"Dear Sir if u repeat a lie enough times you actually start to fool the masses"

"Dear Sir if u repeat a lie enough times you actually start to fool the masses"

Yes, dear sender, please check this out.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

No religion other than islam calls for its followers to saw off the heads of animals. Did you do yours today ?

Sounds like 'defender of Islam'- otherwise known as 'Paul C. Hoff'-

The answer is:

We are post enlightenment and Islam is a genocidal cult of lunatics and assassins.

Islam has to go or it will be gone.

How are we from declaring Islam a criminal organization?

With sa money going round and the Chicom support, never.

Is spellchecking haram in Islam?

Islam-the brainwashed cult of death merchants....Islam is for losers...Time to stike back, start with Banning Muslim Immigration...The Muslims have clearly demonstrated they want to kill all Non MUslims (and quite a few regular Muslims)...It is time we take the fight to them....Active profiling at all transportation facilites and financial institutions....time for active covert/undercover activities...time for infiltration of the upper levels of Islamic leadership...time for increased surveillance at all levels where ever Muslims are found...No more Muslim prisoner releases...mandatory deportations of Muslims convicted of any crime (the Muslim and his family must go)....Neighborhood watch programs must be activated as if a "declared war" had taken place...a ban on the burka and niqab and veil must be mandatory....Mosques must be monitored...a ban on travel visas and student visas from all Muslim countries must be enacted...attacks by Muslims upon anyone should be harshly dealt with...a close monitoring of Muslim internet chat rooms and blogs should be taking place...all Muslim money frozen in banks should remain so...no more foreign aid to Muslim countries (no more jiyzah)..not one more dime...Muslim protests (which tend to be violent) should be harshly dealt with...all participants should be deported immediately....no more installing of Muslim facilities such as foot baths, toilets being arranged to accommodate Muslims, no more special prayer areas, no more separate swimming areas, no more special time off for prayer during work hours, no more hiring of Muslims who refuse to accommodate the customers (taxi drivers, store clerks, doctors), deport Muslim Criminals and their families, ban Muslim Immigration, profile Muslims, save your life, save your country...Islam is for losers...you do not want these people in your neighborhood...and beware of the Islamo Nazis....time to say NO MORE....

....Mosques must be monitored...

I would go a step further and ban mosques and dismantle them. Remove all traces of this violent religion from our soil.

"Dear Sir if u repeat a lie enough times you actually start to fool the masses. the fact is that islam has enlightened the world and made it a much better place."

....this does look like the oddball "defenderofislam"..of course, it would be more correct to say" if you constantly tell the truth about Islam, you will greatly improve the understanding the masses will have in dealing and coping with the Islamic onslaught sometimes referred to as 'Jihad"...In fact, Islams violent activities have enlightened the world in regards to Muslim intentions and have made the world more aware that they must fight to the death if they are to survive....

Islam is for losers...they prove it everyday...

Is spellchecking haram in Islam?
Posted by: watling

Thanks for the morning smile, watling !

Watling, me too. You made my day!!

"the fact is that islam has enlightened the world and made it a much better place."

Is this the lie he's talking about?

"Dear Sir if u repeat a lie enough times you actually start to fool the masses"

Thats what Mo did and what Musllims do to Western Dhimmis today

Islam's history is no less violent than that of the West.

All totalitarian moonbats think alike: Buy our program and know peace.

In this way Islamo-nazism is the same as Bolshevism and fascism before it.

Islam's history is no less violent than that of the West.

All totalitarian moonbats think alike: Buy our program and know peace.

In this way Islamo-nazism is the same as Bolshevism and fascism before it.

"Dear Sir if u repeat a lie enough times you actually start to fool the masses"

How come it hasn't worked yet with Islam? You're barely one fifth of the world's population! The lie of Islam has yet to fool the masses.

One in five, most of whom are Muslim only because of the circumstances of their birth, is not the masses.

Many are Muslims because their ancestors had Islam forced on them by Arab conquerors. Islam hasn't fooled the masses. Many are just trapped. Give them a choice and see how many "Muslims" leave the "revelation" of Muhammad behind.

If Muslims are so superior how come none of them can spell worth a shi'ite?

If western governments had "caused more wars and killing then anyone else, they ave enslaves, occupied and pilaged, they have spread imorality throughout the globe" to the extent this author believes then there would never have been any such thing as an Arab oil embargo. Oil prices could not have quadrupled in the 1970s and Saudis, for one, would be living as they did at the turn of the 20th century. We never would have had to invade Iraq. The Cold War might have been even shorter since the Soviet Union would have had fewer allies. Israel would be better off than it is today because it would be surrounded by countries kept in line by western troops "pillaging". Those countries might not even exist. It would be one huge area of tribes, fighting one another over Islam. Western governments would have had their troops in the Middle East guarding the oil while Western oil companies pumped it out of the ground and then took it home as "booty". The term "oil sheikh" would never have been coined.

Yet another Muslim who must have been looking in a mirror as he wrote his e-mail.

"Dear Sir if u repeat a lie enough times you actually start to fool the masses"

Well, we know where he got that from:
Goebbels!

"fact is that islam has enlightened the world and made it a much better place"

Yes we see evidence of this every day :)

Delusional or just another insecure Muslim male scared stiff that his current girlfriend/wife may think that his willy is too small and his bed skills woeful.

If you look at a lot of Islam, it is definitely about male sexual inadequacy and as there is so much of it in the Koran.

It is hard to believe the standard Muslim line about Muhammad servicing all of his wives every night. The fact that Aisha probably had a lover while he was still alive is more an indication that even young firm flesh could not rekindle the warlord's lost potency and he was just another dirty old man hoping that a young body would resurrect him. No wonder Muslim males stick to his creed like limpets.

As for the islamic "rape" rules they were put there to allow Muslim males access without sin to women they would have no chance of reaching any other way.

Where are the femnists when you need them or when women all over the world have dire need of them?

I feel a stomach-turning sense of disgust upon seeing Muslims, in pictures or on the streets of our cities, in their stone-age costumes. The women all covered up like chattel, walking behind the scummy male. The revolting male, with his dirty unkempt beard, filthy rag wrapped tightly around his dirty hair, and his evil beady angry eyes. Why do we allow these medieval throwbacks in our societies?! I'm sick of them!

Actually Islam has been waging war versus the infidel for near 1400 years. The only breaks have occurred during regrouping or after massive defeat but they have never really stopped and they have no intention of doing so. Because they have 2 fronts( or 5 columns) now the west is in the most peril it has been for some 200 yrs

Compare the constant attempts at the extension of Dar al islam to the limited campaign aims of even the 100 year war.

The poor brainwashed fool has no idea but while it is a reason, it is no excuse for any of their behaviour.

Stalin said the same thing, and he practiced what he preached. 'Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth' (or something like that)

I have done some reading on the comparisons of islam and communism, and some think that Bush is not totally correct. But, when I read the articles it seems to me that the ones writing them don't really know islam. So, you can all come to your own conclusion - do some web searches on 'islam communism compare' to name one search I did.

Even though communism is without a god, and islam is the opposite, I think that they have quite a number of similarities.

-intolerant
-violent
-decreases individual motivation
-society goes on a decline
-rulers are hostile to others and their own
-men recruited into military/jihad and have no problem inflicting harm on their own citizenry and others
-one does everything for a god (allah), the other does everything for a man
-each infiltrates the democrat societies and are able to move within and convert followers and use the democrat societies laws against the host nation.

There are differences, of course, especially in how individuals behave.

I forgot another comparison:
- each wants the world under its control while they offer nothing to the people it wants to control. One offers an intolerant god, the other offers an intolerant man.

"the fact is that islam has enlightened the world and made it a much better place"

The fact is that you have apparently heard that lie enough that you have been fooled also.

Read this several times please and maybe we can start debriefing you from being fooled.

Islam noted as the "religion of peace" is a complete myth.

Islam noted as the "religion of peace" is a complete myth.

Islam noted as the "religion of peace" is a complete myth.

Islam noted as the "religion of peace" is a complete myth.

"moses was the first person commanded to kill people for adultury"

I don't remember this part...does anyone else?

Moses brought down the 10 Commandments from the mountain, 1 of which stated "Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Wife." That is TOTALLY not what the commenter posted above.

Not only does this schmuck not know his own religion, but also fails to get anyone else's.

Why am I NOT surprised?

BTW, thanks watling & Timur for the laughs!

Is there something about Islam that causes evolution to work backwards?

Oh, forgot to mention the First of the 10 Commandments: "Thou Shalt NOT Kill."

I think Fanusi Khiyal is right...this is Devolution, not Evolution.

