Waging jihad against broccoli?

Leave poor broccoli alone. Bush Sr already beat it down enough. Now if a jihad is started against asparagus and brussel sprouts, now we are getting somewhere. But what does the Koran say about cucumbers and tomatoes? I know what AQI said, but what about the scholars?

This woman is nothing more than a useful idiot. I don't think she is engaging in taqiyya, but rather actually believes the claptrap she is spewing in her article. What a sham.

Ms. Polttila,
One should judge islam by its actions and the way those who engage in violence in the name of islam justify their actions. With other religions you have to work pretty hard to twist the meaning of the verses to justify violence. With islam, just randomly open the book and viola, instant justification. No interpretation necessary. Open your mind. Take off those rose colored glasses and see the truth.

OK, I have actually BEEN to a Muslim country...and NO!!! Women are NOT the equals of men. Hardly. Far from it.

If they were.... oh never mind.

Where the hell are my M&Ms???? Chocolate. I need chocolate!

The reason for the weird logic of such muslims is the fact that they missed out on the development of scientific debate that started in th medieval times (exemplified in Abaelard's "Sic et Non", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic_et_Non)

Sadie must not be reading many newspapers these days......

Sadie is a slave twice over; a slave to muslim men, and a slave to her own ignorance.

"no justification for senseless violence"

That is the key, the violence is not senseless. Al Qaeda says why it is killing people, it is not senseless, even if it may appear senseless to outsiders. Particularly in an honor/shame culture as you have in the Arab/Muslim world, the targets are very well understood (people who break tribal taboos, etc.).

Take people from such a culture and drop them in the modern West and you have a recipe for disaster.

Someone can have a personal jihad with broccoli...
.......................

Say...didn't Gerorge Bush (41) have a personal jihad with broccoli?

As a result, didn't farmers and agricultural lobbyists burn him in effigy while inchoherently screaming "Death to Bush!" and call for his immediate assasination, or mildly complain, or something?

After all, jihad against vegetables is very common:

http://jihadwatch.org/archives/022168.php

And what happens with vegetables in a society that rejects the light of Islam? This is what Spaniards were doing after turning their backs on Allah--I warn you, it's pretty shocking:

http://www.artnet.com/magazine/FEATURES/tuchman/Images/tuchman6-24-5s.jpg

After all, don't the learned say "They regarded the cucumber as male and the tomato as female. Women were not allowed to buy cucumbers, only men".

[Note--I came across this wonderful painting by Luis Melendez (Spanish 1716-1780) while doing some research--alas, too late to post it on the "Cucumbers broke Al Qaeda's powers in Iraq" thread.]

Ok, ok--enough silliness. Ms. Polttila is truly an idiot. I wonder how much this sort of approach is actually believed by anyone any more?

After all, one need not have a terribly nuanced understanding of Islamic theology to understand that there is a lot--an awful lot--of violence done day in and day out in the name of Islam. All one has to do is open a newspaper, or tune in to the local news once in a while.

How in the world can any moslem woman truly think they are equal with men?
(Here we go again)
Tabari I:280 "Allah said, 'It is My obligation to make Eve bleed once every month as she made this tree bleed. I must also make Eve stupid, although I created her intelligent.' Because Allah afflicted Eve, all of the women of this world menstruate and are stupid."
Qur'an 4:11 "Allah directs you in regard of your Children's (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females.... These are settled portions ordained by Allah."
Muslim:B1N142 "'O womenfolk, you should ask for forgiveness for I saw you in bulk amongst the dwellers of Hell.' A wise lady said: Why is it, Allah's Apostle, that women comprise the bulk of the inhabitants of Hell? The Prophet observed: 'You curse too much and are ungrateful to your spouses. You lack common sense, fail in religion and rob the wisdom of the wise.' Upon this the woman remarked: What is wrong with our common sense? The Prophet replied, 'Your lack of common sense can be determined from the fact that the evidence of two women is equal to one man. That is a proof.'"
Muslim:B1N142 "'O womenfolk, you should ask for forgiveness for I saw you in bulk amongst the dwellers of Hell.' A wise lady said: Why is it, Allah's Apostle, that women comprise the bulk of the inhabitants of Hell? The Prophet observed: 'You curse too much and are ungrateful to your spouses. You lack common sense, fail in religion and rob the wisdom of the wise.' Upon this the woman remarked: What is wrong with our common sense? The Prophet replied, 'Your lack of common sense can be determined from the fact that the evidence of two women is equal to one man. That is a proof.'"
And on and on....

She and Tonya Greipenweiner should get together.

Any religion is for weak minded people. Fear is what drives them to worship a fairy tale....

Obviously, this apologist for Islam did not have any of her kin fried at WTC towers or taken out by a Muslim suicide bomber. Actions of Muslims speak louder than the words in Koran. In any case, Koran is a terror manual that guides Muslims, so her apologetics don't wash.

"Any religion is for weak minded people. Fear is what drives them to worship a fairy tale...."

Yet, it is not just "any religion" that will harm you for expressing such opinions. Is it?

... her op-ed, i.e., opinion-editorial:

Actually Raymond, op-ed is short for opposite-editorial. Indeed it is a page consisting of letters expressing various opinions, but its customary location opposite the editorial page is the origin of the term.

I posted this under another thread:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022701.php#comments

ON ISLAMIC HATE

The title of Brigitte Gabriel's book "Because They Hate" is about Islamic terrorists, and they do what they do because of hate. They aren't flying planes into skyscrapers or blowing themselves up because they are filled with love and affection.
Plus, they say it themselves. Al Qaeda claims Islam has a doctrine of "Loyalty (to Muslims) & Enmity (to infidels)". Enmity ain't exactly goodwill.

Also in Saudi-funded texts comes these gems: Muslims are supposed to, in regard to all non-Muslims "hate them for their religion" to "hate...for Allah's sake," to "maintain a wall of resentment" against them.

Further, "They [Saudi books] assert that unbelievers, such as Christians, Jews, and Muslims who do not share Wahhabi beliefs and practices, are hated 'enemies.' Global jihad as an 'effort to wage war against the unbelievers' is also promoted in the Ministry’s textbooks: 'In its general usage, ‘jihad’ is divided into the following categories: ...Wrestling with the infidels by calling them to the faith and battling against them.' No argument is made here that such references to jihad mean only spiritual and defensive struggles. (For the full reports--2006 & 2008--on such Saudi tidbits of love, see http://www.hudson.org/files/documents/Saudi%20Press%20release%20updated.pdf - they looked at over 200 books collected from U.S. mosques and Islamic institutions and found, in their words, "extreme intolerance" and "violent and 
intolerant teachings against other religious believers.")

Ms. Gabriel uses the word hate, because they hate, and they told her and us over and over. It's not bias, it's simple reporting. I mean, if someone says "I hate you", it's not biased to report "that guy hates me." Right?

Anyone not agreeing to the above may not be Islamic - they may just be "crazy."

So if you don't agree with her, you're nuts.

I guess that settles that...

Sadie: The United States is a great nation whose foundation rests on the privilege of religious freedom.

I guess she has never read the US constitution. Religious freedom is not a privilege, it is a right.

Islams status should be changed to 'political' rather than 'religion'.
Worshipping Allah, like driving a car, (where's your license?) should be a privilege, subject to review, not a right...

"To throw one verse out (2:256)..."

This continued by Muslim and non-Muslim apologists for Islam on a single verse -- "There is no compulsion in religion" -- is permitted not only because their Infidel audience has no idea about either what is said elsewhere, in hundreds of places, in the Qur'an and Hadith, and not only because they are unaware of the doctrine of abrogation or "naskh" (as noted in the commentary above), but because they are unaware of the precise meaning given that phrase "there is no compulsion in religion" by Muslim jurisconsults. If they did look into it, they would find that the "obvious" meaning of the words -- that is, the meaning that we Infidels choose to endow that phrase with -- is not what Muslim scholars mean at all. They mean that in the end one cannot force deep belief on people, though one can force them to comply outwardly, even on pain of death. And that is what Islam is in the business of doing: forcing outward compliance, on pain of punishment that may well include, has often included, death.

