Pro-Osama rally in Pakistan: "Bin Laden was the hero of the Muslim world and after his martyrdom he has won the title of great mujahed"

They were led by federal lawmaker Maulawi Asmatullah.... Not even attempting to disguise where the real loyalties of at least some of the hierarchy lie.

Qazi was given a hero's welcome by a stadium-full of Pakis.

Tiny minority of extremists filling stadiums. This is remindful of the Moslem throng present to welcome home the Pan Am bomber a while back at Tripoli International Airport.

Or the 2,000 Moslem protesters at that Christian church the other day.

*** 33:21 ***

These are real big tiny, tiny minorities. Of extremists.

I have no doubt that conspiracy theories will abound and issue from that pathetic portion of mankind with way too much time on their hands and possessed of little knowledge or wisdom. Just look at all the JFK assassinatioin conspiracy nonsense that has never died over almost half a century now. You can count on it.

yet you will too run to see the purported evidence once Imam Hussein has released the damning footage and pictures..

still waiting on that verification though.. maybe 'they're' having trouble whipping up something credible

Really? This is their "great mujahed hero/martyr"? Hiding behind his wife in a posh mansion?
^^^^^^^^
Yes, he ordered 19 Islamo-psychopaths to crash planes into buildings while he hid under his wife's burqa.

We should expand and promote this truth far and wide. Islam's brave muhjadeen is a crybaby, hiding behind a woman. She was probably a teenager or half his age.

All the suckers like Mohammed Atta are toast and Osama is cowering in his compound. I'll bet his monkey guards in Paki ran for the hills when those choppers landed.

Whilst you do raise a very good point there Damian, there is the issue of the fact that many murders in Islamic countries never get reported to the authorities, how many maids have just disappeared in Saudi Arabia? How many "rebellious" girls have been killed to redeem the family's honour in Pakistan?

In addition, there is the case of non-lethal domestic violence. We in the west will have a massively inflated rate of domestic incidents due to the fact that except in the most extreme cases, it's not even considered a crime in islamic countries and is therefore not even documented.

These statistics are all well and good, but they rarely show the whole picture.

Then let's nuke Pakistan's dozen largest cities--plus Mecca and Medina, too--in retaliation the minute al-Qaeda survivors detonate something. After all, Pakistan sheltered that Son of Belial for ten years.

You posted this same stuff before...it didn't get any traction then and it won't now...Mr Sanity has just about covered it...

Swami, I was thinking of taking on that poster above, but you're probably right, Mr Sanity has about covered it. Would be easy pickings, of course, but much like conversing with that old brick wall...

Don't let me stop you...he could use a little dismantling...

As Mark Twain famously observed, Damian, there are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics. You've pretty much been snookered by statistics, as Mr Sanity in his diplomatic way has already indicated.

Correction: The video clip was from Taiwan, not Japan. And there is an English version at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_483154&v=cw0AXjAaf3g&feature=iv

Still "Heh" though. :-)

You're a clown!

Muslims not violent...!!? Since Islam was founded by a warlord 1,350 years ago, 250 million people have been murdered by Muslims seeking to establish Islam as the only religion in the world. 75 million Hindus alone were murdered by Muslims, the biggest holocaust in the history of the world.

What have you been smoking?

anta moharej
أنت مهرج

Damian's a parasitical Muslim barbarian who has no regrets for the slaughter iof 75 million Hindus plus a further 250 million other infidels. The figures would have been higher still had Europeans and Russians like Martel, Pelayo, Sobieski, de la Valette, Suvorov etc not fought back against the Jihadis and beaten them. In his warped minds, they deserved to be murdered for not being Muslims. There is no such thing as empathy or compassion in Islam.

Damian's a parasitical Muslim barbarian who has no regrets for the slaughter of 75 million Hindus plus a further 250 million other infidels. The figures would have been higher still had Europeans and Russians like Martel, Pelayo, Sobieski, de la Valette, Suvorov etc not fought back against the Jihadis and beaten them. In his warped minds, they deserved to be murdered for not being Muslims. There is no such thing as empathy or compassion in Islam.

Damian,

On another thread at Jihad Watch, you gave this invitation to people:

You post the most savagely misogynistic verses you can find in the Qu'ran, and I will post the most savage ones I can find in the Bible. Then we can compare them, see which are worst, and whose list is longer, okay?