Miss_Anthrope - and anyone else who thinks like this - please read the following:

Deuteronomy 20:10

"And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death"

This is from the King James.
Let's see what else is in there, yes?

Death for blasphemy (Leviticus: 13 - 23), for disobeying priests (Leviticus: 12 - 13), disobeying your parents (Deuteronomy 21:20-21) - a forerunner of honour killings, hmmm? - for sorcery, for dishonouring the Sabbath... And so on.

I bring this up for a reason. According to Islam, Christians and Jews have defiled the original revelation and turned away from the law of the Old Testament prophets. THis is true. What isn't said enough is that the Law of the Old Testament is unspeakable barbarity. Muhammed was like Moses, a servant of the blood-god Yahweh who annihilates cities and spurs his followers on to genocide.

Believe me, if I can see it, the jihadists can. This is why I do not think that putting our confidence in Christianity as a counterblast to Islam is going to work.

Islam is its own biggest lie. It teaches deceit, attack, enslavement, child abuse, women abuse, and institutionalized idiocy. The "religion of peace" is an Islamic oxymoron. Critics are slain. Islam itself is Islam's greatest enemy. It needs to press the self-destruct button, or reform into a personal-religion of peaceful truths. Political-Islam is a lying, cheating, violent, self-hating, corrupt, women hating, truth hating, freedom hating, mind numbing, and God hating, devil obsessed religious cult. This oxymoronic Islam must be stopped.

Muslims who challenge our freedoms and preach their cultish Sharia fetishism are suitable for export.

@Fanusi Khiyal

I've said it here a hundred times, and I'll say it again: Islam is Judaism for retards.

You want human progress?
You want to progress past the pharasaic spirit of hypocriscy and damnation?

Then you must find your way to Jesus.

This is why I do not think that putting our confidence in Christianity as a counterblast to Islam is going to work.
--from poster above

It was precisely to be the "counterblst" that Jesus Christ came into the world.

If there is ONE bright side to the Jihad menace, it is the inevitable strengthening of the Body of Christ. Christ gave his life in this battle and every Christian should be prepared to do the same if necessary.

Well, these Islamists sound truthful enough to me. When Islamists are candid, we learn the most about our enemies:

Banned by PBS - Muslims Against Jihad

A quote at around minute 8 is not to be missed.

"moses was the first person commanded to kill people for adultery but does that make him a terrorist/women beater?"

Yet another bible illiterate. It's actually amusing - the sheer level of ignorance.

The prohibition against adultery did not begin with Moses -- it is a Noahide prohibition (established during the time of Noah). Virtually every civilization known to man has had laws regarding adultery, incest, murder, and so on. And in days past, the punishment for those found guilty of such crimes has been death.

In theory -- there was a death penalty for "adultery" (the meaning of "adultery" in biblical days differs from our modern-day understanding of the term). But, you will also discover that the penalty was rarely, if ever, carried out. The Rabbis of old put in provisions so as to ensure that the penalty would be difficult, if not impossible, to carry out.

Contrary to the above poster -- who seemingly wishes to have things both ways -- that is, for those who don't enact a death penalty for "adultery", then it's "defiling" or somehow a "failure" yet, of course, if it's enacted then, it's "unspeakable barbarity."

Robert Spencer in one of his texts, btw, deals with a story from the barbarous Koran -- Jews plead the case for saving an adulterous couple, what does Mo do? Well, of course, the barbarian Mo has the couple stoned to death. That's the difference between Judaism and Islam. Now it's up to you to figure out which religion is cruel, unforgiving and barbarous, and which teaches, instructs its adherents to act with kindness, generosity, and charity (while maintaining a level of justice).

J.S.
Thanks for clearing that up.

Also, we can't just rely on the "my religion is better than yours" argument.

That would exclude too many possible allies in this conflict.

It seems to me that we have to prove, and keep providing evidence that islam is evil. (Not too hard really - they do a great job of it themselves on a daily basis.)

Collect the info and spread it around. Post it on whatever MSM 'blogs you can find, tell your friends, tell your friends to tell their friends.

Keep the information flowing just like when someone emails you a joke and you end up getting it ten times. Use the 'net in this war.

Death Penalty
The Death Penalty and Jewish Values

From The Religious Action Centerremote website

Biblical law mandates the death penalty for 36 offenses. These range from murder to kidnapping, from adultery and incest to certain forms of rape, idolatrous worship and public incitement to apostasy, from disrespecting parents to desecrating the Sabbath. The Reform Movement, however, has followed rabbinic interpretations that effectively abolished the death penalty centuries ago. Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5 stresses the importance of presenting completely accurate testimony in capital cases, for any mistakes or falsehoods could result in the shedding of innocent blood. If any perjury were to cause an execution, "the blood of the accused and his unborn offspring stain the perjurer forever." The passage goes on to liken wrongful executions to Cain killing Abel, concluding that - it is for this reason that God created only one human in the beginning, a token that he who destroys one life, it is as though he had destroyed all humankind; whereas he who preserves one life, it is as though he preserved all humanity."

In another passage, the rabbis show distaste for executions. "Said one: The Sanhedrin (supreme court) that puts to death one person in seven years is termed tyrannical. Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, One person in seventy years. Rabbi Tarffon and Rabbi Akiba say, if we had been in the Sanhedrin, no one would have ever been put to death. Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel says, they would have thereby increased the shedders of blood in Israel (Mishnah Makkot 1:10)." While the last line indicates a belief that the death penalty, if carried out judiciously, can be a deterrent, prevailing Jewish thought in every movement has followed the previous opinions, which either oppose the death penalty outright, or allow for it only in the most extreme -- once in seventy years -- circumstances. Following this line of thinking, the major Jewish movements in the United States all have specific policy supporting either abolition of the death penalty, or a moratorium on its use.

http://www.socialaction.com/issues/freedom_violence/death_penalty.shtml

I just find it amusing that the OT, none of which beyond the 10 Commandments has been followed for millenia, is all you can use as rationale for OUR failings.

Again, I state: Islam continues to SANCTION rules Christianity shed CENTURIES AGO.

That is my sole argument.

(FYI: I'm not even religious. You mistake MY perspective entirely.)

There is no reason to compare religions. Concentrate only on what Islam is.

School officials, the Press, etc. freely attack any religion that is not Islam. Today, for example, a report that a harmless chastity ring is not being allowed to be worn by a Christian girl, but the same school bends over backwards to allow Muslims whatever they wish to wear.

Islam is the "bogeyman cult": it frightens and intimidates millions, silently. It's even more important to the dhimmis amongst us to never admit that they are actually reacting out of fear of Islam, because that, of course, would be admitting there is a problem and that would lead to what they fear more than Islam itself -- political incorrectness.

God forbid anyone stand up for what's right.

(But have no fear, I'll continue to take care of that battle.)

"Dear Sir if u repeat a lie enough times you actually start to fool the masses. the fact is that islam has enlightened the world and made it a much better place."

Islam has proven your point many times. It has been telling people that evil is good and good is evil for so long that millions of Muslims now live that giant lie. Now you just added that darkness is enlightment and enlightment is darkness. The truth is that the world was a more enlightened place before Islam than after. Islam arrested mans forward march into a better more enlightened future, and started the backward march for millions into a distant and primitive past. Tragically, the march continues continues even today. And it is all based on the repitition of lies.

For the love of whatever, some of these posts are missing the obvious.

Yes, death penalties for adultery predate Moses. This is why we have progress. Why humanity is slowly and painfully, across the millenia, clawing its way upwards, away from its evolutionary past of blood-soaked frenzy.

Ynkedoodl2, great. In the first place, you have not addressed my comments about how the Jihadists will argue, as they do, that you are failing to uphold the law of Jesus, Moses and so on. In the second place, you are ignoring that the reason Christianity is so damn weak is that it is too dangerous to keep it any other way.

"Through the Hedgerows cover
I saw brother killing brother
And all this was done in the name of Christ".

That's poem about the Thirty Years war, where Protestants and Catholics waged a war as fierce and terrible as that between Sunni and Shia. Then there were the wars against the Arians, the Carthars, and so on, and so on.

>>You want human progress?
You want to progress past the pharasaic spirit of hypocriscy and damnation?

Then you must find your way to Jesus.

"none of which beyond the 10 Commandments has been followed for millenia..." Ahem...you're ignoring/forgetting Orthodox Jewry (?!) (they still follow the Hebrew scriptures' requirements -- even today -- although some laws/requirements cannot be followed, because there is no Temple.)

(and, yes, Ynkedoodle, that's also the reason why there's no death penalty in Israel...there's been but one execution -- for Eichmann.)

Fanusi Khiyal writes:
"I bring this up for a reason. According to Islam, Christians and Jews have defiled the original revelation and turned away from the law of the Old Testament prophets. THis is true."

