Video surfaces of Taliban stoning woman in northwest Pakistan

True, Zulu, the operative modifier being "used to". Unlike Judaism, Islam does not have the equivalent of a Talmud, or an oral tradition to reinterpret and mitigate ancient practises. Ijtihad, or consensus interpretation, was shut down in the 10th century.
Sharia represents divine guidance, intact since reception and unchangeable.

our elected officials need to take a long hard look at this ...

especially if they desire some form of universal law in the New World Order of things. [government by fear, no exceptionalism, no individuality, no love or reconciliation allowed, unless alliances are possible and wealth might be gained]

all those attending performed a function of meeting out punishment to the "offender." [accessory to murder becomes justice when all the brothers do it according to the book/ who needs mercy anyway?]

if a woman is property, there is no problem with guilt in breaking IT. [personhood, dignity of the human being, gone]

Allah's divine ordering is abominable and we better know what our "officials" think about that, once they look.

I think Zulu was joking. But it was probably a common practice in the Middle East millennia ago. As in other cultures crucifying, and having people fighting lions or fighting each other to death for popular entertainment (and some people think American Idol is bad ;-) ). At some point, as human culture, hopefully, evolves, such practices should be left behind.

Anyway, according to the the text Traeh quoted above, it seems that the Muslims of the 7th century were aware of the fact Jews abolished stoning:

A Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allah's Apostle on a charge of committing an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet asked them. "What is the legal punishment (for this sin) in your Book (Torah)?" They replied, "Our priests have innovated the punishment of blackening the faces with charcoal and Tajbiya."

Interestingly, "blackening the face" (as well as "whitening the face") are used today in Hebrew as metaphors for negative shaming. Then, according to the tale, the Jew and the Jewess were shown the verse in the Torah, disregarding the somewhat more sophisticated non-lethal interpretation of the Jewish rabbis. So Muhammad ordered they be stoned to death. The Jewish man apparently tried to defend the woman with his body.

So Allah's Apostle [Muhammad] ordered that the two (sinners) be stoned to death, and so they were stoned. Ibn 'Umar added: So both of them were stoned at the Balat and I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess.

Yet, but people also need to realize what life under Sharia law means. The Taliban is one of the most extreme examples, but even the more moderate interpretations will not appeal to most non-Muslims.

"Our main focus should still be its totalitarian reach and the fact that it has specific designs on our societies, its way of life."

But people need to know the specifics of these specific designs. After all, the movement for democracy also had specific designs, and most of us are not sorry it succeeded. If Islam is a religion of peace, justice and tolerance, under which rule all Peoples and individuals live together harmoniously and happily ever after, as some on the left suggest, then why should anyone worry about its designs on our societies?

Caesar Bloomberg cannot be be bothered about those little distubing details, that you wrote about..

There are much more important political problems to deal with..like smoking in public !

Remember the unsurpassable Harry Potter is a Zionist Conspiracy? ROFL, except they're going to go nuclear soon... But if I go up in smoke, at least I went out laughing.

Good point, Paul. Hizzoner likely has a deal going with Feisal where muslim goons will apprehend public smokers and whisk them off to the dungeon in the Ground Zero Mosque for stoning...

I think we have to be careful not to overplay the barbarity line as the argument we have with Shariah, althoguh that is part of the story. Our main focus should still be its totalitarian reach and the fact that it has specific designs on our societies, its way of life.
................

I'm sorry, notoshariah—I could not disagree with you more. This is like saying we shouldn't "overplay the barbarity line" when discussing Nazi Fascism, but should instead focus on the concept of "Lebensraum" as a motivating concept.

*This* is the naked face of Shari'ah. A woman stoned to death for the sin of "being seen out with a man".

This is what they want for all of us. This is what all the driving planes into buildings, and blowing themselves up in cafes, and shooting up school buses is—at the last—all about. The imposition of Shari'ah law. The stoning of a woman in a field, surrounded by a mob howling for her blood.

"21-GUN SALUTE TO THE TALIBANS if you complain about the Islamic world stoning women you are an hypocrite because your God TAUGHT THE SAME so called BARBARISM in the old testament"

Amazing! Traeh's quote from the Sahih Bukhari about Muhammad and the Jewish adulterers just came to life in this forum in 2010. According to that story too, the Jews said the Jewish preists interpret this differently and not as a literal obligation of the community to stone the adulterers to death, and there too Muhammad insisted they must be literally stoned to death.

Jewcat,

I don't think Hakeem meant it as a moral equivalence - he was cheering the Taliban and he said this "so called barbarism" is "the true classic way of keeping the commandments". I think he was calling us hypocrites (one of the kinds of people that will end up in hell for pretending to be believers while in reality disobeying god) for not stoning adulterers to death ourselves...

That's why it's called the OLD Testament.It's an outline to descibe the times,signs,prophecy and lineage leading to the coming of the Messiah.We can view it,in it's historical context.We grew up.You can't.You didn't grow up.

You can't justify,your own sick view,by attempting to correct me,on what you assume,I believe.

You don't have to accept Christ as your savior.
Just follow his example.
No stonings.
No hacking off heads.
No car bombs.
No backpack bombs.
No taqiyya.

Loving doesn't hurt.
You should try it.

"A little Islam is a dangerous thing, and a great deal of it is absolutely fatal.”

Actually, the real quote is "A little sincerity is a dangerous thing, and a great deal of it is absolutely fatal." - Oscar Wilde

Someone in our current Islam-saturated age thought substituting "Islam" for "sincerity" would work - and yes, it certainly does!

Wilde never wrote about Islam or Muslims.

You're a kick-America-first kind of guy. Look, dimwit, every polity in history, even the most decent, has made humanitarian mistakes, sometimes very deadly and brutal ones, but only democracies have the capacity to rectify their mistakes, air them in the open, and try to make a "more perfect union." There are no true democracies in the Islamic world and to the extent that Islamic law is applied, then to that extent will democracy of the real kind be absent.

The American military has liberated more people than any military in history. You know this or should know it. Your tu quoque reasoning is pathetic and your vile invective by way of the "C" word only demonstrates to all sensible people that you are out of arguments and that your intellect is limited. As usual with deficient individuals, you reveal more about yourself than you either intended or will probably ever realize. How deserving you are of this.

A bit of trivia: The guy's use of the C-word in that way is a sort of common vulgar idiom in the UK, I think. An American talking trash might say the same thing, but more likely would use other obscenities more commonly used in the U.S.

Doom-and-gloom,
I recently came across some ahadith that purported to explain the origin of the Jewish abandonment of stoning. The explanation given was that a Jew who had committed adultery was exempted from stoning because he happened to be a person of high status. Later, when a Jew of lower status was caught for adultery, and stoning was to be applied, people complained that he should not be subject to stoning unless the Jew of high status also was. So the Jews, according to the hadith, abandoned stoning and brought in blackening of the faces and, if I am not misremembering, I think the hadith says flogging or something like that.

I don't know if there is any truth in the hadiths' claims about the cause of the abandonment of stoning among the Jews. I'm sure the explanation, at best, is a huge oversimplification.

D&G -- sadly I think you're correct. Hakeem thinks this is a perfect way to behave, as exemplified by the warlord and psychpathic narcissist, Mohammad.

From Young's literal translation of John 8:1-11, where the central figure of the New Testament ends stoning:

1 And at dawn he came again to the temple, 2 and all the people were coming unto him, and having sat down, he was teaching them; 3 and the scribes and the Pharisees bring unto him a woman having been taken in adultery, and having set her in the midst, 4 they say to him, `Teacher, this woman was taken in the very crime -- committing adultery, 5 and in the law, Moses did command us that such be stoned; thou, therefore, what dost thou say?' 6 and this they said, trying him, that they might have to accuse him. And Jesus, having stooped down, with the finger he was writing on the ground, 7 and when they continued asking him, having bent himself back, he said unto them, `The sinless of you -- let him first cast the stone at her;' 8 and again having stooped down, he was writing on the ground, 9 and they having heard, and by the conscience being convicted, were going forth one by one, having begun from the elders -- unto the last; and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 And Jesus having bent himself back, and having seen no one but the woman, said to her, `Woman, where are those -- thine accusers? did no one pass sentence upon thee?' 11 and she said, `No one, Sir;' and Jesus said to her, `Neither do I pass sentence on thee; be going on, and no more sin.'

