Denmark: Five arrested in "imminent" jihad attack on Motoons paper intended to shoot as many people as possible

BTW what is the difference between Islam and Islamism?
The main stream media feel comfortable blaming "Islamism" for the more reprehensible acts of the adherents of Islam. It doesn't really exist.

Hi, Sean - What you describe is an accurate rendition of Islam and the social dynamics of the ummah. However, I have to take issue with designating all of that as "tribalism". I think it would be better to designate it with terms such as "totemism", "fetishism", "talismanism", and the social dynamics of a "shame culture". Tribalism is something different than that. For one thing, cultural anthropology tells us that in tribal societies not all tribes are always hostile to each other. Peaceful relations between tribes is commonly found. Sometimes among tribes there are alliances and "leagues" of longstanding duration. So, since not all tribes are the same, using the term "tribalism" too loosely can be tarring them all with the same brush. Much of African populations nowadays are tribally organized, but certainly they're not therefore similar in any way with the Islamic ummah. That's a simple fact.
This is a friendly comment (of course).

Great post and website Sean.

Perhaps in the long run real Democracy-loyalists will want to form their own neighborhoods, cities-municipalities, forming a tribe themselves, only still democratic, with enlightenment-principles. And absolutely excluding all those who are loyal to it's enemy; the Islamic legal system. Making some sort of new constitution or law to that effect.

Sick and tired as the real Democracy-loyalists are of the PC-MC-people around them and who govern them, who refuse to see the disloyalty, threat and support of the Ummah, which oppresses minorities, posed by many Muslims.

One of the surest ways of demoralising a tribe has always been to desecrate its totems.
------
The rest of the world has, for the most part, evolved socially from the clan or tribe mentality...or is it that some "clans," i.e., Christians, Jews, Buddhists, et cetera, do not follow a creed whereby a detractor must be killed?

When an individual practices Islam, he or she ceases to think or reason as an individual but acts in a sheeplike fashion, carrying out dictates which are quite often violent. Islamic groupthink has created a worldwide club of sadists who are bent on outdoing one another.

People, like some friends from Oklahoma who are here on holiday, have passed their government taskmasters in wisdom regarding jihad. The west is waking and the battle against jihad will also be a war against judicial jihad (AKA Judge Vickie).

During WW2 there was no sustained attack on Nazi ideology as a means of subverting the Nazi regime. Early in the war before the Battle of France there was the "phony war" when leaflets were dropped on Germany instead of bombs. Later in the war the allied powers had knowledge of the death camps but there was no attempt to capitalise on this to discredit the Nazi regime.

Anti-Hitler movements arose in Germany, not because of any successful Allied propaganda attack on Nazi ideology, but out of the opposition of a small cadre of Germans to the Nazis. There was little support from the Allies for anti-Hitler activists and after the Allies had agreed to insist on unconditional surrender of Germany there was none.

The Nazis were defeated economically and militarily but only after USA brought its resources to bear. There was some effort at "de-Nazification" of Germany after WW2 but this was practically abandoned with the commencement of the cold war.

These so-called 'terrorism experts' aren't experts at all. Instead they're know-nothing politically-correct waffling morons who are being paid vast sums of money for old rope and avoiding the truth at our expense, as the Jihadis laugh their heads off at the so-called 'experts' hairbrained theories on Jihad and terrorism.

The backlash is beginning to grow.............

Spot on SpiritOf1683! Look at the Nazis - I forgot to say that they were defeated only after they savagely murdered 6 million Jews in the Jewish Holocaust, and also mass murdered Christians all over Europe! Imagine if Nazi ideology were challenge long before that in 1920s - See
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/25points.html
HitlerModern History Sourcebook:
The 25 Points 1920:
An Early Nazi Program

The Party Program of the NSDAP was proclaimed on the 24 February 1920 by Adolf Hitler at the first large Party gathering in Munich and since that day has remained unaltered. Within the national socialist philosophy is summarized in 25 points:

4. Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race.

Tom, I agree with you. But imagine if the savage and racist Nazi ideology were challenge since the 1920s, as the foundation principles of Hitler's Nazi party as I mentioned above. The Holocaust of the Jews and mass murder of Christians could have been stopped. Now to our current dangerous global problem with Islam, Hitler loved Islam; we must ask why? Was he inspired or advised by Islam. After all, the Arabs including the Palestinian Mufti of Jerusalem, Muslim Brotherhood founder, Hassan al-banna and the Turkish Ottomans were among or main Hitler/Nazi’s biggest collaborators or advisers! - new urgent investigation needs to be reopened: At - http://europenews.dk/en: In - http://www.investigativeproject.org/2315/moderate-qaradawi-defends-hitler-and-nuclear\

"Moderate" Qaradawi Defends Hitler and Nuclear Terror
IPT News
November 9, 2010

....According to excerpts of a speech that aired on Al-Jazeera in January 2009, Qaradawi called on Muslims to put Jews in "their place" as Hitler had done, in revenge for Israeli military operations in Gaza several weeks earlier. "Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption," he said. "The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them - even though they exaggerated this issue - he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hands of the believers." At a January 2009 "Gaza Victory Rally" in Doha, Qatar, Qaradawi prayed for the opportunity to kill a Jew before his death. "The only thing that I hope for is that as my life approaches its end, Allah will give me an opportunity to go to the land of Jihad and resistance, even if in a wheelchair. I will shoot Allah's enemies, the Jews, and they will throw a bomb at me, and thus, I will seal my life with martyrdom. Praise be to Allah."......

He may find the plan extremely worrying but we find many Muslims extremely worrying.

Also this Ummah as Tribe concept explains the self-described motivation of all the cases of sudden Jihad syndrome: the terrorist / Jihad acts are in revenge for some imagined attack on the Ummah; from bin Laden's fatwa declaring war on the U.S. and on, they cast their terror and destruction as a reasonable response to an attack on 'their tribe,' whether it be in Chechnya, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, going back as far in their imagined and distorted faux-history as necessary to stoke their outrage. (the Crusades, the loss of al-Andalus, Ataturk's discontinuing of a formal Caliph, etc)

Aiding in the build-up of their righteous rage are not only firebrand imams and internet instigators, but the wailing crybabies of the anti-American Left, exaggerating (and flat-out lying) about the evils of American imperialism and exploitation. These people live to scold and denigrate the freest country on earth, and the Islamic supremacists are only too happy to internalize their complaints and add them to the Islamofascist arsenal...

The question is, what to do about it, how to make belonging to the Ummah too costly and unattractive, in this world and the next. The muslims are already acting on the clash of civilizations model, pitting their Tribe against ours, while vast majorities of our population are in studious denial of the whole thing.

Cheers, & Happy New Year, etc. Good Luck, we're going to need it.

Oh I forgot SpiritOf1683,the right credit should be given to Dr. Ley here, in why Islam must be challenged like to the Socialist Nazism: At - http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/25points.html

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1708-PS

Edited by: Dr. Robert Ley
Published by: Central Publishing House of the N.S.D.A.P.
Franz Eher, successor Munich

The program of the NSDAP

The Party Program of the NSDAP was proclaimed on the 24 February 1920 by Adolf Hitler at the first large Party gathering in Munich and since that day has remained unaltered. Within the national socialist philosophy is summarized in 25 points:

4. Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race.

