Saudi court considering severing spine of defendant

"blind, toothless, and spineless...Much like most of the US Congress..."

great line, duh swami!

But I'm not so sure about the toothless part. Maybe in regard to dealing with threats facing the country. But they're certainly good at taking big bites out of my wallet and my freedom.

"O' ISlam, please become WASlam."

Good one!! ...lol

It is the basis of giving someone a 2nd.chance and the Three strikes and your out.

The real question should be at this point is just how deep do we wish our roster to be at this stage of the game.

So long as they infect the earth , we will be hearing such sick stories from all Islamic paradises!!

I really don't give a flying rat's rump what mohammadans do to other mohammadans anywhere.

What I do care about is what these 7th century mohammad wannabes do to non-mohammadans anywhere.

I do agree, about sending them away but I think the sun is a more appropriate destination for mohammad worshippers.

Or is that too much common sense for anybody to handle?

Common sense in a mohammadan is as rare as an ice cube in the Sahara.

Logical, empathetic, sympathetic, compassionate, understanding and merciful are adjectives that are also rarities in the ummah. Especially logical.

If you look up muslim-logic in the dictionary you will find a picture of a pile of pretzels.

Wouldn't the moon be a better destination?

I prefer the sun...it would be a one way trip for all of the mohammadans.

I have a suspicion you are probably right in the expression "an eye for an eye" as referring to values and compensation.

My reading of the Pentateuch (and I've read through the Bible once every 1-2 years for a while now) impresses me of the importance of compensation and restoration of loss in its jurisprudence, such as giving five oxen for a stolen ox and four sheep for a sheep (Ex. 22:1).

Thanks for the post.

Seems you get depressed very easily. Seems also you don't have a sense of humor seeing that many of the comments above were made in jest. More important, however, is what is your understanding of the Islamic faith? Do you know that Islamic religious law demands death for anyone who leaves Islam for another religion? What other faith has this? Are you aware that in an Islamic court of law a woman's testimony counts for only half that of a man's? Or that a Muslim woman must produce at least four male witnesses to substantiate a charge of rape? How about the fact that since 9/11 alone there have been over 15,000 documented Islamic terrorist attacks worldwide? How many Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, etc. terrorist attacks have their been in the last nine years?

And what of the fact that Islam is the ONLY religion that calls for war to be made upon the unbeliever and that it divides the world into the Land of Islam and the Land of War? Please, no insipid and stupid comparisons to Christianity here, a religion whose doctrine is pacifist, and so when Christians killed in the name of their religion in centuries past they were violating the tenets of their creed, not fulfilling them, as is the case with Muslims. Are you also aware what little freedom exists in the Muslim world, that non-Muslims are treated as second-class citizens across the board?

Muslims come to the West and can preach their religion, seek converts, build their houses of worship, but this is denied non-Muslims in Muslim lands. Really, what the hell do you know about Islam, the Koran, the Hadith, the Sira? Seems all you can do is the typical liberal smear, which comes complete with little knowledge. Oh, by the way, a sensible liberal on the matter of Islam, Bertrand Russell, almost a hundred years ago averred that Islam is the only major faith which is totalitarian in structure and ideology. And Bertrand Russell was an atheist. Ponder all this if you're able, which I kinda' doubt.

I went to the "counter-website" you mentioned. Struck me as a conservative site. So, what's your point?

Paul,

I am here and reading this in morbid fascination.It did shock me a little @ 1st , but one only needs to think about two things to see things clearly.

1) No one is above the law - if it says eye for an eye and a spinal cord for a spinal cord, then that's the law. the law is supported by the state - and it ranges from the petty to the serious - but that's what it there for.

2) The sentence is handed down by the person you injured. What could be more fairer than that?

Your fate lies in the hands (if he hasn't lost them) of the person that you injured. It's down to his faith and sense of character as to what punishment gets handed down to you - whilst you have to put the work in - to put your best grovelling feet forward, shivering with fear, pissing in your pants, whilst begging for forgivness from the person you injured - who in turn can scream and shout at you, REALLY getting that frustration of 2 years out into the open; Perhaps then and only then can the victim calm down and the perpetrator in turn FULLY realise his wrongful actions.

After that it inter-twines you together - possibly for the rest of your lives - inshalalla you can grieve together, curse together, pray together and even compete for the best shining wheelchair that money can buy.

This woke me up to see a serene reality - as to just how fair the Quaran is. You have had a gross injustice against you - and the state helps you to get an equal and opposite reaction - if you so desire it.

IMHO, if this type of injury is given to you, then this is a test of your character and your sense of justice from Allah SWT, I wonder if both of them feel honoured as they hold the mechanism to get to paradise.

Um, isn't this blog a bit out of date?

Yes, isn't it interesting that that same majority Christian population evolved a death penalty that is decided on various types of evidence, from multiple witnesses (not necessarily eyewitnesses, which are often unreliable) explaining the various pieces of evidence examined, and then applied to the most heinous of crimes?

