at a soccer stadium kills four people.
2/18/07 Iraq Fallujah 13 0 al-Qaeda lines up a family of thirteen, including an elderly woman and two boys, and shoots them to death.
2/17/07 Thailand Narathiwat 1 0 A hunter and his dog are shot and hacked to death by Islamists, who then burn the bodies.
2/17/07 Pakistan Quetta 16 30 Sixteen people are murdered when a suicide bomber blows himself up inside a packed courtroom.
2/17/07 Iraq Kirkuk 11 83 Sunnis murder at least eleven Kurdish shoppers with a double car-bombing along a crowded market area.
2/17/07 Iraq Hilla 2 0 A woman and her young daughter are stabbed to death by Jihad militants.
2/17/07 Iraq Karbala 2 0 Two people are kidnapped and beheaded by Islamic terrorists.
2/17/07 India Koti Nullah 1 0 The Mujahideen abduct a civilian from his home and kill him in captivity.
2/16/07 Somalia Mogadishu 1 12 Islamic militias lob a mortar into a displaced persons camp, killing a refugee.
2/16/07 Pakistan Bajaur 1 3 Pro-Taliban militants kill a doctor with a roadside bomb
2/16/07 Iraq Baghdad 15 0 Fifteen victims of sectarian hatred are found in the capital and in Mosul.
2/15/07 Iraq Baghdad 27 45 Two car bombings and a shooting attack on a bus full of women combine with twenty other bodies found victimized by Islamic terrorists.
2/15/07 Iraq Kirkuk 3 5 Jihadis set up a fake checkpoint and gun down three Iraqis.
2/15/07 Somalia Mogadishu 4 5 Children are among four killed by mortar fire from Islamic militias.
2/15/07 Iraq Al Gasreen 8 14 Women and children are among eight civilians killed in a Jihad mortar attack on a civilian area.
2/14/07 Thailand Yala 1 0 A 30-year-old rubber tapper is murdered by Islamic radicals.
2/14/07 Iran Zahedan 18 0 A radical Sunni group takes credit for a bomb attack on a bus carrying Revolutionary Guards. Eighteen are killed.
2/14/07 Thailand Yala 1 5 One person is killed in a bomb attack by radical Muslims.
2/14/07 Thailand Narathiwat 1 1 A married couple is attacked by Muslim radicals. The wife dies from injuries.
2/14/07 Thailand Yala 2 0 A Buddhist father and son, selling herbal medicines by the roadside are brutally gunned down by Islamic gunmen.
2/14/07 Thailand Narathiwat 1 0 A Buddhist man is shot to death by Muslims while riding his motorcycle.
2/14/07 Pakistan Dera Ismail Khan 1 0 A Shiite cleric is gunned down in a sectarian attack.
2/14/07 Yemen Saada 2 2 Two members of the military are killed in an ambush by radical Shiites.
2/14/07 Iraq Ramadi 5 20 A Fedayeen suicide bomber sends five souls to Allah.
2/14/07 Iraq Baghdad 4 10 Four Christians are killed in an Islamic car bombing of their hospital.
2/14/07 Iraq Baghdad 6 30 Three Jihad car bombings leave six people dead.
2/13/07 Iraq Mahmudiya 3 0 Three people are kidnapped and brutally tortured to death by sectarian rivals.
2/13/07 Iraq Baghdad 22 44 Separate car bombings, including a suicide bomber near a college, leaves nearly two-dozen people dead.
2/13/07 Iraq Nahrawan 5 12 Jihadis lob mortars into a town, indiscriminately killing five people.
2/13/07 Algeria Algiers 6 30 Six people are killed in at least four deadly bombings by Islamic fundamentalists across the country.
2/13/07 Lebanon Bikfaya 3 19 Following threats by Islamic groups, two coordinated bomb blasts rip through a Christian town, killing at least three persons.
2/13/07 USA Salt Lake City, UT 5 4 A Muslim immigrant enters a gift shop and mows down five people buying Valentines Day cards, in a brutal hate crime.
2/12/07 Somalia Mogadishu 2 4 Islamists lob mortars into a home, killing a father and his 6-year-old son.
2/12/07 Thailand Pattani 1 0 A Buddhist man is killed in a public phone booth in front of his wife and son.
2/12/07 Afghanistan Zabul 2 1 Two policemen are killed when Taliban militants ambush their vehicle.
2/12/07 Iraq Baghdad 79 165 Sunnis bomb a Shia market with three coordinated blasts, sending blood and body parts across several blocks.
2/12/07 Iraq Baghdad 43 26 Sectarian violence within the Religion of Peace claims four dozen lives, including a market bombing.
2/12/07 Iraq Mosul 3 0 A student is among three people kidnapped, tortured and killed by Islamic extremists.
2/12/07 Somalia Mogadishu 1 3 A woman is killed when Somali Islamists lob a mortar into her home.
2/11/07 Iraq Tikrit 11 15 Eleven people are killed by a suicidal Sunni in an explosives-laden car.
2/11/07 Thailand Yala 3 0 Three villagers are shot to death by Muslim militants. The victims included two women.
2/11/07 Iraq Baghdad 35 0 Thirty-five people are found dead in various locations from sectarian violence.
2/11/07 Somalia Kismayu 4 20 Islamic extremists toss a grenade into a parade, killing four people.
2/11/07 India Kangan 1 0 A cop is gunned down by the Mujahideen.
2/10/07 Iraq Mosul 8 0 Eight young border guard recruits are brutally gunned down in a machine-gun assault by Muslim gunmen.
2/10/07 Somalia Mogadishu 5 10 Two girls are among five killed in two rocket attacks after Islamic groups vow to step up the violence.
2/10/07 Iraq Baghdad 3 5 A Jihad car bombing kills at least three people at an intersection.
2/10/07 Iraq Mussayab 3 2 Three members of a Shiite family are killed in their home by Islamic gunmen.
2/10/07 Iraq Baghdad 5 10 Five people near a bakery are killed by a Sunni suicide bomber.
2/10/07 Somalia Mogadishu 3 3 Three people are killed when Islamists bomb a market.
2/10/07 Thailand Pattani 1 0 A 56-year-old truck driver is gunned down on the job by Islamic radicals.
2/9/07 Iraq Hilla 2 8 Jihadis plant a bomb at a market, killing two people.
2/9/07 Afghanistan Kandahar 4 3 Four Afghan policemen are killed in a Taliban ambush.
2/9/07 Iraq Baghdad 11 0 Eleven people are found dead hours after being kidnapped by Muslim terrorists.
2/9/07 Thailand Narathiwat 1 0 Islamists shoot a 20-year-old civilian to death at a tea shop.
2/8/07 India Aragam 4 1 A brutal ambush by Islamic militants leaves four people dead, including a civilian.
2/8/07 India Baharabad 1 2 A man is gunned down in a Muslim shooting attack that leaves his wife and one other injured.
2/8/07 India Hajin 1 2 A pro-India political figure is gunned down in an attack that also injures his wife.
2/8/07 Thailand Pattani 1 0 A 72-year-old Buddhist man is beheaded by Islamists.
2/8/07 Iraq Rafiyaat 14 1 Gunmen storm a house and shoot fourteen men from the same family to death.
2/8/07 Iraq Iskandariya 7 10 Jihadis use mortars to kill seven residents.
2/8/07 Iraq Mosul 45 10 Forty-five people are killed in three locations in the country, as Islamists vow to keep killing.
2/8/07 Iraq Haditha 7 3 A suicide bomber attacks a police station, killing seven people inside.
2/8/07 Iraq Balad 10 0 Ten men are gunned down by sectarian rivals.
2/8/07 Iraq Aziziya 17 27 Islamic terrorists bomb a vegetable market, netting seventeen dead Iraqis.
2/8/07 UAE Dubai 1 0 A man kills his 22-year-old sister on suspicion that she was having an affair, based on a mobile phone picture.
2/7/07 Iraq Mosul 2 0 A man and his wife are killed in their home by Islamic militants.
2/7/07 Afghanistan Shindand 3 2 Three Afghan cops are killed by a remote-controlled device.
2/7/07 Chechnya Vedeno 1 0 A local official bleeds to death after Jihadis blow off his foot with a bomb.
2/7/07 Pakistan Darra Adam Khel 1 1 al-Qaeda militants gun down a Pakistani ISI agent in an attack on his vehicle.
2/7/07 Pakistan Sindh 1 0 The remains of a Hindu man, kidnapped and murdered by Islamists, are found six months later.
2/7/07 Somalia Mogadishu 2 7 Two children are reported killed in a mortar attack by Islamic militias.
2/7/07 Iraq Baghdad 39 0 Thirty-nine people are killed in at least four separate Jihad attacks.
2/7/07 Afghanistan Kandahar 2 6 Two Afghans are killed, and six wounded, by a Taliban bomb planted on a motorbike.
2/7/07 Iraq Suwayra 7 23 Three car bombs take the lives of seven innocent people.
2/6/07 Pakistan Miran Shah 2 0 Islamic terrorists bind two men and then shoot them to death.
2/6/07 Iraq Baghdad 27 19 Sectarian hatred within the Religion of Peace leaves over two dozen dead.
2/6/07 Thailand Pattani 1 2 A man is shot to death while riding a motorbike with his wife and 3-year-old daughter.
2/6/07 Thailand Narathiwat 1 0 Muslims hack a 37-year-old laborer to death with machetes.
2/6/07 India Bandipora 1 0 A civilian is kidnapped and killed by the Mujahideen.
2/6/07 India Pukharni 1 0 Terrorists kill a boy with a landmine.
2/6/07 Iraq Mosul 1 0 A woman is shot to death by Islamic gunmen.
2/6/07 Pakistan Islamabad 0 10 A suicide bomber blows himself up in a botched attack on the city's main airport.
2/5/07 Iraq Baghdad 24 108 Three car bombs, one at a children's hospital, rack up about twenty dead civilians for Sunni Jihadis.
2/5/07 Iraq Baghdad 25 0 Twenty-five victims of sectarian hatred within the Religion of Peace are found tortured and executed.
2/5/07 Iraq Haditha 6 0 Six people are found murdered by Jihadis.
2/5/07 Pakistan Bajaur 2 1 Pro-government tribal leaders are killed by al-Qaeda supported militants.
2/4/07 Thailand Narathiwat 1 0 A 68-year-old Buddhist man is shot off his motorbike by Islamic radicals.
2/4/07 Thailand Pattani 1 0 A Buddhist school official is murdered by Muslim terrorists.
2/4/07 Iraq Baghdad 33 0 Thirty-three bodies are found as sectarian violence within the Religion of Peace rages.
2/4/07 Iraq Baghdad 3 0 A woman and her two children are killed when Jihadis mortar a house.
2/4/07 India Srinagar 1 0 A man is shot dead by the Mujahideen.
2/4/07 Pal. Auth. Gaza 2 0 Two more Palestinians die from a Hamas sniper attack. One is 17-years-old.
2/4/07 Iraq Baghdad 31 76 A series of bombings by Islamic terrorists leave thirty-one innocent people dead.
2/3/07 Iraq Falluja 5 0 Five people are kidnapped, executed and dumped by sectarian rivals.
2/3/07 Pakistan Tank 2 6 Two Pakistani soldiers are killed when a suicide bomber rams into their convoy.
2/3/07 Iraq Baghdad 135 359 A single Fedayeen suicide bomber racks up over one-hundred and thirty civilians at a market. Nearly four-hundred others suffer injury.
2/3/07 India Pulwama 4 6 Mujahideen ambush a group of policemen, killing at least four.
2/3/07 Iraq Mahmudiya 8 12 At least eight people are killed in a Jihad car bombing on a market.
2/3/07 Iraq Baghdad 25 12 Over two-dozen people are killed in sectarian violence within the Religion of Peace.
2/3/07 Dagestan Makhachkala 3 0 Militants kill three policemen in two coordinated attacks.
2/2/07 Pal. Auth. Gaza 15 90 Hamas sniper set up around a Palestinian training camp and fire into it. Some fifteen people are killed and nearly a hundred others injured.
2/2/07 Pal. Auth. Gaza 17 185 Seventeen people, including children, are killed in sectarian

"They always come, drop loads of crap on our heads, then leave again. Naseem is about the only exception."

