"Moscow is the only place in the world where over one million Muslims are served in only four mosques. We lack premises for praying. Muslims are allowed to conduct their religious ceremonies in Orthodox churches, but we would rather avoid this extreme measure." In other words, give us more mosques, or we will take over your churches. Orthodox churches, with their proliferation of icons, are about as unsuited for Islamic prayer, with its abhorrence of shirk -- the association of partners with Allah -- and furious iconoclasm, as a building can possibly be. If Muslims begin praying in such churches in large numbers, they will begin demanding that the icons be taken down or covered up -- and eventually the places will become mosques in due course, like so many former churches in the Middle East.
"Moscow imam reminds that Muslims may pray in Orthodox churches," from Interfax, September 15 (thanks to Bruce):
Moscow, September 15, Interfax - The lack of mosques in Moscow may drive Muslims to visit Orthodox churches, imam-hatyb of the Moscow Cathedral Mosque Ildar Ayautdinov expresses his concern."Moscow is the only place in the world where over one million Muslims are served in only four mosques. We lack premises for praying. Muslims are allowed to conduct their religious ceremonies in Orthodox churches, but we would rather avoid this extreme measure," he said in an interview to the Moscow issue of Metro daily.
He referred to the concerns voiced by the opponents of constructing a mosque in the Tekstilschiki District of Moscow that such mosque would threaten dog owners and said that "nothing threatens dogs, this is just ridiculous."
"Ibn Mughaffal reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) ordered the killing of dogs and then said: what is the trouble with them (the people of Medina)? How dogs are nuisance to them (the citizens of Medina)? He then permitted keeping of dogs for hunting and (the protection of) herds. In the hadith transmitted on the authority of Yahya, he (the Holy Prophet) permitted the keeping of dogs for (the protection of) herds, for hunting and (the protection of) cultivated land....." -- Sahih Muslim 3814
At the same time, he noted that if any dog's spittle marked clothes of a Muslim, he was not allowed to pray in such clothes, but should go and wash it."Another thing is important: more attention is given to animals than to the problems of human neighbours. There is a need to construct mosques, otherwise something bad will supersede spiritual development," Alyautdinov noted.
Threat noted.
Islam, thy name is force.
More and more same people are recognizing the game. "Give us what we demand, which demands by the way will never cease, or we will riot."
And they expect to win friends and influence people. Man, this is one cult that time after time fails to learn lessons.
Is it just me, or do the posts seem to be coming more fast and furious than usual lately?
Ooooh.......something bad will happen.
Surely even our feckless, fearless "leaders" can perceive the threats made by the imans? Obama at least has an excuse, but what's wrong with the rest of them?
"There is a need to construct mosques, otherwise something bad will supersede spiritual development,"
Something bad? What does he mean?
"Nice little city you have here. It'd be a shame if something should happen to it."
I would be curious to see what response the Russian govt. has for this threat. I'll bet it would be a lot different than the U.S.
Hmm. Doesn't Russia have it's own sort of mafia types?
I can see where they might be useful ... just because one is a criminal does not mean one is, say, unpatriotic. Hmmm.
Likewise, Christians,who are working in Saudi Arabia should demand churches to pray or they will force themselves to the nearest Mosques and offer their prayers there.
Plot against the Pope. Of course misunderstanders of Islam.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10674357
So many of this tribe need their asses kicked.
"Moscow is the only place in the world where over one million Muslims are served in only four mosques. We lack premises for praying.
Good. Given that Moslem prayers amount to hate speech, sedition and treason to whatever country they're prostrating themselves in, it's high time Hillary jet over to Moscow and see how the Russians were able to attain this happy circumstance.
Come to papa...
Dog owners favored more than Mo's Scam? PETA, you tricky little devils...
Maybe they'd prefer a Dog Temple in the neighbourhood instead, then. :D
That army of old ladies armed with the brooms, mops and dustpans who take care of the church and police the doors, will beat the "ever loving snot" out of any muslims who try to take over a church!
They are TOUGH cookies.
My friend was told she could not come in to the Church wearing a non-strapless halter top dress unless she wore a jacket and was covered. She complied and was happy to do so. And in another Church no woman in slacks was allowed through the door.
ATTACKS with a broom stick and a mop handle. I would love to see that one.
ouch! ouch! stop it granny1 stop, ouch!
Uncle Joe, for all his faults, knew how to deal with Muslims.
You know I am NOT so sure that now the Russian Orthodox Church OWNES those Churches again, that muslims are allowed inside for ceremonies.
Maybe under the commies...but now???
I think that imam is just threatening and make a big noise so he can get his mega-mosque built.
Take down or cover Icons? In some of those churches there is almost NOT a SQUARE inch not covered by icons.
What a stupid idea.
Muslims are allowed to conduct their religious ceremonies in Orthodox churches, but we would rather avoid this extreme measure."
....................
"Allowed"—by whom? Certainly not allowed by Russian Orthodoxy—unless these Muslims planned to pray quietly in small numbers, which I rather doubt to be what they have in mind.
Here is part of the story of the takeover of Constantinople's Hagia Sophia, for hundreds of years the greatest church in Christendom:
The prophet of God in Muslim religion, Muhammad, had prophesied that the first Muslim to pray in Hagia Sophia would go to paradise. Since then, it was a great ambition for Muslim leaders to get Hagia Sophia.
On 29 May 1453, The Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, Mehmet II, conquered Constantinople after a 54 day siege. He directly went to the ancient Byzantine cathedral of Hagia Sophia. When he saw a man hacking the stones of the church and saying that this was a temple for infidels, Mehmet II ordered the looting to be stopped and the church to be converted into a mosque.
http://www.hagiasophia.com/listingview.php?listingID=7
This was after Muslims had massacred the hundreds of desperate Christians—including women, children, old people, and priests—who had gathered in that great church when the city was undergoing its final siege by the Muslim hordes.
Please check out this from INTERFAX:
Speculations about shortage of mosques in Moscow should be cut short, Islamologist believes
***About 400 thousand Muslims live in the capital, instead of the claimed 2 million
Moscow, September 16, Interfax - Renowned Islamologist Roman Silantyev believes that recent complaints made by certain Muslim figures of the shortage of mosques in Moscow are groundless.
"I believe it's high time we stopped all speculations about discrimination of Muslims in the capital," Silantyev told an Interfax-Religion correspondent on Thursday.