Guess those Christians really got it goin' on, Ipso, doncha think?

Or, they could slaver like dogs and adhere to that list you copied from somewhere like Muslims do to that silly, made up Mohammad tale.

Pro or con capital punishment, you can't use Christianity as the basis. Nor Judaism, which is technically what you did.

I might have guessed that you would approve of this.

It seems typical of the right wing media and the army of it's own indoctrinated followers, such as yourself and the countless others on this website, that you would tag indiscrimination upon women and human rights violations as standard upon a whole religon, seems rather ill thought out and rash in judgement.

There is no denial that aspects of Islam are radical especially in it's own laws which are counter productive to the modern harmonious world which we should all strive for. That of course , should leave us in no doubt that those aspects of Islam should be shunned and campaigned against.

However, if you didn't just have your television blaring out Fox news all day, you may perhaps understand or have just the smallest of notions that many "liberal" Muslims and the majority of Muslims in the wider world recognise that those aspects of Islam should be consigned to the scrap heap and DO NOT EPITOMISE what Islam is today.

Furthermore, your comments about the crusades, further fuel the counter argument that, all religons have the minor few which , when involved in the higher echelons of power can have undesiered, devastating effects, upon innocent people. Therefore, it's quite naive of yourself to say that Christians were going against their creed, and that Muslims are fufilling their own. The ideology of holy war can be interpreted accros both Christianity and Islam, but in fact the majority of Muslims and Christians believe their religon to have pacifist doctrine.

It is quite evident that you can only see so far into this train of thought becuase of the fact that the crusades happend over 800 years ago and that elements of radical Islam are the focal point of today. Clearly something you're finding hard to understand. Both happened because of horribly skewed interpretation.

Are you aware that you talk of non-muslims being discriminated in the Muslim countries of the world, yet you are preaching the same doctrine against Muslims in the western world? Again the hypoccrisy is prevalent on this forum. Surely if the western world can be held up as the model for the "uncivillised/barbarian world" to achieve,then discrimination of Muslims isn't even something to be considered.

Also, Bertrand Russell, as you quite rightly pointed out was an athiest, and was equally dismissive of all religons, if you had done your homework, Russell was also as equally scathing of Christianity, labelling Christianity the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. I beleive he would say the same of the nonsense spewed on this website.

It seems all you can do is spout your right wing propaganda all over anything even close to progressive in thought. Next time, perhaps you should look at the wider picture instead of picking at the negative aspects of Islam to use, much as in the same way Islamic fanatics use those very same aspects of Islam(and in fact the liberal aspects of Christianity) to justify their cause and cause harm and offense to many innocent people.
You are no better than them, and yet you are to narrow minded to see this, and thus the circle of hatred keeps on going.

Ponder all this if you can.

It was a comment in jest, it was a website that i made up , which happend to also be real,apologies for the confusion.

You could be wrong. The islamic plan is to land at night.

"Next time, you should look at the wider picture instead of picking at the negative aspects of Islam to use.. "

What are the positive aspects ?

" You are no better than them, and yet you are to narrow minded to see this, and thus the circle of hatred keeps on going ".

That is absolutely stupid.

Are you Nancy Pelosi ?

It is obvious that you don't know much of anything about Islam nor Mahoundians...And you are an insulting lout aren't you?

'That of course , should leave us in no doubt that those aspects of Islam should be shunned and campaigned against'

I'm waiting for you to start such a campaign. Where are you going to start? Please state your plan as how you are going to enlighten Mahoundians to the true Quran and Islam...How long do you think this will take?

Hmmm. Where to begin because you are so full of prejudices you believe are dispositive of enlightened thought.

First of all, I never specifically mentioned the Crusades. I had more recent trasgressions against Christian doctrine in mind, say the Schmalkaldic War, the French Wars of Religion or the Thirty Years War. Not surprising, though, that you would assume all kinds of things in an unsubstantiated way. (Particularly egregioius is your fallacious assumption that Christian doctrine and Islamic doctrine are roughly equal in problematical dictates. If you really think this, quite plainly, you are a fool.)

Moving on here, your simplistic and nasty contention that I have my television "blaring out Fox news all day" is completely assumed and completely unsubstantiated. I would inquire how did you determine this? Fact is, I haven't had my television turned on for some two weeks now and, when I do, I listen to a variety of news shows. But, since you engaged in the very predictable (for a liberal) excoriation of Fox News, I would mention the following names: Juan Williams, Susan Estrich, Kirsten Powers, Mara Liasson, Ellis Henican, Alan Colmes, Greta van Susteren. These are just a sampling of liberals who comment on Fox News on a regular basis (or even have their own show). Can you name for me a SINGLE regular conservative commenter on CBS News? You see, Fox News tilts right but it is still more balanced that any other network. But, of course, long ago I realized that diversity of opinion to a liberal means hearing the same liberal opinions from different liberals. You unwittingly helped prove my point for the umpteenth time by excoriating Fox News.

