Jihad Watch: Fitzgerald: Free speech and the climate of fear

February 7, 2006

Fitzgerald: Free speech and the climate of fear

Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald comments on the State Department's reaction to the cartoon controversy:

The American government is not seeing things clearly. The cartoons, almost all of them comically anodyne, were published because the writer of a book could not find anyone to illustrate it for fear of offending Muslims. The protests are attempting to create a climate of fear to which the non-Muslim world must acquiesce -- in which case the non-Muslim world would have to agree to abide by Muslim demands and standards, which might later include the requirement that women be subject to the authority of men and treated as badly as they are (by Western standards) in the Muslim world, and to acquiesce to much else as well.
The essential principle of modern Western democracy -- as opposed to the jokey purple-thumbed kind that the Administration holds up for admiration in Iraq -- is free speech. The wars of religion are long over. Blasphemy laws no longer exist. In the Western world, one may deplore the "Piss Christ" of Serrano and write letters. One may also suggest that there is no constitutional guarantee to be supported by taxpayers' money in one's exercise of free speech. But otherwise, unless one is attempting to suppress the kind of speech that incites to imminent lawless violence (the Brandenburg test), in the United States other kinds of speech cannot be banned.

What happened is clear: a Danish newspaper, written for a Danish audience, employed Danish cartoonists to make a series of cartoons around and about Muhammad. No one showed Muhammad in flagrante delicto with nine-year-old Aisha. No one depicted Muhammad smiling with evident pleasure at the sight of the lifeless body of the poetess Asma bint Marwan, who had insulted him, leading him to call for her murder. No one depicted Muhammad observing with pleasure the decapitation of the 600-900 helpless prisoners of the Banu Qurayza. No one depicted much of anything, save for a few comic-opera scimitars and, in one case, a turban in the shape of a bomb, and a fuse on that bomb.

Now comes the temptation: the Temptation of Symmetry. There is "hate speech" perhaps here, but then there is "hate speech" on the other side, and both are to be deplored. Are they? Are we by sleight of word, and false symmetries, to give up the defense of free speech in the Western world quite so easily, by suggesting that "we are all guilty"? And that the embarrassed defense of Western principles should descend to the level so often used by Muslims themselves, that of "Tu Quoque"? Is that it?
What is shown every day in the Egyptian, Saudi, and other Arab and Muslim presses certainly ought to be reprinted here and there and everywhere, so that the Western public can get a good long look, and a look that is repeated at intervals. They should also read the hatred and hysteria poured out day after day, in official speeches, in khutbas (sermons), in editorials, on the airwaves, and in the fantastic depiction of Western "atrocities" that Al-Jazeera specializes in. They should look, if they can, at the recruiting sites for Islam -- the ones that provide videos of decapitation of Infidels. The Western public should ask again and again: what kind of people not only are not apologetic about such things, but put them up proudly, as ways to encourage others to join in?

What if the Islamic world, however, were not full of such things? What if it did not possess the satellite channels, the radio stations, the printing press? Indeed, for so long the world of Islam resisted the printing press, which finally came to it from Ibrahim Muteferrika, the Hungarian Jewish convert, in 1729 -- several centuries after Gutenberg had helped transform the West. In that case, we would not have on record all those examples of "hate speech" that Scott McClellan refers to. Then what? Would that mean that we in the Western world are therefore not to print pictures of Muhammad if we see fit, because we must tailor our freedoms to the demands of others who in every respect offer a world of despotism and cruelty that we would not tolerate one minute for ourselves?

Do we only possess our freedoms in the Western world if the Muslims give us the okay, or if by their own behavior we can point to "their hate speech" as being the only justification we can come up with for our own exercise of free speech? Since the Danish cartoons hardly amount, in any case, to hate speech, the false symmetry infuriates.

It would have been better to have dryly noted the hypocrisy of the Arab and Muslim world, rather than making that hypocrisy the main theme, and then gone on to say that "in a certain sense this is irrelevant." All that is relevant is this: Danish cartoonists, hired by a Danish newspaper, for a Danish audience, published some cartoons which were intended to both test, and reaffirm, the exercise of the right, recognized in Denmark and in the United States, of free speech.

That is the issue. Do Danes, and Italians, and French, and Dutch, and English, and Germans, and Americans, and all those who subscribe to the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man, have the right of free speech, without death threats against individuals and institutions, attacks on embassies, and all the other horrifying displays of whipped up mass hysteria that offend -- and will not be forgotten by -- the civilized?

That's it.

Posted by Robert at February 7, 2006 12:21 PM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us

Comments
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)

You nailed it. In a nutshell. Absolutely Superb!