I suggest you, bobbly, confront bravely the real truths about Islam and God-hating Socialist of Nazism. Islam creates nutcase believers just like Nazism create the crazy Nazis! Do be intelligent and read up on the truths - Sharia Law for the Non-Muslim
Sunday, 07 November 2010 11:54 Bill Warner
"....In Medina, Mohammed sat all day long beside his 12-year-old wife while they watched as the heads of 800 Jews were removed by sword.[1] Their heads were cut off because they had said that Mohammed was not the prophet of Allah. ...Islam is 14% Allah and 86% Mohammed...." (At - http://europenews.dk/en: In - http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010110712066/us/islam-in-america/sharia-law-for-the-non-muslim.html

"Sometimes these plots are unraveled surprisingly easily, as if any number of intelligence services have been monitoring everything right from the beginnings."

There are probably a lot of Muslim informers and agents.

Hry bobbly, why do you keep trying to force me to hide the truths and lie like you? As a Christian, we're taught to speak the truths; and I don't SERVE you! I serve my Christian God! And who're you to tell me how to fight my battles, through my writings - especially I know how evil Islam is, being a convert from that cult. So instead of making fun of Christians, why don't you anwser my question once at least, why do the Socilaist Hitler loves Islam? After all, Muslim Arabs including the Palestinian Mufti of Jerusalem, Egyptian-based Muslim Brotherhood founder, Hassan al-banna and the Turkish Ottomans were among or main Socialist Hitler/Nazi’s biggest collaborators or advisers - and they've never been put on trial like the German Nazis. The case should be reopened to prevent the Second Nazism i.e Islamic Nazism! And you can't stop me from writing my OWN analysis - or you simply hate women speaking up especially your beloved Arabic Pedophile mohammed there?!

And by the way bobbly, so you think child-rape is unimportant and I should hide the fact that the creator of Islam is a Pedophile rapist? What a joke you're - get a civilized education! Islam which is created by the Arabic Mohammed, to justify evilness, including beastly sexual lust and violence, right from the beginning, such as Mohammed’s own child-‘bride’ who was only 6 years old, Aisha – the Pedophile rapist Mohammed was 50 and such as the 17 year old beautiful Jewish Saffiya, who was forced to marry 57 year old Mohammed right after Saffiya’s husband, wealthy tribe leader father & uncle were beheaded after being tortured with all the other Jewish men in Khaibar - the last Jewish tribe mass murdered in order to create Nazi-like supremacist, racist and savage Arabian kingdom!

"We have another shocking example what the political correctness can lead to. Asylum is granted to an Islamic terrorist whereas people who genuinely are in need of it (very often persecuted ,tortured or even slain by their neighbours, adherents of ”the religion of peace and tolerance” )are turned down only because they are ...Christians!!! What's wrong with you Europe?"

I don't think it's political correctness. Don't know what it is, but I don't see how it can be described as politically correct. Sweden describes itself as an open society where anyone can come - how does throwing Christian refugees back to the wolves fits in this description? Maybe it's more like social engineering - not quite being open to everyone, but more like planned diversity which requires increasing the percentage of people of non-Judeo-Christian background in the population. In this case it should welcome Hindus, Buddhists and Confucianists as much as Muslims. Is there any available information on the degree of difficulty for people of these groups getting asylum or citizenship in Sweden? I'd like to know if they favor all non-Judeo-Christian religions or just Islam.

With respect, Bhobby, associating Islam with Nazism should not create an obstruction. Arguably the single greatest human being to walk the earth over the past hundred years, and I am referring here to Winston Churchill, himself compared the Koran to Mein Kampf. Just because we live in the Age of Nonsense, replete with policital correctness, multiculturalism and so easily hurt feelings, shouldn't mean that people still possessed of reason and adequate knowledge not make connections between fascism and Islam. The connections, I would vigorously assert, are quite valid. Both are totalitarian throughout, and just because lesser folks don't realize this truth does not function as a good reason to desist from associating these two elaborate forms of evil. After all, while PR must be taken into account in conveying verities, the truth itself, above all, must remain paramount.

Peoples on this site have understood the magnitude of the islamization and there is a lot of work to do in terms of getting the attention of a lot of peoples who do not take the time to really understand the danger of the islamization of the western countries.It is not that they do not care, au contraire, but they lack the knowledge.

Mike, do not get discouraged, education is a work of patience

Madame - Whoever taught you your Christian religion was mistaken when he told you the name of Jesus Christ is to be invoked whenever you suspect your behavior is offensive to others. You should know, instead, it's not a proper use of the name of the Christ to excuse one's bad manners and obnoxious behavior. Maybe you think doing that requires people to forgive you. It doesn't. Nor does uttering Christ's name force Him to forgive you.

"The main stream media feel comfortable blaming "Islamism" for the more reprehensible acts of the adherents of Islam. It doesn't really exist."

This view, that there is no theological/ideological difference between Islam and Islamism is also advocated by Robert Spencer:

“The common distinction drawn between “Islam” and “Islamism”, which is accepted without question by the vast majority of public policy analysts, opinion-makers, lawmakers, and diplomats, rests on the idea that there is a core, a kernel, or perhaps an original form of Islam that did not teach warfare against non-Muslims; “Islamism” is widely reputed to be a Muslim imitation of fascism and communism that has little or nothing to do with the teachings of Islam.” (Quoted from “The Truth about Muhammad”, 2006).

Spencer claimed a few months ago, that Islamism started in year 622 when Muhammad became military leader and started to use unlimited violence and terror against his enemies.

In my view Islam changed significantly after the fall of its last caliphate, adopted ideas from Nazism and Communism and became a political, or pseudo-religious movement with political goals rather than a religion where divinity and politics is one and the same. Therefore I find it is appropriate and useful to use a new designation *Islamism* to describe this rather significant change.

I arrived at this view after reading Robert R. Reilly's book “The Closing of the Muslim Mind”, from 2010. Below some relevant quotes selected from Chapter 8 of the book: “The Sources of Islamism”:

" ... A narrative of grievance and potential recovery exists throughout the Muslim world, but particularly among the Islamists, who are still in a state of shock over the abolition of the caliphate by Kemal Ataturk in 1924. With the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I, the caliphate was but a shell of itself. Nevertheless, its abandonment left some Muslims completely adrift. It was as if the Vatican had abjured its authority to represent the church. How could the end of the caliphate be explained? Its abolition called into existence the first Islamist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, the “al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun”, dedicated to its restoration. While most Muslims may not share in the Islamists mythology regarding the caliphate, which did not exist continuously from the time of Muhammad, they nonetheless do require an explanation for the decline of their civilization.

