Afghan Karzai-appointed investigator: you infidels burned the Qur'an on purpose

Education is wasted on these scorpions.

“We believe it is intentional,” said Maulavi Khaliqdad, a member of the panel established by President Hamid Karzai".

This is probably something that can be smoothed over with a few hundred million dollars more in jizya, right Khaligdad and Karzai ?

"In any case, this wouldn't even be an issue if the U.S. hadn't, by means of the multiple apologies from American officials, signaled its willingness to abide by Sharia rules for handling the Qur'an."

I beg to differ. It wasn't apologies. We signaled our willingness to abide by Sharia rules for handling the koran the day the first US Army officer donned gloves before touching a book that had come off a 21st century printing press.
Prior to this, I've only seen gloves used in medical situations or by experts who were handling genuine antiques or valuable artifacts. Now if any of these had been a 10th century koran there would have been a reason to handle with care. (And no prisoner would ever have gotten his hands on it, anyway.)

"Hundreds" of korans were burned? On purpose. Earlier reports suggested it was a few books, burned unintentionally.

But of course, what would one expect an Afghan investigator to say?

Saudi Arabia has burned the Bibles on purpose!!!

Muslims burn permanent American flags!!!

Where is the Muslim apology???

http://newstime.co.nz/afghanistan-true-outrage.html

(video) Feb 28, 2012: Afghanistan’s true outrage

So them want permission to kill the US servicemen?

You do think about the Buddhist statues - destroyed - as being of far more value. Than easily replaceable books.

::

In Pakistan they burnt Christians alive in their homes - because it was rumoured that they had used torn up pieces of the Koran as confetti at a wedding. The call to attack and kill Christians came from none other than the mosque's minaret. The truth was more likely that - with all the oppression - the Christians still found a way to have a good time at a wedding.

These attacks on others - have no doubt been going on for years - centuries. A crazed mass attack - justified by some imagined slight or other on Islam.

Clearly no accident that that area has been drained of its non-Muslims. Pakistan is being cleansed of its non-Muslims. One day when the message goes out 'of how tolerant Islam is' - the majority of the Muslim world will be almost 100% free of non-Muslims. Those people who have not been converted forcibly - will have found a way to leave.

In the end it might be that - you can be supreme - but over who??

It's seen as a 'sensitive issue' and so no one wants to deal with Islamic supremacy.

I meant Iron out

After the West pulls out, I'd love to see the encounter between Karzai, a rope and a telephone pole. But I bet this snivelling piece of @%*§%!*? will strap himself to the last chopper leaving and whine and bawl and howl we'll have to give him asylum and protect his worthless life. And we will comply and fly him out to a nice retirement in the U.S.

Ha, Ha! Yes, he's certainly right as far as I'm concerned - I can't ever imagine burning a Koran by accident, it would ALWAYS be on purpose...

how many muslims have burned the bible in retaliation ?

It doesn't matter if it was one koran or a thousand of them. We never should have apologized. That book is nothing but ass wipe paper, as far as I'm concerned.

And yes, we have seen them burn our flag. Not only that, But about a year ago, Obama ordered pallets of bibles destroyed that were sent over there by a church group working with the red cross. The bibles were requested by U.S. service men and women. But muslims were offended so they burned them.
I remember this well but, regrettably, I have no documentation.

Well, I damn well hope it was intentional and not a mistake. The only mistakes we made were 1) apologizing for doing it, and 2) not punishing the Afghans.

Burning IS the way to get rid of vile infectious disease producing material like the koran. What's the problem?

And yes we will burn all Qurans to get rid of this vile book from good earth!!

Kafir rape is funny to slaves of allah.

http://europenews.dk/en/node/52679

Do the Afghans care about their dead? Do they heck.....
Do they care about their own people? This is a good joke, heard it before ......
Do they care about their well beings? Are you kidding....
Do they care about filling their pockets? You bet you ...

How many hundreds of millions $s worth this statement? "“We cannot accept that they say it was a mistake.”"

Case closed.

Acid disfiguration pleases allah.

http://europenews.dk/en/node/52680

Muhammad the demon possessed pedophile subjected the people of Taif to being burned alive, in retaliation for their refusal to believe his concoctions in the years when he was a preacher.

In 10 years as a preacher, muh had less that 100 convicts.

after 13 years as a military leader, muh has ZERO opposition.

It ain't a religion shitheads.

Respect is something that one can only earn.

If the last ten years have shown anything they have shown the West the truth about the vile decitful ideology of islam. You do not earn respect by acting like inbred morons, You do not earn respect by screaming in the street and butchering those who do not share your idiotic beliefs.

islam gets no respect from those of us willing to examnine it with in the harsh reflective light of its own past and present history - one filled with nothing more or less than hatred and evil.
islam deserves NO respect from anyone!!

HOW DID WE BRING THE USA TO THIS LEVEL OF CRAZINESS WHERE OUR PRESIDENT IS APOLOGIZING FOR FEW BURNED BOOKS IN A WAR ZONE? IT WOULD BE FUNNY IF IT WASN'T REPULSIVE. CAN YOU IMAGINE WHAT OUR SOLDIERS IN AFGANISTAN ARE GOING THROUGH NOW? THEY CAN NOT FIGHT LIKE THAT, BRING THEM HERE NOW. PLEASE AMERICA GET RID OFF OBAMA!!!!!!

After I read the Qur'an, I didn't feel like burning the book; but I should have sprinkled some holy water on it. Just to be safe.....

I must be the only one that heard the report from the beginning or did I miss something? I thought there was a reason they burned the Koran and the reason was because radical muslims were leaving messages in the korans. We have the right to defend ourselves over there by all means within our reach. We did nothing wrong. We should have NEVER apologized. Please tell me what I am missing!