Yes, Naseem sticks around, popping in fairly regularly to leave, here and there, charming little piles of her poop.

I hope Naseem is not working on commission....

exsgtbrown,

I never said muslims don't kill. I said give me a number of apostates that were killed. The list you provide looks very similar to central america in the 1980s such as guatemala and el salvador. Remember the death squads which we supported. I think they were all christians and over 100,000 people died. Your list still does not beat the 60/1 ratio the west has achieved.

Khaybar Oasis,

You state the bible passages are irrelevant to today for it is not practiced. Ok, what was your cutoff point for relevancy, 100 yrs, 200 or 500 yrs. What is the standard that you use to make it irrelevant? Also if it was irrelevant it must have been relevant at one point and then does that make it right to kill infants and others for blasphemy. If it was never relevant why did god put it in the bible.

You are entitled to your views just as everyone else is. The scholars have their own views. Some are enlightened, some are intolerable, some are liberal. The liberal ones are many times attacked by the religious establishment supported by the state. Amr Khaled was deported from Egypt and he stayed away from politics. The state surrounds themselves by conservatives to gain legitimacy with very limited free speech. The americans continue to support the tyrannical saudi regime at the expense of the people because it suits their interest and the same for egypt. The average muslim will choose what they feel is correct. There is no hierarchy in islam so you are free to reject an interpretation. There are many progressive scholars, mainly in the West like Khaled Abou Fadl, Hamza Yusuf and others. If the average muslim takes the intolerable interpretation how come they haven't invaded and killed more people than the west in the 20th century.

tiger,

Islam is the only religion that, at present, specifically commands the faithful to kill nonbelievers.

Your list still does not beat the 60/1 ratio the west has achieved...

Give your information , please...numbers and places...

Your Christian browbeating is sinking without facts....

at a 60/1 ratio the worlds population would be ...about zero....

The statistics on apostates killed is indeed large ....where should I start...with the rulings on apostates as taught by Islamic clerics,on actual dates and numbers...that apostates are killed , there is no questions..I have found numerous reports...33 here, 56 there, 16 there, 2,8,9,21....the numbers are adding up or if you would like to see the reports for yourself, you can search the internet archives for "apostate murders, or apostates killed by muslims or similiar terminology"

Do you doubt your own religions capacity to kill those who chose to leave?....Have you been told Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion? Have you been told all the wars throughout history are the fault of Christians? Do you suspect you have been lied to?

Muslims have been killing apostates since Mo mounted a camel....he even documented doing so....killing apostates , that is....

give us your list of people killed in guatemala and el salvador by Christians....do you have a list? Or did your Islamic slavemaster just tell you the Christians did such a thing?

Do you even know who participated on the Central American death squads? The death squads were called death squads by the drive by media,, the "death squads" were no more than squads of nationalists armed by the US...These Nationalist overcame the communists who were financed by Cuba. Today El Salvador and Equador enjoy their independence earned by the Nationalist fighters who some erroneously called "death squads"...the numbers of people killed is about 75,000 over a period of several years....compare this with the Iran/Iraq war, which lasted about the same amount of time and killed over 1,000,000 and accomplished nothing....

You could learn about history, but with your biased mind, I doubt it...I will continue to work on your apostate killing question and give you some numbers shortly....

Remember Islamic clerics lie to you....

at your 60/1 ration ,,, the above situation should read 6,750,000 killed by Christians to 1,000,000 Muslims to Muslims....but we know that just is not so....

Lets take take your 60 /1 ratio again...in WWII there were approximately 55,000,000 deaths, Lets assume all these were CHistians killed,that would mean at 60/1 the number of Muslim deaths would be 916,666.......Did you know the Muslims were responsible the the Nazi concentration camp deaths of about 6,000,000 Jews? using your 60/1 ration, the 55,000,000 total WWII deaths should have been 3,300,000,000......and the Muslim deaths 916,666...Once again the numbers just do not add up....You can purchase an excellant documentary video from the History channel entitled "Sadaam and the Third Reicht" which gives you film archieves and substatial documentation showing the Muslims actually designed the consentration camps and the death ovens....

"The Arabs took the side of the Axis, either overtly like Iraq or indirectly by withholding support for the Allies. Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini issued a fatwa- "summons to a holy war against Britain" in May 1941. The Mufti's widely heralded proclamation against Britain was declared in Iraq, where he was instrumental in "the pro-Nazi" Iraqi revolt of 1941.

In the 1930s, the fascist regimes that arose in Italy and Germany sought greater stakes in the Middle East, and began courting Arab leaders to revolt against their British and French custodians. Among their many willing accomplices was Jerusalem Mufti Haj Amin el-Husseini, who fled Palestine after agitating against the British during the Arab Revolt of 1936-39. He found refuge in Iraq – another British mandate – where he again topped the British most wanted list after helping pull the strings behind the Iraqi coup of 1941. The revolt in Baghdad was orchestrated by Hitler as part of a strategy to squeeze the region between the pincers of Rommel's troops in North Africa, German forces in the Caucuses and pro-Nazi forces in Iraq. However, in June 1941 British troops put down the rebellion and the Mufti escaped via Tehran to Italy and eventually to Berlin.

Once in Berlin, the Mufti received an enthusiastic reception by the "Islamische Zentralinstitut" and the whole Islamic community of Germany, which welcomed him as the "Führer of the Arabic world." In an introductory speech, he called the Jews the "most fierce enemies of the Muslims" and an "ever corruptive element" in the world.

Husseini soon became an honored guest of the Nazi leadership and met on several occasions with Hitler. He personally lobbied the Führer against the plan to let Jews leave Hungary, fearing they would immigrate to Palestine. He also strongly intervened when Adolf Eichman tried to cut a deal with the British government to exchange German POWs for 5000 Jewish children who also could have fled to Palestine. The Mufti's protests with the SS were successful, as the children were sent to death camps in Poland instead. One German officer noted in his journals that the Mufti would liked to have seen the Jews "preferably all killed." On a visit to Auschwitz, he reportedly admonished the guards running the gas chambers to work more diligently. Throughout the war, he appeared regularly on German radio broadcasts to the Middle East, preaching his pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic message to the Arab masses back home.

During the Second World War in Yugoslavia, many Muslim clerics in Bosnia and Kosovo were willing accomplices in the genocide of the nation's Serbian, Jewish and Roma population. From 1941 until 1945, the Nazi-installed regime of Ante Pavelic in Croatia carried out some of the most horrific crimes of the Holocaust, killing over 800,000 Yugoslav citizens - 750,000 Serbs, 60,000 Jews and 26,000 Roma. In these crimes, they were helped by Muslim fundamentalists in Bosnia and Kosovo who were openly supported by the Palestinian Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini. Husseini openly encouraged Muslims to join Nazi units that would be later implicated in genocide and crimes against humanity - the infamous Hanjar (or Handschar) 13th Waffen SS division.

Husseini represents the prevalent pro-Nazi posture among the Arab/Muslim world before, during and even after the Holocaust. The Nazi-Arab connection existed even when Adolf Hitler first seized power in Germany in 1933. News of the Nazi takeover was welcomed by the Arab masses with great enthusiasm, as the first congratulatory telegrams Hitler received upon being appointed Chancellor came from the German Consul in Jerusalem, followed by those from several Arab capitals. Soon afterwards, parties that imitated the National Socialists were founded in many Arab lands, like the "Hisb-el-qaumi-el-suri" (PPS) or Social Nationalist Party in Syria. Its leader, Anton Sa'ada, styled himself the Führer of the Syrian nation, and Hitler became known as "Abu Ali" (In Egypt his name was "Muhammed Haidar"). The banner of the PPS displayed the swastika on a black-white background. Later, a Lebanese branch of the PPS – which still receives its orders from Damascus – was involved in the assassination of Lebanese President Pierre Gemayel.

The most influential party that emulated the Nazis was "Young Egypt," which was founded in October 1933. They had storm troopers, torch processions, and literal translations of Nazi slogans – like "One folk, One party, One leader." Nazi anti-Semitism was replicated, with calls to boycott Jewish businesses and physical attacks on Jews. Britain had a bitter experience with this pro-German mood in Egypt, when the official Egyptian government failed to declare war on the Wehrmacht as German troops were about to conquer Alexandria.

After the war, a member of Young Egypt named Gamal Abdul Nasser was among the officers who led the July 1952 revolution in Egypt. Their first act – following in Hitler's footsteps – was to outlaw all other parties. Nasser's Egypt became a safe haven for Nazi war criminals, among them the SS General in charge of the murder of Ukrainian Jewry; he became Nasser's bodyguard and close comrade. Alois Brunner, another senior Nazi war criminal, found shelter in Damascus, where he served for many years as senior adviser to the Syrian general staff and still resides today.

Sami al-Joundi, one of the founders of the ruling Syrian Ba'ath Party, recalls: "We were racists. We admired the Nazis. We were immersed in reading Nazi literature and books... We were the first who thought of a translation of Mein Kampf. Anyone who lived in Damascus at that time was witness to the Arab inclination toward Nazism."

These leanings never completely ceased. Hitler's Mein Kampf currently ranks sixth on the best-seller list among Palestinian Arabs. Luis Al-Haj, translator of the Arabic edition, writes glowingly in the preface about how Hitler's "ideology" and his "theories of nationalism, dictatorship and race… are advancing especially within our Arabic States." When Palestinian police first greeted Arafat in the self-rule areas, they offered the infamous Nazi salute - the right arm raised straight and upward.