Ah, so much to say, but I feel it will be wasted on you, and fine beer and hot dogs are beckoning me. And so, I will leave you with this: I'm an agnostic. I don't have a religious bone in my body. Nonetheless, it is crystal clear to me that Islam is wicked and no other major religion is. Islam is spiritual Nazism and is inimical to democracy, equality under the law, the separation of the secular from the spiritual, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and lots of other good things that superficial thinkers like yourself cherish without realizing that Islam would destroy all of these wonderful things if only it could. About no other major religion can this be said. You know this or should know it. You don't. And as Ibn Warraq noted, there are moderate Muslims (whom Robert Spencer correctly characterizes as "lazy Muslims"), but there is no moderate Islam. Put another way, the term "radical Islam" is redundant. You have not yet grasped these truths.

Oh yeah, by the way, Thomas Jefferson thought highly of the New Testament, though he did not think Jesus divine. About the Koran, though, he observed that it was "demonic." Finally, consider this if you're able: Where is it written that just because something is a major religion it can't be rotten to the core? Sir Winston Churchill, probably the single greatest human being to walk the earth over the past hundred years, compared the Koran to Mein Kampf. Want to call him a right-wing nut too? Done here.

"Pro or con capital punishment, you can't use Christianity as the basis. Nor Judaism, which is technically what you did."

I am just referring some arguments put forward by Christians pro et contra capital punishment. I am not a Christian but a rationalist and an agnostic.

In a secular democracy such as the US laws should not be based upon the truth of any religion. Otherwise you impose your religious beliefs on others, and that is against the principle of religious freedom and secularism.

However, the British tradition of inflicting the death penalty on a number of crimes was carried over to the US Constitution.

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause applies to the states. The phrases employed originated in the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

According to the Supreme Court, the Eighth Amendment forbids some punishments entirely, and forbids some other punishments that are excessive when compared to the crime, or compared to the competence of the perpetrator.

In Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459 (1947), the Supreme Court assumed arguendo that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), the Court ruled that it did apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Robinson was the first case in which the Supreme Court applied the Eighth Amendment against the state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. Before Robinson, the Eighth Amendment had only been applied against the federal government. Justice Potter Stewart's opinion for the Robinson Court held that "infliction of cruel and unusual punishment [is] in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments." The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, such as John Bingham, had discussed this subject:

"[M]any instances of State injustice and oppression have already occurred in the State legislation of this Union, of flagrant violations of the guarantied privileges of citizens of the United States, for which the national Government furnished and could furnish by law no remedy whatever. Contrary to the express letter of your Constitution, "cruel and unusual punishments" have been inflicted under State laws within this Union upon citizens, not only for crimes committed, but for sacred duty done, for which and against which the Government of the United States had provided no remedy and could provide none."

In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), Justice Brennan wrote, "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'."

The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture.

"A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."

"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."

"A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."

Continuing, he wrote that he expected that no state would pass a law obviously violating any one of these principles, so court decisions regarding the Eighth Amendment would involve a "cumulative" analysis of the implication of each of the four principles.

So what are the principal and rational arguments pro et contra capital punishment?

If Jefferson is right, that life is an inalienable right, then it is a contradiction to inflict the death penalty under any circumstances.

Unfortunately Jefferson is wrong. We are not born with any rights whatsoever. But because we are ethical beings we have the possibility or ability to realize the existence of universal ethical principles we should submit to qua humans. Such as the Golden Rule (or something similar) or what can logically be deducted from this rule. If we (or most of us) submit to the ethical obligations then we can have rights. The right to life is then a logical consequence of submitting to the obligation of not to kill unless in self defense to save our own life or the life of others.

Execution of a convict does not meet this criteria, because he no longer pose a threat to other people and if incarcerated for life he never will.

For this reason capital punishment should be abolished.

Rights and obligations are in two different categories, and obligations must come before rights. The obligations are unconditional but the rights are always subject to empirical limitations. One of those limitations are that most people are not very rational, but driven by their emotions. Lex talion express our more instinctive desires towards equal retribution or revenge whereas the Golden Rule is more reflective and rational.

The reasons for not abolishing capital punishment are all empirical or justified on religious belief. I have never seen a principal and consistent argument for capital punishment.

Have you?

Agreed. No one reads these egotistical rants. Look at the poster and scroll, baby, scroll.

" Robert is a Christian and therefore it is natural for him to discuss ethical matters whitin the Christian paradigm ".

But Spencer does use facts - and they are pretty tough to run from, irregardless of ones religious beliefs.

Medina,

This creep is so obtuse, so full of himself that he thinks your remark was about Mr. Spencer and not HIM! That's the best laugh I've had all day!

G

berbasloth sez:

Are you aware that you talk of non-muslims being discriminated in the Muslim countries of the world, yet you are preaching the same doctrine against Muslims in the western world? Again the hypoccrisy is prevalent on this forum. Surely if the western world can be held up as the model for the "uncivillised/barbarian world" to achieve,then discrimination of Muslims isn't even something to be considered.