William Muir
Sir William Muir, KCSI (1819 – 1905 AD) was a Scottish historian and writer specialising in the history of the time of Muhammad and the early caliphate.
The sword of Mahomet, and the Coran, are the most fatal enemies of Civilization, Liberty, and Truth, which the world has yet known.
The Life of Mahomet, vol. 4, by William Muir, 1861, p. 322

“We believe it is intentional,” said Maulavi Khaliqdad, a member of the panel established by President Hamid Karzai.

“If they burnt one or two copies, then we could have said it could have been a mistake. But they took hundreds of such books to burn. Everyone knew those were religious books.”...
.........................................

More "Islamic logic". The only "proof' that the burning of these Qur'ans was intentional was that "hundreds" of copies were burned.

Yet every account I have read implies that there were just a few, and that the whole point was that they were bagged up with other sorts of trash and burned along with the rest of the garbage.

But never mind. The message from Karzai's stooge Maulavi Khaigdad is that *hundreds* of Qur'ans were burned, and it was *on purpose*.

That should be good for another round of rioting, butchery, craven apologies, and waffling on whether to put American servicemen on trial in this benighted hell-hole.

So what if they burned the qurans on purpose. These books are the property of U.S. Military, and they are under NO obligation to follow islamic law for how these books were destroyed, so the Afghans are wasting their time trying to build a case against the U.S. Military. They can have as many tantrums as they want, but it won't change this fact.

I am tired of Karzai, although Ben Kingsley does a fine job of playing the self-important weasel! How about Jim Carrey as a zany and loveable head of Afcrapistan? Or Eddie Murphy as a Fat Albert-style leader? Or Colonel Klink?

Someone told the janitorial guys to take out the trash and dispose of it, and they did...That's what janitorial excellence is all about...The competent janitor does not pick through trash to see what it is...trash is trash...Those Qurans were in the trash, so they were trash...Now if we could just get the trash out of the WH, we would be doing something, I heard the waste baskets were overflowing...

Remind me (a Brit) ... What is America doing in Afghanistan anyway?

I thought the new Afghan government wanted help in dealing with the insurgents and setting up a modern democracy.

What I'm reading is:
* So many of the Afghan people sympathise with the insurgents that it might be more democratic to let them win.
* The American presence is democratically resented.
* The violent, self-righteous reaction to the accidental burning of a few easily-replaceable books indicates that a modern democracy is not wanted in Afghanistan.

Why don't the Americans just leave Afghanistan? Yes, conditions are horrible there, and they were horrible back in the days of the Taliban government. But there will always be more problems in the world than one country is able to solve. Would the world really be worse off if America gave up on the problem of Afghanistan?

....said Khaliqdad, who is also a member of religious Ulema Council of Islamic scholars and mullahs

Well, that certainly explains his complete inability to make sense. For a few moments I had blamed the translation ....everything is back to normal.

The American political hacks still want to waste our treasure on these ungrateful creatures of an archaic past.

Politicians continue to insist that it is a small segment of the Afghans that are running with this attitude, unfortunately it is reflected by their corrupt President and those in his parliament.

I see no mention of the fact that these Qurans where damaged by other Muslims,how come???.

Of course we all know and understand why Islam makes such a big deal about the book, it is because everything in Islam is about control and intimidation through threats and violence-- that is how the religion grew in the first place.

“A mistake is when someone does something without any knowledge or when someone is unaware,” said Khaliqdad, who is also a member of religious Ulema Council of Islamic scholars and mullahs."

like converting to Islam?

"A mistake is when someone does something without any knowledge or is unaware" Does he mean something such as following islam? Or does he mean something such as defending islam? They seem like pretty unknowledgable things to do.

The strong Muslim reaction to the burning of Qur'ans, whether done intentionally or unintentionally, is easy to understand. The Qur'an is the most sacred object and symbol in the daily lives of all Muslims, and burning it could be considered an offense against God.

The only comparable symbol in America is not religious Scriptures, but the flag. Since the Civil War, Americans have been a flag oriented people. The Stars and Stripes has the status of a religious ikon and is a more central symbol of national identity for Americans than their flags are for people of other nations.

Most nations have several symbols for their identity and The United States is no exception: Uncle Sam, Brother Jonathan, the Statue of Liberty, the Liberty Bell, Yankee doodle, the bald eagle, Novus Ordo Seclorum, E Pluribus Unum, In God we trust. The United States is an exception, however, in the extent to which its flag predominates over all other symbols and has been pervasively present in the American landscape. The national anthem is a salute to the flag. Americans pledge allegiance “to the flag of the United States and to the Republic for which it stands. ...” That is, first to the symbol of the country and then to the country. The proper use of the flag is prescribed by an elaborate code of etiquette, formulated in the early twentieth century. Americans have a holiday, Flag Day, to honor their flag, and may be the only people to have such a day.

The flag, as many scholars have pointed out, became essentially a religious symbol, the equivalent of the cross for Christians. It was revered. It was central to all public and many private ceremonies. People were expected to stand in its presence, remove their hats, and, when appropriate, salute it. Schoolchildren in almost all states were required daily to pledge allegiance to it. During the nationalist era, many states passed laws prohibiting the “desecration of the flag”, reflecting its quasi-religious status for Americans. In 1907 the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of one such law, sustaining the judgment of the Supreme Court of Nebraska that the flag must be protected just as religious symbols are kept sacred. “The flag is the emblem of national authority”, the Nebraska court said. “To the citizen it is an object of patriotic adoration, emblematic of all for which this country stands – her institutions, her achievements, her long roster of heroic dead, the story of her past, the promise of her future.”

After Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989 in reaction to the Supreme Court’s Texas v. Johnson decision, thousands of people burned flags in protest. Two, Shawn Eichman and Mark Haggerty, challenged their arrest and conviction under the law to the Supreme Court. Two appellate cases were consolidated into the case United States v. Eichman, decided in 1990. In each of the two cases, people were prosecuted for and convicted of burning an American flag in violation of the Flag Protection Act.