Posted by: jsla

at February 7, 2006 12:36 PM

Elegantly put, Hugh, as usual. There is only one thing I would disagree with. Remember Goethe's verses: "Nur der verdient sich Freiheit wie das Leben,/ Der täglich sie erobern muss" - "Alone deserve they freedom, as do life - who work to win them day by day." If "Danes, and Italians, and French, and Dutch, and English, and Germans, and Americans, and all those who subscribe to the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man" are not ready to defend these rights day by day, with a gun if necessary, risking their lives if necessary, in distant countries if necessary, then these rights will die in a few days. I had a final falling-out with a former German friend who simply did not understand this principle, who more or less was saying that everything and everyone has a price, and I took the risk - successfully - of punning in German: I charged her with saying that ";. Nur der verdient sich Freiheit wie das
Leben,/ Der täglich SICH ERGEBEN muss" - "Alone deserve they freedom, as do life/ Who SURRENDER day by day." And I am fraid that the poison of relativism, so dreaded by C.S.Lewis and Pope Benedict, has sunk so deep into many European souls, that they really cannot bring themselves to believe that there is such a thing as good and evil.

Posted by: Paolo

at February 7, 2006 12:48 PM

Do Danes, and Italians, and French, and Dutch, and English, and Germans, and Americans, and all those who subscribe to the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man, have the right of free speech, without death threats against individuals and institutions, attacks on embassies, and all the other horrifying displays of whipped up mass hysteria that offend -- and will not be forgotten by -- the civilized?

No, we enjoy no such right. While Islam has redefined the concepts of war and conquest, we are indeed at war. And, in war, the lowest of the two sides gets to choose weapons and terms.

MORE KORANS MORE HADITHS MORE SIRATS MORE MOSLEMS MORE ISLAM MO' MO!

The character attributed to Muhammad in the biography of Ibn Ishaq is exceedingly unfavorable. In order to gain his ends Muhammad recoils from no expedient, and he approves of similar unscrupulousness on the part of his adherents, when exercised in his interest. He organizes assassinations and wholesale massacres. His career as the tyrant of Medina is that of a robber chief whose political economy consists of securing and dividing plunder. He is himself an unbridled libertine [morally or sexually unrestrained] and encourages the same passion in his followers. For whatever he does he is prepared to plead the express authorization of his deity. It is, however, impossible to find any Islamic religious doctrine which he is not prepared to abandon in order to secure a political end. At different points in his career he abandons the unity of God and his claim to the title of Prophet. This is a disagreeable picture for the founder of a religion, and it cannot be pleaded that it is a picture drawn by an enemy.
--- Islamic scholar Dr. D.S. Margoliouth

What the good doc's words above portend, in a war in which one side plays patty-cake and the other plays slash-the-throat, who's gonna win?

One ping, and one ping only, Vassily.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer

at February 7, 2006 12:48 PM

Complete agreement with Hugh, as usual.

Posted by: Foehammer

at February 7, 2006 1:00 PM

Outstanding, Hugh. It's really a simple question. Will the civilized world allow its hard-won freedoms be curtailed by mobs?

Posted by: Howard, Fine & Howard

at February 7, 2006 1:11 PM

The Rights of Man and the United States of America?

The USA Constitution and the Bill-of-Rights, specifically the First Amendment, precede the Rights of Man declaration by a decade, making it unique.

Other than that oversight, your article is very helpful.

Posted by: http//moelder.freeservers.com

at February 7, 2006 1:11 PM

Is this really any different than what has happened in the past??

Remember history not taught is History Forgotten and History Forgotten will not be defended!!

They are trying to suppress History even in its making?

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2002_winter_spring/terrorism.htm
Terrorism In Early America
The U.S. Wages War Against The Barbary
States To End International Blackmail and Terrorism
By Thomas Jewett
President George Washington tried to reach an agreement with the Barbary States but with little success. His agents, one of whom was John Paul Jones, had diplomatic doors slammed in their faces.
Washington's ambassadors in Europe worked to free Americans enslaved in Barbary dungeons, but John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson were ridiculed.
In 1785, the exasperated Jefferson suggested that war was the only solution. His mind was "absolutely suspended between indignation and impotence." Jefferson declared that tribute was "money thrown away" and that the most convincing argument that these outlaws would understand was gunpowder and shot. The future president proposed a multi-national effort between European powers and America that would in effect economically blockade North Africa and ultimately provide for a multi-national military force to combat pirate terrorism. The European powers chose to continue paying tribute to the Barbary States (Irwin, 1970).

REMEMBER WHO THESE TERRORIST WERE YES MULSUMS RESEARCH THIS HISTORY IT IS BEING REPEATED ??

Also Remember for those of you on the Left it is not the Press who give you Freedom of the Press but those Soldiers who defend it.

Our papers the Constution can not defend itself BUT the Soldier who defends it.

It is not the Courts who give you your rights BUT the Soldier who defends them.

It is not Congress who gives you your rights BUT the Soldier who Defends them.

This is just a little note.