Please, do explain to us how non-zombies are not permitted to enter Mecca.

Tit-for-Tat. I'm all for it.

Berbasloth,

By all means, ponder, yes, do see the wider picture. Most of us here do.

You said:
"you would tag indiscrimination upon women and human rights violations as standard upon a whole religon,"

There are all sorts of opinions but people here mostly try to study this "whole religion" wholly, with diligence. And there now are these ex-Muslims, Islam-critics that know Islamic texts very well, both in English and Arabic. They also know the most influential interpretations by Islamic schools of thought and scholars. And also what high placed leaders in the Islamic world declare. And how Muslims interpret all this. And how Muslims act, in response to Islam.

The ex-Muslims, Islam-critics compare all this with what mankind has thought about and practised and is striving for in secular Democratic societies. (And inform us well.) And they have found, in parts of Islam, big contradictions to that. Islam, at least in part, is a totalitarian, supremacist ideology. Hence a danger to secular democratic societies and ideals.

And even if the danger is low, according to many, the anti-democratic intention of many Islamic texts, declarations of leaders and in the mindset of many followers is becoming ever clearer. Undisputedly, and the burden of proof has already shifted to denyers of this. And to people who use Tu Quoque to exonerate Islam, because, as Wellington said, Islam is unique in this. And there are many disturbing surveys, opinion polls among Muslims in diverse countries who confirm this.

And here you come; in essence telling people like us, and the world, that because you know that not all is "black" (as you precipitiously assume we think and promote), you automatically, unthinkingly, resort to the other extreme; that everything is "white". That there is NO big danger, NO big anti-democratic intention among Muslims.

Please don't rest smugly with the same easy lazy conclusions you charge us with, only with yours being at the opposite extreme. The discussion about Islam & Democracy calls for informing oneself well and ongoing and pondering a long time, with lots of weighing and discussing as happens here.

I think you lazily assumed that writers and posters on Jihad Watch were not aware of what Islam today epitomizes, but the opposite is true. Because articles and comments very frequently stimulate their opponents to give the best and most detailed and substantiated counter-arguments. And these are discussed very thoroughly, very substantiated.

At the moment it seems that most Jihad Watch writers and commenters are the most informed and diligent debaters about Islam and Democracy. Willing and able to take on any opponent and beating them most of the time, if given the opportunity to discuss fair and square. And not because they are smarter, but because they simply have the better case, the best arguments, supported by the most and best information.

And the opponents, such as yourself, do not so much rely on being well informed and diligent, but on resorting to the vaque, one-sided, obsolete, cop-out responses about: "fact-exposures, arguments and protests being reduced to just hate-speech", and about "don't tar all Muslims with the same brush", "Islam is a religion" as if any and all religions have the same equivalent good-bad mixture, really mysterious, un-knowable, non-describable influence on people.

And with this so many Muslims and Political Correct people try hard to exempt Islam from thorough examination by all mankind. But that is especially very important when a religion is as widespread and influential as Islam is.

"But Spencer does use facts - and they are pretty tough to run from, irregardless of ones religious beliefs."

Yes, Robert is very keen and accurate in dealing with facts. But ethics cannot by based upon (empirical) facts but only on what is true in itself. Called "necessary truths" in language philosophy.

The reason is that you cannot deduct from what IS the case (empirical truth) to what SHOULD BE the case, or deduct from one or more descriptive premises to a normative conclusion. If you do, you commit the naturalistic fallacy.

The truth of the Golden Rule is not based upon (empirical) facts, and not on any religious beliefs. However, it lacks a rational justification and its truth is supposed to be self evident.

However, the Golden Rule is not consistent and therefore it cannot be true in an absolute sense. As the philosopher Immanuel Kant pointed out the rule does not contain the obligations towards one self and it gives no reason for the obligations towards others. But these discrepancies could be overcome if the rule were formulated differently and given a rational justification.

Such an improved version of the rule is the “principle of ethical consistency”:

"A person is obliged to act in consistence with enabling that other persons can live as persons without going beyond the conditions allowing himself to live as a person."

Kant's own universal ethical principle "the categorical imperative" is based upon rational arguments (conceptual logic), but I am not sure whether it is consistent or not. This is still being discussed among philosophers.

Demsci,

Excellent comment!

In Jewish parlance, Jesus' approach is actually a traditional Jewish one and is called "lefanim le shurat ha din," or "going beyond the letter of the law."

The entire goal of God's law is to bring justice and mercy into the world, and neither can be done if the other is excluded.

The Lex Talionis in Exodus 21:24: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", was meant to limit punishment or compensation for crime to that which fit the crime itself.

The Lex Talionis was not intended to encourage INDIVIDUALS to get even with those who had wronged them, but to guide LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. Nevertheless, it's easy to see how the "eye for an eye" principle might be misused to bless personal vengeance.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus underscored the notion that we are not to get even with those who wrong us. He did this by citing a portion of the Lex Talionis, and then calling his followers to a radical new way of living: "You have heard the law that says the punishment must match the injury: 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say, do not resist an evil person! If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also. If you are sued in court and your shirt is taken from you, give your coat, too." -- Matt. 5:38-40

Jesus takes the principle of nonvengeance to a whole new level ...