According to the Flag Protection Act:

”Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. This subsection does not prohibit any conduct consisting of the disposal of a flag when it has become worn or soiled.”

As used in this section, the term “flag of the United States” means any flag of the United States, or any part thereof, made of any substance, of any size, in a form that is commonly displayed.
The government argued that the Flag Protection Act was directed against all forms of flag mistreatment irrespective of the message being conveyed and thus bypassed Texas v. Johnson.

United States v. Eichman: Decision

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against the government, which should have been expected as almost nothing new was raised in this case that was not already in last year’s case on the same matter. According to the majority decision:

[T]he Government’s asserted interest in protecting the “physical integrity” of a privately owned flag in order to preserve the flag’s status as a symbol of the Nation and certain national ideals is related to the suppression, and concerned with the content, of free expression. The mere destruction or disfigurement of a symbol’s physical manifestation does not diminish or otherwise affect the symbol itself. The Government’s interest is implicated only when a person’s treatment of the flag communicates a message to others that is inconsistent with the identified ideals. 
The precise language of the Act’s prohibitions confirms Congress’ interest in the communicative impact of flag destruction, since each of the specified terms - with the possible exception of “burns” - unmistakably connotes disrespectful treatment of the flag and suggests a focus on those acts likely to damage the flag’s symbolic value, and since the explicit exemption for disposal of “worn or soiled” flags protects certain acts traditionally associated with patriotic respect for the flag.

A symbol is an object that stands for or represents something else. Destroying a symbol does not affect what is symbolized. If you burn a person in effigy, you do not also burn the person which the effigy is of. If a wedding ring is lost, this doesn’t mean that a marriage is ended. Destroying a symbol sends a message about a person’s attitudes towards, interpretation of, or beliefs about that symbol and what is represents.

As the above passage makes clear, the entire point behind bans on flag burning or desecration is to suppress the communication of interpretations of and attitudes towards the American flag which are inconsistent with the beliefs and attitudes of most Americans. It’s the expression of a minority and offensive viewpoint which is at issue here, not the physical protection of a piece of cloth.

The fact that people are offended by desecration of the flag is not an adequate justification for making criminals of those who burn a privately-owned piece of cloth:

While flag desecration - like virulent ethnic and religious epithets, vulgar repudiations of the draft, and scurrilous caricatures - is deeply offensive to many, the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.

The decision further indicated that any attempts to prohibit the desecration of flags would be viewed suspiciously by the Court as attempts to limit free speech; more laws against flag burning were therefore not passed.

And you expect Muslims to whom the Qur'an is the most sacred symbol and object to behave in a more rational manner than the U.S. Congress did when it passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989 – noting that the flag has only quasi-religious status?

I think you lost your marbles and ability to understand the force of strong irrational emotions attached to sacred symbols and objects, and the rage if such symbols are desecrated by people you despise. As a carpenter once said: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” (Matthew 7:4).

champ,

If we were only fighting the Taliban, Gen. Allen's strategy might be the right one; but we're also fighting the Afghan Muslims -- i.e., the Afghans. That is, they're fighting us, in various ways (not the least of which being that they enable and support the same pathology that fuels and motivates the Taliban), and we're stupidly trying to help them. That's Allen's strategy, based upon a giant blind spot to the fact that Islam -- not just the Taliban -- is at war with us.

Fighting the Taliban would be like only fighting the elite S.S. during WW2, and ignoring the vast majority of Nazis.

BNI (BareNakedIslam) blog still being down thanks to the actions of religious obsessives of the muslim persuasion, I'm posting this link here to a story about the wonders of modern day Islamic "culture". This is for all the muslim or Islam-friendly commentors here and anyone else who thinks belief in some god actually renders ones actions "holy".

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/05/plea-entered-in-az-arranged-marriage-beating-case/?test=latestnews

Islam is a religion of primitivist thugs.

Anybody know where to get some free korans? I would have only one use for the damned things, and refuse to spend a red cent in purchase.

lilredbird, try www.allasquran.com for a free quran.
Of course in addition to qurans, I have been thinking of burning some of obamas books.

So what if the burning was intentional by a few soldiers who were careless to let Muslims see it? Do these morons think we can cut their heads off or given them any kind of severe punishment? These are America's not Allah's soldiers, and they are not subject to Sharia.

Without an apology from Karzai for the cowardly murder by his soldiers of our soldiers I think we should regard him as an enemy. We should leave the bastard's country with ill will and hope for the worse for him. To hell with all these angry Afghan Muslim bastards. We should wish for them what they wish for us.

Egypt is still going through its struggle, with incident where the 20,000 Salafist came to the church in Basahr, Egypt, now over 5,000 Salafist rampage Christians in Egypt and use false rumors to attack Christians.

http://www.maghrebchristians.com/2012/03/06/islamists-in-egypt-use-rumors-to-attack-christians/

Youssef

Why is Obama leading in the polls? This guy is an exploding catastrophe and he is still popular,why? I watch the Republicans talk endlessly about taxes and I just want to hurl.

Are Americans so stupid, or are they lost to the PC MSM? Why is Obama sitting in the White House with a smug grin, confident of a second term?

The lights are going out everywhere and I would be lying if I said I wasn't bothered. I am not just bothered, I am terrified! And I don't see any redeeming qualities in the Republican party. They have been neutered.

I am from Nigeria- a Niger-deltan- and maybe I am speaking out of turn. I don't even get a vote. I am just so terrified, and frustrated.

Maybe folks like Pamela Geller should start a political party in the mould of the British Freedom Party.

oops. . FOR unravelling . .

As bugs would say: "What a bunch of Mu-roons".

Rather: as Bugs would say: "What a bunch of Mu-roons".

Peter; you haven`t answered my questions. What exactly is the point you wish to make.Do you consider the death of thirty odd people,the desecration of graves and the pulling down of crosses a measured reponse to what at the end of the day was the burning of a few defaced books.