The written Torah (that's roughly "Old Testament"
to you) also has an oral component. You just
don't read the Torah as though it's the instructions for assembling a computer.

You may not like that aspect of the Jewish religion, but that's your explanation, on one foot.

At least IMO (I'm Jewish, hence, obviously biased)
you can look at the amount of violence and
intolerance, scaled by population size, integrated
over the time of existence of the religion, and say that Jews are overall far less violently
intolerant of other faiths than Muslims are. So
using the "judge the tree by its fruit" criteria
I believe that you are missing something
important, Fanusi.

root_cause, who in their right mind would deny this? Did I say anything different?

But there is no denying that if you take the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy and apply them, you will end up with something that isn't too different from the Taliban. Those books are hideous.

The Jewish People, to their immense credit, don't actually follow that guff. That doesn't mean - and readers of this site should recognise this argument - that it isn't _there_.

Could you please deal with the actual points raised?

Fanusi Khiyal,

Look -- for the nth time -- Jews follow the laws of the Torah (that's the first five books of the bible). Got that? You would have to be extraordinarily ignorant to claim that Jews don't actually follow "that guff."

Well, no, they don't. According to trusty Wikipedia, the first five books of the bible are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Correct?

Now, are jews killing their children for disobeying? For leaving the faith? For blaspheming? Of course not. Hence, they are not following that guff. And a damn good thing too.

"trusty Wikipedia"?

LOL.

Every religion has gotten over the call to violence for the faith but Islam.

Arguing over the evils of the past is not going to save our future.

At present, Islam is the sole dogmatically violent faith.

And that needs to be criticized and opposed.

Until Islam reforms its sanctification of "holy" terrorism out of the Koran.

Or fails to, and goes the way of the Aztecs.

What you consider the "laws" of the Torah may not be what the Rabbis consider the "laws." The Talmud (for example) does not specify what the laws are -- it does note that there are 613. Later Jewish (medieval) scholars enumerated what the laws are. There has been constant commentary, progressive thought, and development while simultaneously following Torah principles. For example, there is a prohibition against judges discriminating against a poor person (Exodus 23:6). The Rabbis (of old) decided that this precept should extend even to those people who are "sinners" (or people poor in terms of morals) and that even "sinners" should not be discriminated against by a judge in a courtroom.

That's just one example...(there are a zillion others).

How many times have I said it: Equivalence-seeking is a disease.

Islam is the Enemy.

Period.

If you tell a lie often enough, it become's the truth. But subject matter and the identity of the liar make the difference of credibility. In other word's who is lying and what are they lying about?
Politician's lie all the time, they try hard to make their lie's appear as the truth, as in the 'Amnesty', legislation being re-considered.
This is not unusual and should be considered a 'given' when listening to Islam, or politician's.(Same thing).
Word trickery, word magick is their forte. It is a mistake to believe any of them at face value.

Also Foehammer is right with this:There is no reason to compare religions. Concentrate only on what Islam is.

We do not have a war between Christianity and Islam, and all these constant comparison's blurr the reality of what is really happening. Muslim's know this, which is why it is usually they who bring up these comparison's. They have no other way of defending the insanity of Islam, unless they can somehow prove a moral one-upsmanship somewhere in scripture.
This is all beating a dead horse. There is no real point to it. Islam, which is actually NOT a religion, can only make spurious, and stupidly motivated comaparison's, of religion's that really are religion's. Most of those deserve no reply...

Fanusi Khiyal, I'm with you on this (I think!).

As far as I can tell, any religion is just a collection of superstitious ideas loosely based on ancient history and fairy stories - some of them violent. There may be reams of "religious" texts associated with a religion, claiming to be the word of some mythical entity commonly known as God, but in reality they were written by mortal humans based on human thoughts.

Why does a benevolent God permit such horrendous pain and suffering in the world?

Ah, he gave us free will, did he? Well, if God gave us free will then what is the point of praying for anything that would require God to influence the actions of another human being?

e.g. if I were to pray for the release of the journalist Alan Johnston then God would have to remove the free will of his captors in order to answer my prayer in the affirmative.

It is a testament to our common concepts of what is right and wrong - regardless of the differences in our beliefs - that we can all recognise the threat to our peace and freedom that Islam represents.

In a sense, therefore, Islam is a unifying force in that it is creating global resistance to it by people from various backgrounds, nationalities and beliefs.

Well, if God gave us free will then what is the point of praying for anything that would require God to influence the actions of another human being?

--from poster above

That's not the point of prayer! I think you're thinking of Voodoo!

The point of prayer is to draw closer to God. The highest form of action is performed when we are unattached to the outcome of our actions.

===========
In a sense, therefore, Islam is a unifying force in that it is creating global resistance to it by people from various backgrounds, nationalities and beliefs.
--also from poster above

Islam is a unifying force for believing Christians. Atheists will conveniently say it is just "another dumb religion." Jews will say: "Hey, Islam makes us look good, and it gets us off the hook for killing Jesus." Hindus may fight the anti-Christ and Jews may do the Christians dirty work (the work of the righteous is done by others), but the Christians will be stronger and more unified than ever in history and the power and glory will be insurmountable.

From above: Why does a benevolent God permit such horrendous pain and suffering in the world?

Buddha sid it best: 'If God causes all this suffering, he cant be good. If he is powerless to stop it, he cant be God'. He was probably talking about Allah...

The fact that the Bible has those Deuteronomy and Leviticus verses is a side argument from what the Mohammedan tu Quoque artist said above. He said that Moses ordered adulterers to be stoned, and the question above was whether Moses actually said that. Of course, we all know that there are major discrepancies between what the complete original texts of various religions advocate, vs what the bulk of their adherents (including obviously their nominal ones) practice. As Foehammer and duh_swami state, there isn't a good reason for a comparitive analysis of religions, since Jews, Christians and others don't practice the more vile aspects of their respective religions, and to the extent that they may, they aren't going around trying to force it on others.

What is fascinating is that Christians and Jews have blunted a lot of the more rabid teachings of the Bible over time, such as the verses cited above, and Mohammedans are trying to win over contemporary Infidels by appealing to them to follow these verses. It's a mirror image of the situation in Islamic countries: while in dar-ul-Islam, Mohammedans are trying to win over their brethren to Jihad by showing them all the Quran and Sunnah, here, they are trying to win over Christians and Jews by appealing to them to stone adulterers. It might work with a few Dinesh D'Souzas, but the expectation that Christian or Jewish clergy, let alone mainstream adherents, will buy into that just shows how twisted not only their logic is, but their expectations as well.

@Fanusi Khiyal

Don't ever try to argue the superiority of Judaism over Islam. Judaism is mystical. Why the attachment to the Land of Israel for the Jewish People? Why Jerusalem?

The Old Testament contains many, many prophecies regarding the coming of Jesus Christ. The validity of the OT is based on the accuracy with which it predicted the coming of Jesus Christ (among other things.) Christians base their faith in Jesus on the OT, but they do not base their behavior on it. If they did, they would be Jews.

Just because early "Christians" spread the faith through the sword, DOES NOT mean that that was Jesus' intention. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

The dark, evil spectre of Islam (which is a retarded, copy-cat religion of Judaism WITHOUT the all-important mysticism)shows beyond a doubt that Jesus came to save the world from dark, pharasaic, hypocritical, law-based forces that were further debased when they passed to Muhammad.

Islam is a unifying force for believing Christians. Atheists will conveniently say it is just "another dumb religion." Jews will say: "Hey, Islam makes us look good, and it gets us off the hook for killing Jesus." Hindus may fight the anti-Christ and Jews may do the Christians dirty work (the work of the righteous is done by others), but the Christians will be stronger and more unified than ever in history and the power and glory will be insurmountable.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2

You're beginning to sound like Naseem - she claims that all Muslims need to do, or should be expected to do is pray to Allah, while the kafirs just do their dirty work for them, while you are making an equivalent claim substituting Muslims (in her case) with Christians. In other words, you're casting your fellow Christians as leeches on the shoulders of Jews, Hindus, Athiests and anyone else.

Not sure whether you meant for it to come out this way, but that's how it does.

@Infidel Pride

Please see my follow up post. What I am saying is that the soldiers in the war against Islam will be primarily Christians. How did it get so confused?

Yes, I am in agreement with your observation about the mirror reversals, IP.

I would also add that it's not so much a comparison of religions -- as it is about clarifying what is or what is not.

(slightly O/T, what Moses' claim to fame is -- well, it has nothing to do about stoning adulterous couples! It was receiving the 10 Commandments, the parting of the Reed Sea, the leading the people out of Egypt, escaping bondage, etc. And why was Moses chosen as a leader? There are incidents recorded of the younger Moses (prior to the burning bush) -- and over and over again, he demonstrated his adherence to the concept of justice -- Moses stood up against bullies. He defended the powerless.)