The vile and evil "hakeem" wrote:

this is the true classic way of keeping the commandments. am ready to accept Jesus as my Saviour if any good Christian will prove me wrong on this. thanks so much for the video and take care n stay blessed .bissalam
...................

Of course, I could dutifully cite John:8 here, about Jesus and the Woman Taken in Adultery, and quote the famous line, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

I very much doubt, though, that this is what "hakeem" is looking for.

"Hakeem" is already convinced that setting a ravening mob stoning a poor woman in a field is "the true classic way of keeping the commandments", and I very much doubt anything would change his mind.

Just as with the Hadith cited by Treah, above, he would either consider the Jews of the "Prophet" Muhammed's time to be weak or insufficiently "pious" to murder these victims.

As for John:8, he would probably regard this in much the same way as Muslims regard the other texts of the New Testament about Christ's crucifixion or his gentle teachings, and claim they were "perversions" introduced by Christians—and that otherwise the scriptures would be in full accordance with the savage Qur'an.

"Hakeem" shares the barbaric creed of those savages in the field, and believes these murderers deserve a "21-gun salute".

"Hakeem" is likely somewhere here in the West. The barbarians are *within the gates*. Never forget that what you see in that terrible stony field in Pakistan is what "hakeem" and all his vicious co-religionists want to see here in the civilized West.

@mike ryan

I know. I've always wondered about the losers who would tell Muhammed anything! Why?

"Why, yes, Muhammed--I have committed adultery, and I'll be around to remind you, during the next three days, 'cause I really can't wait to me stoned to death."

"Why yes, Muhammed--I have committed adultery, and by Allah, I am pregnant."

Stoooooopid! And it rings false on the ear of anyone with any sense of self preservation.

You can't justify,your own sick view,by attempting to correct me,on what you assume,I believe'' your own biblos says not hakeem dealing with modern Christians i bet your one its very unbelievable you and your churches all not believe in your own gospels ,pls dont waste my time dear . thnx n take care

hakeem, the challenge to prove that Christianity also engages in stoning was pathetic and shows your ignorance of Christianity. Every Christian child knows the story of Jesus and the adulteress recounted in John 8:1-11, which was pointed out to you by Marisol and quoted in its entirety by traeh.

In case you didn't know, the Christian Bible has major two parts to it. The first part of the Bible is called the "Old Testament," old meaning that which came before Jesus. It has 39 books in it beginning with Genesis and ending with Malachi. It is the story of the Jews. The second part is the "New Testament," and has 27 books in it, starting with Matthew and ending with Revelation. The New Testament deals with the life, teachings, and death of Jesus.

You should take Marisol up on her suggestion to study Christianity. You might be surprised to discover how many other misconceptions about Christianity you learned as a Muslim.

''Compare your prophet with ours. When Jesus came across a stoning that was about to begin, He said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone''

' well my position its vry clear on this help your self understand what the testament says. and correct me if am wrong. as a Muslim i believe in Jesus like a believe in muhammed and its confirm in my bible '"Behold! the angels said, 'Oh Mary! God gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him. His name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter, and in (the company of) those nearest to God. He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. He shall be (in the company) of the righteous... And God will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel of holy quran'" (3:45-48)

bt i can Compare muhammed and moses of the old testament right? ''Numbers 15:36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses''. my question here is what do you understand and believe
about gospel of numbers 15 ;36? if you can offer your assistant to buraq your welcome.

"but i can Compare muhammed and moses of the old testament right?"
!

Sure you can. Just like any murderer will point to other murderers in order to justify murder, just like any torturer will point to other murderers to justify torture, just like any villain can point at other villains in order to justify evil!

You just don't understand that TuQuoQue is a logical fallacy! A counter attack may be a good strategy in a physical fight, however in a rational discussion it is a sure sign of defeat!

"hakeem" wrote:

...as a Muslim i believe in Jesus like a believe in muhammed and its confirm in my bible...
................

As I predicted, "hakeen" was not referring to the Jesus of the Bible at all, but to the ugly Islamic figure of "Isa". "Isa's" main role in the Qur'an is to castigate Christians for "associating partners with Allah" by believing in his divinity.

More than that, though, his purpose is to return in the last days and "break the cross and kill the pigs", which means he will end dhimmitude, and thereafter force all "people of the book" to choose between death and conversion to Islam.

In other words, "Isa's" main role in Islam is to *kill Christians*.

Needless to say, the vicious Islamic Isa doesn't spend his time healing the sick or protecting women from being stoned to death.

Dear Hakeem,
Perhaps you know that the Islamic idea of Jesus is very different from the Christian Jesus. The Qur'an says Jesus was only a prophet, not God, and was not killed, crucified, or resurrected. The Qur'an says Christians believe the Trinity is made up of Allah, Mary, and Jesus. But in fact no Christian believes that Mary is part of the Trinity. Christians believe the Trinity is the Father God, and Jesus (the Son God), and the Holy Spirit. If the Qur'an were really written by God, as Muslims believe, it would not make the mistake of saying Christians believe Mary is part of the Trinity. Just ask any Christian if he/she believes that Mary is one of the three persons of the Trinity. That is not Catholic, or Protestant, or Orthodox Christian belief. The Qur'an is mistaken. Therefore the Qur'an cannot be the perfect word of God. Therefore, Hakeem, you might consider whether you would please God more by letting go of Islam -- not that you have to tell everyone, but to begin with just in your own mind, think about it -- because the Qur'an has a number of mistakes, and much evidence shows that Muhammad was a false prophet. I say this not to try to hurt your feelings, but because as a Christian I am asked to love my brothers and sisters in humanity and help them if I can.

Here's a short article on the difference between Islam and the Judeo-Christian tradition:

DANIEL BOORSTIN: "THERE IS A VAST DIFFERENCE...BETWEEN THE HEBREW-CHRISTIAN GOD THE MAKER AND THE MUSLIM GOD OF FIAT."

"For a believing Muslim, to create is a rash and dangerous act."

In a very short chapter of Boorstin's The Creators: A History of Heroes of the Imagination (a book that with his The Discoverers and The Seekers forms a magisterial and deservedly famous trilogy), Boorstin sought the heart of the difference between Islamic and Judeo-Christian culture. Here are some choice excerpts:

…the Muslim God, though a kind of Creator, had a character quite different from the God of the Hebrews and the Christians...[I]n the Koran the role of the Creator is transformed. The familiar words of Genesis record that God spent six days on the Creation.

[Genesis 2:2] 'And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day...'

In the Koran God never rests, for he can never be tired.

'[Koran, Chapter 50, verse] 38: We created the heavens and the earth and all between them in Six Days. Nor did any sense of weariness touch Us.'

It is no wonder that the Koranic God was not wearied. For He created not by making but by ordering, not by work but by command. The creation of anything occurs when He decrees it into being.

'[Koran, Chapter 2, verse] 117: To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth; when He decreeth a matter, He saith to it: "Be," and it is.'

Again and again the Koran describes God's fiat...

There are some similar expressions in Genesis of God creating by fiat...But there is a vast difference in emphasis between the acts of Creation in the Bible and in the Koran. And between the character of the Hebrew-Christian God the Maker, and the Muslim God of Fiat...

The Muslim Creator-God is notable not only, nor even mainly, for His work in the Beginning, but as an orderer, a commander, of life and death in our present. The Judeo-Christian God is awesome for the uniqueness of His work in the Beginning. Then He may intervene by divine providence...

