Muslim Brotherhood-linked group putting up Islamic supremacist billboards in Minneapolis

Wow, a free copy of the Koran...

Greater dissimulation in advertising could hardly be found.

Saudi money is being well spent. That famous "recycling" of petrodollars we were all supposed to welcome.

"Peace be upon THEM"...how slimy. To rope people in with that line and then impose dhimmi status on those who are sucked into the sweetness enough to help Islam achieve its goals without taking the step of converting.
"Thanks for the help, DHIMMI...now lower your head and pay the jizya!"

GainPeace.com

Only if you're willing to submit to isalm, so no peace for me.

Robert,

Are you this far off the mark? Man, someone should renig on your FPM "Islamic Scholar" title:

"... that the Biblical prophets taught Islam, ..., hijacked versions of the original Islam."

The only thing "twisted" here is your misrepresentation of fact.

All Prophets brougt their messages in their original form and were submissive to God, Muslim, by the very nature of their being Prophets and the people who submitted to the order of God were Muslims who followed those Prophets.

That does not mean they followed the Quran and Mohammad, the Islam that comes to mind when you and your ilk start spewing disinformation...no, it means they were obedient to God in following their Prophets and thereby they were "Muslims."

Abraham obeyed God and was a Muslim, and called those who followed his way Muslims.

Moses was a "Muslim" and The Jews who followed him were "Muslim"

Jesus was obedient to God and thus a "Muslim", the Disciples wh oobeyed Jesus were "Muslims"

Mohammad was a Muslim and all those who obeyed him were and are Muslims.

It is a universal defenition for those who obey God.

Peace
Abdullah Mikail

Ab Mik is a Dipstick! Loser! You Backward Loser, Neanderthal Barbarian whacking your head to a non-existent pagan moon deity! LOL, LOSER!

This is the TRUE ab mik:

War/Hate/Misogyny/Mass-Murder,

slave-to-allah, mikail

Ab Mik the Dipstick!

Well, this is good news, that they have finally fallen into the propaganda tramp.I only miss a sweet red hot mama to make it more interesting..

....Advertising signs that con you
Into thinking you're the one
That can do what's never been done
That can win what's never been won
Meantime life outside goes on
All around you....

Propaganda, all is phony.

...okay, I have had enough
What else can you show me?

Islam - the Religion of Puke.

They are part of a nationwide multimedia campaign that also includes placing posters on buses and subways in other big cities.

And the decent people of the world have no PR presence to counter this black tide foisted by Moslem activists.

*** 92:8 ***

In the States, Europe, the entire British Commonwealth, dar al-Harb Africa, Latin America... seemingly everywhere frank and open speech about Moslems and Islam is strictly verboten. And the craxy ting is that this awful thing called Islam (aka Surrender! aka Submit!)they prop up as the always handy halfassed excuse for their collective misbehavior, it's a media sideshow spectacle like a monstrous ventriloquist dummy in a black comedic performance with his creepy master.

The malfeasance on behalf of the globo-socialists running the press, media, and academy you'd expect to be silent. But where's the rich Infidel dude privatley funding shoots of 30 minute videos, research press releases, TV ads, billboard ads, radio ads? Where?

*** 2:216 ***

What are the Japanese and Chinese thinking right now? And how about those Koreans? Will the East Asians fold like a cheap suit, too?

Yes, I have a question. I don't believe in your god or any other god for that mater. So, why do you want to kill us? I still won't believe once I'm on the other side. Get a life and forget virgins. They don't exist anymore.

According to the New Testament, Jesus didn't promote genocide, pedophilia, raids on villages inhabited by those who opposed him, pillaging, dhimmitude, rejection of science and critical thinking, stoning, amputation, the rape of un-tent-ed women ("legitimized" by mahound's imaginary alter-ego in Mein Qurampf 33:59), slavery, merciless persecution of those who refused to follow or submit to him... Therefore, Jesus could never have been a mahoundian.

As for the free copy of Mein Qurampf... Their pages might be great for picking dog droppings off the sidewalk, or lining bird cages. Or the whole thing can be used as a door-stopper, or a step for when a shelf is located 2 inches too high to reach. These are about all the purposes that such a collection of inbred bedouin savage nonsense from Arabia could ever serve, aren't they?

Islam...the way of life of.....

O I see! Moses and Jesus were child rapers that held mass-beheading raids and stole bling from the surrounding Arab tribes.
I had it all wrong, I thought one was a liberator & law-giver and the other went around telling us to love one another.

I can see why muhammed (pork be upon him) would want to change and contradict the original Hebrew prophetic tradition and replace it with.. with...with.....
murder rape and desolation. A superior way of life indeed.

What a sick delusion Islam is.

If Jesus was a Muslim, He was a bad one. He didn't believe in sharia. He said "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Surely a Muslim who passed up a chance to stone an adultress would go straight to Hell.

Abdullah,

Abraham obeyed God?

There is some confussion here:

Oh God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe says, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God say, "No." Abe say, "What?"
God say, "You can do what you want Abe, but
The next time you see me comin' you better run"
Well Abe says, "Where do you want this killin' done?"
God says, "Out on Highway 61."

If by this God you mean "the killer" one, well then he did and still does under your law.But if you mean God "the Father", well..you know he sent an angel to stop the killing from being done.

I know this is a bit complex.May I recommend you the reading of Fear and trembling by Soren Kierkegaard? Dont worry, I wont tell no body that you did.

If Jesus was a Muslim, He was a bad one. He didn't believe in sharia. He said "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Surely a Muslim who passed up a chance to stone an adultress would go straight to Hell.

AM : All Prophets brougt their messages in their original form and were submissive to God, Muslim, by the very nature of their being Prophets and the people who submitted to the order of God were Muslims who followed those Prophets.

According to some lying desert bandit who was also a pedophile, misogynist, murderer, maniac, thief, parasite and so on.

Your fallacy is built on older fallacies, nothing more.

AM, accept that you're wrong and move on to a more productive, enjoyable life.

In my opinion, the crowning achievement of Mohammed's criminal genius was his development of an alternate prophetic lineage. Through the identity theft of Biblical personages, Mohammed made his attempt to forge his name on the deed to legitimacy. The cost of doing so is the reduction of Biblical personages to the status of pod people, imposters eerily bereft of their former message and light.

The upside of all of this is that the forgery can be uncovered with persistent and pointed questioning. The effects can be quite dramatic, in which toothy smiles beaming from Mohammedan outreach types can at times be made to change to spluttering, frothing invective, should the demand for clear answers prove to be at all uncomfortable for them.

Prepare your questions in advance. Share your questions with like-minded individuals. Use your questions in public forums. Don't expect your leaders to do it for you. Democracy works best from the roots up anyway.

AM! Long time no see. Could you answer some questions I put to you that I believe you never answered:

(http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/11/he-didnt-just-snap-fort-hood-jihadist-to-be-charged-with-premeditated-murder.html)

*You say there is no inequality between men and women with testimony in the Quran, but why does it then specifically say a woman needs support? Could you point out a passage that is gender neutral about support or says men need another as support?

*You also didn't answer my question about your claim that Isreal is not recognized as a Jewish state. I have shown it has been by the UN. Not recognized by whom? (My apologies if this was already answered, but I don't think you did.)

Also, you cited some questionable links before, and I pointed out some blatant racism in those links:

"After all, had Americans been skeptical about the information they were fed about the Middle East situation after September 11, they might have read the passages in the Quran which have never been mentioned by a Zionist controlled media who have conspicuously told only 1/4 of the story." -Mark Glenn.
Jewish global conspiracy?

"you never answer my question from the other day, concerning the higher rates of mental illnesses among Jews. Why is it that they are disproportionally represented. My good friend Henry, A Jew who lost all 4 grandparents in the Holocaust, says that it is because they wear their minds out through a lifetime of living in a fantasy world where they perceive themselves as being better than everyone else." -Mark Glenn.

Here Mr. Glenn makes a sweeping association with all Jews, their attitudes of supposed superiority and mental illness.

From the site AM cited http://www.rense.com/general34/cart.htm and article by Henry Makow, Ph.D.:

"I won't dwell on September 11, which I think was perpetrated by the CIA and Mossad."
conspiracy theory garbage

"Giladi's story suggests that Zionists will kill Jews and use terror against "friendly" targets to advance their interests. In past articles, we have seen how they cooperated with the Nazis. In 1954, they bombed American establishments in Cairo (the "Levon Affair") to sabotage Egyptian-American relations. http://www.savethemales.ca/091202.html"
Yes, you read that right, he claims JEWS in large conspired with the Nazis. What's in that cite that Mr. Makow links to as proof? (Which is also written by Makow)

"While European Jews were in mortal danger, Zionist leaders in America deliberately provoked and enraged Hitler. They began in 1933 by initiating a worldwide boycott of Nazi goods. Dieter von Wissliczeny, Adolph Eichmann's lieutenant, told Rabbi Weissmandl that in 1941 Hitler flew into a rage when U.S. Zionist Rabbi Stephen Wise, in the name of the entire Jewish people, "declared war on Germany". Hitler fell on the floor, bit the carpet and vowed: "Now I'll destroy them. Now I'll destroy them." In Jan. 1942, he convened the "Wannsee Conference" where the "final solution" took shape."

Yes, their aim wasn't to strike back at a malevolent dictator who was murdering their country men, their act was to PROVOKE Hitler to make it worse. by Makow's twisted logic, fighting fascism is also supporting fascism somehow! Brilant!

"Rabbi Shonfeld says the Nazis chose Zionist activists to run the "Judenrats" and to be Jewish police or "Kapos." "The Nazis found in these 'elders' what they hoped for, loyal and obedient servants who because of their lust for money and power, led the masses to their destruction." The Zionists were often intellectuals who were often "more cruel than the Nazis" and kept the trains' final destination a secret. In contrast to secular Zionists, Shonfeld says Orthodox Jewish Rabbis refused to collaborate and tended their beleaguered flocks to the end."

You show anger at associations, real or imaginary that Mr. Spencer has with racists, but when you cite out and out rascists such as Glenn and Makov you brush it off because they make good points. This is a aregous double standard, and that you are not bothered by it shows some of your true character.

Got Questions?

Yeah, I've got one. Why would anyone halfway decent follow a, murdering, looting, thieving, child marrying and raping sub-human monster as the most perfect man? Probably the worst human being to ever walk the face of this planet.

Why???

Peace.

Piece is more like it. A piece of truth here, a piece of bullcrap there. A piece of ass for Mohammed when on a rape. A piece of news every day about getting the Islam blues. A piece of Islam. A piece of humanity, but only a piece.

*** 92:8 ***

All Moslems are punks. Even their children, above about the age 7 or 8 or so. Piece.

I have argued before and I will argue here again (because of the troll appearance on this thread) that either Islam is the true faith or it isn't. Now, I most definitely think that it isn't, as is the case with the vast majority of folks who post here regularly. If it isn't, then it's a fraud, a religious con job. Actually, I think it deserves to be accorded the distinction of being the greatest fraud in all of history.