The PLO and notably Arafat himself do not make a secret of their source of inspiration. The Grand Mufti el-Husseini is venerated as a hero by the PLO. It should be noted, that the PLO's top figure in east Jerusalem today, Faisal Husseini, is the grandson to the Führer's Mufti. Arafat also considers the Grand Mufti a respected educator and leader, and in 1985 declared it an honor to follow in his footsteps. Little wonder. In 1951, a close relative of the Mufti named Rahman Abdul Rauf el-Qudwa el-Husseini matriculated to the University of Cairo. The student decided to conceal his true identity and enlisted as "Yasser Arafat."

Lets take Vietnam....In Vietnam about 2,000,000 civilians died... lets assume christians caused all these death at 60/1, In Algeria 1,000,000 Muslims died at the hands of Muslims.at 60/1 that would have required 6,000,000 deaths in vietnam....again the numbers do not add up...

According to Algerian figures, as many as 1 million Muslims died during and after the war. French casualties, military and civilian, are estimated at 27,000 killed and some 65,000 injured. When the end came, a terrible exodus began. Forced to choose between 'the suitcase or the coffin,' nearly 1 million white pied noir settlers tearfully abandoned their homeland. For more than a century it had been considered as much a part of France as Brittany or Provence.

".that would have required 6,000,000 deaths in vietnam....again the numbers do not add up...
..

....I am sorry, that should be 120,000,000..

you can really see your numbers do not add up

go home and sip your Islamic koolaid....

now if your are referring to 60/1 on the muslim numbers, then the Vietnam total should be 60,000,000 (60 time the 1 million muslim upon muslim death in algeria alone)...Of course there were other worldwide muslim upon muslim death if you are interested...

tiger points us to "many progressive scholars, mainly in the West like Khaled Abou Fadl..."

A Muslim named Muqtedar Khan of the Brookings Institution finds it "scary" that Abou El Fadl wants the Shari‘a to be central in Muslim life. Now why doesn't tiger cite Mugtedar Khan as a Muslim "progressive", rather than Abou El Fadl?

Here's what Daniel Pipes has dug up about Khaled Abou Fadl:

Abou El Fadl has a reputation as a "Muslim moderate."

But there is a body of other evidence suggesting that he is something other than the "moderate voice" his admirers believe or hope him to be.

Wahhabi Menace

Abou El Fadl's signature issue, the one that has most established his reputation as a moderate, involves his outspoken opposition to the Saudi regime. But one can be an Islamist, and even a radical one, and also take a stand against Wahhabism.

...

Despite Abou El Fadl's general antipathy toward Wahhabi and Saudis, he nevertheless has offered excuses for them. The Wahhabis, he says, "do not seek to dominate -- to attain supremacy in the world... They are more than happy living within the boundaries of Saudi Arabia."

This statement ignores the Saudi regime's policy since the 1960s of spending billions of dollars to spread the Wahhabi ideology abroad, precisely in an effort to dominate.

Abou El Fadl declares there has been "no examination" of the extent to which objectionable materials are found in Saudi-funded religious schools and mosques outside the kingdom, calling for congressional hearings to learn more about this. [This would contradict his other statement that the Wahhabis "do not seek to dominate" outside of Saudi Arabia!] But the U.S. government has already closed down several Saudi-funded institutions in the United States, such as the Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences in America. As Stephen Schwartz, author of The Two Faces of Islam, notes, "There is no doubt about official Saudi funding of Wahhabism, and there is little or no need for further expenditure of federal funds holding hearings on it."

Shari‘a Paramount

In common with other Islamists, Abou El Fadl wants Muslims to live by Islamic law (the Shari‘a), the law that among other things endorses slavery, execution for apostasy, and the repression of women, and treats non-Muslims as second-class citizens. "Shariah and Islam are inseparable," he has written, "and one cannot be without the other." In a revealing passage, he confesses that his "primary loyalty, after God, is to the Shariah." Given that Islamic law is Abou El Fadl's academic specialty, this profound allegiance to its goals has great significance and provides a key to his outlook.

To make Islamic law more appealing, he blurs or conceals some of its unpleasant realities. Consider the sensitive issues of adultery, jihad, and relations with non-Muslims.

Adultery: A Nigerian woman, Amina Lawal, was convicted of adultery and sentenced to death by stoning in March 2002. When asked about this case by talk-show host Oprah Winfrey, Abou El Fadl replied that the Nigerian authorities had made a mistake because "The punishment for adultery is really a symbolic punishment. It's a punishment that is designed to make a point about how bad this crime is." This is nonsense, for the punishment of adultery is brutal, deadly, and real. It has been applied repeatedly in recent years, notably in Iran and in Afghanistan under the Taliban. It is deceitful to pretend that Islamic law's hudud punishments (prescribed in the Qur'an) are merely symbolic.

Jihad: Abou El Fadl hides the historic meaning of this term (i.e., the expansion of Muslim-ruled territories primarily through the use of force) and instead variously defines it as "the struggle waged to cleanse oneself from the vices of the heart" or "to strive hard or struggle in pursuit of a just cause." In a sleight of hand, he substitutes his own Qur'anic reading of this word, blithely discarding a millennium of interpretation by Muslim scholars and rulers. Using his definition, he concludes that jihad is "a good thing." More ominously, he denounces those who "carelessly dump on jihad," accusing them of "prejudicial, dangerous talk" reminiscent (so he wrote) of Nazi preparations for the Holocaust.

Jizya: Abou El Fadl treats in like fashion the jizya tax, a discriminatory and humiliating poll tax imposed exclusively on non-Muslims by their Muslim rulers. He renders it into something historically quite unrecognizable -- "money collected by the Islamic polity from non-Muslims in return for the protection from the Islamic state." Again, this is deception to excuse a discriminatory practice.

Andrew Bostom of Brown University concludes from a close reading of Abou El Fadl's work on jihad and jizya that his omission of evidence, "combined with an excessive reliance on sacralized, whitewashed historiography, refutes the prevailing notion that El Fadl is engaged in a sincere effort to instill fundamental change in Islam."

Abou El Fadl's efforts on behalf of Shari‘a go further. As the academic reviewer for the "Origins of Islamic Law" unit put out by the Constitutional Rights Foundation, he is at least associated with, if not the author of, an analysis that forwards a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution, enabling Shari‘a-like blasphemy laws to encroach on traditional U.S. notions of freedom of religion. The proposed amendment reads: "The First Amendment shall not be interpreted to protect blasphemous speech. States shall be free to enact anti-blasphemy laws as long as they prohibit offensive speech against all religions."

Islamist Prejudices

Abou El Fadl harbors the Islamist's typical hostility toward the West, blaming it for whatever ails Islam and Muslims. Islamist terrorism, for example, he deems "part of the historical legacy of colonialism and not the legacy of Islamic law." By holding that "Islamic civilization has been wiped out by an aggressive and racist European civilization," he in one swoop exculpates Muslims for everything they do [and simultaneously condemns the West for most bad things Muslims have done].

Nor is the problem restricted to the colonial past. In the United States, he finds, the "demonization of Muslims is well-camouflaged" and he cites unnamed and unspecified "plots and conspiracies" against Muslims. Along with the Islamist organizations, Abou El Fadl after 9/11 falsely issued alarmist predictions about "an explosion of hate crimes against Muslim and Arab Americans, both by police and by ordinary citizens."

Abou El Fadl, like all Islamists, objects to analyses of Islam that use such terms as "militant Islam," even calling use of this term "ideological ravings." And like all Islamists, he relentlessly disparages true Muslim liberals and freethinkers such as Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasrin for promoting what he calls "secular fundamentalism." Ibn Warraq is (the pseudonym of) an ex-Muslim who has written scholarly works critical of the Qur'an, the life of Muhammad, and the Islamic religion. Asked about him, Abou El Fadl describes Ibn Warraq's work as nothing but propaganda and wrongly dismisses his work as derivative: "If you already know what Islamophobes and Orientalists believe, this author has nothing original to add."

Along these same lines, Abou El Fadl shows the typical Islamist's bias against non-Muslims. In early 2003, shortly after President Bush appointed Noah Feldman, a New York University law professor, to serve as legal advisor to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, Abou El Fadl expressed rage to a Boston-area seminar on "Islam and Democracy" that a Jew should be selected for this task.

Terror and Denial

Abou El Fadl promotes the standard Islamist line exonerating Muslims from responsibility for terrorism. He testified to the 9/11 commission in December 2003 that "Statistically, after the attacks of 9/11, Muslim and Arab terrorism was responsible for 2 percent of the sum total of terrorist incidents taking place in the United States." This statement runs wildly contrary to common sense and every analysis. Specifically, Robert Leiken surveyed 212 suspected and convicted terrorists implicated in North America and Western Europe between the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 and December 2003. He found that "86 percent were Muslim immigrants, the remainder being mainly converts [to Islam] (8 percent) and African American Muslims."

Further to exonerate the American Muslim population, Abou El Fadl claimed before the commission that terrorists in most cases are "outsiders... on the margins of American-Muslim society."[43] In fact, the record shows that in most cases of jihadi violence on U.S. soil, the terrorists come from within the bosom of the American Muslim community.

Having dissociated Muslims from terrorism, Abou El Fadl then railed against U.S. counterterrorism measures. He characterized the overdue steps taken post-9/11 (such as the use of secret evidence and heightened surveillance) as the government having "turned against" American Muslims.

Given his similarity of viewpoint with the Islamists, it comes as little surprise to find that Abou El Fadl maintains cordial relations with two of the most extreme Islamist institutions in the United States:

Holy Land Foundation: The Holy Land Foundation (HLF), an Islamic "charitable" organization, was closed down in December 2001 on grounds that it was collecting money "used to support the Hamas terror organization." Abou El Fadl had contributed funds to it and publicly defended HLF, lauding its professional accountability and documentation. In common with a bevy of Islamist groups, he portrayed its shuttering as evidence of "the systematic undermining of Muslim civil liberties" in the United States.

Council on American-Islamic Relations: CAIR is the (Saudi-funded) attack-dog of Islamist institutions in the United States, well known for intimidating those who disagree with it, for apologizing for Osama bin Laden, for employing three persons subsequently arrested on terrorism-related charges, and for declaring its intent to make Islam "dominant" in the United States. CAIR is criticized by other Muslim organizations, such as the Islamic Supreme Council of America and MuslimWakeUp.com.

But Abou El Fadl lavishes praise on CAIR's "civility and grace," appreciates its "important role," and thanks it "for setting an example" for all Muslims. He presents himself as thoroughly in tune with CAIR's sense of victimhood, its resentments against American society, and its goal of promoting militant Islam. "Our voice," he wrote to CAIR, "must be loud, resounding, and even deafening." He declares himself "in brotherhood" with CAIR, gushes over its "admirable work," and promotes it as a "shining example" of Muslim leadership. He requests CAIR's help on the basis that he and it share opponents; expresses a hope that CAIR's influence will spread on university campuses; and invokes blessings on it ("May God aid you in your efforts and amply reward you for standing in justice and truth").Abou El Fadl even helps CAIR fundraising efforts.