"And yes, generally emotions ran very high during the American Civil War, the bloodiest war of Western man in the nineteenth century. Severe war crimes and atrocities were committed by both sides, measured by today’s legal standards."

But those high emotions had nothing to do with the burning of a flag. The American civil war was fought for different (and even noble reasons). The reaction to burning of the flag is a joke compared to the reaction of the burning of the quran.

"Of course they do, how did you expect magical thinking Muslims living in a tribal society being in Civil War for more than three decades would react?"

Well, these modern day muslims have the benefit of advancements made in the world in the field of human rights. They have the benefit of the internet, television, radio etc. to learn better. So there is no excuse for them to continue to behave the way a 7th century barbarian behaves.

What a joke. He would be killed by those savages for saying anything else.

If we do not get ouf of Afghanistan, and get out soon, we will never be able to leave because it will result in a humanitarian catastrophe.

The Afghan birthrate is off the charts and the population is exploding. The country is totally unable to feed itself without massive aid from the USA and Europe.

It is time to get out of that Islamic hellhole, and get out now. Otherwise, leaving will be a 'crime against humanity', etc. etc. We are in the situation of being forced to hand feed a savage dog with our bare hands.

The Qur'ans were intentionally used as communiques/ciphers by Islamic enemy combatants at war with U.S. troops. Those Qur'ans were desecrated and could have been burned under Sharia law. Of course, Islam give every excuse for Muslims to commit crimes in "defense" of Islam and Islamic honor, so maybe they would not have been burned by Imams. The rules of Islam bend according to how much they benefit Muslim men in power and how much they subjugate the non-Muslim. However, U.S. troops are responsible under the U.S. Military Code of Justice, NOT Sharia law. President Obama is not the king of the U.S. and, although he has a propensity to trample the Constitution with Leftist, Liberal (supremacist) elitist backing, he does NOT have the authority to enforce Sharia law with or on U.S. troops. If President Obama made an agreement with any country to subject our troops to Sharia law, he did so out of the boundaries of his office and U.S. citizens should rise up and impeach him and demand his prosecution for treason and sedition.

Here is the law governing U.S. troops, called the Uniform Code of Military Justice (NOT Sharia law):

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/subtitle-A/part-II/chapter-47

"The Qur'ans were intentionally used as communiques/ciphers by Islamic enemy combatants at war with U.S. troops."

It's amusing to contemplate that in the history of espionage, usually innocuous or irrelevant books have been used by spies (Black Beauty, A Tale of Two Cities, Uncle Tom's Cabin, etc.) -- and the method used has been often some kind of code whereby, for example, every 13th word is somehow marked and another sheet of paper denotes what page numbers to use, while another sheet of paper describes the code by which to put the seemingly random and meaningless combination of words together into the message to the other spies.

What's amusing is that the book in this case -- the Koran -- has whole passages of military and paramlitary strategy and instruction; and so, on one level, there's no need for any elaborate subterfuge of manipulation of the words of its content in order to convey the strategy. Of course, specific tactics contextually pertinent to some present-day situation would have to be encoded; hence the use of the Korans.

Another consideration that seems to have eluded all of us observers and the analysts here: the Taliban spies in question probably thought that Korans were the safest book to use for this purpose -- precisely because they banked on the stupid Infidel to be extra "respectful" of the book and not touch it, let alone burn it. While they guessed wrong on that front, there remains, unfortunately, sufficient irrational "respect" on our part to explain the infuriatingly stupid results that have ensued thereafter.

(ping! goes the typewriter carriage)

gravenimage and janaki are right in sensing some degree of Equivalencism on the part of Ole Hartling.

Equivalencism, like a lot of the grave (yet deceptively creamy and sugary) errors of PC MC, is basically rooted in a virtue, but one taken to irrational excess. The virtue involved here is the sober reminder (often with paternalistic overtones) that "we too have done bad things in the past".

The excess involves the unhinged loss of perspective which results in a strange inability to appreciate massive distinctions and differences in degree, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Or, quite often, there is implied an appeal to a quantitative massiveness -- in terms of one of our historical sins -- to function as a substitute for the additional qualitative feature -- in terms of the ghoulishly grotesque nature of the inhuman crime against humanity of (not to mention the mass insanity of fanaticism displayed by) the Muslims du jour, in order for the former to obscure (if the Equivalencist is more or less a haplessly innocent dupe) or to camouflage (if a cleverer duplicity is afoot) the sufficiently pertinent difference that is the fucking point of the whole exercise of the recognition that

1) We are better than them

and

2) They are our implacable incorrigible enemy.

Comprende?

Jews believe the Torah is the words of Almighty God given to Moses. The Christians believe the Old and New Testament books are the inspired words of Almighty God. The Bible is seen as inspired by God and confirmed by fulfilled prophesy (of which Islam has none). Those who do not believe that are free to reject the words of God, and to accept any consequences for separating oneself from the God of the Bible. The Bible, in contrast to the Qur'an, does NOT teach that God is a hateful dictator who hates unbelievers and loves only those who hate and who do hateful things and who use any hateful means to be honored and financially enriched. In this way, Islam's god is not the God of the Bible. Muslims may take the easy way of violent conquest, but Jews and Christians true to their faith in the God of the Bible will never accept the Qur'an as the words of Almighty God.

The Koran burning mess does seem to point up the exceedingly proud and self absorbed Islamic world view.
"Submit or die." That really is the essence of Islam, which it declares to infidels. Remember Infidels are any and all non Muslim peoples. Infidels are to submit or die, or pay the dhimmi tax.

It is be hard to be humble, perfect or imperfect we all gravitate toward pride which is a defense of our (often vulgar and profane) weaknesses. But for the Muslim it seems impossible. It could be the jinns...

You said " Jesus was referring to cutting off OUR OWN HANDS - not someone else's! "

so why are christians not cutting off their own hands due to sin ?

could it be because christians do not literally interpret that verse ?

likewise, muslims like christians interpret koranic verses either literally or figuratively or as a historic event and not applicable today.