He stressed that there are no 2 million Muslims in Moscow, but their number equal to about 400 thousand and besides six (not four) specially built big mosques "there are dozens of small mosques and prayer rooms where most Muslims come to pray."
Muslim life is organized this way in most countries where there are dozens small district mosques for one big Friday mosque, the Islamologist said. According to his information, all thirty Muslim organizations registered in Moscow and major part of not registered own or rent premises for prayer and "thus hundred mosques minimum are in fact work in the capital, which is normal by any measure."
Silantyev also believes that "Russia's Mufti Council speculations about the shortage of mosques in Moscow are farcical as this organization in spite of all opportunities for 15 years have not built any mosque in the capital and didn't let others, for example Supreme Mufti Talgat Tajuddin and Muslims of the Northern Caucasus, do it."
The Islamologist believes it "especially outrageous" how "Ravil Gainutdin torpedoed the plan offered by Caucasus Muslims to build a mosque at the Moscow Muslim cemetery officially supported by Patriarch Alexy II."
"There is an impression that regrets about the shortage of mosques in the capital are caused rather by desire to concentrate all donations in few places controlled by one organization rather than care for rights of Muslims. Muslim communities open small mosques freely and are not exposed to any discrimination if they are not adepts of extremist and terroristic groups," Silantyev said.
OT
Pakistani death 'will bring more bloodshed to UK'
Counter-terrorism police called in to lead the murder inquiry into the London killing of Pakistani politician Imran Farooq.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8009816/Scotland-Yard-investigates-political-assassination-as-fears-rise-of-Karachi-gang-violence-spreading.html
If Islam were properly understood by the vast majority in the West, henceforth, whether in Russia, America, Britain, France or whatever Western country (I know, Russia isn't quite part of the West but I'll lump her in here this time), a mosque should be allowed to be built only if a church or some other non-Muslim house of worship is constructed in predominantly Muslim lands. A one-to-one ratio. Into the indefinite future.
I'd make the additional demand that the first non-Muslim house of worship must be constructed in Saudi Arabia, something margaritha above already mentioned. The term "reciprocity" should be read to the Muslim world in the spirit of a riot act, for the Muslim world so richly deserves it. No more mosques in the dar-al-harb if no more churches, synagogues, etc. in the dar-al-Islam. If Muslims don't like this, tough shit. Of course, this will only occur, as I already said, IF Islam comes to be properly comprehended by a huge majority of Westerners. Big "if."
Aren't they praying in the street, as they do in Paris?
That might however be a bit chilly as we approach winter.
If they try to occupy a church, the babushkas will see them off.
If they want a mosque they should raise the money themselves (not from their Wahabbi friends), find a site and get building permits. The government will not provide a building for them. They don't have any special privileges.
I don't think you should worry about them. Sarah "You Bitcha" Palin will probably keep an eye on them from her house in Alaska. The Russian frontier is secured. LOL.
Your sense of humor is as pathetic as is your intellectual content overall. As with most deficient human beings who don't realize how deficient they are, you reveal far more about yourself than you realize. Fitting.
Fscarn says:
+++++++++
"More and more same people are recognizing the game. "Give us what we demand, which demands by the way will never cease, or we will riot.""
++++++++
That reminds me the school bully: "Give me your lunch money or I'll punch you"
According to our [not-so] enlightened elites, if we keep giving the school bully our lunch money, he will stop coming every day asking for our lunch money.
Oh get a sense of humor Wellington. You sound like Khomeini.
Sadly they have learned a lesson. All to often it works.
there is no spiritual development forthcoming from following Muhammad, only stunting and deadening of the human soul. no thinking person would truly wish (on his/her own) to emulate his corrupptive influences.
Just because I object to what you think passes for humor hardly makes me an individual who, like Khomeini, saw no humor in life ("there is no fun in Islam") and who thought sex with a child was OK (ditto for that pedophile, Mohammed). You need more than a better sense of humor. You need a life.
There is never a slow day in Islamic Millitancy sadly.
Russian math...
Russia + Islam = Belsan...
Putin knows how to count...
And a Brain!!!
Wellington, I didn't say you were Khomeini. I said you sounded like one. I don't know if you like having sex with little kids. You may but I am not sure. I don't know why you are bringing that up but it seems a bit strange. I hope you are not like one of those horny people who show up on "to catch a predator" and are ready to have sex with underage people and fall in the same trap each time. Who knows, you may be a sex offender, locked up in your apartment, too ashamed to go out, and that's why you spend most of your time, counting the miserable minutes, on this website. So I don't know if you are like that and I am not sure why you brought that pedophilia, sex thing up? Does it arouse you? Strange.... Maybe you are a priest who is trying to imitate the life of Christ? That is not good. You see, people think that Christ never had sex and try to follow in his footsteps. What they don't know is that a sex-less man is impossible. So they repress themselves so much that they end up jumping and raping on the first choir boys they see. Oh, the imitation of Christ! Thomas a Kempis, what hath thou wrought! and one of your believers, Wellington, hath possibly committed a mortal sin! I digress... I can't say for sure that you are a .... you know what... but I hope you will clarify any confusion, not for me since I am about to leave, but for your own good and for the other venerable readers on this site.
Zinedine, like most people who get their information from the leftist MSM doesn't realize that Big and Little Diomede (one Russian, one American) lie only a few miles apart in the Bering Sea. Hence, Sarah Palin is technically right that the USA and Russia share a border--albeit a maritime one. Having taught social studies for a few years, and knowing something about geography, I think Sarah Palin won that round against her detractors.
The fact that such a large portion of our supposedly "intelligent" opinion- and policy-makers have no clue about the proximity of Russian and US territory worries me far more than Sarah Palin's having an undisciplined, rebellious teenaged daughter who had an out-of-wedlock child by some dopey contemporary.
"I think Sarah Palin won that round against her detractors."
No, no she did not. Her clear implication was that she had foreign policy experience due to her proximity to Russia, when in fact the Russian population centers are hundreds of kilometers away. It would be like the leader of Florida claiming to have FP experience with Mexico.
I don't see why you want her to be president anyway, she would just quit half way through.