A somewhat similar situation existed in Germany after World War I, which Adolf Hitler was able to exploit with the Nazi Party. In fact, there are striking parallels to this sense of grievance that can be found in Mein Kampf. The comparison is not adventitious. There were associations between the Nazis and the early Islamists going back to the 1930s, when Hassan al-Bana, the founder of the “Ikhwan”, modeled the Muslim Brotherhood on the Brownshirts. The German sense of grievance came from defeat in World War I and the metaphysical shock of the collapse of the Second Reich. This loss was inconceivable to them. To comprehend the loss, Hitler and his companions explained in terms of first the internal enemy and then the external enemy. Where was the rot in German society from which this betrayal came? The racist Nazi answer was the Jew. Germany must expunge the Jew and purify itself for the battle against the external enemy in order to bring about the millenarian vision of the Third Reich and the supremacy of the Aryan race.

Similarly, Islamists try to focus the widely shared sense of grievance and humiliation in the Muslim world on the loss of the caliphate because they want to restore it. Their explanation for the decline of their civilization is, a loss of faith. The solution to this problem is obviously not imitating the West, but restoring Muslim faith to a pristine condition, as defined by them. They too, began looking for the internal enemy and then the external enemy. Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, gives typical expression to this formulation in describing “the apostate domestic enemy and the Jewish-crusader external enemy.” It is here, at the heart of the effort to restore past glory, that the questions asked in the introduction reappear.

Why is Qutb so popular and influential?

There is a two-fold answer. Part of the explanation comes from the abiding sense of Muslim grievance and humiliation to which Qutb's ideology plays. This part stems from Islam itself, which takes as its model for success the Companions of the Prophet, who blazed the way to glory and empire. So, said Qutb, Muslims must remove the accretions of the ages and go back to that original community, model themselves on the Companions and prepare to do what they did – to retake the world, and to reestablish the caliphate. The instrument for doing this, depending on which Islamist you talk to, is a combination of persuasion (dawa) and jihad, both of which are grounded in traditional Islam, or simply jihad.

Qutb blamed the Jews in Istanbul for conspiring in the collapse of the caliphate (“The Jews have always been the prime movers in the war declared on all fronts against the advocates of Islamic revival throughout the world”), and labeled impious Muslims as the internal enemy, who must be vanquished so that the infidel West could be confronted and overcome. This much of the program can be understood from Islam alone, without any contamination by Western ideology.

The rest of the appeal stems from the results of the ancient struggle within Islam over the primacy of power versus the primacy of reason. The outcome of this contest decisively affected the character of the Islamic world in which Qutb could find such a ready audience for his ideology. The infection of Western millenarian ideological thoughts from Nietzsche and Marx would not have made Islamism the attraction it is unless Islamism was not also able to claim legitimacy by drawing upon something within the traditions of Islam itself. For this, Islamist thinkers selectively chose one, albeit a primary one, of the many theological and philosophical traditions within Islam's rich history. The nexus between this school of thought and Western totalitarian ideology was the primacy of will.

The highly heterogeneous world of contemporary Islam stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from Morocco to the southern Philippines. There are very few things that one can say about this world that are true in all places. Of the fortyfour predominantly Muslim countries in the world, twenty-four do not use Islamic law as their primary source of laws. While Muslims everywhere observe the five pillars of Islam, they are culturally very different in, say Indonesia and the Arab world. However, this highly heterogeneous character is in danger of being homogenized. The engine for the homogenization is Qutb's Islamist ideology, which has demonstrated tremendous cross-cultural appeal. Qutb's writings are considered the new writ, along with those of Pakistani writer Maulana Maududi and Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Qutb's teachings are at the foundation of, for instance, the Justice and Prosperity Party (PKS), which is the fastest-growing and only dues-paying party in Indonesia (although it has suffered some recent setbacks), as well as the more explicitly violent Jemaah Islamiyah. The Hizb ut-Tahrir organization, which is banned in most Muslim countries, has had quite an impact in central Asia and western Europe. The foundation of its ideology is also Sayyid Qutb. The people at whom Hizb ut-Tahrir aims are the intelligentsia and upper middle class across the Islamic world. Hizb ut-Tahrir does not explicitly advocate violence and terrorism, but prepares the intellectual foundation for it by using Qutb's teachings. On the other hand, al-Qaeda, also spawned by Qutb's ideology, explicitly promotes violence in the fifty-some nations in which it has a presence. Qutb's brother, Muhammad, taught Osama bin Laden at Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Islamic Jihad in Palestine, another Qutb clone, advocates violence. Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, translated substantial parts of Qutb's works into Farsi, demonstrating the impact of Wutb's thoughts across the Sunni-Shi'ite divide. In other words, this is not a local phenomenon. The cross-cultural appeal of this ideology reflects a deeper crisis within Islam itself. It is in its most exacerbated form in the Arab world, but it exists everywhere in the Muslim universe or umma.”

Are the Islamists of today something new or a resurgence of something from the past? How much of this is Islam and how much is Islamism? Is Islamism a deformation of Islam? If so, in what way and from where has it come? And why is Islam susceptible to this kind of deformation?

Neither communism nor fascism has worked for the Arabs – because they have not worked for anyone – but the Islamists have ingested their totalitarian programs and mixed them with their fundamentalist and irrational (“Ash'arite”) interpretation of Islam. That is why one can compare the features of these ideologies and even some of the language they use almost exactly. As Maulana Maududi wrote, “In reality Islam is a revolutionary ideology and programme which seeks to alter the social order of the whole world and rebuild it in conformity with its own tenets and ideals. 'Muslim' is the title of that International Revolutionary Party organized by Islam to carry into effect its revolutionary programme. And 'jihad' refers to that revolutionary struggle and utmost exertion which the Islamic Party brings into play to achieve this objective.” With changing only two words, “Islam” and “Muslim” to either “Nazism” or “communism”, and then rereading the sentence above, one will immediately see the nearly complete ideological affinity among them, as no other word changes are necessary to represent the Nazi or communist revolutionary points of view.

This can be done with a number of Maududi's statements. For instance, “Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which Nation assumes the role of the standard bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State.” Statements like these are inconceivable without the influence of Western totalitarianism.

This is evident, as well, in Qutb's description of Islam as an “emancipatory movement” and “an active revolutionary creed.” Islamism is inevitably on the march, proclaims Sudan's Hasan al-Turabi, because, much as communism used to be, “its a wave of history.” This is familiar rhetoric, but not from Islam.

Islamism definitely has a new element in it. Modern radical Islamism and twentieth-century Western totalitarian movements are not simply akin, moving in parallel to each other. There was a good deal of ideological cross-pollination, and they had real working connections. This is not news in respect to Nazism and Hitler's mufti, Amin al-Husayni, but such relations also existed with the Soviet Union, as outlined in Laurent Murawiec's book “The Mind of Jihad”. In fact, Qutb said all liberation movements were welcome to his revolution: “The Islamic doctrine adopts all struggles of liberation in the world and support them in every place.”

Like twentieth-centuries Western ideologies, Islamism places the burden of salvation upon politics, a total politics that, only through its control every aspect of life, can bring about their version of God's kingdom on earth. Islamism is not a religion in the traditional sense. Most religions, in fact all monotheistic ones, put before man a revelation from God that is similar in certain essential respects. The revelation contains a moral code by which man is expected to live if he wishes to achieve eternal life in paradise. Paradise is located in the hereafter – never on this earth. So is hell to which man will be sent if he is disobedient. The terrestrial and the transcendent are distinct – the city of man and the city of God, as St. Augustine put it. Life here is a test. The ultimate resolution of the problem of justice is not in this veil of tears, but before the throne of God in the next world. Man's ultimate destiny is in the transcendent. This general view is shared by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, all of which see perfect justice as being established by God's final judgment.