But there is one more thing that should surely be offered as an objection when some fool comes along and utters credulously this "there is no compulsion in religion" and expects us to believe this. That is, the observable behavior of Muslims over 1350 years. What have Muslims done, when they have conquered, by force or otherwise, non-Muslim lands and peoples? They offer three possibilities: death, conversion, and, at least to those who can be classified as ahl al-kitab or "people of the book," permanent status as dhimmis, with a host of political, economic, and social disabilities which together added up to lives of humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity, at times relieved -- but only at times -- by the occasional mollitude of a particular Muslim ruler. A slim reed on which to base one's happiness. And so, over time, many non-Muslims, in order to avoid this condition of degradation, humiliation, and physical insecurity, converted to Islam. Why else did Hindus accept Islam (and the Muslims of Pakistan, Bangladeth, India, of today, if they were quite honest with themselves, would recognize that they are the descendants of those who were essentially forced, or deemed it absolutely necesary, to convert -- and if they were to recognize this, they might convert back). Why did the ancestors of those we now call "Bosnians" (i.e., Muslims of the Balkans) convert to Islam under Ottoman rule, if not to escape the condition of the dhimmi (and such things as the devshirme, or forced levy of Christian children)? Why did North Africa, once Christian (both Tertullian and St. Augustine came from there) become islamized and then arabized? Why did the Christians and Jews of Iraq largely disappear, leaving only the remnant left today, now leaving Iraq as, without the "secular" despot Saddam Hussein to protect them (his "secularism" was a response to the need to disguise the Sunni despotism, and make it "open to all" including the inoffensive and innocuous Christians)? Were they all driven out, or did many of them, over time, convert in order to avoid their condition as dhimmis? What happened to the Christians of Byzantium? Did they all leave, or did many of them become the ancestors of those who today are utterly convinced that they have been "Muslim" and "Turk" since time immemorial?

We all know the answer to these questions. And how many of us, if we had to endure the dhimmi status, had each year, for example, to pay a jizyah tax of, say, $20,000, would remain non-Muslims, and how many can say that their children or grandchildren, would also remain willing to pay the tax rather than to become Muslims?

Of course there is "compulsion in religion" in the lands of Islam. The burdens placed on non-Muslims are simply too onerous to be ignored, and many, over the past 1350 years, when living under Muslim rule, have succumbed in order to avoid the dhimmi condition.

And that succumbing, that yielding, demonstrates perfectly the "compulsion in religion" that Islam demands, whatever naive and unschooled interpretation of 2.256 any Infidel idiot chooses to give it. Muslims know better.

"Real Islam a religion of peace and free will, not violence,"

She says this out of one side of her face while her husband bludgeons the other side...

-- In Islam women are to be revered, upheld as equal citizens and respected. It is recorded that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said, "Assuredly, women are the twin halves of men" and, "Heaven lies at the feet of mothers." -- per Miz Pottila

Perhaps this intellectual and spiritual slave will visit JW and click on the picture of the two vibrant, lovely teenagers Amina and Sarah, in the left margin, and then explain to us the "reverence" shown to them by their father.

RSI

Lord Acton -"Behind every villain in history comes an apologist with a sponge."

This woman is the sort that raeally annoys me.
She lives in a non moslem country, under non moslem laws and cultural mores and then she defends a religion she wouln't live under !!

A quick Google turned up the following:

Facebook (some women really should go for a full face veil)

http://www.facebook.com/people/Sadie_Polttila/599026195

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=SUNA,SUNA:2006-47,SUNA:en&q=Sadie+Polttila+

Also I found this about two Algerian women murdered in London.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/7622908.stm

If you read the article the parents state

"Due to their Islamic faith and open-minded upbringing they were always humble, compassionate, generous and helpful to anyone who knew them."

Look at the pictures, figure hugging tops (nice figures)and then they make that statement. Islam is fantastic for moslems/non-moslems, as long as they doon't have to live under it.

Annoying wankers

Regards

AI

Sorry they were murdered in Birmingham not London.

Apologies

Apostate_Islam - Those tops are definitely Haram. The crime, however, does not sound like a "random act of violence". I suspect some sort of "honour" involvement.

"There is no compulsion in religion" -- is permitted not only because their Infidel audience has no idea about either what is said elsewhere, in hundreds of places, in the Qur'an and Hadith, and not only because they are unaware of the doctrine of abrogation or "naskh" (as noted in the commentary above), but because they are unaware of the precise meaning given that phrase "there is no compulsion in religion" by Muslim jurisconsults.
Posted by: Hugh

In the strange world of Islamic logic, one ‘positive’ statement trumps the other hundreds of contradicting Koranic verses and Hadiths, in a kind of reverse argumentum ad populum where because so many Muslims mouth this ‘one positive’ statement, the other hundreds countering it are ignored. Of course, we know this is not false logic, because as Hugh points out there is a subtle meaning to “no compulsion in religion” which really means something different from its face value. The fact that one cannot be compulsed into believing in his or her heart, the Cult does not prevent from forcing the non-believer through many coercive means, or overtly violent means, to obey in submission the demands placed on them in believing this Cult. Mohammet and his Caliphs were masterful when it comes to coercing their believers, and logical arguments were not there to sway them towards the truth, but to prevent them from examining the truth in total slave-like submission. Once that fallacy of logic is in place, then simply tighten the noose until the non-believers believe they are in the wrong to not believe as they are told, since every member of the Cult will tell them they are wrong, with absolute compulsion, even death. Muslim cleric jurists have no problem here.

The 'greater Jihad' is to force you to believe. Not a religion of peace, but a Cult of death, as the name implies: Islam means submission… and death for heresy or apostasy.

Sadie says that "Religion gives people moral fiber...."

Sorry Sadie, but that truly pathetic little Primary School theory has been disproved over 10,000 times by your co-religionists since 9/11.

I object vehemently to the notion, often used by those of a religious bent, that morality exists as a result of people's faith.

What utterly naive bullshit.

To suggest this is an insult to the billions of people alive today who reject religion as the destructive and divisive force it regularly proves itself to be and who derive their morality from where it genuinely exists.

From within.

What utter garbage it is to even think, never mind write in a public space, that my lack of religion makes me somehow more lacking in moral fibre, more prone to acts of immorality.

I don't need "God" to tell me it's wrong to steal from others. I don't need "God" to tell me it's wrong to kill.

Our sense of morality, our inherent sense of right and wrong comes from our common sense of community and from the age-old Golden Rule of "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you".

I don't need to believe in some fictitious wizard in the sky to have moral fibre.

All I need is a sense of humanity.

Which, oddly enough, is a commodity strangely lacking by many adherents of a certain religion today.

It is high time that the dogma of jehad is made to stand the scrutiny of reason. And that needs to be done not only because the trump card of jehad is played indiscriminately, but also because the notion that war can be holy simply because some religious authority calls the faithful to battle needs to be exposed for what it is. The hypocrisy of advocating bloodshed in the name of a religion that purports to be a religion of peace has already gone on for too long.

The apologists for jehad have been singing different themes in its defense. Notable among them is the theory that wars to defend religious interests, if endorsed by the State, qualify to be holy wars. In the given Afghan scenario this leaves only one question to be settled: Is the Taliban a State or not? If it is, it has the right to call for jehad. What underlies this approach is the tendency in Islamic thought to absolutize the State, which is integral to the pretensions of a theocratic State, outside of which such a thesis looks positively anomalous. In a host of Islamic countries this synergy between religion and the State still serves to reinforce un-democratic regimes.

There are two fundamental issues in respect of the idea and practice of holy wars. The first is whether or not the concept of holy wars, even if it has isolated scriptural sanctions, is spiritually and morally tenable. While the scriptures of Semitic religions -Judaism, Christianity and Islam- may be forced to endorse the idea of holy wars, the fact remains that there is much in these scriptures that expressly prohibit bloodshed and aggression of any sort. The advocates of holy wars read their scriptures selectively to secure a semblance of legitimacy for what otherwise is an indefensible idea.

