So, Zarqawi is practicing takfir on his fellow Muslims.

Posted by: Kepha at October 8, 2005 8:34 AM

If a Muslim is allowed, and will say, anything that he thinks will advance his religion, why take seriously anything that the lying liar will say to you, in any event.

Zarqawi is a little late for a date with a terminal bullet, and as for CAIR, it is so disreputable, that one listens to their statements for their comedic value.

Posted by: dgene at October 8, 2005 9:13 AM

Sounds like Islam 101 for Dummies to me.

Posted by: Dumbo at October 8, 2005 10:44 AM

spilling the blood of the infidel, whatever his work or place, is authorized if he is not trustworthy

I thought it related to oppression, which can include not paying the jizya, failing to exercise dhimmitude, dating a Muslim woman, or putting the wrong design on an ice cream cone.

Islam needs a pope, badly.

Posted by: Beagle at October 8, 2005 10:46 AM

Infidels can never be "innocent." So the question becomes: are the Shi'a "Rafidite dogs" and Infidels, or are they not? Zarqawi, and many other Sunnis, appear to believe, and certainly have acted as if they believe, in the way they regard and treat or mistreat them, that Shi'a are not full-fledged orthodox Muslims, but something less, much less -- to wit, Infidels. Other Sunnis do not go that far; some do not treat them as lesser Muslims at all. But still, many do. If al-Zawahiri suggests that Zarqawi cease to hammer away at that theme, it is only because he realizes that any further Sunni-Shi'a split can only work to the advantage of the Americans and other Infidels.

Too bad that those making American policy do not realize that, or figure out what, therefore, would make sense for them to do.

Posted by: Hugh at October 8, 2005 11:02 AM

It seems that the Shi'ah are guilty of shirk, their apparent excessive love for Hadhrat Ali (RA) and his children.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fatwa: The beliefs of the Ahl Sunnah wal Jamaah and the Shi’ah differ. The beliefs of some Shi’ah are such that they are totally out of the fold of Islaam, whereas the beliefs of others have caused them to be misguided and they are also out of the Ahl Sunnah wal Jamaah. Marrying them and loving them is not permissible. They are generally recognized by their apparent excessive love for Hadhrat Ali (RA) and his children. They know Hadhrat Ali (RA) to be better than Hadhrat Abu Bakr (RA) and Hadhrat Umar (RA). They believe in twelve Imams, they have a traditional ceremony in the month of Murraham because of Hadhrat Hussain’s martyrdom in it, usually they wear black clothes, and they deceive the Sunnis by lying to them understanding it to be an act of devotion. It is hoped that you will recognize the Shi’as by these signs and you will try to remain far away from them.

and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

Posted by: Carolyn2 at October 8, 2005 12:27 PM

Would all the apologists in the West please note that ANY non-muslim is fair game, just because they're not muslim. Not because they support Isreal, not because they are American or British, not because the don't keep "their" women in a bag, not because they "occupy the land of the 2(or 3)mosques".
Because they are not muslim. Be they men, women, children, or infants. Because they are infidels they are inferior to, and should be killed or oppressed or looted or raped or conquered by the shining lights of humanity, the vastly superior muslims. 'Cause that's what Allah wants. Read it yourself.

Why is this so hard to grasp. Doesn't anyone think for themselves anymore? Skip an episode of "American Idol" just once, put on some latex gloves, and take a browse through a Quran, and then BELIEVE what your own eyes tell you.

Posted by: t-ham at October 8, 2005 1:05 PM

The BBC makes a documentary based on the wild fantasies of confirmed palestinian liar Nabil Shaad accusing Dubya of being on delusional first name terms with God and following God's dictates into Afghanistan, Iraq and next, an independent Palestinian state. Euro-elites, starving for more stones to throw at Bush's America jump on it like a pack of wolves.... (the script is familiar here on)

But will the BBC make a documentary documenting the actual utterences of the actual enemy- the ones who masterminded spilling innocent blood in western lands? If not, why not?

Posted by: voletti at October 8, 2005 1:23 PM

“The Muslim’s blood cannot be spilled whatever his work or place, while spilling the blood of the infidel, whatever his work or place, is authorized if he is not trustworthy,”

Anyone who has read hadith that relate to 'non-believers' or 'Infidels' will recognize this statement as a very blunt, common sense interpretation of what exists in these 'sacred sources'. This is also a very nice general description of the way Mohammad himself behaved toward Infidels; tolerate them if they do not bother you and allow you to spread Islam; and when you have sufficient power, give them orders and make them conform to Islamic strictures. But do not trust them, and if they oppose you or take any action against you. Attack. Suppress. Kill.

And if they fight you? Well, here is what the prophet says (according to the Sahih Burkhari hadith, widely recognized as authoritative by Muslims) about treatment of Infidel prisoners.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/082.sbt.html

Sharpen them knives boys...

Posted by: JTF at October 8, 2005 1:52 PM

Has anyone heard the clerics crowing about the earthquake in Pakistan yet? Is it because of infidel sin?