You are beyond pathetic. You are disgusting. You have taken a statement of mine, which was in response to yours, asserting that I SOUNDED like Khomeini, to which any reasonable person would take exception as I did, and then accused me of BEING a Khomeini type, replete with acquiescence in sex with children, on the extremely spurious premise that objecting to sounding like someone who was a monster is actually indicative of furtively being a monster. This is as cheap, stupid and barbaric as it comes. It is crystal clear to me you are out of arguments and only have ad hominem attacks as a refuge, your earlier denigration of Palin being the example which prompted me in the first place to address your modus operandi.
I take it you are a Muslim. I also take it that your way of arguing is typical of those who adhere to the one major religion which is malevolent---Islam. If you are a Muslim, you are a follower of a pedophile, Mohammed. If you are not a Muslim, you are a dhimmi apologist for Islam to such a degree that liberty and your thought patterns have nothing in common. Either way you're a loser. And again, without your realizing it, you have conveyed far more about yourself to others than you comprehend. How richly you deserve this, even though you will undoubtedly remain oblivious of this.
Zenedine thinks he's cute...Disgusting is more like it...He seems to have a strong attraction to sexual perversions...I suppose he is just emulating the 'Prophet', and can't help himself...
Spencer, this article is such BS man.
I don't have the article on hand but Russia told Saudi Arabia, in response to a request to build more mosques in their country-
"Okay. Just let us build churches in your country where they're forbidden."
Russia rocks, and the ball is in Islam's court. This Imam needs to be bitching at SA, NOT at Russia. Luckily for them, with all their oil Russia can fart in the face of the Muslim World instead of bending over backwards like oil-addicts all feel the need to do.
As usual, you got things wrong. Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson was distorted egregiously by those who have a visceral dislike of someone who is a Christian, a conservative and who talks like regular folks ("you betcha'").
What Palin said, if you care to look it up (and Kepha already mentioned this), was that the proximity of Russia to America via the Bering Strait, and Little Diomede and Big Diomede islands, is indicative of how small our world is and thus all the more reason to understand one another. She never claimed to have foreign policy experience because of this and you have drunk the Lefitst Kool-Aid here as you have the Mohammedan (pedophile, psychopath, fraud et al.) Kool-Aid.
Ah, will you never learn?
Sad. Pathetic. Typical.
I won't even challenge you to rethink things since you have demonstrated time and time again you have lost the capacity to view thiings objectively. Distorting the Palin interview with Gibson is indicative of this.
Thanks for your support, duh_swami. You are there again and again when truth and freedom need a defender.
Zinedine wrote:
Wellington, I didn't say you were Khomeini. I said you sounded like one. I don't know if you like having sex with little kids. You may but I am not sure. I don't know why you are bringing that up but it seems a bit strange.
................
How is bringing this up "strange"? While the loathsome Ayatollah Khomeini was well know for his pronouncement that "there is no fun in Islam", he is much more notorious for being a vicious, mass-murdering theocrat who—among many other appalling things, advocated (and modeled) the rape of children.
One of Khomeini's first acts following the Islamic revolution was to lower the age of marriage in Iran to nine years for girls, in imitation of your horrific "Prophet". He himself "married" a ten-year-old child.
For any rational person, a comparison to the evil and repulsive Ayatollah Khomeini is a grave insult, not an amusing joke. I suppose you think that Wellington should have a much more salubrious view of your sense of "humor" now that you have broached the hilarious idea of his being a child molester.
No one who studies Islam in even the most superficial manner can fail to notice its acceptance of child rape. The difference is that devout Muslims consider it a light-hearted topic, while decent Infidels such as Wellington are *horrified* by it.
In an earlier thread, Zinedine said "If you spend more time interacting with real people under natural daylight instead of the glow from your computer screen, you may be less prone to inventing imaginary friends and fantasizing about imaginary enemies."
Maybe Z should follow his (her?) own advice; having made 10 comments on three threads between 4:10 and 5:39 filled with a lot of fantasizing and imagining. Really, Z, get away from the computer glow, and go out into the natural daylight. Your long ridiculous screed addressed to Wellington shows that your grasp on reality has been seriously weakened.
Wellington, nothing in your new reply refuted the possibility that you may be indeed having sex with children, something which you brought up in your earlier comment. I wouldn't say that it is suspicious, but to avoid any misunderstanding, I would suggest that you declare outright that you indeed never touched a child in a sexual way. Otherwise, you're leaving open the possibility for readers to believe that you may be a pedophile, even if - in reality - this was not the case. But how will we know what is the reality and what is not if you don't tell us?
ebony, believe me, I would be on this site more often and I would answer every question if I had the time. This is a lot of fun and I am enjoying the super star status you have given me. I mean who else in this website sees the words they've written days ago and in different posts still get cited by rabid fans?
"No one who studies Islam in even the most superficial manner can fail to notice its acceptance of child rape. The difference is that devout Muslims consider it a light-hearted topic, while decent Infidels such as Wellington are *horrified* by it."
---------------------
Indeed, it was the very notion that Mohammad was a pedophile (and an argument online at another site between two posters that I was reading) that first drew me to learning more about Islam several years ago. I had actually never heard that before, and it seemed a *fantastic* claim.
And then, I began reading seriously.
What I subsequently discovered was what we all have discovered, and the truth, laid bare in the actual approved for Moslems texts for all to see, if they'll only look, is inescapable.
I will be the first person to admit, and I don't mind saying it: If it had JUST been Mohammad, in the 7th century, with a nine year old girl, ok. That was then, we could more easily accept it was a different era, even though it would still be a critical point. One would *logically* expect that the practice of child-marriage would have been abandoned long ago, and rightly so.
But, and it's a BIG BUT, the fact that Moslems emulate him, and emulate his child "fetish" even to this very day, is what makes Mahound's example so retroactively reprehensible and unacceptable. For that reason, even what Mahomet did 1,400 years ago must be condemned.
(I used Moslem, Mahound, and Mahomet in hopes it will annoy Yusuf when/if he reads this! Hehehe)
Eleanor and Gravenimage,
I think you may have light-heartedly overlooked what I wrote about the pedophilia wrought by the Imitation of Christ in one the comments I posted on Wellington's possible pederasty:
"Maybe you are a priest who is trying to imitate the life of Christ? That is not good. You see, people think that Christ never had sex and try to follow in his footsteps. What they don't know is that a sex-less man is impossible. So they repress themselves so much that they end up jumping and raping on the first choir boys they see. Oh, the imitation of Christ! Thomas a Kempis, what hath thou wrought! and one of your believers, Wellington, hath possibly committed a mortal sin!"
