Robert,

I suggest we cover how the American and British mainstream press have failed to show the cartoons (per a W.F. Buckley article). I think this is highly significant. It seems the Continentals have been doing better at this, surprisingly enough.

Posted by: Benjamin at February 4, 2006 5:44 PM

That sign looks like it's been professionaly done.
It seems like alot of these mass, spontaneous outrages were plotted ahead of time.

Posted by: JadeDragoness at February 4, 2006 5:47 PM

"Whoever insults a prophet, kill him."

Does this mean I can kill anyone who doesn't accept Jesus Christ as Lord? He's not a prophet in my religion; He is God. I find it insulting that the Muslims don't understand this and continue to degrade Him by calling him merely a prophet. Luckily for the Muslims I'd rather face them than face Jesus if I killed someone for any reason other than self defense or defense of my family or country.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 4, 2006 5:50 PM

Jade,

There's been talk on other threads today about how interesting it is that the Muslims were able to burn so many Danish flags at the same time. Someone on another thread said she was listening to a radio show yesterday and they were talking about speaking with some relative over in Iran who was talking about how the protest was a diversion to get the world off Iran's back regarding acquiring nuclear weapons. Very clever.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 4, 2006 5:54 PM

Adorable. So Cute. Who couldn't love a child just like this one. If fact, she looks just like a Christian child in Indonesia. Exactly. The pictures would be the same. Except the Christian child--same age, same sex--had had her head sawed off by Muslims. Because she was a Christian child.

Posted by: SCV at February 4, 2006 6:00 PM

Which upsets Muslims most:
a) 9/11 in New York
b) 3/11 in Madrid
c) 7/7 in London
d) cartoons

Posted by: Miss Moneypenney at February 4, 2006 6:01 PM

Isabella,
I noticed those too. That's why I pointed the sign out. It doesn't look crude or handwritten does it? The thing that caught my attention the most though is the fact that they're using a
baby to spread their disgusting hate.

Posted by: JadeDragoness at February 4, 2006 6:03 PM

For me it clear: Someone is behind this. Who? Obviously Iran. They are behind the whole mess to distract us from their nuke development and to show to Europe that they ought to be feared. Anyone who believes that this is just happening out of the blue is a real dreamer.

Posted by: westman911 at February 4, 2006 6:09 PM

There were a lot of handwritten placards which the BBC showed a veiled woman writing out with a fat marker pen. But that one looks very, very elaborate.

Let the children come to me; do not try to stop them; for the kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at February 4, 2006 6:11 PM

How flat out embarrassing, for entire the human race. This is why the Muslims should stay in the Middle East. They are like pre-schoolers when they don't get their way, or when something upsets them.

The baby in the picture is likely more educated than her idiot parents, but too young to be powerful enough to toss that bonnet off her head right into a pile of dog crap.

These people bring nothing but trouble to the table, and should be expelled. They contribute nothing but higher welfare figures, and damaged property.

What a waste of air.

Posted by: DCWatson at February 4, 2006 6:11 PM

What jesus would say: Let the children come to me; do not try to stop them; for the kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these.

What Mohammed would say: Let the children come to me, especially Aisha, do not ry to stop them, or I'll kill you; the kingdom of England belongs to-ME.

Posted by: JadeDragoness at February 4, 2006 6:18 PM

OT The Danish royal family weigh into the Muslim debate.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/15/wqueen15.xml

Posted by: km at February 4, 2006 6:22 PM

"what will Britain pay for?"

well thats simple, currently we're not Britainstan and part of the islamic world

so by rights and religious duty these regularly classed as by our dhimmi politician 'MODERATE' muslims want us dead wether we published the pictures or not

i still think what sums up the whole current situation is whilst muslims were busy shouting death to us all a white male white van driver stopped to make his voice heard

and was promptly moved on by the police

i didnt know wether to laugh or cry

Posted by: Taranus at February 4, 2006 6:24 PM

"We We must show our opposition to Islam," says Danish queen. Now that's a Monarch!

Who said liberals cannot combat the menace of Islam!? The stupid Prince Charles is another story. His dhimmitude is possibly surpassed only by the recent comments of former Pres. Clinton.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at February 4, 2006 6:28 PM

And here they are for all to see, these wonderful examples of what President Bush has called the religion of peace. How could he have been so easily mislead into believing that big lie is simply beyond me.

The calls for genocide,beheadings,another 7-7, and support for Osama Bin Laden right in the middle of London is simply to much to accept in this democratic society. What are these people doing there? why are they being tolerated? When is a threat a threat? When will the EU countries wake up and notice the duck in the forest for what it really is?

Posted by: Mackie at February 4, 2006 6:29 PM

I have one question. Muslims say that we should respect their religion even if we are not Muslims. but do Mulsims respect other peoples religions?

I refer readers to the destruction of Buddhas by the Taliban :

Published on Thursday, March 1, 2001 by Agence France Presse
Afghan Taliban Begin Destruction of Ancient Buddha Statues

KABUL - Ignoring an international outcry, Afghanistan's puritanical Taliban Islamic militia began demolishing statues across the country on Thursday, including two towering ancient stone Buddhas.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0301-04.htm

Posted by: freethinker at February 4, 2006 6:34 PM

Aaaargh, kafir nonbeliever,you beat me to it....

Here's the best part of her wisdom:
"Queen Margrethe II of Denmark has called on the country "to show our opposition to Islam", regardless of the opprobium such a stance provokes abroad.

"We have to show our opposition to Islam and we have to, at times, run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on us because there are some things for which we should display no tolerance."

"And when we are tolerant, we must know whether it is because of convenience or conviction."

Whoa!
God save this queen! Listen and learn how to have a spine and sport b_lls, 'Prince' Charles....

P.S.:
The Queen beter prep for a coupla fatwas coming her way, eh?

Posted by: voletti at February 4, 2006 6:35 PM

I'm so glad that the baby has not lost her innocence like Naseem mentioned unlike the poor lady protestor (after seeing Mo's images) shown earlier! It's so nice to see such purity in the young ones!

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at February 4, 2006 6:35 PM

My 1 yr old cousin visited me today. She spent the day trying to walk, talk, pet a mongrel dog, steal some of my coca-cola and eat flowers. Today this little girl attempted to intimidate a free European country into submission, (possibly) distract the world from the Iranian threat and spread intolerance and hate. Thank God that Islam is there to preserve the innocence of children.

Posted by: JadeDragoness at February 4, 2006 6:47 PM

What the F... i wrong with you..
The Danish Queen would never comment on political issues just as the english queen never would..
how can you believe the bs....
Sorry for my strong words, but one thing WE keep sacred..our queen..
The muslims showed what they are all about..i for one will never ever buy muslim goods..(i will buy gas from Denmark)
This whole thing hurt the muslims more than it will ever hurt us, so on with the counter boycott..

Posted by: soan at February 4, 2006 6:51 PM

One can imagine the kind of parenting she gets:

"Say after mummy: KILL THE JEWS! KILL THE JEWS! There's a good girl!"

Posted by: Doctor Phibes at February 4, 2006 6:53 PM

I wonder how longer these posters have been ready for "an insult against Islam"?

hmmmm...something is rotten in Denmark and it ain't the Danes!

Posted by: jihan at February 4, 2006 6:56 PM

It's unfortunate that so many will not understand how much these people hate non-Musilms and even non-compliant Muslims util they are on the receiving end of a nuclear attack. Believe me, it "will" happen. It's just a matter of time.

Posted by: Redi2FightJihad at February 4, 2006 7:02 PM

Hooray for the Queen of Denmark! God save the Queen will suit her and her country. Today we are Danish! Let Freedom Ring! Death to the cult of islam.. sorry for be so emotional, but l am so sick of these monsters, why when they feel threatened by cartoons, pictures, korans in toilets that they must go on a rampage! what a bunch of insolent bastards!

Posted by: Lulu at February 4, 2006 7:04 PM

I seem to be finding a lot of sites unavailiable at the moment LGF, Dawa, Gatesofvienna.

Anyone else having the same problems?

Also I heard on the radio that in Syria they marched on the French Embassy but were beaten back by riot police. I cant find any post on the web yet, anybody know of any?

Posted by: km at February 4, 2006 7:09 PM

What will Britain pay for?

For allowing millions of seditious Muslim infiltrators into their midst, for turning the other way as they plot to overrun and overrun the British Nation, and for being inclusive, moderate, fair-minded, optimistic Westerners who could never imagine that Muslims would have such black hearts and dark designs...

Kick the filth out before it's too late -- It may already be too late... God help us all...

Posted by: jsla at February 4, 2006 7:10 PM

this is a difficult situation for Denmark..We are a very small country (there are 5 million muslims in France, and there are 5 miliion people in Denmark, including including infants and elderly), so how do we handle this situation..we ask our allys for help..one of our biggest ally's, the US, critizices us for upholding the freedom of speech...
what a strange world...how do i explain this to my 1 year old daughter....?

Posted by: soan at February 4, 2006 7:10 PM

In a sane country this child would be taken away from such abusive parents who clearly have nothing but hatred in their souls for anyone but their fellow zombies of the cult of the killer pedophile.

I hope the baby girl learns to walk soon... so she can run from the disaster her lunatic relatives are inviting on themslves by acting as if kidding little caricature cartoons were equal to calls for mass-murder.

Shameless scum.

Poor kid.

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 4, 2006 7:11 PM

Soan, please understand that most of us in America support you, your country your queen, and most importantly your freedom of speech. I can assure you there are many that are going to support your cause.

Please understand that the liberal media in America has run amok. In a way they are actually supporting the Jihadist cause by not supporting our war on terror. Just know that these people, although highly visible, are in the minority. That is why GW was re-elected. It's "real" people in the country that understand the importance of this war. Hollywooders and liberal polititians are clouded by their hate for GW and that's it. Once he is no longer president they will have to reason to resist our war on terror (againt Jihad).

Please take care!

Posted by: Redi2FightJihad at February 4, 2006 7:20 PM

km, no LGF for me either.

Posted by: Doctor Phibes at February 4, 2006 7:21 PM

To our true friends and allies in Denmark from the heart of the American continent:

God save Queen Margrethe II of Denmark!!

Hip Hip.
Hip Hip.
Hip Hip.

Huzzah!

Tonight I raise a Tuborg in honor of the courage of the Danish people!

Cheers.

Posted by: Hulegu Khan at February 4, 2006 7:22 PM

km, no LGF for me either.

Blogger is down. This includes a lot of sites that don't look like they're on Blogger.

Posted by: Benjamin at February 4, 2006 7:22 PM

From the SUN article, more disingenuous crap from iqbal sacranie: "We totally condemn the type of language used. [by the muslim mob]"

Its not the content and the message, just the tactics (because he recognizes that they provide bad publicity), that sacranie criticizes in his carefully chosen words.

Posted by: del at February 4, 2006 7:27 PM

Is AMERICA escaping the islamic "peace" demonstrations?

I dunno.

6 churches burn in Alabama. Churches? Friday when all this other stuff is happening? Churches were also burned in Iraq Friday.

Too much of a coincidence to me. Our "moderate" American muslims may not be so "moderate" after all.

Posted by: Mussolini at February 4, 2006 7:30 PM

Dont really know what you mean..profitsbeard..
I'm a dane, and we will strike back some time soon...
Danish scientists invented a pill which can replace fuel....
enough support for this invention, and the middle eastern oil will be worthless.
I will support this invention all i can...
No money = no bombs..
I'm pro free religion and freedom of speech..but how can i ever explain my daughter that her grandparent were killed in the name of free press..
...the problem here is not the freedom of the press...
the problem is that two religions cannot live side by side, if one of them demand for killing the other..
therefore we will never ever be able to integrate muslims into our society..
Sad...but true..

Posted by: soan at February 4, 2006 7:33 PM

Soan-

Read the entire statement from the State Department. It's not to the degree that I would have liked it to be, but was definately misrepresented by the press as being completely on the side of the Muslims.

Besides, no one in the US pays any attention to the State Department. We mostly think they are a bunch of clueless idiots. :)

I'm off to buy some Danish blue cheese, which I can now justify in my grocery budget by saying it's for free speech.

Posted by: treehugger at February 4, 2006 7:34 PM

Soan,

One of the problems I've seen discussed about a hydrogen economy is that more energy is required to produce hydrogen fuel then is produced BY hydrogen fuel. I believe Iceland has gotten around that issue using geothermal power.
How does this pill rate?

Posted by: treehugger at February 4, 2006 7:37 PM

Hey that cute little baby looks like a European if I am not wrong. I do not know what is happening out there but that Islamic PR non sense tape that is played again and again to fool people "Islam is Religion of peace and one true religion" is having quite an effect on young European Girls who fall into the trap Created by monstrous young Muslims. and end result is like that air head Belgium women who blew them self up in Iraq and a quite little baby like this one who just waiting to get out of its diapers and create a Holocaust for the European as demonstrated by these Muslim maniacs in one of the placards during the rally in Britain. Love is blind but European girls pooping out young Jihadis to annihilate the whole continent and feeling proud of it, is out of my understanding. Our gils fulfilling thier mission OH! GOD.

Posted by: helegu max at February 4, 2006 7:42 PM

u most of u particpating in this website , no differnt than alqaeda except that u are cowards ,spreading hate behind your pcs , and the danish is so fool to think this is freedom we are arguing about .. it is about hate freedomn we are all against .. i gusee it will take them a long time to get it and will be too late .. i chalanged u to show me cartoons about the holocaust ,and u failed , remember the challange is for one year you cowards ..come on you cowards ..lets see ,,u liars

Posted by: musa at February 4, 2006 7:46 PM

No doubt that this small European looking child has given this long and serious thought coming to the reasoned conclusion stated in the sign held in hand.

Oh dear -- I guess I the one that's being offensive for having made the observation.

Posted by: witness at February 4, 2006 7:46 PM

The baby's cap says "I love Al Qaeda".

Who's incitin' who?

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 4, 2006 7:47 PM

Soan,

Most sane people are with the danish nation, see Sky News poll:

http://www.sky.com/skynews/polls/displayresults/1,,30000-1003326-1,00.html

OK, so its gone beyond printing cartoons now, but the sentiment is there.

Posted by: titfortat at February 4, 2006 7:52 PM

LGF is back again.

Posted by: Doctor Phibes at February 4, 2006 7:55 PM

kafir
I'm both amused and intrigued that so many of you guys think Naseem is "real" and take the trouble to argue with "her." Behind this character is a talented ventriloquist, but no more. If you have a little training as a linguist you can recognize the juxtaposition of "languages" and jargons and registers of speech that are never found together in real life, plus the composite, ambiguous mental profile. Go to any Muslim website, or to FaithFreedom, and compare the postings of a real Muslimah with Naseem's.
I first fell into "her" trap myself, but it didn't feel right, and I went back and over one of "her" postings, sentence by sentence.
She's a "red herring" in this site. I dunno who's behind it and why, but i no longer waste my time reading "her" postings.
Somebody out there is having fun at our expense. Good for him/her.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at February 4, 2006 7:58 PM

The pictured baby is akin to those little children gathering around to be given candy or toys by American soldiers, soldiers who have repeatedly risked their lives, by being the object of attack, at such sessions. The children are friendly, eager. The soldiers -- friendly, eager. And what's more, the soldiers sometimes conclude, quite wrongly, that the "kids are great" and that, therefore, the "Iraqis" or most of them "want us there" etc.