Posted by: Carolyn2 at October 8, 2005 3:38 PM

Link:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171646,00.html

Posted by: Carolyn2 at October 8, 2005 3:39 PM

"Zarqawi in this tape-other than rejecting the advice of his superiors-also contradicts himself and the principles of Islam twice and this is not unusual since he’s not an actual religious scholar:

The first point where his words contradict his doings as well as the teachings of Islam appears when he said “the blood of a Muslim shall be protected regardless of his work or position” yet in a previous audio tape he justified killing Muslims if they were standing between the jihadists and the enemy.
Add to this, he justified killing Sheats in Iraq because they continue to assist the occupiers and this contradicts his “regardless of work or position” in the latest tape.

The second contradiction lies in saying “an infidel’s blood should be spilled regardless of his occupation or position unless he had a treaty or a promise of peace” and here are two points of contradiction as well, the first is that Christians and Jews are not infidels under the principles of Islam and the second is that multinational troops in Iraq (considering that they’re infidels) are here according to a treaty between the native people of Iraq and the countries to which the troops belong."

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/10/zarqawi-in-defiance-of-his-masters.html

Fact is, these turds are just like fundimentalist Christians. They only take what they find useful from their religion, then bend and twist it to fit what they want, even if the result contradicts the very thing you use to defend their actions. And even Zarqawi's own techinical superiors realize this is destorying their organization, by, as they put it, risking undermining support for it. I like that. Risking alienating its supporters? lol Killing the people that you claim to be fighting for 'tends' to have that effect for some reason...

Posted by: Kagehi at October 8, 2005 4:14 PM

Carloyn2, no doubt some imam or marabout will decide it is punishment from Allah for not being comitted enough to jihad and killing of infidels, like when the tsunami hit. Hopefully it got bin Laden and his boys.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at October 8, 2005 6:26 PM

The Mohammedan poster above, Kagehi, attempts to present himself as a 'moderate'.

One would agree with some of the points he makes, until he accuses: "Fact is, these turds are just like fundimentalist Christians."

One wonders how Zarqawi's suicide-bombers, the mosque-bombing, head-chopping fanatics in their murderous frenzy can be compared with "fundamentalist Christians?"

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 8, 2005 7:17 PM

Kagehi says: Fact is, these turds are just like fundimentalist Christians. They only take what they find useful from their religion, then bend and twist it to fit what they want, even if the result contradicts the very thing you use to defend their actions....

So Zarqawi and cronies are just like fundamentalist Christians who pick and chose what they want from their religion ... what is the point?

If only Zarqawi and all the Mohammedans pouring into Iraq to fight were just a little bit like these "fundimentalist" Christians - Iraq would be well on the road to prosperity and peace!

Posted by: dageo at October 8, 2005 7:45 PM

Let's see... fundamentalist Christians Know that the Jews are Gods chosen people. Fundamentalist Christians Know that their Savior was a Jew. Because You chose to compare Fundamentist Christians with murderous muslims, this Christian thinks Kagahi is a turd.

Posted by: uradumone at October 8, 2005 7:50 PM

Kagehi
You compare any sect of Christianity with islam or islamists and you are not only a turd, you are a turd with absolutely no credibility. You are a muslim troll. Elle ne me plait pas!

Posted by: pismopal at October 8, 2005 8:38 PM

Interestingly, one third of all Palestinians are Christians, yet 100% of all Palestinian suicide bombers are Muslim. Major difference between the fundamentalist teachings of the two. Islam and Christianity will never be peacefully reconciled. The Quran says Jesus did not die on the cross and that He is not the Son of God because "Allah has no sons". By their own words they are condemned because they reject the messiah and call Jesus a liar in regard to the prophecies He made regarding his death on the cross and His resurrection.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at October 8, 2005 9:24 PM

I am not actually interested in who might or might not be condemned by the standards of Christianity ( I don't have that authority). I go to a Catholic website to brush up on my faith. My Jewish older brothers brush up on their faith their way and I expect people of other faiths to find their succor where they may. I am actually here to address a faith that seems to think those who don't do it their way must die or subject themselves to a fate worse than death. Am I out of line here?

Posted by: pismopal at October 8, 2005 9:42 PM

Islam is an irrational belief system bursting with contradictions, and it is futile to try to make sense of nonsense. A treaty? By whose authority? The Sunnis claim the current government is not legitimate, and the government did not exist when the Americans invaded the country. The Shia and Kurds may claim a legitimate 'treaty' exists because it is in their interests to do so. In any case, the appeal to some 'principle' in Islam that Muslims can cooperate with Infidels if they abide by treaties only further clarifies the prejudice and aggression inherent in Islam against non-believers: they are not to be trusted and Muslims should not have anything to do with them unless they are forced to, in which case, get a 'treaty' or an agreement because Infidels are devils and will turn on you in a moment's notice. Be on your guard. Suspect them. Be ready to resist them, and kill them if necessary. That's Islam.