Islamism is an ideology in the classic sense that it offers, or rather insists upon, an alternative “reality” - one that collapses the separate realms of the divine and the human, and arrogates to itself the means to achieve perfect justice here in this world or, as Qutb said, “to abolish all injustice from the earth.” This notion of the inner perfectibility of history – the achievement of perfect justice here – is the very heart of ideology, whether sacred or profane. It places alongside reality its false version and insists that reality conform to its demands. Its adherents live in the magical world of this second reality and obey its laws. They may seem to live and move in the realm of the real world, but they are already transposed into the second, false reality. When they behave according to its laws – such as in slaughtering innocent people without remorse – others are surprised and disturbed because they do not know the contours of this second reality, which has just been so shockingly omposed on them.

Jessica Stern, the author of “Terror in the Name of God”, reflected the puzzlement that initially strikes almost everyone encountering Islamist terrorism until they come to understand its ideology as a pseudo-religion rather than as a political movement. She writes: “

“I have come to see that apocalyptic violence intended to 'cleanse' the world of 'impurities' can create a transcendent state. All the terrorist groups examined in this book believe – or at least started out believing – that they are creating a more perfect world. From their perspective, they are purifying the world of injustice, cruelty, and all that is anti-human. When I began this project, I could not understand why the killers I met seemed spiritually intoxicated. Now, I think I understand. They seem that way because they are.”

The way Reilly use the word “Islamism” he explains in a footnote:

“Islamism is used here as a form of shorthand for Muslim totalitarian ideology. It is in some ways an unsatisfactory term, as there are selfproclaimed Islamists who would not subscribe to this meaning of the term. However, it is useful to designate the transmogrification of Islam into an ideology.”

We should not refuse or ban a useful term from the debate just because is can be and often are misused by the PC-correct establishment, the lefties and other Muslim apologetics.

Mr. Wellington - Go back and read my comment again - Notice nowhere did I say there was no connection nor association between Naziism and Islam. Precisely what I did say is that "the connection is only superficial" in the context of the larger picture (which means the history of 2000 years of Western civilization). When I think about Islam I think only about Islam, not Islam cum Hitler. Islam has connections with many things, of course. Surely you yourself don't keep the connection with Hitler always in front of your mind. Superficial doesn't mean non-existent. If I wanted to say nonexistent connection I would have said so.
I'm a long-time fan of your comments here on JW. I'm surprised by this. Maybe you have begun New Year's Eve partying early. Happy New Year!

Your lies are pathetic! So you're obnoxious to me, even calling me once INSANE, and through such stealth, and I should just shut up! If you read our Bible, and rationally at that, you will come to LEARN what Christianity is about: our Lord Jesus always stand very firmly against evilness as in John 8:44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

Why do you keep lying like it's your second nature - where have I made the claim of finding out the truths myself about the link between Islam and Hitler? And what is your agenda in trying to force me to shut up about this very fundamental fact, especially with increasing threat of another Holocaust of the Jews by the Iranian Mullahs - you simply can't stand a woman speaking up against your beloved Islam don't you? How pathetic! And so you think that the link between Islam and Hitler-Nazism is not importnat and so everyone else should think like you? Are you a Muslim fanatic or something who like to force your COMMANDS down women's throat - obviously you don;t have a clue about Western/Judeo-Christian democracy, equality and freedom, nor what you're reading about! We civilized people read rationally - unlike in Islam, where being uncivilized and ignorance are encouraged!

By the way, since I was born (without my choice) into that evil Islam, I know how evil it is, from the inside! That's of no concern to you but do not undermine my traumatic experiences under that savage Islam! And don't try to shut up a woman from speaking out - this is not Saudi land! You claimed to be a 'commie' but roared when we criticized Islam with potent points - so, I wonder who you really are!

Re: "Katherina, you say you're a former Muslim?"

Did she?

Yes I was a Muslim. Thank my Lord Jesus Christ for saving me from such evilness and darkness! Islam creates nutcase believers just like Nazism create the crazy Nazis! Do be intelligent and read up on the truths - Sharia Law for the Non-Muslim
Sunday, 07 November 2010 11:54 Bill Warner
"....In Medina, Mohammed sat all day long beside his 12-year-old wife while they watched as the heads of 800 Jews were removed by sword.[1] Their heads were cut off because they had said that Mohammed was not the prophet of Allah. ...Islam is 14% Allah and 86% Mohammed...." (At - http://europenews.dk/en: In - http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010110712066/us/islam-in-america/sharia-law-for-the-non-muslim.html

Thanks Traeh for your ever educational information on the evil koran, mohammed and islam! Now, the thought of that Dark Book of the koran, makes me shudders!

Hello sir, Happy New Year! - Quoting from your comment "After the fall of [the Ottoman Empire} Islam became a political or pseudo-religious movement with political goals rather than a religion where divinity and politics is one and the same. . .. [This is a] rather significant change."
My interpretation of modern Islam, dating it from more or less the same time, is that they learned enough about modern European nation-states' political formalities to enable them to construct and put up a facade of that for themselves, for their own usual purposes. Islam is a chameleon, and that's not new. It was their chameleon skills that enabled them to fool and trick and conquer the ancient Empires of the East. It's a sgnificant change when a chameleon quickly changes colors. yes. But it's still a chameleon.
My estimation is that Islam always was a pseudo-religion, starting with Muhammed the pseudo-prophet. And it always had political goals, even though the outward form of the politics changes with the times and the adversary, through the many centuries. As you know, politics is the peaceful practice of what otherwise would be violent war. And war is politics made violent.
I don't know who it was who first started using the term "Islamism". My sense of it is that it refers to post WWII revival of Islamic aggressiveness. I think Robert Spencer says the interpretation of the holy texts is unchanged, but applied more belligerently and audaciously and that's "Islamism". I tend to agree.

With respect, Bhobby, I don't think the connection between Islam and Nazism is superficial. Neither did Winston Churchill and that's why I invoked him. Nor did Bertrand Russell (as far left as Churchill was right) think the connection of no real substance. As far back as his "The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism," published in 1920, Russell asserted that Islam is the only major faith which is totalitarian in structure and ideology and he went on to compare it to Marxism and fascism.

My disagreement with you was not rooted in your denial that there is no connection between Islam and Nazism, but rather that you maintained that such a connection is not to be emphasized to any great degree. I most vigorously assert that the connection is quite apt and very much should be stressed. And, once again, if an "obstruction" occurs because many folks don't like the association between Nazism and Islam, then that is a poor reflection on those folks, not the one making the comparison. One, after all, should not be unduly solicitous of ignorance.

Oh, by the way, I have not begun New Year's partying early, but sometimes reading what passes for truth here at JW I sometimes I wish I would have, beginning, say, back in July. Cheers.