After...the six days of fiat, the God of the Koran, having no reason to rest, simply mounted the throne of authority. From there he continued to rule by decree over life and death and every earthly act.

The relation of the Muslim God to his creature man, then, is quite unbiblical. The uniqueness of the biblical Creator-God was in his powers of making; the uniqueness of man and woman too would be in their power to imitate their God and after their fashion to exercise the power of creation. After God created the species in the Beginning, he blessed them to be fruitful and multiply...

Why did God create man? The God of the Bible would judge man by his fulfillment of his godlike image. Not so in Islam.

'[Koran, Chapter 51, verse] 56: I have only created jinns and men, that they may serve Me. I created the jinn and humankind only that they might worship me.'

...The People of the Koran prefer to call themselves Muslims, from 'Islam,' the Arabic word for submission or obedience. The Koran repeatedly reminds us that Allah's creatures are also his 'servants' or 'slaves'. What clearer warning against reaching for the new? For a believing Muslim, to create is a rash and dangerous act.

Dear Treah, I'm afraid it is not possible to argue logically with someone who believes he is "keeping the commandments" by *stoning victims to death*.

As far as he is concerned, everything you've cited is just further proof of how far we are from the "purity" of Islam exibited in that bloody field in Pakistan.

Your erudition—not to mention sense of decency—are entirely lost on him.

Mr Hoffman,

As I've stated before, I rarely "hang out" to read the responses to my comments here, but as I was scrolling down the thread to make sure my comment posted I noticed that you had included me in a list of people you hoped would explain this situation to you so that you wouldn't become Islamaphobic.

I recognize sarcasm when I see it Paul, still, I think you passed Islamaphobic a few exits back.

Allah Bless America!!!

Jewdog: Do you condemn the atrocities meted out to amalkites as well which was commited, under the influence of godly inspiration, by the Jewish king Saul?

Does it bother you to have kosher/halal (i.e. torture) food equally?

Its time to get rid of all desert gods! Gods of the Jews/X'tian/Muslims alike-----these are shitty cruel bastards in equal measure. Then lets attack the sick casteist half-dead hindu/shinto/buddism/sikhism gods

An atheist

I followed the link to Ms moon's post, THAT is the kind of thinking you support??? NICE! So, tell me, does the Grand Wizard of your local KKK charter let you light the cross, or do you just carry the gasoline?

Allah Bless America!!!

RandyP: The Amalkite defeat was a historical event, limited to that time and place. In contrast, the Qur'an was written as immutable commands and is not bound by time and place. This is what makes Islam so dangerous, as the violence is not descriptive, but perscriptive.
Christianity and Judaism are based largely (except for the 10 commandments) on historical interpretation, but the Qur'an is a sermon, made up of commands.
Also, the Islamic doctrinal trinity (Qur'an, aHadith and Sira) are far more violent, and Mohammad is no moral example.
Furthermore, despite the gore, the Torah (1:27) relates how G-d made Man in His own image. Thus, in Christianity and Judaism, there is the concept of the equality and sanctity of all humankind. This is in contrast to Islam, which divides humanity into believers and unbelievers and (98:6) denounces unbelievers as the vilest of creatures.
The progression of civilization has been from the primitive is one of gradually expanding awareness of a wider universe and one mankind, but Islam is a regression in that process, reprimitizing society.
That's fine if you don't like desert religions, but they are not all the same. Read Robert's book on Why Islam is not a religion of peace.

Thanks for the link to Islamic Science Fiction .

Not less interesting is the Manifesto for Islamic SF:

1. Any speculative story that strives to state the existence of the One God.
2. Any speculative story that exhorts universal virtues and/or denigrates universal vices.
3. Any speculative story that deals in a positive way with any aspect of Islamic practices, like hijab, fasting, etc.
4. Any speculative story that features a Muslim as one of its main characters and the actions of this Muslim in the story reflect Islamic values.
5. Any speculative story which takes on one or more elements from the Qur'an or the teachings of the Messenger of Allah, Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), in a positive way,

making Islamic SF look much like the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, both being mere fiction.

As I predicted, "hakeen" was not referring to the Jesus of the Bible at all, but to the ugly Islamic figure of "Isa". "Isa's" main role in the Qur'an is to castigate Christians for "associating partners with Allah" by believing in his divinity.

well i respect your opion and at the same time i agree with you in sum aspect and i disagree with you in sum.

firstly

have you ever ask yourself a vry simply question that why Muslims believe, he was the Christ, that he was born miraculously without any male intervention ), that he gave life to the dead by God's permission and that he healed those born blind and the lepers by God's permission. In fact, no Muslim is a Muslim if he or she does not believe in Jesus. i guess we are going in the same direction right?

why do you think Muslims have problem accepting him as a
son of god? who do you think we[muslims] disrespected here jesus or his father? may be both right? why do you think his father allow his son to be crucified ? as we all know he gave life to death himself why do think he[jesus] has to suffer like that ? why do you think god find it very nessasary to give up his son in that way and manner just for our sin ? do really think we worth the price? aniway its possible but if you can provide us with a vry logical answers i dont have problems accepting that

secondly
if we go back to your scriptures any place that jesus mention in his own words says that am the lord worship me. and may be its very true the Islamic idea of Jesus is very different from the Christian Jesus. but what i can say is i known that his mother and his companion refer to him in his classical Semitic language Aramaic as Yeheshua or Esau in Hebrew no body as at that time ever had the name jesus so is very likely we not talking about the same person.

thirdly
contradiction of the quran i think this is the most interesting part of it that i love most bt time and space ill not allow me to share wit you much on that but i want you to understand not only the muslim ask questions about divinity or crucifixion of jesus like Gunnar Samuelsson of Gothenburg University, Tom Harper Canada's best known spiritual author, David Gardner,Peter J. Tomson, Austin Cline Agnosticism / Atheism Guide,L. Ray Smith,David Ulansey
ust to mention a few most of them here are christians

Islam And The Matter Of The Trinity by Suzanne Haneef

in her book WHAT EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT ISLAM AND MUSLIMS (Library of Islam, 1985), puts the matter quite succinctly when she says, "But God is not like a pie or an apple which can be divided into three thirds which form one whole; if God is three persons or possesses three parts, He is assuredly not the Single, Unique, Indivisible Being which God is and which Christianity professes to believe in." (pp. 183-184)

Looking at it from another angle, the Trinity designates God as being three separate entities - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. If God is the Father and also the Son, He would then be the Father of Himself because He is His own Son. This is not exactly logical.

Christianity claims to be a monotheistic religion. Monotheism, however, has as its fundamental belief that God is One; the Christian doctrine of the Trinity - God being Three-in-One - is seen by Islam as a form of polytheism. Christians don't revere just One God, they revere three.

This is a charge not taken lightly by Christians, however. They, in turn, accuse the Muslims of not even knowing what the Trinity is, pointing out that the Qur'an sets it up as Allah the Father, Jesus the Son, and Mary his mother. While veneration of Mary has been a figment of the Catholic Church since 431 when she was given the title "Mother of God" by the Council of Ephesus, a closer examination of the verse in the Qur'an (5:116) most often cited by Christians in support of their accusation, shows that the designation of Mary by the Qur'an as a "member" of the Trinity, is simply not true.

While the Qur'an does condemn both trinitarianism (the Qur'an 4:17) and the worship of Jesus and his mother Mary (the Qur'an 5:116), nowhere does it identify the actual three components of the Christian Trinity. The position of the Qur'an is that WHO or WHAT comprises this doctrine is not important; what is important is that the very notion of a Trinity is an affront against the concept of One God.