In our relationships, whether with our colleagues or family members, our friends or political opponents, it’s natural for us to want to get even when we're wronged. Turning the other cheek is not instinctive. Getting back feels normal. Yet those of us who follow Jesus are called to a costly, countercultural, counterintuitive way of living. We will not advance the kingdom of God by applying the Lex Talionis in our relationships, but by deciding not to return evil for evil. God’s grace alone will give us the ability to do what Jesus asks of us.

Certainly, a big thank you to Demsci. I feel on much safer ground now!

Demsci: "not because they are smarter, but because they simply have the better case .." expresses beautifully that cleverness is no guarantee for validating all that I just know to be wrong, untrue and a lie by merely looking at what it has to offer and how it acts.

Good lord, where to start...

However, if you didn't just have your television blaring out Fox news all day,

I've lived in Turkey for the past six years and haven't seen Fox news for at least 8 years. In fact, I was a left leaning liberal, always voted democrat, before coming to Turkey, the only *alleged* secular muslim country. Wasn't Fox or any other right leaning media source that changed my liberal views. And you do realize that one of the porky Saudi princes owns a good share of Fox, right?

you may perhaps understand or have just the smallest of notions that many "liberal" Muslims and the majority of Muslims in the wider world recognise that those aspects of Islam should be consigned to the scrap heap and DO NOT EPITOMISE what Islam is today.

Don't travel much do you? I *triple-dog-dare* you to come to Turkey and tell these "humanists" (that's what the moderate mohammadans here call themselves) that the quran or even just the hadiths need to be edited. The Turkish government started a project about 6 years ago in which they were going to edit just the hadiths. The humanist population along with the "radicals" went nuts! Come on, put your money where your mouth is! I'm not daring you to go to Saudi Arabia and tell the mohammadans there that the quran needs to be edited, just Turkey where it's "islam lite."

The ideology of holy war can be interpreted accros both Christianity and Islam, but in fact the majority of Muslims and Christians believe their religon to have pacifist doctrine.

Again, don't travel much do you? Or if you do you keep your mouth shut and never disagree with the mohammadans. Try it sometime, you'll see just how quickly and easily even *humanist*secular*moderate* mohammadans can interpret their right to wage jihad (I'm talking the violent, physical jihad) on your keester.

Since coming to dar al islam I have become not an atheist but an all around God hater. As a God hater I can say, in all honesty, that Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and even Satanists have never scared me or threatened me with their "mis-interpretations" of their texts. mohammadans of the male variety threaten me with their version of sharia on an almost daily basis. There is no weaker, more fragile or pathetic force in the universe then that of the mohammadan male that's been told "NO!"

How much do you really know about islam or being a mohammadan? Not much is my guess. I can tell you, as an idiot *revert* to islam the quran *IS* the epitome of islam. Not parts of the quran, the *WHOLE* quran. To think only parts of quran are valid is shirk. The belief that the quran is *perfect* is central to the psychology of all mohammadans. Therefore, it can *NEVER* be altered or expunged of anything. To do so is to cease being mohammadan. To top it all off allah in the quran says *HIS* laws (from which sharia is derived)are the only laws to be obeyed. Man made laws are inferior and in essence haram.(forbidden) No matter how much you wish it to be true you cannot reform islam. Hell, mohammadans have been and are killing other mohammadans on this very issue! You really think they are going to listen to the appeals of even you libtards?

"It is quite evident that you can only see so far into this train of thought becuase of the fact that the crusades happend over 800 years ago and that elements of radical Islam are the focal point of today. Clearly something you're finding hard to understand. Both happened because of horribly skewed interpretation."

You're a fairly recent graduate who had 16 years of the "new history" as funded and dictated by the Saudis aren't you? You mean to tell me those mean old crusaders mis-interpreted what the mohammadan hordes were doing in the holy land? The mohammadans weren't attacking pilgrims they were simply practicing extreme da'wa? The mohammadans weren't tearing down churches they were only remodeling? The defacing of the frescos in the Haigha Sophia wasn't an act of cultural violence by the mohammadans? It was simply mis-interpreted? The mohammadans were only being helpful in giving a "Muslim-eye for the kuffir guy"? Do you seriously expect *ANYONE* to believe your re-interpretation of history?

And to re-iterate it's not the "radical" elements of islam that are the focal point. It is islam. Full stop. I'm sure you've got "loads of muslim friends" that share the quran with you. They told you to read Fatihe. Fatiha is peaceful, it's the heart of the quran! Do yourself a favour and read the rest of the quran. Al Fatiha is simply a dressing, a cover. There are 113 more surahs in the quran that are not so peaceful. Remember, to mohammadans the WHOLE quran is perfect, clear, valid for ALL TIME and can never, ever be changed. And when they tell you the violent surahs were "for a one time situation" please ask them to clarify how it can be that something that is perfect and clear and valid for all time has a one time limitation in some parts. It's like having a coupon that has in bold letters *NO EXPIRY DATE MULTIPLE USE COUPON* yet at the bottom is written *Valid for one use only.* I don't want to get you killed I just want you to see how quickly and easily a "moderate" mohammadan can turn into a threatening "radical."