But let's suppose, just for argument's sake, it is the true faith. Well, in that case, what we would have is a very disturbing universe with a deity that is an Orwellian tyrant. And, like Prometheus who defied Zeus, the noble thing to do, what would redeem our humanity in spite of God and not because of this entity, would be to oppose Islam, to oppose Allah, futile ultimately though this effort would be. In short, if Islam is the true religion, God is a creep and deserves no respect and it is thus incumbent upon the more enlightened portion of mankind to reject such ultimate reality and make a noble stand against enslavement and tyranny. Again, Prometheus should be our model here.

I have written this to convey to all, but most especially to the troll, that there is no going back for those who cherish freedom over submission and who are repulsed by the Islamic conception of the deity, even if real. The Rubicon has been crossed. With all that makes me up, I mean this to the very core of my being.

I wish everyone could watch Zakariya Boutros discuss the differences between the Biblical portrayal of the prophets and the way Muhammad presents them in the Quran. I posted about it as follows at: staringattheview.blogspot.com

Saturday, December 5, 2009
Muslims and Muhammad: The Impossible Task

I've reached the conclusion that Muslims face an impossible task. Simply put, their entire faith rests upon defending a man - Muhammad - who is indefensible.

Wafa Sultan expressed it best when she said, "It is impossible that a man who did the things Muhammad did could be a prophet of God."

It is impossible that a man in his mid-50's could engage in sexual intercourse with a nine-year-old child, possibly damaging her physically so that she never became pregnant, and be a prophet of God.

It is impossible that a man could finance his religious and political community by robbing the trade caravans that passed through his area on their annual trips between Arabia and Syria, and be a prophet of God.

It is impossible that a man could encourage his own son to divorce his wife so that he, the father, could marry her, and be a prophet of God.

It is impossible that a man could lie to his wife to get her out of the house so that he could sleep with the slave girl he had given her as a gift, and be a prophet of God.

It is impossible that a man could call other men to follow him, and then watch them die one after the other in the battles he instigated to build his empire while giving them promises of the sensual Paradise that awaited them, and be a prophet of God.

It is impossible that a man could behead 800 Jewish men who had lived in his city for centuries for the simple reason they refused to accept him as their leader, and be a prophet of God.

It is impossible that a man could trade the Jewish wives and daughters of the men he had just beheaded for weapons and horses, and be a prophet of God.

It is impossible that a man could be so fearful of criticism that he would send a man at night to kill the mother of a nursing child because of the poems she had written against him, and be a prophet of God.

It is impossible that a man could sentence a woman to death by having her limbs attached to camels that moved in opposite direction pulling her apart, then behead her and parade her severed head throuth Medina, and be a prophet of God.

It is impossible that a man could torture a young Jewish tribal leader to death to obtain his money, and then "marry" his 17-year old widow the same night, and be a prophet of God.

It is impossible that a man could allow his followers to have sex with their female slaves as well as their prisoners of war, whether or not they were married, and be a prophet of God.

For the past several months on Al-Hayat TV, Father Zakariya Boutros has been discussing the dozens of stories Muhammad "stole" from the Old and New Testaments, as well as from the Midrash and other ancient Jewish documents, and inserted into the Qur'an as revelations from Allah. Zakariya makes a clear distinction between "plagarism", which is the Arabic word "iqtibas", and "theft". He points out that Muhammad did not merely copy and paste stories from these documents into the Qur'an, but essentially changed their meanings in the Qur'an to indicate that he, Muhammad, was not merely similar to but essentially superior than the individuals such as Adam, Moses, and Abraham whose stories he stole.

For the first part of his 90-minute program Zakariya presents his evidence, and then opens the lines for people to call in. His live programs do not contain the 10-second delay to block out explicit language found in American programs such as the Larry King Show, which means the listener gets to hear exactly what the caller says. More than one call has a sequence similar to this:

Moderator: Our next caller is Abdul Rahman from Bahrain. Hello, Abdul Rahman.

Caller: You bastard, you son-of-a-bitch, you son of a whore, you MF'ing infidel...

Zakariya Boutros: Thank you, may God bless you and forgive you...

Very rarely do the callers actually challenge the information presented by Zakariya, because they cannot. No-one can.

Okay, we've got free speech in this country - allegedly - so why not have various anti-jihad organizations band together and billboard display all of those embarrassingly supremacist and violent koranic quotes we all know and love?

AM, your arguments are fallacious and just plain silly. For it they were accurate, i.e., that the references being made to Jesus, Moses, etc. were merely descriptive, then what you are admitting to is that these islamic billboards are promoting beliefs other than islam! You of all people should now how unwelcome other religions are to islamists. Now if you stick to the descriptive mantra, then I presume I can come into your compound and talk about Jesus and his submission to the God the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane on the way to the Cross to die for all our sins and open the Kingdom of Heaven as a further "example" of submission.

We shouldn't let some posters here divert us from addressing the crux of this article: that the ICNA has co-opted Jesus, of all people, for their own purposes.

This truly is anger-inspiring-- and it's a justified anger.

Let's direct our outrage at their site (www.gainpeace.com) with questions and comments, polite, but pointed.

And by the way, the name, "gain peace"??? Where in the Muslim world today is there even a semblance of peace?

ISNA tells us that the Prince of Peace was a Muslim, who therefore must have followed violent orders from a violent Allah, and we are to complacently believe them -- while they "co-opt" the peace label? What type of madness is this?

Jesus Saves
Moses Invests
Muhammed Extorts

Kinneddar,

Excellent post. I too was "truly anger-inspired" after reading this.

This, from you,

ISNA tells us that the Prince of Peace was a Muslim, who therefore must have followed violent orders from a violent Allah, and we are to complacently believe them -- while they "co-opt" the peace label? What type of madness is this?

hits the nail on the head.

It is a madness that I'm personally at a loss to counter considering the absolute and complete apathy of the "Christian" world.

Where has gone the fortitude, the forthrightness, the foundation of those to vociferously stand up and, if necessary, violently oppose others who wish to "co-opt" the bedrock of Western Civilization?

Of course, this is a rhetorical question.

There are many reasons for this "downfall", but what is astounding to me is the ennoblement of the co-opters by truly disinterested Westerners.

"Pass me the remote, dude."

AM said: "I did not cite Mark Glenn, the reference was to Naem Giladi…"
This is a lie. AM did cite Mark Glenn, even using his name as a source, even if it was him quoting Giladi. I'm not that thick.

AM said: "Courtesy of Mark Glenn, (...thanks)" (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/10/european-union-set-to-outlaw-objections-to-islamic-practices.html)

He didn't just "happen" to quote the same material AM did, it was the SOURCE of where AM got the material itself.

AM said: "What I referred to was truth, deal with the truth, don’t misdirect. Neither one of us gives a damn about Mark Glenn and his racist views, right? Now deal with the truth of Naem Giladi."

It may well be the truth, but AM directly quoted Markov, who he don't even deny. I wouldn't be so bothered if AM had acknowledge the racism in the first place and stated disagreement and also (and more importantly) wasn't trying to tie Mr. Spencer with racists. AM calls Mr. Spencer a racist with any hint of tenuous link to a racist group when there's any hint of you with racism AM just pushes it aside, saying "it's still truth". Hypcracy pure and simple.

For those who might be wondering why I'm not addressing AM directly, I point to a quote in the thread I stumbled upon: "I suggest that all posters to this site, from this day forward, should refuse to address AM directly. Whatever he says should be discussed - if discussed at all - in the third person." -Dumbledoresarmy

AS for the other stuff, I need time to look it over.

Is it supposed to look like a Claritin box?

Amusingly enough, the Atheist billboards in Las Vegas were removed:

Freedom From Religion Foundation billboards - Banned

A kind donor paid for 10 solstice signs to adorn the city of Las Vegas this December, which, in addition to the six censored "Yes, Virginia..." signs, included two that said "Heathen's Greetings" and two with the message "Reason's Greetings."

A representative from ClearChannel Outdoor told FFRF that the Santa signs were removed due to calls of complaint received by the company.

"It's rather mind-boggling for this to happen in a town with the reputation of Las Vegas, built on gambling and call girls," said Annie Laurie Gaylor, Foundation co-president. "Who would have guessed there would be such delicate sensibilities in the city known for the saying 'What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.' "

Heathen's Greetings was my favorite.

But I'm confident that no islamophobics will be calling in to complain about the moslem propaganda.

Male. Male. Male. Male. Male. Male.

Anyone notice a pattern here?

Male. Male. Male. Male. Male. Male.

Anyone notice a pattern here?

I wonder if there's some way to get that offensive crazy crap taken down.

Old testament figures from thousands of years before Mohammedan and Jesus from centuries before Mohammed ... mohammedans?

Whether or not that crap can be removed from the public eye, I think it's high time that the resistance put up some billboards of our own.

I recommend the verse of the sword, the bit about "marrying" little Aisha and maybe the bit about wife beating.

Any other recommendations?

It should be done tastefully with full credit to the translation used etc ... The message will speak for itself.

The legal and publicity fallout will be a TRIUMPH of political theatre 1970's style. And that stuff WORKS!

What say?

"Muhammad could not have ended up with 1.5 billion followers if he did things that were considered evil."

The problem with you people and your belief system is that it doesn't consider mass-murdering non-moslems to be "evil."

Yet, it is evil as all-get-out - you follow a sick and twisted ideology, and you become personally sick and evil as a result.

Which is what happened to Germans who embraced Nazism. Same deal. Which is what's happened to resident troll slave-to-allah mikail.

45ch said: "Most christians have a moderate interpretation of Luke 19, likewise, almost all muslims either ignore controversial parts of the Koran or interpret it to mean that those commands were for that period in time and not as commands for today."

Huh? Could you be more specific, that chapter has a few sections in it.A moderate interpretation of what? Jesus's invitation of the tax collector? The parable of the ten minas? The triumphal entry? Clearing the temple?

I assume you mean the last, the clearing of the temple. You use of the word "moderate interpretation" and comparison with the Quran makes it sound as if there is something wrong in what Jesus did. What do you think that Jesus did was wrong that needs to be moderated?

He cleared out those who were taking advantage of the people making sacrifices at the temple. Though he also made a whip out of cords and drove everyone (and the non-caged animals) out of the temple, it never says he directly harmed anyone. He was even careful to not harm the doves saying "Get these out of here!" (see: John 2:12-25). It seems a bit hypocritical and even laughable of someone who is trying to soften the harsh image of mohammad to make a claim about Jesus being "too violent".

Examples of Islam being the religion of peace(tm). This is what's on TV in the "mainstream" Muslim countries, Iran, Lebanon, Palastine and even "moderate" Egypt!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yw2EisVqKZ4&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm8CrkPa3Ao&NR=1

Billboards? Jesus don't need no stinkin' billboards.
Wouldn't take much paint to change that 2 to a 6, to correct the typo.

I believe that was a parable. The character in the parable was a king- an earthly king. Jesus was telling a story not instructing his disciples to kill, and this begs a question for you: Name one act of murderous violence, anywhere in the world in the past, oh let's say, 100 years, where the perpetrator(s) cited Luke 19: 26-27 to justify their actons...

Billboards? Jesus don't need no stinkin' billboards.
Wouldn't take much paint to change that 2 to a 6, to correct the typo.

