""The jihadist project completes the political one and the political project cannot be completed without jihad," she told Reuters, using the Arabic term for "holy struggle" against the Jewish state."

Make that the struggle against the non-Muslim world.

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425822/638019

Non-veiled women issued death threats

Bangladesh commuters attacked

Dec 9, 2005

A banned Islamist militant group blamed for a series of bombings in Bangladesh has threatened to kill women, including non-Muslims, if they do not wear the veil, a statement said.

Posted by: scribe10 at December 9, 2005 10:08 AM

Lemesee:

3 martyred sons. That's a basic "pension" of $250/month on top of the initial "benefits" paid by the PA of $25,000, possibly Saddam's $25,000 per head provided he was still writing cheques when all three of them died, and whatever the family ended up receiving from "charities for orphans". Depending on how many living siblings there are and their age/marital status, there's some more top-up ($25 for minors/$50 for marrieds). I guess this woman won't lack for campaign funds, will she?

Posted by: waterdragon52 at December 9, 2005 10:19 AM

What can you do with people of this mindset? To call them 'animals' would be to insult some very
intelligent animals. Ma Farhat is a disgrace to the term 'Motherhood.' Only very depraved parents
would sacrifice their own children to live in material comfort. Or is 'this sacrifice to Allah'
comparable to those parents in Carthage 'who flung their offspring into the fiery mouth of Moloch' for the sake of victory! Certainly both
societies seems as primitive and bloodthirsty : nor
did Carthage achieve victory...

Posted by: Morgane at December 9, 2005 10:42 AM

And they wonder why the IDF demolishes the houses of suicide bombers.

Some call it collective punishment. I prefer to view it as contraception.

Posted by: Charles Martel at December 9, 2005 10:51 AM

Morgane,

You are right, these muslim mothers are the modern version of the people cursed to give themselves to the abomination of worshipping bloodthirsty Baal and Moloch, the black stone towards which they bow in prayers.

Islam's disguise as monotheism doesn't fool us.

You will know the tree by its fruits...

Posted by: rocky at December 9, 2005 11:29 AM

That reminds me of that pic about a serbian woman with a kalachkikov in the hand, who had just killed her husband, who was croat, during the Yugoslavia civil war. Both were christians. Fanatism, extreme actions such as this can appear in every culture, religion, or mindset -that is what some people still cant get into his head.

Posted by: Ispanan at December 9, 2005 12:30 PM

Oh my God Seamistic, this was the funniest post I have ever read! Lol... divine dynamics... entering their psychosis... fighting suicid bombing by using pork... war against luciferian forces... Dude, you made my day! For God sake, dont stop posting!

Now lets be serious. Among your deranged ramblings you made some serious points which must be clarified.

1. Mohammad would be a pedophile

He indeed married Aisha, who was 9 years old at the time. But marriage, at the era of the prophet, didnt mean automatically sexual relations. It was, like in the medieval Europe, mostly a tool to forge political alliances; girls of a short age were married to adult men in Europe all the time. As much as you would discredit him by saying he was a pedophile, that wont work -he simply wasnt.

2. Mohammed would have committed thieveries and assassinations

You are reffering to the war between Meca and Muhammad and his followers, during which those raided meccan caravans. Err... well you see dude, it was war, and the muslims raided the ennemies caravans, simple as that. You see, it is not infrequent that people die during wars. It may be difficult to assimilate, I know, but eventually you will understand it.

Posted by: Ispanan at December 9, 2005 1:03 PM

This was not a dynastic marriage, that of Muhammad and Aisha. He had his eye on her since she was six, and when she picked up her toys and moved to his house, the intent was clear. Read the Hadith and the Sira. They make no bones about it. But even if such child-brides were not uncommon at the time because, for example European brides of 12 and 13 sometimes were betrothed to seal royal or aristocratic alliances, there is a big difference between a 9 year old (first spotted at age 6) and a girl aged 12 or 13.

And of course the problem is that since Muhammad is "uswa hasana" in the Qur'anic phrase, al-insan al-kamil, Best of Men to be emulated by all Muslims, what he did is sometimes explained away as "of the period" and then, in the next breath, the same Muslim insists that his business with Aisha, or the way he treated prisoners, or had others treat them, could both be explained and justified as "of the period" and yet, for some reason, also is valid, and worth emulating, for all time. Which is it?