"Are you aware that you talk of non-muslims being discriminated in the Muslim countries of the world, yet you are preaching the same doctrine against Muslims in the western world?

You cannot possibly be serious. The discrimination that occurs against non-muslims in various muslim countries is: kidnap, rape and forced conversions. Death for blasphemy (expressing an opinion that doesn't blow sunshine up allah/mohammad/mohammadan's backsides). Death/beatings for touching/mis-handling the quran. Beheadings simply for being non-muslim. Institutionalized (government enforced laws) discrimination, for example: cannot freely build places of worship. If permission is granted limitations are extreme: kaffir building cannot be higher than mosques, building cannot be in a place where it might *offend* mohammadans etc., etc. Oh yeah! Let's not forget the *JIZYA*! That special, heavy tax for non-mohammadans that is meant for their protection and to make them feel subdued!

Now, would you be ever so kind as to provide evidence that we are "preaching the same doctrine (the same doctrine would be rape/murder/forced conversions/beatings/institutionalized discrimination and a special mohammadan tax) against muslims"? I know you liberals are moral relativists (I used to be one) but I am eagerly awaiting to see how you attempt to equate rape/murder/beatings with anything that us "racist, bigoted islamophobes" have said or done. Demanding that mohammadans adhere to our laws is NOT discrimination. Asking them to assimilate to our cultures is also NOT discrimination.

If wanting democracies to stay democracies is racist, I am proud to be a racist.

If wanting to keep sharia law out of non-mohammadan countries is bigoted then bring on the #1 bigot t-shirt!

If trying to keep my culture from slipping into the quagmires that are called cultures in various mohammadan countries is islamophobic I am guilty as charged!

I like my country the way it is, most notably, sharia free. Aspects of which are openly practiced here in Turkey an allegedly secular mohammadan-majority country.

In all seriousness I would like to ask you a question: How much is too much for you? Let's say western governments allow mohammadans to practice sharia. I know you're thinking "great, equality for all!" Let's say you have a daughter, non-mohammadan, who does not wear hijab/niqb/burka. She goes to school one day, uncovered, and is seen by a mohammadan male. The little slut was uncovered and tempted the innocent mohammadan who was compelled to rape her. You go to the authorities and demand justice! But, the perp was a mohammadan and he demands that he be tried under sharia law. Remember, all cultures are equal and you wanted the poor, persecuted mohammadans to have equal rights! You can't say no!

The shari court is presided over by three islamic judges: one Saudi, one Afghani and one American. All three declare your daughter guilty of adultery (this has been/is/always will be the verdict *remember, even the Turkish government couldn't get the "moderate/humanist/secular" mohammadan hordes to agree to expunging the more vulgar hadiths.)

The Saudi judge sentences your daughter *the adulteress* to death by stoning. The Afghani judge says death by firing squad and the American judge says "since she is kuffir we should be respectful and sentence her according to our laws and the laws of kuffir so eye for an eye and death by electrocution(according to shari law she *IS* an adulteress afterall). Her father can rape the daughter of the innocent man who was forced to rape her because she was uncovered.

At what point will you say "enough is enough"? Will you still be thinking all cultures are equal? Do you really think this can't happen?

Ask the Indians, Greeks, Armenians, Marionites, Eastern Orthodox just how well moral relativism and we're all equal under God's eyes has worked out for them.

To all my fellow JWers I apologize for the long-windedness of my post. I just could not let this naive liberal's accusations of discrimination and ridiculous moral relativism pass. As you know, it's ramadan and here in dar al islam the mohammadans are fasting en masse. The lack of hydration and nutrition makes the usually disgusting mohammadan males even doubly so. When I see and live the reality that is islam (and islam *LITE* to boot) every day then see some misguided/ignorant/wishful thinking liberal crowing that people that don't want this reality to be a reality in their country are discriminatory/racist/bigoted I cannot contain myself.

How I wish all these bloody moral relativists would be forced to live just one year as non-mohammadans in an islamic country just so they could see what we are trying to prevent happening in our countries.

lol; nicely put, all of it.

Except I think the Al-Fatiha is not that innocent, really. Istanbul_Chick: "They told you to read Fatihe. Fatiha is peaceful, it's the heart of the quran! Do yourself a favour and read the rest of the quran. Al Fatiha is simply a dressing, a cover."

Islamic scholars are very aware that at the end of Al-Fathiha Islam and Muslims are being praised and elevated at the cost of the Jew and the Christian:

"Guide us to the straight path,
The path of those whom You have favoured,
Not of those who have incurred your wrath,
Nor of those who have gone astray."