This is not to say that Abou El Fadl approves of everything American Islamist organizations do. His "biggest problem" with them, he has said, has to do with their lack of "intellectual grounding" in Islamic tradition. His criticism concerns their lack of sophistication and cultural depth, not their goals.

Islamist Nonetheless

Ultimately, Abou El Fadl is engaged in developing a more sophisticated way of presenting militant Islam. He is working toward the same goals as are more brazenly Islamist groups like CAIR, but he takes care to present his views in a more acceptable fashion. In some cases, this leads to differences between him and them. As a fêted favorite of the establishment, he must distance himself from some of their particularly unacceptable positions (for example, he condemns suicide bombings against Israeli civilians). This is admittedly better than silence, but it hardly signals moderation. With rare exceptions, Khaled Abou El Fadl's differences with the overt Islamists are those of style, not substance.

Some Muslim observers have come to this same conclusion. Haroon Siddiqui of The Toronto Star writes that Abou El Fadl "does not fit the mould of a ‘moderate' taking on ‘militants.'" Muqtedar Khan of the Brookings Institution finds it "scary" that Abou El Fadl wants the Shari‘a to be central in Muslim life.

The case of Abou El Fadl points to the challenge of how to discern Islamists who present themselves as moderates.

[for the copious footnotes Daniel Pipes provides for this article:]

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1841

Tiger for your Info the Japanese killed in WWII In China:

3,200,000 military,
17,530,000 civilians

ANd the Japanese were not Christians....

The Japaneses killed 550,000 Americans and other allied troops....

The Japanese also killed over 1,000,000 indigenious pacific islanders....

The US military performed with valor and defeated a formidable force intent on world power not unlike Islam today....Islam will also lose...TEll your Islamic slavemaster I said so...

your 60/1 ratio is absurd....

I have read up on the holocaust nowhere does it ever say that muslims participated in the killing of jews in the holocaust. I have a good jewish friend parents who survived the holocaust and they simply blame the germans not the muslims. Your statement that muslims killed the jews or were reponsible is simply false. Show me the proof where muslims actually put jews in the gas chambers.

The ratio of 60/1 is all the people christians killed in the 20 century and all the people muslims killed. Look at my earlier post. the ratio is around 65-66/3 million.

In the killings of algeria I left that out for the french killed 1 million algerians when they colonized them so it cancels it out.

Muslims did not do any of the killings in Europe. Remember 20 million russian civilians died in WWII, again christians killing christians.

With regard to central america, the death squads or call them what ever you want killed at least 100,000 people, even nuns that supported peace. Again christians killing christians. Yes I do know what they are. they were actually the military people who would go out in the middle of the night and slaughter civilians. They were
part of the government.http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/elsalvador2/esdoc3.html

True the mufti of jerusalem supported Hitler which is despicable but provide me proof where he actually and physically put jews in the concentration camps. I do not think you can.

With regard to harboring Nazis provide the proof. Most of the nazis fled to north and south america and the israelis extradited some to israel, again christian nations. Remember Rudolf Eichmann, I wonder where he was captured.
Also, after WWII, the cia conspired with the Nazis which is well documented. Here is the link
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB146/index.htm

You talk about a best seller list for the palestinians I have never heard of it. Show it me. I would be amazed it existed with the conditions they live in. Is it in the palestinian times or the gaza times or west bank times show me the list. I would like to know what is number one and two also. Is it on the sunday edition or what?

With regards to Daniel pipes the average muslim knows his views and if he is such a scholar how come is not teaching at major mainstream univ like Abou el fadl. Here is an article by christopher hitchens who supported the iraq war and of courses hates the islamist commenting on pipes.
http://www.slate.com/id/2086844/

Tiger,

T: ”It is amazing how you can cherry pick verses from the bible and say they are not relevant today.”

You’re wrong on a basic matter of fact, once again. It was you, not I, who quoted from the Bible. I would not call your quotations cherry-picking. However, we were not talking about the Bible. You introduced this irrelevant topic.

Regarding relevance, it is also simply a fact that Christians do not follow those commands today. (You seem to have trouble grasping that basic fact). Now, if Christians are not following those commands today, and do not believe they should follow those commands today, why would I focus my concern on them? I focus my concern on the religion whose mainstream does believe in implementing those commands today, and in fact is implementing those commands today. Moreover, you cannot attribute those beliefs to Christians if Christians in the real world right now do not actually believe or accept those policies as you’ve presented them.

Also regarding relevance, we were criticizing Islam. Criticising the Bible here in this context appears to be your attempt to steer the conversation away from the topic of this thread and the general focus of this website. Attacking the Bible does nothing in the way of defending Islam; it is a standard logical fallacy which you using, the fallacy of introducing irrelevant material to distract people from the topic at hand.

T: “If a christian says that the bible is the word of god, how can you take out certain passages and say they are no longer valid and relevant.”

Once again, you are wrong on a basic matter of fact. I didn’t “take out” any passages from the Bible. That was you.

Another issue: Many Christians do not believe that those passages are literally the direct words of God.

The passages which you quoted from the Bible are not relevant with regards to actual policy in the real world today.

T: “Well then by the same logic, I can negate 3/4 of the bible and say it longer suites my lifestyle. Who is to say I am right or wrong? The church, well the church condoned slavery and racism.”

1. What logic? I have already shown that your claims are based on erroneous premises.

2. Anyone using logic, evidence, and a sound set of moral principles could question your selective picking and choosing of this or that verse, or declaring some no longer relevant, etc., if you were to engage in such cafeteria-style picking and choosing. But that is irrelevant. We were not talking about the Bible. We were talking about those aspects of Islam which Muslims, in the mainstream, follow today.

3. Yes, but the “church” also opposed slavery and racism. That is in contrast to Islam, which had to be pressured from the outside to give up slavery. Moreover, Islam practiced slavery on a wide scale for approximately 1350 years, enslaving more people than the west ever enslaved (see Andrew Bostom's Legacy of Jihad) and still practices slavery in some parts of the world, e.g, Africa; also Saudi Arabia still has its dubious "guest workers" program and other vestiges of slavery.

T: “Maybe I should consult the pedophilic catholic priests and they can tell me.”

In that case, maybe you should post at pedophilic Catholic-Priest-Watch. The website that you are on right now is called Jihad-Watch. Again, you are talking about irrelevant topics.

T: “You talk about apostates, give me a number of people killed by muslims for changing their religion. I am sure it will add up to the 6 million jews killed in the holocaust by christians for simply being jews , or the number of blacks killed by the KKK which was supported by the church or the number of Bosnians muslims killed just recently by the Serbs.”

1. Once again, you fail to respond to a point. You simply post unrelated, irrelevant material on subject matter which has nothing to do with this site and nothing to do with this thread.

2. Re: Number of apostates killed, probably more than all of the above (which you have listed) combined. But you ask me for figures, and there are no precise figures as to how many people were killed as apostates according to Islam. However, aren’t you comparing apples and oranges again? What makes you think that your comparison of your grab-bag assortment of body counts due to various atrocities, genocide, racism, etc., is a valid one? Shouldn’t you be comparing the percentage of ex-Christians (apostates of Christianity) killed according to Christian scriptures (and that too you must show) to the percentage of ex-Muslims killed? Then you would also have to look at how efficiently each, Christianity and Islam, were able to enforce the death penalty and so on. In other words, if you’re making a comparision, you actually have to put some thought into it and make sure you are making a fair, appropriate comparison.

Some estimates indicate that there are currently about 1.3 billion Muslims in the world today. All of those Muslims who are above the age of puberty must to some extent fear the death penalty or being killed by some vigilante member of the community, if they were to announce their apostasy to Islam. For this reason it is difficult to estimate the number of apostates--that's how effective the generalized Islamic apostasy death threat is. Killing even a small number of apostates has a strong inhibiting effect on large populations; that’s the whole point of executing the apostate according to the mainstream Islamic perspective: It deters others from leaving Islam, so the Islamic state can maintain control of them.

Muhammad is known to have ordered the death of apostates simply on the grounds that they had left Islam or criticized Islam or him. In addition, following Muhammad’s policy, Abu Bakr waged war against the tribes that had apostatized after Muhammad’s death. Those were the ridda wars, in which many apostates were killed and the rest of the people were forced back into Islam, forced to pay the zakat, and so on.

Throughout the past 1350+ years, Sunni and Shia have regarded each other as apostates, and they waged wars and killed each other on this basis. How many deaths exactly? I don’t know, but there have been a lot. Indeed, even over the past few years in Iraq, there have been thousands of deaths due to this sectarian rivalry.

Throughout Islam’s 1400 years of history, apostates have been put to death as standard policy. I don’t know exactly how many, but counting the above which I have mentioned, in sum, it is probably in the millions, at least. If you do have sources on the number—and you are implying that it is a small, insignificant number—please provide your sources.

T: “How can the church cherry pick verses from the bible and say well you don't need to worry about it or practice it.”

Ask them, not me. Irrelevant topic for this thread.

T: “The right wing evangelical christians I have met tell me the bible is the world of god and you cannot change or negate anything. They believe in armageddon and tell me aids is gods punishment for homosexuality. They hold a lot of power with the bush administration.”

Again, they are not planning on implementing the Old Testament polices that you cited. Also, you did not say that they support those specific policies. Again, this site is Jihad-Watch, not American Christian-fundamentalist-watch. Unless they are doing something Islam-related, it is not relevant here. Your attempt to defend Islam by attacking Christianity is preposterous. It suggests that you are unable to defend Islam on its own merits. Thus, you keep changing the subject.

T: “Sure there is ignorance in mainstream islam. Every quote from the quran you interpret with your own thoughts and ideas which is fine.”

You persist with another one of your errors that I already corrected. Those are mainstream Islamic scholars’ interpretations re “corruption on earth” etc.

T: “The vast majority of muslims and scholars I have met with interpret it differently.”

You are now using the fallacy of appealing to your own anecdotal experience, which is not even at issue. The issue is not what the people you know believe or say they believe—and that is a claim that we cannot verify. The issue is what the mainstream of Islam or large percentages of Muslims actually believes and implements as policy. I have already cited stats on Muslims' opinions. Clearly, if you really have met any Muslims, they are a biased sample (simply the fact that you were able to talk to them about religion—if that is true—suggests they may be different than other Muslims) and in any case they are not going to necessarily be forthright with you as to what they believe. Even if they were willing to be forthright, I find it hard to believe that you actually happened to have quizzed them all on just these issues which we are addressing right now in this thread re apostasy, blasphemy, etc. Again, even if you had quizzed them, the sources that I cited are based predominantly on anonymous responses and large samples of Muslims from multiple age groups and multiple countries across the world. My samples are bigger and better than yours, and the evidence I cite supports what I say and can be verified by others. Your puny subjective anecdotal claims cannot be verfied by anyone and it is not even clear that they support your claims. Case closed.