Hi Katharina. It's your old buddy Heidi2027. I closed out that TypePad account when I closed out everything associated with yahoo.com. It is my own personal boycott due to their crappy news reporting and noxious ads.

Congratulations.

Happy New Year. Never a dull moment.

Bhobby

you wrote -

"Islam is a chameleon, and that's not new.

"It was their chameleon skills that enabled them to fool and trick and conquer the ancient Empires of the East.

"It's a significant change when a chameleon quickly changes colors. yes. But it's still a chameleon."

I think you are onto something.

A concrete example of what you are talking about - Islamic shapeshifting - may be seen if one compares the 'Palestinian National Charter' of 1964 (which is superficially 'pan-Arabist') with the 'Palestinian National Charter' of 1968 (i.e. written after the defeat of the Arab Muslim forces in 1967) and then the Hamas Charter of 1988.

At bottom, what's going on and has always been going on is Jihad against the Jews, to punish them for having escaped from and rejected dhimmitude.

But in the earliest document this jihad is disguised (for external consumption) as pan-Arabism, and in the next, as Palestinian nationalism; only in the Hamas Charter does the mask come off.

The whole 'Abrahamic faiths' business is and always has been nothing but Islamic shapeshifting. Islam pretends to be the long-lost cousin of Jews and/ or Christians, merely in order to get its foot inside the door.

Know well, Bhobby, that you are not ignorant. You may be wrong on occasion, as we may all be, but that doesn't add up to ignorance. Happy New Year.

Me again - I think most ordinary people when they see the (very real) connection and similarities between Naziism and Islam will stop there and go no further in their search for understanding, thinking that connection to say all that needs to be said (about either Naziism or Islam). They will tend to do that not because they refuse to accept the idea but because they will tend to think it explains everything that needs to be explained, and hence that's all that needs to be known. That's what I meant by an obstruction to thought. Yes, there are some, like most commenters on JW, who will not be satisfied with the generality of the concept of totalitarianism, but who will inquire further. Yes, I am not satisfied with what the great Winston Churchill, and other world leaders, have said about Islam. I need to go further in my own understandings. But Churchill's outlook on it is a great place to start.

What is your agenda - one minute you talk like a 'commie', one minute you're so defensive of Islam; and tried to shut me up from speaking aginst Islam's evilness especially it's link to Hitler?! Lying is your second nature - you have called me INSANE and now you're claiming I'm doing the attack. Sounds familiar to me - Muslim fantics always blame everyone else except their cuning lying self! By the way, we Judeo-Christians tried very hard not to let evil wins - thus is why our shared Judeo-Christian God gave us the Ten Commandments, which founded modern and civilized Western laws! You can't shut us up, get it?!

Hey heidi, you and that bobby buddy of yours like to lie and force your views down women's throat - I'm no 'buddy' of yours! I choose out of my own free will, with my God's help, who are my genuine friends - and they have to be truth-speaking!

Cheers, good man. If I'm ever wrong, tell me. I'll do the same. That's all for me today. Sayonara.

So I criticize Islam persistently, especially in its link to Hitler-Nazis, you heidi, and your bobby buddy there keep attacking me and keep trying hard to shut me up, and I'm supposed to disappear? I wonder why this aggressive attack - the link between Islam and the Nazis, I think, is the key! Get civilized! And you won't shut me up no matter how hard you try through your stealth jihad!

You know, katharina, one can be right but still need to chill. Happy New Year.

Mike you wrote:

"I am so tired, and I am feeling really worn out by all this negative stuff coming out of Islam---day after day after day."

You took the words right out of my mouth.

..."start copying and pasting every article you deem worthy to everyone"...

Everyday, unrelentingly I send links to pages, articles and videos to all my Address Book contacts. I am at it literally for hours every day.

Only one of my friends asked me to stop,
he wasn't interested. All the rest appreciate my efforts which makes the little that I can do worth while.

There is so much ignorance out there regarding the true nature of Islam and so much educating to do, it's astounding.

I, like Mike, urge everyone to do likewise

Bosch Fawstin wrote:

Here's my response to Batman recruiting a Muslim to be his French counterpart.
......................

Great piece, Bosch. Grim, but far more likely than the idiotic Batman story that inspired it. I'd actually missed this story, but I read up on after seeing your post here.

So—while the clueless artists at DC pen the fanciful adventures of this Muslim hero from the Banlieues, things are a bit different in real-life Europe, where his co-religionists scheme to kill real artists like Kurt Westergaard, his fellow cartoonists, and his publisher.

well.
one down. 1.5 billion to go.....

Katharina, I have read many of your passionate and moving posts but I did not know until tonight that you were once a muslim. I'm glad to see that you have recovered from that pernicious disease and I guess you know that you're one of the lucky few to survive. Thanks for being here and sharing your thoughts with us. God bless you and Happy New Year!
Susan

katharina,
Glad you enjoyed the quotations.

There aren't 1.5 billion terrorists, or even Muslims that have rioted.

But in neither situation did the person throw himself off of the mountain. Nice comparison if it worked, but it doesn't fit.

Bosch Fawstin,
Loved your cartoon commenting on DC Comic's Batman dhimmification.

Thanks, gravenimage. In a world where "Islam means peace", mainstream superheroes taking on jihad is impossible. Enter Pigman.

Thanks, traeh.

Gregory Carradine,

I agree that it might not be significant, but I don't see how your explanation shows that. You say it does not fit, because neither one threw himself down? Hmm.

Here's the reversed parallel:

A person wants to jump, and is stopped by a spirit.

A person doesn't want to jump, and is urged to by a spirit.

I guess you are saying that two elements exactly reversed is not significant, but you are also saying that if there were three elements exactly reversed (the third being that one person jumped and the other didn't) that would amount to something? Not sure why three is the winning number. Someone else could say to you there have to be four elements, or five, etc.

I guess you are saying that if Muhammad had jumped, and been caught by Gabriel, then the reversal works, but not otherwise?

K --

There is nothing new under the sun. Many posters here* have subtly encouraged me to stifle myself as well. Of course, it could just be a few disgruntled posters who clone themselves via multiple TypePad accounts.

Keep it up girl. Maybe you will help someone fulfill a desire to sell JW a new blog platform which will allow burying/ignoring/suppressing any and all comments from certain blowhards.

Excellent.

Excellent comment,so true.

Islam is not a religion, its one mans rantings from 1400 yrs ago. Do you think that if a great power shuch as our al forgiving god, had something to say he would say it to a big fat sex pest and tell him to have sex with kids, animals, cut peoples heads of, hands of, feet of. Treat women with total contempt, the list goes on. the people islam don,t know any better, people who live in the west with all the freedoms we have should now better. To defend islam is a crime. Islam is a crime, a crime against human kind itself. The people of islam kill themselves, and anyone else around around them, including fellow muslims. The koran is insanity itself. it wants hell to reign on Earth.

Yep, to defend evil is an evil in itself. And the worst examples of this are those who defend Islam. Defending Islam is one million times worse than defending Nazism or Communism.

I also find that there are few people around me that I can share this information with. One of my contacts asked me not to send it anymore as she had enough personal problems of her own. However it does not stop me from trying to find others. We are fighting a war.