How's this. Let's compare Muhammad's words on women with JC's words. I think that's a much more relevant and revealing game.

You next say,

Incidentally, if it is true that Muslims are unusually violent and murderous people, could someone explain to me why it is that murder rates average 2.4 per annum per 100,000 people in Muslim countries, whereas it is 7.5 in non-Muslim countries?

Let's make the elephantine assumption that the statistics Saudi Arabia reports on murder are accurate. According to one set of statistics, it appears that Saudi Arabia has a very low murder rate, about 1 out of every 300,000 people, per year. Lower than Germany (1 out of every 50,000) or the United States (1 out of 25,000). Still, I don't know of many Americans or Germans who would trade in their citizenship and go become a Saudi simply because the chance of being murdered drops from 1 in 25,000 to 1 in 300,000. In other words, Damian, you have completely missed the point: most people here are concerned about Islam not because of the violence of individual Muslims. It's not that we think Muslims are crazed banshees without purpose or goal. Our concern is the goal, which is Islamic discrimination, social and legal, against non-Muslims. We see many Muslims as seeking, in the long run, to dominate, and often using terror and intimidation to do so. We are not concerned about differential murder rates, which will affect only a tiny number of people. We are concerned about human rights, the lack of which could affect everyone.

Check out these pie charts from the international human rights organization Freedom House. Scroll down to the regional pie charts. The pie chart for the Middle East/North Africa -- which happens to be the core Islamic region -- shows the most unfree area in the world. However, one country included in the Middle East/North Africa pie chart is listed as "free." Can you guess which one that is? (Hint: It's not Islamic.)

Damian's a parasitical Muslim barbarian who has no regrets for the slaughter of 75 million Hindus plus a further 250 million other infidels. The figures would have been higher still had Europeans and Russians like Martel, Pelayo, Sobieski, de la Valette, Suvorov etc not fought back against the Jihadis and beaten them. In his warped minds, they deserved to be murdered for not being Muslims. There is no such thing as empathy or compassion in Islam.

Venkat .

Halaloya …finally someone like me here in JW who thinks we should at least admit that Obama's gutsy decision to attack the way it happened was a good and hard decision to make .

iI was made fun off for defending a sitting president of America on something he did we could him praise on ….not every thing he did was good ….but this was good enough for me and it should be for all americans .

I am dismayed to the fact that some times,not all, the absolute rejection to Obama stems from prejudices ….

Totally agree with your take WPF. I caught some snippets of Obama's televised address and it ozzed of self-aggrandizment. You could almost picture him reaching under the desk, pulling out a laurel-wreath and setting it atop his lofty brow.

I hope it's the Seal unit that went into that compound and killed him. Wonder - would it be only the guy who shot him, or the entire unit?

Michael Savage lost credibility w/ me long back when he once claimed that Mohammed started a fine religion that was corrupted by his successors like Abu Bakr and so on. This was around the same time that he received Muslim death threats.

Michael Savage lost credibility w/ me long back when he once claimed that Mohammed started a fine religion that was corrupted by his successors like Abu Bakr and so on. This was around the same time that he received Muslim death threats.

Comrade Flarov

It shouldn't be a problem getting 800 people in Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or Yemen, or Egypt, or anywhere else staging an anti-Osama rally, or celebrating his death. Why don't I see news of that anywhere in dar-ul-Islam - all the celebrations of his death are in the West!

Flav222, when you guys ain't busy rioting you are busy plotting. .don't imagine for a moment that we don't know where you're at.

Hello fineliving,
I also think it's unfair not to give credit to Obama for getting bin Laden at least.
It's happened on his watch, and I don't think that this mission has been accomlished contrary to the orders he gave.
It doesn't seem logical to suppose that all failures in US politics are direct result of his actions, whereas good results are achieved regardless of them.
I guess human emotions prevail over reason in this case.

We saw them hand out sweets in celebration of the 9/11 atrocity the minute news broke. I suspect you did the same eh, troll.

Damian:

I wonder how many unreported murders there are in the Islamic world, especially honor killings and the like.

Damian,

Robert's point referred to support for bin Laden, i.e., support for Islamic terrorism. The relevant statistics here therefore would refer to the percentage of support among Muslims for Islamic terrorism. "Peaceful" here would mean 'rejects terrorism' or 'rejects bin Laden,' or something along those lines.