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM AMEN

Posted by: Catherine

at February 7, 2006 1:36 PM

Wonderful essay Hugh.

I was profoundly dishearted this mornging to read a few conservatives writing for the Washington Times are jumping on the dhimmi bandwagon. Check out this incredibly lame column by John Leo:

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/johnleo/2006/02/06/185301.html

The fact that fairly sensible conservatives like John Leo are so clueless on this issue pretty much shows why these cartoons are so necessary.

Posted by: Andrei Rublev

at February 7, 2006 1:42 PM

Hugh,

Thanks a bunch for all you and Robert and others are accomplishing. Many of us are able to take the info gained at this site back into our worlds to make a difference. That is the only way we will win the information war and wake up the non-Muslim world. They need to be made to understand we are at war, and all we hold dear is being threatened. This goes beyond a few silly cartoons to a decisive point in the war. Will we back down and allow our values to be superceded by Islamic approval?

It takes a while, but most other non-Muslims can be convinced if presented with the facts over and over and over again. Initially, some think you are being "chicken little", but over time they see the light. Once the light comes on, all the confusion in the world suddenly makes sense.

I have a feeling that we will be involved in armed violence within our non-Muslim nations. It's time for the non-Muslim world to prepare itself for this eventuality. As it is almost certain to occur, it is much better to happen now vs. later (when the demographics are grossly out of favor). Many of us on these sites will be the core of leaders when the balloon goes up. We have called this thing right from the beginning, and others will look to us for leadership.

Get ready.

Posted by: hello123

at February 7, 2006 1:43 PM

One could only hope Hugh's suggestions about exposing the Egyptian, Saudi etc press atrocities would happen, but it seems that everyone in the media and too many Americans have forgotten 9/11 and that thousands upon thousands throughout the Middle East DANCED in the streets in celebration. If we were not outraged then, why would anyone bother to be outraged now?
People cannot act if they have no idea what is going on and NO ONE save sites like this are helping Joe Public connect the dots.

Posted by: No_Mooselimbs

at February 7, 2006 1:49 PM

That is it. "Free speech" is about the free and open expression of ideas and opinions. Such speech may be offensive (as were caricatures of the Blessed Mother covered with dung at the Brooklyn Museum of Art some years ago). Counter speech may be made by rational argument and peaceful-nonviolent protest (which is a form of speech) and boycotts. However, freedom of speech does not permit anyone to call for violence against individuals or groups under any circumstances.

During Cartoon Kristallnact there have been calls to exterminate people who express a negative opinion of Islam and the Prophet Mohammed. People who engage in this kind of incitement must arrested, tried, prosecuted and receive very long prison terms. If they are foreign nationals they should be immediately deported.

Humor is uniquely human and appeals to the intellect, to contradictions that make people laugh. None of the cartoons I've seen express hate, all express contradictions, and are funny. I think this is the real reason they are feared by the New Brownshirts. 2006 Kristallnact (like 1938 Kristallnact) is about control, about power over other people, and its not funny.

Posted by: Frank

at February 7, 2006 1:58 PM

I said some time ago that with every Moslem who immigrates, and with every local dumbass who converts to Islam, we become a little bit less free, the Constitution a little smaller.

Mark my words, the outcome of this cartoon flap will be less free speech by way of self-censorship, the most pernicious kind of censorship there is.

Imagine Fred Barnes reading a note found under his Buick's windshield wiper that his wife's throat will be slit if he doesn't shut up. Think he'll shut up? I do.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer

at February 7, 2006 2:08 PM

More from the soup wars~ www.france-echos.com/

La distribution de soupe alsacienne ayant été interrompue hier (vendredi) soir par un nouvel arrêté du Préfet, le Collectif « Solidarité alsacienne » a décidé, à la demande de ses amis sdf, de revenir aujourd'hui, samedi à midi, place de la gare.
Malgré la présence des militants de la Ligue communiste révolutionnaire qui distribuaient des tracts virulents et diffamatoires contre notre initiative solidaire, 25 militants du Collectif et une quinzaine de sans-abri ont pu partager un moment convivial avant l'arrivée, une fois de plus, d'un fourgon de police et d'un commissaire muni d'un 7ème arrêté d'interdiction du Préfet.

Chantal Spieler a été, pour la deuxième fois dans le week-end, embarquée au commissariat !

Cette démarche obsessionnelle du Préfet contre notre soupe a le don d'irriter nos amis sdf, ainsi que de nombreux alsaciens qui nous expriment de plus en plus massivement leur soutien.