Those who wish to find out more about Muhammad and Aisha should visit www.faithfreedom.org and www.answering-islam.org. Both will have articles devoted to the matter.

As for the rading parties, the looting, the seizing of women, the killing of captives -- simply consult the Muslim versions of the Sira. They don't hide it. They are perfectly content with it. What they do not like is Infidels reading the same thing, and coming to quite different conclusions. So they wish to hide as much of this from us as they can. A tough act, considering that it is all merely a click away, and eventuallly a lot of clicking will be going on as Infidels engage in the largest act of collective auto-didacticism in human history. Not because they want to, but because the actions of Muslims, in Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, make it unavoidable. What else can we Infidels be expected to do -- keep repeating, despite all the evidence, that Islam is a religion of "peace" and "tolerance" and leave it at that, just as Muslim fanatics have said they will kill any woman, Muslim or non-Muslim, who appears without a burqa and veil anywhere in Bangladesh?

How much of this stuff are we expected to permanently ignore?

Posted by: Hugh at December 9, 2005 3:22 PM

The Muslim use of language has struck me as arrogant from my earliest awareness of it.

Words and language are used to defend the Muslim conceit of entitlement and the Ummah's appropriation of what they see fit to appropriate from other peoples. They have forged the deeds, mortgages and wills from other cultures, crossed out the names of the legitimate heirs and replaced it with their own signatures. Hence their use of the word "revert" as opposed to "convert" and so forth.

Among other things, I would like to see the language taken back, particularly as brought to mind by this case, the words "martyr" and "mother."

Posted by: Chatillon at December 9, 2005 3:52 PM

all l can say is that are three down, and three more to go!

Posted by: Lulu at December 9, 2005 5:37 PM

"This was not a dynastic marriage, that of Muhammad and Aisha. He had his eye on her since she was six, and when she picked up her toys and moved to his house, the intent was clear. Read the Hadith and the Sira. They make no bones about it."

Then I would please ask you to point us said passages, and, while you are at it, explain me how big of a difference it is that the child is 9 years old or 12 years old. Are you calling Muhammad a pedophile and trying to minimize those same acts committed by christians?

And of course the problem is that since Muhammad is "uswa hasana" in the Qur'anic phrase, al-insan al-kamil, Best of Men to be emulated by all Muslims, what he did is sometimes explained away as "of the period" and then, in the next breath, the same Muslim insists that his business with Aisha, or the way he treated prisoners, or had others treat them, could both be explained and justified as "of the period" and yet, for some reason, also is valid, and worth emulating, for all time. Which is it?

If you are talking about innocent prisonners, the Kuran verses are clear about it. The prisoners of war, however, are a different matter.

As for the rading parties, the looting, the seizing of women, the killing of captives -- simply consult the Muslim versions of the Sira. They don't hide it. They are perfectly content with it.

I won't enter in a discussion about the hadith and this kind of stuff now, but I will just say that the Bible is ok with even worse acts that the ones you described. Now why Christians are not ok with those acts?

"What they do not like is Infidels reading the same thing, and coming to quite different conclusions. So they wish to hide as much of this from us as they can."

Which is exactly the same thing you do: you have not yet pointed a single verse in the Kuran who refers to tolerance, peace, and love, even tough there are some, now who is the one who is hiding things?

Posted by: Ispanan at December 9, 2005 7:15 PM

to find out more about the marriage of the two go to:

http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm#_ftn3

for more info.
p.s. you really need to do your research before you make a post on the web( im talking to HUGH and Ispanan. Some poeple may think that you actually know what your talking to about. clearly that is'nt true. hopefully the website can clear this up.

Posted by: bobby99 at December 9, 2005 7:31 PM

(sorry not Ispanan, I actually meant SEAMYSTIC)

Posted by: bobby99 at December 9, 2005 7:38 PM

To Bobby99. That link you gave is an Islamic apologists web site. Please read the Koran and he hadiths. Mohamed cast his eyes on his best friends daughter Aysha at about age 4 and then was bethroed at age 6 and consummated the marriage at age 9. He was over 50 years old at the time. Imagine a man of over 50 marrying a girl of 6 - by any standards it will be considered as pedophilia, for a man of over 50 to show sexual interest in a child of 6.
I dont see how any rational person can see it otherwise.