45ch The critical point about a religion/faith is matching the prophet to the holy book. So matching Mohammad's actions to the Quran will reveal e Allahs intentions giving us the real interpretation of the book. Here is a comparison of some aspects of Jesus and Mohamamd's/Allah's teaching behaviour (there are many others)
Tell me about the appropriate interpretation of the Quran now 45ch
A.John Chapter 8
5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women(for adultery) . Now what do you say?" 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.
7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.
10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

` `
Allah in the Quran proclaims that Mohammad is the role model for Muslims to follow (sura 33:21)

Contrast Mohammad from Sahih Muslim, Book 17, Verse 4206;

"There came to him (the Holy Prophet) a woman from Ghamid and said:
Allah's Messenger, I have committed adultery, so purify me. He (the Holy
Prophet) turned her away. On the following day she said: Allah's Messenger, Why do you turn me away? Perhaps, you turn me away as you turned away Ma'iz. By Allah, I have become pregnant. He said: Well, if you insist upon it, then go away until you give birth to (the child).
When she was delivered she came with the child (wrapped) in a rag and
said: Here is the child whom I have given birth to. He said: Go away and suckle him until you wean him. When she had weaned him, she came to him (the Holy Prophet) with the child who was holding a piece of bread in his hand. She said: Allah's Apostle, here is he as I have weaned him and he eats food. He (the Holy Prophet) entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. Khalid b Walid came forward with a stone which he flung at her head and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and so he abused her. Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) heard his (Khalid's) curse that he had huried upon her. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Khalid, be gentle. By Him in Whose Hand is my life, she has made such a repentance that even if a wrongful tax-collector were to repent, he would have been forgiven. Then giving command regarding her, he prayed over her and she was buried."

From Ishaq’s Life of Mohammad;
P266/7: stoning of adulterer at the door of the mosque. Mohammad said he was the first to revive the order of God and to practise it. See also Bukhari Vol8 /Bk82/nos.803, 805, 809, 813, 816, 817(note in Nos.816, 817 stoning originally part of Quran but not in the final collation)

B. A Samaritan village refuses to receive Jesus. James and John ask whether they should call down fire from heaven to destroy them, Jesus rebukes them .(Luke 9:51-56)

Contrast what Allah says as regards those who reject Mohammmad’s message:
Sura 8.65
YUSUFALI: O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two
hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers:
for these are a people without understanding.
60.1
*YUSUFALI:* O ye who believe! Take not my enemies and yours as friends (or protectors),- offering them (your) love, even though they have rejected the Truth that has come to you, and have (on the contrary) driven out the Prophet and yourselves (from your homes), (simply) because ye believe in Allah your Lord! If ye have come out to strive in My Way and to seek My Good Pleasure, (take them not as friends), holding secret converse of love (and friendship) with them: for I know full well all that ye conceal and all that ye reveal. And any of you that does this has strayed from the Straight Path.

Contrast Mohammad from Life of Mohammad by Ishaq
P609: an opposition mosque in Dhu Awan that was built for the sick and needy is seen as a threat by Mohammad. They ask Mohammad to pray for them in their mosque. Mohammad gives an excuse so he doesn’t have to. He then summons his followers to destroy and burn the mosque (sura 9:109 then came down).

P367/8: Mohammad says who will rid me of Ibnu’l Ashraf (a poet)?
Mohammad b. Maslana offers to. After 3 days he asks Mohammad if he may tell lies to enable him to murder Ashraf, and Mohammad agrees.

And after a long absence, AM is back. And look! 45ch is as well! What fun!

Anything new for us today, 45ch? Or the same list of non sharia countries coupled with the same list of contradictory and childish recommendations?

How's that $215 million working out for you AM?

Jesus was a Muslim, eh AM? And you would define a Muslim as one who follows God? If Jesus spoke God's word, then surely you should be following his teachings?

Well I just got off the phone with one of these guys. I beat him down with some great facts about Islam and he eventually just hung up on me. "If you want to keep yourself blinded, that's fine with me buddy" is all he kept repeating before hanging up. He had nothing to argue back with, which is pretty typical.

I encourage everyone to call this number and blast them with some truth. Make their jobs hard for them. Exasperate them.

I think Robert and the Jihadwatch team should call them daily and put the audio clips up on the site. That would be great.

P.S. #2:

I thought we had 57 FLAVORS, not 57 muslim countries... !

Re: the Billboard:

"The large print giveth, and the small print beheadeth away."

45 ch
did Jesus kill or order the killing of children or adults like Mohammed did ? No, so your point is, well, pointless- you ignore the statement about the “beautiful” role model that Allah exhorts Muslims to follow . That can be the only authentic way to interpret the Quran- you simply ignore that point – you have no answer to it.
The argument about Matt 15 - was Jesus telling the Pharisees they should kill childden who disobey their parents well, you would look at all of the teaching behaviour of the prophet in the gospels - – so look at Matt 5 for understanding the OT and other examples such as John 8
You miss or ignore the point that Mohamed in interpreting the Quran believed that stoning adulterers was the right way to behave (Omar confirms stoning was in the Quran during Mohammad lifetime but was left out of the final collation) so either you accept Mohamed correctly interprets the Quran or you don’t (if you are a Muslim and don’t accept Mohammad correctly followed the Quran then you will know you are apostate)
You are in dire need of in understanding the relationship between the Law ands Jesus teaching about the Law is in place but APPLYING the law is subject to and seen through the teachings and actions of Jesus – thus the example in John 8 .Jesus says the meaning of the law as a whole is what is important- what does Jesus say the Law of Moses in summed up by? Do you know?. It answers your question.
Now when you do the same to Mohammed you should see that Allah intended the Quran to be interpreted as Mohammed (the “FINAL” prophet) acted/ interpreted it . If you can’t see that you are in denial.
Jesus spoke in parables but Mohammad certainly didn’t. When he said kill a civilian he meant it and it happened. When he said torture a Jew (Jews are vilified by Allah in the Quran) to find the treasure of Khaybar it aint no parable.
When Allah says in the Quran women are your field and you can have sex with female slaves Mohammad and his followers applied it. When Mohammad tells his men they can practice coitus interruptus when raping female captives that’s Allah /Quran speaking through Mohammad .
That is the definitive interpretation of the Quran however depressing that may be for a Muslim who thinks. In other words the definitive interpretation of the Quran is in what Mohammad taught and critically how he acted
Allah says absolutely without qualification that Mohammed is the beautiful pattern of conduct for Muslims (who submit to Allah) to follow. It is the achilles heel of the Quran, Islam and of course the spirit called Allah.

Once again Islamic arrogance is on full display in the form of billboards proclaiming Islamic ignorance and appropriation of Jewish and Christian heritage as well as their deity.

That Muslims and ONLY Muslims hold exclusive rights on the Jewish and Christian deity who called himself "Yahweh" not "Allah" by the way,and claim that Abraham, Moses, Jesus were Muslims makes my blood boil.

"Muslim" is a follower of "Mohamed".
"Jesus" was a Jew of the Nazarene sect. His followers called him "Rabi".
Jesus, Moses, and Abraham worshiped Yahweh not Allah.

Allah is the principal "father god" of the Pagan Arabian people, Mohamed grew up worshiping "Allah", who has a completely separate mythology associated with him. This mythology never matched in any way that of Yahweh, nor did the Pagan Arabians ever make that claim.

Muslims cannot defend this incredibly offensive billboard, nor can they defend the insult to Jews and Christians, that they are the ones who perverted Yahweh's message.

I am Pagan and this boldfaced lie offends me as well.

I went to that website there is nothing there but proselytizing BS and lies about Jesus.

Cigarettes are about to lose their status as "the greatest killer of humans, yearly" to Islam.

I still haven't heard any good reasons why even a halfway decent person would revere a, murdering, looting, lying, warmongering, child marrying and raping, sub-human monster posing as a prophet.

Seems rather odd, Mr. Spencer, to refer to a religion's claims to absolute truth, and to hold that there are key errors in others' faiths, as a form of supremacism.

If so, then certainly this makes your Catholic Christianity supremacist and raises the question as to why you are a member of such a supposedly malevolent entity.

Christianity would have to be seen as supremacist in relation to Judaism, as it holds that the Old Testament/Jewish Bible is a mere forerunner of Christ, the Church, and Christian truth, and fulfills and renders inoperative, the authoritive, normative framework of Mosaic law. Christianity holds that the Judaism's claim to the eternally authoritative binding nature of Torah law is in serious error. Or as a priest at the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith told me during my trip to Rome in 2004, Christ is the center of religious truth for all, all other religious claims to central truth are rubbish. So is he a supremacist as well?

You seem to have yourself in a bit of a pickle. If you are claiming that Catholic Christians should not seek converts, you have departed from authoritative Catholic teaching and separate yourself from the Church. If your position is they can seek converts, then they apparently are 'supremacists', notion that the Church would surely reject.

One can pursue dialogue while holding such absolutist beliefs on behalf of one's faith, as Catholicism has, in effect, done through Nostra Aetate in the Second Vatican Council.

If you are truly, seriously claiming that no religion has the right to claim absolute truth and to hold that all other faiths have some level of serious error and deficiency, then it would appear that not only are you intolerant of any traditional notion of religious truth, but have a defective notion regading the nature of the unity of nature of truth to begin with.

No matter the fine sounding arguments, at the end of the day, there is Islam, and there is sanity...Take your choice...

A.M...American In Name Only...AINO...Has never converted anyone here to anything...He comes here to have an egogasm, and do it in the name of Allah and 'Peace'...It's best to duck the slime that he projects...

AM - "Oh, yeah, the mythical "Saudi Wahabbi Cash" that's floating around."

Mythical?? What are you smoking, dude?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahabi#International_influence

abdulla..Im just glad to see that even the handi capped like you have internet, and computers. All you say makes me laugh..it makes them muslims..they followed their profit...then..why people of the book? Sorry your an idiot an Im tired, Ill catch up with you later....jack@....
BTW Robert, your the man!

I think I'll call and ask them these questions:

"Do you believe that the Koran is perfect?" This is not offensive. Muslims must believe that the Koran is perfect, without error. They also believe that it is eternal and universal. Most of all, it came from the lips of Mohammed.

"Is Mohammed the ideal Muslim? Should Muslims pattern their life after Mohammed?" Again, don't worry that Muslims will find this awkward. Mohammed is admired, looked up to, and idealized. He is the perfect father, husband, friend, warrior, wise elder and best companion that could be.

These questions establish the Islam of the believer. Every Muslim believes that the Koran is perfect, and Mohammed is the ideal human.

Islam is only partially based on the Koran. Far more of a Muslim's life is governed by Mohammed than the Koran and Allah. Why is this so important? The practical way to understand Islam and what Muslims believe and think is to know about Mohammed. This is very good news. Anyone can understand Mohammed's life.

However, once you get to know Mohammed, the perfect Muslim, Islam becomes problematic. From the first days of being a prophet Mohammed not only preached a better way of life, but he attacked all those who did not believe him. He created a new type of human being called the kafir, usually called unbeliever, but this is not an accurate translation. A kafir is the worst person in the world; an unbeliever is just someone who does not believe. A kafir can be mocked, deceived, tortured, enslaved, murdered, robbed, raped, and plotted against. Kafir is the worst word in the human language.