I can give you more verses subject to interpretation if you want

Peter wrote:

"Jesus said to cut off one's hand if it causes you to sin.

Some muslims will interpret Jesus' words literally and cut off the hands of a thief

Other muslims will interpret Jesus' words as not a commandment but as an option, saying its up to the individual whether he wants his hands cut off or not.

So people can look at the same verse and interpret it differently."

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Clearly this poster is taking the words of Jesus out of context. Here is how the text reads:

"And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." -- Mark 9:43-48

Jesus did NOT mean this in a literal way. What He was referring to was the need to cease from using our members in the practice of sinful conduct. For example, He warns His disciples not to look at a married woman with evil thoughts, as this constitutes adultery in the eyes of God. Coveting our neighbor's possessions already constitutes using our hands in committing theft in the eyes of God, and hating our fellow man already constitutes murder in God's eyes--using our feet to walk on an evil path. And notice that Jesus is also stating this in the context of Hell to emphasize the importance of avoiding sin. Okay so Jesus obviously was not talking about literally chopping off your own hands and feet, or literally plucking out your eye from its socket; as Peter would have us believe, but He is simply stressing the importance of how God views sin in light of eternal Hell. Peter is clearly lieing--again.

Earlier in this thread I wrote about U.S. government officials ordering bibles in afganistan burned.

Well I found an article about it. Here is the URL:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/02/day-us-military-burned-bible-in-afghanistan/?intcmp=obinsite

Ladies and gentlemen

since 'peter' is very active on this thread, attempting to distract, confuse and generally derail proceedings, I advise everyone who has read down thus far, to go resolutely back up again, and reread the posted article, with the attendant remarks by Robert.

I find this to be a useful exercise whenever threadjackers appear.

The last thing that they want us to do - whether they are Mohammedans, or whether they are dhimmis defending Mohammedans - is to fix our attention steadily and unblinkingly upon what Mohammedans are actually doing and saying.

Peter Piper purveyd a pot of pacifistic, guaranteed 'non violent' pickled poo poo. . Bet he keeps his scimitar sharpened tho'.

you say the cutting off of hands is a regular punishment.

Do you have a reference ?

Ladies and gentlemn

I encourage you all to peruse the comments threads from the jihadwatch archives.

Read the comments attached to this one (a sample from Mr Spencer's Hate Mail Bag)

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/12/you-are-in-any-way-the-most-ugliest-hateful-creaturemost-cases-your-father-is-a-ugly-pig.html

and the comments attached to this one (a news report describing how a bunch of Mohammedan mobsters openly threatened - mafia-style - the Breslin Cafe in New York City, trying to force it to conform to the Rules For Dhimmis as regards the display and sale of wine and pork)

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/10/muslims-threaten-new-york-restaurant-for-serving-alcohol.html

You will find there a great many postings by a Mohammedan dementor posing as a Christian pacifist, calling himself '45ch'.

Read those postings, with attention to lexicon and style, as well as content (such as it is), and the overall 'tone'. Then reread the postings by the poster calling himself 'Peter', in this thread.

As far as I am concerned, 'Peter' *is* 45ch; and a Mohammedan, a Mohammedan in a mask.

The style of writing, the vocabulary, the 'examples' chosen, and the tone, the 'voice' - flat, emotionless, repetitive, robotic- is IDENTICAL.

(I will note that before his appearance as '45ch' he called himself 'loveverybody', under which moniker he also posed as an absolute pacifist..the kind who would have surrendered meekly to Hitler, rather than fighting the Battle of Britain.

I think he thinks he can use certain strands in Christian thought and practice to 'trap' Christians - by means of an Alinsky-style jiu-jitsu - into submitting to dhimmitude. And he does not mention that it is not possible to gain 'equality' if one is a dhimmi, because dhimmitude is about accepting a condition of PERMANENT inequality - a condition of degradation, humiliation and continual physical peril at the absolute mercy of irrational Mohammedans with homicidal inclinations and hairtrigger tempers, who will go on a murderous rampage on the slightest trumped-up excuse. There is NO WAY a dhimmi can use the court system in a Muslim country to get anything that any sane westerner would regard as anything approaching a semblance of justice. As witness all those Christian and Hindu parents whose underage daughters have been snatched, brutalised, raped, and force-'converted' to Islam, sometimes taken at gunpoint even from the family home; the courts in Pakistan laugh at the frantic parents and the police and the judges and the politicians are all firmly and immovably on the side of the rapist-kidnappers.

Are you saying you saw the cutting off of hands on a regular basis ?

Screw the pacifism, mohammedan. We are going to eradicate islam from the face of the globe by any and all means necessary to insure the survival and supremacy of Enlightened Western Civilization. We are going to fight fire with fire, whether you like it or not. And where we fall short, the Chinese will pick up the slack against the perverse, putrid, primitive, barbaric, degenerate ideology of islam.

Watch and see!

DD, I love you, buddy, but you're giving away too much info to potential jihadis online.

Stay safe, amigo mio.

Why did I address peter as "steve"? Hm...

Re the nonsense from the Mohammedan dementor calling itself 'peter', who tries to pretend that it's not so bad to be a dhimmi because the occasional rare individual within a Mohammedan society - during a period of relative laxity - may manage to temporarily prosper (carefully forgetting that the question to ask is this: if such people manage despite all the obstacles placed deliberately in their way, to do as well as that, under such horrible restrictions, against all the odds - **what might they have achieved in a FREE and DECENT human society?**, to which the answer is most likely - a whole hell of a lot MORE)

reality check = Rev Dr Mark Durie's book 'The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude and Freedom". RECOMMENDED to all non-Muslim lurkers reading over my shoulder, who may be new to this site and to this subject.