And this business about 'kafir': the Sunnis claim the Shia are kafir, and the Shia claim the Sunnis are kafir. But, 'being kafir' is the property that justifies aggression, since the kafir is not to be trusted and to be opposed if the kafir opposes Islam, which the American way of life, the US Constitution obviously does: freedom of conscience, free speech, democratic government, i.e. the will of the people legislates within the framework of the Constition; and Sharia is irrelevant. Non-Muslim Americans are kafir. Sunnis and Shia are in complete agreement on that one.

Christians and Jews? People of the book? We here at JihadWatch all know the contradictory passages from the Qur'an on the status of 'people of the book', that reflect Mohammad's changing attitudes towards Christians and Jews as these folks began to resist the aggressive, violent gang of Mohammadeans in the 7th century. Anyway, once again, why debate the undebatable. A contradiction implies anything. Trust them, don't trust them, protect them, make them pay taxes, keep them subdued, don't be their friends, kill them, don't kill them, for now. In any case, gruesome brutality oozes from the texts and the tradition like no other major religious tradition on earth.

Volume 8, Book 82, Number 795:
Narrated Anas:

The Prophet cut off the hands and feet of the men belonging to the tribe of 'Uraina and did not cauterise (their bleeding limbs) till they died.

Yep, sound like Jesus, Confucius, and the Buddha. Doesn't it?

In any case, Zarqawi, so-called 'al Qaeda', the brutality, the ridiculous arguments, and the total jihad against Infidels, which threatens them with complete extinction, are completely at home with the texts, the traditions, the 'atmospherics' of Islam and the examples of Mohammad. The sooner we all admit that the better.

Posted by: JTF at October 8, 2005 10:26 PM

Kagehi posted...these turds are just like fundamentalist Christians. They only take what they find useful from their religion, then bend and twist it to fit what they want..
Kagehi, although I am not religious, what you have written gets my blood boiling. the comparison that you have given here is like saying that glass is the same as wood. I have 169 pages of terrorist attacks since Sep 11th, two to three lines per attack, done by, guess who,... Muslims. I have hundreds of verses from the Quran etc on plundering, torturing taking slaves, and slaughtering, done by Mohammad and his merry men, in the name of Allah, and by Alla's orders sometimes. Mohammad went out or sent others out to plunder slaughter and take slaves, and mostly he wasn't attacked first, he sent people out... Jesus on the other hand said to love their enemies, and he was am example for mankind's future, whereas Mohammad set the opposite example, like chalk and cheese. Yes some have done bad things in the name of religion but that isn't the Christian Gods fault, it is against the Bible and if we followed what the Bible says we wouldn't have any wars or sicknesses, but if you followed what Mohammad says that Allah says and what is written in the Quran, the world would always be full of sorrow and fear... Like many others now, I have read parts of the Quran and I am horrified at what I read, there is no peace in there even if you are a Muslim... christianity and the Quran are like chalk and cheese,with its differences,, Mohammad started off well with his talk of love etc, but once he gathered numbers Allah changed his mine and it was kill, kill kill the pagans... etc...

There is NO other religion in the world who tells it's people to slaughter those who won't submit to their religion.
There is NO other religion in the world which tells its people to go and plunder caravans or neighbours and divide up what they steal from the people that they have slaughered, (or taken as slaves).
There is NO other religion who says that they can take the non believers as slaves or wives, as long as they submitt to Islam, and who is going to WILLINGLY submit when the enemy has slaughtered their families and husbands.
There is NO other religion which says that they are to take the world for their God, and kill those who wont submit.
There is NO other religion which will slaughter their own if they dont do the right thing, or fight when called..
There is NO other religion which tells it's members to not be friends with the unbelievers.
There is NO other religion which tells it's members to slaughter one of it's own if they turn away from their religion.
There is NO other religion whose prophet ordered plundering, torturing and slaughering and also carried it out himself.
There is NO other religion whose prophet inspired violence and vertually braged about murdering non Muslims.
There is NO other religion whose god and prophet is regengeful against those who wouldnt believe.
There is NO other religion whose prophet distrubuted women and girls he had captured on raids to be sex slaves for his male followers and himself.
There is NO other religion which promises heavenly brothels to loyal Muslim men when they die as a martyr, who would forever satisfy their sexual cravings. (Koran 38.51, 44,54: 55:55,74; 56:22,34-36) etc...
There is NO other religion which justifies its mass slaughters only because the pagan defied Islams god and his apostles,
(Koran 8:12,13.) and have the cheek to say that they are a religion of peace, and all this is done because their god through the Quran etc, told them to.... and I am sure that other people can add to this list. It is about time that our leaders read the Quran for themselves, in fact it is about time that Muslims read it for themselves to see what horrors are in their...