What the soldiers do not realize is that those smiling faces-- even if they do not contain a few older ones scouting out information possibly useful for attacks on those same soldiers, are those of children too young to have yet been fully inculcated with the hostility toward them as Infidels that comes later. They should not judge people in Muslim countries by their encounters with those not yet fully brainwashed, but by the finished ideological product.

In the same way, all those Big Thinkers, such as the deplorably naive Paul Wolfowitz (see his recent interview in "The Telegraph" in which he appears to believe that great changes are possible in the economic performance of the Muslim world, as indicated by the falling into desuetude of that phrase "oriental fatalism" -- which Wolfowitz, in his innocence, appears to believe referred to "India" and "Korea" and not to the Muslim Middle East), who made their plans for Iraq and the Change in the Middle East on the basis of their meetings with unrepresentative "Iraqis" -- Allawi, Chalabi, Makiya, Rend al-Rahim, not to mention the most appealing Iranians in exile who counsel inaction on Iran's nuclear project not because that inaction is in America's or other Infidels's best interest, but only because it may make their task, as Iranians wishing to overthrow the regime, slightly easier), should think again.

An innocent baby in a stroller, with the sweet cap, unsweet sentiment on that cap. Nothing inside that head as yet, but the parents will take care of that. And as the years pass, 10, 15, 20, still living in England, the full poison of hostility toward Infidels, and that division between Believer and Infidel so central to the Muslim worldview, will steadily drop-by-drop, be fed into that baby, along with the habit of mental submission.

Looking at that picture gives one the same feeling as looking at lion cubs in the zoo. Cute now, but just you wait.

Posted by: Hugh at February 4, 2006 8:01 PM

How dare we nasty infidels misunderstand the Religion Of Peace And Tolerance?! If these word Nazis get their way, people in the West won't even be able to talk about Islam or Mohammed without the threat that "Islam has been insulted! JIhad! Jihad!!"! Let us not forget that NO Islamic country has freedom of the press or freedom of speech, and many do not have anything that even approximates freedom of religion. Where are the "moderate" Muslims protesting this? Reza, Naseem, Karim, et al, why aren't you speaking out in defense of your freedom of speech? The same freedom of speech that allows these verbal terrorists to critisize it.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at February 4, 2006 8:03 PM

December 26, 2005
Vatican warns against marrying Muslims
ROME, Dec. 26 (UPI) -- A number of Catholic cardinals are warning Italian women against marrying Muslims.
Church officials say some 20,000 mixed marriages took place this year alone, the BBC reported.
The Catholic Church's official position is to encourage dialogue between Rome and other religions, including Islam. But two documents published in Rome have called for extreme caution by Catholic women contemplating marriage to a Muslim, the BBC said.
Vatican Cardinal Stephen Hamao wrote last year about what he called the "bitter experiences" European women have had in marrying Muslims.
The difficulties are compounded if the couple then goes to live in a Muslim country, the cardinal warned.
Cardinal Ruini, the head of the Italian bishops, said last month that in addition to the problems any couple faces setting up a family, Catholics marrying Muslims have to reckon with extra difficulties arising from deep cultural differences.

Posted by: helegu max at February 4, 2006 8:03 PM

I'm both amused and intrigued that so many of you guys think Naseem is "real" and take the trouble to argue with "her." Behind this character is a talented ventriloquist, but no more. If you have a little training as a linguist you can recognize the juxtaposition of "languages" and jargons and registers of speech that are never found together in real life, plus the composite, ambiguous mental profile.

Quite. Welcome to the gang of - I think - four, who have got "her" measure.

Posted by: Interested at February 4, 2006 8:14 PM

treehugger...
I know that the american people in general does not support suppression of free speech..but understand my point of view..
we are 5 million people in Denmark..
We joined the Nato and EU because we beleive in freedom and tolerance...
we expect, as any other country in nato or the EU (or WTO for that matter) to be supported if our right to free speech or any other action supressing the society is cast upon us..
Yes... its true that many newspapers reprinted the cartoons.. but no country's government say that they support Denmark in the decision to publisice the cartoons..so for now..we are alone in stating that questioning a religion is a healthy thing...
We need support from goverments...
I'm absolutely sure that there will be a bombing of danish properties in a near future..but is it really neccesary that people have to die for a statement to be made...
I know many americans, and love your country...but why do you abandon us know?? we've stood by you in Iraq, when no-one else supported your decisions...

Please understand...i have many amerian friends...but why are your government silent...isn't this what we've been fighting fore all these years..

Posted by: soan at February 4, 2006 8:17 PM

Soan, latest "official" statement.

STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY

The United States condemns in the strongest terms the burning of the Danish and Norwegian Embassies in Damascus, Syria today, which also damaged the Chilean and Swedish Embassies. The Government of Syria's failure to provide protection to diplomatic premises, in the face of warnings that violence was planned, is inexcusable.

The State Department has told the Syrian Ambassador that Syria must act decisively to protect all foreign embassies and citizens in Damascus from attack. We will hold Syria responsible for such violent demonstrations since they do not take place in that country without government knowledge and support.

We urge all governments to take measures now to lower tensions and prevent violence, including against any diplomatic premises and against businesses and individuals. We stand with our friends and allies in urging a constructive and peaceful dialogue emphasizing respect for all religious faiths.

We commend Danish Prime Minster Rasmussen's responsible statements in recent days urging tolerance and respect for all faiths and for freedom of the press. We stand in solidarity with Denmark and our European allies in opposition to the outrageous acts in Syria today.

Posted by: treehugger at February 4, 2006 8:18 PM

l read once that Israeli prime minister Golda Mier, said they will have peace when the muslim arabs love their children more than they hate the Israelis. l understand more now what she said. These cowards kill their own children. l hope there is a special place in hell for these muslim islamofacists!

Posted by: Lulu at February 4, 2006 8:22 PM

Soan,

Have no fear, the people of the US are behind you. Our officials may hesitate to speak out, given the location of our troops (all of our troops) in harm's way in the Middle East. I can picture some very ugly scenarios indeed if this escalates.

But make NO mistake, the country that stands behind Israel in the face of Iran won't abandon you.

Posted by: treehugger at February 4, 2006 8:27 PM

Good stuff in The Telegraph:

The problem is that militant Islam is not seeking a level playing field - equality before the law, for instance - but special treatment. Muslims expect, as they should, the benefits and protections of British pluralism but, in too many cases, baulk at the duties that are their corollary. One of those duties is to accept that, in a free society, there are occasions when each of us is bound to be offended. "Everyone is in favour of free speech," remarked Churchill. "Hardly a day passes without its being extolled. But some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like - but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage." There is no excuse for gratuitous offence, of course. But some Muslims might like to consider how insulting their own views on women's rights, theocracy and Western practices are to many non-Muslims.

Posted by: Interested at February 4, 2006 8:29 PM

Dante proscribed the eighth circle of hell for muhammad... and although he doesn't say, I suspect all of the Muslim thralls that have followed this insane, evil, and false "prophet" belong under his foot there...

He is doomed for perpetuity to disembowel himself in agony... A nice and fitting end for one of the worst humans that has ever lived...

Posted by: jsla at February 4, 2006 8:29 PM

Found a site for pro-Denmark shirts and stickers:

http://www.cafepress.com/danmark

Just bought myself a Danish flag sticker. Hope others will do the same: $2.99 plus 60 cents shipping for the sticker.

I feel sorry for the baby in the al Qaeda bonnet; she doesn't yet know what a life of misery awaits her in that misogynistic dystopia.

Posted by: Shinoliite at February 4, 2006 8:42 PM

Hugh,

Your comment reminds me of a scene in 1984 where Winston Smith sees the party- indoctrinated children and is reminded of tiger cubs that will grow up to be man-eaters.

Life imitates art I guess?

Posted by: JadeDragoness at February 4, 2006 8:42 PM

You know I am not giving credit to these **** ups burning the Danish Embassy in Syria, but does that mean we need obviously doctored pcitures on this website? Where is that sign attached? Take a close look at that. I love Al Qaida, give me a break!
These demonstrations have nothing to do with Al Qaida. Its really difficult to imagine a mother
stitching for hours on that thing. This is obviously not reality, but the sick conspiracy world of a half mad Islamophobe, seeing death and mayhem even there where it isnt. Before we can talk seriously about anything we must stop posting sick jokes likes these.Never mind that the vast majority of Muslims dont seriouls believe in all mighty and globally stretching network called Al-Qaida.Hey Robert! No offence, but try getting a real job.Once this madness is over, blood sucking leechers like you will find it difficult finding a conflict to suck themselves fat on. That is really nice, first provoke them and then shake your head in anguished agony at such barbarity. There is no Iran conspiracy, it is the other way around. These people who published those pictures knew exactly what was coming. The usual hypocricy.

Posted by: karim83 at February 4, 2006 8:46 PM

This demonstration proves that Tony Blair's talk about controlling terrorism within his borders was just that, talk, empty talk, and don't the radicals know it!

Posted by: PJ at February 4, 2006 8:47 PM

u most of u particpating in this website , no differnt than alqaeda except that u are cowards ,spreading hate behind your pcs , and the danish is so fool to think this is freedom we are arguing about .. it is about hate freedomn we are all against .. i gusee it will take them a long time to get it and will be too late .. i chalanged u to show me cartoons about the holocaust ,and u failed , remember the challange is for one year you cowards ..come on you cowards ..lets see ,,u liars

Hugh, enough with the practical jokes, okay?

Posted by: Zeno at February 4, 2006 8:48 PM

treehugger..
Thanks...the world seems a bit safer now...
I know that the stunt made by the newpaper may have been stupid..but the newpaper does not reflect the majority of the danish people..
yes, as any other countries, we have our problems but in general we are a very tolerant nation, and try our best to integrate muslims and other religions into our society..
Freedom of speech however is a fundamental part of our society..and must be protected at all costs...Our society is based on free speech..anything else would be a dictatorship..

for the future i hope that we can free us from middleeastern oil, and use alternative sources for fuel...
In the end its all a matter of money..
My parent are this time in a muslim coutry on holiday..(havent heard from them since they left)..
Hope they return safely..

Posted by: soan at February 4, 2006 8:54 PM

Hint from Heloise;

In the event you have stockpiled extraordinary quantities of shotgun ammo etc...shrink wrapping with a Foodsaver(TM) will protect it from deterioration due to high humidity,,the V2440 is nice.

http://foodsaver.jardendirect.com/

Posted by: hammerhead at February 4, 2006 9:00 PM

Karim83..
I'm a dane...and when muslims shout death to all danes..how do you want me to react???
Only reaction is hate..sorry but get a life my friend....or not..!!!! why aren't any of these people at work...they sure need the money..even more from now on....

Posted by: soan at February 4, 2006 9:01 PM

I am personally clubbing these people who shouts
slogans, or better not to let them speak at all.
Its like they do in Germany. Nazis can demonstrate,
but as soon as they comment favourable on the Holocaust they are dispersed by the police. But dont let trustworthy snot papers like The Sun tell us what do think and what not do. I personally think the picture of the baby is bull.

Posted by: karim83 at February 4, 2006 9:08 PM

I like the allusion to "Hints from Heloise" above. Some of my favorite reading.

Posted by: Hugh at February 4, 2006 9:08 PM

Soan-

No doubt your parents will be fine. This seems to be a war of words, with the exceptions of Syria and Gaza.

Denmark is absolutely correct in their stance.
A little country with a lot of backbone! And a queen who seems to be nobody's fool.

Wish I could say the same for some of our elected officials :).

Posted by: treehugger at February 4, 2006 9:09 PM

This is as revolting and disgusting as the pictures of little children we've all seen dressed in KKK outfits by their parents half a century ago. The cultures of tolerance (i.e. "The West") are yet again confronted by a culture of intolerance. Where do these people get off applying Islamic law that supposedly calls for the death of those who insult THEIR (vice "A") prophet to those who are not of their faith or culture? Maybe the rest of the world is slowly coming to the realization that the Greeks had it right when they finally resigned themselves to irreconcilable differences and separated themselves from the Turks. To the fanatic radical lunatics: Practice your fanatic intolerance among yourselves and let the rest of the world alone... Spain, France, Germany, and the United States do not want you if you are unwilling to recognize the rights and freedoms of the rest of us... or, keep imposing your intolerance on the rest of the world's cultures and just maybe some day we'll have had enough and show you what intolerance is all about. Sand plus intense heat equals glass! End of story.

Posted by: cdrusnret at February 4, 2006 9:09 PM

Karim83-

Then you might want to look at the rest of the pics from London.

Those "slogans" don't give a very good impression of your Religion of Peace.

Posted by: treehugger at February 4, 2006 9:11 PM

Jade dragoness said:

The thing that caught my attention the most though is the fact that they're using a
baby to spread their disgusting hate.

Nothing new with that, sad to say. go to memri.org and browse through the photos of Muslim children dressed up to look like suicide bombers.

A few weeks after 9/11 I went to my doctor's office. Waiting inside was a Muslim family - mom in burqa and several children. her three-year old son found a Newsweek with the plane hitting the WTC on the cover, and he started smiling from ear to ear. He jumped up and down, shouted, grinned and pointed excitedly to his mum. I couldn't help it, I sat there glaring through my tears. A little boy, already brainwashed.

And Hugh, the difference between that little girl and the lion cub is that I don't cry inside imagining what it will grow into. I quite like lions, and trust them a heck of a lot more than many people

Posted by: libbysmom at February 4, 2006 9:12 PM

I have nothing to add to this thread. I just want to show solidarity with the Danes in particular, and with everyone else. Thanks for the links - they have all been informative.

I also want to say that I think that the British Government is made up of a bunch of abject cowards none of whom should be serving in Her Britannic Majesty's Government. I, as are many of my countrymen, am ashamed of them.

Please remember that all our words are nothing unless we take action. I have distributed 83 copies of the cartoons in public places and stuck 18 more copies up on public notice boards.
I have also emailed many members of the Government and my own Member of Parliament.

Vive la Revolution Blue.

Posted by: Certiorari at February 4, 2006 9:13 PM

Interested
Thanks for the welcome. Who are the other members of the gang? The whole Naseem thing is tickling my detective bone.

Always looking forward to your comments, and Granny's. There's nothing like a savvy line by a Shakespeare fool or a cryptic whole opinion of Tristram Shandy's. They always get it right.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at February 4, 2006 9:16 PM

That slogan on the sign of the little girl, eerily floating in mid air.There is no equivalent to that in Islam. Its not a Hadith, its not from the Koran. Are you suggesting that her Parents quickly made up a Koran Verse? Some people in the Sun must be really be grateful for modern Western inventions like Photoshop.

Posted by: karim83 at February 4, 2006 9:17 PM

People become Muslim by accident of birth and then through subsequent brainwashing. No one chooses this cult through a competent, mature assessment of it. Otherwise, people become members through having been forced or pressured, or due to extraneous factors (e.g., person converts due to marriage to a Muslim; person takes up Islamism to pursue political and social power, etc.), or as a consequence of initial ignorance. But Islam is sustained primarily by two things: the high penalties for criticism of Islam, and the high penalty for leaving Islam.

Both of these things have the power to start the undoing of Islam. If Muslims truly had faith in the value of their religion, they would allow free criticism and the freedom to leave Islam without penalty. But Muslims, as we have seen, are (on some level) deeply insecure about the validity of their faith. They are not confident that it can withstand those tests. Therefore they create a vigorous outward display with the hopes that this will somehow show the strength of their faith when, in reality, all they are looking for is outward validation from other Muslims and from those non-Muslims who are foolish enough to indulge them.