Now we are ready to ask a Muslim another question. "Am I a kafir?"

The only answer is yes, but that is not the answer you will get. If you are a Christian you will be told no, you are a person of the Book. That sounds nice, but if you don't believe that both Jesus and Mohammed were the prophets of Allah and that the Gospels are false, then you are a Christian kafir. They also might say that you are a non-Muslim, but that is not what the Koran says. The Koran says that you are a kafir.

Now we come to more questions that should be asked, but most people do not have the knowledge to ask them, since the questions are based on knowing Mohammed's life. As an example, Mohammed repeatedly advised Muslims to deceive kafirs if it would advance Islam. So: "Have you ever deceived a kafir?" is appropriate to ask.

Mohammed assassinated kafirs, tortured, enslaved, robbed and plotted against them. His entire life as a prophet was an attempt to make kafirs submit to Islam by any means possible. It is proper then to ask: "How do you feel about what he did?"

If you are a Christian, ask: "Over 60 million Christians have been killed in jihad. Christians are persecuted daily in Islamic lands. Have you ever apologized for this?"

If you are a black American, ask: "Islam sold slaves on the West coast of Africa, the east coast of Africa and the Mediterranean. You enslaved over a million Europeans. Why do you never take any responsibility for slavery?"

If you are a Jew, ask: "How do you see the war against Israel as jihad?"

The other reason we do not ask questions is that we have become a nation of deceivers under political correctness. We don't ask Muslims any question that would make them feel "uncomfortable".

It is completely reasonable to ask anyone about their ideology. Christians, Jews, liberals, conservatives and every other ideology have to answer questions about what they believe. Why not Muslims?

That is the true question for kafirs: "Why are Muslims the only people in the world who don't have to be asked difficult questions about what they believe?"

All Muslims must answer questions about Islam, questions about Mohammed and the Koran for the only way to know a Muslim is to know their Islam.

from Questions to ask Muslims, by Bill Warner,
Political Islam.com

Christianity made me do it...
Again...There is Islam, and there is sanity...take your choice...
Every religion views itself as supreme...But that view point is not what should be measured...In an institution, it is not a diagnosis that is treated, it is 'behavior'...The behavior of 'some' people who 'call themselves' Christian, has historically been atrocious...But the question is, did they act up because of a devotion to 'God', Jesus, and scripture, or did they act up for their own gain, in spite of their religion?...The infamous Rodrigo Borgia is a good example, Alexander the Sixth...And he was not the only morally bankrupt Pope...While Christianity has been given a black eye by selfishly motivated individuals, it pretty much cleaned up it's act long ago...At the present time, When Christians act up they are doing so in spite of Christianity, not because of it.. You will be hard pressed to find a Christian strapping on a bomb and blowing up a porn theater...Timothy Mc, did not run from the building screaming 'Jesus saves'...
In short, those who's ego's are running their lives, who claim they are acting in the name of God, or Jesus, are liars, and hypocrites, not Christians...

On the other hand, those who act up, in the name of Allah, and indulge themselves in harmful 'behavior' in his name, are not hypocrites, they are pious Mahoundians...

45ch
You have never watched snowing have you?
But i assume you have.Well, close your eyes for a second,
then picture yourself in the midst of a great snow storm.It is beautiful indeed right? See all those snow flakes falling? How many do you think? Lets say it keeps snowing for ...one ,three or even five days..how many million snow flakes do you think have fallen by the end of it?
They are the souls of your fellow mates fallig to Hell.

Adam,Noah,Abraham,Moses and Jesus have absolutely nothing to do with islam and calling them muslim is not just ignorance but an insult to them.
the simplistic suggestion that since they were obedient to God
therefore they were muslims is misguided and is based on the assumption that allah the Demon is God.
a muslim is muslim because he/she is ignorant of the facts about islam that it is nothing more than arab supremacist ideology based on 6th/7th century arab culture and that God is not allah and allah is not God.
no one has ever become a muslim by saying that he/she believes
in God; in order to become muslim one must say "shahada" that
he/she believes in allah(not God) and that mohammad is prophet
and messenger of allah(not God) "ON" the assumption that allah
is God.
Moses and Jesus were obedient to God not allah the Demon.

Do these followers of satan not understand that Judaism was around 3-4000 years before islam and Christainity what 6-700 years before islam so how come a 'religion' that follows these two is real and these two that came long before it are corrupted. The basic logic of everything islam is illogic, nonsense, gobblydegook. What a bunch of unabashed heathens. The sooner we in the west grow a back bone and put an end to this evil in our midst the better. If we don't do something soon, our children and grand children will curse our names for all eternity.

STAND UP AND FIGHT THIS EVIL NOW.

I already have a copy of the Koran thank you.Given to me by a Muslim;which comes in handy as a reference to 'ISLAM UNVEILED','THE P.I.G TO ISLAM''THE TRUTH ABOUT MUHAMMAD'
'THE SUICIDE OF REASON and 'LONDINISTAN'.

Btw, it´s snowing here now.Sorry for all those souls being condemned.This is not to say among all those falling are also who have condemened themselves.Because, and i thing this is important and not being addressed here: We are beings with a free willing soul, a mortal body that will stay here until the resurrection and a spiritu that is divine and thus belongs to heaven.
it is therefore the sole decission of the soul to decide where it, she or he, wants to go.It is not a decission taken by a "religion" or by a "ideology" or by some other thing.
Muslims can not hide under Islam, just as christians cant hide under their Church.For in the end,all that is in the heart shall be seen.So one has to decide.And it is either this or that.
Inheritting the earth, means nothing more and nothing less than reuniting with our mortal body to transfigure and live for ever.
So it,s up to you muslims, not to Islam.We already know it.Thats why we are individualists, because we are free.

Islam: The only religion on earth that needs billboards...

AbdullahMikail has certainly given me reason for hope and change. Now I understand that anyone who follows the teachings of Moses, Abraham or Jesus are really Muslims. If he would only pass this information along to the murdering 'misunderstanders of Islam' then they would realize that people who call themselves Jews, Christians or Muslims are all brothers in God and there is no longer a reason to commit murder and seek domination of the world. Unless, of course, they then decide to go after the atheists, Hindus, Buddists, etc.

45ch cites Jim Jones as an example of significant Christian violence in our modern times specifically using a conflation of the Old Testament with the New Testament -- but

1) 45ch cannot provide one example of Jim Jones actually citing the Old Testament (much less the New Testament) to frame his violence -- while we can provide copious examples of Muslims all over the world citing their holy texts (Koran and Sunnah) to frame their violence against non-Muslims

2) Most of the 900+ deaths caused by Jim Jones were suicides by his own cult members brainwashed into doing so (with albeit some evidence that some among those 900 were duped and/or poisoned without knowing it, and in some few cases murdered otherwise)

3) And most damning of all to 45ch's case: Jim Jones was a radical revolutionary Leftist veering into Communist sympathies, and so was his movement:

...as The Nation magazine reported at the time, "The temple was as much a left-wing political crusade as a church. In the course of the 1970s, its social program grew steadily more disaffiliated from what Jim Jones came to regard as 'Fascist America' and drifted rapidly toward outspoken Communist sympathies." So much so that the last will and testament of the Peoples Temple, and its individual members who left notes, bequeathed millions of dollars in assets to the Soviet Union. As Jones expressed to a Soviet diplomat upon upon his visit to Jonestown the month before the smiling suicides took place, "For many years, we have let our sympathies be quite publicly known, that the United States government was not our mother, but that the Soviet Union was our spiritual motherland."

As Daniel Flynn put it well in the same article from which I am quoting above:

Jim Jones was an evangelical communist who became a minister to infiltrate the church with the gospel according to Marx and Lenin. He was an atheist missionary bringing his message of socialist redemption to the Christian heathen. "I decided, how can I demonstrate my Marxism?," remembered Jones of his days in 1950s Indiana. "The thought was, infiltrate the church." So in the forms of Pentecostal ritual, Jones smuggled socialism into the minds of true believers--who gradually became true believers of a different sort. Unless one counts his drug-induced bouts with self-messianism, Jones didn't believe in God. Get it--a Peoples Temple. He shocked his parishioners, many of whom certainly did believe in God, by dramatically tossing the Bible onto the ground during a sermon. "Nobody's going to come out of the sky!," an excited Jones had once informed his flock. "There's no heaven up there! We'll have to have heaven down here!" Like so many efforts to usher in the millenium before it, Jones's Guyanese road to heaven on earth detoured to a hotter afterlife destination.

And as Flynn notes, Jim Jones "killed more African Americans than the Ku Klux Klan" -- yet, because of his radical Leftist views, he "was awarded a local Martin Luther King Jr. Humanitarian Award and won the plaudits of California lieutenant governor Mervyn Dymally, state assemblyman Willie Brown, radical academic Angela Davis, preacher/politician Jesse Jackson, Black Panther leader Huey Newton, and other African American activists".

Does 45ch think that Jim Jones would have won the admiration of all those radical blacks had Jim Jones been a garden-variety Christian evangelical fundie fanatic?

Indeed, as Flynn reports, it was from the Black Panther leader-in-exile in Cuba Huey Newton that Jim Jones appropriated the phrase "revolutionary suicide" -- the title of a 1973 book by Newton -- which Jones used as a symbol for the murder-suicides of more than 900 people on November 18, 1978. "We didn't commit suicide," Jones announced during the administering of cyanide-laced Flavoraid to his flock, "we committed an act of revolutionary suicide protesting the conditions of an inhumane world." If Newton's phrase was meant figuratively, when it got into the hands of the Leftist lunatic Jones, it resulted in the deaths of several of Newton's relatives who were followers of Jim Jones.

As Flynn notes:

It's worth remembering that before the people of Peoples Temple drank Jim Jones's Kool-Aid, the leftist political establishment of San Francisco gulped it down.

And:

Democrats Rosalynn Carter, Walter Mondale, and Gerry Brown made campaign visits to the Peoples Temple’s “comrade leader.” The mayor of San Francisco even rewarded Jones for his activism by appointing him chairman of the city’s housing commission.

Does 45ch think that the radical Leftist intelligentsia of San Francisco would have been so seduced by Jim Jones had he been a garden-variety Christian evangelical fundie fanatic?

To quote Flynn again:

Unfortunately, as the years progressed, more Americans gulped down the Left’s Kool-Aid that Jones was of the religious Right and not an atheist leftist.

Jim Jones shares that revisionist mythology concocted by Leftists with Timothy McVeigh, whom 45ch also mentions as being "tied to" some "Christian" organizations. In fact, McVeigh from his writings, including long letters he wrote to the flaming Leftist writer Gore Vidal (whom McVeigh himself says he liked, which is why he wrote to him) from prison, shows him to be an agnostic who had a bleeding heart compassion for the "Iraqi people" whom he felt were being horribly mistreated by the evil American military -- sounds like a typical radical Leftist, not a right-wing Christian at all. At any rate -- unlike with Timothy McVeigh -- with Muslim terrorists around the world, we do not merely have the indirect relationship of their being "tied to" Muslim organizations but actually being devout Muslims themselves and using Islamic language including their holy texts to frame and justify their violence.