Do you feel browbeaten? Nothing but doom-n-gloom? Defeated? Stop It! That is the intent of Islam.

Mainer1776
There are some indications of what he looked like in the canonical hadiths.

traeh,

I worded my response inadequately. What I mean is that since 'Gabriel' stopped Muhammad from jumping that means that he cannot be the devil.

Whether or not Muhammad had wanted to jump, the important factor is that 'Gabriel' discouraged him from it -- but Satan urged Jesus to jump.

That's why I think its a coincidence.

I do not really understand your comment about two or three elements being the magic number, but I think I've addressed the issue enough with this post. (If not, know I'm not arguing here I'm just trying to make myself clear.)

Yes, I think that if Muhammad had jumped and caught it could have been Satan. But since 'Gabriel' didn't tell him to (and stopped him) I think its a coincidence.

Islam has enough problems without reading any into it, for those who would accuse me of defending Islam. Legitimate complaints are legitimate.

Do you think that one day all Muslims are going to realize what Islam is responsible for and become apostates?

To think so would be naive. So do you want to kill all of them?

That would be inhumane. So Islam is not going away quickly. If at all.

Instead of saying that Islam only allows for evil action by Muslims, wouldn't it be better to interpret an Islam with no room for violence?

The reason would not be because Islam is actually a religion of peace. The reason is that it must become a religion of peace if terrorism is to be eradicated.

Muslims will not apostatize if confronted with a problem in Islam, just as any religion will not stop when faced with a profound theological issue. The religion will change to adjust, like Christianity has in light of modern attitudes on government, slavery, women's rights, gay rights, et cetera. (I'm not condoning all of these changes, I'm just saying that its there.)

A religion's meaning is only dependent on the creativity of its interpreters. We just need to find people to interpret Islam in a way that the West can accept.

Note that I'm not saying that Islam is nonviolent -- there are hadith that I don't think can be interpreted without a violent interpretation at all. But the Quran can be interpreted (if you really, really want) to be nonviolent.

What will it help to call Islam violent when Islam is anything you can interpret from its holy books? (Take a glimpse at Christianity to see the variety in interpretations that are still called Christian.)

You are a terrorist-defending troll. Nothing less. You are drawing moral equivalences between Christianity and Islam, when Islam is one million times worse than either Nazism or Communism. If we're so bad, then get out of our midst, and take your equally dysfunctional family with you. The last thing we need in the West, apart from Muslim terrorists themselves, is terrorist-sucking parasites and apologists for evil like you. There is no such thing as the Golden Rule in the Koran and the hadiths. More than 60% of the Koran is devoted to hatred of the infidel, as are thousands of hadiths. And that means they're talking about me, my family, everybody I know. They want to do away with everything that I, and everybody else around me enjoy. More to the point, they want to do away with civilization itself and impose their barbaric tyranny upon the world. We know that. They've imposed tyranny upon every part of the world they've overrun so far, so why should we think they'd be any different if they ruled those parts that they don't currently rule. They're not coy about it. They tell us in hateful sermon after hateful sermon. They issue fatwas demanding our murders. They've been at war with everyone who is not a Muslim for 1,400 years and they won't stop until they get their way or until we expunge their evil cult. Islam is tyranny itself, and you are a shrill for it, so get the hell out of the West. You and your sort are not wanted here. You're not worth a single piece of scurf that has fallen from the hair of those who have defended us since time immemorian.

'You are a terrorist-defending troll. Nothing less.' - Spirit of 1683.

No. I do not defend terrorism. I said in my post that Islam is responsible for terrorism. I am saying that if we change Islam we can stop terrorism. Do you disagree?

I'm not drawing moral equivalents between Islam and Christianity - you will see that if you reread my comment. I'm saying a religion is whatever you can interpret out of its scriptures. So why not be creative and interpret the violence out of Islam? Its not like Muslims will see the violence and leave their religion.

Do you understand what I am saying or do you think I'm saying Islam RIGHT NOW is okay? I don't really know how I can be more clear: Islam has tenets irreconcilable with the West. So change Islam.

I'm saying that Islam is a problem. You are too. But you are saying I'm defending terrorists. I am not. Terrorists deserve death for their crimes.

'. . . get the hell out of the West. You and your sort are not wanted here. You're not worth a single piece of scurf that has fallen from the hair of those who have defended us since time immemorian [sic].' - Spirit of 1683.

I wish you would have read my comment carefully. This quote from you shows the anger you have towards me because I think that we should realize that people will not lose faith over theological problems. I'm just saying that Islam needs to change, so what do you disagree with?

I have not supported or condoned terrorism, and I am not leaving the West. Me and my sort, those that hope for a peaceful turn of Islam from terrorism to enlightenment, are part of the West.

Those Koranic verses that are so-called 'peaceful' have been abrogated by those that call for war. Those 'peaceful' verses mean nothing. They fool you, but they don't fool me. You are a politically-correct fool who thinks Muslims will change for us. Why should they change for us when they think they're winning? They haven't changed for those they've conquered. Those verses are set in stone. They or their meaning will not be changed, because to change the verses or the meaning of them is blasphemy, and blasphemy is punishable by death. Thats why there will never be a reformation for the better in Islam. Mohammed was a tyrant, mass murderer, warrior, misogynist, paedophile and as such Islam will always remain an intolerant and hateful warrior cult. You ARE an abetter of evil, for it is fools like you who weaken civilizations from within.

They are abrogated because you think so. They're not if you don't.

I don't think Muslims will change for us. I'm not saying I think they will change. I'm saying that they should.

Are you, instead, in favor of just killing them? Or do you expect them to leave Islam because of its violence?

My option is not perfect because it is not likely, but it is possible. Killing them all is not an option. Could you provide your alternative?

I like how you call me PC when its not very PC at all to say that Islam supports violence like I have. I don't fit into your cookie-cutter stereotypes, sorry. You will have to look over what I've said and reconsider your points, because they are all aimed at an archetype I don't fit.

Hey Marisol,

I know the realities.

You know how the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church have different views but they're both Christianity? I'm hoping for something like that.

I did not intend to present a false dichotomy in that way. Can you tell me what would be an ideal alternative to those two?

I presented three options originally, the other was that Muslims will leave Islam upon realizing Islam's violence. I omitted it because that is literally impossible. It is outside of the realm of possibility.

I'm not saying to just sit back and wait for reform. I'm just saying that all Muslims won't leave Islam no matter how many people point out its problems.

Gregory Islam cannot be reformed. It has built in "safeguards" against such a possibility. People have tried before and failed alas.
It has to be rooted out completely.
You are wrong in saying THAT cannot be done. It can with education and cutting out the source of their breeding, their indoctrination schools.
That has been done earlier in the Soviet Union and Albania and a more limited way in Attaturks Turkey.

I challenge you to root it out completely then, if that is what you believe what must be done. I say that cannot be done without indoctrination or annihilation. How would you propose it be done?

You are wrong. How it has been done in those situations did not result in people leaving Islam. Or if it did, it was to a very small degree no greater than the results on other religion -- by making them atheists.