Posted by: Gaye at October 8, 2005 10:26 PM

I was just so angry at what Kagehi said that I had to come on again.. sorry guys... but with many verses like this on below, how can they say that it is a religion of peace, and with nearly every conflict in the world involving Muslims and someone else, and it has been the same throughout history, it is about time that Muslims took notice, and got away from this religion of hate, revenge, slaughter, and fear. There is no loving God in this religion. It is a shame that they always see themselves as victims... No amount of mental gymnastics or intellectual dishonesty" is going to make the "unpalatable, unacceptable, and barbaric aspects of Islam disappear

Ishaq:327 “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

I have just read, Muhammad's great, great, great grandfather also ran a religious scam in Mecca, One of the pagan gods at the time of Qusayy was named "Allah" ("god" in Arabic is a different word, "ilah," which sounds quite a bit like "Allah" to our ears), Allah was one of 360 gods. He wore three hats. He was a moon god whose special interest was agriculture, as well as a god of the sword and war. He was selected as Muhammad's favourite because of the last two hats. His symbol was the crescent moon, a familiar sight atop many a minaret. and would like to know if it is true...

Posted by: Gaye at October 8, 2005 11:06 PM

Islam is antithetical to human freedom....and that left hook Castillo landed, I felt it sitting on my couch. Diego Corrales, this Bud's for you...you'll get him next time.

Posted by: Cornelius at October 9, 2005 12:16 AM

"I am actually here to address a faith that seems to think those who don't do it their way must die or subject themselves to a fate worse than death. Am I out of line here?"

No, you're not. If this stuff shocks you, try dhimmiwatch.org.

And you can believe me because I'm:

Prophet Geoff [BBUH]

Posted by: Geoff at October 9, 2005 12:36 AM

There are only two different kinds of people. Muslims and non muslims. Non muslims deserve to die or be enslaved. This is all inclusive, no non muslim is exempt. All muslims know this.
Non muslims need to know this also and take appropriate action.
Zarqawi is just enacting what is already there to be enacted. The 'holy' Quran makes a distinction between 'them' and 'us'. It divides mankind into 'them' who deserve to live, (while worshiping death), and 'us' who deserve to die (while worshiping life).
Islam will ultimatly fail because the forces of life and light are stronger than the forces of darkness and death. Light penetrates darkness and pushes it out. All non muslims are children of the light, and as such are brilliant stars in their own right. 'The darkness cannot prevail against the light,. The pillars of Islam are being exposed by life loveing, light projecting, non muslims. The light of truth is erroding the foundations. Soon the whole house of cards will collapse. Fall down, go boom. Shredded by truth.
A fitting end to a bad idea...

Posted by: duh_swami at October 9, 2005 1:08 AM

Some people on this site criticize Islam from a very week position. Islam is "cancer" of our time. We have responsibility to oppose it as much as we can. We owe it to our children and to humanity. But if we continue to do it on religious grounds, we'll end up with an argument whose religion is better. It is silly to say the least. And I have to agree with Kagehi: there is a lot in common between Muslims and fundamental Christians. Reading the Bible makes one almost as nauseated as reading Koran.
Murdering Christian of different sects was normal. French Catholics killing Protestants were assured of place in the paradise. Treatment of the Jews in Christian lands was often worse then in the Muslim ones.
As Christianity was a logical continuation of Judaism with The Superior Deity and total intolerance, so Islam was a logical continuation of Christianity. As bad as Judaism was it was a local cult and its atrocities were limited. Christianity became the world religion and carried murders of "infidels" much further. Now we have a historical situation when more educated West is turning its back to Christianity. Remember that the worst atrocities committed in human history have been made by Christians. We do not commit suicide bombings not because we are Christian or Jews but because we do not have faith. We have done worse things when we did believe in our own ideologies. We just more civilized. But if circumstances right, we can be as bad as Zarqawi and co. After all some of us are still waiting to be admitted to the human race after what we have done and not that long ago.
Islam does not need a Pope. John-Paul the second had done a lot for Islam by approving their ideology and turning a blind eye to murder of Christians. In Syria he was listening to Asad’s speech, which was pro-jihad and anti-semitic. Those speeches can not be delivered without prior approval.
Anybody who continues to criticize Islam from a position of Christianity will find himself on shaky grounds and hypocritical.
To defeat Islam we must first “clean” our own house of any ideology, which propagates intolerance and superiority or we will be the same as them, just a little more civilized.