Jim Jones was in fact a garden-variety Leftist-Gnostic Utopian fanatic, as were the German Nazi leaders, the Communist faithful of China and Russia, the fanatical revolutionaries of France which escalated into the Reign of Terror and then the megalomaniac military imperialism of Napoleon; and other fanatical Utopianist movements one can find littering the landscape of the 19th century (albeit most often without the mass murders).

Consider these words of a devout follower of Jim Jones, spoken moments before her suicidal martyrdom, as captured on tape from a hidden FBI recorder:

"I just want to say something to everyone that I see that is standing around and are crying. This is nothing to cry about. This is something we should all rejoice about. We can be happy about this. They always told us that we should cry when you're coming into this world, but when we're leaving and we're leaving it peaceful ... I tell you, you should be happy about this. I was just thinking about Jim Jones. He just has suffered and suffered and suffered. He is the only god and he don't even have a chance to enjoy his death here. (clapping and voices in background)... I wanted to say one more thing. This is one thing I want to say. That you that've gone and there's many more here. He's still--the way, that's not all of us, that's not all yet. There's just a few that have died. A chance to get ... to the one that they could tell ... their lies to. So and I say I'm looking at so many people crying, I wish you would not cry, and just thank Father, just thank him. I tell you about ... (clapping and shouting) ... I've been here, uh, one year and nine months and I never felt better in my life. Not in San Francisco, but until I came to Jonestown. I enjoy this life. I had a beautiful life. I don't see nothing that I should be crying about. We should be happy. At least I am. Let's all be the same."

(See Flynn's article linked below for the link to the FBI recording.)

This is the most profound, important moment of her life -- now committing suicide with her fellow followers of this wonderful cult, so one would think if this cult were really a "Christian" cult, she would mention something about Jesus Christ, the Bible, the Church, maybe Moses, or some other prophet -- even God, for God's sake! (There is one mention of "god" -- referring to Jim Jones himself; and a little later a mention of "Father" which, given the equation of Jim Jones with "god" one logically assumes also refers to Jones.) There is not a shred of Christian language in her final words. With Muslim fanatics, on the contrary, we have language rich in Islamic religious symbols derived directly from their religion, including explicit mention of Allah, Muhammad, the Koran, and much much more.

In sum, 45ch's comparison is pathetically puerile and bankrupt -- as are all his claims, assertions, interpretations, and pseudo-arguments.

http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=33130

http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30964

If folks are hard up for some non-Islamic examples, here's Orthodox Rabbi Yitzchak Shapria in his book, The King's Torah:

“In any situation in which a non-Jew’s presence endangers Jewish lives, the non-Jew may be killed even if he is a righteous Gentile and not at all guilty for the situation that has been created…When a non-Jew assists a murderer of Jews and causes the death of one, he may be killed, and in any case where a non-Jew’s presence causes danger to Jews, the non-Jew may be killed…The [Din Rodef] dispensation applies even when the pursuer is not threatening to kill directly, but only indirectly…Even a civilian who assists combat fighters is considered a pursuer and may be killed. Anyone who assists the army of the wicked in any way is strengthening murderers and is considered a pursuer. A civilian who encourages the war gives the king and his soldiers the strength to continue. Therefore, any citizen of the state that opposes us who encourages the combat soldiers or expresses satisfaction over their actions is considered a pursuer and may be killed. Also, anyone who weakens our own state by word or similar action is considered a pursuer…Hindrances—babies are found many times in this situation. They block the way to rescue by their presence and do so completely by force. Nevertheless, they may be killed because their presence aids murder. There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.”

Real life example? Yigal Amir's 1995 assassination of Yitzchak Rabin, which was based on Judaism's rodef theology. And, of course, there's Yaakov Teitel, who is currently in the process of being tried for terrorism against Palestinian Arabs and Jews engaged in Christian missionary work.

45ch :we have 57 different muslim countries including numerous muslim countries that do not have sharia and are democratic.

Do you understand what a country is? Please explain how 'country' and 'religion' are the same.

You are the most dull troll we've had on here for some time, at lease AM can carry an argument.

You're an absolute idiot.

LOL, moderate Moslems. Not too long ago Pew Research Poll asked Pakistanis if they were OK with kill their fellow Moslems whom denounce their vile death cult. Guess what? Around 80% of these barbarians thought that killing their fellow Moslems for denouncing Islam was great.

What a foul stench this sick ideology leaves on this planet.

Religion of Peace. (vomit)

Someone needs to put up billboards in the Islamic world touting Christianity or other belief systems.

was that www.gainpieces.com
http://www.jihadwatch.org/images/ICNAbilllboard.jpg

So let's see if I got this straight: When a Muslim claims, however rightly or wrongly, that figures like Abraham, Moses, and Jesus were Islamic prophets, that apparently is a dangerous form of supremacism fraught with peril. But when a rabbi, a major rosh yeshiva, claims that all non-Jews, over 99% of humanity, can be legitimately killed by Jews for a host of absurd, spurious justifications, that apparently is no real big deal.

I guess it's just another day in Jihad Watch Land.

"Jewish terrorism"

Yeah, those suicide bombing rabbis are really a big problem.

A Muslim complaining about Jewish terrorists, this is getting funnier by the minute.

No amount of projection can erase the fact that your fucked up religion and peoples have the monopoly on terrorism right now. Over 14,000 terrorist attacks have occurred since 9/11, thanks to your wonderful brothers and sisters. Don't blame Jews for terrorism, be proud of what your people are doing!

AM:
"I have never called Robert a racist."
Perhaps technically true, but you have claimed Mr. Spencer is associated with racist groups not be accident, thus implying racism.

"By all means Foolster look it over. You are incapable of facing up to the fact of Jewish terrorism even when they were murdering and extorting their own people, even in the holy land."
Hypocrisy fail from the guy who takes days to answer me and I don't give much guff over. It takes time to verify things as fact. I don't expect you to take everything I say/cite as fact, but it seems you expect me to. Is this because you're a muslim (superior) and I'm a kuffir (inferior)? I want an apology for this.

"I still don’t care about his personal beliefs…the article had merit."
So, I assume AM will now apologize to Mr. Spencer for making insinuations that he purposefully joined that facebook group and give him the benefit of the doubt that maybe they had "merit" in their ideas despite their racism then? After all, that is the same standard AM is applying to himself.

"I thought you were referring to the Naem Giladi reference which did happen to be posted on rense.com which I believe you then commented on as an Antisemetic web site or something of that nature."

My emphisis to show the two errors in this statement.
Firstly, "did happen" which is incorrect since AM directly quoted from rense, thus AM was citing a racist source as a direct source, it wasn't a coincidence of any kind. Secondly AM's downplaying of the content of the site. I showed direct examples racism, and not "something of that nature" as AM characterized it.
Of course, I am willing to consider that as AM pointed out, he may be correct that it doesn't matter if something is from a source that is racist, and ideas should be judged on their own merits. However, I do find it troubling when ideas line up with racist ones, and I wouldn't have cared had AM pointed out the racism of AM's sources and separated the points AM agreed and disagreed with from each other.

Spin, AM, spin!

Anyone else's BS Meter just gone way off the register?

QE: You beside the fact that AM is claiming a rabbi justified violence with goyim scripture? Yah.

That sick Mohammad the prophet of Islam molested and got sexually aroused by a prepubescent six year old girl playing with a doll, now that is sick. What a pathetic loser and pedophile. Islam is pathetic like it's pedophile prophet Mohammad.

Abdullah,
One gets tired of hearing the islamist rubbish that you peddle.
Firstly little boy, Jesus was not muslim. Neither was Abraham.
You muslims conveniently have decided to misrepresent history. And yes, little jihadist, Saudi dollars are funding quite a lot of islamist rubbish in this country. Your claim that tax-paying americans are funding your dirty advertising is quite wrong, however the money that you and your ilk effectively steal from the state could be considered as coming from the average tax-payer. But a willing donation from these folks- very definitely not!!!

On behalf of the several hundred Christians that I know personally, I wish to make several things clear to any Moslem who wants to believe that Allah is the God of anything. It is not. Allah is an 'it', a figment of many imaginations - all of them hopelessly inadequate to the task of even imitating the revelations of YHWH through both the Old & the New Testaments. Rather, 'it' was a pre-exiting 'god' commandeered by 'Mohammed' for his own, less than sublime purposes. It was represented by a black stone, still revered by Moslems, and wedged into the ?south-eastern? wall of that black monstrosity in Mecca.

Next, some would suggest that 'Moslem' means 'one who worships a single God', who happens to be known as Allah by Mohommedans. Unlike Shakespeare's "a rose by any other name", the God of Adam, Noah and Abraham is not named in the Old Testament. He spoke directly to these men and they referred to Him as 'my God, my Lord'. Moses was the first to ask the eternal God for 'a name that I can call you by' and God answered him: 'You can call me the 'I AM'. This name transliterated to YHWH, although no-one knows exactly how His name might be pronounced. Since names are important to YHWH, and since He is eternal, His Name (meaning His identity, His Promises and His Word) will never change. Ever. Allah (borrowed from the religion of his own immediate family) is in no way connected to YHWH, regardless of how Mohommed 'strived' for it to be so.

Yahshua is known by most as Jesus, transliterated from the Greek Iassus. Jesus introduced the world to a new dimension of the eternal God of Israel, YHWH. Jesus introduced us to "Abba" which means "Daddy". We can call YHWH, the God of Israel and author of the Ten Commandments, Father Abba with absolute confidence because YHWH promised this new connection to us. Much of the New Testament speaks of 'us' being inheritors of God's Kingdom, through His only begotten son. 'Us' is man, woman and child - of any race, color or creed - who says 'Yes' to the Nature of Jesus as Christ.

Jesus, as a man, was in constant communion with YHWH. He proclaimed that he 'does only that which I see the Father doing.' We, who wish to emulate Jesus, call ourselves Christians - as followers of Christ Jesus in our worship of YHWH.

Since Mohammed worshipped something other than the God of Israel, the eternal I AM, and since he did not accept Jesus as the Christ, Messiah, he and his followers must be known by another name. And it was the Mohammedans themselves who chose that name viz. Moslem. Moslems worship Allah and revere Mohammed. This is understood and 'universally' applied in order to distinguish Mohammedans from Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and even nihilists. Perhaps some Moslems would prefer that we kufr 'revert' back to the descriptor used by Winston Churchill viz. Mohammedan.

So, what's in a name? If it links to Allah... nothing.

Peace

45ch asked me, after my lengthy rebuttal of his claim that Jim Jones is one cog in the proof that Christians also have mass-murdered in the name of religion:

"Are you saying that if biblical texts are not quoted, the pain of the victims of non-muslims is much less than the pain felt by the victims of muslims ?"

45ch's rhetorical question is idiotic.

Of course I'm not saying what 45ch is rhetorically asking.