Christians and Jews for the most part have gotten past this level. Buddhists, and others, have also gotten past it. Muslims, for the most part, lag stubbornly behind, partly because fear the personal responsibility that comes with freedom. If the state or the ummah won't protect your ideas, you're left to defend them yourself. Without the state, the ummah, and the imam to tell you what to do, you have to engage in independent moral thinking, and you alone will be held accountable for your actions.

Why is it Kofi Annan's job to tell those big bad cartoonists to stop picking on the Muslims? Why must it be bin Laden's job to teach those Danes a lesson? Why is it the job of our hopelessly politically correct politicians and news media to defend Islam, particularly when those defending it don't know a damn thing about it?

Islam cannot stand on it's own merits. Throughout this cartoon fury, we have been treated to absurdity upon absurdity. We've heard appeals to authority, sympathy, force, and other fallacies. We've seen diversions and smokescreens. We've seen violence, threats, and name-calling. They've thrown everything at us except a legitimate defence of their beliefs. And there isn't one. This is why we're seeing all the other crap. It's all they have.

Posted by: Archimedes at February 4, 2006 9:19 PM

By Massoud Ansari in Karachi
(Filed: 05/02/2006)

Pakistani police have issued an arrest warrant for a mullah at one of the country's Islamic schools after two young pupils claimed to have been beaten up and kept in chains for failing to memorise Koranic scripture.

Mohammad Ammar, eight, and Ahsan Mawia, 10, were found crawling through the streets in shackles in the dead of night after fleeing in terror from a strict school in Karachi. The pair were in a "hysterical state" and showed "visible sign of torture", according to police who examined them.

Ordeal: The two boys are recovering after their escape Their ordeal has reignited concern over the lack of controls on Pakistan's estimated 20,000 Islamic schools, or madrassas, which already face accusations of sponsoring Islamic militancy.

Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf pledged to bring them under closer supervision last year after suspicions that two of the London July 7 bombers, Shehzad Tanweer and Mohammed Sidique Khan, had used madrassas as rendezvous points with al-Qaeda operatives.

The case of the two young boys has attracted considerable publicity in Pakistan, and has led to madrassas facing scrutiny over the methods of their teaching in addition to its content. Police said the boys, who had been sent for schooling by their impoverished parents, had previously tried to escape. The pair told detectives that during their eight months at the school they were beaten almost daily and given very little food to eat.

"We were slapped and beaten with wooden sticks almost every day because they thought we were not improving and we were unable to memorise the long verses," the boys said in a statement.

On their first escape attempt, fellow pupils spotted them and brought them back to school, after which they were severely beaten and chained up to prevent them running off again. They finally broke free after jumping from the madrassa roof at night.

"They kept crawling all the night in chains in the streets, and were finally spotted by a local who brought them to the police station," a police official said. "One was bleeding profusely, while both of them had bruises and visible sign of torture."

The mullah running the school, who has since disappeared, faces a charge of illegal confinement and up to 18 months in jail.

Staff at the school, which has about 150 male pupils, are said to have claimed that only unruly pupils were disciplined, although the two boys say such punishments were widespread.

Posted by: treehugger at February 4, 2006 9:21 PM

If the photo is a fake why would they make it look like it's floating in mid-air?

Posted by: JadeDragoness at February 4, 2006 9:23 PM

TEHRAN (AFP) - The international outcry over cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed has intensified as Iran said it would cancel deals with countries in which newspapers had reproduced the images.

ADVERTISEMENT

The list, which already included Denmark, where the 12 caricatures first appeared last year, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Spain, expanded Saturday to take in New Zealand and Poland.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ordered the cancellation of economic contracts with countries where the media have carried cartoons of the prophet, the ISNA news agency reported.

The report said the hardline president had ordered the creation of an official body to respond to the cartoons, saying the regime "must revise and cancel economic contracts with the countries that started this repulsive act and those that followed them."

In Damascus demonstrators broke into and set fire to the Danish and Norwegian embassies, AFP correspondents said, prompting the Danish government to call on its nationals to leave Syria immediately, the Ritzau news agency reported.

The Danish embassy is located on the first floor of a three-storey building that also houses the Swedish and Chilean missions.

Telephone text messages had been circulating in the Syrian capital claiming that Danes were going to be gathering in one of Copenhagen's main squares Saturday to burn copies of the Koran. People were urged to gather at the embassy to protest.

In Europe demonstrations took place near Copenhagen, where rival marches by far-right and anti-racist extreme left groups took place, and in London where a radical Islamic organisation called for protests at the Danish embassy.

Newspapers in non-Muslim countries continued to print the cartoons. The rightwing Polish daily Rzeczpopolita Saturday reproduced two of them in the name of defending freedom of expression.

In spite of appeals by western leaders, the cartoons appeared Saturday in two New Zealand newspapers, drawing criticism from the government.

A Jordanian tabloid editor was arrested Saturday after his newspaper published the cartoons and an investigation was launched into a second weekly newspaper that also printed the cartoons, a judicial source said.

The Jordanian newspapers came under fire after being the only Arab-based publications to reprint the caricatures.

A South African court has banned the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in the country's newspapers at the request of a Muslim organisation, the group said Saturday.

A top newspaper editor said that he would challenge the decision in favour of the Council of Muslim Theologians taken late Friday.

The Vatican appealed for a climate of mutual respect Saturday in its first public comment on the uproar, saying the right of freedom of expression did not imply the right to offend religious beliefs.

However, it criticised as "deplorable" the violent protest in the Islamic world against the images, and said that an offence committed by one person or one newspaper could not be blamed on a country or its institutions.

"Human cohabitation demands a climate of mutual respect to encourage peace between men and nations," Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls said in a statement.

In the Muslim world anger continued to simmer with protests Saturday from Indonesia, the world's most populous Islamic nation, Malaysia and the ousted Taliban in Afghanistan.

Dozens of religious leaders and tribal chiefs met Saturday at a mosque in the southern city of Kandahar, once a Taliban stronghold, to express their disapproval of the cartoons.

Posted by: treehugger at February 4, 2006 9:27 PM

People in a frenzy dont seem to really care about that, as noticed here. In 1994 when Baruch Goldstein committed the masscre at grave of the Patriarch, little Jewish sttler children started passing out
buttons saying, " Dr.Goldstein cures Israel of its ills." His grave is now a centre for Jewish pilgers
coming from many countries, to ask his for his blessings. Read Israel Shahaks Jewish Fundementalism in Israel. No, Jews and Christians are not over that yet.

Posted by: karim83 at February 4, 2006 9:32 PM

The Muzzies try and start a riot in Denmark, looks like they didnt get very far.

http://ekstrabladet.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=333582

Good job by the police.

Posted by: km at February 4, 2006 9:37 PM

Baruch Goldstein, just one of the countless thousands of Jewish terrorists blowing up trains, restaurants and nightclubs all over the world. We must fight them with all our strength, else our children might one day be forced to eat chicken soup and latkas.

Posted by: Doctor Phibes at February 4, 2006 9:49 PM

The fantasy by a poster above about Baruch Goldstein buttons is a staple of Arab propaganda.

What about examples of vicious caricatures of Jews and Judaism, and of Christians and Christianity, so routine in the Arab and Muslim world, when they appear in the Western world as well? What was the reaction to "Piss Christ"? To Sinead O'Connor's ripping up the Pope's picture? Death threats? Threats of attacks on anyone, anywhere, for such cartoons on Jews and Christians? Of course not.

Posted by: Hugh at February 4, 2006 9:49 PM

Yeah, sure a stable of Arab Propanga. There we go.
Is it also propaganda that Haredim children are taught to utter a curse every time they pass a non jewish cemetary? This is the inscription the bastard
got on his grave,

Here lies the saint, Dr. Baruch Kappel Goldstein, blessed be the memory of the righteous and holy man, may the Lord avenge his blood, who devoted his soul to the Jews, Jewish religion and Jewish land. His hands are innocent and his heart is pure. He was killed as a martyr of God on the 14th of Adar, Purim, in the year 5754.

Thanks a very nice thing to do for a rotten murderer.

Posted by: karim83 at February 4, 2006 9:55 PM

By the way, it it me or is this just me or is this website an asylum for half mad "Christians" insulting Muslims in the most offensive way and calling for death and destruction?
Well, I bet George sure knows where to get his votes from. Which Evangelical Preacher in your country condemmed the Iraq war, as opposed to all important Muslims clerics who condemmed 11 September.

Posted by: karim83 at February 4, 2006 9:59 PM

Karim83: "Thanks a very nice thing to do for a rotten murderer."

Presumably you'd have more respect for him if they'd pretended he was the final prophet of God's word, eh?

Posted by: Caroline at February 4, 2006 10:05 PM

Salmon Rushdie rage, Koran-rage, Abu Graib rage, Gitmo-rage and now Cartoon-rage. Nothing new here, typically orchestrated Mohammedan activities, whatever it takes to whack the infidels into submission...

Some smell the coffee:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/15/wqueen15.xml

We must show our opposition to Islam, says Danish queen
By Hannah Cleaver in Berlin
(Filed: 15/04/2005)

Queen Margrethe II of Denmark has called on the country "to show our opposition to Islam", regardless of the opprobium such a stance provokes abroad.

Her comments further undermined the image of Denmark as a liberal haven for those seeking a new life in northern Europe.

Queen Margrethe II
The Danish government has already been accused of fuelling xenophobia by introducing measures which effectively closed the country to asylum seekers.

But in overtly political passages from an official biography published yesterday Queen Margrethe makes comments certain to complicate her nation's relationship with Muslims.

She said: "We are being challenged by Islam these years - globally as well as locally. It is a challenge we have to take seriously. We have let this issue float about for too long because we are tolerant and lazy.

"We have to show our opposition to Islam and we have to, at times, run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on us because there are some things for which we should display no tolerance."

"And when we are tolerant, we must know whether it is because of convenience or conviction."

The Queen, who turns 65 tomorrow and has reigned since 1972, wields no political power but does occasionally comment on political issues.

Denmark has seriously limited immigration in the past three years and the anti-immigrant Danish People's Party, an ally of the centre-Right government, has pushed through laws making it harder to bring in foreign spouses or qualify for asylum.

The queen told her biographer, Annelise Bistrup, apparently referring to Muslim fundamentalists: "There is something impressive about people for whom religion imbues their existence, from dusk to dawn, from cradle to grave."

She said she understood how disaffected young Muslims might find refuge in religion. This tendency should be fought by encouraging Muslims to learn Danish so they could integrate better, she said.

"We should not be content with living next to each other. We should rather live together."

I'm impressed with the Danish queen, and even less impressed with the writer of this article and her idiotic comment:

"...Her comments further undermined the image of Denmark as a liberal haven for those seeking a new life in northern Europe..."

This is not about 'xenophobia' and even less about 'racism', it is about Mohammedan infiltration which makes the lives of the indigenous infidels very unpleasant, dangerous and creates a nightmarish security scenario, which is impossible to monitor and extremely expensive.

No benefit comes with Mohammedans influx anywhere, quite the opposite: The welfare coffers are being raided and the demands on the infidel nation-states become unbearable.

Why has there never been a study or a statistic published of the impact of Mohammedan infiltration in any western country?

Our governments are obliged to protect their citizens and have one overriding responsibility to serve the best interest of their countries.T o allow the settlement of Mohammedan fifth columns behind enemy lines amounts to treason and must be reversed.

Internment and deportations NOW!

PS: Some years ago in Germany a Pali father strapped his infant daughter with a mock-suicide belt and did a similar stunt in a demo just like the picture above with that little girl. At least
the guy was booked and had to do some jail time...

Seems like the Brits have lost the plot entirely...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 4, 2006 10:07 PM

What about examples of vicious caricatures of Jews and Judaism, and of Christians and Christianity, so routine in the Arab and Muslim world, when they appear in the Western world as well?

Halleluja! He finally wakes up! What exactly is it that is so so bad about offensive cartoons? Actually, you shouldnt know. I have lived most of my life in Arab countries and I have never seen a vicious cartoon on Christianity, because that mean making fun of Jesus. That is something we cant do, as opposed to you. As far as Judaism as concerned, it is more Israel that is being caricatured, although I admitt that the line is quite thin and that some of these cartoon are more then tasteless.

Posted by: karim83 at February 4, 2006 10:08 PM

karim83,

You are hopelessly in denial, flailing away with weak arguments. If you're claiming that all religions equally associated with horrendous terror, show me that statistics to support your case. What percentage of terrorist activity in the world today is carried out by Islamist compared to other religions. I know the answer, but I want you to go through the exercise.

You said:"Before we can talk seriously about anything we must stop posting sick jokes likes these."

Give me one example of any Muslim offering a serious, defensible argument as to why Mohammad cannot be (a) depicted, and (b) lampooned. All the reasons offered so far are irrational, hysterical, and based completely on appeal to authority, sympathy, force, etc., with no credible justification.

You said: "Once this madness is over, blood sucking leechers like you will find it difficult finding a conflict to suck themselves fat on."

Is this your idea of "talking seriously"?

Finally, I am going to cite something from your holy book which would cause any moral person to reject Islam. You probably won't do it. Anyways, here it is:

The Koran permits rape of non-Muslim female captives and/or slaves (23:1-6, 33:50-52, 4:24, 70:30). Abul Kasem’s article covers many of these issues, on sex with captives, Mohammad’s sex with Aisha, et. http://www.islamreview.com/articles/sexinislam.htm

Hadith

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 137:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection."

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3371:
Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): O Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

Note how, in this example, the prophet and the men do not even realize that rape is wrong. Their focus is on coitus interruptus; it simply does not even occur to them that anything is wrong. Now, why should anyone be worried about insulting a rapist?

Posted by: Archimedes at February 4, 2006 10:08 PM

Hosni Mubarak says, "Freedom of opinion, expression and of the press, which we guarantee and respect, cannot be used as an excuse to insult sanctities, beliefs and religions." (See his and other Arab leaders' reactions here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4674570.stm)

This is the most hypocritical statement I've ever heard.

Here's just one of many summaries of antisemitic cartoons in the Egyptian press:

http://www.adl.org/egyptian_media/media_2001/printable_images.asp

Posted by: kamala at February 4, 2006 10:09 PM

Gravesite and commemoration

Goldsten is buried at the Tourist Park in Kiryat Arba named in memory of Rabbi Meir Kahane. [citation needed] The Goldstein family had requested that he be buried in the ancient Jewish Cemetery of the Martyrs in Hebron, but this request was not granted.

Goldstein's tombstone reads:

Here lies the saint, Dr. Baruch Kappel Goldstein, blessed be the memory of the righteous and holy man, may the Lord avenge his blood, who devoted his soul to the Jews, Jewish religion and Jewish land. His hands are innocent and his heart is pure. He was killed as a martyr of God on the 14th of Adar, Purim, in the year 5754 (1994).

Over the years, the site became a pilgrimage site for those with right-wing political leanings. The Local Religious Council of Kiryat Arba declared the gravesite a memorial and a properly constituted cemetery. Sidewalks, spotlights, streetlights, a cupboard with prayer books and pedestals with candles were installed by supporters. Many of these were paid for by Dov Dribben. Eventually, the site had the appearance of a small shrine.

In response to this, 1998, a bill was passed in the Israeli Knesset forbade the erection of monuments to whom it considered as terrorists. This led to a long battle in the High Court of Israel with the Government. Incensed by the homage being paid to Goldstein, they sought to have the mini-shrine declared illegal. The Government won this battle and in 2000 several hundred police were despatched to dismantle the shrine. After a battle with Goldstein supporters, that lasted several hours and resulted in many arrests, the appurtences around the grave were dismantled.