Posted by: pong at October 9, 2005 2:37 AM

Some people on this site criticize Islam from a very week position. Islam is "cancer" of our time. We have responsibility to oppose it as much as we can. We owe it to our children and to humanity. But if we continue to do it on religious grounds, we'll end up with an argument whose religion is better. It is silly to say the least. And I have to agree with Kagehi: there is a lot in common between Muslims and fundamental Christians. Reading the Bible makes one almost as nauseated as reading Koran.
Murdering Christian of different sects was normal. French Catholics killing Protestants were assured of place in the paradise. Treatment of the Jews in Christian lands was often worse then in the Muslim ones.
As Christianity was a logical continuation of Judaism with The Superior Deity and total intolerance, so Islam was a logical continuation of Christianity. As bad as Judaism was it was a local cult and its atrocities were limited. Christianity became the world religion and carried murders of "infidels" much further. Now we have a historical situation when more educated West is turning its back to Christianity. Remember that the worst atrocities committed in human history have been made by Christians. We do not commit suicide bombings not because we are Christian or Jews but because we do not have faith. We have done worse things when we did believe in our own ideologies. We just more civilized. But if circumstances right, we can be as bad as Zarqawi and co. After all some of us are still waiting to be admitted to the human race after what we have done and not that long ago.
Islam does not need a Pope. John-Paul the second had done a lot for Islam by approving their ideology and turning a blind eye to murder of Christians. In Syria he was listening to Asad’s speech, which was pro-jihad and anti-semitic. Those speeches can not be delivered without prior approval.
Anybody who continues to criticize Islam from a position of Christianity will find himself on shaky grounds and hypocritical.
To defeat Islam we must first “clean” our own house of any ideology, which propagates intolerance and superiority or we will be the same as them, just a little more civilized.

Posted by: pong at October 9, 2005 2:38 AM

pong,

You've obviously never read the Bible, the Koran, or very many history books. If you had, the differences between the Bible and Koran would be so apparent you could never make the outrageous claim they are remotely similar.

Just read Sura Nine in the Koran. I don't want to overtax your attention span.

The socialists-Communists (supposedly athiests, but Communism has many hallmarks of a religion) killed over 100 million people last century alone. Nothing done in the name of Christianity comes close, not even the massacre at Beziers.

It would help if you provided some actual facts or examples to make your points. I'm sure that sort of rhetoric endears you to your college professors, but in the real world facts actually matter.

French Catholics killing Protestants were assured of place in the paradise.

Perhaps you are discussing the plenary indulgence which came from serving in the Crusades for 40 days, but given the state of your knowledge I can't assume much. It is quite clear in the Christian faith that accepting Jesus as the Son of God and a martyr for all our sins is the critical belief in Christianity. There has never been a systematized theology of murder in Christianity, as there is in Islam.

The reason Islam needs a pope is that any Muslim who claims to be an imam, mullah, or ayatollah can make rulings ordering the killing of innocents, and it happens every day, now, in the present. Of course they are just expressing mainstream Islam which has always been a bloody, acquisitive religion which encourages theft, lying, pedophilia, polygamy, wife abuse, honor killings, murder, intolerance, and mass crimes against humanity, particularly Jews. Perhaps a central authority could try to rein in their bloodthirsty jihadis, but perhaps not. At least some popes tried to stop violence carried out in the name of Christianity, unlike their Muslim counterparts.

Please, bring up Eric Rudolph or Paul Hill. Those are two rare exceptions which prove the rule. Both are being punished in our secular criminal justice system, often with Christians involved. We can't get a clear statement from CAIR condemning the beheadings of female aid workers or innocent Iraqis.

Posted by: Beagle at October 9, 2005 4:51 AM

Were there not any muslims in the WTC buildings, are their not mosque being blown up by "insurgents" in IRAQ, ex. 2 Jun 2005 attack on mosque. The simple fact is they kill who they want to when they want to, no matter the race or religion. They only have one goal global domination!

Posted by: Trebeloc at October 9, 2005 5:20 AM

The next time Muslims complain of "racial" or religious profiling or anti-Muslim bias, remind them of the statements made by Zarqawi and even those of CAIR for profiling is what they do and bias is inherent to their very core. Perhaps they believe that we are blind to fact and can be cowed by merely calling us racist or Islamophobes.

Posted by: epg at October 9, 2005 5:22 AM

Were there not any muslims in the WTC buildings, are their not mosque being blown up by "insurgents" in IRAQ, ex. 2 Jun 2005 attack on mosque. The simple fact is they kill who they want to when they want to, no matter the race or religion. They only have one goal global domination!

Posted by: Trebeloc at October 9, 2005 5:22 AM

Fact is, these turds are just like fundimentalist Christians. They only take what they find useful from their religion, then bend and twist it to fit what they want, even if the result contradicts the very thing you use to defend their actions.

You damnable liar. Tell me where fundamentalist Christians are killing others, mass murdering others. The Jihadist swine are a world apart and the Muslim religion is responsible because it's Koran and Hadith lend Jihadist their ideological underpinnings

They emulate Muhammad's life with their murder sprees

Posted by: dennisw at October 9, 2005 5:43 AM

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina51007.htm

Muslims
Pooh Pooh the Golden Rule

Dear Akpan,
 

The fact that Muslims claim victory after they lose is
standard. To see who won the debate all one has to do is to read
it. In fact I have made reading that debate a prerequisite for all those who
aspire to debate with me. Mr. Zakaria, in that debate engaged in most of the
fallacies that Muslims engage in and he was answered. To avoid repetition, I ask
all those who want to debate with me to read that debate first. See my challenge.
 