In conclusion, we see that the doctrine of the Trinity is a concept conceived entirely by man; there is no sanction whatsoever from God to be found regarding the matter simply because the whole idea of a Trinity of divine beings has no place in monotheism. In the Qur'an, God's Final Revelations to mankind, we find His stand quite clearly stated in a number of eloquent passages:

"...your God is One God: whoever expects to meet his Lord, let him work righteousness, and, in the worship of his Lord, admit no one as partner." (Qur'an 18:110)
"...take not, with God, another object of worship, lest you should be thrown into Hell, blameworthy and rejected." (Qur'an 17:39)

...Because, as God tells us over and over again in a Message that is echoed throughout All His Revealed Scriptures:

"...I am your Lord and Cherisher: therefore, serve Me (and no other)..." (Qur'an 21:92)

My thoughts exactly, Exsgtbrown. But why do they ignore the savagery of their beliefs about stoning?

WHAT'S IN IT FOR THEM?

This is what we have to ask ourselves. Why would a human being who feels pain when they are cut or can even wince at a pin prick ever agree to throw a stone at a woman's head and turn her face into a bloody, pulverized, non-recognizable mess? If the payoff is BIG enough then this kind of treatment can be justified.

WHAT'S THE PAYOFF?

Sex and power. Islam is fueled by sex, not the two-consenting-adult kind but that Neanderthal kind, the kind that says I'm stronger than you, I'm horny and I'm going to use you for my own satisfaction whether you like it or not. And if you tell anybody I will a) beat your face in or b) tell the thought police that you are a whore or c) lie about you so that you will be killed to cover up the evidence of MY crime. And ALL the men in Islam have to agree to this to make it work, as they have for 1400 years. And the ones that don't actually perpetrate any rapes still agree to it by keeping their mouths shut and not defending their women for fear that these men will come down on them.

How noble. How pro-humanity. How cowardly Dank, Hakeem and Chris Jensen really are.

Lkeevy - that Oscar Wilde quote on Islam - can you give a more precise reference? Book/ letter/ chapter and verse? Where did you find it?

As for the practice of Rajm {stoning} as a punishment for adultery, it IS the prescribed punishment under Islamic Law

Yes it is, and it also depraved...In the old days, depravity was rampant, the cruelty of men was severe...The term 'Boiled in oil' meant a real event...Torture chambers were common...
But western civilization advanced...The torture chambers were closed, and various forms of abuse made illegal...But there are exceptions, because calming the beast takes time and is an on going project...So America is not perfect and sometime falls into error...Islam started out with error, and continues in these errors to this very day...These errors are encoded into sharia, where serious abuse is made legal...Its very difficult to make a case for abuse...The abuser is every bit as guilty as the abused...'Let him who is without sin cast the first stone', was his way of addressing the issue, and he was right...All else is depravity...

As I predicted, "hakeen" was not referring to the Jesus of the Bible at all, but to the ugly Islamic figure of "Isa". "Isa's" main role in the Qur'an is to castigate Christians for "associating partners with Allah" by believing in his divinity.

well i respect your opinion and at the same time i agree with you in sum aspect and i disagree with you in sum.

firstly

have you ever ask yourself a vry simply question that why Muslims believe, he was the Christ, that he was born miraculously without any male intervention ), that he gave life to the dead by God's permission and that he healed those born blind and the lepers by God's permission. In fact, no Muslim is a Muslim if he or she does not believe in Jesus. i guess we are going in the same direction right?

why do you think Muslims have problem accepting him as a
son of god? who do you think we[muslims] disrespected here jesus or his father? may be both right? why do you think his father allow his son to be crucified ? as we all know he gave life to death himself why do think he[jesus] has to suffer like that ? why do you think god find it very nessasary to give up his son in that way and manner just for our sin ? do really think we worth the price? aniway its possible but if you can provide us with a vry logical answers i dont have problems accepting that

secondly
if we go back to your scriptures any place that jesus mention in his own words says that am the lord worship me. and may be its very true the Islamic idea of Jesus is very different from the Christian Jesus. but what i can say is i known that his mother and his companion refer to him in his classical Semitic language Aramaic as Yeheshua or Esau in Hebrew no body as at that time ever had the name jesus so is very likely we not talking about the same person.

thirdly
contradiction of the quran i think this is the most interesting part of it that i love most bt time and space ill not allow me to share wit you much on that but i want you to understand not only the muslim ask questions about divinity or crucifixion of jesus like Gunnar Samuelsson of Gothenburg University, Tom Harper Canada's best known spiritual author, David Gardner,Peter J. Tomson, Austin Cline Agnosticism / Atheism Guide,L. Ray Smith,David Ulansey
ust to mention a few most of them here are christians

Islam And The Matter Of The Trinity by Suzanne Haneef

in her book WHAT EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT ISLAM AND MUSLIMS (Library of Islam, 1985), puts the matter quite succinctly when she says, "But God is not like a pie or an apple which can be divided into three thirds which form one whole; if God is three persons or possesses three parts, He is assuredly not the Single, Unique, Indivisible Being which God is and which Christianity professes to believe in." (pp. 183-184)

Looking at it from another angle, the Trinity designates God as being three separate entities - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. If God is the Father and also the Son, He would then be the Father of Himself because He is His own Son. This is not exactly logical.

Christianity claims to be a monotheistic religion. Monotheism, however, has as its fundamental belief that God is One; the Christian doctrine of the Trinity - God being Three-in-One - is seen by Islam as a form of polytheism. Christians don't revere just One God, they revere three.

This is a charge not taken lightly by Christians, however. They, in turn, accuse the Muslims of not even knowing what the Trinity is, pointing out that the Qur'an sets it up as Allah the Father, Jesus the Son, and Mary his mother. While veneration of Mary has been a figment of the Catholic Church since 431 when she was given the title "Mother of God" by the Council of Ephesus, a closer examination of the verse in the Qur'an (5:116) most often cited by Christians in support of their accusation, shows that the designation of Mary by the Qur'an as a "member" of the Trinity, is simply not true.

While the Qur'an does condemn both trinitarianism (the Qur'an 4:17) and the worship of Jesus and his mother Mary (the Qur'an 5:116), nowhere does it identify the actual three components of the Christian Trinity. The position of the Qur'an is that WHO or WHAT comprises this doctrine is not important; what is important is that the very notion of a Trinity is an affront against the concept of One God.

In conclusion, we see that the doctrine of the Trinity is a concept conceived entirely by man; there is no sanction whatsoever from God to be found regarding the matter simply because the whole idea of a Trinity of divine beings has no place in monotheism. In the Qur'an, God's Final Revelations to mankind, we find His stand quite clearly stated in a number of eloquent passages:

"...your God is One God: whoever expects to meet his Lord, let him work righteousness, and, in the worship of his Lord, admit no one as partner." (Qur'an 18:110)
"...take not, with God, another object of worship, lest you should be thrown into Hell, blameworthy and rejected." (Qur'an 17:39)

...Because, as God tells us over and over again in a Message that is echoed throughout All His Revealed Scriptures:

"...I am your Lord and Cherisher: therefore, serve Me (and no other)..." (Qur'an 21:92

Don't you all just love it when someone is attacking Christianity by quoting from the Quran? And defending the Islamic perception of Christianity by also quoting from the Quran as if that settles any differences?

No wonder that Dante described the splitter of monotheism thus, split from his chin to his arse, or more poetically:

"A cask by losing centre-piece or cant
Was never shattered so, as I saw one
Rent from the chin to where one breaketh wind.

Between his legs were hanging down his entrails;
His heart was visible, and the dismal sack
That maketh excrement of what is eaten.

While I was all absorbed in seeing him,
He looked at me, and opened with his hands
His bosom, saying: "See now how I rend me;

How mutilated, see, is Mahomet;

It is better to keep your mouth closed and have people wonder if you are stupid than open it and remove all doubt.

Was not the verse for rajm (stoning) for adultery eaten by goats. You should be proud. Such a useful verse (for goats).