Zinedine,
That you so baselessly insulted such a learned scholar and gentleman as Wellington by comparing him with a personage as foul as Khomeini would, in any case, immediately preclude me from "enjoying" the "light hearted" tone in which you claim to have written your post(s).
And then to bring up Christian priests imitating the life of Christ by, what was it? Oh yes, "jumping and raping on the first choir boys they see," as some kind of counter- argument to Khomeini (I suppose), as if Christian priests are acutally working from Christian teachings when they rape (they are not), but forgetting that Khomeini was operating from actual Islamic teachings when he sodomized (he was, the texts are extant), and then somehow randomly comparing Wellington to Christian priests just like you compared him earlier to Khomeini?
Wow. Anguis in herba.
I think it's safe to respectfully say that you haven't made many friends here with your stunning acumen, Zinedine. Sorry.
I'm sure Channe and Yusuf YK will be fanning and faving like mad, though.
~Eleanor
Someone mentioned the Hagia Sophia (Holy Wisdom) Cathedral, that Ottomans converted into a mosque. While it is now a museum, it was still used for worship when I visited it. We had to remove our shoes at the entrance.
Even as billions of US dollars have flowed into Bosnia and Kosovo, Christian churches and Cathedrals have been destroyed in those places. Further, while Bosnia took $60,000,000 from the sauds for de-ottomanizing mosques, not one permit for restoration of Christian institutions has been approved by authorities. US governments, from Bush Senior have been subsidizing islamization, while trumpeting their own "faith." What a pack of frauds. All of them!
Italy and Spain held out against mosque building. After the terror-decided election, Spain opted to minaret city-scapes. The Italians will follow suite.
In the 'sixties and 'seventies, muslim infiltrators of Western Civilization took over urban town halls, and made mosques out of same. With indulgence of the ignoramuses that get elected to office in the Free World, the trend is towards building structures that model al-Bannist, Khomenist, Wahabist, Ataturkist, Maududist structures in the muslim tyrannies. For example, see this picture of a Khomenist mosque, which iran's terrorists constructed near Vancouver, BC, for use of Khomenist-shias.
http://www.margaretdeefholts.com/images/Pathways%20to%20Heaven%20-%20Photos/templetour-mosque-copy.jpg
The above mosque - which operates as a sharia, dawa and jihad base - is set in a rural area, where the call-to-prayer to the arab-tribal-deity (allah) is less innocuous. Once they are established, the enemy clearly intends to set up large mosques in every major city in the West. We are expected to indulge nominal "religious freedom," as exercised by those whose cultic dictates,that they serve as political-followers.
What does this arab-quran spew mean: "there is no compulsion in religion."
This is one of the most mistranslated phrases. The arab term "din" is translated as "religion." In fact, it means: islamic body politic. Islam is not a religion; although it uses falsified "prophecy" taken as "revelation," it is a master-slave system, devised to advance the political interests of the wild animal who founded the cult. The Bukhari Hadith alone includes repeated references to carpet-humpers as "slaves-of-the-god" (abd-allah). Currently, most cults require 4 years of indoctrination, in order to attain status of "teacher," (imam), after which cult political bodies - representing less than 1% of the population of the tyrannies - may assign status as fatwah authority (various names for same), qazi (sharia judge), sheik (property holding wahabi), up to mufti sahib (ikhwani, wahabi and others), ayatollah (receiver of inspiration "waves" from the arab tribal deity; shia reference alone). American muslims base all authority in the political-dictatorship to which they are abds (slaves). Hence, the above phrase means: the islamic body politic is not grounded on compulsory beliefs. Thus, it is a false declaration that abridges the verity that disbelief is not an option for muslims. During Stalin's Vishinsky-Inquisition, every lie given by political enemies was prefaced by the deceitful and compulsory statement: "I make this statement in free exercise of will."
Islam operates on 99% of its abds being personna non grata. Slaves must act under compulsion, even as they claim it is voluntary. (Roman Catholic emulators of muslim perversities, once worked under the priciple that "thou shalt be disposed to believe that that which is black, is actually white should the church so dictate" Spiritual Principles, Loyola)
We need to educate each and every target of muslim-aggression on earth, that those mortal enemies are void of all humanity, and conduct themselves as jihad-bots. Islam is terror; muslims are terrorists.
Wellington, nothing in your new reply refuted the possibility that you may be indeed having sex with children...
Your psychosis is showing...You are sicker than most Mahoundians...It would seem that it is you Zenedine who are interested in child molestation and masturbation as it is you who keep bringing it up...
Your posts to Wellington are so vile and so far off topic, they should be deleted and get you banned...
http://quranburninginamerica.blogspot.com/
Duh Swami,
Wellington brought the whole child molestation thing up... out of thin air, I should add, because I was speaking of Sarah Palin and the whole "I saw Russia from my house" joke. I just want to know why he did so and gave him an opportunity to refute any suspicions he may have caused among readers.
Men N Motion, good luck with the website. Maybe one day it will become as popular as Jihad Watch. You need to change the background however, and your first post seems a bit ambiguous. It's not quite clear what you stand for, if you are pro or anti burning. I wanted to leave a comment to get things up and running for you, but I didn't know what to write! Hopefully others will do. Good luck!
Let's get this straight, Zinedine. I brought up child molestation, not out of thin air as you claim, but because you said I sounded like Khomeini (because he had no sense of humor) because I didn't find your crack about Palin funny. Sounding like someone and being like someone are pretty close to one another and I took exception because I have nothing in common with that wretched man, who, among other despicable things, sanctioned sex with children.
You then took my comment in your own psychobabble kind of way as some kind of subliminal desire to engage in sex with children. This "leap" of yours was unnecessary, stupid, vile and without any kind of factual evidence whatsoever. It was a smear of the worst kind. You know this or should know it. Then in a later post you said that I should make some kind of statement here to the effect that I have never touched a child in some sexual manner. So, though you accused me in the cheapest of ways of very possibly doing something highly revolting, you then essentially demand I should definitively refute something you imputed to me with zero evidence. This I will not do because I do not have to swear about anything to the likes of someone like you. You are beneath contempt. And for the record, you're not funny either. How pathetic you are. I mean you really are pathetic. Done here.
"This I will not do"
Well now, at least, the record is straight.
I disagree with your practices but I thank you, nonetheless, for your honesty.