There are also other indicators. For example, Samuel Huntington's claim that Islam has blood borders draws attention to the fact that Muslim countries seem to be disproportionately more involved in military conflicts of various sorts with their neighbors.

You have chosen to respond by addressing only one aspect of peacefulness, i.e., as assessed by how low a country's murder rate is. Whether a country is Muslim majority or non-Muslim majority does not necessarily tell us whether the perpetrators of the murders are Muslims or non-Muslims. It is possible that a minority can commit a disproportionately large percentage of the murders. The strange and rather crude analysis you provide doesn't really answer the question.

Even so, I question the accuracy of what you do present. For example, you claim:

"of the top 50 countries with the highest murder rates in the world, 43 (86%) of them are majority-Christian while only 5 (10%) (Sudan, Niger, Chad, Mali and Mauritania) are majority-Muslim."

I counted 36 (72%) of the top 50 as being majority Christian. Note that "majority" means more than 50%. (Though to be generous to you I included one country that had exactly 50% Christians). In a minor error, you must have missed Gambia, which is majority Muslim, which makes 6 (12%). The remainder do not have either Christian or Muslim majorities.

You have somehow inflated the figure to 86%, perhaps by erroneously counting pluralities as majorities...I am not sure.

For comparison, using the list you provided, I then counted the 50 countries with the lowest murder rates. 31 (62%) were Christian majority. The question would be 'Is the percentage of Christian majority countries in the top 50 countries for murder rates significantly higher than the percentage of Christian majority countries in the list overall?' You would then do a statistical test to see if that is the case. (Or, more relevant to what you tried to show, you would ask this question re Muslim majority countries also. There are various comparisons one could make).

But as I said, this crude method of just picking out a part of the list and looking at the percentages of majority-this or majority-that doesn't really tell you much. (I haven't checked your comparison of averages, but it suffers the same problem of not identifying the religion of the perpetrators). The statistics you'd need would be the percentages of murders committed by Muslims versus the percentage of Murders committed by non-Muslims.

If you are going to do this type of analysis just with overall percentages, though, it would be more accurate to do a correlational analysis on the percentage of Muslims vs the homicide rate. To get serious about this you would also want to include other variables in the analysis, such as poverty levels, education levels, etc., to determine whether the correlation (i.e., between the percentages of Muslims in the countries and the murder rates in the countries) exists and remains when these other factors are accounted for statistically.

Excellent and helpful analysis, Kinana.

The key issue, for me, is the status of civil liberties in majority-Muslim nations. I wouldn't be surprised if the homicide rate in many dictatorships and authoritarian cultures is somewhat lower than elsewhere. Hitler kept people in line and made the trains run on time. On the other hand, the democide rates (rates of murder by government) certainly tend to be immensely higher under authoritarian systems than elsewhere. R.J. Rommel, who researched such questions for many years, said as much about democide.

vencat, without addressing the root of the problem, Barry is being little more than a paper tiger. Get?

If they celebrate this among themselves for their own consumptions, like they do when they blow up a bus in Israel, or launch a bombing in India, or behead somebody in Thailand, they won't necessarily be accused of taquiyya. However, in their demonstrations, when they hold up signs in English for Westerners to get a certain message, it certainly is. Let them have their own celebrations and celebrate his death the way they celebrate Id, or any of the above events.

No goalpost - I was just pointing out the logical fallacy of your point that 800 people demonstrating against his death is not proof that it's representative of Muslim opinion in general. That would only hold if there were similar acts in support of the killing of Osama. But guess what - it's not happened - not in Pakistan, not in Syria, not in Lebanon, not in Iran (in the last 3, they like pointing out how they are Shia, not Sunni like Osama).

In the absense of all that, it's perfectly valid to assume that Muslims are generally opposed to the killing of Osama. Just like when a Muslim woman is stoned by a shariah crowd but others are just onlookers, the fact that they're not the ones doing the stoning in no way implies that they are in any way opposed to it!

John P wrote:

This is the prayer message that BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA tied American national purpose to: "...Oh allah! Whosoever of us you keep alive, let him live as a follower of islam, and whomsoever you cause to die, let him die as a believer (munimen)."
..............................

This is shocking if correct, John. I tried searching under several iterations, though, and the only reference that came up was your own post. Do you have a link for your quote from Obama?