What do you make of the fact that in spite of such barbaric laws and punishments, last year the maximum number of executions took place in Saudi (more than a 100). Shows you, does it not, barbaric laws do not really act as a deterrant and islam is incapable of bringing about inner change....

""Adultery SPECIFICALLY is seen as a heinous crime because it is an attack against the family unit, which is the nucleus of any society.""
Nope. Mass murdering people, raping captured women and paedophilia is also against the family unit, and Mohammed had no problems with these. It is seen as a heinous crime by societies which see women as property which needs to be protected. It arises out of insecurity and fear, and is the reason why early humans tended to band together into clans and tribes. As human beings evolve, our insecurities and fears lessen, and consequently laws such as Rajam are done away with.

""It is only in a society that holds the right of an individual to do whatever they want with impunity over the welfare of the society as a whole that such reasoning would be seen as barbaric.""
You are trying to defend your position by attacking with a fallacious argument. If people see the death penalty for adultery as a disproportionate punishment, it does not imply that they support an individual's right to do whatever they want with impunity.

It is YOU who subscribes to the idea that adultery if unpunished, will become rampant and can then lead to a breakup of society and the family system.

Most of us in the 21st century would disagree with that. Most of them in 7th century arabia would agree with you.

Some laws and practices were for the Jewish nation, at a certain time, for specific purposes. It's way too long to get into here. The main point is that these things are not open ended commands for Christians or even Jews today to do the same.

If you read the New Testament you will see Jesus rescuing the woman about to be stoned, saying, "You who are without sin, cast the first stone."

***

People need to be taught the difference between the Bible and the Koran. Even Christians don't seem to understand this!

"Otelo/Othello"
Some explanations say the meaning of the name is "wealth".
Perhaps we must to look at the old Germanic/Norse "Ottar", "Odr", "Odder" the root meaning of which is "raging, mad". And added to it a foreign ending to make it look Mediterranean. It sort of fits.

Re: Fineliving56's fulmination against the Muslims in the video -- e.g.:

ANIMALS……ANIMALS……ANIMALS ….
THEY ARE THE DOG Sh#@*T that stuck on the bottom of a shoe … .they are pig sh#@*t that coming out of it's a@#*ss ……I absolutely despise , detest , loathe ,and hate the blackest hate ever all directed to these filth ...

I understand Fineliving56's emotion, but something has happened to me over the years of reviewing the mountain of ghastly ghoulish gruesome shit that Muslims have been churning out just in the last decade (of which this one video is but one instance out of literally thousands), let alone the last fourteen centuries: I feel no emotion about Muslims any longer -- no anger, no hatred. I suppose that is because anger and hatred is pertinent only against other humans whenever they might anger one, or make one hate them. Id est, Muslims have abdicated their humanity in my eyes. All I care about now is how to protect myself and my society from them. (This is not an ontological abdication: any Muslim may regain his humanity by abjuring Islam, the Koran, Mohammed and Allah, and by proving they have done so.)

I'm sorry. I have given up on Muslims. They have simply done too much horrific evil, and the ones who apparently are not sawing off heads, sawing off clitorises, torturing people, exploding in order to mass-murder, etc. ad bottomless nauseam, are countenancing and enabling those unspeakable evils and then adding insult to injury by tap-dancing and evading and tu-quoquing whenever we dare to condemn the "religion" they continue follow.

Any reader (or editor or writer) here who has not similarly given up on Muslims has simply not been really truly fully digesting the data churned out at this Mountain of Horror called Jihad Watch over the years. Even Fineliving56's anger does not go far enough, and betrays a misplaced sentiment that misconstrues our enemy. At a pack of hyenas surrounding our farmhouse endangering our family, for example, or at a hurricane threatening to destroy our town, or at an army of robots, no one of us would feel "anger" or "hatred": we would only know they pose a danger, and we would try to stop them from killing us. That should be our sole concern. Fulminating in anger is as useless with regard to the danger Muslims pose as is sentimentality and hope. Only steely determined pragmatism, focused like a laser on the one thing that matters -- the safety and preservation of our societies -- is relevant.

I do, however, feel anger, hatred, loathing and positive fury -- at my fellow Westerners who continue to bend over backwards and salaam forwards in order to "respect" and defend Muslims. There, those negative emotions are pertinent, because their objects remain human, even if they exhibit some of the more unfortunate characteristics of human ineptitude and obtuseness and grievously misplaced conscience.

Thanks you Buraq for at least trying to set Hakeem in the right direction. The mentality of some of these animals that can lay judgment on others is amazing. The Jesus that Muhammad added to the Quran was strictly add on verbage from a profit that was more out for himself than inspired by any angel. How people buy into this speaks volumes.

to Hesperardo ….
Like Duh said I am ax Muslim living in US for the last 30 years who suffered from living in a household crushed under the un forgiveness of Islam and the complications of it …I joined the conversations in anti Islam sits this year to vent, no one around me understand or care to listen ,I am surrounded by two faced mild muslims who understand 9/11 like Ahmahiyjad did in the UN just recently .

When I sow that video of stoning I revolted ,I cried, I cussed,I went around the house in circles like a mad woman in reaction even my family tried to console me and tried to say it is only isolated incidents which only got me more angry …..I now it does not help to get angry …but I have the feeling that I am going through the time that you went through before and may be I will get to the point of mild reaction to the horror of Islam like you do now .

I normally do not cuss like that ..I apologies ….thank you Duh for understanding .

"hakeem" wrote, believing he was replying to a comment from Traeh:

As I predicted, "hakeen" was not referring to the Jesus of the Bible at all, but to the ugly Islamic figure of "Isa". "Isa's" main role in the Qur'an is to castigate Christians for "associating partners with Allah" by believing in his divinity.

well i respect your opinion and at the same time i agree with you in sum aspect and i disagree with you in sum.

firstly...
.....................

Actually, that was my comment, not Treah's. It can be difficult, at times, in a long comment stream, to be sure who wrote what, and who is commenting on something written by someone else. Easy mistake, and one I have made many times myself.

As a rule, as an act of courtesy, I try to reply to anyone who has addressed a post of mine at some length. I will not do so here.

"hakeem" seems under the impression that I have an interest in calmly debating the differences between Christian and Muslim views of the the trinity, or the role of Mary, or some other fine point of theology—and that I would wish to do so with *an apologist for dragging a woman into a field, throwing her into a hole, and stoning her to death*.

I have no such interests.

Just as Robert Spencer will often use "do you condemn Hamas?" as a litmus test, I believe *stoning* is even more basic.

Many things about Shari'ah law are disturbing—the terrible enshrined oppression of Infidels, and women, and children, the prosperity-killing tenets of "Shari'ah-compliant finance", the arbitrary nature with which it is all enforced—but these can seem subtle or vague to many Infidels, who find it difficult to imagine the repercussions of something as seemingly minor as the allowance of "Islamic family law" in cases of custody or divorce or inheritance.

So here is the baseline litmus test: are you a Muslim who condones a victim being dragged into a field, buried up to her waist, and *stoned to death* by a ravening mob?

If the answer is yes, then the person is no longer to be considered a moral actor. The person is not someone one would wish to discuss minor theological matters with—or, indeed, any matters at all.

It would be like having a civilized conversation about politics or art with a cannibal or an especially brutal SS concentration camp guard.

Along with the appalling "Dank", who also wants "Allah" to "Bless America" with the savagery of stoning, "hakeem" has put himself beyond the pale. One does not have discussions with such a person. one can only regard him with abject horror—and realize how many of his co-religionists are just like him—outwardly seemingly rational, while at heart a companion to those men in the field holding bloodied stones in their hands.

FineLiving56, I certainly think your reaction to this video is better than those who find it unremarkable or worse yet those who cannot see the Islam behind it. But I think there is one more step to take beyond anger.