"as if Christian priests are acutally working from Christian teachings when they rape (they are not)"
1 Samuel 20:41
"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." (NIV)
Your religion may approve of Wellington's actions, but he should realize that society today does not consider man-boy love too favorably.
Listen you cheap bastard, if I knew who you were I would sue you for libel. I have never to date argued that anyone should be banned here at JW, but I would make an exception for you. Defamation is an abuse of free speech and you have engaged in this to an egregious degree. You can't go around accusing someone of being a child molester when you have zero evidence and then demand that the accused swear that he has never engaged in child molestation and if he doesn't that this then is dispositive of the fact that he is guilty of what you have asserted.
Freedom doesn't work this way. The law doesn't work this way. And no decent ethical system works this way. But you work this way. Telling. Now go to hell, shithead.
Wellington, again, you are starting to sound like Khomeini. I've been pulling your leg all along and you've been sheepishly following wherever I wanted to take you. You've proven that you are not a pedophile alright, but you've also proven that you have no sense of humor, you are easily prone to rage and your debate tactics are quite amateurish. You would have held your ground if you had any spine, but I successfully - and quite effortlessly - succeeded in driving you mad.
And it is so sad to see that the pompously-named Wellington, that Hugh-Fitzgerald-wannabe who dabbles in flowery prose, has been reduced to scatological ravings of the lowest order by the end of the last post. Churchill is looking at you and he is NOT proud.
Falsely accusing someone of pedophilia is not just a matter of pulling someone's leg. You know or should know you don't joke about something like this. Anyone would have a right to be angry, quite angry, for being called a pedophile when they are not. My anger was completely justified and you have a very sick sense of humor. And, of course, you had to engage in new insults, which you did in your last paragraph. What a jerk you are. Get some help. You need it.
"Falsely accusing someone of pedophilia is not just a matter of pulling someone's leg."
Well, I think it is when the accused is doing the same thing. I am just giving you a taste of your own medicine. Why accuse Khomeini of pedophilia when it was very common for women in the 1920's, all around the world, including in the west, to marry at the age of 13. I mean just think of your parents or grand-parents or grand-uncles. You will probably find someone who got married at an age which, today, would be prosecutable as pedophilia. Don't get me wrong. I am not defending Khomeini. I personally think he is an A-hole. I am just showing that you were doing the same thing, and when someone did it to you, you got all mad and offended.
The same thing goes for Muhammad. During his time - and again in the Western world as well, and up to the 18th or 19th centuries - it was common for men to marry nine-year old girls. You may object that since Muhammad is a prophet, his case is different, but doing so, you would be falling into the same trap as the radical Muslims who have made it a habit to deify him. Unlike Christ, Muhammad, in Islam, is a mortal man who was by no way infallible. He could commit sins and by the end of his life, he, himself, did not know whether he was going to heaven or hell. Since Christians worship Christ, they think that Muslims also worship Muhammad. We don't. We worship God. Muhammad was just a messenger.
What's the situation of child marriages today in the Muslim world? Some countries like Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Afghanistan are very backwards and are lenient towards its practice. Others have rules that are stricter than most Christian countries, where you can still marry or have sex at the age of 12, 13, 14 or 15.
Look at this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Age_of_Consent.png
But the real question is why the hell am I talking about this, when my first post was about Sarah Palin. I am sorry to disappoint you Wellington, but you are the one who brought up this whole issue.
Projection and tu quoque are essential Mohammedan traits, Wellington.
Child rape, pederasty and pedophilia among the mullahs is far more common than among priests. What's different is that it goes unreported and unpunished. Its not against Mohammedan law.
To the slave of allah who believes he 'defends' his belief system by posting here:
"ebony, believe me, I would be on this site more often and I would answer every question if I had the time. "
We have had many mohammedan trolls derail the threads over the years, every one of them wasted a lot of (our) time, but I don't recall any that answered any questions.
At least not honestly.
What keeps you from trying, Zinedine?
"But the real question is why the hell am I talking about this, when my first post was about Sarah Palin. I am sorry to disappoint you Wellington, but you are the one who brought up this whole issue."
--------
No, the real question is, are you so psychotic that you don't realize that YOU are the one who brought up Komeini, and then compared Wellington to him for no discernable reason?
You throw bizarre wildcards around and then deny you threw them, or deny they were meant to symbolize anything.
Muslims do that a lot.
What do you do for fun, Zinedine? Walk up to someone, punch them in the face, then laugh and say you were only kidding?
You must live in a strange place, a place where the social order is whack; a place like a Muslim dominated country. A place where men are bullies, women are bruised, and small children are sexually abused with the blessings of the state.
And I'm an athiest, btw, as is well-known here at JW.
As for now, I'm done with you. I will never again acknowledge you here or deal with anything you post, not that that will bother you. You may not be banned, but as of this moment, at least for me, you no longer exist.
You represent the atmospherics of your faith well, Zinedine, I will give you that.
Incidentally, your personality very much reminds me of Julius Streicher, know who he was? He had an aggressive, pornographic imagination just like you do. Careful, lest you end up like him.
My my how you lie...Now you have an equal chance to clear the record...When was the last time you molested a child...'Never', is not an answer...
Khomeini had sex with a four-year old and it was not common and sanctioned at anytime in history in the vast majority of cultures for a middle-aged man to have sexual intercourse with an eight or nine-year old girl (Aisha was either eight or nine depending on whether one uses the Muslim calendar or ours of today). Mohammed was a pedophile, pure and simple, and pedophilia is probably the worst felony of all except for murder, something else Mohammed was guilty of many times over.
Any Muslim must understand that Mohammed as pedophile is not going to go away. Quite the contrary. Word of this is spreading rapidly and will put Muslims on the defensive most everywhere. No loving, merciful, sapient deity would choose such a man as Mohammed to be the last and greatest of the prophets. Mohammd's own life puts the lie to this.
While not all Muslims are evil, though many are, all Muslims are confused. If you believe Mohammed is the Model Man, a person who screwed a nine-year old girl when in his fifties, you are, ipso facto, confused. Islam is rotten to the core and it starts with its founder.
Wellington - this guy takes a psychotic delight in being a moron. He definitely does not have it all together. Actually, this reminds me of a troll that comes into Yahoo chat and acts the same way, just to see what he can stir up, only for the joy of attention being given him. He shows a bit of narcissistic personality disorder in his post about how he loves the attention. And that Z creature does seem really familiar with sex with children. Perhaps he's an offender. Hes' projecting his own feelings onto others. But that is a layperson's view.