« Solidarité alsacienne » prendra dans les prochains jours, des initiatives visant à exiger le rétablissement du droit à la liberté d'expression, qu'un Préfet de la République se croit autorisé à bafouer en toute impunité.

rough translation from altavista-
The distribution of Alsatian soup having been stopped yesterday (Friday) evening by a new decree of the Prefect, the Collective "Solidarity Alsatian" decided, at the request of his/her friends sdf, to return today, Saturday at midday, places station. In spite of the presence of the militants of the revolutionary League communist who distributed virulent and defamatory leaflets against our interdependent initiative, 25 militants of the Collective and about fifteen homeless person could share one convivial moment before the arrival, once more, of a van of police force and a police chief provided with one 7th decree of prohibition of the Prefect. Chantal Spieler was, for the second time in the weekend, embarked with the police station! This obsessional step of the Prefect against our soup has the gift to irritate our friends sdf, as well as the many Alsatian ones who express us more and more massively their support.

Posted by: Borg

at February 7, 2006 2:09 PM

Thanks for busting the symmetry counterfeiters. It's like an industry--or perhaps an anti-industry--which springs up in conditions of ignorance, semi-literacy, and rage. It's long contributions to the ideological "money supply" in the middle east are as significant as oil is to the actual currency.

It reminds one of the quote you used the other day: No one hustles the east.

Sadly, the semi-literacy, and the consequent inability to form or properly analyze syllogisms, has blossomed in the west, too, amid its verdant meadows of video and digital media.

After all, the purely graphical representation of collateral civilian deaths in Iraq LOOKS just like civilian deaths in Tel Aviv or London. And if one's brain--slack, elided by too much video stimulation, its synaptic clutch burned by too many scene changes--is just a little machine that uses images to elicit emotions, then equivalence is the inevitable conclusion.

All these notions on which our civilization rests--intention, classes of causation, the formal reality of moral acts--these require Aristotle. And Aristotle requires more than six seconds.

He requires, at a minimum, six seconds AND a naked celebrity, but alas, the latter is not to be had.

Thus, you hear it on the news and see it posted across the internet: the notion that America has no more right to nuclear weapons than Iran; that America's war in Iraq (the stupid, illconceived, and feckless maneuver that it be) is "state terrorism;" that America's misdeeds in containing Soviet communism were morally no different from the Soviet misdeeds in spreading its tyranny; that killing athletes is no different from killing murderers; that espousing a different viewpoint from others is the same as oppressing them.

The problem is that the ideological and cultural wars within the west have become so riven with the dank sloughs of hyperbole and illogic and sloganeering that the muslim immigrant community dived right in and, while disenchanted and estranged in many aspects of their immigrant life, found themselves perfectly at home, arguing the unarguable, holding inconsistencies in the same hand, and making it all seem right.

Posted by: mountainecho

at February 7, 2006 2:16 PM

An astonishing editorial from the Telegraph of London (February 6 2006 ) condemns the violent protesters and the cowardice of the police in not arresting those with signs calling for murder, but then had this to say:

'This newspaper has a deep regard for Islam, that purest and most abstract of the monotheistic faiths, to whose tenets we recently dedicated a series of colour supplements. We share the admiration of Rousseau, Carlyle and Gibbon for the Prophet, which is why, on grounds of courtesy, we have chosen not to cause gratuitous offence to his followers by reproducing the cartoons at the centre of this row.'

How the Telegraph can have admiration for the murderous Mohammed who is responsible for 1400 years of murder, rape and pillage that have resulted in the death of millions and the destruction of the lives of millions more is beyond belief. Does the Telegraph applaud Mohammed's beheading of 900 Jews as he and his army stole everything valuable from their village and carried off their women and children into prostitution and slavery? Does it applaud the centuries-long and unending persecution of the Jews that he himself encouraged and participated in?

Posted by: Fran

at February 7, 2006 2:59 PM

Andrew Sullivan on "Enabling Jihad". Sullivan admits the following gem:

"Fouad is right, as he often is. And that's why the cartoon controversy, pace Hugh Hewitt, is good for the war on terror. One massive supporting pillar of Jihadism has been the West's refusal to treat the Islamic world as it would any other part of the world."

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/02/enabling_jihadi.html

Andrew Sullivan on the "Faked Cartoons". This article argues that Islamist Danes faked the cartoons in the Islamic world (as JD/DW has reported).
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/02/the_faked_carto.html

Andrew Sullivan on "Christianists and Islamists", suggesting that Christians too need to be watched carefully in this struggle with Islamists.
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/02/email_of_the_da_5.html

Andrew Sullivan on "Denmark and the Holocoast", suggesting that since Danes resisted totalitarianism in the past, we must defend them this time as well.
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/02/denmark_and_the.html

Andrew Sullivan on the "Right to Mock".
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/02/the_right_to_mo.html

There are those who get it. This is a very serious blogger, now with Time.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever

at February 7, 2006 3:05 PM

"We share the admiration of Rousseau, Carlyle and Gibbon for the Prophet..."
-- from a posting above

A few questions:

Did the writer of these words in The Telegraph read what Carlyle wrote about the Qur'an? Does that writer believe that Carlyle, or for that matter Rousseau and Gibbon, were thoroughly famiilar with the Sira and the Hadith? What words of praise, exactly, by Gibbon and Rousseau and Carlyle, did the writer have in mind? And why the urge to express such admiration for the Prophet if the writer has not himself read, as one suspects, the biographies, such as those by Andrae, or Jeffery, or Muir, that set out the Prophet's life with the same details as in the biographies available to, and read by, Muslims, but with a different conclusion about that life, one that Believers may not believe (for that's why they are Believers) but that non-Believers may find convincing.