Consider this example by way of illustration. The idea of holy war is present in the Old Testament, which is common to Jews and Christians. And the idea is introduced in respect of the need to re-possess one's homeland as in the case of the Jews returning from Egypt to Canaan which was then in the hands of Philistines and Amalekites. The returning Jews were, apparently, required by Yahweh to repossess the land completely. In doing so, however, they overlooked the more cardinal passage at the beginning of the Old Testament that all people and all tribes are equally the children of God. The earth is the Lord's and God is not partial to any tribe or community. The Jews, of course, did not make any effort to harmonize the new teachings with the old. If they had, the history of Palestine would have been vastly different! The idea of Dharma Yudh (or holy war) that turns fighting into a duty mightier than all kinship ties is the Hindu counterpart of the holy war, and is equally liable to misuse.

The second issue pertains to the authority for declaring holy wars. That a Maulana who sets up a theocratic state, via the ruthless route of bloodshed and oppression, has the religious right to call a jehad just because he happens to head the State is a repugnant thought. Most obviously, the purport of this jehad is not to defend one's religious right, but to justify the right to harbour a terrorist and his outfit that exports terror and the threat of terror routinely to other parts of the world. It is time the Muslims of the world, as well as all others whose religions endorse the idea of holy wars, came out in the open and rejected both the un-democratic idea of jehad and its horrible abuse in unequivocal terms.

That leaves us with the question, "Is there such a thing called 'holy war'?" More pointedly, by what religious consideration can a war be deemed holy? Can bloodshed and mass murder be justified, much less canonized, from a religious perspective even in the face of grave provocation?

Of course, there is such a thing called 'holy war'. But that war, is the war against oneself, based on the universal truth that the demons of meanness, violence and injustice lurk within oneself. The topmost priority in spirituality is given to bringing the will of the individual into harmony with the Divine Will that is beyond all partisan sentiments. A true Muslim, thus, is one who has surrenders his will to the Will of Allah, the Compassionate. Gurudev Tagore, to take another example, prayed to God that He may strike at the root of penury in his heart and give him the "strength to surrender his will to God's Will in love".

This authentic holy war, directed against the degradation and depravity of the self, has two further theatres of operation. The first of these is the duty to combat the degeneration of one's own religious community. Only those who battle the moral and spiritual perversions of their own nature and personal outlook will have the courage to see the need to reform their own community. Others harbour the communal notion that one's religious duty is to defend the rot within one's own religious fold and to attack similar evils in others. As a matter of fact, the main purport of the communal agenda is to deflect attention from the decay within the religious establishment concerned. Given this mindset, the enterprise to reform others becomes a popular and profitable business; whereas reforming one's own community is deemed a subversive activity to be putdown promptly.

The second theatre of a spiritually legitimate holy war is the struggle against injustice, oppression and inequality in the social arena. It is common knowledge that communal elements patronize the forces of injustice and exploitation. Those who are in the grip of truth and are mindful of the need to reform their own communities will not stop short of battling the forces of injustice in the social sphere. They are free to recognize the universal truth that the corruption of the individual and the religious constituency are the seeds of social and political corruption.

The authentic holy war is still relevant. But that war has to target the demons of mounting human suffering, man-made poverty and destitution and the systemic exploitation of the poor by the rich, both locally and globally. The crucial question that the global community needs to raise is this: If a global coalition to protect the American interests can be cobbled together, why not a global coalition to defend the interests of the human species? As long as the religions of the world refuse to unite in launching this only legitimate holy war, various unholy wars will continue to be advocated and unleashed in the name of religions, decoying the unsuspecting faithful into the sanctuaries of the gods of hate and destruction. The primary significance of the Taliban syndrome, at its symbolic and spiritual level, is the corruption of the idea of the holy war. It is this depraved idea that enables an archaic phenomenon to drag a whole nation to prehistoric times and expect the victims of this antediluvian fundamentalist vision to wage a so-called holy war whose outcome will only be the perpetuation of their own misery and enslavement.

To the author Sadie Polttila, I would like to point out that in terms of logic, the following two statements are equivalent.

Anyone not agreeing to the above may not be Islamic - they may just be "crazy."

equals

Anyone agreeing to the above may be Islamic - they may not just be "crazy".

I found it interesting that in her first sentence she has demoted freedom of religion from a right to a "privilege".

The United States is a great nation whose foundation rests on the privilege of religious freedom.

Does that mean she considers it a privilege that can be revoked? How Islamic.

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

This is off topic, but I'll post the link for those who might appreciate a little irony in how France handles "dangerous" religion…

Scientology Facing Murky Future in France

http://abcnews.go.com/International/Story?id=5829728&page=1

"Scientology is a dangerous movement," Milivudes president Jean-Michel Roulet told ABCNews.com. "It puts pressure on its victims, it tries to intimidate them and blackmails them."

"…It may take several years," he said, "but we can ban this organization in France."

I don't know much about Scientology other than it seems to make some movie stars jump up and down and generally act goofy, but I find this kind of amazin'.

This much I know about Islam and no one could dissuade me from thinking this: Islam always has been, is now, and always will be a death cult for a certain percentage of its followers when they don't get their way. No other religion is. This is a principle reason (there are others of course) why Islam stands out alone in such a dubious way among the world's major faiths and is such a terrible burden to mankind.

This woman, Sadie Polttila, is either ignorant of what I just wrote above or she knows it's the case and thus is deceptive. My guess is it's the former but either way she can contribute nothing to the betterment of mankind. Nothing.

I'll have one jihad with broccoli please.

//sarc off

I did mention the dirty lens of JW once didn’t I? Shame on me I should have produced evidence of it when I said it...well here is a fine example of it skewing the focus away from reality.

With the sleight of hand the author paints with his pen a distortion:

"Yes, it is also recorded that Muhammad said that it's okay for a man to lie to his wife and that hell will be mostly made up of women."

It is not lying that is spoken of it is embellishment, ask Raymond Ibrahim, if he's honest he'll tell you...if he is operating on agenda, he won't.

It is not a lie when a man says to his wife, “No, honey, you are not fat, you are pregnant.”

Or I guess the author is the kind of guy who just says, “Yeah, you are fat...real fat.”

Which should one be? A man of good manners, taste, and refinement, or a red neck?

Embellishment is not lying, and in speaking of reconciliation in disputes the same applies.

It is not a lie to embellish two opponents qualities in an attempt to settle a dispute…we do it all the time here in American business and don’t even know that there is an Islamic mandate that allows it.

Here in America we culturally say “first say something good before you say something bad.”, or when trying to negotiate with a partner one does embellish the relationship, or the quality of workmanship, or successes of the fund etc.

Embellishment is what is spoken of, not lying.

Truth

"The United States is a great nation whose foundation rests on the privilege of religious freedom."
This is the 3rd time in 2 days that I have seen a muslim use a sentence similar to that one to back up their expansion here. Another one said something like "Islam can reach its full potential here in this great country...."

Maybe it's time to return to the age-old debate, which still hasn't been settled as far as I know, that the original meaning had more to do with "freedom FROM religion" than "freedom OF religion."

Also, any "freedom" that impedes the freedoms of others is not considered a right or privilege, once it impedes the freedom of others.

How ironic. A self procalimed liar is giving a lesson on the fine differences between "lying" and "embellishing."

From above: Embellishment is not lying,

Try telling that to a judge in a US court...

Embellishment is the result of having nothing worth while to say to begin with.

Embellishment is a cheap paint job, a nice cover on a lousy book...in Islamic terms, taqiyya.

In short, it is dishonest...there is no need to embellish the truth.

But then, you already knew that...

Well "scholar Raymond" quoted Jihad verses, without looking at the context. Let along context of the entire chapter, he didn't even look at the context of the 'jihad verse' 9:5.

9:4 Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfil their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him).

9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

9:6 And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not.

Isn't it easy to pick up a verse out of context, 'call it a jihad' verse even though many Muslim scholars emphasize that that is not the case.

The context of this chapter starting from the first verse is specific to people who broke the treaty with Muhammad. For others, 9:6 couldn't be clearer: 'protect' and 'convey him to his place of safety'! What else?

2:256 and these verses are applicable simultaneously. No compulsion in religion, except that a few folks waged wars on Muslims, and they were to retaliate.

For a true scholarly study, one should read Quran like any other book, in complete context from beginning to end, and not pick and choose verses.