Mr. Zakaria did not deny my charges against Muhammad. I
have accused Muhammad of being a pedophile, an assassin, a rapist, a mass
murderer, a highway robber, a plunderer, a deceitful liar, among other crimes.
Instead of talking about these charges Mr. Zakaria questioned the validity of
the Golden Rule "Mr Sina has to prove the legitimacy
of the 'Golden Rule' otherwise it is a mere assumption", he
wrote.  He even called the Golden Rule a "conspiracy" and concluded
that Muhammad should not be judged in accordance to the Golden Rule. In his own
words: "The “Golden Rule” is not universal, not self-evident,
subjective, inadequate and not absolute...it is flawed as a fundamental
principle. At best it is just a moral advice to individuals to exercise
self-restraint. Therefore, the allegations against the final Prophet (SAW)
cannot be levied."

The Golden Rule says: “Do unto others as you would have
others do unto you”. I would rephrase it as: “Treat others with the same
respect and consideration as you would have others treat you.” 
This debate was long and all Mr. Zazaria did was to claim Muhammad should
not be judged by the Golden Rule because as a prophet of God, he is the one that
sets the rules and he is not obliged to abide by the rules we humans set for
ourselves. He claimed that whatever Muhammad did, even if they seem wrong to us,
he is unblemished because we are in no position to judge a messenger of God.
According to Mr. Zakaria It was okay for Muhammad to treat others in ways that
he did not like to be treated. Instead of trying to disprove the charges levied
against Muhammad, Mr. Zakaria questioned our very notion of right and wrong. He
stated we can’t say Muhammad was a bad man just because he was a pedophile, an
assassin or a rapist because we can’t say for certainly that these crimes are
bad. Mr. Zakaria did not try to acquit Muhammad of his crimes but rather, he put
on trial the law itself. 
 

With Mr. Zakaria I already achieved what I intended to
achieve. This was a very important debate because despite the fact that Mr.
Zakaria did not even touch the subject that we were supposed to discuss, i.e.
Muhammad’s crimes, he exposed the narcissistic nature of Islam. Narcissists do
not abide by the Golden Rule. They believe that they can treat others in any way
they please but others should not do the same to them. They think that others
must abide by the Golden Rule because they advocate it but they (the
narcissists) are exempt from it because they do not believe in it.
 

Muslims do not view the right and wrong in the same way
others do. While the rest of mankind distinguishes right from wrong using the
Golden Rule as the yardstick, Muslims base this distinction on what is haram
and halal (forbidden and permitted). For example you and I believe that
lying is bad, stealing is bad, and raping is bad because we don’t like be lied
to, stolen or raped. Muslims, when they put their Islamic hats on, do not think
in quite the same way. They, like the rest of us, do not like to be abused and
maltreated. They do not like to be lied to, their property stolen or their wives
raped. However, they see nothing wrong in lying to non-Muslims, pillaging their
wealth, raping their women and even killing them. This is consistent with
Muhammad's own teachings and conduct. He strongly prohibited Muslims stealing
from each other and warned those who stole from the booty that the Islamic army
had plundered from the infidels, of sever divine chastisement. Nonetheless the
booty itself was permissible to them. In the words of Amir Tîmûr-i-lang,
(1336-1405) the Muslim conqueror of India, "Plunder in war is as lawful as
their mothers’ milk to Muslims who war for their faith, and the consuming of
that which is lawful is a means of grace.” [Amir Tîmûr-i-lang: The History
of My Expedition against
Hindustan]

The non-Muslims, in Islamic countries do not have the same
rights because their religion is not accepted by God. If they are despised by
God, why they should be treated with fairness by Muslims? Muhammad, not only did
not prohibit abuse, he actually ordered Muslims to wage war against the
disbelievers, deceive them, plunder them, rape them and force them to convert.
He himself set the example. So while narcissists demand that you treat them
fairly and in fact preferentially, they do not think they are bound by the same
norms. They expect us to live by the Golden Rule and treat THEM fairly because
this is what we believe in, but they themselves do not believe in the Golden
Rule and do not feel bound by it. 

Muslims have their own code of conduct which is not based
on the Golden Rule but on Islam. Take the example of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. The UDHR is based on the Golden Rule of fairness. Muslims do
not abide by it. They have invented their own "Islamic"
UDHR. 

           
-SNIP-  more here

 

Posted by: dennisw at October 9, 2005 5:51 AM

Perhaps we should just stick with the facts:

Countries that have become Islamic, those that have been conquered by the sons of Allah, have all but wiped out the original inhabitants and their religions.

Islamic countries have one thing in common: Over time, they all become more and more Islamic, more fanatical, more perverted and more aggressive towards unbelievers.

To live in an islamic country is, - for one that is not of the Mohammedan faith-, rather unpleasant, dangerous and uninspiring.