Dhimmitude is HELL. It is, to repeat, a condition of humiliation, degradation and perpetual physical peril. Ignore the nonsensical 'spin' from Peter. It's as if someone were to say that because an occasional black person managed to achieve highly in the antebellum south, or in pre-Civil War America, slavery was just hunky-dory.

Dhimmitude is intended to produce nothing less than the **psychological death** of the dhimmi. There are Muslim texts - from Morocco, from India - written by 'theologians' (and not fringe figures, either, one is a renowned Indian Sufi 'saint') that openly state as much. It's about totally crushing the dhimmi's will to resist, destroying his sense of self, his identity, bringing him to a point where he does not even complain about the vicious cruelty and exploitation to which the Muslims gleefully and sadistically subject him and his community. Where he becomes plastic: like an unresisting doll, a piece of furniture, that submits...and submits...and submits...and does not even utter a squeak of pain or a murmur of complaint that might hint to the Muslims that what they are doing to him is EVIL.

The dhimma system as set out in the sharia and practised with enthusiasm in Muslim countries for centuries - whether officially or , as today in many places, de facto - is one of the vilest and cruellest systems that the depraved human brain has ever come up with for the 'breaking' of human beings.

There is a discussion of dhimmitude also in Hans Jansen's article on Islam.

He sums the system up thus:

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/20827

"Once the Muslims were the masters of the Middle East, they started — and it cannot be said otherwise — to harass and bully the powerless Christians who were in the majority in their captive nations.

"For the Christians of Egypt, for example, this has been defined in the History of the Patriarchs of the Egyptian Church, a book in many parts, attributed to Bishop Severus ibn al-Mukaffa...

"For the Jews in Egypt this bullying is demonstrated beyond any doubt by the so-called Genizah documents, a vast collection of correspondence, fragments of accounts, receipts, etc., from the medieval Jewish community in Cairo...

"The Muslims themselves write very openly about this harassment in the manuals of the sharia and in fatwas.
Historically therefore, there is no doubt whatsoever.

"The literary tradition in chronicles of the victims (Severus), archeology (Genizah), and the administration and reporting (Sharia) of the perpetrators totally agree...

He continues:

"What does the
harassment consist of according to the Muslims themselves?

The core of it is summed up on a list that is known as “the Pact of Omar”.

There were two Caliph Omars; the first from 634 to 644, the second from 717 to 720. ]

Both are mentioned as the monarch under whom these rules were issued. In Arabic, this list has a bit clearer name: the “conditions”, shuruuT of Omar.

These are on the conditions under which the Christians, the Samaritans, and the Jews within the areas that are conquered by Islam may hold on to their religion.
They must distinguish themselves by the color of their clothing or headgear as non-Muslim. This is where the yellow star for the Jews derives from.
They are not allowed to carry arms or own them (and are therefore completely helpless).
Riding horses is prohibited. In combination with the prohibition on possession of weapons this obviously made a trip of any magnitude impossible in the early days.
Annually every non-Muslim person had to pay a personal tax. When it was handed over, the tax collector had to strike a blow on the neck of the non-Muslim, which was meant as a symbolic beheading.

The purpose of this was to remind the non-Muslim that he had been overcome by the superior Muslim armies, and even though he was spared from being a prisoner of war, enslaved or decapitated, this would only be as long as the Muslim rulers were pleased to do so.

]Whoever thinks that this is all a theory should read the books of Bat Ye’or, or the forthcoming book by the Australian theologian Mark Durie. Whoever could not pay the tax had the choice between becoming Muslim or death.

Even under all these humiliations the oriental Christians prefer to remain silent, and we in the West owe the greatest respect to all those who have managed to endure this century after century without becoming disloyal to their church.

The Sharia, the Islamic law, as revealed in the manuals written by Muslims for Muslims, adds a few nice things to this.

]Major maintenance to church buildings is no longer needed and therefore forbidden, because Islam is coming to replace Christianity. It is not permitted to build new churches and synagogues.

When a Muslim accuses a Christian or Jew of “insulting the prophet”, the Christian or Jew in question usually can only be saved by becoming a Muslim.

Children whose father is unknown are considered Muslim. Muslim children must be raised by Muslims, so the churches never had the opportunity to care for the children of unmarried mothers, for example, by hiding them in a monastery.

The list is long, and nowadays can be found in many reference books, and it gives a pretty good idea of how false and mean people can be to one another, while always looking up piously and muttering that it is only about the implementation of the laws of God.

Christians are not allowed to marry Muslim women, although Muslims are allowed to marry Christian women. This has led to many hormone-driven conversions of young Christian men.

]For Christian and Jewish girls who were married off to their Muslim lord and master, this brought a lot of humiliation with it.
Christians cannot be a witness for the prosecution in court cases against Muslims.
This has and had enormous consequences for criminal law in Sharia."

Would any sane person want to live as a Jew, or Christian, or a Hindu (the Hindus in Muslim=ruled India were subjected to an adapted list of dhimma conditions even though strictly speaking as Hindus they faced simply conversion or death; but Mohammedans needed people to victimise, and from whom to squeeze jizya, so they found ways of reclassifying Hindus so they could be made into dhimmi near-slaves, and then - ruthlessly - exploited)

Peter is a Mohammedan. Every additional post he makes, demonstrates that more and more clearly.

His making excuses for the dhimma system settles that beyond all doubt.

More, on the dhimma system.

The Jews of Yemen had to live under the classic dhimma system until the 1950s. Most of them were got out, in the 1940s through 1960s.

Here, in this thread (and note well the content of the posted article in which the comments were contributed):

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/10/pakistani-christian-woman-accused-of-blasphemy-amid-land-dispute.html

a Jewish poster recounts the experience of the Jews of Yemen, personally known to him, as they had recounted it to him.