Eleanor wrote:
Indeed, it was the very notion that Mohammad was a pedophile (and an argument online at another site between two posters that I was reading) that first drew me to learning more about Islam several years ago. I had actually never heard that before, and it seemed a *fantastic* claim.
..................
Good for you for following that up, Eleanor. That the "Prophet" was a pedophile is indeed shocking for most of us to learn.
I agree, though—if this were just a 14-century-old historical incident—no matter how vile—it would be different. But girls are suffering for Muhammed's vicious predilections all over the Muslim world—and, increasingly, in the West—*right now*.
There have disturbing cases recently of forced child marriage in Yemen, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan.
As for the repulsive Zinedine's ludicrous assertion that this happened long ago, it must be noted that the Ayatollah Khomeini dropped the marriage age for girls in Iran to nine in the antediluvian era of *1979*.
Hello, Wellington. Keep in mind that you are one of the most respected posters here, while the increasingly repulsive Zinedine has only been leaving his foul deposits here for a very short while.
Hope you are well. Don't let this get to you too much. I doubt many readers here have the least respect for this libelous troll.
Thank you, gravenimage. Very kind of you. Zinedine did indeed make me angry. Very. Accusing someone, as Zinedine did me, of being interested in sex with children with zero evidence to support such a charge is just about the basest thing a person can do. And then to claim it was all just a gag, as he did, only compounded the original offense. I find him repulsive. He represents the detritus of the human race quite well. Fitting that he is a Muslim. There's a meanness that exists among so many Muslims that is far less prevalent in believers of other major faiths. Not surprising, though, since Islamic doctrine is so full of venom and disregard for anyone who won't be a slave of Allah.
Hope you too are doing fine. And thanks again for your supportive words. Much appreciated. Take care, my friend.
I hope everyone noticed the abominable Zinedine projecting his Muslim view of the world onto the relationship between David and Jonathan - claiming, forsooth, that this passage somehow functions as an example of and prescription for 'man-boy love' and therefore inspires or teaches Christian priests to rape boys!!!
Unfortunately for Zinedine, those of us who know *all* of our Bible know that the passage Zinedine quoted, from 1 Samuel, describes a conversation taking place between two grown men; David was already married to Michal, Jonathan's sister (that is, Michal like Jonathan is the child of King Saul). I have an idea that by that time Jonathan, too, was married.
Even if one wanted to argue that the relationship between David and Jonathan has a homo-erotic dimension - which, by the way, I do not think is required by the text as written - anyone with any brains reading the book of Samuel can see that the David-Jonathan friendship is an equal relationship between two fully-adult young men of similar age, rather than a relationship between a dominating, much older man and a powerless and barely pubescent or pre-pubescent boy.
No-one can take this story in order to get an 'adult man raping a young boy' example out of it, because that just ain't there.
Muslims like to tell us that we don't know how to read their unholy Quran; that's as may be; but I can say, quite definitely that of all the Mohammedans who have entered this forum over the years and have attempted to twist Biblical scripture to their purposes, there is not one among them who has ever shown any real understanding of or interest in what is taught in the Jewish or the Christian Scriptures, nor of what it is that Jews and Christians actually do when we read our books.
What religious book mentions Jesus more than 100 times? The Quran
by Brett Buckner
Special to The Star
Sep 18, 2010
A recent Pew Forum for Religion & Public Life poll indicated
that the majority of respondents had little or no knowledge of the Muslim faith at all. Photo: Associated Press
slideshow Two months ago, he was an obscure pastor leading a small congregation in Florida. That was before Terry Jones, pastor of Dove
World Outreach Center in Gainesville, created a global firestorm by
declaring Sept. 11 “International Burn a Koran Day.” It’s a threat
Jones has since abandoned amid pleas and outrage from not only the
Muslim world but people of all faiths.
“Muslims take the value of the Quran very seriously as divine
scripture, and we are very careful to handle it and store it
properly,” explained Safaa Al-Hamdani, a member of the Anniston
Islamic Center. “It is never allowed to be kept in unsanitary places,
is never allowed to touch the ground, and we must have clean hands to
touch it.
“I cannot emphasize enough the value of this book to all Muslims.”
And yet Jones appeared oblivious as to why his threats were so
offensive. The reason? Jones knew nothing about the Quran.
“I have no experience with it whatsoever,” he told the New York Times.
“I only know what the Bible says.”
Jones’ ignorance about the teachings and beliefs of Islam is not
uncommon. More than half of respondents in a recent poll by the Pew
Forum for Religion & Public Life said they knew little or nothing
about the Muslim faith.
Had Jones or any of his followers bothered to read the Quran before
threatening to burn it, they might have been surprised by what they
found.
Moses is mentioned more than 130 times. Jesus is mentioned more than
100 times. Mary is mentioned more in the Quran than in the New
Testament, and Muhammad is only mentioned four times, explained Gordon
Newby, chair of Middle Eastern and South Asian studies at Emory
University in Atlanta.
A new exhibit, “Islamic Calligraphy and the Quran,” is on view through
Dec. 5 at the Michael C. Carlos Museum at Emory. In conjunction with
the exhibit, Newby has lectured on the relationship of the Quran to
Jewish and Christian scriptures.
“The Quran,” he said, “is the latest book to join the monotheistic
dialogue on the nature of God and God’s word.”
The Quran is about as long as the New Testament, consisting of 114
chapters, or suras, which vary in length from three verses to 286.
“The best way for newcomers to read the Quran is not from front to
back, but back to front,” wrote Stephen Prothero, author of ITAL
Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know – and
Doesn’t.UNITAL “Start with the Al-Fatiha (The Opening), but then skip
to the shorter, more theological suras in the back. Then read the
narratives of the prophets (toward the middle) before concluding with
the legalistic content of the longer suras in the front.”
Muslims believe that the Hebrew and Christian scriptures were both
revealed by God but have been corrupted over time, while the Quran
exists today as it was originally delivered. Translations are viewed
as human products. Only the original Arabic versions of the Quran are
considered authoritative.
“The Quran teaches the bodily resurrection and a coming judgment,”
Prothero wrote. “It requires prayers and almsgiving and fasting and
pilgrimage. It portrays a world in which one God repeatedly reveals
his will to human beings through prophets and messages that stretch
from Moses to Jesus to Muhammad.”