For instance, bible has the following terrorism verses:

"Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'" 1 Samuel 15:3

"You must destroy all the peoples the LORD your God gives over to you. Do not look on them with pity and do not serve their gods, for that will be a snare to you." Deutronomy 7:16

Given these and many other terrorism verses in bible, how can we not hold Christianity as a terrorist religion with the actions of KKK and the likes?

(Intended to merely spark a discussion on the fact that reading out of context any book in the world can be taken to imply ANYTHING whatsoever.)

I think Sadie Polttila has been given way to much credibility for her taquiya exercise in this Wisconsin paper.

What Isolated, and narrow form of Islam is she practicing? I was unable to agree with over 90 pct. of what she had written.

Trying to put the teachings of Islam in such a pretty dress as tantamount in trying to put lipstick on a pig!

Maybe if she had discussed a fatwa, or jihad against cheese, possibly some of those dhimmis in Wisconsin might wake up a little.

mm l have some brocoli right now in my fridge ready to make a nice warm soup. but anyhow these women are stupid, let them go live in a muslim sharia state for a year or less and ask them the same questions.
muslim women are nothing but cattle, breeders for their men and nothing more and nothing less.

Such "scholarly" conclusions.

I take that as 'scholarly' confusions...

"reading out of context out of any book can imply anything ..." I agree with that. However, there aren't any Christian cells running around murdering people today because, "it says so in the book" or because God or Jesus "told them to" or that Jesus said they could have virgins and wine if they died killing others. The KKK? Are they setting up camp in other countries? Importing their beliefs with them? Actions speak louder than the words, in and out of context.

thecentrist,

Exactly what are these verses supposed to illustrate? (9:4, 9:5, 9:6)

They sound more like terms of forced conversion and other conditional terms.

Also, I note that you didn't cite any new testament verses in your critique of Christianity.
The teachings of Christ clarified the old testament.

Lastly, Christians denounce and prosecute the actions of the KKK. And yet we consistently see muslims support or excuse violence from jihadists.

-------------------------------------------

9:4 Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfil their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him).

9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

9:6 And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety.

Thecentrist:
Given these and many other terrorism verses in bible, how can we not hold Christianity as a terrorist religion with the actions of KKK and the likes?

Again, look at definitions of Old Testament, New Testament, and Christanity. Look at where Samuel and Deutronomy are located in the Bible. Look at how those who commit crimes in the name of Christianity are dealt with in Western societies as compared to those who commit crimes in the name of Islam in Islamic countries (and I don't mean theft). In fact, look at the definition of crime in Islamic countries.

How many KKK members are there, a few thousand or a few tens of thousands maximum? Some estimates, based on sampling data, put the numbers of Muslims who condone violent Jihad into the hundreds of millions.

It doesn't seem like these concepts should be that tough to grasp.

Islam is guilty of nothing...It's all one big misunderstanding, taken out of context..

Ok now that it's been explained, can we go back to sleep?

Here is a quote from Matthew:

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw ..." (Matthew 10:34-35)

Groups that indulge in violence in the name of Christianity: Army of God, The Lambs of Christ, The Sword.

Most importantly, KKK itself performed its activities in the name of Christianity:

"The Ku Klux Klan are proponents of a fundamentalist Christian theology strongly influenced by Christian Reconstructionism, hoping to "reconstruct" the United States along biblical (primarily Old Testament) lines and establish a white-dominated theocracy."

On Wikipedia, referenced from: Richard Wormser. "The rise and fall of Jim Crow: Ku Klux Klan". PBS.

So now, I see the author has a great point, except that Mr Raymond seems to not know that KKK operated in the name of Christianity, and so do many other groups.

Ralph, my point exactly. Why do we see all of that in Bible, but not in Quran? See where the chapter occurs where 'jihad verses' are quoted from, what were the conditions, how is it interpreted by scholars, why do they believe that it was a directive for a particular situation (based on textual analysis). All of it is the same. But why do we quote a single verse from Quran as if it applies generally.

If Quran gives a directive to an Islamic state to retaliate against a people, is that terorrism? Or is that legitimate war? Isn't American then doing terrorism, because these verses were a directive to Islamic state, not an individual group by the way. If you were to read Quran's context of these verses, it would become clear. At least just read surah 9 from the beginning.

As for Muslims denouncing terorrism, I posted in another thread that Muslims do that, including scholars and ordinary folks, but somehow, anti-Islam sites likes jihadwatch.org (from where a lot of people get their 'Islamic knowledge') do not seem to cover it. For instance:

"The PIPA poll, which was conducted between December 2006 and February 2007, also found that large majorities reject Al Qaeda itself and its core tactic of attacking civilians. More than 75 percent of those surveyed in the four countries – Egypt, Pakistan, Morocco, and Indonesia – say attacks on civilians is un-Islamic."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0425/p01s04-wome.html

For scholar's denouncing terrorism, consider Al-Azhar's stance:

"Grand Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of the Al-Azhar mosque of Cairo - which is seen as the highest authority in Sunni Islam - said groups which carried out suicide bombings were the enemies of Islam."

and later,

"His comments echoed those by Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohammed who said, at the opening of the conference on Thursday, that salvation could not be achieved through the killing of innocent people."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3059365.stm

Recently, there was a thread on Jihadwatch that Pakistani PM also condemned violence, but of course, JihadWatch twisted it to their own ends and decided that he was out of fold of Islam!

Here, Centrist:

All the answers and arguments you're chewing on:

http://sheikyermami.com/2006/12/22/islam/

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw ..." (Matthew 10:34-35)

This is not a call for the followers of Christ to commit violence. The Lord here highlights a less than pleasant point—that gospel living costs something, even occasionally the loss of family and friends. It may well result in division. He goes on to explain in verse 37 that "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me."

Again, regarding the KKK and other groups attempting to justify their actions as being aligned with Christianity, Christians make it abundantly clear that we won't tolerate their behavior. We prosecute them for their crimes. In contrast, on a large scale we see terrorists being protected and aided by fellow muslims.

If I could make one statement to this girl it would be:

If Islam were truly a religion of peace, there would be no Islamic terrorists.

If someone attends a mosque and speaks of violence, why is that person not corrected and condemned by the Imam?

If that person continues to call for violence, why doesn't the Imam and the other followers not notify the authorities?

If a student see his roommate or another student reading extremist materials or visiting extremist web sites, why do they not tell the school authorities? Or, at least, explain to him that what he is doing is un-Islamic, maybe he should speak to an Imam.

Why are Islamic parents not teaching their children that violence is wrong, it is against their religion and such ideas will be punished?

The truth is, if extremists were so outside of the Islamic mainstream, they would not be allowed to live and function in an Islamic society. Which, by its very nature, is intolerant of anything that is un-Islamic. Those who preach or use violence would be shunned, banned, condemned, and labeled apostates, yet they are not. "Peaceful Islam" is an oxymoron.

Above, a Muslim has cited Matthew 10: 34-35, trying to suggest that it is a Christian jihad verse.

Cool Ghoul has made a very sufficient answer: Jesus is talking about 'the sword' in order to express what will often happen to his followers. He is not telling them to take up the sword and kill other people, or force other people to accept the faith; he is telling them that not everyone will accept the faith, and that those who accept it will often suffer persecution.

Very often, Christians have been killed by those who hated and rejected them because of their faith. In Beijing University just after the Maoist takeover, a large group of unarmed Chinese Christian students were arrested and lined up by the Maoists and told to renounce their faith in Christ, or else. They steadfastly refused. And, one by one - with the sword - they were murdered by the Maoists. Even those at the end of the line, who had seen the ugly deaths of all those preceding them, did not flinch.

Similarly, in Korea under the imperial Japanese in the 1930s, there were Korean Christians who were rounded up by the Japanese soldiers and told to bow down to the Sun Goddess, Amataseru. They refused; and they were killed.

In the 16th century, thousands of Japanese Catholics were killed by their fellow Japanese, because they refused to renounce their Catholic faith.

When a mob of Muslim jihad warriors attacked the town of Otranto in the middle ages, the head jihadist came to the church. The unarmed bishop came out with his crozier (shepherd's crook, representing his office of leadership and spiritual counsel) and called upon the Muslim to repent and accept Christ. The jihadist, waving his scimitar, told the bishop to become a Muslim. The bishop refused. The jihadist killed him then and there. Inter-faith 'dialogue', Muslim style...