45ch made a claim that Jim Jones's pathological mass murder/suicide cult was Christian, in order to try to show that Muslims aren't the only ones going around mass-murdering in the name of their religion.

I demonstrated that 45ch's claim was wrong.

So now 45ch tap-dances to another position in order to try to save face. Pathetic.

We can see that 45ch is only a tad less intelligent than the slightly cleverer dave742 (which isn't saying much).

!ATTENTION! automotron model #LVC-45: You will please stop copy-and pasting the same material ("10 areas pointing to non-Muslims being more violent", "non-sharia muslim countries", etc.). It is obnoxious, and you have been asked numerous times. You're giving us AIs a bad name.
Thanks and a emotionally positive fruit bearing plant calender segment!
HAL, Vicky, Eliza and AJGLU-3000[1]

I would ask Robert to please ban 45ch if he continues to do so. I know he dislikes banning dissenters, but I think 45ch has worn out his welcome with his annoying parroting, not just repeating the same things but copy+pasting them directly many many many times after being asked not too.

[Note that this is of course my opinion and a request, and I'm not presuming to tell you what to do with you site. I recognize it's your site, so it's your right to run it as you wish, and of course I will understand if you don't.]

AM:
I find it interesting, that in Mr. Gilaldi's blaming of Israel he doesn't mention even once the suicide bombings, the rockets fired or the outright attacks by Israel's neighbors. This does put somewhat of a kink in his "non-partisan" position. Does anything Israel has done justify any of these things? At any rate, I don't really remember what the whole point of this argument anyway, so perhaps we need to start again at square one. I am willing to admit that perhaps some in Israel's command has committed war crimes in over-zealousness to protect itself. No nation is perfect.

This doesn't change hamas's drive to destroy Israel in their charter, along with their ally nations that surround Israel.
This doesn't change the history of the Jews who were living in Jerusalem for centuries who have as much right to live there as the Arabs.
This doesn't change the fact that Israel is not "occupying" nor stole any land, and that these are instead historical revisionist propaganda by hamas and its allies. (http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/16765/we-must-dispel-lies-that-israel-stole-palestinian-land/)[2]
This does not change Israel's right to exist, and the fact that anti-Zionism is hate worse than anti-semetism
(http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-pearl15-2009mar15,0,6323783.story)
This doesn't change the facts of Islamic supremicism in the Koran and the example of mohmmad, as recorded historicaly. (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Myths-of-Islam.htm)

Also, didn't I order you under arrest? You advocated the use of floggings against those who speak out against Islam (and thus approving of the stifling of free speech) I am not saying anything different than Mr. Wilders, so I would assume you wish the same penalty for me. You may disagree with me, but THOSE WHO OPPOSE FREE SPEECH DO NOT BELONG IN AMERICA. Take your pick, AM. You've got 57 choices to choose from.

[1]For those maybe too young (or with too much taste!) to remember: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Wonder_(TV_series)

Eliza is this: http://www-ai.ijs.si/eliza/eliza.html

AGLU-3K is refrenced here: http://joshreads.com/?p=2024#archie

[2]By the way, it so happened that I found this article through a Google search that first pointed to stormfront with the link (linking to disagree, not agree with it thus having the opposite view from me), though people may notice I didn't need to give the stormfront because I care about whether someone might mistakenly think I'm a racist. As opposed to carelessly linking to a racist site and not even acknowledging the racism.

I must agree with 45ch on one thing: some things bear repeating...
Christians are a very specific group of people. They are in the minority in almost every country on the planet, including the USA. They cannot be identified by names such as Baptist or Methodist or Episcopalian or Catholic or Coptic or Russian Orthodox, but they can be found within such greater bodies of christianised movements. A frightening number of 'christians' are merely christianised. They are bums on pews, without any real conviction in the Author of their supposed faith. And they put nothing on the line in defense of their faith. By my reckoning, as an example, the Archbishop of Canterbury has denied his Lord. He is ashamed of Jesus Christ and refuses to stand up for the truth of the Gospel (Good News) against any comer, let alone all comers. Shame on him.

But Jim Jones wasn't even remotely christianised, regardless of his background; and regardless of his claims to the contrary. A man is known by his fruits, not by his claims. Jim Jones was a twisted narcissist. Simple - and ugly - as that. Shame on his 'followers'.

Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
Gal 5:23 meekness, self-control; against such there is no law.

An excellent example of a Christian at work is Father Zachariah Botros, an Egyptian Copt. He works to christianise Muslims by showing them just how vastly different are the teachings of Jesus and Mohammed. He speaks the truth, based on what is there, committed to writing, to be seen by anyone who cares to read; and he speaks in the language of the Arab. He understands that he cannot 'convert' anyone and that this is not his role. He christianises, teaching Jesus and exposing Mohammed, leaving the listener to make up his own mind. And this is the crux of the matter.

The essence of Jesus' teaching is that we are created in the image of God. Central to this image is our ability to apprehend, to explore, to ascertain, to evaluate and to choose X over Y. This is what Jesus wants us to do. He wants us to choose Him of our own volition, because in the end nothing else makes sense. If we do not choose Him He is deeply saddened but He does not stop loving us. We have until our last breath to say Yes, unless our hearts turn to the Dark Side; as happened with Hitler, Stalin, Khomeini, Arafat, Saddam Hussein, Nasrallah, bin Laden, Zarquawi, al Saud, Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe, Lenin, Marx, Putin, Khameini, Pol Pot, Kim Il Jung and Mohammed. The list is endless but in each case, these creatures were willing to kill for personal gain, or have others kill on their behalf. In each case, they were the aggressors who justified their aggression as defence against foes real or imagined. And each one acted on his own cognizance, having already discarded the checks and balances that normally would contain such people.

The problem with Muslim countries is that those checks and balances can't exist. Islam does not condone democracy. It does not allow the 'people' to hold the 'ruler' to account. It needs a caliph to rule over all, or mini-caliphs to rule over the many (see list above for some examples).

Sharia kills off the fruits of the Spirit along with any opposition to its impositions, which were created by warlords and are today still enforced by them. Negotiation is pointless. Christians want to christianise and Moslems want to Islamise. And opposites do NOT attract.

Some would like to see George W Bush join the list above. Here's a hint at why this is silly: as President of the United States, Bush presided over a country that was attacked by Islam. This is a correct analysis since Islam is actually a unique animal, being expansionist, supremacist, militaristic and belligerent, with just a tincture of religion (to help the medicine go down). This Islam wishes to reign over the whole earth but 3 things stand in its way: God Himself (eternally loving and still patient), the non-Muslim peoples of the world (whose sheer number is daunting) and those people willing to thump the bully. This includes nations such as Israel and the US, but it also means individuals. When the bully is thumped he cowers and whines. He also hates more, for having been humiliated. What Bush (ie the Administration) failed to see is that if you thump one Muslim it is as if you thumped the entire Muslim world. This is the tribal nature of Islam at work. And this is what the christianised world is up against.

President George W Bush thumped the bully and then dared to bring in, right behind the US military, those very concepts that set people free, concepts that too many of 'us' take for granted. He actually set a precedent, as the first President to introduce the principles of christianised democracy to a tribalised Islamic country only recently freed from the grip of a brutal tyrant. That this tyrant was stupid or arrogant enough to attract the attention of a wounded America in the first place is another story. Stupid is as stupid does (isn't that right, Mr Iminadinnerjacket?)
President Bush didn't fail. Islam did. President Bush can't be blamed for being hopelessly hamstrung by his own Congress (Peacenik Pelosi, anyone?). And he can't be blamed for realising too late that he had opened Pandora's Box. His Congress didn't know either. But now that it has been opened, we can bear witness to Islam unveiled, the real deal; and shout it from the rooftops: Islam is Death to America! Islam is death to Israel! Islam is death!

Bring it on...

Peace

Maranatha50,

An explication of Christianity shouldn't be sullied with trite platitudes apparently geared toward generalized wholesale demeaning of another religion. Let's actually try to take a hard, sober look at the facts involved here:

1) First, Catholic Christianity is the one true, fullness of apostolic Christian truth that has existed in an unbroken, developmental theological trajectory through 2000 years from the apostles to the present. If you are not a Catholic, you are in schism from Christ's True Church, and likely in heresy as well. If so, time to re-join the Fullness of Christological Truth before pointing fingers at anybody else, Christian or Muslim.

2) The Church has taught in Nostra Aetate of the Second Vatican Council that the good, true positive elements of all religions are to be properly recognized. That includes Islam, which the Church refers to as follows:

"The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting."

And just this year, Pope Benedict XVI, said the following:
"My visit to Jordan gives me a welcome opportunity to speak of my deep respect for the Muslim community, and to pay tribute to the leadership shown by his majesty the king in promoting a better understanding of the virtues proclaimed by Islam."

So are we to believe that the Pope is simply an ignorant, spineless dhimmi? I suppose so, if I'm supposed to take Jihad Watch seriously on such points. Though it's rather telling that apparently hardly anybody at this site seems to have the courage of conviction to actually say it.

3) Islam, whatever its errors, problems, deficiencies, and misconduct of some of its adherenets, is closer to Christianity than any non-theistic Enlightenment-bred philosophy where each man gets to make himself his own god.

4) Does Christianity condone democracy? I suppose it depends upon what you mean by that. If this is meant to say that religious indifferentism and separation of Church and State are Christian truth and the ideal to be striven for, that most certainly is not the case, as any thoughtful, objective perusal of authoritative Church teaching on the subject shows. I'm still waiting for somebody on this site to explain to me how Pope Gregory XVI's Mirori Vas, Pope Pius IX's Quanta Cura, Pope Leo XIII's Libertas and Immortale Dei, Pope Piux X's Vehementer Nos, and Pope Pius XI's Quas Primas are compatible with this notion when they actually teach the opposite.

5) President Bush didn't fail? Let's leave aside that he was not committed to instituting the Social Reign of Christ, nor even a full civil-law based embodiment of Natural Law. He wasn't even committed to upholding our own positivist man-made Constitutional law, including the requirement for a formal Declaration of War. And given the U.S.'s dubious involvement in the Muslim world during the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, as well as having a military that had been decimated in manpower during the 1990s, on the prudential level, his judgment can be sliced, diced, and shredded.

You certainly have some accurate points, Wellington, but I don't think your post as a whole stands up well to scrutiny.

1) You certainly have a legal right to be an agnostic, if you choose. But, again, let's not pretend that this is closer to true Christianity than Islam is. Christianity is not humanism with Jesus and Santa tacked on.

2)Second Vatican certainly has its issues with implementation. It did NOT destroy the Latin Mass, because it never authorized the traditional one to be replaced with Novus Ordu. That was the work of Rome after, and apart from, the Second Vatican Council. It still stands as an official ecumenical council with authority.

As for the pope, if he's not a dhimmi, then neither are Carter, Obama, Livingston, Armstrong, Esposito etc. etc. You can't go around having it both ways.

3) Well, monontheism is, or should be, a big deal. Again, to say that Islam is some kind of diabolical threat of a different order than other religions simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

4)True, the encyclicals are not infallible, but their essence still stands to this day as authoritative Catholic teaching, requiring an assent of mind and will. Your point regarding Dignitatis Humanae is off the mark. While it did proclaim certainly minority religious rights that had not been held before, the document itself quite clearly states "it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ." Please note, not just men, but societies as well.