Posted by: faqi at December 9, 2005 9:01 PM

Ispanan and Bobby99:

I recommend you read both the Qur'an and the Bible(or any other scripture you may prefer). Then you can make informed comments on the differences between the two.

A good number of the people here are doing their homework.

Posted by: Chatillon at December 9, 2005 9:07 PM

The mother of martyrs

i'm a machine,
a jihadi machine,
i make babies,
who will kill the infidel.
i'm taken care of, my family too,
it is what we do in islam.
For this, we have honor and esteem.
i am a machine, a jihadi machine,

Posted by: the poetess at December 9, 2005 9:12 PM

Great post seamystic.

As regards Ispanan.

It said "Oh my God Seamistic, this was the funniest post I have ever read! Lol."

Actually the opposite is true, your post was effective and caused it alarm.

Few of you actually have engaged Muslims day to day on a turf and environment where people aren't banned, and where you are outnumbered. I have.

I know from years of experience how slippery they are, I also know that they are easily wounded (as Muhammad was). They are hypersensitive to ridicule and laughter (they do take themselves so seriously), and as a consequence they project. That's why Ispanan claimed that yours was the funniest post it ever read.

Properly translated,Seamystic, Ispanan was not amused, Ispanan was alarmed and for good reason.

Posted by: Nariz at December 9, 2005 9:43 PM

seamystic,
no the head of the snake
is not just the mullah,
the head of the snake
is in the cube,
the head of the snake
is in the book,
the hateful hydra
called islam.

Posted by: the poetess at December 9, 2005 10:08 PM

Ispanan said "I won't enter in a discussion about the hadith and this kind of stuff now,"
Nope. He knows that the BS in the hadith cannot be defended by an educated person, so don't go there.
"but I will just say that the Bible is ok with even worse acts that the ones you described. Now why Christians are not ok with those acts?"
The bible records some things like that, but in no way condones them unless they were specifically commanded by God. The difference is that for example, the destruction of Ai was a specific, one time deal commanded by God. The destruction of "infidels" is an eternal command to Muslims since the Quran is considered to be eternally valid by Muslims. The Christian is commanded to "preach the Gospel". The Muslim is commanded to conquer the world and kill anyone who will not convert to Islam or pay protection money. A Christian knows that Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic law by His death on the cross and is the mediator of a better covenant. The Muslim rejects Jesus as the Son of God and denies the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and Jesus' resurrection. Jesus proved Himself to be whart He said He was by prophecy. Muslims call Mohammed a prophet yet there is not one single prophecy in the Quran.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at December 9, 2005 10:26 PM

“Looks like we have a troll-infestation.”

Ah, yes, everyone who disagrees with you is a troll (or a Muslim of course).

Ispaspam:

“Ispaspam”… ROFL you changed my nick, including the word “spam” in it! How comical! How ingenious! Dude, you should go for the comical career, you will make a fortune!
“Mo had his eyes on Aiisha when she was 4, he married her at 6 and he 'consumed' the marriage when she was 9. “

Wait, but didn’t Mo had his eyes on her when she was 6, and married her when she was 9?
“We been there, many times, and back. Why don't you read up and educate yourself, you can find it all in the JW/DW archives.”

Ahh… yes, well, I know it will be a shock for you, but you see, this site is not precisely the best model of objectivity.

“This is not about Bible-studies either: We don't bother with Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism because its not an issue.”

At the contrary, this is about how all religions contain incoherencies within them, and how they are addressed: the Bible contain more violent passage than Kuran does, yet Christians do not abid by them, because of a reason. Same for Islam: Muslims are not forced to abid by its more violent passages, contrarily to what you say.

“Neither of these groups flies jets into buildings, blows up women and children or beheads people for Al Jazeera”

I didn’t raise this subject, but if you really want to talk about who committed the most crimes in history in the name of their religions, I’m ready for it.

“To Bobby99. That link you gave is an Islamic apologists web site.”

Damn it, a muslim site is an Islamic apologist site! Of course how should we expect to obtain truthful information from there? Let me apologize for him –it is evident he should have pointed you to a hate site like this, obviously far more objective!