*That* is the kind of 'sword' Jesus was talking about in Matthew 10. Not a sword in the hands of his followers, raised against other people; but a sword in the hands of other people, raised against the Christians.

An excellent example of the meaning of the sufferings Jesus predicts will assail those who follow him, and the sword - the literal sword, signifying violent death; the metaphorical sword, signifying division, when a family or community rejects those who have become Christians and casts them out and attacks them - may be seen in the life of Mohammed Hegazy in Egypt, apostate from Islam, now a professing Christian.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/022739.php#comments

What Mr Hegazy is suffering for his Christian faith, is similar to that which almost every person who has ever left Islam, and become a Christian, has faced, for centuries, as one can see from Samuel Zwemer's historical study, 'The Law of Apostasy in Islam', which may be read in its entirety online at the following link:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Zwemer/Apostasy/index.htm

Mick,

This argument holds true in every context:

* If American were a country of peace, then there should be no American terrorists (and there're many non-Muslim American terrorists).

* If Christianity was a religion of peace, then there would be no Christian terrorists (or terrorist groups - see my post above).

The girl is raising the right questions. There is ALWAYS a radical minority and you don't judge the whole from a bad part.

As for Muslim societies, how would one know this doesn't happen? (i.e. people supporting/reporting others when they indulge in extremist activities.)

You don't get this kind of data or analysis in papers, or polls (at least yet) so I wouldn't make assumptions based on some incidents. In additoin, I wouldn't confuse 'Muslims who are anti-West' because of political reasons (which is not based on religious values) with others.

For instance, Mr Bush declaring a crusade on Iraq doesn't generalize it as an attitude of all Christians:

"Seven years ago last Thursday came the attack, but the American mistake came three days later. That was when President Bush, standing in the soaring space of the National Cathedral and invoking God, declared his purpose: "to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil."

"When the global war on terrorism was conceived in expressly religious terms, with a Christian God declared to be not only an ally but a sponsor, the administration was carrying out an essential part of the plan of Osama bin Laden."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/16/opinion/edcarroll.php

How can the fact that a nation using Christian God to declare war on Iraq - which had nothing to do with attacks on America - make me believe that Christianity is a religion of peace?

(Add to that all the quotes from bible I posted already.)

This is specifically the point that that 'girl', the author of the article is trying to make.

What a silly little person.

You know damned well the islamic world declared war on the western world in the 60's.
Arafat and his terrorist buddies started the 'palestinian" ruse. The hijacking of American airliners, the shootings and bombings of pizza parlors, and airports.
Finally, Bin Laden got real attention with the Twin Tower attacks.
Don't accuse us of starting this war. It just took a long damn time to get mad enough to kick your asses.

It should also be noted that America isn't at war *against* Iraq. Nor did America act alone.

Make no mistake, America could completely occupy Iraq permanently if it wanted to do so. We could have forcibly taken all resources (oil) with ease long ago. We would bring Iraq to a halt if we were so inclined.

Instead, we are incurring casualties to our own soldiers in the quest to minimize the loss of life for the Iraqi people. Instead of bringing down all of their buildings, we enter with foot patrols at risk to ourselves. And we haven't taken the oil - though we could.

Nor did the coalition of nations overthrow the Saddam Hussien regime in order to impose Christian faith. Saddam was a sponsor of terrorism elsewhere in the region. He had used chemical weapons 15 times in the past. And he refused to comply with the UN resolutions to account for and destroy all WMD in the presence of UN inspectors.

Lastly, the bible quotes and the koran quotes cited above merely validate the profound difference between Christianity and islam. The koran calls on the reader to commit violent acts. The new testament does not.

Cool Ghoul,

The point is not that if America can do far more damage, and just because it is doing little, that is OK. Comparing deaths of 4000 soliders with more than 100,000 by most conservative estimates of Iraqis doesn't paint a good picture. However, the aim is not to discuss the war. The aim is to really see what the author of the article was saying over which such a fuss is created.

As for bible quotes, isn't this direct? Urging reader directly to act?

"Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'" 1 Samuel 15:3

"You must destroy all the peoples the LORD your God gives over to you. Do not look on them with pity and do not serve their gods, for that will be a snare to you." Deutronomy 7:16

The bible that I get from Christians doesnt have new testament only, usually they give me a complete copy with old+new testatement - one book. That is what the Christian Bible is: it includes old testament and is Christianity's religious book.

To be fair, my whole point of the argument was to clarify that generalizations has its issus and that was the topic of the aricle published here. I do not believe Christianity, Islam or Judaism promote terrorism or violence. However, I do believe radicals in all religions indulge in such acts and use religion for justification. And as is apparently, all scriptures do have verses which, out of context, can cause confusion to a third person of the content.

Best Wishes,
TheCentrist

I do not believe Christianity, Islam or Judaism promote terrorism or violence."
-- from a poster above

He does "not believe." That, too, is an act of faith, an act that can only be undertaken by someone who wilfully ignores the texts -- Qur'an, Hadith, Sira -- and wilfully ignores what is just as important, how Muslims have received and understood and acted on those texts, over the past 1350 years. Although a certain amount of violence can be found in Deuteronomy and Leviticus, it is obvious -- or should be -- that Jews (and those Christians for whom the Old Testament is important) are not sitting around, listening to the kind of sermons that are routinely offered by imams, nor are they going out, spurred by what is said in synagogues or churches, to do the kind of things that Muslims do, do for example to Hindus, Christians, and Buddhists all over Asia -- in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Thailand -- when they are acting according to what Islam inculcates, and not despite it.

People can believe or not believe whatever they want -- but we, who can compare their beliefs with the evidence available, are free to judge them, as we must of course judge the poster above, and find him....wanting.

Given these and many other terrorism verses in bible, how can we not hold Christianity as a terrorist religion with the actions of KKK and the likes? posted by the centrist

These false equivalency arguments have been answered here numerous times. The KKK is not a Christian group per se and it certainly does not engender Christian doctrine. The KKK is a white supremacist organization that hasn't committed any violent acts in over thirty years that I'm aware of and to compare it to the perpetual carnage of almost 1400 years of islamic jihad is ludicrous. The KKK are not committing acts of terror throughout the world on behalf of the Christian God. Muslims hate and kill for allah every day, just as they are directed to do in the qur'an, the immutable word of allah via his dubious prophet, muhammad. You conflate the American military with "Christian" terrorists; very clever and nice try but many American soldiers aren't Christians and we have a secular government, not a Christian theocracy.

George Bush, irrespective of his personal religious beliefs, did not and could not dispatch the American military to wage a Christian holy war against muslims. We had every right to retaliate after 9-11 and destroy the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan where the attackers were indoctrinated and trained. Iraq is another story and despite my opposition to that fiasco, I am proud of our soldiers who have bravely fought the thousands of terrorist "holy warriors" that rushed there to "defend islam" by blowing themselves up and killing thousands of their fellow muslims, many more than American soldiers have killed. American soldiers are not "Christian" terrorists.

You are welcome to "hold" Christianity in utter contempt if you so desire, but please explain how certain verses of the Old Testament have inspired modern Christians to commit terror attacks and suicide bombings as muslims do every day of the year. Conventional warfare, in which soldiers wear uniforms and abide by an international code of conduct, is not terrorism by any stretch of the imagination except in the warped minds of real terrorists, all of whom happen to be muslims. When muslims "denounce" terrorism, they are denouncing terror attacks against muslims, not infidels who, as you well know, are fair game.

The islamic definition of an "innocent" is a muslim, not a Christian, Jew, or Hindu. If muslims were truly opposed to the actions of their terrorist brothers, they would emphatically denounce islamic terrorism and jihad, but they have not and they will not because jihad is obligatory for all muslims until islam reigns supreme. Those muslims who eschew the militant, violent jihad operations participate by providing financial and material support. The occasional "scholar" or imam who mumbles a few carefully worded condemnations of terrorist acts right after an incendiary sermon cursing and calling for the genocide of non-muslim humanity is laughable.

Islam is irredeemable, a hideous scourge on humanity. Say what you will about Christianity and Judaism but unlike islam, they do not decree the execution of apostates or that jihad (holy war) will be waged until only one religion is left and all people are forcibly converted, enslaved, or killed.