To Islam it is not enough to extoll the believer, the infidel has to be denounced as well. And this is Al-Fatiha, the very center of daily prayers. I see precious little Interfaith.

"To Islam it is not enough to extoll the believer, the infidel has to be denounced as well. And this is Al-Fatiha, the very center of daily prayers. I see precious little Interfaith."

This is where taqiyya and kitman come into play. Those who question the meaning of this passage are told and tafsir confirms that those who have incurred allah's wrath and have gone astray are simply sinners. Which is true, allah hates sinners. *But* both the mohammadan's and the tafsir (which is needed to "understand" the "clear" quran) fail to mention that allah considers anyone who does not submit to allah and accept mohammad as his last prophet a sinner.

The later surahs make that point clear. Which is why I encourage all dhimmis who spout "my muslim friend read me some parts of quran and it was non-violent and tolerant" to read the rest of the quran without "guidance" from their muslim friends.

It's not just the quran that makes true interfaith dialogue with mohammadans impossible.

There are differences in psychology of people of different cultures. Usually, they are small, unobtrusive differences. The west needs to wake up and realize that the psychology, the collective consciousness, if you will, of mohammadan cultures is so different, so alien, so incompatible with not just western psychologies but also with non-mohammadam Eastern and Asian psychologies to make any useful dialogue with mohammadans, even western born and raised mohammadans, impossible.

What causes this, I don't know. Repeated repetition of the quran? Maybe. But I know mohammadans, raised in mohammadan countries who have never cracked open a quran who share this alien psychology with their more avid co-religionists. I can't say it's a middle eastern/African/Paki/Saudi yada yada cultural thing because I've heard American, female reverts spout the sickening "well girls matured faster in the desert" and "maturity for marriage is when menstruation starts" mantra. I even had one tell me she would allow mohammad to marry her 10 year old daughter!

This is the psychology of the mohammadan no matter where he or she was raised and no matter how much or how little religious he or she is. And this is just one small sample of how alien their psychology is. Don't even get me started on the psychology of the mohammadan male.

It's frustrating when I hear people, naive people, with good intentions, declaring their willingness to "open dialogues with muslims." They are lambs to the slaughter because they have absolutely no clue as to what and with whom they are really dialoguing with.

This berbasloth actually thinks. As reprehensible and laughable as his or her current position is, I actually would like to encourage berbasloth to read Jihadwatch archives.

No calumny, just pick a column a day, watch the exchanges and the information proffered.

As many other kind liberals on this forum have mentioned, being liberal is not a preclusion to JW! In fact, wouldn't we all hope that Muslim countries could turn into liberal societies, with the option for conservative and progressive thinkers?

I'm not sure where the thinking starts that looking at a single post one could make such sweeping judgments about the posters.

I get more world history and geopolitics and theology and testing of basic logic at jihadwatch than one can in most places.

I will say one thing in response to berbasloth, though. Those moderates you mention, who are flying under the radar, ready to throw the nasty bits of the Qur'an in the dustheap...are they political? Are they ready to make their mark in the Ummah and in their local masjids and at their school MAS groups? Are they ready for what will follow, for them and their families?

See, it doesn't matter if more than half, even, of Muslims are liberal or moderate. Do you think all of the occupants of the Soviet Union were hard and fast believing communists? Or were they just members of the party to survive? What happened to them if they dissented?

Know, berbasloth, that our primary focus is Islam, and elucidating, through anecdote and trend, what it is about Islam itself that motivates jihad and other oppressive Islamic practices. Derision for Muslims comes from the jaw-dropping amazement that any human, once aware of these tenets, would continue to defend the faith. If that is the "anti-Muslim" sentiment you get here, you might be right. Many find that voluntary association disgusting. Many of us know, though, that those who speak publicly for change risk life, limb and family.

It will, however, never stop us from resisting this imperial threat with all we have. It will come.

Please read and stay a while.

Do you think that just because a crime is non-violent there aren't any victims who deserve justice, and that the offense isn't worthy of punishment that severs their right to move in polite society?

"Right wing"? You imbecile, do you think this is a political issue? It is a HUMAN issue.
in light
supajohnny

Sir, you are a Prince amongst Men. Well said.
in light
supajohnny

Istanbul_Chick,

Superb refutation.

Additionally, your being 1) an ex-Muslim, 2) living in Turkey (have you traveled elsewhere in the Middle East too? that would help even more), 3) a (former?) liberal, 4) knowledgeable in Islam, and 5) a woman -- all together have the potential for helping enormously with your "cred" in countering the brain-dead axioms of PC MC.

You are just the type of person we need to see visibly out there in round-tables, debates, interviews, whatever. I haven't the foggiest how you could get into that (if you are just an ordinary "civilian" like me), but all I'm saying is that it would tend to have a beneficial visual and rhetorical impact for the anti-Islam movement (as long as you make sure to emphasize all 5 points in your presentations).

Ponder all this if you can.