And, there's another bothersome issue here expressed by some of the posters above -- I believe it reflects a primary misunderstanding of Islam. Islam (as Robert has repeated over and over and over again) is NOT a continuance of what came before. Islam overthrows what came before. It breaks with what was thought previously. Christianity can be thought of as a sect of Judaism...that is, Christianity grew out of Judaism. Not so with Islam. Islam broke with both previous religions and claimed that both previous religions "got it wrong"...and Islam offers "the corrective." Thus, there is no continuity. Islam is a departure.

When I say that Jews will do the dirty work of Christians ("the work of the righteous is done by others" --from the Talmud) I mean that Israel finds itself front and center in the war against Jihad.

Is that a coincidence? I think not.

Christians won't be sitting on the sidelines. They will lead the charge and the victory will be for Christ.

>>Every religion has gotten over the call to violence for the faith but Islam.

Arguing over the evils of the past is not going to save our future.>Just because early "Christians" spread the faith through the sword, DOES NOT mean that that was Jesus' intention. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.>Jews are the canary in the coal mine. But having spawned (or helped spawn, at the very least) the vile, pharasitic creed of Islam 1400 years ago, they have a cosmic appointment to help destroy it.>Christians won't be sitting on the sidelines. They will lead the charge and the victory will be for Christ.

"'none of which beyond the 10 Commandments has been followed for millenia...' Ahem...you're ignoring/forgetting Orthodox Jewry (?!)"

Yes, JS, I ignored Judaism entirely...please reread my post. I was responding directly to Fanusi's comment regarding Christianity, and deliberately excluded other religions of which I cannot discuss with extensive understanding.

My apologies if this post makes me sound like a mother or teacher, but -

What I would like for all of us to do is to put aside our differences in faith and spend more time focusing on the threat to us all. We haven't argued to the point where we've forgotten what that is, fortunately.

I freely admit I left religion so long ago that I tend to know more about Islam than anything else...and I'm still not an expert!

I appreciate the debates, though, because Fanusi's post to me, for example, spurred me to reread a bit of the OT.

We DO need to debate our own religions from critical historical and literary aspects from time to time to ensure we CAN argue certain points with Islam because it is NEEDED.

But I do hope that we don't forget that it's the FREEDOM to believe what we want that we're fighting for here, and Islam threatens that daily.

Hugs????

:)

Fanusi Khiyal,

I think Robert Spenser has also repeatedly stated that this website is open to all. It doesn't matter if you're an atheist, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, etc. We can all stand united against the supremacist creed of Islam/Islamism. I think we can all agree on this.

But I don't think it entails that everyone must drop all religious notions either...nor does being anti-jihadist necessitate the ranking of atheism as primary.

By the way, just because Dawkins and other atheists rank higher in terms of popularity at Google is no measure of validity or truth. As a rational being, I trust you're able to recognize the common fallacy called "ad populum."

Ynkedoodl2--

This is a non-sectarian site. I'd have deleted several of your comments here if they had not been quoted by others.

But it does afford the opportunity to say your denigration of Judaism is unacceptable at this site, and will not be allowed to continue.

Marisol Seibold
Jihad Watch News Editor

It was certainly not my intention to denigrate Judaism and I apologize to anyone offended.

This person's letter - so eloquent and literate (why oh why can't other letters from our Islamic brethren be as perfect as this?) - has convinced me ..

I now see the error of my ways and will never, ever, complain again about anything that offends them ever again ...

NOT!!!!!!!!!

I just re-read all my posts. I honestly can't see where I denigrated Judaism. I can see where I (and others) denigrated Islam, but obviously that's okay. I also see where a poster "denigrated" Christianity, but that's okay too!

Is this webiste Zionist controlled? Just kidding, I know better, but WTF??????????

These are the two I found objectionable:

1.

"Jews are the canary in the coal mine. But having spawned (or helped spawn, at the very least) the vile, pharasitic creed of Islam 1400 years ago, they have a cosmic appointment to help destroy it."

I actually edited #1 one out of the original posting before I noticed it had been quoted.

2.

Jews will say: "Hey, Islam makes us look good, and it gets us off the hook for killing Jesus."

Unacceptable.

Thank you for your cooperation in the future.

If Muslim leaders want the truth, why do they steadfastly refuse to debate. Because they know that if most non-Muslims understand the core of jihadist theology in the Koran they would rise up in opposition to Muslim immigration. The immigration jihad would be thwarted, that is why they refuse to debate the truth. It is not about truth for them, it is about Islamic will to power.

Got this via email -

This is true and can be checked at

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/Australia.asp

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia and her Queen at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his Ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown. Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state, and its laws were made by parliament. "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you", he said on National Television.

"I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia : one the Australian law and another Islamic law that is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option", Costello said.

Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to the other country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should "clear off. Basically people who don't want to be Australians, and who don't want, to live by Australian values and understand them, well then, they can basically clear off", he said.

Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques.

Quote: "IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians."

"However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the 'politically correct' crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia ." "However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand." "This idea of Australia being a multi-cultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. And as Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle."

"This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom"

"We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!"

"Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture."

"We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us."

"If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like "A Fair Go", then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. By all means, keep your culture, but do not force it on others.

"This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom,

'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'."

"If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted."

J.S. and anyone else who holds the same misconception.

Yes, _of course_ this site is nonsectarian. Yes, _of course_ we're all in this together. Yes, yes, yes.

But I honestly think that the anti-Jihadist effort is too important just to wast time engaging in partisan cheerleading.

I probably agree with you all on a great deal of things. I'm posting here, aren't I? But what does huge amounts of agreement solve?

I see a serious problem. I think that this problem needs to be addressed. If I am wrong, I await someones clarification on this matter.

I think that stopping the jihad is so important that, if I see a serious problem, it is mandatory that I bring this up.

Now, as for this:

>>By the way, just because Dawkins and other atheists rank higher in terms of popularity at Google is no measure of validity or truth. As a rational being, I trust you're able to recognize the common fallacy called "ad populum."

Look, I think we can agree that most people are decent, and are able to see the value of our own way of life and the threat of Islam if they notice it. The trouble is that most of us live in a cocoon where we don't notice it. I didn't notice the full extent of the threat until the cartoon riots. Then I started doing research, and the rest, they say, is history.

Leave aside accuracy for one minute, and think in terms of exposure. Say someone, an Old Leftist who is disinclined to read something in the Politically Incorrect Guide series picks up The End of Faith. He reads and is disturbed. He, like me, doesn't want to believe it, so, like me, tries to prove it wrong. Begins to do research. Learns more. And eventually ends up reading JihadWatch and the rest.

Now multiply that by the number of people who are exposed to Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens.

We need to spread awareness that there is a problem, and I think that, precisely because they are Old Left atheists, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are doing a better job, because they get more exposure. Now, maybe they're wrong about some things, but if they can get more people thinking and reading, what's the problem?

I do think that the key to beating the jihad is a united front. Remember the Abdul Raman case? CAIR folded like a deckchair. Why? Left and Right were united. Then there was the cartoon riots. CAIR was on the offensive. Why? Left and Right were divided.

The new Left paints the right as irrational, precisely because of its deep connection to Christianity. And they're not wrong. Have you seen the clip where Robert Spencer speaks with Pat Robertson? Mr. Spencer was making a great deal of excellent points, as always, and Robertson zeroed in the question that bothered him: Had Satan authored the Qur'an?

Now, think of Fareed Zakaria. The man cannot be described as an idiot, or as anything other than a serious and dedicated intellectual. His book "The Future of Freedom", however, underestimates the power that Islam holds over human minds, and he also made the point that Robertson and Fallwell and their ilk were the ones loudly braying about the evil of Islam - after having spent along time pointing at things like Gay Marriage and so on.

You know the story of the boy who cried wolf?

Look. This needs to be addressed. This is way, way too important to be dismissed by any mental box - left or right. We can't just sit around complaining about the threat of Islam or the Left. Especially when that isn't true.

I see a problem. I think that it merits attention, and if I can be corrected, I will listen gladly. But I don't think that it has so far.

Sorry, I had to split that one up.

Fanusi,

A few days ago (?) I read an interesting article on the topic of the new-found popularity of atheism. It was from an article in Commentary Magazine (it was a book review of Hitchen's latest).