At the time, it was also declared that a discussion of the inscription on his tombstone was pending, however no revisions have yet been made (as of 2006).

Posted by: treehugger at February 4, 2006 10:10 PM

Go ahead Caroline, hit me below the belt. Pretend like you know anything, because as soon as I tell you
that Mohammad gave the world a religion, and a great
one at that, a religion wihout whom you would still be trying to make medicine out of your armpit sweat.
But is not like you read anything useful, anything that is contary to your beloved Islamophobic conspiracy. Read Sigrid Hunkes, "Allahs Sun over the Okzident" to get a picture how much exactly the West took from the Muslim World.

Posted by: karim83 at February 4, 2006 10:14 PM

Karim says, "No, Jews and Christians are not over that yet." And I quite agree; Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, animists, atheists, and book of the month club members are members of a species that has shown itself capable of abhorrent behavior.
Now that we have that out of the way, the issue at hand is not Muslims, but Islam. Those are two entirely different things.
Does Islam teach that it is right to kill people who insult Mohammed?

Posted by: AnneCrockett at February 4, 2006 10:17 PM

Re the Cartoon Arian nation and their theater of madness:

The warning of Jacques Chirac re the use of nuclear weapons with regard to Iran (that's who he was pointing to) was no accident. Draw a circle from Kazakstan in the north through Turkey in the west to Yemen in the south and back through Afghanistan in the east ghttp://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://book-case.kroupnov.ru/pages/library/Grand/150dpi/image012.jpg&imgrefurl=http://book-case.kroupnov.ru/pages/library/Grand/part_2.htm&h=470&w=670&sz=76&tbnid=uxaQkxmVJWIUcM:&tbnh=95&tbnw=136&hl=en&start=1&prev=/images%3Fq%3DEurasian%2Bchessboard%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG and the world may look at what Zbigniew Brezinski in 1997 called the Eurasian Balkans. This region and the insane Islamic fundamentalism there has become a serious problem for Russia, China and the U.S. At this point in history the U.S. is the only nation able to project power there to stabilize it. Iran (the so-called "Arian Nation") and the region will come to grips with reality very soon or they will be destroyed as surely as Nazi Germany was destroyed. They (the anti-semitic clowns that run Iran) better get in touch with reality very quickly-or its over for them. "The handwriting is on the wall." This cartoon Islamic-fundamentalism is going to exterminate them-and no one else--unless they come to grips with reality very soon.

Posted by: Frank at February 4, 2006 10:20 PM

karim83

I see you haven't responded to my post above concerning the divine approval of rape in Islam. I know you have more important things to do, like defend your own ego.

"...that Mohammad gave the world a religion, and a great one at that, a religion wihout whom you would still be trying to make medicine out of your armpit sweat."

Most of the bases for scientific and other forms of higher knowledge came form the Greeks, Indians, and Persians, not from Islam. Moreover, anything positive that was accomplished in Islam happened in spite of Islam and not because of it.

Cite me examples from the Koran that give us science, medicine, engineering, art, philosophy. Look up the definitions of each of those terms, then give me an example of each one from the Koran.

Posted by: Archimedes at February 4, 2006 10:35 PM

You are hopeless. For people whom seem to insult the Koran so much it is funny how little you know and how little you can quote. In Islam premaritial sex like in all religions is forbidden. So I dont know where you took the Hadith from and I have to read the translation in Arabic and the Tasnid, speak the Authentity. Because there are a number of things wrong with it. According to the Koran these woman or captives, as happened during a war in these times, had to be married the legal way. They wouldnt be concubines or Prostitutes in that sense. And also being married they would have the same status as the "legal" wife. If they committed a crime their punishment would be less then that of a free woman.If they gave birth they would regain freedom. This ofcourse is not applicable today, but it was a different situation 1400 years ago. It was a more humane way for a serious problem

Also (prohibited are) woman already married,except those whom your right hand posses.
Thus God has ordained( prohibitions) against you. Except to these, all others Are lawful, provided
ye seek( them in marriage) with gifts from your property desiring chastity, not lust seeing that you derive benefits from them, give them their dowers( at least) as prescribed...
Sura 4,24

...If they fall into shame their punishment is half that of free women...
Sura 4, 25

The Kuran predomninace over the Hadith. So if that contradicts the Kuran it is either not true of falslly translated. Which is more Humane? This or
Moses dividing the virgins of a conquered tribe among himself and his people as narrated in the Old Testament?

Posted by: karim83 at February 4, 2006 10:36 PM

"Go ahead Caroline, hit me below the belt."

Nah. Too easy. I'm aiming for your head. And that's a harder nut to crack.

"Mohammad gave the world a religion, and a great
one at that,"

Mohammed was a mass-murderer. That's a fact. So aren't you a damn hypocrite for objecting to the words of praise written on someone's tombstone - someone who was a human being and never claimed to be the final prophet of God's word. A great religion my ass. Your prophet was a mass-murderer. Great religion for you maybe but how great has your religion been for its many millions of victims across 14 centuries. Not so great buddy.

Oh, did I offend your sensibilities? Did you genuinely believe that Islam was a religion of peace? When it's founder was a mass-murderer? Well then bless your little old heart.

Oops. Did that piss you off? No doubt that would be my fault, cause I'm a puppeteer who controls your every emotion and action through a bunch of invisible strings attached to your hands and legs and torso. Dance Karim! Dance!

Posted by: Caroline at February 4, 2006 10:36 PM

Another placard nearby said: “Britain you will pay — 7/7 is on its way.”
What will Britain pay for? The UK papers didn't reprint the cartoons.

Cracks me up how some folks act as if this cartoon row was a muslim reaction to provocation... It isn't, the muslims had this planned, grab an excuse to show "outrage" and bleat about being a victim class because the dhimmi-Europe reaction tends to be "what did we do wrong?" instead of criticaly analizing the situation. Keep pushing the dhimmis whenever there's a "provocation" to grow the size of the caliphate..
Why is it that so many European welfare frauding muslims have attended terrorist training courses?? Europeans are anything but agressive towards their muslim ingrates. There's nothing like a U.S. Second Amendment in Europe and most European Nations deny their citizens the right to self defense.
We all know why so many muslims have attended "jihad 101" terror training, the goal is to spread the land holdings of islam by demographics AND the sword. The jihad trained fighters will serve as a "Trojan Horse" to be used against Europe. Pity the Euros have chosen to forget their past. They only need to look to WWII to see an example of how a "Trojan Horse" can be used against them. Prior to the invasion of Poland, the SS inserted trained Allgemeine SS and Totenkopfverbande SS into Poland to serve as a "Trojan Horse". These SS men spied, committed espionage, and executed coup de main type operations in support of the invading Wehrmacht. Methinks the terror-trained jihadis have similar goals in mind for Europe today...

Posted by: Armalite at February 4, 2006 10:39 PM

Look Caroline, dont bring your ass into this. Because
if it is as ugly as your posts, Heaven behold.

Posted by: karim83 at February 4, 2006 10:44 PM

AnneCrockett: Does Islam teach that it is right to kill people who insult Mohammed?

Assuming that the question was not a rhetorical one, the answer is YES. The tradition was started by none other than Mohammed himself who had the poetess Asma Marwan murdered for daring to insult him and ordered Kab Ashraf killed for refusing to acknowledge his prophethood. See http://www.islamundressed.com/
for more details.

Posted by: Razdan at February 4, 2006 10:45 PM

Most of the bases for scientific and other forms of higher knowledge came form the Greeks, Indians, and Persians, not from Islam. Moreover, anything positive that was accomplished in Islam happened in spite of Islam and not because of it.

From all posts I have read on this dumb website this must be one of the dumbest. It is so dumb that I never even sure I want to answer it. Science from the Persian and the Indians? Excuse me a moment, I am on the floor laughing.

Posted by: karim83 at February 4, 2006 10:47 PM

It doesnt matter to
Islam or Muslims...
Who or what was involved..

All that matters is

The West insulted their prophet..
Therefore ALL must DIE...

Again this is typical of
A psychopath
A pathological lier
A Mass murder
A Thier

And ALL of these Describe
Both Islam and their UN-Holy False Prophet mohammed...

In their eyes all and I MEAN ALL
NON Muslims are responsible and therefore
must be be-headed..

You cannot appease muslims or Islam

Either islam will either Kill you and your loved ones...

Or you will be Forced to Kill defending yourselves against the Islamic Onslaught..

Americans again i repeat...
Re-ARM yourselves NOW....

When the muslim armies start blowing up your childrens schools the leftists will be running to canada...
Screaming be nice to the muslims

Posted by: jingoist at February 4, 2006 10:48 PM

To Karim83:

I enlarged the pic of the sign and the baby's hat, and I see no trace of photoshopping, as you assert without proof. The fact that there is a black background, to which the sign is attached, does not prove anything.

In any event, are you going to tell us that all the other signs we can see in internet postings everywhere, about exterminating people who insult Islam, and the like -- are all those photoshopped? I suppose you think 9/11 was an American government plot?

As for your reference to Jewish terrorism, even if it were true that Jews are as terror-oriented as Muslims -- and it's ridiculous -- but even if it were true, yet there are only a tiny number of Jews on the earth -- perhaps 30 million -- whereas there are a billion or more Muslims, many of whom want their embarrassingly backward, nation-impoverishing, bigoted, freedom-hating, criminal cult to rule the whole earth by force. Suppose Jews were as evil as Muhammed was. And Islam's own revered documents, the "Sahih" hadith, attest to Muhammed's campaigns of rape, pillage, torture, murder and slave-holding. Suppose the Jews were as insane and evil as Muhammed was. There are about 40 Muslims for every Jew on earth, and the Muslims have a theocratic imperative to rule and convert us all. Jews don't try to convert anyone.

Anyway, don't compare the Jews with Muslims. The Jews, from 1951-2000, won 29% of all the Nobel Peace prizes in science and literature. In physics they got 9 times the number of peace prizes one could expect based solely on their population numbers. In Philosophy they got 12 times the number of peace prizes one would expect from population numbers. In the other sciences they were also way overrepresented as Nobel Prize winners.

Gee, what has Islam produced in the way of Nobel prize winners? You guys have had about 9 Nobel peace prizes since all the way back to the time such prizes started to be given! You guys are not overrepresented in the arts of civilization, you are way, way underrepresented. Aren't you embarrassed about this? Does it not occur to you there may be something wrong with the belief system of Islam? How long will you go on making the most transparent and feeble excuses for all this? How long go on making a fool of yourself by defending the ridiculous and indefensible? Until only the most stupid people remain attached to Islam? Until it has gone the way of the Nazis and virtually everyone is ashamed to be called a Muslim?

Posted by: eduardo odraude at February 4, 2006 10:52 PM

u most of u particpating in this website , no differnt than alqaeda except that u are cowards ,spreading hate behind your pcs

Some of us do more than "spreading hate behind your pcs" musliman. Should be on my second tour of duty in this Global war on terror instigated by your pedo-prophet this Summer. Will be spending my Sunday afternoon squeezing off 40 rounds of .223 at targets ranging fron 75-150 yards and 20 rounds of .223 for CQB shooting, doin' the "Groucho Marx" walk.

"Read Sigrid Hunkes, "Allahs Sun over the Okzident" to get a picture how much exactly the West took from the Muslim World."
karim83, I'll consider putting the musliman propaganda to use if I run out of Charmin, BTW, I think the muslim world looks GREAT through an ACOG or an M-68 CCO!!

Posted by: Armalite at February 4, 2006 10:54 PM

Does any of you smart people know the story of Mohammad and his Uncle Hamza? Mohammad loved him
very much,as he was a very strong man and one Mohammads first supporterts. In the Battle of Uhud
Hamza was killed by Wahshi the Abysinnian, who was skilled with a spear. The woman who had ordered him
was Hind, her husband had been killed in Battle in
deciding one to one fight between him and Hamza.
She cut out his liver and ate it. It was the most
painful moments for Mohammad and one of the greatest
losses. Later Hind converted to Islam and when facing the Prophet, he asked her, Hind you ate the liver?
She asked, a Prophets grudge? Wahshi also converted.
If Mohammad truly was such a bloodthirsty man, why not take revenge on these people who have hurt him so much? Why not take revenge on the people of Mecca, who cast him out, beat, killed his friends, his Uncle?

Good night

Posted by: karim83 at February 4, 2006 10:59 PM

Which one offends you?
http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/mystery/showpics.cgi?islamic_purity_test

Posted by: Carolyn2 at February 4, 2006 11:03 PM

That is really the last thing I am going to say.
Who are the Jews? Are they ethnically Jewish? Were
they defining themselves religiously or traditionally? Where these people believers in Judaism? I think not. I rather belive most of them were likely quite secular leftists.
Going back to classical Judaism, it is a religion absolutely opposed to every kind of secular knowledge. Before they Jews were granted full citizenship in most European countries, Jewish communties in live in a kind of dazed stupor, totally at the mercy of the communal rabbi and Talmudic law.Some Rabbis even denied the discovery of America, saying that it oppoes traditional believe. It was only with the general Emancipation that Jews began to slowly drift into the society they lived in. So, who is a Jew? Dont deny how much Islamic civilization gave the world. It is pointless. It doesnt go away, sameway as Western achievements dont go away. The numbers you use are Arabic numbers. Bet you didnt know that.

Salam

Posted by: karim83 at February 4, 2006 11:11 PM

karim83,

"You are hopeless. For people whom seem to insult the Koran so much it is funny how little you know and how little you can quote."

Actually, much to the annoyance of many people here, I do quote the Koran, quite a lot. For example, if I was going to tell you that the Koran contains a lot of insults against people like me, non-Muslims, I'd just paste this (like I have 100 times before):

The Koran says that disbelievers (non-Muslims): are “worst of created beings” (98:6), are “miscreants” (2:99, 24:55), are the worst beasts in Allah’s sight (8:22, 8:55); (Christians and/or Jews are) turned into “apes and/or pigs” (2:65-66, 5:58-60, 7:166); (idolaters are) unclean (9:28); “evil” is upon them (16:27), evil (2:91, 2:99); “wicked” (80:42, 9:125); the “wrong-doers” (42:45, 2:254, 5:45); evil-doers (42:44); they have no good in them (8:23); are “guilty” for disbelieving (45:31, 83:29); on the side of Satan and are fighting for him (4:76-77); of the party of Satan (58:19); Allah assigns them devils for protecting friends (7:27); they choose devils for protecting friends (7:30); are partisan against Allah (25:55); “enemy” and “perverted” (63:4); disgraced lives (22:9); hypocrites (4:61); have a “diseased heart” (2:10, 9:125); are ill (84:20); deaf, dumb, and blind, and have no sense (2:171); deaf and dumb and in darkness, Allah sends them astray (6:39); have no sense (5:103); a folk who do not understand (9:127); their fathers were unintelligent and had no knowledge or guidance (2:170, 5:104); are “a folk without intelligence”/ “most ignorant” (8:65, 6:111); losers who are deceived by Allah (2:6), and deceived by Satan (4:60); liars/they lie (2:10, 9:42, 16:39, 16:105, 59:11) “losers” (7:179); foolish and liars (7:66), liars and losers (58:18-19), in false pride and schism (38:2), the lowest of the low (95:4-6).

You are following in the Koranic tradition of insulting non-Muslims. If the Koran says it, you must believe it right? I.e., you are a hate-monger due to your religion. Verse 60:4 says Muslims will hate the non-Muslims always, unless the Non-Muslims convert to Islam.