“Imagine a man of over 50 marrying a girl of 6 - by any standards it will be considered as pedophilia, for a man of over 50 to show sexual interest in a child of 6.”

Lol, and if he is under 50, it isn’t paedophilia?

Poetess, I tell you the same thing than to Seamystic: don’t stop posting! These poems are great!

Nariz:

“Great post seamystic.”

I tell you the same thing than to the other ones, don’t stop posting either! Yes, I know I’m hypersensitive to ridicule, laughter, and all what you want, so please keep up. I don’t think you will ever come close to the level of Seamystic, but you lose nothing to try.

Posted by: Ispanan at December 9, 2005 10:31 PM

Defending islam is a waste of time. A whole nation may read the Coran and explain minutely every word for centuries without advancing one step on the road to progress.
By the tedious repetition of surahs and ayahs the mind of the muslim loses its elsticity, its sagacity, and its curiosity; their intellect becomes atrophied and incapable of any original thought.
I am sick and tired of hearing muslims defending their lousy, perverse and backward doctrine.
I am convinced that without the oil money they get, the abominable doctrine of islam would have died out.
Unfortunately they think that with their money, their "schooling" and their village-idiot arrogance, they can tally to other ideas and civilizations.
But ... "even if you dress a monkey with silk, it remains a monkey"
(Spanish proverb)

Mo was a barbarian who would be in jail in any civilized country now.
Present-day muslim barbarians may choose to flatter him.
But they don't convince anyone with even a bit of intelligence.

Posted by: rocky at December 9, 2005 11:24 PM

Hi Ispanan:

You seem a little shaky on the facts. Here's a couple of helpers for you.

Go here to this web site to read about Mohammed's betrothal and later marriage to Aisha:

http://www.muslimummah.net/html/Muhammad_PBUH.htm

Next go the Gospels and read about the number of raids that Jesus lead, the terrible but necessary actions that He commanded His followers to take and finish up by counting the number of wives that Jesus took to Himself. Then compare to Mohammed's life and times (Qur'an, Hadith, Seerah). See if you notice a difference.

Good luck.

Posted by: Chatillon at December 10, 2005 12:20 AM

Ispanan - This is not a hate site as you make it. This site unravels the truth about Islam. But brain washed individuals like you find it difficult to think out of the box. So no one is surprised by you posts. Yes, it is unimaginable for a man of 50 to show sexual interest in a girl of 6. Its pedophilia whether the man is 20 or 50, but worse when a man is 50, he should have more maturity and should have mellowed out by then to know right from wrong, which apparently Mohammed did not know.

Posted by: faqi at December 10, 2005 4:11 AM

This is what you call a brave mother.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/4515202.stm
Death of lady who declined the most effective cancer treatment that would have killed her unborn baby.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at December 10, 2005 5:04 AM

Ispanan said "I didn’t raise this subject, but if you really want to talk about who committed the most crimes in history in the name of their religions, I’m ready for it."
Good. Let's look at the facts: Christianity was founded on the blood of Jesus Christ who died on the cross and the millions of martyrs who were killed for following Him. Islam is founded on the millions of people Mohammed and his followers murdered as they used jihad to spread their cult. Islam invaded North Africa and the Holy lands almost 400 years before the first Crusade. Jesus said God was His Father. The Quran says Allah has no sons, but he had 3 daughters until Mohammed figured out that Satan had tricked him. Muslims say Jesus was a prophet. Jesus prophesied His death on the cross, His burial for 3 days and His resurrection. Many other prophets in the Old testament also prophesied these things. Yet the Quran says Jesus did not die on the cross, calling Jesus a liar. No prophecies of Mohammed are recorded in the Quran yet Muslims call Mohammed a prophet. Care to discuss?

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at December 10, 2005 11:49 AM

Sheik:

The song was great, and I’m sure your site is visited by millions of people every day! And about your remark about me having to get a life when you spend your time in things like this… well, nevermind.