The Quran takes many of the biblical stories and uses them to teach
how God wants human beings to act before the day of judgment to avoid
being cast into hell, Newby said.
“Be faithful to God, perform charity, do good works, and you’ll be
OK,” he said. “I know a lot of preachers who deliver pretty much that
same message every week from the pulpit, as well as priests, rabbis
and imams.”
A brief history of the Quran
“Islam” means surrender or submission to the will of Allah (God).
Newest among the world’s major religions and with more than 1 billion
followers, Islam is based on the simplest of creeds. Murmured in the
ear of newborns and the last whisper of the dying, that creed rings in
a single sentence: “There is no god but God, and Muhammad is his
prophet.”
Followers of Islam, or Muslims (the word in Arabic means “one who
submits”), revere Muhammad as the greatest prophet who ever lived, the
last of God’s messengers. Muslims honor him and the prophets who
preceded him – Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus – as human, not divine.
Allah rules alone. Muhammad’s role was to bring an absolute and final
revelation - the Quran.
The Arabian desert was home to wandering tribes who worshipped nature
spirits and made pilgrimages to a cube-shaped shrine in Mecca that
housed scores of idols. It was into this prosperous crossroads that
Muhammad was born around the year 570.
Little is known about his childhood, except that he was known a hard-
worker, earning the nickname of al-Amin, “the trustworthy.”
Because of this reputation, the 25-year-old Muhammad married a rich
widow named Khadijah, who was 15 years his senior. The marriage gave
him four daughters, and time to ponder questions that burdened his
soul.
Over the years, Muhammad’s tribe had become wealthy, as Mecca grew
into a thriving mercantile city. They were obsessed with attaining
greater wealth, rather than protecting the poorer and weaker members
of the tribe.
Muhammad also worried that a spiritual crisis was gripping the region.
While Christianity and Judaism were familiar religions, the nomads
worshiped numerous pagan gods and had no prophets or scriptures of
their own.
“Indeed, the Jews and Christians whom they met often taunted the Arabs
for being left out of the divine plan,” wrote Karen Armstrong in
ITALIslam: A Short History.UNITAL
“It seemed to many of the more thoughtful people in Arabia that the
Arabs were a lost people, exiled forever from the civilized world and
ignored by God himself.”
That changed in 610, when Muhammad stepped into a cave on Mount Hira,
three miles from Mecca. While in the midst of prayer and a ritual
fast, Muhammad felt overpowered by the angel Gabriel, who gripped him
tightly, forcing the first fragments of the Quran to pour from his
mouth.
Inspired by his own vision and his wife’s steadfast support, Muhammad
eagerly awaited further visitations. He often went to Hira. He
meditated. He prayed. He waited. More than two years passed before
Muhammad again heard a heavenly voice and saw Gabriel seated upon a
throne.
From that moment forward, he never faltered as the revelations were
delivered verse by verse – surah by surah - over 21 years. Such
experiences were painful for Muhammad, who often told confidants,
“Never once did I receive a revelation without feeling that my soul
had been torn away from me.”
The ‘maniac poet’
Initially, converts were few, but, with growing confidence, Muhammad
attracted larger audiences drawn by the promise of an afterlife.
In paganism, death was the end of existence, thus attaining wealth was
the ultimate goal in life. But the Quran taught that the rich must
share with the poor, and promised a glorious afterlife for the
righteous and hellfire for the sinful. This threatened the powerful
upper-class leaders, who turned against the “driveller, star-gazer and
maniac-poet.” They stoned and beat converts.
In September of 622, Muhammad obeyed a vision telling him to leave
Mecca for Yathrib, an oasis city some 250 miles north. This migration
marks the beginning of the Muslim era. Islam grew in political power
as Yathrib became Madinat al-Nabi, “the city of the Prophet,” or
simply, Medina.
In January 630, Muhammad marched on Mecca with a force of 10,000 and
was met with little resistance. On camelback, Muhammad made seven
trips around the Kaaba, which housed the various pagan gods, ordered
all its idols destroyed and rededicated the shrine to “Allah, the
Beneficent, the Merciful.”
Victory at Mecca set a model of leniency followed by later Islamic
conquerers that allowed pagans to embrace Islam. Christians and Jews
could maintain their own faiths – if they paid a tax – having received
valid revelations of their own.
“The Quran insists strongly that ‘there shall be no coercion in
matters of faith,’” Armstrong wrote, “and commands Muslims to respect
the beliefs of Jews and Christians, whom the Quran calls ahl al-kigab,
a phrase usually translated ‘People of the Book,’ but which is more
accurately rendered ‘people of an earlier revelation.’”
Not long after conquering Mecca, Muhammad’s ministry came to an end.
From a hill near Mecca, he faced a throng of pilgrims and preached his
final revelation. “This day (God has) perfected your religion for you
… and has chosen for you … Islam.”
One morning in 632, Muhammad died peacefully in the arms of his wife.
When Abu Bakr, one of Muhammad’s closest companions, learned of the
prophet’s death, he called followers together.
“O men,” he said, “if anyone worships Muhammad, let him know now that
Muhammad is dead. But if anyone worships God, let him know that God is
alive and immortal forever.”
Read more: Anniston Star - What religious book mentions Jesus more
than 100 times The Quran
Is there a 'politically correct' Russian term or definition?
janeabraham:
This will be a surprise to you, but the answer is to be found via Answers.com website:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_times_is_the_name_Jesus_mentioned_in_the_Bible
The answer is that it even beats out the Koran, 1281 times in the Bible.
Case closed.
Oh no !! You must be mistaken. The Muzzies wouldn't lie or Embellish the truth.
LOL
"janeabraham" wrote:
What religious book mentions Jesus more than 100 times? The Quran
....................
Not exactly. That would be the ugly figure of "Isa", who has very little in common with the Jesus of the Bible.
"Isa" does not preach peace, welcome children, or heal the sick. The "Isa" of the Qur'an not only is not crucified, he compels a follower of his to die nameless in his place, while he flees like a coward.
The vast preponderance of "Isa's" statements in the Qur'an are condemnations of those who "associate partners with Allah"—which is how Muslims view the Christian doctrine of the trinity. In other words, "Isa" condemns Christians for their deepest beliefs about Jesus.