To allow Mohammedans to infiltrate Western countries and to spread this madness is collective insanity. It has to stop. It must be stopped!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 9, 2005 6:33 AM

Beagle,
I have read The Bible and Koran. It is obvious from my comment.
Your comment is such that I wander if you read mine.
1. I agree with you on communists, especially that atrocities committed by them had been inspired by ideology with ”many hallmarks of a religion”. That is the central point of my argument: Ideology (including Christian ideology) leads to atrocities.
2. I am ready to prove every point of my comment “if it would help”. Which point do you want me to prove?
3. I was not “discussing the plenary indulgents which came from serving in the Crusades…” when I was referring to “French Catholics killing Protestants”. There were no protestants during Crusades (though there could be, you know better, having read The Bible, Koran and “very many history books”). The Catholics in France were given indulgents prior to the massacre on the St. Bartholomew night.
4. The reason there is no “systematized theology of murder in Christianity” as there is in Islam, that at the time when most Christian texts were written Christianity was still too jewish and the enlightened Romans to whom it had to be “sold” would have never accepted something as barbaric as Koran.
5. Your argument for a Pope is funny as it seems you see Islam ruled by a Catholic Pope. I am against it because the Pope will be a Muslim and bloodthirsty as mullahs are. Some Popes did indeed tried to stop violence “carried out in the name of Christianity”. I know that. Some communists tried to stop violence carried out in the name of communism. Some members of the Nazi party tried to stop violence carried out in the name of Nazism.
6. As it is obvious from my previous comment (just read it) I am not an apologist for Islam and I am sure you can see that. What made you angry is that YOUR ideology is criticized. “My religion is better then yours”. You are trying to criticize Islam from Christian position and I just putting it to you that such position is weak. New testament is more anti-semitic then Koran, treatment of women is not as bad as in Koran but still far from our present values, there is no salvation outside the faith and other nonsense too numerous to mention. It is a good idea to get rid of Islam; it is even a better idea to get rid of Christianity as well. They do share a lot you like it or not. Your anger is a cover for shame. I feel sorry for you. It is uncomfortable to defend any faith and the Christian faith is indefensible. Christianity did its share of killing, now its turn for Islam to continue.

Posted by: pong at October 9, 2005 2:16 PM

Thank you Pong. You made my point. I would love to ask some of the clowns here:

1. How many non-religious people have you seen forming militias in the US and camping out in some out of the way place, to wait for the day they will overthrow the government?

2. How many non-ideologs go nuts and shot people up?

3. If **you** where in a city some place, you *knew* for a fact that one of the biggest leaders of the terrorists was in the room next door and you had a choice, would you do anything at all to try to kill them? What would your limit be? How many innocent people would you be willing to sacrifice, if you believed it was the *only* way to get at them?

So, Christians 'tend' to be more sane, but it took us thousands of years, numerous wars and a shift in perceptions that had more to do with the hippies and other left wing nuts, who challenged age old concepts, than anything to do with following Christ instead of Islam. Just as of the last century some parts of this country women couldn't legally divorce, even if their husbands nearly beat them to death, and it was a 'Christian' law that said so. They couldn't vote, in some cases couldn't own property, etc. Go back a bit more and it was OK to own slaves and American Indians where 'savage heathens', basically infidels, who where good for nothing and only public outcry kept them from being completely wiped out. And I will bet you anything, the people crying out to protect them where not Christian fundimentalists.

Get your heads out of your asses. Christians survived becoming like Islam for only three reasons, 1. Incorporation of some Roman concepts, which included concepts like rational examination of the world and 2. Confronted with contradiction, it eventaully shattered into thousands of different versions, instead of remaining whole, like Islam did. Without those two factors we would be seeing similar insanity from Christians. Just as we did see them in the middle ages, when people where quite happy to volunteer to take up their farm impliments and charge into battle against heathens, right along with trained knights. The only difference is that even Islam didn't use suicide bombs until **very** recently. Before that, they used the far more 'respectible' method of simply charging in with guns and swords to kill people. I am sure if they still did, no one would be crying about how Christians don't do that...

Then again, there are people like Timothy MCVay... So, its not exactly unknown in the good ole 'perfect' religions either. We produce fewer nuts and those nuts have a harder time finding idiots willing to blow things up 'for' them. Oooh! I am so $@%@#$ impressed...

Posted by: Kagehi at October 9, 2005 3:24 PM

Mr. Spencer:
Just letting you know that I've linked to this article.

Posted by: WatchfulEye at October 9, 2005 4:52 PM

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Iran/KhomeiniSpeech.htm
Where is this sort of speech equalled in the writings about Jesus? Answer...it is not found.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at October 9, 2005 5:06 PM

Pong,
The war against the abomination known as Islam may not be won using religious arguments, but it certainly won't be won with the equivalency argument. There are no comparisons or similarities between Christianity and Islam---NONE!

We are all aware of Christianty's violent history. Christianity was reformed centuries ago and as a result, the violence ceased. Christianity's violent episodes were not the result of Christian teachings or doctrine, but were the acts of misguided, presumptuous, fallible human beings. The Bible did not instruct or sanction the violent actions of ancient Christians, so why do so many people hold these atroctites against modern Christians who vehemently reject them? Islamic violence and terrorism are rudimental elements of the ideology of Islam. They are not voluntary, they are requisite.