About Aisha:

You see, many Muslims question the legitimacy of hadiths. The problem with them is they were transmitted orally, and were written 100 years after the death of Muhammad. So their credibility is highly dubious, as some of them even contradict themselves. And so the hadiths referring to Aisha as being 9 years old at the moment of the consummation of the marriage are contradicted by written, more accurate texts who point her as being 16, or even older, at this moment. The problem is the traditional Muslims don’t want to enter a debate about Aisha, because it would mean to contest the whole structure of hadiths, which they consider to be “canonical” texts, and as such, are considered truth and cannot be contested. And questioning the hadith would mean cuestioning the sharia, which is something that IS necessary to contest.

Anyway, you wont find a muslim nowadays who justifies having sexual relations with a child. Traditional Muslims justify their version by saying that Aisha was not harmed, that early marriages were a common practice in that time, and not only in the Arab-Muslim culture but that this is not anymore, and as such cannot be justified now.

Bohemond:

“The bible records some things like that, but in no way condones them unless they were specifically commanded by God. The difference is that for example, the destruction of Ai was a specific, one time deal commanded by God”

Oh, yes all of the things that follow were commanded by God. Then tell me about the violence and incoherency of Islam. You see, I have looked at the bible during only 30 minutes, and here is all what I have found:
Deuteronomy 20
Going to War
When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy [a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.
I guess that passages like this didn’t deter the Christian crusaders from committing all sort of atrocities against infidels during the Crusades.
Marrying a Captive Woman
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.
The Right of the Firstborn
15 If a man has two wives […]
Weird, I thought only Islam allowed polygamy…
A Rebellious Son
18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.
Now that is what I would call strict discipline!
Marriage Violations
13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," 15 then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. 16 The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver [b] and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.
22 If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.
23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

Here is a funny one:
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [c] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
It is worth noting that nowhere in the Bible is it mentioned what is the minimum age for marriage. As well, women are commanded to be obedient to their husbands. That would explain why during centuries the popes said husbands could beat their women, and that until recently, occidental women had less right than men in every aspect.
Please don’t ignore me, I may be brainwashed, slippery and atrophied, but I do think I raised a reasonably good point. So I would like you to explain me these incoherencies, and how they are different from the incoherencies in Islam. And btw if you think Christians cannot be terrorists, do some reseach about the Uganda lord resistance army. They intend to establish a society based on the 10 Commandments. So far they have kidnapped 20 000 children to use them as sex slaves or soldiers, and 12 000 people have been killed as a direct consequence of the conflict. Here you have your Christian fundamentalist terrorist group. As for Hindus and Buddhists, look at the Sri Lanka civil war, that should interest you.

Posted by: Ispanan at December 10, 2005 12:51 PM

Oh, by the way, a comment about the article: in the Spanish war of independance, a woman mother of 3 children invited two French soldiers to have dinner in her home. She put poison in the food, of course without telling anything to her children. All five died. The mother was prized and called a "national hero" by the Church for having sacrificed her 3 children and herself to kill two "French ateists".

At least this one didn't assassinate them.

Posted by: Ispanan at December 10, 2005 1:00 PM

You are wrong again, my water mystic friend! The executions were not ordered by Muhammad, but by Saad Ibn Muadh, an arbiter chosen by the Banu Kurya themselves! And the own arbiter they chose condemned them to death! And by the way, not all of them
were killed, those who converted to Islam survived. Its still bad, but this just needed to be clarified.

You call me evil for being complice in the atrocious crimes you depicted; however then, what are YOU, who is complice with people who kidnaps children to use them as sex slaves, and worships a God who is ok with genocide, slavery, and stoning of children?

Welcome to the Astral, my friend!

Sheik, post these links, I really want to see this!

Posted by: Ispanan at December 11, 2005 1:16 PM

Ispanan:

Christians have frequently fallen short of the standards set by Jesus. In contrast it seems that Muslims have all too frequently met the standards set by Mohammed.

We humans, all of us, are capable of self-delusion. I believe that our capacity for self-delusion is related to where the bar is set for our standards of behavior.

The details of Mohammed's life, in my view, compare poorly to the lives of Mother Theresa, Francis of Assisi, Siddharta Gautama, Jesus and many other spiritual teachers, not to mention the lives of many little people who simply and honestly strove to apply the Golden Rule in their lives.