I don't think that all atheists share equally a fervent anti-Jihadist attitude. In fact, some appear to be *defenders* of Islam. (I vaguely recall having read -- Sam Harris (?) -- writing against the pope, and siding with the Islamic protesters (remember that little dust-up?).) So, I don't know if it's even accurate to categorically align all atheists with being anti-Jihadists (some are, some aren't...and, might say the same is true for some religious folk -- some Christians support radical Islam, others don't). I don't think they can all be lumped neatly into one cohesive unit...

"Dear Sir if u repeat a lie enough times you actually start to fool the masses"
It's worked for you mohammadans for 1400 years.

JS

I think Sam Harris is anti-Islam - in fact, he uses Islam as his key evidence in his assertion that all religion is bad.

Normally, I don't have problems with Ayn Randesque Athiests - those Right Wing Athiests who don't believe in Gods, but generally tend to leave religious people alone. But almost all Athiests I've come across in real life tend to be Leftists i.e. pro-Communist, militant anti-Religious, but in many cases, pro-Islamic. Given how Islamic values, such as temporary marriages, polygamy (a legalized form of sleeping around, as illustrated by Mohammed's example), mandatory zakat et al are similar to Communist values, that isn't a surprise.

I think Sam Harris is not just anti-Islam, he's anti all religions. The author of the Commentary Magazine article ("God is not Great" book review) by Sam Schulman writes: "Thus, according to books by Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), Daniel C. Dennett (Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon), and Sam Harris (Letter to a Christian Nation), responsibility for an event like 9/11 ought not to be assigned solely or at all to the small group of radical Islamists who perpetrated the attacks, much less to Islam as a whole, but rather ought to be shared among all religions, including the very moderate kinds of religion that exist in the United States and Europe." I think Schulman identifies the problem with many of those within the atheists camp -- they don't just single out Islam for disapproval, they use Islam to beat up on all religions. (a kind of relativism -- or a leveling of the playing field -- or all religions are equal).

Remember when the pope quoted some text and it offended Muslims (riots around the world occurred)? Well, Sam Harris came out and wrote an article entitled: "Pope 'Rottweiler' Barks". Who does Sam Harris chastise? The rioting Muslims or the pope? Well, of course, the easier target (as if Harris fears attacking Islam, so he attacks that which is easier -- the pope -- in yet another instance of an atheist's displaced aggression?) This is why I don't think the atheists are true defenders of western values -- Sam Harris did not come out with a ringing endorsement of free speech -- no, instead he attacked the pope's speech...as in "How dare someone say something offensive to Islam!!"

Common Logical Fallacies Made By Muslims
Dr. Robert Morey

1. The Fallacy of False Assumptions: In logic as well as in law, "historical precedent" means that the burden of proof rests on those who set forth new theories and not on those whose ideas have already been verified. The old tests the new. The already established authority judges any new claims to authority.
Since Islam came along many centuries after Christianity, Islam has the burden of proof and not Christianity. The Bible tests and judges the Qur'an. When the Bible and the Qur'an contradict each other, the Bible must logically be given first place as the older authority. The Qur'an is in error until it proves itself.
Some Muslims violate the principle of historical precedent by asserting that Islam does not have the burden of proof and that the Qur'an judges the Bible.

much, much more here:

http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Resources/Morey/logic.html

Ah, he gave us free will, did he? Well, if God gave us free will then what is the point of praying for anything that would require God to influence the actions of another human being?

e.g. if I were to pray for the release of the journalist Alan Johnston then God would have to remove the free will of his captors in order to answer my prayer in the affirmative.
--posted by watling
===============================
I have tried to respond to your post regarding prayer and as simply as I could. Here is Einstein's answer.

Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being.

However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research.

But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

>>This is why I don't think the atheists are true defenders of western values -- Sam Harris did not come out with a ringing endorsement of free speech -- no, instead he attacked the pope's speech...as in "How dare someone say something offensive to Islam!!">suspect that the pope would be the first to admit that there are millions of people on this Earth who harbor “most profound convictions” that are neither profound nor compatible with real dialogue. Indeed, one doesn’t even need to read between the lines of his speech to glean that he would place the entire Muslim world beyond the “universality of reason.” He is surely right to be alarmed by Islam—particularly by its doctrines of martyrdom and jihad. He is right to find the treatment of Muslim women throughout the world abhorrent (if, indeed, he does find it abhorrent). He is right to be concerned that any Muslim who converts to Christianity (or to atheism) has put his life in jeopardy, as conversion away from the faith is punishable by death. These profundities are worthy objects of our derision. No apologies necessary, Your Holiness.>It is ironic that a man who has just disparaged Islam as “evil” and “inhuman” before 250,000 onlookers and the world press is now talking about a “genuine dialogue of cultures.” How much genuine dialogue can he hope for? The Koran says that anybody who believes that Jesus was divine—as all real Catholics must—will spend eternity in hell (Koran 5:71-75; 19:30-38). This appears to be a deal-breaker. The pope knows this. The Muslim world knows that he knows it. And he knows that the Muslim world knows that he knows it. This is not a good basis for interfaith dialogue.> The West is endangered, primarily, by the religious fragmentation of the human community, by religious impediments to clear thinking, and by the religious willingness of millions to sacrifice the real possibility of happiness in this world for a fantasy of a world to come. We are living in a world where untold millions of grown men and women can rationalize the violent sacrifice of their own children by recourse to fairy tales. We are living in world where millions of Muslims believe that there is nothing better than to be killed in defense of Islam. We are living in a world in which millions of American Christians hope to soon be raptured into the sky by Jesus so that they can safely enjoy the holy genocide that will inaugurate the end of human history. We are living in a world in which a silly old priest, by merely giving voice to his religious inanities, could conceivably start a war with 1.4 billion Muslims who take their own inanities in deadly earnest. These are real dangers. And they are not dangers for which more “Biblical faith” is a remedy.

Fanusi,

You're just quoting from the article by Sam Harris. Yes, I've read the article. Once again, Harris attacks *all* religions. He states that the "real" danger -- it's not Islam -- it's ALL religions.

Well, I don't think so. I believe that the "real danger" is ISLAM/Islamism. Full stop. Period.

And, btw, I don't believe in holding up Christianity as a better alternative either. (that's not the point...when you're dealing with a fanatical bunch of Islamic suicide murderers, for someone to turn about and claim that Christianity is superior -- that isn't germane, that doesn't address the problems with Islam. It's like a non sequitur. it's "so what?" it's like saying, "and buddhists don't kill flies!!" ...so what??)

"We are living in a world in which millions of American Christians hope to soon be raptured into the sky by Jesus so that they can safely enjoy the holy genocide that will inaugurate the end of human history."
---posted by Fanusi

Fanusi, when was the last time you were in Church?

Also, I would recommend the following website:
http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Resources/Morey/logic.html
=============
Jihadists attack the Christian faith. But even more, they attack the hedonistic, materialistic way of life in the West. What kind of defense can an atheist summon when a Muslim argues that our godless values lead to prostitution, pornography, alcoholism, youth binge drinking, drugs, promiscuity, materialism, environmental destruction, poor health, etc. etc.?????

As a Christian I have answers. Lots of answers.
As an atheist, I don't have squat to answer.

btw, "If all the Muslims in the world could be converted to Christianity - even insane, out there, Pat Robertson style Christianity - I would be ecstatic" -- do you realize how contradictory such a statement is? and that's not an example of "confused thinking?"

I think the difference is in alleging that "X is a threat" versus stating that "X is THE threat." In other words, Sam Harris and others of his ilk, state that "Islam is a threat...just as is (or as much as) Christianity is a threat, Hinduism is a threat, Buddhism is a threat, etc." or that all religions are threats. What I say, is "no" -- not all religions pose as much as a threat as does Islam -- thus, "Islam is THE threat" (imo).

Let me be clear: If all the Muslims in the world could be converted to Christianity - even insane, out there, Pat Robertson style Christianity - I would be ecstatic. But I don't think it will work. I don't think so, because I believe that trying to hold up Christianity as a better alternative is intellectually dishonest and it alienates us from so many with whom we could form profitable aliances.

--Fanusi

Fanusi, I am a quiet follower of Christ. But the enormity of the Islamic threat convinced me that I needed fellowship; I needed a Church.

You are going nowhere if you think you can take religious fervor away from Moslems; convince them to believe in NOTHING!!!!!

Moslem are not allergic to Jesus. They really think they are somehow in HIS good graces. We infidels have the task of explaining to Moslems that they are DENIGRATING Christ, blaspheming God by following the fiend muhammad. We need to show them the loving face of our Heavenly Father. The love inside a Church of believers is AWESOME and very curative for someone who is exposed to the hate of Islam.

I picked my Church from the Yellow Pages because it met two strategic criteria: It was big and it was the closest Church to the town mosque. Less than an eighth of a mile away. I have started a small group in my Church (they love small groups) called "The Interfaith Reading Group."