Funny that they always point to the KKK, a totally marginal, irrelevant little group that is as relevant to Christianity as the IRA or the pygmies in Africa.

But if it scares the daylights out of the Mususlmaniacs the KKK might have some redeeming features after all.

Don'tcha all get some weird ideas now....

sadie said.. For example, all Christians aren't akin to the Ku Klux Klan, because KKK members are definitely misinformed about Christianity...

She has a misconception there that the Ku Klux Kan and the KKK are a religion, but the slaughters done my Islam is part of their religion. she obviously is either trying to pull the wool over our eyes or has not really read her own holy books herself... Perhaps she hasnt read these verses below of which there hundreds more than this.

Tabari IX:69 “He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his life and possessions from us. As for those who disbelieve, we will fight them forever in the Cause of Allah. Killing them is a small matter to us.”

Qur’an 8:39 “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.”

Qur’an 8:39 “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).”

Ishaq:327 “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

Tabari VIII:116/Ishaq:511 “So Muhammad began seizing their herds and their property bit by bit. He conquered home by home.

Qur’an 33:26 “Allah made the Jews leave their homes by terrorizing them so that you killed some and made many captive. And He made you inherit their lands, their homes, and their wealth. He gave you a country you had not traversed before.”

Qur’an 59:2 “It was Allah who drove the [Jewish] People of the Book from their homes and into exile. They refused to believe

Tabari VIII:143 “In this year a twenty-four man raiding party led by Shuja went to the Banu Amir. He launched a raid on them and took camels and sheep.

Tabari IX:122 “Muhammad sent Uyaynah to raid The Banu Anbar. They killed some people and took others captive. Asma was one of the women taken prisoner.”

Tabari IX:123 “Muhammad sent an expedition to Ghalib and to the land of the Banu Murrah. The raid on Amr and Abi was sent to the valley of Idam.

Ishaq:285 “Then the Apostle went raiding in the month of Rabi u’l-Awwal making for the Quraysh. Then he raided the Quraysh by way of Dinar.”

Well, these people didn't work so how else were they to live eh.. raid, kill, raid and kill more talking all their possessions after all they were allowed to keep all but a 10th which must be given to Mohammad, seems like a pretty lucrative way of getting goods to me.

.. yep sure sounds like a religion of peace to me..

And as for Muslim women, they are counted as half of a man and can be beaten by their husband. She is also circumcised so as she cant enjoy sex, NOT the man, just the woman.. hmmm even though it is more likely for a man to be unfaithful than a woman yet it is the woman who is circumcised...she is treated like cattle for breeding and is forced to marry some dirty old man who she doesn’t even know and who has other wives. Imagine having to live with other bitchy, frustrated women and many kids..

thecentrist,

As mentioned earlier, Christianity is based upon the new testament. There are no calls for action by the reader to commit violent acts. Nor do I see friends in the Jewish community citing old testament verses to justify acts of violence against innocents. Islam is another matter.

As for the Iraq war, the vast majority of casualties have been caused by the jihadists themselves. The known violent jihadists are the ones we are targeting. And in doing so, we place our own soldiers in harms way.

I believe that Saddam's regime needed to be overthrown. We weren't, however, obligated to assist the people of Iraq form a new government.

I was solicited to this site through an email received from a person I don't even know, however I know that it's related to a gathering I was asked to speak at recently.

After spending much time reading the comments of many, I've come to the conclusion that if nothing else, this site has urged you to speak out/stand up for what you believe.

As a descendant of the original people of this land we now call The United States Of America, we too have witnessed the terrorist actions of others to the point of near extinction.

I point no fingers at religion or intent, and as angry as one might think I have the right to be for these actions, I'm not.

Take this day divided and angry and choose your battles effectively, look beyond yourself and to the future generations...Take all this energy and stand together united in a single cause,PEACE.

In my mind are many dwellings. Each of the dwellings we create ourselves - the house of anger, the house of despair, the house of self pity, the house of indifference, the house of negative, the house of positive, the house of hope, the house of joy, the house of peace, the house of enthusiasm, the house of cooperation, the house of giving. Each of these houses we visit each day. We can stay in any house for as long as we want. We can leave these mental houses any time we wish. We create the dwelling, we stay in the dwelling, we leave the dwelling whenever we wish. We can create new rooms, new houses. Whenever we enter these dwellings, this becomes our world until we leave for another. What world will we live in today?

strong hearted bear,

Welcome to the site.

The issue that we're dealing with here is how to effectively address an ideology known as Islam which demands that you conform to its ways, accept its views, and obey its laws. It does not allow for one to create "a new room" or "a new house" as you say. Rather, it demands that you live in theirs.

Peaceful coexistence with Islam has been tried in many places and many times. But Islam does not share this same value. Just ask the people of Thailand.

I had once assumed that Islam was a religion much like any other. And that we probably shared common goals and values. But that was before I had really understood anything about Islam. I learned that my previous assumptions were just that... merely assumptions. And as I learned more about Islam, I discovered many things which are inconsistent with any other spiritual belief system. Islam is more than a religion, it is a social and legal system which also demands conformity of its government. It insists on rigid conformity with harsh consequences to those who choose not to conform.

I hope that you stay with this site and share your thoughts. Keep an open mind. I will do the same.

I have to humbly admit my ignorance to not only the teachings of Islam, but of many other religions as well.
With my limited knowledge, what I do perceive as the possible culprit in all religious publications is that, they have all been edited and REWRITTEN in such a way that they promote strict adherence through fear and create division.

Religious wars have been at the heart of every civilization since the very beginning, with the exception of that of the indigenous peoples of North America.

Our teachings, oral never written were very simple and remain so.Seven values to live your life by, Honesty, Truth, Respect, Love, wisdom, Courage, and Humility. Our teachings don't speak of any such division or shunting of those who do not believe.

Our teachings speak of purpose, that all people and all things were created to serve the need of all else.

They don't speak of punishment and eternity in the place of fire which you call Hell. They don't instruct us to preach and judge those who follow another path, they do however instruct us not to judge another mans religion.

All people were created by the same Mystery, I say Mystery because our creator remains a mystery to us, it has no face.

All people were created equal just given different altars if you will to speak to our creator. We were all given responsibility, we know ours and we know yours.

The problem again as I see it, is that humans have become disconnected from spirit, have forgotten their original teachings and purpose, have chosen to follow the man and the inanimate not their hearts.

I have to believe I was led to the gathering I spoke of earlier and to this page for a reason, a reason the human has no control over. I'm not sure as to the reason and can only speculate that perhaps it's nothing more then to speak from the heart, lead by example, and maybe not in our life time, but perhaps in the future, this is the solution.

strong hearted bear,

Keep in mind that Islam is more than religion. It is also includes a social structure and government structure.
It has no tolerance for dissenting views or opinions.

Islamists believe that we are all "infidels". An infidel is anyone who is not muslim. Their teachings mandate that they convert us, subjugate us, or kill us. It's very extreme. And peaceful coexistence is not acceptable - in contrast to other faiths.

2:256 and these verses are applicable simultaneously. No compulsion in religion, except that a few folks waged wars on Muslims, and they were to retaliate.
For a true scholarly study, one should read Quran like any other book, in complete context from beginning to end, and not pick and choose verses.
Posted by: thecentrist

Yusuf Ali 256: Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. Yusuf Ali 257: Allah is the Protector of those who have faith: from the depths of darkness He will lead them forth into light. Of those who reject faith the patrons are the evil ones: from light they will lead them forth into the depths of darkness. They will be companions of the fire, to dwell therein (For ever).

First comes the carrot (2:256), then comes the threats (2:257). That is so Islamic, all in the same breath. To be fair ‘thecentrist’ you must not take things out of context. See it in the whole cloth. And Islam will punish you for thinking otherwise than punishing the non-believers. You are not free to interpret its absolute tenets for your total submission to their Cult total belief system. Be warned. Islam is watching you.

thecentrist -

I would like to direct your weak and convoluted argument to one of Robert Spencer's books:

"Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is - and Why Islam Isn't"

A Must Read!