Posted by: Hugh

at February 7, 2006 3:18 PM

that's http://www.frane-echos.com to see a picture of the police getting ready to arrest these people giving out soup to the homeless. Just so they don't offend.

Posted by: Borg

at February 7, 2006 3:21 PM

When making comparisons between freedom of the press and free speech between Islamdom and Islam, don't forget that Christians are not allow to hand out bibles in the lands of Islamdom, but Muslims in the West are allowed to hand out the Koran and Hadith, both of which are frightful. See 164 Jihad verses:
http://www.angelfire.com/moon/yoelnatan/koranwarpassages.htm

Posted by: markjames

at February 7, 2006 4:25 PM

I wouldn't invoke Rousseau as a reliable critic of Islam.

Throughout his work, Rousseau vehemently blamed women for the ills of modernity and the "unnatural" state of civilization. It was the combined strategy of female coquetry and sexual reserve that maintained civilized men in a state of desire and dependency. It was only this feminine sexual modesty that prevented the naturally more voracious female from sexually exhausting the male. Rousseau especially criticized the "artificious and wicked women" of society...--Vernon Rosario, The Erotic Imagination.

Sound like anyone we know? I'm leaving out all the gross stuff from Rousseau's behavior because this is a family site.

If he found much to admire in Islam, it was because it was a belief system in sync with his own perverse one.

Posted by: Whistling Dixie

at February 7, 2006 4:39 PM

Because 9/11 so clearly was not the wake up call for many of us that it should have been, I have been waiting for a more encompassing moment—a moment of clarity, like Pearl Harbor was to another generation. For some time now I have thought such a moment would be, like Pearl Harbor was, another great attack. However, the present uproar over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad has me wondering in an entirely different direction.

The historian Arnold Toynbee placed Wahhabism among what he considered “die-hard”, or desperate measures taken by religions against the rise of Rationalism and Modernism.

“For more than two hundred years the churches had been seeing Science capture from them one province after another. Astronomy, Cosmogony, Chronology, Biology, Physics, Psychology had each in turn been seized and reconstructed on lines incompatible with the established religious teaching, and no end of these losses was in sight. As some ecclesiastical authorities saw the situation, the only remaining hope for the churches lay in complete intransigence.”

Also among these “die-hard movements” he included the Vatican Councils of 1869-70, and the Protestant “Fundamentalism of the Bible Belt.” He believed these movements, as a response to the general successes of Rationalism and Modernism, to be “…symptoms, not of strength, but of weakness. They (make) it look as if the higher religions are riding for a fall.”

Religious tolerance, the original point and purpose of freedom of expression, is the result of the Enlightenment, a movement whose roots may be found in the scientific advancements made by Western societies beginning in the 14th and 15th centuries. It is these advances in science and the secular power of the state that propelled the West into its economic and military dominance over Islam. The fruits of the Age of Discovery, the Enlightenment, and the Industrial Revolution appeared in the West and now surround Islam, endangering its absolutism, and threatening its piety. Because that piety is threatened, the extremists flourish.

I now believe that through examples like the current furor over these cartoons, a growing number of Western states, and their peoples, will finally come to understand the true nature of this struggle. Just as the Europeans struggle to assimilate Islamic immigrants, Islam struggles to assimilate the profoundest principle of liberal democracy—freedom of expression, freedom of religion. When the people of the West come to understand that Islamic fundamentalism is an intransigent response to the core principles of our societies, not only a threat to our buildings and undergrounds, then the situation and the choice will be clear enough. Both that part of Islam that is willing to make its peace with the modern world, and the so-called “liberal” Western apologists for the Islamofascists will be forced to choose. Shari’a, or Constitutional Law, make your choice.

Posted by: george III

at February 7, 2006 4:43 PM

Well said Hugh. I will write my congressman and senators again, and perhaps more importantly, I will have another Carlsberg beer.

Posted by: Papa Bear

at February 7, 2006 5:11 PM

Responding to Hugh re the Telegraph's "admiration for Mohammed":

That the UK's leading conservative newspaper, as it certainly was under the editorship of Charles Moore and its former owners, could take an editorial position such as this is unfathomable. Only one possibility, sheer ignorance, since knowledge of the life and fantasies of Mohammed cannot inspire admiration in any sane person of decency, let alone a conservative.