I have everyone reading the Koran, Hadith, and Sira.

What kind of defense can an atheist summon when a Muslim argues that our godless values lead to prostitution, pornography, alcoholism, youth binge drinking, drugs, promiscuity, materialism, environmental destruction, poor health, etc. etc.????? Posted by: Ynkedoodl2

• Prostitution/Porn/P: It's one's individual choice (assuming of course one's an adult; it sure beats marrying 9 year olds, so there!). As long as it doesn't affect other people, what business is it of yours?
• Alcoholism/binge drinking - Again, one's individual choice. Of course, if one does something like DUI or alcohol related violence, one would be subject to full legal repercussions.
• Drugs - already illegal. Those indulging in them are breaking the law.
• Promiscuity - again, one's individual choice, and in case it breaks up a marriage, there are legal ways to address that, such as divorce. Sure beats honor killings or stoning to death. Also beats polygamy, and mutta marriages.
• Environmental damage - of course, we all know how pristine Mecca or Dhaka are. Incidentally, if we addressed this one, Saudi Arabia would be as rich as Bangladesh.
• Materialism - sure, far worse problem than looting of Infidels, as celebrated by the Arabs, and far worse than Jiziya, where Infidels have no rights and all their possessions can be taken by Mohammedans. The way Malaysia enforces it for Malays, and against Chinese and Tamils - sure worth emulating!
• Poor health - again, one's individual choice. Of course, who wouldn't want to be as healthy as the Saudis or the Bangladeshis (two ends of the spectrum).

Oh, one more thing - the Athiests have no virgins to chase - not even the Communists.

You know, personally, I don't want to see Muslims converted to anything (other than to a "religion of peace!") If Muslims were followers of a "religion of peace" -- there would be no arguments, no disputes. We all could easily adopt a live and let live philosophy. We could all live in harmony. But, NO. They want to murder Infidels and many are absolutely intent on dominating the world...that's the problem.

"That was easy. Any others?"

Easy for a Proud Infidel. Impossible for a Muslim.

I'm not defending Islam or attacking atheism, even though they're both nonsense.
=======================
"If there's no such thing as 'meaning' in the universe, than it's impossible to say that it is "meaningless."
--C.S. Lewis

"...every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble."
--Einstein

"The atheist says he doesn't believe in God, because he can't see God. Well, go into a closet and shut the door and you won't be able to see your own hands."
--Swami Prabhubada
=====================
My favorite:

"It wasn't until I realized that God was a female that I could love God. But it wasn't until I became a female that I could love God."
--Sri Aurobindo

My favorite: (corrected)

"It wasn't until I realized that God was a female that I could love God. But it wasn't until I became a female that I could serve God."
--Sri Aurobindo

Ladies and gentlemen, please let us remember that - as we leap into the bear pit for no-holds-barred intellectual/ spiritual wrestling matches - we have unseen spectators, of all religious and political stripes and none. So let us observe every courtesy, THINK before we post, and so keep our wrestling matches (enjoyable though they sometimes are) into ..well, mud-wrestling? jelly-wrestling? Because there will be - there always are - new visitors to this site. Some, like me, will take the trouble to tour the archives, reading EVERY comment.

Especially in the early days, I was really taken aback, even shocked, by the language, tone and content of some of the postings. Because I greatly respected Spencer himself I persevered; I kept reading. So I encountered comments by people like Dominic, and Allahfanculo, and others, whom I learned to love and look out for. And so I remained, to join this virtual community. BUT - others, with less patience perhaps, or with less curiosity, may well on their first visit encounter a heated exchange like today's and simply back off in shock. And they won't come back...and they will miss an opportunity to learn.

Since Islam unites politics and religion indissolubly, discussion of Islam necessarily means that politics and religion - those hot-button topics - have to be discussed. Since many Westerners are told Islam is an 'Abrahamic faith', then some exposition, as cool and clear as possible, of what Judaism and Christianity are actually about, over against Islam's teaching and practice, has to happen. By the way - it might help, too, if some of our Hindu and Buddhist visitors were able to tell us specific details of how THEIR thought-worlds differ from Islam - for the benefit of those who blindly believe that 'all religions are the same'.

"The laughter of Mordor will be our only reward if we quarrel".

I'll close with the story of a very foolish Christian churchman who remarked on how easy it was to conduct 'interfaith' activities with Muslims whereas, he complained with a note of petulance, Jews were 'difficult'. I said to myself, Yup, mate, that's because Jewish tradition is characterised by ruthless honesty whereas Islam teaches dissembling and flattery (till they feel strong enough to chop off your head when your guard is down). Let us take the raw honesty of some posters - be they Jewish, atheist, Christian, or anything else - as a compliment. Let us hear each other out in patience. Say I, who do NOT find patience and keeping cool, at all easy.

OOPS! Meant to write - 'keep our wrestling matches from TURNING INTO..mud-wrestling". Sorry, folks.

When the trumpeting of any ideology over another is expressed in a thread, the value of the thread plummets rapidly, with the noted exception of the trumpeting of any sane ideology over Islam, of course.

Oh yeah, that reminds me...yet another reason why I don't like Sam Harris...(or dare I?)

Yeah, ok. What I personally find annoying (it's not his atheism), it's his setting himself up as some kind of ultimate arbiter...like he's going to tell others what they should or should not deride (or find derisive). I think it's like listening to a Queen Victoria with the pursed lips, telling the pope: "We are not amused!" (Just read that paragraph on his list of what's "acceptable" to critique or take offense with in Islam. So, yeah, check it's "ok" to denounce Islam and women, check, it's "ok" to denounce Islam and death penalty for leaving the religion, check...and concluding with the oozing of arrogance statement: "These profundities are worthy objects of our derision." Riight, and that's because baby tyrant says so.)

Fanusi Khiyal writes:
"root_cause, who in their right mind would deny this? Did I say anything different?

But there is no denying that if you take the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy and apply them, you will end up with something that isn't too different from the Taliban. Those books are hideous. "

You stated that Jews (and Christians) defiled the
original revelations; I argued that as Judaism has
an oral component you ar enot accurately judiging
that belief system within its own parameters, rather, you're judging it as a literal minded, text only sort of person would.

This is largely a religious discussion, and, as I'm not interested in proselytizing here, probably best left to rest. Suffice to say, I don't see all
religions as being the same, something Sam Harris
appears to do. Nor do I view the lack of religion
as an indicator of bad (or good!) character.

To answer first and foremost the question about how do I respond to issues such as the nihilism that seems to infest a great deal of modern society. Firstly, I would point out that the religious societies of the world still engage in this kind of behaviour, merely suppress it. Child-sex in Islam has already been mentioned, and during the Christian Dark Ages all of Europe was drunk.

Then I would say something allong the the following lines: "You, like so many of your co-religionists, have been fed a pack of lies that rob you of your real inheritance - in the same way that Europe was fed another pack of lies for so long. Yes, there are damn fools who waste their life and freedom on this kind of nonsense, but look at what we have made possible free from the yoke of religion.
We have raised humanity to heights of prosperity that would make the richest Sultan, Emperor or Caliph green with envy. The poorest among us have access to technological miracles that would leave the prophets and priests of the past cowering in superstitious fear. We have sent men to the moon, and have machines that can show us distant worlds. We can communicate within seconds, around the world, and travel the globe in a few hours. We can see the beginning of the Universe and glimpse it's end.
Free from the tyrrany of faith we have achieved incredible things. As a human being, this is your true inheritance and due, and you have been cheated of it by thirteen-hundred years of lies. You do not have to live a life that is mindless waste or superstitious crawling before some bogeyman in the sky. You can seize your life and live it."

Something along those lines. The idea that religion has some sort of monopoly on idealism, purpose, and morality is nuts.

Now, I have, repeatedly, raised some questions, and I will repeat them once more, but I will also consider any poster who doesn't even try to answe a few of these as a waste of time:

1. I think that we all agree that there is no sense in 'moderate Islam' (When has moderation won any revolution) and that we need an intellectual counterforce against this menace. Some people think it is Christianity. Now, how is anyone supposed to convince Moslems to become Christian when their theology states that Christians (and jews) ignore the writings of their prophets, and can quote Leviticus and Deuteronomy to prove it? What exactly is the answer when someone says : "You say that Islam is a perversion of Christianity, but look, here in the Bible it says that you're supposed to kill anyone who leaves the faith or blasphemes, and you aren't doing it, but we are."?

2. On the flip side, if we cherry-pick the Bible for the non-ghastly bits, how are we supposed to fight a proper war with commandments to love our enemey and to turn the other cheek? I think that the connection between Christian altruism and Bush's project of Iraq-as-light-until-all-Islam has been missed.