In my opinion, the "mother of martyrs" described in this story may have done well to think about these things more closely. Sadly, her children aren't martyrs. Sadder still, she is hardly a mother.

Posted by: Chatillon at December 11, 2005 2:21 PM

I have no special admiration for Khomeini, but someone writing this, especially the passages about bestiality, is just surrealist. Anyway here is what I have found on Internet:

"These quotes might be less than true. Here is what he drops into the comments section:

1. All citations eventually work their way back to www.homa.org, a website run by an Iranian female exile. References to "Vol. 4" are the give-away. There is such a book, but it runs to three volumes only. The reference may/may be factually correct if instead of "Vol. 4", "4th Edition" is meant, but I can't find a 4th edition or reference to a 4th edition online.
Let me just add that the first quote is found at the homa website, but I couldn't find that last two. So, the citations on beastiality seems much less plausible than the first quote--which seems incredible on it's own!
2. No mainstream media, in any country, has covered this as a news story. Reputable sites dealing with comparative religion or Shi'ism have no references to the original citations
The only problem here is the age of the quotes. That is, these are old quotes that would be previous to any news stories that Google would have. On the other hand, you'd think that these quotes would cause considerable intra-Islamic dialogue?
3. There are numerous blogs that discuss it, but none of them can be seen as either authoritative or lacking a tradition of bashing Islam/Muslims (e.g., Christian fundamentalists, Sunni, Hindus, atheists, anti-pedophile sites, as well as sites like Jihadwatch and Command Post that take a generally dim view of Islam)."

"Christians have frequently fallen short of the standards set by Jesus. In contrast it seems that Muslims have all too frequently met the standards set by Mohammed."

Christianity and Islam can be interpretated both to do mishief and do good. Both Muslims and Christians committed many crimes during their history. For the rest, read my last post in the thread about France, it should teach you a lot.

Posted by: Ispanan at December 11, 2005 8:53 PM

Btw I see my questions about the Bible continue unanswered.

Posted by: Ispanan at December 11, 2005 8:54 PM

First the answers to your posts:

About Mohammad:

Nope, this is the other guy who was CHOSEN by the Qurayza to decide their fate. It is true he was wounded during the battle against them, that would cause his death later, and it is more than probable it considerably “swayed” his judgment. Mohammad did not decide their execution.

About Khomeini:

Even if he reduced the marriageable age for girls to 9 years of age, the age is now 13 (too low IMO). But anyway, this would be an exception, not a rule. The actions of one crazy man do not mean these actions are approved by a whole community. By example, in Pakistan, the marriageable age is 18 for males, and 15 for females. On the other hand, in Brazil, for example, the minimum age is 12, and in the US state of New Hampshire, it is 13 for females. It seems that it is not a trait exclusive to Muslim societies as you seem to claim!

And if you are so concerned about pederasty, I suggest you to look at all the cases of child abuse by Christian pastors, and how the Church bribed the families and just moved the pastors to other places to avoid these scandals to spoil its reputation!

Now, seamystic / Sheik, I have something difficult to tell you:

Sheik, so far I just thought you were a moron, now this is evident you are in addition severly deranged, as your comments about internment and deportation shows. Btw there is no way you have been in Iran during the Revolution, you are either lying and being aware of it, or lying and actually believing you say the truth.

Seamystic, after your use of “Islaspam”, just as Sheik did, I understood what is going on. After carefully ponderating it, I have come to the conclusion that you and Sheik are actuallly THE SAME PERSON! You are both completely cracked, altough the Seamystic personality show a far greater degree of mental illness than the sheik personality. Considering this, I can only deduce that you suffer one, or both, of these two mental disorders: dissociative identity disorder, and schizofrenia. The worst thing is you are not aware of it, and as such, you cannot see the need to undertake a treatment. In hope you will realize the extent of your problem, I will explain them for you:

A mental illness is a disorder of the brain that results in a disruption in a person's thinking, feeling, moods, and ability to relate to others. Mental illness is distinct from the legal concepts of sanity and insanity.
Mental health, mental hygiene, behavioral health, and mental wellness are all terms used to describe the state or absence of mental illness.
Most psychologists attribute mental illness to organic/neurochemical causes that can be treated with psychiatric medication, psychotherapy, lifestyle adjustments and other supportive measures; however, many of the causes of mental illness are still unknown. The battle between "nature" and "nurture" goes on as it has for years. Neuroscience and genetics are still unable to fully explain the effects of genetic inheritance and developmental environment.
In psychiatry, dissociative identity disorder (DID) is the current name of the condition formerly listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as multiple personality disorder (MPD) and multiple personality syndrome. The International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems continues to list it as Multiple Personality Disorder. Multiple Personality Disorder should not be confused with schizophrenia.