In this particular book he addresses your comparisons to Christianity and Islam very thoroughly, and quite frankly, he will leave you with your tail between your legs.

Back cover:

"What they're saying about "Religion of Peace?":

"Brilliantly written and argued, Religion of Peace? is the perfect book to give liberals who fervently believe that Christianity is as dangerous -- if not more dangerous -- than Islam. Robert Spencer skewers the liberals' paranoid and suicidal hatred of Christianity while reminding us how they ignore the real threat: Islamic jihadists with bombs. This splendid book demonstrates that what Islamic terrorists hate about the West is not its MTV, not the easy availability of pornography and abortion, but its Christian tradition. This goes a long way toward explaining why liberals never wanted to fight this war in the first place. Spencer's book is well written, heavily researched, and a clarion call to America to wake up and fight back." -- Ann Coulter

"It took guts to write this book. And Robert Spencer has them to spare. He also has the scholarship, expertise, and passion to cut through the clichés and expose the jihadist cult for what it is. This is a long overdue, in-depth refutation of the Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace tommyrot. Spencer also cogently explains why Jews and Christians need to stand together against the growing menace of a creed that targets adherents of both faiths. If there were a Nobel Prize for demolishing inanities, I'd nominate Robert Spencer." -- Don Feder, writer and media consultant

"If you are sick of attacks on the West, tired of Judeo-Christian-bashing, and unwilling to succumb to jihad-friendly propaganda, buy this book and spread the word. Robert Spencer's latest salvo--careful, thorough, and meticulously researched as always--offers a crash course comparison of the history and teachings of Christianity and Islam. Conclusion: 'No, Virginia, not all religions are equal.' Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization. How about you?" -- Michelle Malkin, bestselling author

"Robert Spencer's meticulously researched and powerfully argued book counters the moral equivalence arguments that attempt to excuse or divert attention from the actions of radical Islamic jihadists by attacking Christianity, Judeo-Christian civilization, and the West. In Religion of Peace? Spencer critically examines the history and teachings of Islam, the history of Muslim anti-Semitism, and Muslim views of Christianity, and in so doing helps us better understand the ideological background of the anti-Semitic and anti-Western hatred and violence that the Islamic jihadists espouse. Spencer's thought-provoking book persuasively demonstrates the ways in which Western civilization, rooted as it is in the Judeo-Christian tradition, is profoundly different from the model of society dictated by Islamic sharia. Rich in its insights and analysis, this is a book that should be read and appreciated by Christians and Jews alike." -- Rabbi David G. Dalin, author of The Myth of Hitler's Pope

strong hearted bear - Where do you get your teachings from? What is your foundation based on?

Sadie Polttila isn't a very good Moslem.

"All people were created by the same Mystery, I say Mystery because our creator remains a mystery to us, it has no face."

posted by: strong hearted bear

Although OT, I cannot let this assertion slip by without comment, as I am going to strongly disagree with what SHB alleges by stating that our creator does - in fact - have a face, and it's the face of Jesus Christ our Lord!

"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." ....Colossians 1: 16,17 & 18

In the book of Colossians, Paul is speaking of Jesus Christ, of course.

Haha,

The Centrist's posts are now being censored - no longer being published.

Nice work folks. Now I get how this is only an anti-Islam site.

Adds further evidence on my belief that this is intended to be anti-Islam only.

If I had any credibility for some of this site's other works (where I may not have had evidence to the contrary), it is all fallen apart!

The Centrist

Strong hearted bear,

As a Native American you are not directly on target for Islamists. Though, if they had their way to replace our US constitutional government, the constitution that protects your personal rights, and freedom to choose, with their Sharia, it would ultimately force you to choose to either convert, live in near slave-like dhimmitude, or be killed. If Sharia ruled over our secular constitutional rights, which would you choose? Those are your choices, per Mohammet and his ‘immutable’ word of Allah. Which house of the mind would you choose for peace under Islamic Sharia? As a peaceful person with the Seven values of life, answer carefully, or learn as we all have. Love your freedom, or it is gone.

Chris
In answering your question as to where my teachings come from, let me say that they have been handed down for hundreds of years orally from our elders.

Our teachings are no mystery they're, simply the teachings of life based on the values I mentioned earlier, therein is the foundation as well.

Our spiritual beliefs, faith and values are what has kept indigenous peoples from the total genocidal extermination of those who first came to this land fleeing the atrocities of their lands only to use them against us.

Further we are taught that the Creator does not speak directly to the human, rather has hidden the teachings and lessons for life in all that was created, we simply have to work a little harder to get the answers vs picking up a book.

I can say that Sadie is a bad Muslim I don't even know her, again I'm not here to judge, only to learn the teaching/lesson I was brought here for.

As far as the posting by Champ, I stand in applause of your stance and defense of your teachings/altar, ours needs no defending.

I will state however that it is the lack of freedom/inherent right to believe and practice the beliefs of our ancestors by those who would be extremists that has made the world the way it is, our way or no way, same calvary different day.

Centrist - Every infidel must oppose Islam. This is not our idea, it is forced upon us by the Qur'an. We either choose to become a Muslim, submit to the status of dhimmis (this inhuman state can be revoked by Islam at any time) or die.

No other religion makes this hideous choice on unbelievers.

Battle_of _tours

We have already had to make that choice back in 1492. Now you ask for me to make the same choice, I stand the same as did my ancestors.

No they haven't targeted Native Americans specifically because we never left our shores looking to take and change those of other lands. Hmm, perhaps there is something starting to show itself here.

thecentrist - You don't have to take the Koran out of context in order to make a case that it teaches 'submit or die', whereas with the Bible you do as you demonstrated.

strong hearted bear - Why would the Creator of the universe hide himself? I suggest to you He has revealed Himself in His Word for which we don't rely on oral traditions, but sound evidence.

strong hearted bear, states: "I have to humbly admit my ignorance to not only the teachings of Islam, but of many other religions as well."

May I suggest reading "Islam 101" & the "Qur'an Blog", which are both located at the top of the home page. Better yet - buy a copy of Robert Spencer's book, The Truth About Muhammad, so you can better understand Islam and it's founder, who is Muhammad.

Five years ago, when I first started blogging on Jihad Watch, I was so ignorant about Islam too, so don't feel alone. The key is to become informed, because like you, my aim is Peace as well.

From where I stand, five years later, I can tell you that Islam is NOT a religion of peace, to be sure!

Take care!

Chris
Am I hearing a bit of faith lacking, "SOUND EVIDENCE". Faith- Trust; belief; belief without proof. Something tells me someone need some proof.

Again for the record I applaud your stance, but please don't try to give me the extremist enema to rid me of my paganist ways, I know that word is lying in the shadows.

Jesus or Muhammad - You Decide:

http://www.christring.org/shortseries/jesusormuhammad.htm

Who is the true Prince of Peace?

strong hearted bear,

I appreciate your postings. I believe that your heart is in a good place.

But I must say the following:
With all due respect, persecution is not unique to your ancestors.

I personally know people who have lived under communism and escaped. This isn't something that happened to their ancestors centuries ago. It happened to them - recently. Even today in Vietnam people are shot for just trying to leave and live in another land. I know people who have had their sisters and father murdered by communist soldiers as they left in raft out to sea hoping to simply escape.

Despite all of that, they are living abroad as productive citizens. These are people that have really faced evil and persecution - and have overcome it in short time. We would do well to learn from them.

From above:
"No they haven't targeted Native Americans specifically because we never left our shores looking to take and change those of other lands. Hmm, perhaps there is something starting to show itself here."

These statements suggest a "live and let live" philosophy. That Islamic attacks occur in response to something.

If that is the case, then what exactly have the people of Thailand done to have islamics arrive to commit violence in their own land? Did the Thai people leave their shores looking to take and change those of other lands? The same holds true for the people of the Netherlands.

strong hearted bear: Faith is not belief in spite of the evidence; to the contrary faith is trust in what we know. I don't have blind faith, nor do I want it.

Coming from an athiest/agnostic background, trust me when I say I want proof. Why believe something without facts to back it up? You can 'believe' whatever you want, but that doesn't make it real.

I only ask again, why would the Creator conceal himself in mystery? Allah is capricious as well.