3. Can anyone deny that struggle for an intellectually sound base against Islam is undercut by the religious irrationality that is associated with these views? I have already cited Fallwell and Robertson.

4. There is also the problem that alot of people simply assume that Islam cannot be brought down. In "America Alone" Mark Steyn just says that Islam can't be gotten rid of. Why? A handful of philosophers managed to bring the most powerful religion in the world to its knees during the Enlightenment. I think the reason for such pronouncements is the knowledge that the kind of ruthless intellectual honesty necessary for this project would inevitably strike Christianity (and a great deal of other nurtured irrationalities) very hard too.

Now, to conclude, some sundry strikes on targets of opportunity:

>>tw, "If all the Muslims in the world could be converted to Christianity - even insane, out there, Pat Robertson style Christianity - I would be ecstatic" -- do you realize how contradictory such a statement is? and that's not an example of "confused thinking?">Riight, and that's because baby tyrant says so.)

Now, how is anyone supposed to convince Moslems to become Christian when their theology states that Christians (and jews) ignore the writings of their prophets, and can quote Leviticus and Deuteronomy to prove it? What exactly is the answer when someone says : "You say that Islam is a perversion of Christianity, but look, here in the Bible it says that you're supposed to kill anyone who leaves the faith or blasphemes, and you aren't doing it, but we are."?
--posted by Fanusi

Murder
Mathew 5:21

Adultery
Mathew 5:27

Divorce
Mathew 5:31

Oaths
Mathew 5:33

An Eye for an Eye
Mathew 5:38

Enemies
Mathew 5:43

Murder
Mathew 5:21

One more time -- as others here have attempted to remind you, Fanusi, simply because you cannot comprehend the teachings of Judaism (that includes both the oral and written Torah -- and for the nth time, nullifying the death penalty, which the Rabbis of old did (and, it was, btw, long before Reform Judaism emerged) -- IS IN KEEPING WITH THE PROPHETS) does not mean that "Jews do not follow the teachings of their prophets." That is an outright lie. Got that? And simply because you choose to repeat over and over and over again the lies told to you by Muslims, does not in any way make it true. Understood?

Next, with respect to Harris -- he (imo) is a craven coward who lacks the backbone to tell Muslims to their faces what's "wrong" with their religion, while being ever so anxious to abuse every other faith (knowing full well, of course, that abusing a pope will not result in a death threat -- unlike the raging lunatics of Islam.)

Harris' judgement is seriously flawed when he presents himself as some paragon of "rationality", then chooses to attack a person delivering a lecture to an audience and the lecturer happens to quotes someone who refuses to pay obesiance to Islam, while simultaneously Harris outright ignores the raging antics of Islam's rioters. Who exhibits a greater degree of raging irrationality? A person delivering a lecture or a rioter? Well, in Sam Harris' case, it's obviously the lecturer! If we wish to see "irrationality" in its finest flower and in operation, surely it's Sam Harris and his "response" -- Harris' choice to attack the pope while ignoring the raging lunatics. That's not being "rational", that's not being decent, that's not being courageous, that's kowtowing to bullies. And yes, it is servile. But if you insist on bowing down to such as these, and thereby paying homage to such idiocy, then by all means do so. Just don't expect others to follow suit.

2. On the flip side, if we cherry-pick the Bible for the non-ghastly bits, how are we supposed to fight a proper war with commandments to love our enemey and to turn the other cheek? I think that the connection between Christian altruism and Bush's project of Iraq-as-light-until-all-Islam has been missed.
--Fanusi

Luke 12:49-53
"Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

J.S. could you explain what this oral tradition is, and why exactly it can override the Torah, which supposedly contains transcripts of God's own commands? Can you give me an explaination that can't be ripped to shreds in seconds by a jihadist who will claim that the oral tradition is just the perversion of the original revelation?

In case you haven't been paying attention, Islam is very, very good at pointing out the cracks in Judaism and Christianity, and at assimilating their converts. It's been doing this for over over a thousand years.

But against reason, Islam has _nothing_. Nothing is going to change that at the base of the Koran - like at the base of all holy books - is simply a wish, a dream, a delusion. A belief in something for which there is no evidence.

And as for your calling Sam Harris a craven coward who ignores Islam - that is beyond arrogance and ignorance. That is a naked lie. Plain and simple.

Try the following:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/bombing-our-illusions_b_8615.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/bombing-our-illusions-ii_b_8683.html

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060207_reality_islam/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/who-are-the-moderate-musl_b_15841.html

In one article he chooses to focus on the fact that the Pope's speech was principally aimed at attacking reason in defence of his brand of religious irrationality. His point was that that just isn't going to fly, not as an intellectually honest argument, and not as a bulwark against Islam.

Do I need to go on? Do I need to cite the first and fourth (I think it's the fourth) chapters of THe End Of Faith, where Harris criticises Islam repeatedly? Where he says flat-out "We are at war with Islam"? His numerous public statements to that effect?

Why don't you put your money where you're mouth is, J.S.? Come on, how much have you written and spoken publically in large arenas about the threat of Islam? Have you written any book that gets as much attention as his and hence exposes you to consumate risk? I very much doubt it.

I don't like sinking to this level, but this kind of mischaracterisation is grotesque. And exactly what I mean when I say that Christinaity's religious irrationality splits our ranks and confuses the issues at the worst possible time, can be seen by looking at J.S.

Ynkedoodl2, I fail to see what those quotations from the New Testament are supposed to prove.

And finally, contra religion, I bow to no man - regardless of what disembodied gargoyle he uses to justify himself (God, State, People...). I agree with Sam Harris. I respect him. Understand that? Those are functions based on the reasoning mind.

And finally, contra religion, I bow to no man - regardless of what disembodied gargoyle he uses to justify himself (God, State, People...). I agree with Sam Harris. I respect him. Understand that? Those are functions based on the reasoning mind.

Having taken time to reload my verbal barrage, consider the following:

During the Cartoon riots, who did the Vatican and the council of Sephardic (I think that's their name; I'll look it up) Jews side with? The Moslems.

During the Salman Rushdie affair (the first one)? Ditto.

The power to silence doubt and reason must sing oh so sweetly in their ears.

Ynkedoodl2, I fail to see what those quotations from the New Testament are supposed to prove.
--from poster above

I'm afraid you're a lost cause!

Ynkedoodl2, I fail to see what those quotations from the New Testament are supposed to prove.

Murder
21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment.

Adultery
27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[e] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Divorce
31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'[f] 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

An Eye for an Eye
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.

Love for Enemies
43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[i] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

For crying out loud! I have already addressed this. On the one hand, you have suicidal pacifism, embodied by the "Love your enemies" kind of stuff that we really, really can't follow in this war.

And that still doesn't get us away from the charge that the modern world has turned its back on Christ's teachings. It has, and a damn good thing too, otherwise we would be really cooked. To take one example - the business of looking on a woman with lust? Well, modern television breaks that rule right, left and centre.

And so on.

@Fanusi

The point of the above quotes is that Jesus established a new covenant. Eye for an eye, stoning for adultery, etc. are cancelled out. Meretricious and hypocritical displays of piety like communal prayer are demoted for the sincerity of private expression.

Quoting Jesus (the real Jesus of the Bible--not the Issa of Quran) is the way to respond to a Muslim's taking quotations from the Torah.

BTW, if you don't have a clue what the Talmud and Mishnah are, and couldn't follow up on my posts of yesterday, just Google: Talmud or Jewish Oral Tradition. You'll have enough to read for years!

With respect, the New Testament isn't all sweetness and light. The Christ of Revelations is a ravening monster. Real believers like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas knew that their support of the death of heretics enjoyed scriptural sanction.

And that still doesn't get us out of the dilemma. Accept the 'nice' bits of the new Testament (although I do not consider them particularly moral) and we're defenceless against Islam. Accept the nasty bits and we're no better.

And all of this misses the point: that no matter what we do, the jihadists are simply going to point to this and say we aren't living by it. What is your response to that.

Kindly try and answer my original points. Prepare some answers to those, please.

@Fanusi, et al

The bottom line is: Let's all combat the evil of Jihadism doing what comes naturally to us.

Some of my best friends are atheists (probably most of them) but the most hard-core atheists I know are extreme left-wing and anti-Zionist.

I really don't care where your Islamophobia is coming from. If your a Jihad Watcher, you're a friend of mine.

Real believers like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas knew that their support of the death of heretics enjoyed scriptural sanction.
--Fanusi

In other words, they would have executed Jesus?

==============
And all of this misses the point: that no matter what we do, the jihadists are simply going to point to this and say we aren't living by it. What is your response to that.