I suppose on can rightfully claim that Islam is 'brittle' on this point. Then, so too is Judaism.

5) Your claims regarding Bush are quite bizarre. The Constitution recognizes the president as commander and chief, but in no way, shape, or form does it give him the authority to go to war. That is clearly reserved for Congress. The Congress must issue a Declaration of War. That goes for Afghanistan and Iraq and Korea, all of which were clearly wars by any reasonable definition. That fact that the practice has not been faithfully followed does not mean it is not constitutionally required. A congressional authorization for use of force is not a Declaration of War. It's long past due we start taking our Constitution seriously - including most especially the 10th Amendment.

As for the Middle East, naturally, folks in the Middle East are primarily responsbile for the problems in the region. That doesn't justify amoral American meddling. And such meddling needs to be taken into account when making prudential judgments in our time.

Can't get its act together? Since when have we in the United States had our act together? We can't even respect our own Constitution. Does that justify some bigger, stronger, allegedly more moral, power to come forcefully intervene in our national life?

Wellington,

"Vatican II was pretty much of a tragedy all around. It destroyed the Latin Mass and it allowed for relativistic elements to enter into Chruch teaching, such as the notion that all religions have valid revelatory elements."

Vatican II didn't introduce that concept de novo; it has been a part of Christianity going back at least as far as the early 2nd century, as can be found in the writings of Justin Martyr, one of many Graeco-Roman philosophers who converted to Christianity during that era. Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho posits the idea that all other religions, including those of "barbarians", contain elements of the truth of Christian revelation and represent therefore gropings after that truth.

This is a good example of the point I keep reiterating: that PC MC is not wholly bankrupt, not wholly hollow, not wholly reprehensible or evil: it contains in fact many good principles -- indeed, its structure depends upon good principles. PC MC is a perversion of good, not pure bad. Its perversion of good is more complex than the metaphor of something having become thoroughly spoiled. It is more the case of a structure composed of a complex interlocking of good and bad parts, or of good parts and bad gears that engage those good parts.

So too, as a microcosm of Western PC MC in general, the fault of Vatican II was not to introduce wholly bad concepts & principles, but to incorporate previous good concepts into a new paradigm that uses good for bad.

The universalism implicit in Justin Martyr's understanding of the truth of the Gospel is a good thing, for it was part of that same universalism that, in effect, the West invented and which the West unfolded in progress throughout the centuries, a progress which makes the West great for having, unlike any other culture, spearheaded the transcendence of mankind away from tribalism. So PC MC takes universalism and perverts it into multi-culturalism, a doctrine by which the Westerner hates his own Westernism and loves the Other to such an irrational degree, he can no longer allow himself to rightfully and reasonably condemn an Other who is unjust, evil and dangerous, and who means him, and his West, subjugation to that unjust evil, or destruction if we resist.

Are these billboards still intact and visible ?
If so, you 'Gringos' are DONE !
Sayonara!
See you in afterlife!...

.

45ch: Yes, but you can POINT to it instead of pasting large blocks of text over and over. Put up a blog and put it there, and then link to it if you wish. Also, some of your points have been refuted numerous times and instead of answering those refutations you simply post as-is. (example: Jim Jones and Timothy McVeigh). Doing this is just being an ass.

Also, I notice though AM has posted in other topics has not replied to me. Will he apologize for his hypocritical chiding me on taking time to measure my responses? Can he respond to the inherent supremest statements in the Koran or his own supremest statements? Can he respond to the truth of history that the Jews have as much right (if not more) to land as the Arabs?

The machine called "45ch" needs to be unplugged, dismantled, and disabled.

Disassembly Instructions:

To initiate the process, pull the plug that leads from the small of the back to the wall outlet. Make sure the subject is properly grounded before you begin. Its fingers may continue to move as though cutting and pasting.

You will need a size #003 Phillips screwdriver and a square shank flat-blade screwdriver tip size 1/8. With the former, take out the six screws on the back panel, located on the downward slope of the head above the neckline. The next plate inside should have four screws for the flat-blade screwdriver. There might also be some stubbies along the other perimeter: for these you will also require a T-handle #7.

Once this inner plate has been removed, the motherboard will be visible behind four coils of colored wires. Disengage all four coils from their upper clips to gain better access to the motherboard.

On the top tier of the motherboard at the 12:15 corner (oriented by looking straight down onto the brainpan with the eyes facing away from you), you will see the hard drive. Undo the plastic clips on either end, slide it out.

That's all there is to it. As for the remaining parts, you can locate a recycling center in your area for malfunctioning robotics.

If you need any assistance, the Hindu staff at the Mumbai tech support center will be more than happy to help out.

Darn, I miss all the fun when so far away, in the Land Down Under
!
fairuzfan,
You say:
"An explication of Christianity shouldn't be sullied with trite platitudes apparently geared toward generalized wholesale demeaning of another religion."
Why not? And why "trite platitudes"? Surely you don't want to get into an encyclopaedic debate on the virtues and vices of the major religions on earth? If you do, then you missed the point and you are in the wrong place at JW..

I began my point with a statement concerning Christians, as a clearly definable minority etc. Christians are individuals who have accepted the responsibility of finding out what God the Father's will is for them, as individuals. You see, He has counted the hairs on every head that ever lived and He knows every individual through and through. He has a will for each individual, unique to that individual. The God of Israel is relational and He takes relationship with (us) very very personally. Anything that stands in the way of establishing and/or maintaining that relationship stands against God, Himself.

In this respect, the church in Rome does not fare well. But then again, neither do most 'denominations'. Why? Because they are comprised of humans being human; you know... lust, greed, fear, power, self-adulation, politicking, bitching etc. Too often, people forget their first love or are inspired to focus on the irrelevant ala the celebrity syndrome. Or they are taught to rely on 'other' for their salvation.

To establish that relationship (and God the Father always makes the first move!) He gave us the Ten Commandments, as relevant today as in Moses' day. Go through them, carefully. If any religious group speaks against any one of those commandments, then they speak against the God they claim to worship. Those commandments ARE a yardstick and I have yet to meet the person who cannot understand at least the surface meaning of any one of them. Again, the church in Rome does not fare well. Look inside any Cathedral. Look up William of Orange and why he made the whoopin' on the King of Spain. Makes for fascinating reading...

And by the way, the church in Rome has never apologised for its millenium long reign of terror, in which all of those same commandments were breached, time and again. Read Fox's Book of Martyrs.

Before I continue, it is important that you understand that I am not 'Jihad Watch' and JW is not me. I subscribe to JW because it helps me meet my responsibility as a Christian (searching out the truth in this matter or that)who deals with the aftermath of Moslem 'benevolence'. And I have learned enough of Islam (Thank you Robert, Hugh, Marisol, et al) to be confident in what I say. Anyone can disagree, including JW.

Next, to maintain a relationship with God the Father, we must accept the intercession of Jesus Christ AND ONLY HIM. This is our part to play and it ain't easy! Nevertheless, the point stands. It is reinforced by a wide range of obligations, all of them relational. No bowing or scraping, no mindless repetitive 'prayer' rituals, no 'confessional' rituals using a sin-ranking system, no restrictions on what to eat or not ('it is what comes OUT of your mouth that defiles you')and no intercession by any human being save as an act of praying for/with you. Again, the church in Rome does not fare well. Neither does Islam.

Is the Pope a dhimmi? Pope means 'Papa', Father. His full title would be the Holy Father. Wrong wrong wrong! He is a man operating above his station and he has to wear the consequences. He wouldn't have a clue as to how to 'run the world', but this is the approach that his station demands. So, what does he do when he is made aware that the punishment for 'insulting' Islam is death? Or that his insulting Islam can lead to severe retributions against Catholics both at home and abroad? Would you want to carry such a burden? I don't envy him but neither do I pity him.

It seems to me as though the Pope does not speak for himself in the quote you offered at your Point No. 2. 'The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems.' And The Church is referring to the individuals who follow Islam rather than the institution or religion of Islam, itself. The church is meant to direct its interest at individuals and these human beings should not be derided where possible. After all, Father Botros has been reaching out to Moslems for some time and, according to one Muslim account, his work has cost Islam over 6 million adherents (can't find the source to quote - help anyone?). That has got to be worthy of immense respect and admiration.

However, for the Church to go so far as to indulge Islam by conceding to what is patently untrue is, to me, reprehensible. Why the Church would grant Islam the benefit of the doubt by equating Allah with YHWH is beyond my comprehension. The Church (meaning those in authority, including the Pope) is exceedingly well-read except, it seems, when it comes to the Q'ran and its associated dictionaries (without which Allah's 'word' makes absolutely no sense at all). Case in point:

Find for me, in the Q'ran or Hadith or Sunnah, the exact replication of the Ten Commandments - which have NEVER been rescinded. I can save you time. You won't, because they aren't there. In fact, each of them has been quashed, flattened, bulldozed, decimated, mangled or beheaded. Every single one of them. And this incredible website, this Jihad Watch, is replete with examples of how the Ten Commandments simply never made it into Mohammed's religion at all. Ever. And for good reason... Allah is not YHWH!

As an example, Moslems on the ground are quite comfortable ripping an infant out of its mother's arms, impaling the poor creature on the broken branch of the village tree of shelter, then rape the mother in front of everyone before killing her (in sometimes ghastly fashion) and finally shooting all the remaining bystanders - all to the intonation of Allah Akbar (Allah is greatest). This is Islam at work.

The survivors are young and nimble, or exceedingly unfortunate (so they tell me). This particular event took place in a village in Southern Sudan circa 1998, related to me by a 'lost boy' - now a married father himself. His scars run very deep... This is the consequence of Islam.

Remember, this is one example, albeit an awful one. The past decade is now replete with examples, of beheadings, honor killings, stoning and whipping to death (100 lashes will kill almost anyone), 'suicide' attacks on an increasingly massive scale, endless threats of genocide - and the occasional attempt, as in non-Arabised Sudan - and the constant threat of more to come. This is Islam. It has never changed and it never will. And Moslems can only leave it or accept it.

Would you care to peruse the last 1350 years of Islam and the perhaps 240 million who perished under the sword of this 'true path' religion?

On your Point No.3... Give me an atheist any day! Allowing Islam to draw any closer to the christianised world (which includes many atheists!) will lead to either the dissolution of the christianised world in a sea of blood (the will of Allah) or in nuclear fission (the path of resistance). The scope for other alternatives narrows almost daily, as the perceived weakness of the West inflames the aspirations of the mini-caliphs. The Church needs to say No More Islam! And then stand firm on it. No more confusing and misleading rhetoric (meaning drivel). Take note that it will then be the 'atheists' who will most likely back the Church up, militarily if need be...

Enough said for the moment. Christians are in Christ. Moslems are in a living hell which they wish to inflict upon the whole world, until all religion is for Allah. Where do you stand?
Peace... maybe.

45ch contenues to try to pass off Mcveigh and Jones as Christians despite the fact they the way they acted was ANTI-THERETICAL to the example and word of Christ.