Posted by: Fran

at February 7, 2006 5:47 PM

Hugh really captures the essense of our erosion of freedom at the hands of Islam. Self-censureship can easily be followed by total censureship. The US press corp has betrayed the Nation and themselves with the comfort of temporary safety.

Posted by: kevin

at February 7, 2006 5:53 PM

I hear Iran is haveing than picture contest to test Europe committion to free expression with limit which some of you believe to exsit.

I wrote to the Sec General of the UN about passing than blinding resolve that bar all attacked on religion by artist it you must than religion it show you have no true artist abilities at all. That two more member state be make of the permant security concil, they are Pakistian and Saudic Arbabia with the veto power given to them. I also ask that the the Caliphate be reestrate by the UN as than gloderal form of government.

Hugeo if I was you give up the slanderous untrue attack on Islam Founder unless you ended up before than judge in a liberal suit in the Internation Criminal Court.

Islam have no seperation between science and religious, many religious scholar have degreees in different field of sciences and many Islamist scienists are also religious scholars.

Posted by: DefenderofIslam

at February 7, 2006 6:02 PM

I love the requirements of being allowed to post here. A good thing too being forewarned of the ample glib posted. Though one roster was particularly impressive. at least mentioned the machine working on the emotions of people.
Many times when I read the news here, it is something of a fairy tale with nothing remotely close to resembling history posted.
alone the lines of Santa clause Easter bunny and osama, who keeps making videos as bush's polls dive, in his batman like cave under ground in the labyrinths of Afghanistan, where a large number of plastic knives are being harbored for attacks that cascade to burn towers from which passports survive to allude to the identity of the Muslim culprits, Who despises our freedom and our freedom fries. and the same tape from 1992 with people gesticulating in the streets is displayed whenever any occasion rises that would demand the need.Get a grip people and read history. real history the one that might shock and teach you something, it might teach you Muslims are Semites so perhaps a cartoon depicting a Muslim as anti-Semite would be self defeating, just check Merriam Webster's definition if you really wish to have a quick validation. that Abraham founder of all modern day monotheism was in fact from modern day Iraq, that Jesus is from modern day Palestine and that all of God's messengers whether you choose to be opiated with religion or not have come to you out of that despicable dump you call the middle east.
So no prophet Mohammed never pillaged or asked people to rob and murder Jews or rape women, an army would have risen for the honor of just one woman. in fact when prophet Mohammed's Jewish neighbor who used to leave him excrement by his door every day failed to do it once he went to visit him to make sure he wasn't ill. Islam in its essence like the Hebrew word shalom teaches nothing but peaceful ideals and war isn't to be waged unless waged upon you. The term Jihad could be a host of things from battle with self to war against those who have waged war against you. please stop parroting crap that has been spoon fed you for ages. perhaps at some point you might one to stop and think why would there be 1.4 billion devout worshippers, the 2nd largest organized religion after Christianity? Maybe 1.4 billion people know something you don't. maybe those who wish to spread unrest throughout the world are afraid you'd find out what it is.
In America in the 30's and 40's Japanese and Mexicans were taken into concentration camps. A woman named Rosa parks wasn't allowed to board the bus with whites, and to current day hatred and criticism of things you don't understand seem to rein supreme a regular mob mentality. so come again and speak of the civility you are trying to teach the world when killing children all over from Palestine to Pakistan to chechnya to Iraq. Or does freedom have to fill a neo-con's definition to be accepted in which case tolerance and freedom and all those beautiful things said time and again would defy their own essence. Freedom isn't putting puppet democratic governments in regions to further oppress people and steal their resources.
To teach middle easterners of Jesus is laughable they have more reverence for Jesus than you can impart. I Hazard say no one here knows much about him. except when speaking of American pride I am not sure how he fits in the picture even, as pride according to jesus is a deadly sin, and when other religions are not well tolerated. You want to know something of Jesus then perhaps you might benefit from his words show the other cheek or whomever amidst you without sin be the first to cast the stone. If freedom of speech is so wonderful why do people still go to jail under terms of libel and slander or french author Robert imprisoned for questioning the number of Jews killed in the holocaust as oppose to others under Nazi Germany? These ideals can't be imposed for some and denied to others, at least Muslims don't use dead hookers to depict the virgin Mary as did carrvaggio.
when you making a statement please be able to back it up with something credible.
it is disgusting the dual rhetoric. I guess that is what "freedom of speech imparts" a bunch of buffoons with something negative to say and nothing near factual or credible to back it up with. I hate these forums. I can't understand why I read them only to discover sickness en masse
I encourage people to seek the truth behind 911 preferably with evidence that doesn't defy the laws of physics and probability.
when speaking of the quran or prophet Mohammed(PBUH) again to impart with something credible. amidst the darkest of middle ages it was the Muslim empire that was beacon for all to learn from science to math to inventions, more importantly it was a refuge for all who wished to flee the Spanish inquisition, it was because of the Muslim empire that the world has come to learn of freedom.
Muslim Scientists and Islamic Civilization
Go ahead and draw cartoon and if you are a woman go naked as to not be oppressed. but it was Islam that allowed a woman to divorce her husband, to have her own business and inheritance, and freedoms not known to any other organized religion preceding it. do research what st. Paul said of woman, how they are to be silent in church, how to obey her husband even if wrong since like the head of the church he is head of her house. how women should have their hair shorn or covered as it is only glory to her husband. That Mary didn't wander the streets in Bikinis and the three Magi weren't from Belgium or France. And then can you come and make an honest religious analysis of the freedom you have that Muslims will never know of. Only reason it exists is because there is separation of church and state. I hazard say if Jesus were to come back today, he would be crucified. An improvised middle easterner who speaks so much of God would be such an anecdote for the ever so tolerant Americans. Stop the self-aggrandizing, self serving mob mentality that will drive the world to another great war.
I too say don't forget 911, demand from bush that he reopens the investigation, and then come and reassess the reasons we are at war, it isn't over a cartoon, it is the straw that broke the camel's back!!!
At some point after you push and push the other side will push back, it is a law of nature.
This is the first and last time I post here. This is an ugly vortex and a waste of time a pseudo-illuminati society who decided who is most worthy and as expected chose itself!