I've seen before the style of evasion tactics before. Maybe you should look up those aHadith before declaring them invalid! And that attempt to to use the "Bible is bad too" stuff doesn't work with me because I'm an atheist.

"...except those whom your right hand posses."

That statement refers to captives or slaves. Doesn't that trouble you at all? I guess you are not troubled by slavery?

Anyways, back to rape, from Ibn Kathir's tafsir (the page is down at the moment but I have some of the material on file):

Forbidding Women Already Married, Except for Female Slaves (verse 4:24).

Allah said,
(Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess.) The Ayah means, you are prohibited from marrying women who are already married,

(except those whom your right hands possess) except those whom you acquire through war, for you are allowed such women after making sure they are not pregnant. Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri said, "We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed,

(Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess). Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women.'' This is the wording collected by At-Tirmidhi An-Nasa'i, Ibn Jarir and Muslim in his Sahih. Allah's statement,
(Thus has Allah ordained for you) means, this prohibition was ordained for you by Allah. Therefore, adhere to Allah's Book, do not transgress His set limits, and adhere to His legislation and decrees.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4:24 continued http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=4&tid=10813

The Permission to Marry All Other Women

Allah said,
(All others are lawful) meaning, you are allowed to marry women other than the prohibited types mentioned here, as `Ata' and others have stated. Allah's statement,

(provided you seek them (with a dowry) from your property, desiring chastity, not fornication,) meaning, you are allowed to use your money to marry up to four wives and for (the purchase of) as many female slaves as you like, all through legal means,
((desiring) chastity, not fornication.) Allah's statement,

(So with those among them whom you have enjoyed, give them their required due,) means, to enjoy them sexually, surrender to them their rightful dowry as compensation. In other Ayat, Allah said,

(And how could you take it (back) while you have gone in unto each other),

(And give to the women (whom you marry) their dowry with a good heart), and,

(And it is not lawful for you (men) to take back (from your wives) any of what (dowry) you gave them)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
33:50 http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=33&tid=41924

The Women who are Lawful for the Prophet
Allah says, addressing His Prophet that He has made lawful for him of women his wives to whom he has given the dowery, which is what is meant by "their due'', which is used here, as was stated by Mujahid and others. The dowery which he gave to his wives was twelve and half `Uqiyah (measures of gold) so they all received five hundred Dirhams except for Umm Habibah bint Abi Sufyan, to whom An-Najashi, may Allah have mercy on him, gave four hundred Dinars (on behalf of the Prophet ) Safiyyah bint Huyay, whom he chose from among the prisoners of Khaybar, then he set her free, making her release her dowery. A similar case was that of Juwayriyah bint Al-Harith Al-Mustalaqiyyah -- he paid off the contract to buy her freedom from Thabit bin Qays bin Shammas and married her. May Allah be pleased with them all.

(those (slaves) whom your right hand possesses whom Allah has given to you,) means, `the slave-girls whom you took from the war booty are also permitted to you.' He owned Safiyyah and Juwayriyah, then he manumitted them and married them, and he owned Rayhanah bint Sham`un An-Nadariyyah and Mariyah Al-Qibtiyyah, the mother of his son Ibrahim, upon him be peace; they were both among the prisoners, may Allah be pleased with them.

(and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts) This is justice which avoids going to either extreme, for the Christians do not marry a woman unless there are seven grandfathers between the man and the woman (i.e., they are very distantly related or not at all), and the Jews allow a man to marry his brother's daughter or his sister's daughter. So the pure and perfect Shari`ah came to cancel out the extremes of the Christians, and permitted marriage to the daughter of a paternal uncle or aunt, or the daughter of a maternal uncle or aunt, and forbade the excesses of the Jews who allowed marriage to the daughter of a brother or sister which is an abhorrent thing.
(and a believing woman if she offers herself to the Prophet, and the Prophet wishes to marry her -- a privilege for you only,) means, `also lawful for you, O Prophet, is a believing woman if she offers herself to you, to marry her without a dowery, if you wish to do so.' This Ayah includes two conditions. Imam Ahmad recorded from Sahl bin Sa`d As-Sa`idi that a woman came to the Messenger of Allah and said, "O Messenger of Allah, verily, I offer myself to you (for marriage).'' She stood there for a long time, then a man stood up and said, "O Messenger of Allah, marry her to me if you do not want to marry her.'' The Messenger of Allah said:
(Do you have anything that you could give to her as a dowery) He said, "I have only this garment of mine.'' The Messenger of Allah said:
(If you give her your garment, you will be left with no garment. Look for something.) He said, "I do not have anything.'' He said:
(Look for something, even if it is only an iron ring.) So he looked, but he could not find anything. Then the Messenger of Allah said to him:
(Do you have [know] anything of the Qur'an) He said, "Yes, Surah such and such and Surah and such,'' he named the Surahs. So, the Messenger of Allah said:
(I marry her to you with what you know of the Qur'an.) It was also recorded by (Al-Bukhari and Muslim) from the Hadith of Malik. Ibn Abi Hatim recorded a narration from his father that `A'ishah said: "The woman who offered herself to the Prophet was Khawlah bint Hakim.'' Al-Bukhari recorded that `A'ishah said, "I used to feel jealous of those women who offered themselves to the Prophet and I said, `Would a woman offer herself' When Allah revealed the Ayah:

(You can postpone whom you will of them, and you may receive whom you will. And whomsoever you desire of those whom you have set aside, it is no sin on you) I said, `I see that your Lord hastens to confirm your desires.''' Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that Ibn `Abbas said: "The Messenger of Allah did not have any wife who offered herself to him. '' This was recorded by Ibn Jarir. In other words, he did not accept any of those who offered themselves to him, even though they were lawful for him -- a ruling which applied to him alone. The matter was left to his own choice, as Allah says:

(and [if] the Prophet wishes to marry her) meaning, if he chooses to do so.

(a privilege for you only, not for the (rest of) the believers.) `Ikrimah said: "This means, it is not permissible for anyone else to marry a woman who offers herself to him; if a woman offers herself to a man, it is not permissible for him (to marry her) unless he gives her something.'' This was also the view of Mujahid, Ash-Sha`bi and others. In other words, if a woman offers herself to a man, when he consummates the marriage, he has to give her a dowery like that given to any other woman of her status, as the Messenger of Allah ruled in the case of Barwa` bint Washiq when she offered herself in marriage; the Messenger of Allah ruled that she should be given a dowery that was appropriate for a woman like her after her husband died. Death and consummation are the same with regard to the confirmation of the dowery, and the giving of a dowery appropriate to the woman's status in the case of those who offer themselves to men other than the Prophet is an established ruling. With regard to the Prophet himself, he is not obliged to give a dowery to a woman who offers herself to him, even if he consummated the marriage, because he has the right to marry without a dowery, Wali (representative) or witnesses, as we have seen in the story of Zaynab bint Jahsh, may Allah be pleased with her. Qatadah said, concerning the Ayah:

(a privilege for you only, not for the (rest of) the believers.) no woman has the right to offer herself to any man without a Wali or a dowery, except to the Prophet .

(Indeed We know what We have enjoined upon them about their wives and those (servants) whom their right hands possess,) Ubayy bin Ka`b, Mujahid, Al-Hasan, Qatadah and Ibn Jarir said, concerning the Ayah:

(Indeed We know what We have enjoined upon them about their wives) means, `concerning the limiting of their number to four free women, and whatever they wish of slave-girls, and the conditions of a representative, dowery and witnesses to the marriage. This is with regard to the Ummah (the people), but We have granted an exemption in your case and have not imposed any of these obligations upon you.'
(in order that there should be no difficulty on you. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.)
----------------------------------------

Not only was rape of slaves and captives allowed, Mohammad himself did it. Go to http://www.faithfreedom.org/ and look at the Articles section, and look under the category of Women and the section on wives of the prophet.

Do you still think that the Koran was authored by a wise and fair God? Would a wise and fair God say this:

22:15: “Whoso is wont to think that Allah will not give him (Mohammad) victory in the world and in the Hereafter (and is enraged at the thought of his victory), let him stretch a rope up to the roof (of his dwelling), and let him hang himself. Then let him see whether his strategy dispelleth that whereat he rageth!”

Posted by: Archimedes at February 4, 2006 11:11 PM

I like the one on the left better.

Posted by: karim83 at February 4, 2006 11:14 PM

Karim, two simple yes/no questions:

1. Do you believe that a woman's testimony is worth as much as a man's?

2. Do you believe that a Muslim should be able to leave or change his religion without punishment or threat?

Posted by: kamala at February 4, 2006 11:16 PM

just kidding. The right one:

Posted by: karim83 at February 4, 2006 11:16 PM

The numbers you use are Arabic numbers

Actually the term Arabic numbers is a bit of a misnomer, those number originated in India, and were adopted wholesale by Arabs before coming to Europe.

Posted by: JadeDragoness at February 4, 2006 11:19 PM

Karim,

"Dont deny how much Islamic civilization gave the world. It is pointless. It doesnt go away, sameway as Western achievements dont go away. The numbers you use are Arabic numbers. Bet you didnt know that."

Arabs plagiarised the numerals from the Hindus. And translated them in their language & propagated them as their own.

Muslims have given the world the concept of wholesale plagiarism among other bad things.

Like the Taj Mahal in India, supposedly a 'monument of love built by Moghul Emporer Shah Jahan for his (one among many wives) Mumtaz' is in reality a Hindu temple-palace, confiscated by & desecrated by the Muslims into a Tomb.

Check out the evidence :

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/was_the_taj_mahal_a_vedic_temple.htm

Posted by: lazysusan at February 4, 2006 11:21 PM

The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due to the absence from
Jerusalem of a lunatic asylum.
- Havelock Ellis

I find it highly amusing that if the jews hadn't written their book islam would have never existed. Mo couldn't have come up with islam if he hadn't had the jewish scriptures to rip off.

Posted by: fireangel at February 4, 2006 11:21 PM

"karim83,

"Good night"

It doesn't surprise me that you are a runner, karim83. You just create a bit of diversion and distraction, completely ignore the issue of RAPE, just like your "religion's" founder and the men in the reliable aHadith which I cited. I showed you tafsir from Ibn Kathir, one of the most respected interpreters of the Koran, which supports my claim. What did you give me? Nothing but a few chopped up sentences and evasion tactics and insult.

You are at least consistent with the Koran: You approve of rape, you insult non-Muslims, and you hate non-Muslims.

Posted by: Archimedes at February 4, 2006 11:21 PM

Sorry I am back, couldnt help it. No, you numbnut.
The zero is Indian, the numbers are east Arabic, so is your Algebra, which come AL Jibra wa al Mutaqabila

Posted by: karim83 at February 4, 2006 11:21 PM

You have quoted a whole lot of tafsir prooving what,
the Islamic fiqh on the dowry? The word slave girl does not exist in the Kuran. What is it to me when you copy paste a text without knowing what, simply hoping it might aid you.

Posted by: karim83 at February 4, 2006 11:26 PM

karim83,

That's exactly what someone would say if they hadn't read my post. And what you are saying suggests to me that you have not read the Koran either. You've been listening to PR from apologists and have not bothered to actually find out what's in the Koran and what it means.

Like I said, you're a runner, and now you're running around in circles.

Posted by: Archimedes at February 4, 2006 11:29 PM

I dont know the Kuran? Hilarious. Look, what stands
on the Koran is what general( ihmaa) cosensus is. That these women should be married legaly, meaning they cant be debased to property, that they should get their dowry, meaning that they can own propery,
meaning that they are to be members of the society.
Can you show me any reason why for that time that is
humane? Instead you copy paste as if you are a scientist of figh and Hadith. You are not. You dont know anything besides your ugly prejiduce.

Posted by: karim83 at February 4, 2006 11:34 PM

why that is not humane?

sorry

Posted by: karim83 at February 4, 2006 11:35 PM

My eyes were already starting to glaze over from reading all the "cartoon" comments flying through cyberspace today, but then I just had to read through all the comments here having to do with Islam's treatment of women, especially captured women.

How nice, how really refreshing it would be to have these stories rewritten from a woman's perspective -- no more talk of slave women, or captured women, or married women, or prostitutes -- just individual, flesh and blood, competent and thinking women, who were not objects to be taken and passed around for the pleasure of various and sundry louts. Women who could outshine the invading rabble with their intelligence and talent, e.g., the poetess ordered murdered by Muhammad. Real women in the original sense!

How dreary and depressing to have to view all these historical incidents through the prism of the male eye, in this case the eye of the narcissistic Muslim male. It's time for HERstory.

Posted by: Jen at February 4, 2006 11:42 PM

Hugh, I believe you and Robert Spencer have inspired many
JW/DW commentators to refine their tone,,thank you,Sir..

Posted by: hammerhead at February 4, 2006 11:53 PM

Amen Jen,
It's not history, at least not yet but I recommend Carmen Bin Laden's Inside the Kingdom and Souad's Burned Alive. Both are excellent women's pov's inside the Islamic world.

Posted by: JadeDragoness at February 4, 2006 11:56 PM

karim83,

You simply do not grasp that the issue is rape. Do you think a woman taken captive in war would willingly have sex with the men that had probably just killed her husband, family, community? You just don't get it. You're on an ego trip trying to make yourself look clever and trying to save face at all costs. You can't win, because you're stuck with the Koran. You're stuck with having to put forth nonsense arguments such as that the Koran does not contain the word "girl-slave," even though that's what women whom "thy right hand posses" refers to. These young women were captives and slaves. Many of them were made orphans due to the slaughter. You can play with the semantics as much as you want, but it doesn't change anything.

I don't pass myself off as a "scientist" of Islamic law or Hadith. First of all, I am an actual scientist who researches real phenomena using the actual scientific method.

Second, to the extent that I cite this material, I follow the consensus view of Muslim scholars. Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari aHadith are generally considered valid by Sunni scholars. I cite this material according to the standards of YOUR belief system, not mine. And your belief system does not recognize that rape is a crime.
Don't believe me? Find one verse in the Koran that forbids (a) slavery, (b) rape. Good luck.

Posted by: Archimedes at February 5, 2006 12:02 AM

Jade
I've read them both and also recommend them highly.

Posted by: dms at February 5, 2006 12:04 AM

Archimedes - you're simply priceless. And the truth is that someone ought to tell you that at LEAST once a day. :-)

Posted by: Caroline at February 5, 2006 12:07 AM

While I'm at it I can also recommend "Reading Lolita in Tehran" by Azar Nafisi.

Posted by: dms at February 5, 2006 12:11 AM

I personally think the picture of the baby is bull... from Karim83

Yea... we Al-Quida lovers hatch our plots at mosques. Don't advertise this blatently!.. this one gotta be fake....

Posted by: Alert at February 5, 2006 12:14 AM

karim83,

I think I've made my case. If you go to the faithfreedom link I mentioned, you can read their analyses of Mohammad's treatment of women.

As for your statement: "If Mohammad truly was such a bloodthirsty man, why not take revenge on these people who have hurt him so much? Why not take revenge on the people of Mecca, who cast him out, beat, killed his friends, his Uncle?"

You truly don't know much about Mohammad, do you? If you want to see how Mohammad dealt with revenge, and with free speech, go to these links"
Mohammad had many critics and mockers assassinated or executed, e.g., see http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Enemies/index.html ,

http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/free_speech.htm ,

http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/dead_poets.htm .