My response to Jihadis is a GUN. Of course I would invite them to become Christians first.

Aristotle in Book 1, Chapter 3, of Nicomachean Ethics maintained that wisdom consisted in "seeking exactness in each area to the extent that the nature of the subject allows."

Sam Harris’ project is to advocate the use of a single yardstick in the measurement and assessment of all subjects, including religion. The sole yardstick which he claims should be used is "science." Even Harris' narrow and constricted concept of "science" is suspect (does Harris actually believe that science is a field to be confined solely to that which is "empirically verifiable?" this is a 1960s Popper’s positivism notion – refuted 40 years ago.) What is a Harris to make of vast realms of legitimate scientific inquiry not grounded in "empirical verifiability?" Claim it’s "not science?" There are closed systems which adhere to principles of internal consistency and which do not rise or fall based on notions of "empirical falsifiability." Theoretical physics, theoretical mathematics are two such examples. Furthermore, one can devise conceptual theories relating to such things as truth, justice, beauty, goodness, morality – none of which can be subjected to a Harris’ one-size-fits all, narrow, cramped and constricted conception of the world or having all things, all subjects reduced to a positivist "science." The latter view is called "scientism" which also has been resoundingly refuted generations ago.

Now, as to the article, written by Harris, which I have read, entitled: "God’s 'rottweiler’ Barks" I have this to say. The very first sentence is expressed in the form of an ad hominem attack. Thus, Harris does not address the subject matter of the pope’s lecture. Rather, Harris attacks the speech as "boring, convoluted and oblique." Is this the sort of argumentation readers can expect from this self-proclaimed paragon of "rationality?"

God forbid should Harris have to listen to someone speaking with a lisp, a stutter or some other form of speech impediment. No doubt for such "rational" intellects of the Harris variety, any arguments proffered by cripples, hunch-backs, the elderly or infirm, Harris would instantly and summarily dismiss as worthless -- without bothering to attend to the substance of the actual arguments. This is as highly offensive as those posters to Robert Spencer who dismiss Spencer on the grounds of his appearance.

But what, of course, really riles Harris is the thought that the pope just might have insulted Islam. Oh heaven forfend! Thus Harris writes: "It might start a war." In other words, "Naughty, naughty you cannot say these things because it might upset Muslims." This is yet another form of fallacious reasoning – it’s called an appeal to force.

The next several paragraphs Harris spends insulting Catholics – from birth control to transubstantiation – Harris simply resorts to a series of gratuitous insults. And, "no" you don’t have to be a Catholic to understand that these are insults and that these are intended as vitriolic insults. Interestingly, of course, he would never, ever, insult Islam in such a manner. He glances at Islam (in passing, noting that "martyrdom and jihad", the "treatment of Muslim women" and "conversion away from the faith" are "alarming.") Harris minces his words when addressing Islam, yet spares nothing when attacking Christianity. Why is that? Now could that possibly relate to the fact that Harris fears "enraging millions of Muslims?" I think so.

Harris also commits another fallacy, it’s called equivocation with the term "reason." Thus Harris writes: "These are beliefs that Catholics hold without sufficient reason. They are therefore, unreasonable." No, that it is a flawed syllogism. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. The implication is that Catholics are not only deficient in terms of presenting evidence (reasons), but are also capricious and excessive. If one claims to be a "rational" debater, one does not allow such equivocations. One presents the evidence for one’s claims. Yet this is what Harris routinely fails to provide for his readers – evidence. He is far more content in launching diatribes.

Now if I add up all the fallacious, concocted, irrational argumentation that Harris has hobbled together for his readers, I am not at all willing to agree that Harris is, in fact, "rational." That claim of his, he himself refutes. And, furthermore, as the legal principle is known, a fortiori, if Harris alleges that the pope cannot insult Islam because Catholicism is itself irrational, then (a fortiori) Harris cannot insult Catholicism because he himself is irrational. Thus ends any "dialogue."

Finally, in closing, much of this I find in itself a form of distraction. Rather than addressing the jihadist ideology of Islam, people spend their precious time defending that which requires no defending (that is, Christianity, Roman Catholicism, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.). This is one of the most grievous injuries that individuals such as Harris do to the world. Harris is a red herring. Harris throws us off the track. I don’t think that Catholics owe the world an explanation as to the nature of their faith; I don’t think Jews owe the world an explanation of what they believe or why; ditto for Hindus, Buddhists, etc. These demands that every religion is now to become suspect and subject to inquiry and explanations, thanks to the excesses of Islam, is in itself, an outrageous and insulting, suggestion.

Finally, Hitchens wrote an informative article today entitled: "Rage Boy Returns." In the concluding paragraph Hitchens writes: "Rage Boy keenly looks forward to anger, while we worriedly anticipate trouble, and fret about etiquette, and prepare the next retreat. If taken to its logical conclusion, this would mean living at the pleasure of Rage Boy, and that I am not prepared to do." Precisely. And, I ditto that for Harris and his ilk. I say, "Shove off." End of conversation.

If memory serves me correctly didn't congress just not so long ago appologize for Americas part in slavery?

I think it needs to be turned around juuuuust a bit,sir,I beleive it is Islam who has much appologizing to do.Islam has not appologized for a darn thing,EVER!

And as far as what islam has bestowed upon this world that is so fantabulous,sir,What just might that be?How to eat with your right hand and wipe with your left? Gee thanks a heap.

By the way keep your fantabulous gifts to the world it's much better off.

I said initially that I would consider any reply that did not even try to address my specific questions a waste of time. Please allow me to hold up J.S. as a key example.

Before I deal with him, allow me to first point out that J.S. has utterly failed to answer my specific points:

1. That the 'nice' portions of the Christian Bible render us defenceless in the face of Islam, whereas the 'nasty' bits would make us no different from them.

2. That this being the case, the jihadists will always argue that they are the real heirs to Moses and Christ, and therefore that the Enlightenment legacy of reason and science is the only truly effective counterblast, against which Islam is powerless.

3. That the association with religion taints the percieved intellectual validity of much anti-Jihadist writing. As I said, how can we calculate the damage that has been caused that Robert Spencer's superlative book was released in the same series that brings out creationist screeds?

Now on to the man himself.

Summary of his post "Looky here at the straw men I can build! Looky at me putting them on fire!"

J.S. is absolutely typical of what I have been characterising of the problems that Christianity saddles us vis a viz Islam. His post is littered with points that cannot be explained away as abysmal ignornance, but can only be outright dishonesty.

He brings up the idea that Sam Harris is afraid to criticise Islam - after I have posted links to no less than _four_ articles where he goes to work on it, not to mention citing two prominent chapters of "The End of Faith". He chooses to interpret Sam Harris's says 'it might start a war' as kowtowing, when it is ragingly obvious to anyone who has heard Sam Harris say "We must win the debate or win the war" that he would prefer a solution where so much critical pressure is brought on Islam that it falls, to one where we are all embroyled in a genocidal war. This cannot be explained away by gross ignorance.

He says that Sam Harris ignores anything that cannot be strictly empirically tested, while two chapters of "The End of Faith" discuss the roots of morality, and the neuroscience of what he calls 'transformative experiences' (the genuine experiences that underly mysticism).

He has the indecent nerve to say that Sam Harris comments on the boring nature of the Holy Father's speech is the same as mocking someone for physical disability. Anyone who knows anything about Sam Harris knows that this is nonsense. He goes on to say that Sam Harris does not address the substance of the Pope's arguments in his article. We are never told what this 'substance' is, and for a good reason. Sam Harris does indeed address the Pope's words, dealing with them with compentence and accuracy. Which point was already shown by my previous quotations from the article. This is another case where I can safely say that J.S. isn't just being wrong, but telling outright lies.

He throws out the usual cowardly evasions, saying that "Popper's positivist notion" has long been refuted and that Sam Harris has a 'cramped, one-sided' worldview, without ever defining what any of this means. That cramped worldview is the one of reason, which lifted us out of medieval superstition and revealed vistas beyond the imagination of the maddest prophet or priest.

In short, J.S. is no different in essence from those Islamic apologists who repeat, likea broken record, 'That's not Islam. You're just ignorant." His is the petulant, spoiled voice of the religious infant who is angry that men of reason are no longer willing to give his fantasies free reign, but actually want truth and hard evidence.

In justice - and this makes my case all the more damning - it is impossible to believe that J.S. is like this all the time, in all his dealings. But that he starts behaving like this when someone even slightly criticises his religion, or asks whether it might cause damage to the anti-jihadist movement, is proof positive of my point that Christian irrationality undercuts us.

If you want an intellectual echo chamber, go right ahead. But some of us, as I said, think that it is more important to name unpleasant truths and issues that need to be addressed.