I don't have to 'ponder' the crap you so eloquently and self-righteously spewed because you don't know what the hell you're talking about. What are your qualifications to explain islam to us? Are you an islamic scholar and an expert on islamic law? Are you a mind reader?

My bet is that you are none of the above so why don't you take your left-wing, politically correct, multicultural tripe somewhere else. Many ignorant fools like you have called us 'haters', 'islamophobes', 'bigots', and 'racists' and lamented our 'ignorance'. Newsflash: You're the 'ignorant' one and you confirm that banal pejoratives are the last resort of stupid moral relativists and lying muslims.

FANTASTIC!!!!!!

Hesperado,

I am just a "civilian" but I use my knowledge and experiences to enlighten those I meet who don't have a clue.

I am definitely no longer a liberal. I will never vote democrat again unless it's a democrat who's taken a strong stand against islamic immigration, sharia, the jihad mosque, etc.

I've only lived in Istanbul. I've only traveled to Egypt, Dubai and Syria. I believe one has to live, for at least a year in the culture to really understand it. That's what I tell the stupid chicks here I meet who've meet a mohammadan online and have come here for a week or two to "meet him, his family and get to know the culture!" Naive bints.

I will no longer live in self-imposed exile. If the likes of armstrong, honest ibe yada yada can live in the west well, then I can too because unlike those fools I am no longer a traitor to democracy, equality and liberty and no longer a slave to my arab masters.

I will take every opportunity to enlighten any liberal or even uncertain conservatives I meet just what life is like in dar al islam.

What scares the bejesus out of me is that here in Turkey it's islam lite. islam hardcore is what's practiced in the Middle East, Asia and Africa and the majority of mohammadans being imported into to the United States are Arabs and Africans.

Another thing I should mention, I would be no good in round table discussions with mohammadans.

Almost 6 years among barbarians has had an effect on me. I know, from personal experience, the ONLY thing these animals (and yes, I view anyone who thinks the demon mohammad was a prophet is an animal. *Especially* western reverts) understand and respect is violence and force. That's why I stress to the naive people that "dialogue" is useless with mohammadans unless you're ready to back your side up with force.

I cannot contain myself when they start spouting taqiyya. I love Robert for his absolute grace and self-control when he's being barraged with streams of taqiyya.

My experience and knowledge is best used to educate the uninformed and misinformed.

Istanbul Chick

re. your statement "I know, from personal experience, the ONLY thing these animals (and yes, I view anyone who thinks the demon mohammad was a prophet is an animal. *Especially* western reverts) understand and respect is violence and force."

There are two great men who would have loved you. They understood what you have come to understand.

1. John Quincy Adams.

Here is something from his “Unsigned essays dealing with the Russo-Turkish War, and on Greece, written while JQA was in retirement, before his election to Congress in 1830” [Chapters X-XIV (pp. 267-402) in The American Annual Register for 1827-28-29. New York, 1830.] - which essays were tracked down and read by Andrew Bostom, author of 'Legacy of Jihad':

“As the essential principle of his [Mohammed's] faith is the subjugation of others by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated."

2. Sir Winston Churchill, in the unabridged 1899 original edition of his book 'The River War', on the war with the Mahdi of the Sudan, in the late 19th century, a war that Churchill personally witnessed and reported upon. Churchill describes, in unforgettable terms, the moment when the British Empire decided that there was only one way in which to deal with the fanatical slave-taking Mahdi:

"No terms but fight or death were offered. No reparation or apology could be made. . .

"The red light of retribution played on the bayonets and the lances, and civilization

— elsewhere sympathetic, merciful, tolerant, ready to discuss or to argue, eager to avoid violence, to submit to law, to effect a compromise —

here advanced with an expression of inexorable sternness, and rejecting all other courses, offered only the arbitration of the sword."

As an American, who has experienced "moderate" muslims firsthand, I can certainly understand your trauma and your unwillingness to go toe-2-toe with any of them. Hubby and I used to own a business in SoCal, and the company came equipped with a general manager, and he was a muslim from Jordan, but he moved to America 25 years ago. And part of the deal in purchasing the business was that we HAD to keep M. Awaad as our general manager (dear God, was that a mistake!).

Anyway, long story short ...

During the 6 years that we owned that business our eyes were opened to how ugly, cruel and deceitful a "moderate" muslim and his family -- and friends, can truly be -- and they were also "moderate" muslims. BTW, the "moderate" muslim is a myth. Of that I am convinced.

In fact, one of the reasons why we sold that business was due to the horrors and daily drama that our general manager put us through! ...and those experiences have led us to a personal decision not to EVER, ever trust a muslim -- "moderate" or otherwise -- not to trust them ever again.

Coupled by the headlines that he and I read every single day on JW, which serve to reinforce our decision to keep a safe distance from ALL muslims; especially since hubby and I cannot distinguish between a dangerous muslim, a not-so dangerous muslim, or a perfectly safe muslim. I mean we have better things to do with our time than to filter through a maze like that.