Indeed, we can list on a scale all the possible reactions and rank them, from Worst to Best (as the numbers rise, they get better and better):

Worst: Islamic defense of stoning and support for the stoners of the video.

2: Disapproval of the stoning -- but identification of the stoners as motivated by "culture" and having nothing to do with Islam.

3: Disapproval of the stoning -- and grudging acceptance of something vaguely resembling Islam in the stoning, but only of the "tiny minority of extremists who are hijacking peaceful Islam" variety.

4: Repugnance and dismay at the stoning, and a growing sense that there is something seriously wrong with Islam -- but not with Muslims since, of course, most Muslims are still ordinary "moms and pops like the rest of us just trying to live daily life" and nice people.

5: Horror and repulsion at the stoning, with a redoubled sense that Islam is thoroughly evil -- but still, there are many nice Muslims out there who are either "secularized" or who are "ignorant" of their own faith.

6: Outrage and fury at the stoning (the reaction of FineLiving56) and for all things Islamic -- but... does there still linger here an unconditional granting of humanity to Muslims? As I claimed in my previous comment, to be angry at such Muslims is to implicitly expect that they could do otherwise. (And then we have the problem of all the Muslims around the world who are not stoning anyone: what do we think about them? That some/many/most of them are ordinary "moms and pops like the rest of us just trying to live daily life" and nice people?)

Best: I no longer feel anything about Muslims -- because I have had the epiphany that they are not human. It would be irrational to get angry at an inhuman maelstrom of evil, would it not? One simply seeks ways to protect oneself, and one's loved ones, from that maelstrom.

(As I said in my previous comment, this is not an ontological judgment, but a pragmatic one: any given Muslim may reclaim and earn his humanity by abjuring Islam/Mohammed/Allah/the Koran -- though he should remain suspect even after that.)

This is a good site to vent the truth...people are listening...keep posting... :)

"Wilde never wrote about Islam or Muslims."

Perhaps true; but Wilde at least got close, with his play Salomé -- about Herod, a petty king of the Middle East Before, During and After Christ whose father was an Edomite, and whose mother was an Arab.

Herod, according to the book of Matthew of the New Testament, had all the babies of Bethlehem massacred, out of some obsessive anxiety that there was one baby among them considered to be teh "King of the Jews" and the "Christ".

Also according to the New Testament (Matthew and Mark), Herod was seduced by his step-daughter's belly-dancing to grant her wish to have John the Baptist beheaded.

In Oscar Wilde's play Salomé, we find the titular character saying to a Syrian who has a crush on her:

I look at you through muslin veils...

And later, Hérodias, her mother, reproaches Herod thusly:

...thy father was a camel driver! He was a thief and a robber to boot!

Jehovah Witnesses also have trouble with the subtlety of the Holy Trinity as well as the Christian emblem of the cross. Hindus on the other hand revere the many and varied natures of a single god with a vast array of colourful and imaginative depictions of his moods, desires and power. Surely of all the ancient religions Hinduism must be the closest to Christianity.

"...Oscar Wilde's play Salomé..." and the quotes.

Excellent catch, Hesp!

Someone mentioned Dante?

Dante's Hell, Mohammad depicted

Depictions of Mohammad in this vein are why they wanted to burn down this one church that had Dante's Hell painted within.
-----------------------

"A cask by losing centre-piece or cant
Was never shattered so, as I saw one
Rent from the chin to where one breaketh wind.

Between his legs were hanging down his entrails;
His heart was visible, and the dismal sack
That maketh excrement of what is eaten.

While I was all absorbed in seeing him,
He looked at me, and opened with his hands
His bosom, saying: "See now how I rend me;

How mutilated, see, is Mahomet;

...kindness is the most effective way to make inroads against Islam.

Kindness was not an option against the Japanese during WW2 -- the Japanese who had, in the years before WW2, massacred millions of Chinese, Koreans and other SE Asian (over 100,000 Filipinos); and who attacked us, who had designs to conquer us because they thought themselves superior, and who allied themselves with Hitler.

I'm not done yet. One more thing to consider: In terms of evil and dangerous fanaticism & hostility to the world, Muslims are worse than the Japanese were.

Hesperado,

One thing to keep in mind with the point that "kindness is the most effective way to make inroads against Islam.".

If you remember the Son of Hamas, Mosab Hassan Yousef? he was imprisoned in Israeli jail cell after having been caught doing something. While there he saw the distinction between the Israeli Jailers who handled the prisoners with kindness vs his own people (hamas) who abused and killed his own people in the jail cells. It was this that made him turn on his own people and religion so that he became a "spy" for Mossad. He also turned away from terror and violence and became a Christian.

So yes, we should seek to encourage kindness towards Muslims in the hopes that they see by our examples the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is true that some may be a lost cause. In this case, there is not much more that can be done for them.

Actually, the real quote is "A little sincerity is a dangerous thing, and a great deal of it is absolutely fatal." - Oscar Wilde

Someone in our current Islam-saturated age thought substituting "Islam" for "sincerity" would work - and yes, it certainly does!

Wilde never wrote about Islam or Muslims. The real quote from Wilde is:

"A little sincerity is a dangerous thing, and a great deal of it is absolutely fatal." - Oscar Wilde

That's fine about Wilde's play, "Salome," the two sentences.

However, his witty quotation (among many) is:

"A little sincerity is a dangerous thing, and a great deal of it is absolutely fatal." - Oscar Wilde

Someone substituted "Islam" for "sincerity" on the 'net, which is what leevy saw.

So, two lines in "Salome." That's it about Muslims for Wilde.

Wilde satirized Victorian English society, as in "The Importance of Being Earnest," and "Lady Windermere's Fan."

"I no longer feel anything about Muslims -- because I have had the epiphany that they are not human."

Of course they're human. Which is why we feel for the Muslim woman being stoned by her countrymen - she's human. She's not an alien from Planet Zorg - she's a human on Earth. Amina and Sarah Said, Muslim girls' murdered by their warped-by-Islam father - they were human. So is their evil father. Perverted by an evil ideology. Human, nonetheless.

Fascists' and Nazis' are human, too - they've been warped by an evil ideology, just as Muslims' have.

But, they're human. So, your "epiphany" is completely bogus.

Small correction, Hesperado,

The Herod who was supposed to have the babies in Bethlehem killed, was Herod the Great (living # 70 to 4 BC), ruler of the whole of Palestine (then called Judea/ Samaria/ Galilee and Edom and then some extra) as a Roman vassal. And he hardly could have had all those babies killed at the time of Jesus'Birth, as he was supposed to be dead 4 years already then. But that's another discussion.

Herod was the son of Antipater, some Edomite "general" under the Jewish king Hyrcanus, ally of the Romans.

The Herod of the play, the husband of Herodias and mother of Salome, was Herod the Greats son Herod Antipas, vassal-ruler of only Galilee, so yes, HE was petty.

Cprrection Herod Antipas was of course husband to Herodias and SHE was mother of Salome.

Individuals who so horrifically violate such basic forms of human decency and who subject their victims to such outrageous cruelty are void of the one distinguishing characteristic unique to our species and that is having conscience.
So I agree with Hesperado and his frank and sober assessment. Converting muslims is a noble cause and if done in significant numbers, it holds the potential perhaps of reversing the trend but at this point in time,to rely on this happening, is folly. The tide against us is immense and approaching too fast, it is time firstly to ensure our own survival.

".. we should seek to encourage kindness towards Muslims in the hopes that they see by our examples the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Yes, my friend, do seek whatever you think is good to seek, just please refrain from the "WE SHOULD" form.

We know what we should seek. Namely, we seek to fulfill our natural duty to ensure safe and free world for our children, grandchildren and their descendants by restoring a muzzlem-free West.
On the basis of what 1400 years taught us about Islam it has at least as much chance to make muzzlums embrace the Gospel of Jesus Christ as kindness.