Islam is a doctrine of perpetual war and specifically dictates the most heinous barbarity. It is also immutable and cannot be reformed. Modern Christians do not commit savage atrocities in the name of God. Timothy McVeigh was not acting on behalf of God or Christianity; he was making a POLITICAL STATEMENT. He was unhappy with the government, not a holy warrior for Christianity. There is no equivalency between McVeigh and muslim jihadists.

It is asinine to state that all religion inspires and results in violent, fanatical behavior. Men
who believe they are the efflorescence of all existence, both temporal and spiritual, are the most dangerous of living creatures. Christianity has drastically declined in Europe and maybe I'm blind, but I fail to see the benefits of its demise. Moderate, peaceful Christianity has been replaced by fanatical, rabid Islam. There is no morality in Islam, only maniacal submission to an abominable, bloodthirsty deity. WEstern Civilization, which was created by Christianity and Judaism, is too precious to lose to a medieval death cult.

Posted by: Susanp at October 9, 2005 11:28 PM

Susanp,
It is the same argument “My religion is better then yours”. And if you understand that “The war against … Islam may not be won using religious arguments…” your comment after that does not make any sense. Some points you make are more then questionable:
1. “We are all aware of Christianity’s violent history”. And that’s all?! As some “moderate” Muslims you blame “misguided, presumptuous, fallible human beings” for it. We will not win using arguments like those ones.
2. Islam is not against Christianity – it is against humanity, against everything which is not Islamic. It is against freedom, human rights, dignity of men and women. That is why I am against Islam. I do not have respect for any organized religion. If people want to believe that Mohammad was a prophet, Jesus is God and all the stories associated with them let them indulge in that lunacy but do not expect any respect for it. We have to make a choice – reason or faith. I want to win using Reason and just looking at many comments on this site – there is plenty of “armory”.
3. “Christianity was reformed centuries ago and as a result, the violence ceased”. Ceased??? Reformation brought the bloodiest conflicts in history, 30 years war being one most prominent.
4. “The Bible did not instruct or sanction the violent actions…” If I get together all of those quoting The Bible – my comment will become more like a small book and if we reject such sanctions now it is because we paid a high price for it.
5. “Western Civilization, which was created by Christianity and Judaism,…” And I thought it was a product of Greek culture, Hellenism and Romans. Our culture has developed not because of Christianity but in spite of it. Some of our brave ancestors fought against Christianity and won. We are not as brave or smart as they were but that is all the world has.

Let us stop that silly “my religion is better then yours”. Islam has a fundamental weakness and it is not their stupidity (stupidity is the strength of Islam).
Islam is an international ideology. There are many nations, races and cultures under Islam. This IS the weakness of Islam. Arabs hold most other Muslims in contempt, Iranians quite sure of their superiority, there is a war between Sunnis and Shiites, Mullahs are in competition with each other for authority and money and so on. We can use those weaknesses to our advantage and I believe it is the only way to win the war with Islam.
Instead of criticizing Islam and Muslims, why don’t we support Buddhists in Thailand, Christians in Malaysia and Indonesia, Jews in the Middle East and especially Kurds for their inspiration of a state against Turkey, Iraq and Syria? Make public every violation of the human rights in Muslim countries; make our politicians to state their position on Islam as clear as possible. Discriminate people for jobs and other things on the ground of religion (I do not employ Muslims).
Educate people. Almost no one understand that we are creating a terrorist heaven in the Middle East by supporting a new Arab state as it is now. Palestinian Arabs do not deserve a state. Let’s give it to them when they do and not before.
Kurds have suffered for centuries and especially under Saddam. As much as I don’t like Islam and all it stands for, I do not hate them, I do not want them to suffer and to be killed. Kurdistan will be our natural ally. Yes, they are Muslims but not all Muslim countries are the same. Look at Uzbekistan for example. That Muslim country has never supported any UN resolution against Israel!!! Redirect our priorities.
We are becoming a political movement. People who contribute to this site come from all over the world, from different religious affiliations, races and cultures. We can not be united on the ground what we are against. We have to press towards what we are for.
And as any political movement we need a leader.

Posted by: pong at October 10, 2005 2:53 AM

pong,

The Catholics in France were given indulgents prior to the massacre on the St. Bartholomew night.

Finally, something based in reality I can work with. Nothing about a plenary indulgence in any way makes murder a central pillar of Christianity as it is in Islam. Absolution of sin is not a license to kill. In fact, it suggests the opposite.

You keep assuming I'm a Christian. That's funny for reasons I'll leave for another day, if ever.

Posted by: Beagle at October 10, 2005 8:50 AM

Wow, aren't you just a jolly bunch of interweb warriors, now aren't you?

How hopped up on rageahol this blog gets over posts on the internet is a good source of entertainment sometimes, I tell you.

Posted by: Issac Ali Kharish at October 11, 2005 2:35 PM