Because the Koran states that Mohammad is an example that (male) believers should emulate (33:21), the killing of critics and satirists of Islam is obligatory.

Posted by: Archimedes at February 5, 2006 12:18 AM

Caroline,

LOL. Thanks. I think I better cut down on this stuff.

Posted by: Archimedes at February 5, 2006 12:26 AM

Archimedes
I hope you are kidding. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: dms at February 5, 2006 12:30 AM

Karim83 said:

If Mohammad truly was such a bloodthirsty man, why not take revenge on these people who have hurt him so much? Why not take revenge on the people of Mecca, who cast him out, beat, killed his friends, his Uncle?

Karim, is it really so difficult for you to answer your own question? Can't you see how Islam has brainwashed you and paralyzed your intellectual resources? How else explain the fact that you follow a man like Mohammed who was, as attested in your own revered Islamic documents (such as the Sahih hadith), a raiding, stealing, torturing, murdering, pillaging, raping, stoning, massacring, enslaving narcissist?

If I started following reverently down the street some criminal con-artist merchant who told me God spoke to him and I would be saved if I followed with my life and my wallet and if I became part of the merchant's band, wouldn't you think I was a fool? Don't you have to be a fool or brainwashed to follow such a person? Why do you believe caravan-robber Mohammed? Just because he said he could channel Gabriel? Don't you have a brain to question with? If Mohammed was a killer and all the rest, as your own documents attest, shouldn't you question if you have been made a total dupe and a fool to believe whatever Mohammed says? Do you believe just because you were born a Muslim? If so, isn’t it cowardly not to develop beliefs of your own, use your own mind, explore other religions or being an atheist?

As to your weirdly feeble argument above (well, not weirdly, because Islam’s brainwashing paralyzes, to varying degrees, people's brains), is it not obvious that someone who is bloodthirsty might have other qualities too? It turns out that many of the Nazis, for example, were good family men. And don't forget that Mohammed sought power. When someone converted to his cult and submitted to his power, Mohammed could be merciful -- as in some of the examples you give. After all, why should Mohammed kill someone who could be another soldier for Mohammed's drive to power?

Shouldn’t you be ashamed and embarrassed to be part of a religion like this: where 95% or more of countries with a Muslim-majority are dictatorships of one degree or another, as shown by the non-partisan Freedom House statistics? All those Muslims have basically submitted to their governments, not to God. Doesn’t that say something about Islam?

I never said that the Islamic world had contributed nothing culturally. Even the brainwashed produce something once in a while. But a recent Arab Human Development Report itself admitted that the Arab Muslim world is ridiculously backward and for a long time has been producing almost nothing scientifically, culturally and economically. Why not join humanity and leave that sinking ship Islam cult behind? Why not un-brainwash as many of your friends and family as you can from that nonsensical hogwash? Why believe that narcissistic con artist Muhammed?

Posted by: eduardo odraude at February 5, 2006 12:34 AM

How did this thread turn into an arguement over who invented the numerical system?

Isn't there something within, say the last ONE THOUSAND YEARS you could use to display Islam's contribution to peoples lives?

Moose

Posted by: Moose at February 5, 2006 1:03 AM

dms: "Archimedes
I hope you are kidding. Keep up the good work."

Oh - definitely ditto. Definitely Double Ditto!

Posted by: Caroline at February 5, 2006 1:04 AM

okay, I can't resist. I was just going over this stuff and having a good laugh when I saw this:

I said:"Most of the bases for scientific and other forms of higher knowledge came form the Greeks, Indians, and Persians, not from Islam. Moreover, anything positive that was accomplished in Islam happened in spite of Islam and not because of it."

Then our friend karim83 said: "From all posts I have read on this dumb website this must be one of the dumbest. It is so dumb that I never even sure I want to answer it. Science from the Persian and the Indians? Excuse me a moment, I am on the floor laughing."

You are probably laughing because you did not understand the word "bases". The plural of basis. Science as such (involving a scientific method) was not developed formally until European scientists such as Galileo began doing systematic experiments. The scientific bases (or elements that later contributed to the development of science) included the development of naturalistic observation, mathematics, and philosophical methods, from the Greeks, Persians, and Indians. These bases predate the start of Islam by a millenium. Nevertheless, Mohammad didn't know much of any of it. He did, however, gain the dubious distinction of having plagiarized the wrong theory of where sperm comes from, as highlighted at this wonderful site: http://www.apostatesofislam.com/

Posted by: Archimedes at February 5, 2006 1:04 AM

All of the European Muslims who are waging this jihad should be sent back to their Darul Harabs,i.e., to their islamic countries. Kamar pe lungi moo may pan, bhago salo Pakistan(Muslims of India run away to Pakistan}.

Posted by: iqbal at February 5, 2006 2:04 AM

It is interesting that not only won't most media- outlets print the cartoons, they fail to mention the Danish muslim Imam who toured the middle-east with the forged cartoons. These Islamonuts were the ones who stoked up this outrage in the first place!!!! They should grow some balls and publish all of them, forgeries included, and tell the truth about this story.

Incidently, are there links to the forged cartoons?

Posted by: mistyhymen at February 5, 2006 2:12 AM

Here are the forged images:

http://ekstrabladet.dk/grafik/nettet/tegninger38.jpg
http://ekstrabladet.dk/grafik/nettet/tegninger39.jpg
http://ekstrabladet.dk/grafik/nettet/tegninger40.jpg

Posted by: thomasj at February 5, 2006 2:42 AM

It seems that England and Great Britain and a lot of other places miss what we have in Denmark - a Society for Introducing Free Speach.
On behalf of the Danish Society -
Yours sincerly Peter Buch

Posted by: PeterBuch at February 5, 2006 2:50 AM

Karim83 is an agent provocateur, a troll.
He is not here to debate or learn.
His "duty" is to rile up posters and spread hatred. Allah gives points for that.
The worst thing you can do to him is to ignore him. Completely.

Posted by: pr126 at February 5, 2006 3:04 AM

thomasj, I'm quite sure they aren't the original forgeries.

Posted by: mistyhymen at February 5, 2006 3:05 AM

Iqbal

Doesn't Dar ul Harb mean Land of Infidels, and Dar ul Islam mean Land of Islam? If it does, you got your terms mixed up.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 5, 2006 3:28 AM

I may be incorrect, but I always thought "dar al Harb" meant "House of War."
Essentially, everywhere that isn't an Islamic land. Of course, it is considered Islamic land if a Muslim was in possession of it for any lengnth of time at all. That way, they can justify killing children and the elderly as "invaders" and "occupiers."

A new world war is coming, boys and girls. Islam versus everybody else. No time limits, one fall, winner takes all.

I haven't been this worried about the future since the mid-80's when I used to watch "Red Dawn" to cheer up.

Posted by: give me doughnuts at February 5, 2006 4:16 AM

Hugh
It was Sinead O'Connor, not Cusack.

Posted by: Silvester at February 5, 2006 5:44 AM

Jack Straw's latest

"The violence is totally unjustified and to be condemned. I am glad that the British Muslim leaders have been very responsible.' He said Islam was a tolerant faith but 'you have people who are hotheaded and who will say they are adherents to a religion' in any faith."

Does anyone in the UK take this guy seriously?

Posted by: mistyhymen at February 5, 2006 6:14 AM

I am so glad that Jack Straw thinks islam a tolerant faith! I guess it cannot be true then that demonstrators have just set fire to the Danish Consulate in Lebanon, and the Danish Foreign Ministry have just urged all Danes to leave Lebanon now.

Posted by: FreeSpeech at February 5, 2006 6:35 AM

that baby photo really does look like an obvious photoshop job. i hope Robert checks it out a bit more, because fakery on our side is the last thing we need.

i first saw that photo on the Sun website - a tabloid , gutter press daily

have a read of this for example:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,31-2006050799,00.html

"A hardcore of fanatics rioted in London"

they didnt riot. it passed off peacefully.

Posted by: archduke at February 5, 2006 6:44 AM

Here is the picture of the day and it explains what really is going on.
http://koti.welho.com/pnystro2/crusade002.jpg

Posted by: Eurobuddy at February 5, 2006 6:45 AM

For the benefit of our Marxoid comrades, Karl himself called Muslims intolerant. He was referring to Muslim "intolerance" toward the Jews in Jerusalem in the 1850s, but he is implying that intolerance is a typical Muslim characteristic. Karl Marx would definitely be viewed as politically incorrect today.

http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/06/karl-marx-on-treatment-of-jewish_16.html

Karim mentions Dr Baruch Goldstein. Karim conveniently forgets that before Goldstein massacred Muslims in the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, Arab-Muslims in Hebron had massacred Jews there. This happened most notably --but not only-- in 1929 when they slaughtered 68 Jews in Hebron in an extremely cruel manner. Pierre van Paassen and Albert Londres described these massacres in their books That Day Alone [title?], & Forgotten Ally by van Paassen; and Le Juif Errant Est Arrive, by Londres. Moreover, there were more Arab massacres of Jews by Arabs in Hebron after the Six Day War. Concerning Baruch Goldstein, one of his friends, Mordecai Lapid, and one or two of Lapid's children were murdered in a terrorist attack about two months before Goldstein killed Arabs in the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron. This is the Tomb of the Patriarchs of Israel, and Hebron is considerd a Jewish holy city. Could Karim kindly let us know by what right Muslims forbade Jews entry to the Tomb from 1260 [approx.] until 1967?

Posted by: Eliyahu at February 5, 2006 7:09 AM

Danish Embassy in Beirut torched
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4682560.stm

Posted by: archduke at February 5, 2006 7:17 AM

A picture of baby Jihad was also in the Daily Mirror. So if it was a paint shop job, which I do not believe, there were several photos produced prior to their being sold through the agency.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at February 5, 2006 8:41 AM

A baby wearing a terrorist slogan is a demonstration of a lack of 'couth'. The parents aint got no 'couth'. 'Couth' evades them as 'uncouth' takes over. I am writing in code. No muslim can relate to words like 'couth'. 'Couth' is unknown in Islam. If you go in with any 'couth', you will come out with none. Islam without 'couth' is like a fish without a bicycle. The Quran and the Hadith dont talk about 'couth'. Thats because Allah aint got no 'couth' neither. Allah the couthless. Uncouth carried to a high art form. Al Qaida is emulating the 'couth' level of Allah , which is zero...expect more activist babys...

Posted by: duh_swami at February 5, 2006 9:53 AM

This is another Tafseer from the quran and it makes a lot more sense, has more backing from the Kuran, then
what Archemedes posted.

Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah: "Musaykah, a slave-girl of some Ansari, came and said: My master forces me to commit fornication. Thereupon the following verse was revealed: "But force not your maids to prostitution (when they desire chastity). (24:33)" (Translation of Sunan Abu Dawud, Divorce (Kitab Al-Talaq), Book 12, Number 2304)"

Posted by: karim83 at February 5, 2006 10:30 AM

Regrading the treat of captives and their freedom here is what the great Koran has to say. Also funny
Archemedes didnt notice this. Why should a man like Mohammad willfuly rape innocent women and then add verses like these into the book he supposedly wrote?

24:33 "Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is God, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),"

Posted by: karim83 at February 5, 2006 10:33 AM

Regarding marriage

Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as having said: "A woman without a husband (or divorced or a widow) must not be married until she is consulted, and a virgin must not be married until her permission is sought. They asked the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him): How her (virgin's) consent can be solicited? He (the Holy Prophet) said: That she keeps silence. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 008, Number 3303)"

Allah Almighty said in the Noble Quran: "O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may take away part of the dower [money given by the husband to the wife for the marriage contract] ye have given them, except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good. (The Noble Quran, 4:19)"

The following Saying is an explanation to Noble Verse 4:19:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: "About the Qur'anic verse: 'It is not lawful for you forcibly to inherit the woman (of your deceased kinsmen), nor (that) ye should put constraint upon them.' When a man died, his relatives had more right to his wife then her own guardian. If any one of them wanted to marry her, he did so; or they married her (to some other person), and if they did not want to marry her, they did so. So this verse was revealed about the matter. (Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 11, Number 2084)" So according to the Noble Verse 4:19, a woman can not be forced into marriage by any mean.

Narrated AbuHurayrah: "The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: An orphan virgin girl should be consulted about herself; if she says nothing that indicates her permission, but if she refuses, the authority of the guardian cannot be exercised against her will. (Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 11, Number 2088)"

Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar: "The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Consult women about (the marriage of) their daughters. (Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 11, Number 2090)"

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: "A virgin came to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and mentioned that her father had married her against her will, so the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) allowed her to exercise her choice. (Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 11, Number 2091)"

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: "The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: A guardian has no concern with a woman previously married and has no husband, and an orphan girl (i.e. virgin) must be consulted, her silence being her acceptance. (Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 11, Number 2095)"

Posted by: karim83 at February 5, 2006 10:35 AM

Regarding the killing of women and children.

Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 257.
Narrated By 'Abdullah : During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children.

Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 258.
Narrated By Ibn 'Umar : During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children.

Saheeh Muslim
Book 019, Hadith Number 4319.
Chapter : Prohibition of killing women and children in war.
It is narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah that a woman was found killed in one of the battles fought by the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). He disapproved of the killing of women and children.


Book 019, Hadith Number 4320.
Chapter : Prohibition of killing women and children in war.
It is narrated by Ibn 'Umar that a woman was found killed in one of these battles; so the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) forbade the killing of women and children.

Sunan Abu Dawood
Book 008, Hadith Number 2663.
------------------------------
Chapter : Not known.

Narated By Rabah ibn Rabi' : When we were with the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) on an expedition, he saw some people collected together over something and sent a man and said: See, what are these people collected around? He then came and said: They are round a woman who has been killed. He said: This is not one with whom fighting should have taken place. Khalid ibn al-Walid was in charge of the van; so he sent a man and said: Tell Khalid not to kill a woman or a hired servant.

Maliks Muwatta
Book 021, Hadith Number 008.
Section : Prohibition against Killing Women and Children in Military Expeditions.

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that a son of Kab ibn Malik (Malik believed that ibn Shihab said it was Abd ar-Rahman ibn Kab) said, "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade those who fought ibn Abi Huqayq (a treacherous jew from Madina) to kill women and children. He said that one of the men fighting had said, 'The wife of ibn Abi Huqayq began screaming and I repeatedly raised my sword against her. Then I would remember the prohibition of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, so I would stop. Had it not been for that, we would have been rid of her.'"

Book 021, Hadith Number 009.
Section : Prohibition against Killing Women and Children in Military Expeditions.

Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi from Ibn Umar that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, saw the corpse of a woman who had been slain in one of the raids, and he disapproved of it and forbade the killing of women and children.


Book 021, Hadith Number 010.
Section : Prohibition against Killing Women and Children in Military Expeditions.
Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said that Abu Bakr as-Siddiq was sending armies to ash-Sham. He went for a walk with Yazid ibn Abi Sufyan who was the commander of one of the battalions. It is claimed that Yazid said to Abu Bakr, "Will you ride or shall I get down?" Abu Bakrsaid, "I will not ride and you will not get down. I intend these steps of mine to be in the way of Allah."
Then Abu Bakr advised Yazid, "You will find a people who claim to have totally given themselves to Allah. Leave them to what they claim to have given themselves. You will find a people who have shaved the middle of their heads, strike what they have shaved with the sword.
"I advise you ten things| Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly."