Personally I choose not to define as human any callous unrepentant murderer or any one subscribing to the same ideology no matter how mildly or moderately loyal they claim to support it, it is still support. It is always the seemingly innocuous fruits which hide the pestilence creating the plague we all need to quarantine.

Which doesn't mean we need to be unfair to muzzlems in our everyday encounters. I try to be correct, but never more than that so they never have reason to think that I like, or welcome them.

Personally I choose not to define as human any callous unrepentant murderer or any one subscribing to the same ideology no matter how mildly or moderately loyal they claim to support it, it is still support.

I think the best definition of human advanced by Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas etc., and, I think, never challenged is (potentially)rational animal. Unrepentant murderer may be a moral monster, but he is rational nevertheless.

Hesperado,
Soldiers can kill with utmost effectiveness and yet still feel a little compassion for the enemy, though that might be difficult sometimes. Kindness does not preclude doing what is necessary to defend oneself. I doubt that fiercely fighting the Japanese required abandoning all compassion for them. But maybe I'm not being realistic.

There seems no doubt that in many past wars, American soldiers were encouraged to dehumanize the enemy. Doing that is so common among fighting forces everywhere that maybe one must assume it is a psychological necessity for an effective fighting force.

But I don't think that's obvious. And I'll bet some of the most effective soldiers have had some compassion for the enemy. In fact Americans are perhaps an example of that: Americans surely dehumanized their enemies less than did the Nazis or the Imperial Japanese, but we beat them both.

No doubt a certain kind of compassion can be foolish and paralyzing -- the kind of compassion that extends primarily to the bad guy, while paying little attention to his victims. I don't see why one cannot have compassion for both the bad guy and his victims, and in light of that, kill the bad guy when necessary, but without hatred or joy.

I have to admit that perhaps if I were more closely a witness to some of the horrors done in the name of Islam, I might find the notion of any compassion toward the perpetrators ridiculous or even monstrous.

Still, there is that line from Terence (the writer of Latin comedies in the 2nd century B.C.). The line is also inscribed on Montaigne's library ceiling: "I am a human being, and nothing human is foreign to me."

Since we all have a dark side, perhaps many of us could have become as spiritually corrupt as an Islamic supremacist, if we had been born into an Islamic setting. There but for the grace of...X, go I.

Probably more than one approach to these matters is advisable anyway. Different approaches can accomplish different things, many of them necessary. By analogy, a traditional father's approach might be, say, admirably tough and realistic, but not always particularly understanding. A traditional mother's approach might be quite loving, but, shall we say, too understanding. Such polarities can balance one another not just outwardly, but within each individual. That might even be a decent definition of sanity.

As for social sanity, we have some modicum of it because people check and balance each other, at least in free societies.

Thank you for your kind words, Nabi.

Sometimes the sage's wisdom comes not from the extent of what he knows but from realizing the infinity of what he knows not.
While it is impressive to cover one's opinion by casually alluding to the greats such as Plato and to many of the other notable philosophical giants of the past,I will dare to bare myself naked ,boils and all to cpmprehaned the truth of what I really am and not appearing vain.
As great as Greek civilization was remeber that philosophical knowledge or not, it crumbled despite what Plato learned form Socrates of whom he was his boy toy.
Sophistry is capable of convincing idiots the rationality of drinking urine, it's what is now called spin and at this point venturing into a discussion of the definition of what rational means and much less adding animal to it is not only beyond my ability to copy and paste or remember philosophy 101 but most importantly time-wise unaffordable.

Soldiers can kill with utmost effectiveness and yet still feel a little compassion for the enemy, though that might be difficult sometimes. Kindness does not preclude doing what is necessary to defend oneself.

This is quite correct. I think fighting forces need to do what is necessary to fight the enemy and win. When the enemy has been subdued, we need to reign in our compulsion to humiliate and antagonized. In other words, at this point we should be the model of our society and treat the prisoners as we would want to be treated if we were in their shoes.

When I saw the pictures and actions from Abu Gharab prison (sp?) I was horrified that our own forces were doing stuff like that. It certainly gave credence to Muslims that we were immoral and inhuman. Many of the Muslims that may have been sitting on the fence or against fighting Americans became pissed off enough to do something about it. It was an unnecessary provocation from our own fighting forces. We should treat them with respect and kindness that we would hope for from them. Follow the Geneva Conventions and who knows maybe they will come to see their religion for what it truly is, despicable.

Fineliving

you identify yourself as an apostate from Islam.

If that really is the truth, then: may you be blessed and protected.

Have you thought of getting in touch with 'Former Muslims United'?

Amongst your lecture to those you may believe are the less knowing you state; "This will make you more assured of your dealings with Muslims and less afraid to engage Muslims in your own personal life."
Are you kidding, you are missing then essence of the problem and worse your tact or lack of mirrors the obama approach.
At least when Hesperado happens to have a dissenting view, worng or not, he substantiates his opinion and one can only hope more of us could poses his logical skills to consrtuct his viewpoint.
You also state as an axiom of universal law the following opinion "Are all Muslims dangerous? No"
The next time someone here goes to the trouble of presenting to you the contrary opinion please jump in an disprove them point by point. I'll be all ears.
the last thing I'll quote from you is the following warning, al imam rouf"So please be careful on this distinction about Muslims."
Since when has anyone here have to be careful offending muslims?

For people who makes a blanket statement like "f*** all muslims, they deserve (whatever punishment that person thinks of) are the ones I'm trying to address. Be more reasoned about who you are targeting in the Muslim community. Not all Muslims are Jihadists. To those Muslims we need to get their support in either reforming Islam or abandon it.

Do you want to identify the enemy and deal with them? Or are you just going to tell all Muslims to f*** off and leave the US?

B replied to comment from wakingwest

.... Not (every Muslim is a) Jihadist ....

Wrong.

By the explicit directive of the Muslims' false fuhrer's Mein Kampf, every Muslim is.

But -- to be perfectly fair -- not all jihadists are psychopathologically-hesperophobic gutlessly-cowardly mass murderers.

Only about one hundred and fifty million of the evil bastards fit that description.

Hello B,

My distinction inside the Ummah, the Muslim commonwealth, would NOT be moderate or radical, but Democratic or Theocratic.

I mean, the PCMC-people keep assuring the world that Muslims by and large are no threat and mean us and our Democratic system no harm. But that only the radical Muslims do that.

I like to take them up on that and find out, point by point when Democracy and Islam contradict, which side Muslims take.

Hell, even if they take up Theocratic positions openly, that at least shows honesty and clarity, instead of them constantly trying to shut down investigation, information, knowledge and patient dialoque. When people are justifiable very suspicious because of Theocratic holy texts and declarations of Islamic leading people and followers alike.

I in this stage do not think we have any use for those Muslims who claim to be moderate but who are really in essence still allied to Supremacists/ Theocrats more than with us/ Democracy-loyalists.

Although I do understand that the whole Islam-Democracy-controverse is complex and that there is much I do not know or understand. That's why I am in favor of huge informed dialoque and clarity given by Democrats and Muslims alike.

So let us, Democracy-loyalists, ask them Questions, Muslims in Democratic countries, in a way they can't avoid real choices.

Dank - Frankly, any time anyone talks about "family values" as a way of stifling the individual, I want to barf on their shoes.

The fundie xtian version is bad enough - you're not a family unless you have a pack of snot-nosed children running around. Given how much trouble kids can get you into, it's amazing anyone even wants to have anything to do with the things any more.

Yours is even worse, though. If that vid is an example of Islamic family values in action, then I say down with the family completely, the concept isn't even worth that shit.

you first said:

Personally I choose not to define as human any callous unrepentant murderer...

And to that I replied that your definition collides with Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas definition of human as a rational animal.

to which you now reply thusly:

Sometimes the sage's wisdom comes not from the extent of what he knows but from realizing the infinity of what he knows not.