Another poster had commented:

[aynrandgirl: Now that I think about it, except in the unlikely case that a Muslim chooses to defend a non-Muslim in court, isn't any criminal charge against a non-Muslim an automatic conviction?]

to which our Jewish poster replied:

"Exactly so. Which is why, in traditional sharia societies, in order to survive, each dhimmi head-of-household must form a client/patron relationship with a Muslim 'protector', who will protect his dhimmi client from abuse by other Muslims, will bear arms in his defense (dhimmi are forbidden to arm themselves, and can expect to be lynched if they so much as lift a hand to a Muslim), and will testify on his clients' behalf in sharia court.

" If the protector wishes to. And always for a price.

"I have never lived under sharia, but I have known former dhimmi who did, in Yemen back in the bad old days.

"**They tell me it was hell on earth to live that way, and that they would die before they would go back. More to the point, they would kill before they would go back** {my emphasis - dda}.
Posted by: ElderlyZionist at October 18, 2006 3:14 PM

He then added, for good measure:

I was once told a story about Yemen in the bad old days, before the Jews had left, about how Muslims 'protected' their dhimmi. I don't know whether it's true, but I believe it.
An Arab sheikh went to visit his neighbor, who welcomed him warmly. "Oh Abu Mustafa, my old friend. I'm glad you came to visit, it's been far too long. Please come sit, drink some coffee, and tell me what has brought you to my home today."
"Oh Abu Usama, my dear friend, it is black trouble that has brought me here. I am sorry to say that your sons have done something very wrong; they have damaged my honor, and if this thing is not made right, then there must be war between your clan and mine."
"Oh Abu Mustafa, this must not be! Now tell me how my sons have offended you, and for the sake of our old friendship, and of the peace between our families, surely I will make it right."
"Oh Abu Usama, your sons have shot one of my Jews, and raped his wife and daughter. This Jew was under my protection! By harming him, your sons have damaged my honor, and that of my whole clan. Now for the sake of my honor, and for the respect that is due my family, I must demand justice of you, and satisfaction for the harm done to my Jew."
"Oh Abu Mustafa, my old friend, I am so glad you came today to talk this matter over with me. You are completely right, and what my sons have done was very wrong. Surely, for the sake of our friendship and to keep the peace between us, I will give you justice.
"Now here is what I propose. Oh Abu Mustafa, let your sons come, and shoot one of my Jews, and rape his wife and daughter. So the balance between us will be restored, and your honor will be made whole."
And so it was done.
Posted by: ElderlyZionist at October 18, 2006 3:45 PM

And Hugh Fitzgerald confirmed the testimony of Elderly Zionist's Yemeni Jewish friends, by observing:

The story about the two Arabs in the Yemen is not apocryphal. That precise example -- that of a Jew "belonging" as chattel to Arab Tribe A being killed by a member of Arab Tribe B, and by way of obtaining appropriate justice, the members of Arab Tribe A are permitted to kill a Jew "belonging" to Arab Tribe B, is mentioned by R. S. Serjeant, the English scholar, in one of his article on life in Yemen in the early 1950s.
Posted by: Hugh at October 18, 2006 11:13 PM

And "peter' wants us to think that it's not so very bad being a dhimmi...

Let's hear Elderly Zionist's Yemeni Jewish friends once more, who had escaped from dhimmitude:

"I have never lived under sharia, but I have known former dhimmi who did, in Yemen back in the bad old days.

"**They tell me it was hell on earth to live that way, and that they would die before they would go back. More to the point, they would kill before they would go back"

I spit on 'Peter''s sneering nonsense and lies and I say to him that his nonstop apologising for EVIL makes my skin crawl.

A suggestion for dealing with trolls of the "peter" type:

Don't waste time on them. If you address them at all, just ask a brief question or two to find out where there stand on some important issue. (I will try to follow my own advice).

Trolls of the "peter" type make minimal investment of time and effort and seek to provoke commenters in wasting the maximum amount of their time and drive the thread off of topic.

David

you wrote

"I got the Mexicans behind me. I teach their sons and daughters. They know all about JihadWatch and read it regularly. LOL!

And of course, they're all Catholic. And are armed. Bwahahahaha!"

That *is* good to know. Especially the bit about Mexican Catholics reading Jihadwatch.

Y viva Santiago Matamoros!!

I guess jihadwatch is as good a place as any, for an ESL student to frequent in order to hone their command of colloquial English...

Send them to New English Review, as well. Hugh Fitzgerald hangs out there, and sometimes posts essay-length comments, and he is a *stickler* for superbly-written English.

Peter, above, pretends that there is no abuse of non-Muslims in Malaysia.

He lies. He lies through his teeth. He lies abominably.

I have spoken face to face with non-Muslims who had left Malaysia because of the persistent, institutionalised discrimination against them.

If one googles around in the jihadwatch archives one can find any number of examples of Mohammedan abuse of and discrimination against non-Muslims in Malaysia. Including examples of Mohammedans claiming that this or that non-Muslim had converted to Islam on their deathbed, and seizing the body for a 'Muslim burial'...and deceased's assets, for the profit of the Ummah - much to the astonishment of the immediate family members who had seen not one whit of evidence of this claimed 'conversion'.

And the other thing that must be borne in mind is that dhimmitude is about 'soul-killing'. It's about bringing a person to the point where they are so inured to being abused that they a/ think they 'deserve' it or b/ are just pitifully 'grateful' to the abuser if the abuse lets up a little, every now and again. Like an abused spouse or severely abused child, they learn to fawn and flatter and grovel, 'stroking' their Mohammedan abusers.

Dhimmis are also forbidden to complain about their misery, to *outsiders*. If they do it is seen as a breach of the 'dhimma' "contract": the Muslims will scream with rage and the one who complains - or his or her family or community - will be attacked and punished by the Muslim Mob.

The dhimma is Abuse with a capital A.

Dhimmis have been 'groomed' to a state of total submission, exactly as a girl or woman is 'groomed' by a pimp.

Often it takes some time after a dhimmi person or group has somehow escaped or been rescued, for them to 'deprogram' themselves and wake up to the extent to which they were - during their time in dar al Islam - living in denial, and acknowledge the extent and the sheer viciousness of the abuse to which they were subjected.