T: “I like to stick to the issues though.”

No you don’t. You have shown us in this thread that you like to veer as far away from the issues as you possibly can.

T: “You state the bible passages are irrelevant to today for it is not practiced. Ok, what was your cutoff point for relevancy, 100 yrs, 200 or 500 yrs. What is the standard that you use to make it irrelevant?”

1. The first and foremost concern is that the policies should be in effect today, or likely to be in effect in the near future based on present trends. Otherwise, there is no practical need for ordinary citizens to be concerned. That renders those Biblical passages irrelevant on this criterion. The Old Testament policies which you quoted are not, by Christians, in effect now and are not likely to be in effect any time soon, based on present trends.

2. Once again, this site is Jihad-Watch, this thread is about Islam, ergo your attempt to criticize Christianity (and indeed just about everything and everyone on the planet except Islam) is not relevant.

T: “Also if it was irrelevant it must have been relevant at one point and then does that make it right to kill infants and others for blasphemy. If it was never relevant why did god put it in the bible.”

If we were having a theological discussion about Christianity, that might be relevant. But we’re not; and it isn’t. We're talking about Islamic policies implemented in the real world today. Islamic history and the Koran etc. are only relevant insofar as they show the Islamic basis for what Muslims are doing today (e.g., penalizing blasphemers, threatening them, putting them in jail, killing them, etc.).

T: “You are entitled to your views just as everyone else is."

Once again, you continue to make the same error which I already corrected.

T: "The scholars have their own views. Some are enlightened, some are intolerable, some are liberal. The liberal ones are many times attacked by the religious establishment supported by the state. Amr Khaled was deported from Egypt and he stayed away from politics. The state surrounds themselves by conservatives to gain legitimacy with very limited free speech. The americans continue to support the tyrannical saudi regime at the expense of the people because it suits their interest and the same for egypt. The average muslim will choose what they feel is correct. There is no hierarchy in islam so you are free to reject an interpretation. There are many progressive scholars, mainly in the West like Khaled Abou Fadl, Hamza Yusuf and others. If the average muslim takes the intolerable interpretation how come they haven't invaded and killed more people than the west in the 20th century.”

I think you should respond to what Remote has presented above about some of these so-called moderates.

Muslims haven't invaded? No, you are completely ignorant of 20th century history. Muslims have killed many people in the name of Islam in the 20th century. Bangladesh, Sudan…millions of people killed, raped, or enslaved in the name of Islam. And why is your comparison neatly truncated to include only the 20th century?

Did Islam and Christianity begin and end in the 20th century? No. Therefore your comparison is arbitrary. Moroeover, there were not equal numbers of Christians and Muslims in the 20th century, so your comparison of numbers is not valid. (You would have to use percentages, and take a number of other considerations into account, though I see you have already ignored Caroline’s point about a similar issue).

Muslims did not have access to such large-scale weaponry.

Muslims did not have to, or were not willing, to fight Nazis and Communists on as large a scale.
Non-Muslims in the west rose up to defend the Jews and the rest of Europe in WW II. Did Muslims help out? No. Actually, some Muslims were on the side of Hitler.

Can you find me in the Bible where Christians are instructed to slaughter the Jews? No, you can’t find it because there is no such command. We can however, turn to the Koran and find clear commands to kill the Jews if they don’t accept the dhimma (9:29)—and again, that’s Islamic policy enshrined in Islamic law for 1400 years; it is not merely my “interpretation.”

Can you find me in the Bible where it talks about the Fuhrer and the “German Faith”? No, you can’t find it because it isn’t there. Documents now available at Rutgers University show that Hitler and the Nazis were not only engaged in wiping out the Jews, they were aiming to destroy the extant forms of Christianity in Germany and were seeking to replace them with the “German Faith.”

As others have pointed out above, you point at numbers of deaths with no concern whatsoever as to the casues or motives linked to those deaths, the contexts in which those deaths occurred, etc. It seems the only thing consistent in your posts is your attempt to attack the West and Christianity, presenting all kinds of miscellaneous and irrelevant claims.

Tiger - a few quick thoughts:

1. You keep citing overall numbers of casualties in the 20th century but I will reiterate that you are lumping in the perpetrators (including Hitler and the communists, neither of whom were acting in accordance with anything even remotely resembling Christianity) with the victims in those numbers. By ignoring motives, you are lumping in those who defended themselves and fought against those totalitarian ideologies with those who tried to advance them.

2. You keep asking why Muslims killed comparatively fewer people than "Christians" in the 20th century if Islam is so inherently violent and Christianity preached nonviolence. (Again - note the previous point about whether Nazism or communism has anything to do with Christianity). But the Ottoman empire was defeated towards the beginning of the century and Muslims could not possibly compete technologically or financially with western countries. In short, no opportunity. They appear to be redressing this issue as we speak with Ahmedinijad basically threatening to wipe Israel off the map should he acquire nuclear technology and Saudi Arabia using their oil billions to advance the global jihad which is affecting almost every country on the face of the earth. And since Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Islam and houses its holiest sites, I think it would be safe to say that they have a pretty good idea of what Islam is actually about.

3. You ask, what right did we have to invade Iraq? I ask you - what right did Saddam have to abuse his power in order to hold an entire country of people hostage for 30 years? That is a philosophy of "might makes right". What then is your objection if we should choose to do the same thing? The sovereignty issue? There is much discussion as to whether national sovereignty, when the people of a country are held hostage to a dictator, ought to take precedence over the human sovereignty of its own citizens. (BTW - I do not accept your contention that the war in Iraq was illegal. There are plenty of international lawyers who would claim otherwise.)

4. Now to flip over what I just said in the previous point - you claim that the US has supported all these dictators. But now look at the results of our brief experiment in bringing democracy to the ME and empowering the citizens. What it has accomplished is emboldening Islamists in every case. Now the Assyrian Christians are under siege in Iraq, the Islamists are reversing all the secular gains in Iraq and the drumbeat of ethnic cleansing has escalated. I conclude from this that Muslim people are going to endorse some form of tyranny matter what we do, and moreover, that plenty of their "soverign citizens", when freed from dictatorship that is somewhat friendlier to the US, may actually represent a greater danger to the rest of the infidel world (including infidels residing within their countries, like Christians in Iraq or Palestinian countries, or the small Jewish state surrounded by Muslim countries) then they would represent if held in check.

5. All of which reinforces my perspective that Islam is indeed the problem. And that we had defeated its expansionist tendencies for a brief time in hisotry and that now that Muslims can acquire our technologies and have the money to spread their influence, and now that we have seen the ill consequence and increased danger to infidels of trying to bring democracy to Muslims by removing their dictators, we perhaps out to return to a concept that Muslims understand quite well and are really quite comfortable with - namely "might makes right". We have the might. And until something changes about Islam and until the vast majority of Muslims have grasped the concept of minority rights and separation of church and state and what liberal democracy really means, we should use that might and return to the status quo. I think alot of westerners would agree with that assessment. Bush's little democracy experiment was a fantastic opportunity for Muslims to join the modern world. They blew it. Don't be surprised if in the future Americans are less likely to wring their hands over western powers keeping dictators in place because it's pretty apparent that we're damned if we do but also that we're damned if we don't.

6. In regard to your question of how I would feel if Russia or China invaded us in the 1950's on behalf of the blacks - well since neither country has a better overall track record in terms of human rights than the US, despite our inequitable treatment of blacks, obviously I would fight against it. Moreover, within a mere decade after the 50's, blacks achieved the right to vote in the US. So you see - we are able to solve our own problems and are in no need of outside intervention to do that. The proof of our superiority to Islam and communism is that the former build walls to keep people in (the death penalty for apostasy is as much of a wall as the Berlin wall), while we're contemplating building a wall to keep people out.

7. And even if it were true that Muslims had in fact had equal opportunity to kill (see #2 regarding opportunity) in the 20th century as Christians did and still managed to kill fewer people than Christians, it would still be somewhat irrelevant because the REASONS for the killing matter. A single cop might manage to outshoot a dozen criminals firing on him but the number count alone says nothing about the reasons for why each side was wielding weapons. Hence the numbers do not say anything about the moral justification for using violence. Muslims use violence and have done so for 1350 years, in accordance with Muhammad's example - in order to subjugate others to tyranny ( forcing others to live a lie is tyranny - and the notion that Muhammad was the final prophet of God's word is an obvious lie to all but the brain-dead, threatening those who demand freedom of conscience is tyranny, prohibiting speaking the truth is tyranny, depriving women of their rights is tyranny, murdering homosexuals is tyranny) - all of it is tyranny. If a single person standing for freedom managed to kill thousands of those who tried to strip him of his God-given inalienable rights, the sort of numbers calculus you provide would not help us to evaluate who is right and who is wrong from a morals perspective.

(in doing preview just now I see that KO and remote have posted. If they've repeated any of my points - my apologies for any redundancies. I don't want to retype this so will go ahead and post and then read their comments)..

exsgtbrown,

I only included people killed by christians. Actually I need to revise it Wikipdia says 60 million people died in WWII but my estimate was lower. When I said WWI with the bolshevik revolution, WWI was around 8 mill and revolution was 20. So if take 40 million to account for the non christians and 7 mill WWI, and 20 mill for the bolshevik revolution. That equals 67 mill. Again I did not include vietnam, korea, central america wars, south africa, etc. Here are the links for the estimates if you doubt me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II#Casualties.2C_civilian_impact.2C_and_atrocities
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm
http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/stalin.html
For nicaragua check Somoza they say he killed over 50,000 and todays population at 5.5 million so about 1% of the population. Again we supported him.http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/somoza.html

Caroline,

International Law Aspects of the Iraq War
and Occupation
This section examines the legality of the 2003 US-UK war on Iraq. Shortly before the outbreak of hostilities, UN Secretary General stated that the use of force without Council endorsement would "not be in conformity with the Charter" and many legal experts now describe the US-UK attack as an act of aggression, violating international law. Experts also point to illegalities in the US conduct of the war and violations of the Geneva Conventions by the US-UK of their responsibilities as an occupying power. The section also looks at wartime violations on the Iraqi side.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm
Even richard perle one of the architects of the war states it is illegal.
War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html

Quotes from Hitler:

Hitler’s speeches and proclamations, even more clearly, reveal his faith and feelings toward a Christianized Germany. Nazism presents an embarrassment to Christianity and demonstrates the danger of their faith So they try to pin him on other theistic views. The following words from Hitler show his disdain for atheism, and pagan cults, and reveal the strength of his Christian feelings:

“National Socialism is not a cult-movement-- a movement for worship; it is exclusively a ‘volkic’ political doctrine based upon racial principles. In its purpose there is no mystic cult, only the care and leadership of a people defined by a common blood-relationship... We will not allow mystically- minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else-- in any case something which has nothing to do with us. At the head of our programme there stand no secret surmisings but clear-cut perception and straightforward profession of belief. But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will-- not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord… Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed. Our humility is the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so far as they are known to us men.” -Adolf Hitler, in Nuremberg on 6 Sept.1938. [Christians have always accused Hitler of believing in pagan cult mythology. What is written here clearly expresses his stand against cults.]