Hmm…sounds very much like some sage’s wisdom. (your own?)
As much as I am impressed I admit I am not sure what does it have to do with the subject. Unless you are trying to say that the sages must not be taken seriously as long as they don’t know everything. Is it?

Another thing I would ask you to clarify is the below quoted piece of your prose:

While it is impressive to cover one's opinion by casually alluding to the greats such as Plato and to many of the other notable philosophical giants of the past,I will dare to bare myself naked ,boils and all to cpmprehaned the truth of what I really am and not appearing vain.

Excuse me, but the only thing I understood here is that you are alluding to my somehow “covering my opinion” by….alluding to the greats such as Plato and to many of the other notable philosophical giants of the past”. Again, I am not sure what “covering an opinion” means, but I have a feeling you don’t use it in a positive sense. Is it because the “notable philosophical giants of the past” have been replaced by some more notable giants of today and I somehow missed that development? If so I would be most grateful if you’d refer me to these new giants.

Oh, but I see that you “choose not to define as human any callous unrepentant murderer…” and some other nasty characters, which is something contradicting the definition of man offered by the “notable giants of the past”. Are you hinting here you are one of the notable giants of today offering a new revised and improved form of the definition? Est-ce vraiment toi? Please confirm if so.

And then you reveal: I will dare to bare myself naked ,boils and all to cpmprehaned the truth of what I really am and not appearing vain.

What in the world was THAT? An example of the "giant talk"? Please translate.

As great as Greek civilization was remeber that philosophical knowledge or not, it crumbled despite what Plato learned form Socrates of whom he was his boy toy.

That’s a funny one! Why does the demise of the ancient Greece should make one doubt the truth of the definition proposed by her sages? Do you also suspect the correctness of Archimedes theorem because it did not save Greek civilization from its downfall?

And what does that bit about camel urine drinking has to do with the subject? And what does Mohammad’s success with recommendation of its curative powers has to do with his clever use of sophistry? I think you should educate yourself about the meaning of sophistry before throwing the word around so nonchalantly. Or perhaps you think that Aristotle, or Plato or Aquinas philosophical attainments are “just sophistry”? I wouldn’t be surprised you do.

Yes I am for real …it seems there are so many like me out there discovering the religion we were born to and we could not help but to be affected and brian washed by it ….I have wished ,when I was young I was born to any other religion out there no matter what it is I did not care …..the day I learned that suret AL Nesa was not to appreciate women like my Islam teachers tried to tell me they lied to there each one of there rotted teeth…these self righteous pigs ….always made girls students feel like less then any man because they are females wish they never choose in the first place [not that it make any difference to me I love being a woman ]
We are smart and talented and we could be anything we wont if only we get the chances that all muslim man get .
I have a friend who graduated from medical school only to have her hopes to be crashed apparently her husband does no allow a wife to work out side the home …she had to stay home with her 2 kids and to her depression.
I am being made fun off every day …I am being called atheist …Mulheda …kafera ..but all that is doing nothing but strengthening my resolve I REVUSE TO BE BART THE KILLING MACHINE CALLED ISLAM …OH YA I JONED ''former muslims untied '' thank you for suggesting it

I, of course, meant Pythagoras' theorem, not Archimedes'. Archimedes formulated a law, not theorem.

"So please be careful on this distinction about Muslims."

I consider myself a pretty good judge of character, and oftentimes my husband refers to me as a human lie detector; but even a novice human lie detector like myself cannot match wits with *certain* liars, ie, taqiyya/kitman artists. Your advice is good, but ask yourself this question: can YOU tell the difference between a truly safe muslim and a dangerous one? I mean are you sure you know the difference, especially given their instructions to lie as mandated in the quran? And are you willing to stake your life, or the life of a loved one on your ability to know the difference? I for one cannot make such assurances to myself, or to my loved ones!

Besides, there seems to be only a small handful of muslims working against jihad, which suggests to me that the majority of muslims are NOT safe ...

One little mentioned factor about Muslim households is that the women have the highest suicide rates of any in the modern world.

Some women in a Muslim household would rather kill themself than put up with the nonsense Muslim men put them through.

1) beaten for not doing what the husband says
2) berated on a daily basis in some households
3) unable to socialize outside of the household
4) constantly told by society and your relgion you are 1/2 of what a man is
5) no justice if a man rapes you. Instead, you get stoned to death for daring to be raped (as if that was your fault to begin with)
6) should you decide to leave, the husband would likely try to kill you in what's called "honor killing". If he's caught in a muslim country he will likely walk free. In a non-muslim country, depending on sharia compliance of the host country, he may get a few years or a slap on the wrist.

I can't say I blame them for wanting to kill themself, but I would rather see the woman escape this situation and live her life free.

Denise said "can YOU tell the difference between a truly safe muslim and a dangerous one?"
----------------------
You can never be too sure about anything. Even the best of the best have been fooled. Do you remember when the CIA station in Afghanistan was bombed by a guy who turned out to be a double agent? Yes, even they were fooled and I would consider CIA to be the best at figuring it out.

You can learn to spot a Muslim employing Taqiyya and this will help you in your community to combat those local CAIR representatives. Those people are going to make all of us look bad by claiming Islamaphobia. Knowing the Quran well inside and out, knowing the contradictions will allow you to face those people in letters to the editors or if you are bold enough, to stand up in any speech they give to the community and show others their contradictions.

Are all Muslims bad or using Taqiyya? No. Not all of them are doing this. Some are just like you and I, earning a living and caring for their family. Some probably are unaware of what the Quran really says and tells them to do. Should you lump all of them in with the Jihadist? No, because then you definitely won't save them if there ever is a chance to do so.

In regards to suicide rates in Muslim countries. Afghan President Hamid Karzai reports “some 23,000 women and girls are trying to kill themselves each year” in his country alone. This is just in one country alone.

Frustrated Afghan women turn to self-immolation

Islamic Culture seems odd to me. The men go off to jihad hoping to kill themselves while the women are off trying to burn themselves. Not exactly a culture that is conducive to a loving atmosphere.

cover Def: wrapped, protection, shield, blanket.

Well Thomas_h, since you have placed yourself inside the turf of many of the great classical philosophers and you seem to believe they are all aligned with you, perhaps you'll feel better if I don't make an attempt to dissuade you form this impression or illusion and cause you discomfort. And as I concluded, this is for me a waste of time.

I do sincerely apologize if I caused offence, why don't you say we both focus once again at the subject at hand.
stoning of women, islam, muslims , insanity etc.

PS I love philiosophy

Well Thomas_h, since you have placed yourself inside the turf of many of the great classical philosophers and you seem to believe they are all aligned with you, perhaps you'll feel better if I don't make an attempt to dissuade you form this impression or illusion and cause you discomfort. And as I concluded, this is for me a waste of time.

Au contraire, dear WakingWest!
I would be delighted!

Such "attempt to dissuade (me)form this impression or illusion" would be much appreciated. Judging from the quality of your previously presented arguments it, again, won't fail to cause much merriment to me and mine. Something we all need in these bleak days.

So, please, go ahead and do try to "dissuade me from the impressions and illusions" Aristotle and his ilk confused me with and open my eyes to the alternative you are, so subtly, hinting you are representing. So let Aristotle meet WakingWest for benefit of Thomas and benighted rest. (hey, it even rhymes!)

And where did you detect "offence" in my previous response? Do tell. I assure you most sincerely I had lots of fun with you. Please read again and if it's still not obvious to you try to ask others.

"PS I love philiosophy"
I am sure "philiosophy" must be very flattered!

Unless you objected to calling Plato, Socrates toy boy, please! for the sake of that infinitesimal shred of sanity left in a couple of my 3 synapses and 9 neurons please!leave me alone, stop the infantisilim. sigh.

repeat:
I do sincerely apologize if I caused offence, why don't you say we both focus once again at the subject at hand.
stoning of women, islam, muslims , insanity etc