Sorry for the double post, but Christianity has safeguards against reformation and that happened. Protestant reformation as an example, even the Episcopal example, the warning in Revelations from adding or subtracting letters, et cetera.

What safeguards do you say that Islam has?

Can you really promote the Soviet Union as an alternative to Islamic terror? Hardly a shining example.

Unpleasant as that atheist state may have been, I don't recall Soviets hijacking planes, cutting the throats of air stewardesses and flying them into skyscrapers. Do you?

No, I do not see that either. Terrorists crimes earn them death. But despite how much more we are impacted by terrorist attacks, the Soviets (not to mention the rest of the Communist states) have killed many times more than terrorism ever has.

I do recall the artificial famines, purges, state police, and so forth of the Communist states. Trying to weigh victims is really useless though, as I don't think that anyone is trying to say that turning Muslims into Communists is the way to go.

What would you do instead of turning them into Communists?

SO1683, I'm not saying Christianity was bad the reformation (though it was, that was not my point). My point was that it was so different.

If Islam is first and foremost a warrior cult, imagine the millions and millions of Muslims who are doing it wrong.

Islamic terrorism has killed over 300 million non-Muslims alone for the crime of not wanting to live under Islamic rule. They conquered lands right up to Tours in Central France and Vienna, and could easily have taken the entire West. Islam is unicultural and brings with it brutal Sharia law and the extinguishing of all cultures that are seen as alien. Polls tell us that 40% of Muslims here in Britain want Sharia law imposing upon us - and they're the ones who are being honest about it. But you'd like that. You're a shrill for the terrorists, and we know it. Lastly, the Soviet Union broke up almost 20 years ago, but Islam is still around and plotting and murdering its way across the planet.

Im sorry that Carradine is a self-hating troll who is trying to derail threads by throwing up strawmen arguments and using the old tricks of classic tu quoque. He needs banning from these forums immediately because his presence is most unwelcome. And to be honest, I'd say he is a Jihadi sympathiser, as Muslims and many of those on the hard Left are.

China is still here, and just look at how many died under their oppressive regime. Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba; they victims pile up.

As wicked as they are, they've still some way to go to get near the total of Islam. You are deliberately using those examples to let Islam off the hook. All strains of Islam teach hatred of the infidel, with disastrous results for those who aren't Muslims, or haven't you figured that now.

@Gregory “I say that cannot be done without indoctrination or annihilation. How would you propose it be done?”

I propose that it be done by banning Islamic schools and education AND OTHER LEGISLATIVE ACTION AGAINST ISLAMIC DISCRIMINATORY PREACHINGS.

I clearly said that you have to EDUCATE people to counter indoctrination. You are confusing between “indoctrination” , and “education” .

Indoctrination is distinguished from education by the fact that in indoctrination the indoctrinated person, unlike in education, does not to question or critically examine the beliefs or teachings they have learned. Indoctrination is usually done to children or uneducated and ill-informed people.

All religions feed themselves with indoctrination. So does Islam. The difference is Islam does it better at it with their Islamic schools and in that Islam is a discriminatory, hate-inspiring, violence-inciting ideology.

The people interned in Guantanamo Bay were indoctrinated. What does the US do? Does it try in de-indoctrinate them? Engage them in dialogue to question their beliefs? Not at all. It provides them with Qurans and Muslim preachers. Feeds them the very source that makes them fight them in the first place.

Do we de-indoctrinate people in prisons trying to reform them? NO! We allow Islamic preachers to indoctrinate a section of the population highly prone and inclined towards violence to indoctrinate them in an ideology that promises them rewards in heaven for killing as many people as possible. The killing is directed by the indoctrinators to fulfill their aim for intimidation towards world domination.

Do we caution our children in our schools and teach them against this discriminatory, hate-inspiring, violence-inciting ideology? NO! We teach them just the opposite – that it is a “Great Religion” one of peace – we teach them lies!

@Gregory “in those situations did not result in people leaving Islam. Or if it did, it was to a very small degree no greater than the results on other religion -- by making them atheists.”

Those situations resulted in people leaving Islam in very large numbers and have created a very large secular population in those formerly strongly Muslim countries.

You seem to think that Atheism is perhaps a worse thing than Islam. An atheist is simply a person who does not believe in God and certainly not in religion. It is not a belief that makes a person want to kill or dominate any other person or creature. It does not make a person inhuman. Islam on the other hand is a discriminatory, hate-inspiring, violence-inciting ideology.

@Gregory “What safeguards do you say that Islam has?.. Christianity has safeguards against reformation and that happened.”

The “safeguards” that Islam has are incitement to extreme violence against any attack or criticism of their ideology or founder (just read the above post). Incitement laid out in their holy book and teachings (Hadith). Christianity or any other religion has no such “safeguard”.

You cannot compare the Christian reformation with anything possible in Islam. The reformation was caused by Christianity going back to the basic teachings of Jesus, which were moral, humane and non-violent. A comparable “reformation” in Islam is dubbed by westerners as “extremism” – basically Muslims adopting the basic violent teachings of their founder.

Or greatest battle is going to be not with Islam but with western appeasers and quislings of Islam like you. Unless we recognise the violent ideology for what it is and legislate against it we will wind up like Brittan facing Hitler after Dunkirk without a Churchill.

Too hasty there, SO1683 - why defend freedom if you hinder its practice.

If you disagree with me, convince me why I am wrong. Don't just silence me. Don't presume to tell the mods what to do. Why defend the West and our freedoms if you want to ban a newcomer because you like throwing around insults. Look at my posts and you'll see I've not insulted you and you have repeatedly thrown insults my way as well as another from your point of view.

All of your posturing for freedom is useless if you demand someone of differing opinion be banned. I don't think that's how you treat people that are new here. If you look at what I've actually said, I'm sure you'll see it doesn't compare in profanity for anything you've said.

How do you presume that I'm on the left because I realize that Muslims won't just leave their religion? I've already said that terrorists deserve death, I don't see how you can keep typing out those allegations but I'm sure you've been doing it a long time and will continue to for a very long time.

You seem to have a cookie-cutter character cut out for me that you are throwing insults designed for it at. Calling me hard left when I've denounced the far left and terrorists.

Self hating? I'm glad you know so much about me, even inventing problems for me to have. I wish you spent at least half as much of the time you spent typing insults out on answering the question.

I tried to explain as deliberately as I could that I was not letting terrorists off the hook. Yes they deserve to die, and I hope they burn in hell. What more do you want?

I'm not falling for those vocab words thrown down inappropriately. It only works if they make sense on the allegation you're making.

If you have seen that there are many many Muslims who are varying degrees of lapsed. In your world, there are no average people. Muslims are just 'they' and we are 'us', right?

Don't let Mao off the hook! See, that's exactly what you did. I'm not letting either off of the hook. Commies have just killed more. No doubt terrorists are trying, but they're not there yet.

You didn't address your plan for solving Britain's Muslim 'problem'. You seemed to have missed a couple things there.

PS @Gregory "What safeguards [against reform] do you say that Islam has?"

Islam has 3 safeguards

1. Its claim that the Quran is the literal word of God and indoctrination of children into its blelief system
2. Violence against criticism against it or its founder and
3. Death for apostasy

This is not what I say - this is what is in Islam.