Venkat

Yes it is …presidency is two Important to declare any religion as an out cast …but in this case Islam differs…..
When Islam and some Muslims become a direct threat to the lives of the president's people , then it is his responsibility to first EDUCATE him self about that religion which Obama does not …he acts just like all the moderate muslims that I know who are ignorant of the killing didctates in Quran …they cherry pick the good parts .
Obama believes what little he know of Quran and gives the benefit of the doubt to the rest of Quran and what other biased muslim tell him and that is wrong of him …he is not a muslim , he is mislead Christian who was raised to given an undeserving respect to Islam .

Fine response to Damian, traeh. On point and well done.

That was "abrogated". In plain english, that means they never said what they said.

That was "abrogated". In plain english, that means they never said what they said.

The person who replaces obama will treat mohammadanism as a political party, not as a religion.

Since I don't have time to reply to all, and since Kinana's is the only reply that really merits a response, I will limit myself to replying to this one.

First, a little context:

A couple of days ago it was reported on this blog that murders of women in Turkey have reached the level of "gendercide". According to the report cited, 217 women were killed in Turkey last year. Although this is in fact less than the average number of women killed annually in the UK (despite the fact that the UK has a significantly smaller population), since Turkey is a Muslim country, Robert Spencer reported this as “gendercide”, and implied that these murders were directly attributable to a certain passage in the Qu'ran. This suggestion was then eagerly embraced by Jihad Watch posters, one of whom suggested, for example, that when the passage from the Qu’ran speaks of beating disobedient women (as a last resort after first admonishing them and sending them to their couches), this “is interpreted by these base non-human devils to mean rape, rape, rape, sodomize, sodomize, torture, torture, and then, when all their sex lust is satisfied, it's time for the "beheading".”

Now, despite the preposterousness of all this, I did not notice you berating Spencer, or any of the Jihad Watch posters, for their “strange and rather crude analysis”, or for neglecting to “include other variables … such as poverty levels, education levels, etc., to determine whether the correlation … exists and remains when these other factors are accounted for” etc.

Anyway, in order to try and introduce a little balance into the increasingly irrational and hatred-filled discussion, I wrote:

“217 women killed by men in Turkey last year? This is dreadful indeed. It's nowhere near as high a figure as in many Christian countries, however. In the country with the largest Christian population (the USA), for example, it is not unusual for 8 to 10 times as many women as this to be killed by men every year (even though the US has only around 4 times as many people as Turkey).

It is also reported by Amnesty International that a woman is battered every 15 seconds in the USA, and a girl or woman raped every 90 seconds.

In total, it is estimated that around 4.8 million physical assaults and rapes take place against women in the US every year.

So, if the murders of women in Turkey are to be attributed to the fact that there is one passage in the Qu'ran permitting a man to beat his wife (as a last resort for disobedience), ought we not to attribute the widespread violence against women in predominately Christian countries to all the misogynistic savagery, kidnapping and raping of women, ordained by the Jewish/Christian god, to be found in the Bible?”

Having very recently come across this book

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Politics/ComparativePolitics/?view=usa&ci=9780199769209

by a professor of political science at the University of California, Berkeley, and published by Oxford University Press, which is the only extensive research (and I mean proper, detailed empirical and statistical research: not endlessly sticking and pasting news items on blogs) carried out on the question of whether Muslims are in fact responsible for a disproportionate amount of violence in the world (a very brief summary of some of its findings can be found here: http://www.todayszaman.com/news-233821-are-muslims-more-violent-by-m-steven-fish*.html) I also posted this comment:

“Incidentally, if it is true that Muslims are unusually violent and murderous people, could someone explain to me why it is that murder rates average 2.4 per annum per 100,000 people in Muslim countries, whereas it is 7.5 in non-Muslim countries?”

Having come across this statistic in the article linked to above, I then went to check it out myself, and came across the (well-referenced) Wikipedia article on comparative national murder rates. Now, I admit that I did not spend very long on this (only about half an hour, in fact), and I would by no means ever dream of trying to pass it off as “research”. In fact, all I intended to do was to bring to the attention of people here, most of who seem to have formed the belief that Muslims are especially prone to violence and murder, the fact that there are in fact very few majority-Muslim countries (you’re right that I missed Gabon, making it 12%) represented among the top fifty countries with the highest murder rates in the world.