No they haven't targeted Native Americans specifically because we never left our shores looking to take and change those of other lands. Hmm, perhaps there is something starting to show itself here.
Posted by: strong hearted bear

Humanity is always on the move, and we all had migrated from somewhere else, though in some cases it may have been thousands of years ago, or if we want to gaze much further back, we ALL came out of the Serengeti some 60,000 years ago. For the world of Islam and its supremacist conqueror imperative, none of this has any bearing on their beliefs that we should ALL be subjugated to their Arab 7th century (Mesopotamian moon god) Allah, by force if necessary, even unto death. We can and do learn to live together as a world humanity, and hopefully with time we will learn to do this better. But it is a hopeless task to try to live in peace if the other wants you either enslaved or dead.

My point was that your constitutional rights allow you to be a free person within the constraints of the laws that protect our freedoms, so you are free to worship as you wish, something the Sharia world would take away from you. The migrations of humanity is not what has bearing here, but your rights as an individual to worship as you believe of your own free will. History in the Americas had not been kind to the Native Americans, but with time and good reason, your freedoms were restored in more modern times, though for certain your rights were trespassed in history. Let us hope this will never happen again, to any of us. Slavery is not acceptable in modern times.

We all have a story to tell about our ancestors, one that includes persecution, oppression & genocide - but we must collectively learn about this current threat to ALL of us, this evil threat known as Islam.

No matter what your ancestral or religious background might be; like it or not, ready or not, Islam is coming to a neighborhood near you, so it's important to focus on the here & now by not only learning from the past, but by becoming educated & prepared to fight this current threat - a threat that will (does) impact each of our lives and freedoms.

Chris!

I realize this is OT, but you are just the guy I need to talk to! I have friends/family that are either agnostic or atheist, and not having ever struggled with this position myself, I would really appreciate any advice that you could give in reaching them for Christ. I haven't checked out your website yet, but is there a way to contact you directly to discuss this in more detail? Thanks!

Absolutely champ; go to my site and hit the contact link up top - it'll come directly to me and then we can converse via email/chat or whatever. The site is small right now, but I've got tons of studies that will be up as time allows. Look forward to hearing from you!

I apologize for that comment, that snuk out of the house of anger. No, no one deserves the the cruel invasions that have and are taking place. A lesson learned, "thought before speech", thank you.

I don't know why the creator remains a mystery to some, perhaps it's just not in the physical flesh that we have not seen, rather we have seen him in all that he has created. Blind faith, so far so good. Has it saved me from experiencing the harshness life has to offer, no, but it has taught me to cope, live and learn from it.

I don't want to do battle with what you believe to be correct here just need for everyone to not see the difference in belief rather the similarities through the good we do.

Chris - thanks for the tip on contacting you through your website. One question, though, will my name and e-mail appear for others to see? It if will, then perhaps you could leave me with another way to write you so that no one else could have my name/e-mail. Thanks!

Oops...."if it will"

Don't worry about that, champ, it will come to my inbox directly.

strong hearted bear

Six things that you, as a native american or First Nations person, should know about Islam - classical, traditional, orthodox Islam.

1. Islam seeks to stamp out music. ALL music: vocal and instrumental, sacred and profane. This is in its sharia, its 'sacred' law. Music is seen as 'haraam', forbidden, unclean. Music is not permitted in the mosque and is repressed everywhere else. In Afghanistan, Gaza, Pakistan, Algeria, Iraq and Somalia, the jihad-and-sharia-minded Muslims have threatened, attacked, silenced and KILLED musicians and blown up music shops.

So: not only the New York Philharmonia, but ALSO native American drumming and sacred songs would be anathema to the pious jihad-minded, sharia-minded Muslim.

If Islam took over the USA and imposed sharia law, native american musicians and performers would suffer (and might even be attacked and killed) right alongside African gospel choirs, Tennessee country music practitioners, pop tarts, and the Metropolitan Opera.

2. Islam suppresses the visual arts and sculpture. According to sharia, really pious Muslims are not supposed to make any representations - at all - of living beings, whether human or animal.

So: under a strict sharia regime, native american totem poles would be chopped up and burned; and think what would happen to your art.

3. According to Islam, dogs are unclean. People are forbidden to keep dogs as pets (in some places they do: but it is dangerous - a man in Iran was arrested by the religious police, for the crime of - taking his pet dog for a walk!!).

Mary Boyce, who lived among the Zoroastrians in Iran in the 1970s, observed Muslim children deliberately torturing the dogs of the Zoroastrians (because Zoroastrians respect and love dogs). Deliberate cruelty toward dogs is common in Muslim societies - in the 1940s the undercover journalist, John Roy Carlson, saw a group of Muslim children gleefully waiting for the train to come and run over the stray dog they had caught and tied to the railway tracks; and on this website, in the comments, someone who had hitchhiked in Muslim lands described how truck drivers would go out of their way to deliberately run over dogs that they saw on or near the road.

Do you love your dogs? Then - beware of Islam.

4. The sharia, the law of Islam, says that any person who is born into Islam, or who has converted to it, but who decides they want to leave Islam and join another faith, or become an atheist, must be killed. This happens all the time in Muslim lands; and even in western countries, today, such as Britain, Muslims who have left Islam and become Christians are disowned by their families, harassed, attacked, threatened with death, and are forced to live in hiding.

5. Worst of all: Islam does NOT teach the 'Golden Rule', 'do to others as you would they should do to you'. Instead it has one rule for Muslims and another for non-Muslims. (This very ugly fact is gone into most thoroughly in Mr Bill Warner's website, 'Centre for the Study of Political Islam' - I recommend you check it out).

Qur'an 48:29 says - "Muhammad is Allah's Apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another”.

And in another sacred text of Islam, the Sira, or life of Mohammed, by Ibn Ishaq, it says (p. 231) - “Muslims are one ummah (community) to the exclusion of all men. Believers are friends of one another to the exclusion of all outsiders.”

Muslims are supposed to behave decently toward each other but do NOT have to behave decently toward non-Muslims. Indeed, they're supposed to HATE us, and never, never genuinely make friends with us (they are told, however, by the Qur'an, that they are allowed to *pretend* friendship with us, temporarily, for safety's sake).

Lying to non-Muslims, robbing them, cheating them, hurting them, raping them, stealing their young daughters (two little Christian girls have just been kidnapped by Muslims in Pakistan, and 'converted' to Islam, and the Muslim judiciary is siding with the kidnappers), is all seen as perfectly acceptable if it advances the power of the Muslims over the non-Muslims.

6. According to the classic teaching of Islam, non-Muslims who are not Jews or Christians (which means, people like you, who follow Native American beliefs; it also means people like Hindus and Buddhsits) may be offered, by Muslims, only two choices: convert to Islam, or be killed.

The Muslims killed scores of millions of Hindus in India - they would have killed them all, except that they realized that dead people can't be exploited as slaves or to grow food or pay tribute, so they 'bent the rules' and decided that although strict Islam said all the pagans should be murdered or 'converted' to Islam, they would keep some Hindus alive.

Were, heaven forbid, Islam to 'take over' America, all First Nations people who wanted to practise First Nations spiritual beliefs would be told 'Convert to Islam! - or die."

I'm serious, strong hearted bear. All non-Muslim Americans (just like all non-Muslim Australians - I'm Australian) need to screw up their courage and say NO to Islam, NO to every last one of its demands. You, strong hearted bear, will need ALL the courage of your ancestors in order to remain free.

I'm serious, strong hearted bear. All non-Muslim Americans (just like all non-Muslim Australians - I'm Australian) need to screw up their courage and say NO to Islam, NO to every last one of its demands. You, strong hearted bear, will need ALL the courage of your ancestors in order to remain free.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy

Excellent summary, which also reminded me of all the things I try to burry in my conscious about Islam, since its tenets are so unpleasant to think about. Think of all the aboriginal peoples who never attacked anyone else in the world, harmless except for their own inter tribal rivalries, and they too fell to Islam from the Berber Mountains to the Hindu Kush. Among them were Buddhists, pagan animists and spirit worshippers, Hindus, and Christians among the native peoples. Islam did not care one whit. Bulldozed them all into either slavery, conversion, or death, that included the pet dog. Muslim belief is like a plague of locusts, everything gets wiped.