“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” -Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933 [This statement clearly refutes modern Christians who claim Hitler as favoring atheism. Hitler wanted to form a society in which ALL people worshipped Jesus and considered any questioning of such to be heresy. The Holocaust was like a modern inquisition, killing all who did not accept Jesus. Though more Jews were killed then any other it should be noted that MANY ARYAN pagans and atheists were murdered for their non-belief in Christ.]

Here Hitler uses the Bible and his Christianity in order to attack the Jews and uphold his anti-Semitism:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
http://www.evilbible.com/hitler_was_christian.htm

Tiger - the legality of our invasion of Iraq is way too complicated for me to research thoroughly and come to an informed legal decision while we are still posting on this thread. But what international laws did Saddam adhere to? It's a pretty bizarre situation when someone like Saddam can seize control of a country for 30 years and violate every humanitarian law in the books, as well as 17 SC resolutions and yet you want to demonize the US for violating international law for invading to remove him. Saddam knew no laws. He flouted all laws. The only thing he relied on was sheer force to maintain his power. Man-made laws are merely our closest approximation to what is just. They are not the be all and end all of morality. Merely the closest approximation we flawed humans have come up with to date that has the capacity to move us beyond the laws of the jungle. That is why ethicists can talk about the notion of a principled violation of the law - like when Rosa Parks refused to sit in the back of the bus or when a drafted soldier refuses on humanitarian grounds to serve.

But while we are talking about the ethics of law - what Muslims understand is Sharia law. That is what they seek to impose on the world should they ever gain ultimate power. They reject the morality of secular, man-made law altogether. Why are you going on about international law in the first place while at the same time defending Muslims who champion Sharia law? And if it came about that Sharia became universal law - it would still be moral for us non-Muslims to oppose it and break that law. Why should dictators and tyrants be able to shield themselves behind international law on the grounds of "sovereignty", when they are otherwise violating within their own countries every moral principle that in spirit underlies the very spirit of "international law" as we know it?. What we call international law is something invented by western democracies as a way of trying to reduce tyranny. Now the whole thing has become something of a joke because we have tyrannical countries forming blocs in the UN to defend the interests of tyrannies - the Islamic bloc being one of the most influential. It is a complete joke to have countries like Sudan and Libya sitting on the Human Rights committee of the UN, which spends 3/4 of its time engaged only in condemning Israel. Again - international law is an imperfect attempt to prevent tyranny and it was created by western democracies. If despots seek cover under it, while violating those very international laws and also their essential humanitarian principles within their own countries under the cloak of "sovereignty" then I don't have a problem with us violating that international law (assuming that we even did)in response. Otherwise, one would wind up in a situation wherein the law-abiding would become subject to the whims of despots, who couldn't give a darn about consensually agreed upon laws and in fact would use those laws to advance their tyranny. Which pretty much describes the situation we now find ourselves in with regards to Islam, which is attempting to use our own enlightened laws against us, in order to advance the cause of tyranny.

In the end, people simply stand for and believe in different things. What Muslims call freedom (a world governed by Sharia law), I call tyranny. What I call freedom (our consensually created western laws, informed by Christian principles ultimately)- Muslims call tyranny!

In the end it all comes down to very central moral conceptions and we will fight for those fundamental principles irrespective of "body counts" and even when fighting for those principles violates the letter of the law, if those laws are deemed to be immoral on principle.

Where people are open to genuine dialogue, of course that is the preferred route to take. But not everyone is open to genuine dialogue. And a great many people are simply too ignorant or hell bent on personal power to dialogue with anyway. It's just the messy reality of this imperfect world we live in.

Tiger,

Islam is the only religion, at present, that commands its followers to kill unbelivers.

Since you have not disputed the above statement (as you have EVERYTHING else) I will assume that you agree whith it.

Tiger - regarding your Hitler quotes - if I take your quotes at face value (i.e. with no attempt to verify their historical veracity), can you cite anything that Jesus actually said or did as a precedent for Hitler's justification for his actions in claiming to walk in Jesus' footsteps? (Um - I mean besides Jesus turning over some tables at a Temple).

Caroline,
You are contradicting yourself. You state that we invaded to spread democracy and free people from tyranny yet "What Muslims call freedom (a world governed by Sharia law), I call tyranny. What I call freedom (our consensually created western laws, informed by Christian principles ultimately)- Muslims call tyranny!", so how are you going to bring freedom to people you state only believe in tyranny. How can that be? It doesn't seem possible? If it is not possible why did we invade in the first place.

Caroline,
If saddam was a tyrant and no regard for law. Why did we support him? Doesn't that make us just as guilty.

pretty foggy out tonight, eh tiger?

Davegreybeard,
that is not true, look at the bible

12 They entered into a covenant to seek the LORD, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul. 13 All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman.Chronicles 15

not looking at the Bible tiger, looking at the Koran:

8:12 “When thy Lord spake unto the angels, ‘I will be with you: therefore stablish ye the faithful. I will cast dread into the hearts of the infidels’ Strike off their heads then, and strike off from them every finger-tip.”

I am a simple man, but it seems pretty clear to me.

Davegreybeard,
I commented on the quran, why don't you comment on the bible, for you said islam is the only religion that tells muslims to kill non-believers.

Well the bible quote seems pretty straight forward.
Response to verse in quran.
This verse and the verses before and after were revealed about the Battle of Badr, which occurred in Arabia in the early seventh century. A battle in which the pagans of Makkah traveled more than 200 miles to Madinah with an army of about 1000 to destroy Muslims. Muhammad and fellow Muslims had suffered severe persecutions and torture for 13 years in the city of Makkah. And now that they had fled Makkah and found a sanctuary in the city of Madinah, they were once again threatened. Muslim Army was only about 300 strong. God Almighty gave the order to Muslims to fight to defend their lives and faith. The enemy came to them with the intent to kill Muslims. It was a war to defend themselves and their Faith. It was a war imposed upon Muslims.
008.061 But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards
peace, and trust in God: for He is One that hears and knows (all things).

Tiger: "You are contradicting yourself. You state that we invaded to spread democracy and free people from tyranny yet "What Muslims call freedom (a world governed by Sharia law), I call tyranny. What I call freedom (our consensually created western laws, informed by Christian principles ultimately)- Muslims call tyranny!", so how are you going to bring freedom to people you state only believe in tyranny. How can that be? It doesn't seem possible? If it is not possible why did we invade in the first place."

Tiger - for the reasons I already stated (some 17+ of them). But the main thing our leaders were ignorant about in all that sophisticated reasoning - was Islam! If you go back to my original post of the reasons you will see that I clearly stated that the main thing we overlooked in all of it was Islam! If our leaders had understood then what this site has been saying for years now - that is a mistake they would not have made. Obviously they STILL don't get it! How many times has this site (i.e. Spencer/Hugh) pointed that out? Personally - I knew nothing about Islam when we went into Iraq. I totally supported the invasion on sheer humanitarian grounds in combination with all the other complex reasons I stated earlier. It was the misunderstanding of Islam and what Muslims as a majority understand by "freedom" (namely the "freedom" to be ruled under God-given Sharia law, including all its implication for dhimmis), which accounts for the collosal failure of understanding on the part of westerners who supported this war in order to "free" the Iraqis. You're so hell-bent on the "no war for oil" meme that you can't see that we could have had noble ends in going into Iraq! You apparently cannot grasp that the west could misundertand the entire situation because they were totally ignorant about Islam. Presumably that is because you have a knee-jerk assumption that the west is bad and evil. The notion that we were simply collosally ignorant in assuming that everyone is the same and wants the same things and shares the same values that we do - actually doesn't seem to have occurred to you. It's part and parcel of your inability to look obectively at "motives", rather than merely at "body counts".

Here is another quote from the bible.

Explanation. It seems pretty clear to me.
13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Deuteronomy 13

Tiger,

You have not even begun to address my points in my initial response to you.

In attempting to address one of the off-topic points about Hitler, you cite Hitler's public statements, without citing other statements that were not made in public, as well as events that took place that are not mentioned in the article at the atheist website which you cite. Hitler like other politicians presented himself as a Christian to gain the acceptance from the public. He may have even fancied himself to be a Christian, but he departed so drastically from the New Testament, it cannot be said that he was implementing Christian policies.

I am familiar with the atheist website, BTW, and that is an interesting article. For one thing, it is useful to refute the claim that the Nazis were atheists. However, that article only addresses a small part of the issue. You have to take into account a wider array of evidence. You are also overlooking the most obvious: There is no order given in the Bible for Christians to wipe out the Jews.

Here is a scholarly source (Rutgers U) which backs up my claim (also included are some mainstream media articles about the findings):

Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/10/world/main323950.shtml
http://www-camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/nuremberg/nuremberg.htm
http://www.nationalreview.com/shiflett/shiflett012102.shtml
http://www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/nuremberg/nazimasterplan01.pdf

This shows that Hitler was intent on wiping out extant forms of Christianity to replace it with his "German Faith." You are also ignoring the evidence of the Christians in Germany who opposed the Nazis (some of that is cited in the above sources which I have provided).

I expect that you will ignore this evidence in the same way you have ignored all the other evidence which I have presented. I present it for other posters who may wish to see it.

Caroline,

But you are from this website and know about islam yet you support it? How can you reconcile that?

Our leaders perfectly knew what they were doing. Again it is about oil and establishing a permanent military base. How you ever heard a government official ever deny we will have a permanent base in Iraq. They talk about troop withdrawal but no one will clearly state there will be no permanent base in Iraq? Why because they plan staying there forever. Did you look at cheney's speech above regarding oil? The civil war occurring now is like in the Balkans, old scores to settle and who can gain the most power. THe shiites were oppressed by the sunni's and now they are in power and the sunni's resent it.

Incidentally, not that it should matter, but Tiger is sounding more and more like a bona fide Muslim, as opposed to either a Baptist raised Christian (del blew that hypothesis out of the water) or even an American leftist - with each successive post. I notice that he appears not to have understood at first that communists were atheists (although he has corrected that misunderstanding over time). But no real leftist would make the apparent assumption he did earlier that the 20th century body count, much of it due to atheist communism and those fighting it - could be laid at the feet of Christianity. Plus - he appears to argue as an "outsider" about Christianity, like someone who has read the typical Muslim script. Anyone actually raised a Christian would have clearly understood that the New Testament supercedes or abrogates the Old Testament in Christianity, and hence would not be citing the OT in defense of his claims. Plus, he knows more about Islam than most Christians would and he has also been defending Islam rather vociferously for an impartial observer.