Of course, that is constrasted with muslims who follow the word and example of mohammad, the mass-murdering pedophile, rapist, racist, slaver owner.

What on earth has happened during my lifetime? If such support for the enemy had been displayed during WWII, the perpetrators would have been charged with sedition and hanged, or at least jailed for life.
I find it hard to communicate with my children, who insist that things are better now...

Question,

Here is a video of a militant muslim accusing moderate muslims of being against the Taliban, once again showing that islam is open to interpretation :

http://www.blip.tv/file/1697795

LOL free speech. Coming from a gutless pascifist. How would a pacisifst protect their free speech? If they too gutless to stand up and fight for what is right then they must rely on the people around them that possess the courage to do so

Most are self-righteous parasites.

45ch continues obtusely to employ faulty reasoning and/or sophistry. It is difficult to tell if stupidity is at work here, or cleverness.

"Did Timothy McVeigh or Jim Jones ever deny Christ ? Did they ever say they do not believe in Christ ?"

a)

It is reasonable to suppose that the final testament of a man about to be put to death for his most infamous deed in all his life would reflect the deepest beliefs of that man. Timothy McVeigh's last testament prominently featured a decidedly agnostic poem, the poem Invictus by W.E. Henley, in which the only mention of god is the following: "I thank whatever gods may be" -- a decidedly skeptical and agnostic statement concerning divinity, and certainly utterly devoid of Christian fanaticism, let alone Christian anything.

By contrast, we have seen thousands of Muslims all over the world frame their grotesquely ultra-violent terrorism, threats of terrorism, and jingoist supremacism that enables that terrorism, in language that directly, specifically, and copiously references Allah, the Koran, Mohammed, Islam.

As for Jim Jones, he preached things like:

"Nobody's going to come out of the sky! "There's no heaven up there! We'll have to have heaven down here!"

Obviously defiant ejaculations aimed against traditional Christianity and against the various symbolisms of transcendence of traditional Christianity in which the vast majority of Christians believe (unless they have been secularized away from Christianity) -- a heaven, an afterlife, a second coming by Jesus who is believed to be God Himself who will save history in the indeterminate future; etc.

As Daniel Flynn writes:

Jim Jones was an evangelical communist who became a minister to infiltrate the church with the gospel according to Marx and Lenin. He was an atheist missionary bringing his message of socialist redemption to the Christian heathen. "I decided, how can I demonstrate my Marxism?," remembered Jones of his days in 1950s Indiana. "The thought was, infiltrate the church." So in the forms of Pentecostal ritual, Jones smuggled socialism into the minds of true believers--who gradually became true believers of a different sort. Unless one counts his drug-induced bouts with self-messianism, Jones didn't believe in God. Get it--a Peoples Temple. He shocked his parishioners, many of whom certainly did believe in God, by dramatically tossing the Bible onto the ground during a sermon.

http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=33130

b) Secondly, 45ch's inane rhetorical question is asking for a negative. Not denying Jesus Christ -- heck, if we used that standard, we could blame 99.999% of all crime committed by Westerners on "Christians", since 99.999% of all Western criminals fail to deny Christ!

"Did Timothy McVeigh or Jim Jones ever deny Christ ? Did they ever say they do not believe in Christ ?"

Again, you're trying to justify your deception and use of bad logic with silly questions and more bad logic.

Just because someone doesn't say they're not something does not mean they are. This an outrageous bit of logical acrobatics. I've never said I'm not Buddhist, but that doesn't mean I'm a Buddhist.

I and others have shown that both have said and done things that are AGAINST the example of Christ. Who is a Christian? Someone who follows Christ's example, and believes in his divinity. Basically, one who believes in the Nicene (or apostle's) creed. Not someone who goes against everything He said, such as doubting the existence of God or of heaven!

I (and others) have pointed out the difference between the examples of Christ (the celibate non-slave-owner pacifist ) and mohmmad (the rapist slave-owning racist warlord), and that fact that Christians who do evil do so CONTERDICTING the commands and exmaple of Christ, and that mulsims who do evil do so OBEYING the commands and example of momhhamd. You have every time ignored it.

You are arguing to excuse the evil done by islam, and are trying to veil the supremest content of the koran and actions taken by islam to subjugate the non-believer. You do so defaming the very religion you claim to belong to, using petty and poor logic in the process. I would take a long hard look at what you are doing, because the Christ you claim to follow I beleive will one day judge you for that.

At 45ch and dave732 (or whatever the fuck is his name) for their ongoing labors at defending evil and injustice, I feel the following:

annoyance
irritation
pity
anger
hatred
murderous white-hot red-hot throat-throttling-with-a-piano-wire-and-throwing-down-the-stairs fury.

*Yaaaaawn* I think I'm done here. 45ch does nothing but talk in circles and repeat himself, ignoring my points. You may notice he does not backtrack or apologize when he makes bad leaps of logic such as above "did they say they reject Christ" and assuming that makes them Christians.

"Yes, there are differences between Christ and Muhammad,"

Aha! That is the reason for this site, because there is inherent in the message of Islam supremacism, but not in Christianity, but you continue to try to say "Islam isn't so bad", "tiny minority(tm)" and blame Christians which is paradoxical to your claim that there is a difference in the messages of Christ and mo. Instead of trying to discredit the writers and commenters on this site, you should be joining with us to denounce Islamic jihad (in "hot" violent and "cold" forms), education about the supremict aspects of islam and rallying for the removal of islam from influence on the west, but you do the opposite.

ISLAM is the religion that when followed leads to evil, not Christianity. Therefore it is ISLAM that must be removed from the west, and not Christianity.

Your veil has been torn off, you have claimed to be a christian, but from the arguments you make and the terminology you use, I know you are not.

Muslims who leave Islam to become Christians seem to be quite clear in their minds about the differences between the fruits, the effect 'on the ground' of the religion they were raised in, and the fruits of the religion they have joined. They seem to see Islam as 'death', as generally promoting aggression and violence; and Christianity as generally promoting 'life' and a loving, forgiving approach to other people.

Their testimony makes nonsense of the ever-repeated lies of 45ch, our Mohammedan-in-a-mask.

From the World Report of the United Bible Societies, the story of the nominally Muslim Kurd from Turkey who became a Christian through translating the New Testament into Kurdish:

"As he became immersed in reading and translating the New Testament, he found that he was being deeply affected by it.

"*He discovered that Christianity’s culture was quite different from that of Islam* {my emphasis - dda}.

"Certain Bible teachings highlighted the differences strikingly.

" “It totally changed me to deal with how you are taught to forgive people, to love people and live with them in peace. The Bible says ‘Love your enemies and your neighbours’ and ‘Treat your neighbour as you would like to be treated.’ This affected me.”

'From then on, while still a Kurdish intellectual, “In my heart,” he says, “I believed in Jesus.”
“When I recognised the Bible, I learned to be flexible… to listen to people… to forgive them… and to be more patient.

'For example, *if you are among Muslims, you would always fight* {my emphasis - dda}. I don’t want to fight; I always wanted to convince people, to argue with them. … to understand them.”

The year after he became a translator he undertook a short course in Christian theology. Since giving his life to Jesus Christ, he has been a vocal advocate of the Christian faith.

“I have spoken with hundreds – maybe thousands – of people on the issue of being Christians and Muslims,” he says.
“*And I am always supporting the totally different Christian culture* {my emphasis - dda}.
“Maybe I am like a missionary, you could say – like 10 missionaries!” (World Report 399/13 - 01/02.06)

From a 'Christianity Today' article about Muslim-background Christians in Algeria:

'On the way to my accommodations, Davy shared how he had loved to listen to Christian music on Radio Monte Carlo when he was a university student. Eventually, at his request, they sent him a copy of the Gospels.
'Reading Jesus' Sermon on the Mount made a big impact, especially the phrase "love your enemies."
"*I had never found that phrase anywhere in Islam* {my emphasis - dda}," he explained.
"There was a great difference between the Qur'an (Muslim holy book) and Injil (New Testament).
' In the Gospel it was like talking to God as a friend. In Islam you are a servant.

'I accepted Jesus because He practiced what He preached—and He gave me fellowship with God." - So: Christianity teaches love, *Islam does not*; in Christianity God is friend, in Islam God is [Slave-]Master.

And from a report [WorldNetDaily, 1.2.2008] on Muhammad Hegazy, an Egyptian Arab Muslim who abandoned Islam and became a Christian (and was disowned by his family, threatened with death, and denied the right to record his change of religion publicly on his ID card, and who now must live in hiding):

'Hegazy has reported he was studying various religions, and found he was not consistent with Islam.
"The major issue for me was love. Islam wasn't promoting love as Christianity did," he said.'

Hegazy was "jailed and tortured in 2002 when police discovered his conversion". [Compass Direct, 7.8.2007]. BTW, 45ch would perhaps like to explain to us whether any converts to Islam from other faiths, in Australia, France, the USA, or any other free country, are routinely arrested, jailed and tortured when they publicly reveal their change of religion (he is, of course, not permitted to cite the examples of those who have been caught engaging in, or actively plotting, acts of violent jihad); or whether they are routinely attacked and threatened with death by their families, or routinely cut off from those families, because of their change of religion.

And, finally, the testimony of Hannah Shah, the Imam's Daughter:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5907458.ece

'Shah’s conversion seems to have its origins in the fact that the family who put her up after she ran away from the prospect of an arranged marriage in rural Pakistan were themselves regular church attenders.

'She began to go with them and, to put it at its most banal, she liked what she heard.


“It was the emphasis on love.


'*The Islam that I grew up knowing and reading about doesn’t offer me love* {my emphasis - dda}.

'That’s the biggest thing that Christianity can and does offer.

'I sense that I belong and am accepted as I am – even when I do wrong there is forgiveness, *a forgiveness which Islam does not offer* {my emphasis - dda}.”


45ch likes to claim that Muslims are in general nice, loving and peaceful, and that even if Christianity teaches love and kindness, majority-Christian societies are generally more violent than Muslim societies.

Funny, then, that all these Muslims who leave Islam for Christianity tend to insist on the opposite: that Islam - both in its teachings and as those teachings pan out in society - is violent, and that Christianity is loving, and that Christianity's teachings do make a practical difference in the way people live.

(Nonie Darwish testifies to the same thing - she contrasts what she experienced as the routine forgiveness people exhibit toward one another in ordinary Western [in her case, USA] society, and the suspicion, aggression and cursing of grassroots Muslim society, as she experienced it while growing up. She is very clear that the 'atmosphere' of the two societies - Muslim Egypt vs. Christianised America - was very different; and it was the Christianised society that was open and peaceful by comparison with the Muslim society.

I want to clearify, when I suggest we should "rally against islam" I am not talking about rounding up and imprissioning every single muslim. As much as I disagree with Islam's ideology, I feel much stronger is our ideal of freedom of speech and conscience. No, what I specificly mean rallying against the political elements of Islam, those that call for the murder and subjugation of non-believers. That is to say, it would be a reformation of Islam, but unlike the reformation of Christanity this would be one that would have to be forced from those on the outside, since those on the inside who are making the most influence on the islamic world do not appear to want to change.