Posted by: karim83 at February 5, 2006 10:38 AM

There I go again having to having to answer the charges of some retard who copy pastes the dastardly
book "From Time Immemorial" by Joan Peters, claiming that Jews were the majority in Jerusalem at the eve of Zionist immigration and that Palestine was empty.
Well, I have this to say. Why refute a book that was
already refuted a hundreth times by all experts on the topic? You reveal your dastardly nature by pointing the supposed( i dont know if its true) murder of two Jewish children prior to the massacre.
That is typical, shout down every Muslim trying to reconcile and keep a cool head in this mess, point
to every muslim act of vandalization as proof of your Islamophobic worldview and then turn your head to every monstrosity commited against Muslims. What does that make you? Show me another Historical proof that Jews were forbidden to pray in the Crave at the grave of the Patriarch, which Muslims also consider sacred.

Posted by: karim83 at February 5, 2006 10:56 AM

And Eliyahu, please spare me more of your cherished
Zionist mythology. Oh, my mother had olive skin, that
is proof we are from the Middle East! I want you to go to the next mirror and take a good look, asking yourself is that a Middle Easterner looking back at
me? How come I look so European if my genes are so pure? Is there really a straight lineage going back to the ancient Middle Eastt, how I do know it was to Palestine if it is so?Compare the average Palestinian with the average Ashkenazi Jew and see the difference between a European and a Semite. Why did you not mention that the mitochondrial DNA on those Ashkenazi tested and have some similarity to Middle Easternes is purely European, meaning that the lineage of their Mothers is ceartainly not from the Middle East?

Posted by: karim83 at February 5, 2006 11:12 AM

Oh really?!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31203

Posted by: Carolyn2 at February 5, 2006 11:13 AM

The interesting thing is how was Israel created?
Where you built your homes on there used to be Palestinian villages. And many Israelis now live in houses that used to belong to Palestinians. In 1948
about 450 Palestinian villages were raized. I do not
want to excuse the massacre of innocent Jews,but is eyecatching how little empathy you show for the opposite side.

Posted by: karim83 at February 5, 2006 11:17 AM

karim83,

Here's what I said: "You simply do not grasp that the issue is rape. Do you think a woman taken captive in war would willingly have sex with the men that had probably just killed her husband, family, community? You just don't get it."

Nothing of what you cited forbids rape--a forced sexual act. You are citing aHadith concerning inheritance and prostitution. Based on the Koranic verses and valid Hadith (Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim both--which is given highest weight of the aHadiths in Sunni Islam) which I cited, it is lawful for the Muslim man to have sex with slave girls and captives if he so chooses. Mohammad does not recognize the concept of rape and does not see anything wrong with it, as described in the Hadith which I cited.

Here is another example of sex with a slave-girl:

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 11, Number 2166:
Narrated AbuSa'id al-Khudri:

A man said: Apostle of Allah, I have a slave-girl and I withdraw the penis from her (while having intercourse), and I dislike that she becomes pregnant. I intend (by intercourse) what the men intend by it. The Jews say that withdrawing the penis (azl) is burying the living girls on a small scale. He (the Prophet) said: The Jews told a lie. If Allah intends to create it, you cannot turn it away.

I will add yet another example of rape, and that is Mohammad's sex with Ayesha when she was only 9 years of age. because a 9 year-old obviously cannot form a proper consent, and Mohammad the adult should know better (and should not be sexually interested in a child to begin with!), this constitutes rape.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64:
Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65:
Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)'

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236:
Narrated Hisham's father:
Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3311:
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.

Sahih Bukhari 5.234
Narrated Aisha:
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.
And in another Hadith we read.

Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 41, Number 4915, also Number 4916 and Number 4917
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. according to Bishr's version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter.

Also from the historian, Tabari: Tabari IX:131 “My mother came to me [Ayesha] while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old.”

Posted by: Archimedes at February 5, 2006 11:31 AM

You present Mohammad's views on the killing of women and children as though they were consistent. I have no reason to dispute the aHadith you've presented on that issue. I'm familiar with those. However, Mohammad's policies changed depending on the circumstances. In this hadith, for jihad, Mohammad permits the killing of women and children.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256:
Narrated As-Sab bin Jaththama:
The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." I also heard the Prophet saying, "The institution of Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle."

There is nothing in the Koran that explicitly and consistently forbids the killing of children (unless they are Muslims or orphans who come under Muslim care). However, Allah says that Muslims should let the idolaters kill their own children (6:137). In other words, Muslims should not intervene to stop the practice. This constitutes negligence, in any era. In addition, whereas 4:93 explicitly forbids the intentional killing of a Muslim, there is no analogous statement specifically referring to non-Muslims. Verse 5:32, often cited, does not explicitly forbid the killing of non-Muslims--this verse is discussed here http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/AbulKasem50808.htm

Again, the Koran simply does not have the verses you need to support your claims.

Posted by: Archimedes at February 5, 2006 11:58 AM

karim83,

...and if you had gone through the 3 links I cited previously,* you would find that Mohammad was willing to have people, including women, killed if they spoke against him or his religion. He also had a very elderly man killed for his words.

* http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010038.php#c171154

Posted by: Archimedes at February 5, 2006 12:07 PM

JadeDragoness and dms:

Thanks for the book recommendations. I know about "Reading Lolita" and hope to get it soon -- I'll make a point of reading the others as well. By expanding our knowledge to include the experiences of women, we're helping break down the stereotype that the male experience is the standard against which all others are judged and compared.

I'm sure you know that it's not only history, but current events too which need to be interpreted through the eyes of women. Up to now women were generally third party objects (Muhammad told his warrior what to do with her ...), or secondary observers ( I, Aisha, saw this happen ...). But now (with a glimmer of hope showing in the West) women need to become first person actors (women legislate equality provisions, women decide on overhaul of marriage laws, women decline to be oppressed ...) -- now we're talking!

Whenever I read about women in Islam, the woman is usually seen as a passive observer of her own fate, a fate which has been decreed by a male God, delivered through a male prophet, interpreted by male mullahs and imams, and enforced by male relatives. Any chance there's a male bias there?

Posted by: Jen at February 5, 2006 12:34 PM

Sinead O'Connor it is. And to think that I saw her do it, shaved head and all, making her look like one of those French women punished for fraternizing with Nazi soldiers during the Occupation. No relation to Cyril or any of the other talented Cusacks. I'll change it in the text above.

Posted by: Hugh at February 5, 2006 12:59 PM

karim83,

I think we are finished. I demonstrated my case with the cited verses, in the context of the Ibn Kathir tafsir, which itself references aHadith better than either of us could.

I will add these links. These simply discuss in more detail, and cite more examples, of rape under Islam.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/SStephan/slavegirls.htm

http://answering-islam.org/Silas/femalecaptives.htm

Finally, I am disgusted by your deep-seated hatred for one of my fellow posters here, and your racist remarks in the previous post (excerpt) where...

...you said to Eliyahu: "I want you to go to the next mirror and take a good look, asking yourself is that a Middle Easterner looking back at
me? How come I look so European if my genes are so pure?"

Yes, you are making a racist insult. This is in addition to the misogynist comment you made to another poster above.

Posted by: Archimedes at February 5, 2006 1:29 PM

Jen,

I'm not sure if you've seen these yet, but there are some good articles on women in Islam written from womens' perspectives here, scroll down to womens' section.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles.htm

Posted by: Archimedes at February 5, 2006 1:41 PM

Soan you have said:"this is a difficult situation for Denmark..We are a very small country (there are 5 million muslims in France, and there are 5 miliion people in Denmark, including including infants and elderly)"
Do not depair - remember Marathon? 10,000 Greeks against 25,000 Persians. Herodotus records that 6,400 Persians died for the loss of approximately 192 Athenians. Remember the Battle of Thermopylae? Remember the Battle of Vienna? It is not the numbers that bring victory. The truth will win and we will be by your side like Sobieski at the gates of Vienna.

Posted by: Polish infideless at February 5, 2006 2:03 PM

Archimedes -- I admire your acumen and your stamina --- but I must say I'm saddened to see some threads darkened by the relentless and copious demagogic postings of Muslim falsifiers and slaves such as the new/old one you're engaging with above...

This Muslim troll is no different from any of the others we have seen... He may even be one of the former ones in a new guise -- we've seen that tactic before... Their intent is not to inform here, they are not to here be persuaded or to illuminate, their focus seems to be bent on gumming up the threads -- and diverting threads relentlessly into directions of their choosing. Their endless mindless drivel effectively shuts down the free flow of opinions and analysis here -- After a few go-rounds, their continued blather only serves to repel posters and bore them nearly to death with their preposterous Islamic swill...

Although your scholarship and efforts appear at first to be a "dialogue" with such Muslims, in truth you are really engaging in a monologue with a mindless minion of Islam. Sure -- there is some value to be gleaned by observing the insanity of the Muslim mind in all its manifold silliness and ugliness... But perhaps this can be done more economically?

In addition, I question whether these copious Koranic quotes help... I deplore the way the Muslim interlocutors fill this site up with the grime of their "religion" by quoting this or that Islamic inanity to us, chapter and verse. I may be alone in this, but I also deplore a possible inference that we must be sucked into the arcana of their filth stained "religion" in order to repudiate their fundamental wrongness, and their undeniable insanity.

Aguing with an insane person in the hopes of revealing their insanity to them, hoping they will have a revelation and abandon their insantiy is a nearly insane proposition in itself... I don't mean to be harsh -- and I value the content of many of your posts -- I'm simply questioning the efficacy of responding in this manner to the devious Muslim trolls who haunt this site with such vile regularity? They are hoping to agitate this exact kind of "dialogue" when they come -- their purpose is to provoke cnfrontations, instigate reactionary non-diaologue -- and divert, confuse, deflect, defame... In short, their intention is to proselytize for Islam and in doing so, degrade this site.

And this brings me to a central point that has bothered me for some time... attempting to repudiate their inanities is it necessary to quote the Koran chapter and verse back at them ? While laudable in some regards for exposing the sewage of their ideology rendered in their own words, I think this also prolongs what sometimes appears to be a nearly pointless endeavor. Take note of the cut and paste technigues used by many of these dissembling Muslim posters -- do they all take a class at the local mosque in the effective means of diverting threads and disrupting websites dedicated to exposing the poisonous nature of Islam? I sometimes wonder... I notice consistently that when they demand Koranic explanations and quotes from you for this or that, that most often, after you have done exactly what they asked, they then ignore your points, and begin making other digressions with you or other posters... The vile thrall above does this at several points -- We have seen this same tactic in the execrable KT, and other Muslim vermin whose monikers I forget... While technically you're winning every "debate", it's worth taking note of the fact that these Islamic insects seem to only be interested in lobbing bombs (how Islamic of them) and fueling constant and often OT chatter -- They allege this point -- They argue that point -- they expound the Arabist/Islamist party line like true operatives -- they are agents provocateurs and NOT honest interlocutors...

Anyway -- my intention isn't to argue with you, but to suggest that there may be other ways to deal with the Muslim detritus that often clutters up this fine place...

Posted by: jsla at February 5, 2006 2:32 PM

Does it matter that Britain did not publish the cartoons. As most everyone thinks that the Prophet's teachings have led to these terrorist actions.

Islam is trying to control the West through violence - in the name of peace.

A clear message is being sent - "Say anything about us and we will kill you"

And we thought Salman Rushdie had problems.

No 'Islamic Rebublics' will be set up in Europe. As we are going to send that 'Moon God' and his violent 'Messanger' right back in to desert.

Posted by: Pass It On at February 5, 2006 2:42 PM

mistyhymen says:

"Jack Straw's latest

"The violence is totally unjustified and to be condemned. I am glad that the British Muslim leaders have been very responsible.' He said Islam was a tolerant faith but 'you have people who are hotheaded and who will say they are adherents to a religion' in any faith."

Does anyone in the UK take this guy seriously?"

The problem with Britain is - he dare not say anything else, and that situation has been created by the Press, media and the stubborn PC attitudes of the people. If he were to criticise Islam, he would be branded as a fascist, and get slaughtered by the Press, which would amount to political suicide. The UK is so PC-dominated (recently I was called a fascist for daring to criticise Islam). Unfortunately, only around 5% of the UK population saw anything inherently dangerous with Islam before the furore over these cartoons and the outing of Islam, and I doubt that percentage has crept much above 6% since.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at February 5, 2006 3:58 PM

jsla - I always love to read your posts, as I've indicated before, but I think you're completely off-base in that last one. How can you claim that it serves no purpose to engage in theological debate with Muslim posters here? Archimedes has a mastery of the requisite verses and he, along with a few others, is left to do some really heavy-lifting on that score. And it is heavy-lifting that most certainly has a central place at a site like this. How can you deny something like that? I love your posts because I think you have a rhetorical gift that is capable of swaying the passions. I value it very much. But Archimedes has the facts on hand which are capable of swaying the intellect, for those Muslim posters who are possibly reachable through reason vis a vis what their own sacred texts actually say. Those who don't care to explore the level of theological detail that he presents are free to skip right over it if they so choose but one cannot possibly argue that what he provides is not extremely valuable, if not actually essential to a site such as this.

Posted by: Caroline at February 5, 2006 5:16 PM

Caroline-

While I commend your energy, my granny used to say: "Don't waste water on dead plants."

You CANNOT convince the absolutist dogmatic mind of anything. They do not HEAR. The are like a frozen carp in a glacier, unmoving and immovable.

The Koran is "God"'s "perfect" and ultimate word.

They believe it unquestionably.

(Questioning it being forbidden by Islam.)

There is no possible argument with it.

Even if you use their own Koranic/Hadithic words to object to rape or slavery or terrorism or mass-murder, they simply do not agree that when "God" orders it can it be "bad". It is then not rape but 'divinely' sanctioned "marriage" (the terrorizing of a captive woman, whose husband has just been beheaded, into "freely" becoming their "wife" sounds 'reasonable' to someone like Karim83). Or when a woman slave or prisoner of war dares not say a word against her armed captor, this is considered "assent" to "marriage" (in which the rape can be legal).

If someone like Karim83 agreed with even one tiny objection you raise, or evinced the slightest skepticism about anything in the "perfect" Koran, they would be sliding into the dangerous edges of "apostacy", which would be to risk death from fellow-Muslim if they found out.

They're too scared to risk it.

Their co-"religionists' are murderous (like their pedophile warlord leader Mohammad).

Let Karim83 and the rest spit into the wind all they like.

Reality will blow it back into their smug, dissembling grins.

Since they adhere to a cult founded in slavery.

While free minds will always be able to outwit anything born of "submission", mental paralysis, emotional denial and the torturous contortions of illogic brought about by trying to reconcile anything vaguely "humane" with the revenge fantasy-cum-proto-Mein Kampf of the Koran.

Anyone who orders a woman poet murdered because she mocked him is not a man, but a cowardly worm.

The bloodworm, Mohammad.

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 5, 2006 6:18 PM

karim sez:

"...I want you to go to the next mirror and take a good look, asking yourself is that a Middle Easterner looking back at
me? How come I look so European if my genes are so pure? .."

This idolater of Mohammed spouts the same racist perversion that discredits all Arabs as racists and bigots.

This is the same perversion of the mind that claims "we are ME-types,- Jews are European colonizers..." Look around North Africa and you see all types even amongst the Mobots, the absuridty of your claim should be clear.

But you Karim, are also the same Mohammedan hate-spewer who would accuse us here of 'racism' when we call for the eviction of Mohammedans from European soil.

Try to sober up mate, you can't have it both ways....