Since many of the people who post here are also Christian (on the thread in question, for example, you had people cherry picking peaceful-sounding verses from the Bible and juxtaposing violent-sounding verses from the Qu’ran - a favourite hobby of people round here, including Robert Spencer, despite the intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy it involves - yet who declined my challenge to compare like with like: after all, the amount of misogyny in the Qu’ran is absolutely negligible when compared with that in the Bible), I also pointed out that most of the countries in that top-fifty list are in fact majority-Christian. I did not draw any conclusions from this fact, and it was intended in the same spirit as my rhetorical question (cited above), i.e. that if we are to blame murders of women in Turkey on one verse in the Qu’ran, ought we not also to blame the much higher rates of such murder in the States to the many savagely misogynistic passages to be found in the Bible. Of course, I do not believe that these biblical passages are what motivate Christians in the US to kill women, but then nor do I believe that the qu’ranic passages motivate those men in Turkey either, which was the point.

So, had I been making an “analysis”, you would of course have been right to suggest that it was crude and simplistic etc.; however, as a matter of fact, I offered no “analysis” whatsoever. Instead, what I wrote was:

“If the majority of Muslims on the planet were less peaceful, or more violent and murderous, than non-Muslims, we would expect to find this reflected in the homicide statistics, right? Furthermore, if the hypothesis is that Muslims are more prone to violence and murder because Islam is an inherently violent, murderous religion, whereas Christians are less violent and less prone to murder because Christianity is an intrinsically peaceful religion, then we would expect to find this reflected in such statistics too, right?”

Notice here the use of the conditionals: “If the hypothesis is … then we would expect”. The hypotheses alluded to are not, of course, my own, but rather those of the people who I intended to address. Again: I was merely attempting to bring a little balance to discussion on this blog, where people, apparently foaming at the mouth, regularly call Muslims inhuman animals, insist that there is no such thing as an innocent Muslim and that all Muslims should be deported from Western countries, and (as also happened on this thread above) express their opinion that we should “nuke” various parts of the Muslim world.

Frankly, Kinana, I find it rather depressing that, rather than taking issue with any of this, you instead decide to join the rest in berating me for merely suggesting that the available evidence does not suggest that Muslims are peculiarly prone to violence.

Finally, while (as admitted already) it’s true that I spent very little time on this, I certainly did not deliberately “inflate” the number of Christian countries in that top fifty list. Having a quick look again now, I realise that I may have included one or two (e.g. Mozambique) in which, while Christianity is the largest single denomination religion, it does not amount to a majority of the population. However, anyone can easily check that the majority of these countries are indeed predominately Christian (and many of those with the highest murder rates are indeed nearly exclusively Christian). But again, I am not pretending that there is anything significant about this (I am very well aware that correlation is not causation), but for all those who buy into the aforementioned hypotheses (i.e. that Muslims are especially prone to violence and murder because the nature of the Qu’ran, whereas Christians are more peaceful because of the nature of the Bible), it ought at least to provide a little food for thought.

Instead of thought, of course, all it provoked was even more hatred, slander, paranoia and threats (e.g. “Damian's a parasitical Muslim barbarian who has no regrets for the slaughter of 75 million Hindus plus a further 250 million other infidels ... In his warped mind, they deserved to be murdered for not being Muslims.” “I will personally like to take you out behind the woodshed and kick your ass from here to Timbuktu for being a smarmy, snarky little hypocritical bastard” etc. etc.), but then this is all I have come to expect from people who post here, sadly. I don’t know if this is what Robert Spencer hoped to achieve by setting up this blog, but regardless, it does seem to be what he has in fact achieved.

It is gratifying to read your precise reaction to Damian about the statistics on murder and rape. And those from many others too, but yours was the most precise.

In future honest accurate statistics could well be very useful IMO, so we never should give up research and quantifying the outcomes. But at this point in time the UN, the source of these mentioned statistics, themselves admit that the published outcomes were not only the result of OCCURRENCE. Or lack thereof.

But also the result of: reliable police registration and presentation. and of course performance of the police in terms of corruption/ honesty and effiency or LACK THEREOF.

And of: Trust in the police and hence the preparedness of victims/ witnesses to even report to the police, especially about rape, or hesitancy to report.

And now is seems that Muslims and Muslim-defenders take advantage of the results that are presented by the most trustworthy and effective police forces, who registrate and present honestly and also are highly trusted so that victims unhesitatingly report rape.

No these statistics with their current sources cannot stand.