From an interview with Rev Dr Mark Durie, Australian scholar and priest, author of 'The Third Choice', a book that discusses jihad and dhimmitude.

http://markdurie.blogspot.com/2010/09/third-choice-interview-of-mark-durie-by.html

Monday, September 20, 2010
The Third Choice — Interview of Mark Durie by Mark Tapson for FrontPage Magazine

Excerpt:

"I wrote The Third Choice to help people understand Islam from the ground up, and to know what it really means to depend upon the benevolence [he is being somewhat sarcastic - dda] of an Islamic state from the perspective of a dhimmi – a non-Muslim living under Islamic rule...

"The “third choice” of my title is the alternative to conversion to Islam or the sword.

"This is the choice to give up fighting, and surrender to Islam, and live as a non-Muslim under Islamic rule.

"But there is a price to keeping your head without converting, and this is to serve Islam and to embrace your own inferiority...

'**The dhimmi syndrome is analogous to that of the battered woman. An abused woman will often vigorously deny that her husband is doing anything wrong, even when her life is daily at risk from beatings.** {my emphasis - dda}.

'She will be schooled by the violence to be grateful for any small kindness shown to her, and to insist that he loves her. All the abuse is her own fault.

'The dhimmi syndrome causes victims to go to extraordinary lengths to preserve their worldview of denial.

'I respect but deplore the psychological power of this dynamic.

'Respect, because these are the strategies of survivors.

'Deplore, because such soul-destroying strategies rob people of freedom and bind them into self-deception.

'Indeed I was amazed to discover a Moroccan jurist who in his commentary on Sura 9:29 of the Koran said that **the purpose of the dhimmi system is to “kill the soul” of the non-Muslim,** {my emphasis - dda} so he will render willingly everything demanded of him...

And here is a much fuller discussion:

http://markdurie.blogspot.com/2011/06/dhimmitude-and-ibn-ajibah-on-death-of.html

unday, June 12, 2011
Dhimmitude and Ibn Ajibah on the Death of the Non-Muslim Soul

And a third treatment of the subject:

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/40329

Tuesday, 31 January 2012
Imperialist Islam Unveiled: A wide ranging interview with Dr. Mark Durie

Excerpt:

"I regard the dhimma laws as an elaborate system designed to minimize obstacles for Islam by humiliating non-Muslims.

The 'success' of non-Muslims is a theological offense which the dhimma system is designed to remove.

'I also provided a deep and path-breaking analysis of the meaning of the jizya payment ritual, for which around 30 Islamic commentaries were consulted, most of which had not been translated from the Arabic.

'I established that the tax payment ritual is an enactment of the dhimmi's decapitation, with powerful symbolic significance. The concept of redeeming one's life by simultaneously enacting one's death and handing over a blood-price is key to understanding dhimmi status.

'I also argued that where Christians are persecuted by Muslims under Shariah conditions, it tracks Shariah law's discriminatory provisions. For example, modern-day restrictions on building and repairing churches is grounded in the principles of Shariah law. In other words actual persecution of non-Muslims by Muslims is thoroughly theological in its motivations."

Now, in connection with that horrific stuff about how the dhimma system is explicitly, consciously designed to 'kill the soul' - to break the spirit - of the dhimmis, here is psychologist M Scott Peck, discussing the nature of Evil, in his book 'People of the Lie'.

From ‘Toward a Psychology of Evil’. Pp. 46-47

"Evil is in opposition to life. It is that which opposes the life force.

" It has, in short, to do with killing.

"Specifically, it has to do with murder – namely, unnecessary killing, killing that is not required for biological survival…

"When I say that evil has to do with killing, I do not mean to/ restrict myself to corporeal murder.

" Evil is also that which kills spirit. There are various essential attributes of life – particularly human life – such as sentience, mobility, awareness, growth, autonomy, will. It is possible to kill or attempt to kill one of these attributes without actually destroying the body. Thus we may ‘break’ a horse or even a child without harming a hair on its head.

"Erich Fromm was acutely sensitive to this fact when he broadened the definition of necrophilia to include **the desire of certain people to control others – to make them controllable, to foster their dependence, to discourage their capacity to think for themselves, to diminish the unpredictability and originality, to keep them in line.** [my emphasis. And note: this is PRECISELY what Islam, Muslims, set out to do to the dhimmis - dda].

"Distinguishing it from the ‘biophilic’ person, one who appreciates and fosters the variety of life forms and the uniqueness of the individual, he demonstrated a ‘necrophilic character type’, **whose aim it is to avoid the inconvenience of life by transforming others into obedient automatons, robbing them of their humanity [Erich Fromm, The Heart of Man (Harper & Rose, 1964)].

"Evil, then, for the moment, is that force, residing either inside or outside of human beings, that seeks to kill life or liveliness. And goodness is its opposite. Goodness is that which promotes life and liveliness.”

If one compares this account of Evil, with Durie's analysis of the methods and ultimate aim of the dhimma system, one can only conclude that the dhimma system is Evil, through and through.

Apologies for the long postings, but I think they include material that is directly relevant to the psychodynamic that has been set up between the non-Muslim Americans, on the one hand, and Muslim Pakistan and Afghanistan (and, for that matter, Turkey and Egypt) on the other.

The *Muslims* are treating the Americans like proto-dhimmis - 'grooming' them for dhimmitude - and most of the American top brass and governing politicians do not seem to realize that this is what is happening.

No matter how much nonsense 'Peter' the Mohammedan alias '45ch' alias 'loveverybody' may spout about Malaysia, it is all sufficiently refuted by the case of Lina Joy.

Moderate Malaysia just ain't, if you happen to have been born into a Malay Muslim family, or an Indian Muslim family, and decide that you would like to become an atheist, a Buddhist, or a Christian. Because...**they won't let you leave the Ummah**.