I'll return to my original gut instinct - a second generation American Muslim (the syntax is typical of Muslims at times but polished enough to suggest someone raised in the west), but I'll add to that - most likely raised in a quite liberal, secular Muslim household. My theory is that now that Islam is coming under scrutiny and fire, he's rediscovering his Muslim roots. Like I said - it doesn't really matter either way in terms of the substance of his arguments but it's hard to resist playing the parlor game.:-)

it is debatable if hitler was an atheist, but I am talking about the german society which was christian based and the church supported it. Even the pope today was in a nazi youth party and why did the previous pope reconcile with the jews for the churches role in WWII.

I never said the bible commanded the germans to kill the jews. My argument though, is how can a christian based society commit the holocaust. Hitler was one person yet he needed soldiers. If christianity is peaceful, then a christian based society should not let it happen. The same goes for italy, for they are more religious in general than the germans at least that is my impression

Here are some other quotes to support that he might believe in god, again though I will say it is debatable.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm

Well lets look at the new testament. It doesn't appear that it wants to promote peace.

Matthew

10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword

10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Titus
1:10 "There are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped."
Jews are unruly liars "whose mouths must be stopped."
1:11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
1:12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

True most christians only use the new testament, but the old testament is still a part of chritianity history, so during that time of Israelites, how can you justify these passages. Why would god want to kill infants?

If you state that it was only relevant during that time, muslims can also say certain verses deal only with specific episodes during those times also.

Tiger - look at the statistics across all Muslim countries and you will see that they have committed what amounts to a "silent" holocaust against all infidels. Go ahead and look at the stats from just 200 years ago of infidels - Christians and Jews - living in Muslim dominated societies and look at the stats now. It's a holocaust. But Muslim societies NEVER acknowledge or question their crimes. Turks (once the heart of Christianity and now 99% Muslim with that last 1% vanishing quickly) have made it a crime to even talk about the Armenian genocide, while in contrast, the entire Christian world talks openly about the holocaust (even though Hitler had no Christian justification for doing what he did), and insists upon remembering it so that "never again".

If you have the heart of a liberal that you seem to profess then it is incumbent upon you to recognize the difference between societies who have indeed committed great crimes against their fellow man and who remind themselves against that fact ENDLESSLY - and societies who are in constant denial of the crimes they have committed against humanity and who refuse to even allow any exploration of those crimes, even as they are openly committing those very crimes NOW (e.g. Darfur).

If you are really a liberal Tiger - then it is incumbent upon you to come into the present. We are concerned about the PRESENT. And we are concerned about the foreseeable future based on current trends. Human beings have done despicable things throughout recorded human history but this isn't some blind pissing contest. The ONLY reason this site exists is because Muslims are doing these things NOW. If you have even a shred of intellectual honesty in you at all, you will grasp that fact for that is really the only reason that this site exists and is the only reason so many of us are posting here NOW.

NOW Tiger. NOW! Get it? This violence is going on NOW! And when Muslims cease being an actual threat in the present, we will all go back to going about our business. Something I can assure you we would all passionately wish for.

Tiger: "If you state that it was only relevant during that time, muslims can also say certain verses deal only with specific episodes during those times also."

You're a liar Tiger. The Koran is the eternal word of God relevant for all times and Muhammad is the perfect example to emulate. The peaceful New testament abrogates the more violent Old Testament for Christians whereas in contrast the more violent Medina verses abrogate the more peaceful Meccan verses for Muslims (based on the Sunnah, Muhammad's own example). Why are you intentionally spreading the most obvious lies about the fundamentals of these 2 different faiths?

Caroline,
I would have supported the invasion of iraq if it was simply to remove Saddam and then turn it over to the Iraqis for the iraqis are fairly well educated compared to other countries. Then I would have immediately left and let them govern themselves. Military occupations especially without the consent of the people ultimately fail. Look at the british in the 1920's in iraq they failed. But our motives are not that, it is for oil and using oil as leverage against the chinese and europe. Again if it was for human rights or weapons of mass destruction why did we not invade north korea.

Look at the gulf war I, we overnight turned Saddam into the hitler of the middle east yet he was not the hitler of the middle east when he gased the kurds. Well, we could care less about the kurds for it was already part of iraq, but once he gained control of kuwait, he gained more power in the oil supply. Incidently, Kuwait never really existed before the 20th century, for the sabah family conspired with the british so they carved out country for them.

Again all wars are essentially fought for resources and power and that is why we are in Iraq and not North Korea.

Caroline,
I would have supported the invasion of iraq if it was simply to remove Saddam and then turn it over to the Iraqis for the iraqis are fairly well educated compared to other countries. Then I would have immediately left and let them govern themselves. Military occupations especially without the consent of the people ultimately fail. Look at the british in the 1920's in iraq they failed. But our motives are not that, it is for oil and using oil as leverage against the chinese and europe. Again if it was for human rights or weapons of mass destruction why did we not invade north korea.

Look at the gulf war I, we overnight turned Saddam into the hitler of the middle east yet he was not the hitler of the middle east when he gased the kurds. Well, we could care less about the kurds for it was already part of iraq, but once he gained control of kuwait, he gained more power in the oil supply. Incidently, Kuwait never really existed before the 20th century, for the sabah family conspired with the british so they carved out country for them.

Again all wars are essentially fought for resources and power and that is why we are in Iraq and not North Korea.

Caroline,
I would have supported the invasion of iraq if it was simply to remove Saddam and then turn it over to the Iraqis for the iraqis are fairly well educated compared to other countries. Then I would have immediately left and let them govern themselves. Military occupations especially without the consent of the people ultimately fail. Look at the british in the 1920's in iraq they failed. But our motives are not that, it is for oil and using oil as leverage against the chinese and europe. Again if it was for human rights or weapons of mass destruction why did we not invade north korea.

Look at the gulf war I, we overnight turned Saddam into the hitler of the middle east yet he was not the hitler of the middle east when he gased the kurds. Well, we could care less about the kurds for it was already part of iraq, but once he gained control of kuwait, he gained more power in the oil supply. Incidently, Kuwait never really existed before the 20th century, for the sabah family conspired with the british so they carved out country for them.

Again all wars are essentially fought for resources and power and that is why we are in Iraq and not North Korea.

Caroline,
I would have supported the invasion of iraq if it was simply to remove Saddam and then turn it over to the Iraqis for the iraqis are fairly well educated compared to other countries. Then I would have immediately left and let them govern themselves. Military occupations especially without the consent of the people ultimately fail. Look at the british in the 1920's in iraq they failed. But our motives are not that, it is for oil and using oil as leverage against the chinese and europe. Again if it was for human rights or weapons of mass destruction why did we not invade north korea.

Look at the gulf war I, we overnight turned Saddam into the hitler of the middle east yet he was not the hitler of the middle east when he gased the kurds. Well, we could care less about the kurds for it was already part of iraq, but once he gained control of kuwait, he gained more power in the oil supply. Incidently, Kuwait never really existed before the 20th century, for the sabah family conspired with the british so they carved out country for them.

Again all wars are essentially fought for resources and power and that is why we are in Iraq and not North Korea.

Here is a numerical/alphabetic analogy to the technique of "tiger" on this thread:

1) "tiger" plunges in to this thread, and makes accusations A,B,C,D,E.

2) Khaybar Oasis and Caroline refute A,B,C,D,E with arguments backed up with evidence. The arguments backed up with evidence of Khaybar Oasis and Caroline may be represented by

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9.

3) "tiger" responds to 2,3 and 8, without responding to any of the evidence, and also by introducing extraneous, irrelevant new stuff -- F,F,G,H,I,J,K.

4) Khaybar Oasis and Caroline refute F,F,G,H,I,J,K, and also remind "tiger" that he has not dealt substantively with their refutations of A,B,C,D,E and also take him to task for having introduced irrelevant extraneous points.

5) "tiger" responds by introducing more extraneous irrelevant points, as well as permutations on his previous extraneous irrelevant points -- either out of his confused diseased Leftist mind or out of an attempt to tactically muddy the waters or some incoherent mixture of the two, but, of course, fails to address any of the substantive refutations and responses provided by the posts of Khaybar Oasis and Caroline.

6) Same old shit from "tiger".

7) Same old shit from "tiger".

8) Same old shit from "tiger".

9) Same old shit from "tiger".

10) Same old shit from "tiger".

11) Same old shit from "tiger".

12) Etc. ad nauseam, ad infinitum.

Caroline,

you failed to answer my question. True the new testament negates the old testament yet one reading these passages and looking back at history, one would conclude christianity was fairly barbaric and intolerant during that time. Why is that? Did god allow the killings of infants?
With regards to the quran, the quran relates stories about battles, beliefs, history. Certain verses explains battles and what happened. If the muslim were commanded to kill the christians and jews, how come the jews fled from the christians to islamic spain and didn't the muslims slaughter them then? How come one of the oldest monastaries in the world exists in Sinai, for I am sure they would have destroyed it by now? How come jews worked in the upper levels in the government during Islamic history?
How come the richest person in egypt is christian, Naguid Sawares? How come saddam's vice president was christian? How come one of the guardians at a synagogue in iraq is moslem?

Have muslims killed non-muslims for religious purposes of course, just like the Serbs did? The vast majority of muslims are illiterate, poor, and peaceful. Most muslims do not even own guns like we do. Are muslims better than nonmuslims of course not. I simply judge a person by their actions not beliefs. Sure there are muslim terrorist but guess who trained the head honcho into a mass murderer, cia. Guess who supported the afghan rebels who used to throw acid into women's eyes, the CIA. We used to call them freedom fighters. Guess who gave a visa to the taliban to go to Unocal in houston, we did. Here are the links.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3401-2001Nov22?language=printer
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FE18Aa03.html

Reading all this makes me strive to expose lies, injustice, tyranny, oppression for any race, religion, creed, and believe in that deep down all human beings are good. It is their ignorance at times along with their leaders who corrupt them. I am not against christianity, judaism, islam, buddhism, hinduism, etc. nor do I promote one over the over. I simply like to be fair and just. I myself do not subscribe to any religion although I have read extensively about all religions.

sorry I haven't responded to Khaybar Oasis I just do not have time but also, he fails to explain the meaning of these verses even though they are not relevant now, they were in the past. He simply brushes it off saying it is irrelevant because christians do not practice it now but it is part of christianity and again it was relevant at a certain time. Does it mean during those times god allows the killing of infants?

remote_control,
If you get your highs from your comments, more power to you. Caroline first said it was legal the war, then she said it was too complicated to get in once I showed her articles, sounds like a win for caroline.