"In future honest accurate statistics could well be very useful IMO, so we never should give up research and quantifying the outcomes."

Could you please let me know what quantificational research you and your fellow Jihad Watchers have so far produced, and what you are working on at the moment?

"No these statistics with their current sources cannot stand."

Well, I look forward to the publication of your detailed refutation of this book:

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Politics/ComparativePolitics/?view=usa&ci=9780199769209

Nina - you wrote, in reply to 'Damian' - "I remember that the statistics published in USSR always confirmed superiority of the Soviet system over the West.
We had to attend weekly meetings called "political information hour" where some kind of lecturer informed the audience about current events in domestic and foreign politics.
Such lecturers often pointed out at the horrifying rates of crime, unemployment, alcoholism, divorce, drug addiction etc. in the Western countries, comparing them to ours (which were, of course, very close to zero). Soviet economic results in figures were also much more than yours."

Nice catch.

Damian,

Thanks for the references.

You wrote:
"Frankly, Kinana, I find it rather depressing that, rather than taking issue with any of this, you instead decide to join the rest in berating me for merely suggesting that the available evidence does not suggest that Muslims are peculiarly prone to violence."

I have no problem with that claim re violence; it can be examined like any other. Obviously people of all kinds are capable of violence. But to go back to the original point, Robert was referring in his sarcastic remark (re "Peaceful") to support for bin Laden, i.e., support for, or relative lack of demonstrated opposition to, Islamic terrorism among Muslims. Jihad terrorism is a particular kind of ideologically-driven violence. He wasn't talking about regular murders. This is not "MurderWatch."

If we were to make a comprehensive assessment of Muslims on the relative "peacefulness" issue (more broadly defined than what Robert referred to in his comment), with Muslims compared to other groups, we'd have to pick a variety of measures, of which murder rates would only be one among several measures. We could then reach conclusions after assessing all of those results for the different measures.

On the murder rates issue, I won't reiterate my previous points on the various issues with the murder statistics, though I would add that the wikipedia article itself notes some problems that would affect the comparability of the data from different countries. I also have several questions about the data that I'd have to explore before commenting too much in a serious way about it.

As for other posters, I don't generally read very many comments (see below); though I do sometimes read some that I consider reasonable. I probably focused in on your post here because it seemed to present a problem for the general "Muslims are more violent" type of hypothesis, so I wanted to have a closer look to see if it held up.

I think the underlying reason for your objection to Robert's comments and approach here may have to do with--and correct me if I'm wrong here--your rejection of the very premise of the site, i.e., that there should be a website that specializes exclusively in criticizing Islam, specifically in documenting instances of jihad and the spread of sharia. Instead, you think that this is the wrong kind of category, the wrong kind of project. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're suggesting that if someone criticizes Islam, they ought to also include criticism of other religions. Or, if one is going to criticize violence or misogyny perpetrated by one group, then one should also criticize the same done by other groups. This seems reasonable; but what I don't find reasonable is your assumption that a website or a critic or an activist group should not specialize in criticizing and opposing Islam (sharia and jihad). I think it is a reasonable, justified, and important project to focus on Islam. Multiple major problems all occur under the one umbrella category "Islam" today; hence, the critic is not just dealing with misogyny, or terrorism, and so on; rather, one is dealing with all of these problems in dealing with Islam.

You wrote [my brackets]:
"Now, despite the preposterousness of all this [outrageous comments etc.], I did not notice you berating Spencer, or any of the Jihad Watch posters, for their “strange and rather crude analysis”, or for neglecting to “include other variables … such as poverty levels, education levels, etc., to determine whether the correlation … exists and remains when these other factors are accounted for” etc."

Well, I have in the past disagreed with and criticized some statements by Robert, but overall I find him to be accurate and reliable in what he says about Islam. I don't have any problem with his remark here to which you responded.

(On the topic of outrageous comments...) Again, I haven't even read what most other posters have said here, so I can't comment on that. In the past I have occasionally notified JihadWatch about particularly outlandish comments that I happen to see, but I don't really have the time or the desire to police the comments section.

Re the use of dramatic or exaggerated terms like "gendercide," this is standard in activist rhetoric, to grab people's attention and make them aware of some socially important problem. It was not Spencer who said this but rather he was quoting an activist in Turkey: "The problem in Turkey has reached the level of ‘gendercide,’" said Hülya Gülbahar, a leading women's rights activist."