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 5, 2006 6:31 PM

profitsbeard - again, I respectfully disagree. I think of it as a boxing match. Sometimes the opponent requires a hard jab to the left jaw. Sometimes the time is right to hit them so damn hard they need smelling salts to recover. But sometimes, what is most needed is the actual fine art of sparring and the capacity for fancy footwork.

What Archimedes is doing requires real skill. It's the verbal equivalent of sparring. You're complaining that you don't see a knock-out, and therefore the whole match is pointless. Sure, absent an actual knock-out, the opponent may still walk out of the ring but he may walk out of it a CHANGED MAN, nonetheless; not yet willing to concede defeat but still considerably weaker for the experience.

(There's also the audience to consider. A 15 round bout isn't something they're likely to forget, even without the KO.)

I appreciate all the diverse gifts of the posters here: jsla's gift with words, Catherine's sometimes obscure links, Dr Pepper's continous hammering about leftist PC, which drives some crazy, but which I think is quite fully justified, and really, too many more to mention. But the very last poster I could ever possibly take issue with is Archimedes, for having the knowledge and skill to debate Islamic theology with the Muslim visitors here - and to back his arguments up with the actual Islamic sacred texts. Quite frankly, it's just flat-out crazy to discourage that.

Posted by: Caroline at February 5, 2006 8:24 PM

Caroline-

But you cannot "lay a glove" on them- because they are rendered "immaterial" by their creed.

You are dueling with a shadow.

And they love the effort expended, since it wastes valuable infidel time and energy to no effect.

They are already dead certain.

All we need to do is be as certain of their absurdity.

In the words of my favorite fortune cookie:

"Person who argues with fool fools no one but themself."

Although, as I said, I commend the intelligence and fervor of all involved in the valiant attempt to wake the Islamo-somnambulists, I still hate to see it all poured into the "sand"... instead of sprinkled on someone who might have one iota of fruitful doubt that could grow a bud of intellectual honesty from that one strong root.

(I've banged my head against the wall of absolute religious certainty enough times to have a spiritual callous on my forehead any Muslim would be proud of.)

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 5, 2006 11:00 PM

Folks,

Thanks for the constructive criticism. And thanks Caroline for defending my approach. We've had this discussion before.

The main purpose of my engaging with these cyber-jihadists is chiefly to show non-Muslims the evidence. Showing is more convincing than just telling. We live in democracies. We rely on argument and debate, and that requires evidence to be shown. Any assertions about Islam have to be backed up by evidence, evidence that specifically links the problems we're seeing to Islam itself. There is no way we will convince the naive majority of non-Muslims about the dangers of Islam without presenting strong evidence about the “religion” itself.

I often present material that non-Muslims can see and use, to pass on for the education of other non-Muslims. This is a major part of the approach taken by Warraq, Spencer, Sina, and so on, and I think it is most effective. These authors go to great lengths to present the problems with Islam, because we have a very stubbornly naive PC media and general public that actively resists the idea that Islam itself is a problem, and of course we have an army of Islamic apologists in the west who are professionals of misinformation. How, exactly, did most of us here become convinced that Islam itself was the problem and not just a tiny minority of extremists (i.e., "the terrorists") who had distorted the religion? At some point, we saw evidence and argument that that was the case, and that requires quotation (or at least citation) from the Islamic texts. In my own case, it made a huge difference to actually read the Koran. All of my erroneous assumptions (viz. the mainstream media PC view on Islam) were then demolished.

People need to know that Muslims are required by their religion to hate us. They need to know that the Koran permits all kinds of atrocious behaviours. Most of the non-Muslim public simply does not grasp that. They still accept certain naive assumptions--it's only a tiny minority of extremists that are tarnishing Islam's image, Islam is just like any other religion, etc.

Presenting Islamic textual information is a key element in the overall strategy of educating the non-Muslim public. There is simply no way to explain Islamic terrorist acts and Islamic intolerance--such as we are seeing in the cartoon fury--without knowing what the Islamic texts say.

jsla and prophitsbeard are correct that these exercises, long and drawn-out as they can become, and often veering OT, can be distracting and time-consuming. And these comments sections are not really the place for extended debates.

However, I view them as exposures, not real debates. One cannot have real debates with someone who thinks that Mohammad flew on a winged horse and that its okay to rape female captives in war if it is Islamically approved. But one can expose their appallingly perverse yet Koranically-approved views to others. I also do not write off all Muslims. Some do turn, obviously--Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Hirsi Ali, and many others. I also leave room for honest reformers, e.g., Irshad Manji, not because I agree with them fully on substance but rather because they are often strategically helpful—we share many of the same goals.

I will be cutting down on the amount of material I present, focussing more on just presenting the appropriate links where readers can choose to access the information, and try to keep the citations focussed on the (much shorter) "money quotes." The fact is that this is taking up too much of my time.

Nevertheless, I urge both jsla and profitsbeard, wherever appropriate, to cite references to back up your claims. If you don't, people who are not yet convinced, who may be new to the site--and there is a steady stream of them--may be put off by what appears to be unsupported assertion. Both of you are excellent communicators, and I agree with you on many points, but you need to take into account that these posts are also being read by a wide audience who still needs convincing. And it's that wide audience that we need to convince.

Posted by: Archimedes at February 6, 2006 3:05 AM

"And it's that wide audience that we need to convince."

...and our efforts to do so, of course, must extend far beyond the Comments Section of Spencer's blog.

Posted by: Archimedes at February 6, 2006 3:12 AM

Thanks for your excellent (as always) responses Archimedes, Caroline, and others, and your patience. It's something I lack in this matter...

I betray my cynicism and frustration regarding the "unconvinced" as you label them -- I know they're out there in frighteningly large numbers -- and I'll admit that I am completely perplexed by the fact that while so many Muslims have shed such quantities of blood through countless savage acts of barbarity, and while most of those justified these acts by quoting Islam, and while most of those were urged by the teachings of Islam to act thus -- I'm dumbfounded that there are still "unconvinced" people out there who don't see the clear contours of Islam's black soul in all of it... They shouldn't need an exegesis of the Koran, Hadith, and Sura to grasp the fact... That is my opinion.

We all know that globally the Muslims have a long history of making hysterical genocidal threats, and in some cases, even carrying out those genocidal threats with vicious alacrity -- think now of the broad arc of Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, Chad, Niger and Nigeria where Islamic slaughter is running rampant while the world remains numb or blind, and altogether mum...

We also all know that globally the Muslims have a well documented history of making violent threats to annihilate the US, Israel, and now, increasingly Europe... I, like most of my fellow countrymen, was inured to these threats prior to 9/11 -- though I should NOT have been... I was accustomed to thinking they were the impotent rantings of a bizarre and primitive sect, nothing more... But in NY on that day I saw the potential for our doom in the pall over our city -- like an arrow it came to me -- we should have taken their supremacist rantings seriously -- we should have taken the "Islamic revolution" of 1979 seriously, we should have taken the Beirut Barracks bombing seriously, we should have taken Arafat's hijackings and assassinations seriously, we should have taken the poisonous filth spewing from the Imams in Saudi Arabia seriously, and their funding of Mosques in America seriously, and their funding of "think tanks" and "envoys" in Washington and "chairs of "Middle Eastern Studies"" at US Universities and junkets for Presidents for million dollar speaking engagements in Kuwait and UAE and Qatar seriously...

It also came to me that we were confronted by an enemy who was so filled with hatred and insane rage that they will stop at nothing to defeat us!

We must wake up!!! Every tactic we can use to expose their dark designs is welcome... In that you are CORRECT! Every effort to shine sunlight on the dark shadows of their black seditious souls is welcome. Every effort to sanitize our domain of their pollution and the contagion of their poisonous thoughts is welcome...

Empirically, I am also extremely worried that in order to defeat their relentless Islamic Jihad we may need to become like the Muslims... Intolerant -- Vicious -- Brutal -- Ruthless -- Perhaps even genocidal if they ultimately prove to be undeterrable... This may mean that Islam has already tainted us, guaranteed that we will suffer devastating harm even before things have genuinely heated up!

The intrinsic characteristics of Islam and its sheer mass today may have already sealed humankind's fate to suffer unspeakable levels of horror and devastation -- my intuition tells me this is so... I believe that we will be forced by this crude but effective ideology of hatred and domination to either defend ourselves with such cruelty and barbarity that we may never live in peace again, maybe simply out of guilt for the actions we will be forced to take against them... Even worse, by failing to rise to the challenge and act in an effective manner to beat them down, we may be subsumed by a new dark age under the long murderous tunnel without end of Islamic ascendancy... Islam has already destroyed many former great world cultures... Islam has already proved that it is capable of gobbling up vast tracts of land, reducing the inhabitants to lives of abject misery, disease, ignorance, and hopelessness. Islam is altogether EVIL.

Perhaps in this regard, as much as anything else, I worry when I see the notion that it is necessary to quote their Koranic words in order to rationally defeat their irrationality... It may be silly, but even in simulacrum, I am uneasy at the notion that in oder to understand and defeat the enemy we face that we must immerse ourselves in his ideology. I know this runs counter to the notion of "Know thine enemy". But I am also convinced that very few will bother to wade into the cesspool of Islamic doctrine in order to understand their modalities... And while it makes perfect logical sense in a Western Socratic way to dismantle their false constructs -- With the Muslims we are dealing with irrational zealots... With the non-Muslim "unconvinced" I also argue that we are dealing with other irrational zealots as well, those who don't choose to open their eyes and see reality, or who demand to bend reality to their doctrinaire ends... i.e. We are the supremacists, We are the colonialists, We are the world oppressors bent on world domination, We are the anti-democrats, We are the ones responsible for all the misery of the Muslims, etc, & co... I am far less clear as to what makes them so zealous and deluded...

For the former, the Muslims -- I believe there is absolutely NO HOPE as I see no evidence that any effort is underway to refute the Jihadist mentality of Islam. For those "unconvinced" "infidels" -- I am nonplussed by their as yet inability to "get it". I also have trouble imagining that a rational approach such as the one you propose will have any effect on them... After all, if 9/11 didn't impact them, what possibly could? Careful scholarly cerebral arguments? Perhaps... Nevertheless, certainly you should carry on. I truly hope your posts have their effects and persuade the "unconvinced"...

I'm certain that we agree that we are witnessing tectonic social and pyschological matters that perhaps have never confronted humanity... Today, in a world where, for the first time, humans live cheek by jowl on a global scale, and with cultures, religions, and economies bumping and pushing against each other jostling for position -- the old addage comes to mind -- "Somethings gotta give..." It is the attainment now of WMD, which finally allows superfiends to enter the world stage when they were formerly restricted to the pages of comic books and Hollywood movies... Scary times indeed!

What, or who will "give" in the end will be interesting intellectually... Emotionally it will probably be more harrowing than we would ever wish... Thanks again for responding, and for all your hard work! Also, thanks to Robert, Hugh, Rebecca, all the team at JW, and all the fantastic JWers out there... What could be more important than having these discussions?

Posted by: jsla at February 6, 2006 1:57 PM

When above I said "We all know..." I should have qualified it and said "Here, we all know..." Or "Most of us here are aware..."

It's clear from many of the posts at this site that many, even here, are unaware of the global Muslim transgressions against non-Muslim victims...

Posted by: jsla at February 6, 2006 3:46 PM

jsla,

Nice essay. A couple of things:

[they say] "We are the supremacists, We are the colonialists, We are the world oppressors bent on world domination, We are the anti-democrats, We are the ones responsible for all the misery of the Muslims, etc, & co... I am far less clear as to what makes them so zealous and deluded."

These ignorant PC-types are tough nuts to crack, but I think the way to go with them is to show just how un-PC Islam truly is. We can talk to them in their language. Fill all the slots they would fill in blaming the "west" with the word "Islam" and imperialist, colonialist, supremacist, oppressors, anti-democratic, cause of misery and suffering, misogynists, slave-owners, etc.

"After all, if 9/11 didn't impact them, what possibly could? Careful scholarly cerebral arguments?"

Knowledge of the Koran would help people understand that Islamic terrorists striking at non-Muslims are acting in accordance with the Koran. Without having some idea of what's in the Koran, it is impossible to interpret correctly the motives of these attacks. And to defeat the assumption that the terrorists were distorting Islam, one needs to have a good general idea of what's in the Koran.

(The "tiny minority of extremists" assumption is shown false by reading sites like JW

Some of us non-Muslims understood on 9/11 what we were dealing with, as soon as the identities of the hijackers were known. I realized that the reason thousands of our civilians had just been slaughtered for no defensible reason was because (a) they--Islamists--hate us ferociously, and (b) we were open and tolerant, unconditionally, toward them. Not knowing much about Islam, I thought the problem was mainly due to (a) anti-western and particularly anti-U.S. and anti-Israel brainwashing in the Middle Eastern countries (which explains the hate), combined a distorted or radical view of Islam and (b) cultural relativism which assumes that all cultures are equally acceptable. These were indeed factors I believe were implicated as well.

Several months ago, when I finally started educating myself about Islam, I realized that we are not just dealing with a tiny minority of extremists, and they are not distorting Islam but following it. Two events had led to me learn more: 7/7 (and the subsequent attempt about a week later) in London, and the attempt by Islamists to introduce, into family law arbitration, Islamic Laws (in Ontario, Canada). I found the Koran quite useful when writing my letters to the Attorney-General arguing as best as I could against the "sharia" proposal, which was rejected.

Posted by: Archimedes at February 6, 2006 6:58 PM

"How come I look so European if my genes are so pure? " - karim

Nice to see yet another Muslim poster who is a piece of racist scum. Hate to tell you this Karim - but if you are going to get into genetics there are tribal groups out there with more of a "rich" genetic pool than you might have from the Middle East. Does that make you inferior - not at all (biologically speaking only - I've seen your MENTAL ability here), it simply means you have either lost genetic info through adaptation, or alternatively, your genes are "turned off"/re arranged (eg can you produce the same amount of melanin as a African to survive the Middle East sun? Probably not! Unless of course you have a long lost African slave girl in your line, whose husband had his balls chopped off by the Muslim slave traders, and her Muslim master used her for sex – and you have a bit or “Haritan” in you).

Funny how you bag Christianity all the time. At least the Bible makes it clear that we are all of ONE BLOOD - no matter what genes are "turned on" or lost. But then again - you reflect the degree of science that your civilisation always has. Not a lot. Oh and as for you arguments against the Biblical Moses - go to

http://www.answering-islam.org/Morin/contents.html

It rips your type apart piece by piece. What’s more it's a Pommy site - there is hope for England yet!

I also see you cut and ran from our debate a few days ago over the Russian build up against Japan, and the use of the A Bomb back on the 30th of Jan. But then again – that’s what you are hear for. Use a bit of circular debate – no facts – then run.

Posted by: 3rdtimelucky at February 6, 2006 11:04 PM

Archimedes Eliyahu et al – keep posting. I love your posts – and when I have the time to read them in depth – I find them VERY informative. Keep up the good work.

I think any sane person reading Karim’s comebacks, if they even had half a brain, would see that he is not standing on solid ground – hence the racist comment to Eliyahu. I mean, how many times have you ever argued with a Muslim and they end up throwing insults/racist comments/ or as we have seen with the cartoons – being violent.

Karim throwing a racist insult at Eliyahu merely shows that he is EXACTLY the same as those in Roberts post above. If you don’t get your own way – be violent, be aggressive, criticize others religious beliefs (even when that is not the question at hand – it’s a pity Islam cannot stand on it’s own two feet). Yes his remark proves he is in the same boat as that little girls parents.

Posted by: 3rdtimelucky at February 6, 2006 11:10 PM