In the end of days, "Isa" will return to earth. His purpose is to "kill the pigs and break the cross", which means that he will do away with dhimmitude—the small space left under Shari'ah where Jews and Christians may follow their faiths—albeit as chronically insecure second-class citizens.
After this, Christians would be faced with only two choices—convert, or die.
In other words, the main purpose of the "Jesus" of the Qur'an is to *kill Christians".
You'll need to peddle your idiotic rot about how Islam "respects" Judaism and Christianity elsewhere—it simply will not play here.
Given our situation -- both with Muslims aggrandizing in myriad hostile ways in the West and non-Muslims (Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, etc.) being cruelly oppressed now and for decades & centuries -- I would ratchet up your proposal thusly:
Ultimatum to the Muslim World: For every mosque we do not destroy, you must allow the building of one religious church/synagogue/temple. If you want us to allow any more mosques to be built in the West, we'll need more than reciprocity.
But the problem with my ultimatum is that were the West ready and willing to issue it (it's certainly capable), it would be close to being ready and willing to take more rational measures than that -- such as the dismantling of all mosques in the West, the forced deportation of all Muslims from the West, and the repatriation of all non-Muslims from Muslim lands.
Good and complete answer, gravenimage. Islam manages to distort virtually everything, including Jesus, who comes across in the New Testament as an infinitely superior character to Mohammed. In the Koran, he's just another glorified hater.
One of the more important pieces of information I try to convey to those who are Christian and still know little about Islam is what Islam says Jesus will do at the end of the world to Christians. It's almost always an eye opener to folks, just as Mohammed when in his fifties having sexual intercourse with a nine-year old girl is (marrying his former daughter-in-law, Zaynab, after he got his adopted son to divorce her is another zinger). I find it so fitting and reassuring that the truth is a great weapon against the hideousness of Islam. To know Islam is to despise Islam, assuming, of course, that you have not lost your common sense and can still think for yourself in spite of what others tell you you should think.
You've topped my ultimatum, Hesperado. Yours is better than mine to be sure, but even mine would be light years ahead of where we are now and I'd settle for it for the next decade or so.
But really, neither of our abstract suggestions, which have principally been made for rhetorical purposes, have any chance of occurring anytime soon. But what is occurring is a slow sinking into the body politic of one Western nation after another of the fact that mankind did indeed inherit a major religion which is malevolent and totalitarian. Not very nice either. Eventually a metaphorical explosion against Islam will happen and no false and soothing words about how Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, or no worse than any other major faith, will be listened to anymore. Once that happens, the most important of corners will have been turned and disgust towards Islam will reach the level of disgust towards Nazism. It's moving in that direction right now, though it still has a long way to go.
But it's gonna' happen. It will take a few more decades if not generations for this to occur. And when it does, Islam is then a goner because there are a hell of lot more non-Muslims in the world than Muslims (I also anticipate scores of Muslims eventually coming to their senses and realizing they've been had and this too will facilitate the demise of Mohammedanism).
I see Islam a century from now looked upon by the vast majority of mankind as one of the worst creations of man, a relic, instructive of how humans can err when they lose the capacity to detect bullshit masquerading as something enlightened. But before this happens, it's going to be a bloody affair of things over and over again.
Wellington,
I agree with your scenario, and with the inevitability; I think we disagree on the timeline, and perhaps on how much damage will have to happen before that great reawakening.
One of the most beautiful Christian icons ever created was painted by a Russian in the 15th century.
Alexander Rublev's 'Hospitality of Abraham', or 'The Holy Trinity'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Andrej_Rublëv_001.jpg
The "Old Testament Trinity" subject is best known from the famous icon painted by St Andrey Rublev (created sometime between 1408 and 1425).
'This icon is actually more properly called the "Hospitality of Abraham" (see Genesis 18:1-15).
'The appearance of the three angels to Abraham at Mamre (and it was during that visit that the birth of Isaac, ancestor of Israel, was promised to Abraham and Sarah) was a type of the Holy Trinity, not an appearance of the Holy Trinity itself.
'This type goes back to Early Christian art and has remained the most common Orthodox depiction of the Trinity."
Using analogy, it represents the divine being as an endless open conversation of love: into which the one who contemplates the icon is invited to enter.
Here is one splendid exploration of the depth of meaning within this apparently simple picture.
http://prodigal.typepad.com/prodigal_kiwi/files/paul_fromont_rublevs_icon_contemplating_the_trinity_inwardly_and_outwardly.pdf
That icon alone is one of Russian Christendom's great gifts to the church universal, and to every person in the world whose heart and mind are open to beauty.
And since Alaska has come up in the discussion, let us remember the saintly John Veniaminov, d. 1879 - evangelised the native people of the Aleutian Islands, off the coast of Alaska, bringing into existence an indigenous Orthodox Christian community that persists to this day.
May God bless, protect, renew, strengthen and multiply all the Christians of the Russian Federation, and may He deliver them from the menace of the global Jihad.
To my Russian brothers and sisters in the faith, who may happen to read this over my shoulder: know that I in faraway Australia pray for you and for your church and your country. I love your music and your art and I honor the courage with which you kept the faith during the dark years of Soviet repression and murderous atheism inflicted by the barrel of a gun. Now you are called, like us all, to resist the jihad; honor the memory of your late brother, Fr Daniel Sysoyev, martyred by Muslims, by continuing to boldly proclaim the gospel to Muslims, as he did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIrI9McWyI0&NR=1
In my college classes and books on the history of Christianity, we would learn about the long episode of "Iconoclasm" in the 8th and 9th centuries A.D., but only once -- in a parenthetical aside in one book -- did I ever see mentioned the "possibility" that that movement (which often took violent forms of destroying icons and violence against iconodules) was inspired by Islamic influence on the areas involved. Indeed, it could well be that some, or many, of the Iconoclastic Christians were Balkan and Asia Minor converts from Islam; and/or Christian dhimmis recently freed from (or fleeing from) Islam-controlled regions; and/or Islamochristians themselves -- and that their Iconoclasm was at least partly informed by their having been naively impressed with the supposedly greater "respect" for -- and therefore, it is presumed, authentic adherence to -- the Torah practiced by Muslims. Those who have embarked upon a deeper study of Islam may find that the Islamic abhorrence of images has less to do with the second Commandment than it does with Satan's abhorrence for Creation and for the Incarnation, both of which are what icons symbolize.