I don't think, from that, that anyone is going to literally think that the claim is that Turkish men are trying to wipe out all Turkish females.

Thanks. You raise some interesting points, which I shall try to find time to reply to some time tomorrow.

As for now, it's very late here in Dar al-Islam, and I still haven't finished drinking the blood of the Christian children I beheaded today, so I must say cheerio for now.

in Taiwan, china, India, south korea, hong kong- we all have massive abortion rates for female girls, and skewed sex ratios, more boys than girls. you made alot of jack crap comments about muslim women and abortion on previous threads, first explain why female fetus abortion is so high in Taiwan and then explain why the percentage of christians in taiwan is lower than China, since you keep claiming that christianity would win hands down if it were given total freedom of proselytizing.

You keep on harping on about female abortion in China, yet completely ignore the fact that its practiced virtually everywhere else in asia, in India, South Korea, and my countries Taiwan and the malaysian chinese community.
||
||
||
\/
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/05/islamic-jihad-leader-al-qaeda-is-not-a-person-it-is-an-institution.html#comment-784831

and then you also went totally OT on this thread here, claiming India is good and china is bad since China aborts alot of female babies- I've got news for you, India does exactly the same thing- abort tons of female babies, and it also has a high tolerance for rapists in society.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/02/qaradawi-kill-gaddafi.html#comment-778909

in Taiwan, china, India, south korea, hong kong- we all have massive abortion rates for female girls, and skewed sex ratios.
______________________________________________________________

And also on India, you are confusing ethnic persecution with religious persecution. When I was talking about India persecuting christian Naga, I was not talking about ethnic Indians who were christian- the Nagas are a separate ethnic group.

The Indian christians, who were formerly hindu, and converted to christianity, were NOT the persecuted people I was talking about. I frankly don't care what they do to their own people.

The Naga are a totally different ethnic group, and fight for independence from the Indian state since their language, culture, and race is different from Indians. They converted to christianity from western missionaries a long time ago already. They are persecuted for their race and culture, not religion.

"As India rises, northeast state wracked by chaos"

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=13281688
______________________________________________________________

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/india/100131/goa-sexual-assault-bikinis

"Once upon a time, the beaches of Goa were known for free love. But as a string of high-profile sexual assaults on tourists culminated in the alleged rape of a 9-year-old Russian girl last week, the idyllic strip of sand along the Arabian Sea is fast gaining a fearful reputation."

"The answer? According to the state's ministry of tourism, those cute pre-teens in two-pieces are asking for it.

“You can't blame the locals; they have never seen such women. Foreign tourists must maintain a certain degree of modesty in their clothing. Walking on the beaches half-naked is bound to titillate the senses,” New Delhi's Mail Today newspaper quoted Pamela Mascarhenas, Goa's deputy director of tourism, as saying Friday."

http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/jan/28/goa-rape-how-can-a-nine-year-old-provoke.htm

"There was some talk in quarters by legislators in Goa that Russians provoke. How can a little nine-year-old provoke? How can it be? The situation is not right in Goa. Goan authorities are not doing everything to investigate. This is not the first case," he added."

"Goa receives around 40,000 Russian tourists, and was rocked with the rape of a 25-year-old girl allegedly by a local politician on December 1 last year. In another instance, two Russian girls had to hide in forest for almost four hours on Christmas day after a taxi driver allegedly chased them demanding sexual favours."

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/tourist-pulled-off-bus-in-orissa-gangraped/51817-3.html?xml

"Tourist pulled off bus in Orissa, gang-raped"
______________________________________________________________

Clearly the Indian authorities thought that the 9 year old girl was "asking" to get raped by the perverted Indian men.

"Rapes of Women Show Clash of Old and New India"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/world/asia/27india.html

I understand that your motivation was to show how bad behavior not necessarily originates in Islamic or other holy texts and following them, Damian. that that is a premature conclusion, so to speak. And I can be comfortable with a draw between Democracy and Islam based on UN-statistics for now.

As long as Muslims do not try to portray America in a bad light because of them. Precisely because that would mean punishing the police for being trustworthy to report to by victims and at least honest enough in presenting all the facts. Which is definitely NOT the case in many other and especially Muslim countries.

People on JW are very varied and I can only speak for myself. But I think there is a great need to criticize Islam. And I think this criticism sometimes spurs Muslims on to think and reason about their religion and all it's aims and consequences, like it spurs you on.