No other religion has those "safeguards"

You'd get more sense out of a breeze block than the terrorist-loving troll Gregory Carradine.

Are you going to bash me or prove me wrong?

Nice dodging the issue again, Spirit.

Rich, thanks for the reply.

Can you be patient here, cause I'm not trying to cause offence. Christians claim the Bible is the literal word of God, but in Christianity there is criticism of the text and that is forbidden in Islam. Number 2 is Islam's alone, except in any religion when somebody freaks out over blasphemy. Judaism does (historically!) have death for apostasy.

How have these been lessed/ignored in Judeo-Christianity?

Saying I used strawmen doesn't make it so.

I did that (you'll see in my post) to show you how absurd you were by saying I was easy on terrorists for calling commies bad. Go read if you can.

I'm not too sure you can make arguments on your own, why do you need an ayatollah on your side? Do you want to be arguing his side? He's Shia anyway, so they do taqiyya and they're a minority case anyway.

That souce is from QATAR University. What do you expect? Besides, if you were from over there you'd hate us too. But you hate freedom enough already.

America was founded to protect the majority from you. You want to take away constitutional rights based on opinions. Not religious belief, but simple opinions. I'm disgusted to see you use our founding fathers words against them.

So what, John Quincy Adams hated Islam?

Benjamin Franklin said 'even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.'

That's what this country is about. Letting people think what they want and not stopping them because you can't deal.

The biggest enemy we face today are Muslims and their doctrine of hate that comes from the Koran and hadiths. As for Benjamin Franklin, he made his comments when he understood little or nothing about Islam. Like you, he thought it was just another religion that was no different from Christianity. John Quincy Adams learned the hard way. Nothing prepared him for what he would face. He learned about the duplicity of Muslims as well as their savagery through harsh experience and repeatedly being duped by them while on the job. His papers reveal the lessons he learned whilst dealing with them, and it is certain that what he thought about them at the end of his Presidency was worlds apart from what he thought about them before he became President. You are inviting an evil ideology into the West. At best, you are a politically correct moral relativist who has no idea whatsoever of the concepts of good and evil and right and wrong. You wouldn't know them if they hit you in the face,because at worst you're the Jihadis toady. You might feel comfortable with, and want Sharia law here in the West, but I don't. Thats why you and those like you belong somewhere like Saudi Arabia or Iran, and not here where we are still free, because the presence of too many like you here will cost us our freedoms.

Gregory - I am not a Christian in the sense most Christians are defined, though I was brought up in a Christian household and I know quite a bit about Christianity and more recently about Islam.

1. Christians generally do not claim the Bible is the literal word of God. It would be difficult to do so about a book written by dozens of people over 1500 years with no original manuscripts available. Although the Quran was also compiled after the death of Muhammad, it specifically claims it is the literal word of God, infallible and immutable. A ridiculous claim, but part and parcel of, and fundamental to, the ideology.

2. You admit that Islam mandates violence against criticism against it or its founder. The violence is specifically the death sentence. The blasphemy law of Pakistan and other Islamic states is based on Islam and believing muslims take that very seriously.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/12/anti-human-rights-riots-in-pakistan-during-nationwide-strike-to-uphold-blasphemy-law.html

3. You claim that "Judaism does (historically!) have death for apostasy". Where specifically in the Bible does it prescribe that? You make a lot of sweeping claims with nothing to back them.
This is specifically where it is mandated in the Quran:

Quran 4:89 - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them"

Also in Quran 9:11-12, 2:217, 9:73-74, 88:21, 5:54, and 9:66.

Also in several Hadiths very specifically and plainly:

Bukhari (52:260) - "...The Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

Bukhari (83:37) - "Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate."

Bukhari (84:57) - "[In the words of] Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc7PqjD_S3s

PS Gregory - I read that quote you gave about Benjamin Franklin. I agree with spirit of 1683 that he did not understand the menace of the Islamic ideology. He correctly calls it Mohammedanism and uses the correct name of Constantinople but displays his ignorance at the same time by using those words.

You say "That's what this country is about. Letting people think what they want and not stopping them because you can't deal."

When people think they have a divine right to kill others who do not believe what they do, and you let them think that, and not legislate, argue and educate against that ideology, then I hope thats not what your country is all about.

Thats not what western democracy and human rights and freedom is all about.

Gregory the turning away from stoning against the Mosaic laws was specifically taught by Jesus as you probably know.

I am not calling Benjamin Franklin ignorant. I am saying he was ignorant of the Islamic ideology. Quite different. A clever man, but not all knowing and infallible. No one engaged him in an argument about Islam as Robert Spencer may have today. With the Internet and modern day knowledge it would be interesting to know what his opinion would have been. PS I am not an American - there are other places in the world besides the USA.

Which leads me to your other statement. "what Islam needs to do - stop stoning people". I just pointed out that Muslims believe that the Quran is the literal word of God - it prescribes death for apostasy. Christians stopped stoning because Christ said so. Muslims kill because Muhammad said so.

Islam is not a "normal" ideology. It is a discriminatory, hate-filled and violent ideology and has to be recognised as such and legislated against.

True just because Islam is discriminatory, hate-filled and violent in its teachings doesnt mean that all its followers are. Just like many Nazis in Germany during the third Reich were just "normal" people. But that ideology has to be eradicated as all discriminatory, hate-filled and violent ideologies must.

You have not answered my arguments regarding education to counter their brainwashing I raised earlier.

Yopu're just bashing your head against a wall when you're dealing with stubborn trolls like Gregory Carradine. It doesn't matter whether you're dealing with Muslims of 200 years ago, 1,000 yearas ago, or today, you're dealing with the same ideology and the same hatreds. For the benefit of the Carradine trolls, the 9/11 atrocity was the Islam of 10 years ago, Beslan the Islam of seven years ago. The ongoing Jihad against Israel is the Islam of the last 63 years, and counting. And there will be future 9/11s and Beslans, not to mention future atrocities carried out against Israel by lying and murderous hate-filled Muslims who will play the victim when Israel responds, and berks like Carradine will showe their solidarity with the murderous savages that Islam breeds by the billion. That is a given. The texts and how they're interpreted haven't changed throughout the history of Islam, nor will it change. Islamic hatred of the infidel will last as long as Islam itself, regardless of how fools like Gregory Carradine deny it.

Islam has enough problems without reading any into it, for those who would accuse me of defending Islam. Legitimate complaints are legitimate.

It is us infidels that have the problems because of Islam and its adherents. You've just proved with the sweeping statement "Islam has enough problems blah blah blah" that you're on the side of evil, because you've just gone and made an excuse for it. That makes you evil yourself.

"Gregory the turning away from stoning against the Mosaic laws was specifically taught by Jesus as you probably know." - Rich

Jews don't really count that as legitimate. I'm talking about Judaism, where that hasn't been taken out because of Jesus.

Sorry I missed your comments about education earlier (and that I'm replying so late). I must admit my error on education. I just do not see Soviet-style education as the option. That would require complete control over all the people, and I don't think that is going to happen.