According to standard American textbooks in clinical psychology, dissociative identity disorder is a psychological condition characterized by the use of dissociation as a primary defense mechanism. A chronic reliance on dissociation as a means of defending against stressors in the environment causes the individual to experience their psyche/identity as disconnected or split into distinct parts. (The concept of defense mechanism is itself controversial).

Schizophrenia is a severe mental illness characterized by persistent defects in the perception or expression of reality. A person experiencing untreated schizophrenia typically demonstrates grossly disorganized thinking, and may also experience delusions or auditory hallucinations. Although the illness primarily affects cognition, it can also contribute to chronic problems with behavior or emotions. Due to the many possible combinations of symptoms, it is difficult to say whether it is in fact a single psychiatric disorder; and Eugen Bleuler deliberately called the disease "the schizophrenias," (plural) when he coined the present name.
Diagnosis is based on the self-reported experiences of the patient, in combination with secondary signs observed by a psychiatrist or other competent clinician such as a doctor of psychology. There is no objective biological test for schizophrenia, though studies suggest that genetics and biochemistry are important contributing factors. Current research into the development of the disorder often focuses on the role of neurobiology, although an identifiable organic cause has not been found. In the absence of objective laboratory tests to confirm the diagnosis, some question the legitimacy of schizophrenia's status as a disease.
The term "schizophrenia" translates roughly as "shattered mind," and comes from the Greek σχίζω (schizo, "to split" or "to divide") and φρήν (phrēn, "mind"). Despite its etymology, schizophrenia is not synonymous with dissociative identity disorder, also known as multiple personality disorder or "split personality"; in popular culture the two are often confused. Although schizophrenia often leads to social or occupational dysfunction, there is little association of the illness with a predisposition toward aggressive behavior.

Posted by: Ispanan at December 12, 2005 10:08 AM

Ispanan:

Thanks for the partial response to some of my earlier questions. You said:

"Christianity and Islam can be interpretated both to do mischief and do good. Both Muslims and Christians committed many crimes during their history. For the rest, read my last post in the thread about France, it should teach you a lot"

From the nature of your response, I think you missed the point a little. After reading the Gospels and the Qur'an, Hadith and Sira, do you notice a difference in the demands placed upon humanity? How do the lives of the two individuals, Jesus and Mohammed, compare and contrast? How do the respective words compare and contrast?

I was struck by a profounf difference. Maybe you will be too. Good luck.

Posted by: Chatillon at December 12, 2005 12:49 PM

Ooops. Let's make that read "profound difference" rather than "profounf difference."

Posted by: Chatillon at December 12, 2005 1:11 PM

"How do the lives of the two individuals, Jesus and Mohammed, compare and contrast? How do the respective words compare and contrast?"

William Muir wrote:

"In pursuance of Mahomet's commands the citizens of Medina and such of the refugees as possessed houses received the prisoners and treated them with much consideration. 'Blessings be on the men of Medina', said one of these prisoners in later days, 'they made us ride while they themselves walked; they gave us wheaten bread to eat when there was little of it, contenting themselves with dates."

From the hadith:

"You are neither hard-hearted nor of fierce character, nor one who shouts in the markets. You do not return evil for evil, but excuse and forgive." - Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 362

"Do not kill any old person, any child or any woman" (Abu Dawud).

"Do not kill the monks in monasteries" or "Do not kill the people who are sitting in places of worship" (Musnad of Ibn Hanbal).

Speech by Abu Bakr, Mohammed's closest friend and first successor, to an Islamic army set out for Syria: "Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone."

"How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then embrace (sleep with) her?" (Al-Bukhari, English Translation, vol. 8, Hadith 68, pp. 42-43).

"I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)".

Posted by: Ispanan at December 14, 2005 6:16 AM