It seems to me it is useful to be well informed about what Islam teaches and what Muslims do in the whole world, and their connection. And how this works out in relation to the least worst comprehensive governing system; Democracy.

I think it behooves Muslims to fully engage in debate about Islam and Democracy. Instead it seems that they endeavour primarily to avoid, prohibit, stop, disqualify this debate. It seems that Muslims have some sort of political side, and governing system, that they themselves seek to deny towards critical Islam-watchers. Because admitting it proudly seems nowadays a problem, because all-out war for it is out of the question and this admission would awaken the majority of non-Muslims, who seemingly must be kept ignorant and prejudiced to see Islam as a harmless religion of peace by the Muslims.

And this debate-avoidance, the overall refusal of Muslims to consider honest admission of some of the ostensible tenets and aims of their own religion. And quite often, deliberate lying, denying, omitting and non-self-criticizing, arrogant attitude of the vast majority of Muslims triggers and justifies and makes so attractive what Robert Spencer so factual and logical en passionate does.

And there should be more Muslims and Muslim-defenders like you who finally do engage in reasonable discussion, Damian, many more! And I put it to you that only the likes of Robert Spencer and JWers spurred you on to think and debate about Islam and it's disadvantages.

Damian:

Your glaring omission is that in mudslime countries murders like "honor killings" are barely punished (as with a two- year sentence) and are considered socially acceptable while in Christian countries these offenses are NOT accepted and the murderer is given a long, sometimes life sentence or even the death penalty. The crime is considered horrific, never justified as in some mohammedan countries. Violence, especially child-or-grandchild murder, is actually PERMITTED and CODIFIED in the kkkoran. How do you justify that?
Mohammedans follow primitive, barbaric rules established by a primitive, barbaric criminal. He was a criminal then and you still follow in his evil ways all this time later because it appeals to the basest,most savage instincts of the species. Mohammedans should not be allowed to share the planet with Enlightened Western Civilization. And don't give me the "billions" crap; mudslimes only number 1.2 billion so don't inflate the numbers and that number will soon diminish. Four-fifths of the globe still outnumber you, savage.

Damian:

Your glaring omission is that in mudslime countries murders like "honor killings" are barely punished (as with a two- year sentence) and are considered socially acceptable while in Christian countries these offenses are NOT accepted and the murderer is given a long, sometimes life sentence or even the death penalty. The crime is considered horrific, never justified as in some mohammedan countries. Violence, especially child-or-grandchild murder, is actually PERMITTED and CODIFIED in the kkkoran. How do you justify that?
Mohammedans follow primitive, barbaric rules established by a primitive, barbaric criminal. He was a criminal then and you still follow in his evil ways all this time later because it appeals to the basest,most savage instincts of the species. Mohammedans should not be allowed to share the planet with Enlightened Western Civilization. And don't give me the "billions" crap; mudslimes only number 1.2 billion so don't inflate the numbers and that number will soon diminish. Four-fifths of the globe still outnumber you, savage.

Damian:

Your glaring omission is that in mudslime countries murders like "honor killings" are barely punished (as with a two- year sentence) and are considered socially acceptable while in Christian countries these offenses are NOT accepted and the murderer is given a long, sometimes life sentence or even the death penalty. The crime is considered horrific, never justified as in some mohammedan countries. Violence, especially child-or-grandchild murder, is actually PERMITTED and CODIFIED in the kkkoran. How do you justify that?
Mohammedans follow primitive, barbaric rules established by a primitive, barbaric criminal. He was a criminal then and you still follow in his evil ways all this time later because it appeals to the basest,most savage instincts of the species. Mohammedans should not be allowed to share the planet with Enlightened Western Civilization. And don't give me the "billions" crap; mudslimes only number 1.2 billion so don't inflate the numbers and that number will soon diminish. Four-fifths of the globe still outnumber you, savage.

John P wrote:

I provided a link to the Islamic Society of North America's statement on funerary rites. Its all there.
..........................

I see—this is a reference to Obama's allowing full Islamic funerary rites for the loathsome Osama bin Laden. I had—mistakenly—believed it to be some direct quote from Obama himself.

In any case, yes-I consider it appalling that we accorded this savage mass-murderer a "respectful"–and Islamic—sending off.

Thanks for responding.