Posted by: ambrosia

at February 7, 2006 6:03 PM

Ambrosia..the short bus is waiting just outside,..

Posted by: hammerhead

at February 7, 2006 6:30 PM

to the first roster

1- 3-year old slave girls were forced into sex under the Mosaic Law in the Bible:

Pedophilia with 3-year old slave girls in the Bible!
Forcing 3-year old slave girls into sex during the Mosaic Law in the Bible! (click here)

Is the GOD of Israel a pedophile?
polygmy in bible

Gen.4:19 And Lamech took unto him two wives.

Gen.16:1-4 Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai ... gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived.

Gen.25:6 But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had....

Gen.26:34 Esau ... took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite.

Gen.28:9 Esau .. took ... Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael ... to be his wife.

Gen.31:17 Then Jacob rose up, and set ... his wives upon camels.

Ex.21:10 If he take him another wife....

Dt.21:15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated....

Judges 8:30 And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives.

1 Sam.1:1-2 Elkanah ... had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah.

2 Sam.12:7-8 Thus saith the LORD God of Israel ... I gave thee ... thy master's wives....

1 Kg.11:2-3 Solomon ... had seven hundred wives ... and three hundred concubines.

1 Chr.4:5 And Ashur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah.

2 Chr.11:21 Rehoboam ... took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines.

2 Chr.13:21 But Abijah waxed mighty, and married fourteen wives....

2 Chr.24:3 Jehoiada took for him two wives....

Mt.25:1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.

1 Tim.3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife....

Titus 1:6-7 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless.

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

violence in the bible

1) In Leviticus 25:44-46, the Lord tells the Israelites it's OK to own slaves, provided they are strangers or heathens.

2) In Samuel 15:2-3, the Lord orders Saul to kill all the Amalekite men, women and infants.

3) In Exodus 15:3, the Bible tells us the Lord is a man of war.

4) In Numbers 31, the Lord tells Moses to kill all the Midianites, sparing only the virgins.

5) In Deuteronomy 13:6-16, the Lord instructs Israel to kill anyone who worships a different god or who worships the Lord differently.

6) In Mark 7:9, Jesus is critical of the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as prescribed by Old Testament law.

7) In Luke 19:22-27, Jesus orders killed anyone who refuses to be ruled by him.

Context is important, of course, and many of these seeming cruelties disappear when read as such. However, this would not stop a Christian terrorist from interpreting the Bible in a manner necessary to concoct a religious justification for unspeakable horrors, as Pope Urban II did, for example, when he preached the First Crusade in 1095 or as many American preachers did when they used Leviticus to defend slavery.

Political and religious extremists have abused Islamic, Jewish, or Christian scriptures continuously throughout history. Cal Thomas, a man who claims to be Christian, would do well to learn something of his own faith s scriptures and history before accusing Islam s Quran of promoting violence.

But to bring a sword
[Categories: Doctrines and teachings of Jesus]

I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword is one of the reported sayings of (A teacher and prophet born in Bethlehem and active in Nazareth; his life and sermons form the basis for Christianity (circa 4 BC - AD 29)) Jesus in the (The sacred writings of the Christian religions) Bible. It is a common case of confusion dealing with understanding Christian parables. In ((New Testament) disciple of Jesus; traditionally considered to be the author of the first Gospel) Matthew 10:34-36 ( (Click link for more info and facts about NASB) NASB) Jesus is quoted:
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household."