Caroline,

You state there is a silent genocide going on, now show me numbers on non-christians killed now in a systematic and deliberate way as we speak. You talk about the armenian genocide, of course it happened and it is despicable just like the genocide in the balkans, which for some reason was fairly recent. Interestingly also is that Israel refuses to recognize the armenian genocide. Why is that?
Read
http://www.anca.org/action_alerts/actionalerts.php?aaid=23
http://english.people.com.cn/english/200005/04/eng20000504_40179.html

Tiger: "I never said the bible commanded the germans to kill the jews. My argument though, is how can a christian based society commit the holocaust. Hitler was one person yet he needed soldiers. If christianity is peaceful, then a christian based society should not let it happen. The same goes for italy, for they are more religious in general than the germans at least that is my impression"

Tiger - for once, I agree with you. You have phrased your argument much more succintly and I think you are now raising a totally factual and legitimate question. I can't say I know the answer to that, only that European society may have been morally destroyed by that generation. They certainly appear to be committing suicide now. I would merely point out that you would have to be blind as an objective observer not to be able to appreciate the difference between a western Christian society who cannot forgive themselves for that sin (and who appear to be committing suicide in guilt over it), in comparison to a Muslim society (e.g.Turkey) who legally forbids any honest discussion of their own holocausts. Many of them actually - for Turkey to be 99% Muslim now when that was the heart of Christianity? - but I'm only talking about the prohibition against merely discussing the most recent genocide - that of the Armenians. And the complete silence from Muslims about the ongoing genocide in Darfur as we speak is literally deafening.

Like I said earlier - this is not a pissing contest. The western world would consider it a great step forward if Muslims could be allowed to speak openly about their crimes against humanity the way westerners do. But if this double-standard is maintained (and mind you - it's a double-standard you are colluding with) then there is little possibility for all human beings to come together on the same page in the foreseeable future. If an entire society cannot openly discuss their crimes and instead remain in stubborn denial of those crimes (and if all sorts of apologists in the west enable them in that avoidance), then things aren't going to change on the part of those who are able to avoid any honest acknowledgement of their historical crimes. But factually that's where we stand in the present. But so why are you personally aiding in that denial? Do you not realize that westerners have raked themselves over the coals in their introspection? And that that introspection has fundamentally transformed western society? But we have done our work. We are waiting for Muslims to do their work. And some of us are hard-pressed to see how Muslims are going to actually step up to the plate on that score unless bluntly forced to do so from the outside, by means of uncompromising and sometimes brutal criticism, since they seem to show very little propensity to do so on their own.

I will though respond to Khaybar Oasis

Caroline,
I agree with you. There are many human rights organizations in egypt where I have studied who condemn religious violence, support free press, free thinking, protest the martial law since 1980 when Sadat died. There are professors who left the country because they said they want to reinterpret the quran based on 20th century thinking. One professor called abu zeid left the country with his wife to holland. The problem is the government imprisons anyone that attempts to challenge their rule or legitamcy. Thus, people are afraid to speak out. It is illegal to demonstrate in egypt because of martial law. The common person essentially stays home. The ones that come here refrain from speaking out because they brought up that way. Most come here simply to work, make money, send it back home sort of like the mexicans. They keep a low profile. Now they are starting to realize that this is not working.
There is a saudi dissident living in london who I think has his own radio station criticizing the saudi government so the saudis are pressuring the british gov to expel him. The british government agency was investigating bribery to the saudi royal family from a british arms dealer. they were getting too close so the saudis said that an upcoming deal if the investigation continues will be off and we will buy from the french. What did blair, he called off the investigation in the name of national security.

There are political prisoners who have been tortured and imprisoned for many years. This state of constant oppression and poverty ultimately leads to radicalization with the religious extremist coming in to try to help the oppressed. In the middle east you can never write a letter to the editor criticizing the ruler. The clerics themselves are in bed with the government for the government can always claim support from them and have them rationalize anything to make it agree with islam.

Caroline,
I agree with you. There are many human rights organizations in egypt where I have studied who condemn religious violence, support free press, free thinking, protest the martial law since 1980 when Sadat died. There are professors who left the country because they said they want to reinterpret the quran based on 20th century thinking. One professor called abu zeid left the country with his wife to holland. The problem is the government imprisons anyone that attempts to challenge their rule or legitamcy. Thus, people are afraid to speak out. It is illegal to demonstrate in egypt because of martial law. The common person essentially stays home. The ones that come here refrain from speaking out because they brought up that way. Most come here simply to work, make money, send it back home sort of like the mexicans. They keep a low profile. Now they are starting to realize that this is not working.
There is a saudi dissident living in london who I think has his own radio station criticizing the saudi government so the saudis are pressuring the british gov to expel him. The british government agency was investigating bribery to the saudi royal family from a british arms dealer. they were getting too close so the saudis said that an upcoming deal if the investigation continues will be off and we will buy from the french. What did blair, he called off the investigation in the name of national security.

There are political prisoners who have been tortured and imprisoned for many years. This state of constant oppression and poverty ultimately leads to radicalization with the religious extremist coming in to try to help the oppressed. In the middle east you can never write a letter to the editor criticizing the ruler. The clerics themselves are in bed with the government for the government can always claim support from them and have them rationalize anything to make it agree with islam.

Tiger: "You state there is a silent genocide going on, now show me numbers on non-christians killed now in a systematic and deliberate way as we speak"

You are an idiot Tiger. You appear not to understand that totalitarian societies do not keep up to date accounts of their crimes against humanity. In fact, they rewrite history. And that goes for your "myth of the peaceful, beautiful Muslim society in which all the dhimmis had a grand old time".

As to the actual stats - do your own work. I doubt you will because totalitarians are not interested in honestly investigating their own crimes aganst humanity. That's why you have western societies (Jews and Christians) who understand the concept of guilt (enough to commit suicide over it), meticulously documenting their crimes against humanity, which totalitarians like you then conveniently use against them, while denying your own crimes.

"Oh no!", Tiger says. "Whatsoever are you talking about? Turkey was originally the heart of Orthodox Christianity and now its 99% Muslim? Well obviously that's because Islam is such a beautiful religion that every Christian and Jew converted to Islam voluntarily! Oh no. We don't keep statistics on that sort of thing because anyone can see that Islam is so wonderful and beautiful and so why would we bother to document such a thing?"

You know - Tiger - I really tried here. But I should have listened to what remote said way way back. It's like hitting a brick wall. I tried politely to get you to see that you are ommitting historical AND moral context entirely out of your "20th century 'Christian' body calculus" but it's also apparent that you don't seem to have any fundamental grasp of how totalitarian societies work, in terms of "information control", while meanwhile democratic societies lay it all out there on the line, so that they can objectively examine it all, and take responsibility for it, and so hopefully change it. Muslims - like you - are, for whatever reason, constitutionally incapable of doing that. Frankly, that inability makes you dangerous NOW. IN THE PRESENT. (I already explained that this wasn't a pissing contest and that all we are legitimately concerned about is the present). You are indeed right that we made a major mistake in going into Iraq. But not for the reasons you suppose (and my attempt to explain all that also appears to have fallen upon deaf ears). But in any case, Muslims blew it BIG TIME there. And I'll bet you don't even understand what I am talking about.

Caroline,

Regarding suicide bombers, it is not an islamic phenomenom for the tamil tigers in sri lanka have been doing it for years and continue to do it. Even christians in southern lebanon during the israeli occupation did it, documented by a study from the univ of chicago.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/terrorwar/analysis/2005/0718suicide.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/30/schuster.column/index.html

Caroline,

Regarding suicide bombers, it is not an islamic phenomenom for the tamil tigers in sri lanka have been doing it for years and continue to do it. Even christians in southern lebanon during the israeli occupation did it, documented by a study from the univ of chicago.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/terrorwar/analysis/2005/0718suicide.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/30/schuster.column/index.html

tiger,

I've stopped reading your posts before the last approximately 5.

If you want me to read your posts, you must answer -- completely, sincerely, and substantively with evidence -- ALL of Khaybar Oasis's challenges. ALL OF KHAYBAR OASIS'S CHALLENGES. EVERY LAST ONE.

Headline your next post:

REMOTE CONTROL: HERE IS MY POST ANSWERING ALL OF KHAYBAR OASIS'S CHALLENGES ABOVE

Well Tiger - quite a story. So explain to me why you are so hostile to us having tried to overthrow Saddam? It's pretty obvious that overthrowing Saddam has enabled the Islmists to come to power democratically, which has created an even more dire situation for Muslim liberals. (In fact, since we overthrew Saddam, most of the intellectuals in Baghdad have either been killed or fled - due to Iraqis freed from our support of the dictator Saddam!.) And also, given the climate of fear for moderate Muslims in Egypt that you describe - why did you argue with Khaybar Oasis earlier about the facts on the ground in terms of the threat to apostates?

On the one hand, you seem to want to blame the lack of liberals in the ME on us for supporting dictators. But on the other hand, we removed a dictator and things are even worse in Iraq for the liberals since then. I know that you'll claim that if the US had only provided enough security, there were plenty of liberal Iraqis that would have taken over. Well - it appears not. Cause we would have had to use a really HUGE amount of violence to bring that about.

Tiger - you're just in denial all around - about Islam, about the relative number of actual western-type liberals in the ME ( a common mistake apparently among Muslims who have spent a large amount of time in the west), about the west's responsibility for why the ME is the way it is, about the Muslim world's historical crimes - all of it. It's never the fault of the Muslim world. None of it. You seem to know a lot about Egypt, however. That's probably where your parents come from. So I presume you're somewhat familiar with the old line - Denial ain't a river in Egypt!

tiger,

you sabe "at present" as in:

Islam is the only religion, AT PRESENT, that commands its followers to kill unbelievers. As in:

47:4 “When ye encounter the infidels, strike off their heads till ye have made a great slaughter among them, and of the rest make fast the fetters.”

By the way, just what was Muhammad and his band of cutthroats DOING Badr? Plotting to commit a little armed robbery and murder on an unarmed caravan maybe?

As I said, I am just a simple man wishing to spread the word of Muhammad among the bikers down at the bar – want to get it right you know.

Your response to my previous post was "that is not true, look at the bible" So is "That is not true..." Your most eloquent response to this?

that is not true, look at the bible

Caroline,

It may be useful to remember that tiger is not writing in-good-faith.

Any expectation of a reasonable discussion with him is mistaken.

However, there may be some use in interacting with him such as:

1)as a way to think through a subject for your own edification

2)to use him as a foil if you are looking to communicate with others

3)if you find his pathology fascinating.

Others can probably provide additional useful reasons, but keep your expectations very low when dealing with this sort of creature.

I'm just an anonymous nobody on the internet. Nevertheless, I have been happy to read your various comments on this thread. Thanks!

regarding apostacy here is a reply from a friend of mine.
It is absurd for anyone to suggest that Islam advocates killing people who choose to leave Islam. To kill anyone who chooses to follow a religion other than Islam is against the fundamental teachings of the Qur'an. Freedom of conscience is a fundamental principle of the Qur'an that is clearly stated. Thus, if apostates cause no harm to the Muslim community and do not call for spreading hostility towards Islam, they should not to be punished; rather they should be advised kindly and wisely to learn the truth about Islam.

In his response to your question, Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, states the following:

Freedom of conscience is one of the fundamental rights of humans enshrined in the Qur'an; it is therefore, absurd for anyone to suggest that