Similarly, in the (One of the four Gospels in the New Testament; contains details of Jesus's birth and early life) Gospel of Luke, 12:51-52 ( (Click link for more info and facts about NASB) NASB), Jesus says:
"Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three..."

of women

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Is.3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them.

1 Cor.11:3 "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

1 Cor.14:34-36 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

Eph.5:22-24 "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."

Col.3:18 "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord."

1 Tim.2:11-15 "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing

1 Pet.3:1 "Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands."

Posted by: ambrosia

at February 7, 2006 6:38 PM

"We share the admiration of Rousseau, Carlyle and Gibbon for the Prophet..."
-- from a posting above

I'm thinking that the writers on The Telegraph should pay more attention to the thoughts of great men like W. Churchill:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men."

-Winston Churchill, from his account of the Sudanese Campaign, 1899

Or listen to the likes of John Quincy Adams:

"They [The Russians] have been from time immemorial, in a state of almost perpetual war with the Tatars, and with their successors, the Ottoman conquerors of Constantinople. It were an idle waste of time to trace the causes of each renewal of hostilities, during a succession of several centuries. The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force. Of Mahometan good faith, we have had memorable examples ourselves. When our gallant [Stephen] Decatur ref had chastised the pirate of Algiers, till he was ready to renounce his claim of tribute from the United States, he signed a treaty to that effect: but the treaty was drawn up in the Arabic language, as well as in our own; and our negotiators, unacquainted with the language of the Koran, signed the copies of the treaty, in both languages, not imagining that there was any difference between them. Within a year the Dey demands, under penalty of the renewal of the war, an indemnity in money for the frigate taken by Decatur; our Consul demands the foundation of this pretension; and the Arabic copy of the treaty, signed by himself is produced, with an article stipulating the indemnity, foisted into it, in direct opposition to the treaty as it had been concluded. The arrival of Chauncey, with a squadron before Algiers, silenced the fraudulent claim of the Dey, and he signed a new treaty in which it was abandoned; but he disdained to conceal his intentions; my power, said he, has been wrested from my hands; draw ye the treaty at your pleasure, and I will sign it; but beware of the moment, when I shall recover my power, for with that moment, your treaty shall be waste paper. He avowed what they always practised, and would without scruple have practised himself. Such is the spirit, which governs the hearts of men, to whom treachery and violence are taught as principles of religion."

-John Quincy Adams

Great minds are not easily fooled, as you can see from reading the above quotations. An 'quiet' awareness of the danger Islam poses for the entire world has been with us for centuries. All it takes now is for the rest of us to start shouting it from the rooftops and wake up the sleeping masses of the West once and for all to the dire events that are sure to unfold before us all-too-soon.

Posted by: Foehammer

at February 7, 2006 6:46 PM

Hugh, Robert and yourself are warning us, but will we heed the warning? I liken both Hugh and Robert to Churchil who long before world war II warned the German people that Hitler was gearing up for war and deceiving his plans. The British people were still sick from world war I and its death and destruction and wanted to believe Hitler's plans were not for war. JihadWatch functions the same way by describing things as they are; there is no sanitization of the problem--and no racist exageration -- what you see at JihadWatch is a 'just the facts' attitude that is educational and needed as we are let down by our leaders(of both parties) who fail or pretend to fail to see the real threat out there. The anti-semites, the Pat buchanan crowd, the neocon crowd who have a missionary zeal of the reforming nature of democracy, the naive and the antiwar crowd may all have little in common en masse, but they ALL fail to understand and plan for the real threat.

When I hear Justin Raimando wail about Israel, or Buchanan wail about Israel, or, conversly, Wolfowitz or Condi or W go on about democracy, or Cindi Sheehan or Ted Kennedy or McCain wail about this nonsense or that one and yet NOT ONE of these individuals are to be heard about Jihad or the cartoon controversy. It's like an alternative reality that doesn't exist. But the reality is the Jihadist world does exist and is an existential threat to our very way of life.

Posted by: biorabbi

at February 7, 2006 6:49 PM

ambrosia-

As an agnostic, I don't care what any self-proclaimed "holy" book says.

But the Koran is the only one being militantly put into action, currently.

The Inquisition went out of business in the West about 290 years ago.

The Islam-quisition is killing people globally, daily.

Worry about the problem in your face, NOT in your past.

All the Mormon, Jewish, Catholic, Hindu, Baptist, Buddhist, Jain, Taoist, Confucian and Bahai suicide bombers could be counted on the fingers of Abu Hamza's hook.

Zero.

Your exegetic efforts are delusionally silly.

Bail out of the Koranic cult. Free your mind.

Learn to draw. And sing. And dance.

And, perhaps, even love.

Posted by: profitsbeard

at February 7, 2006 6:51 PM

ambrosia:

Why are you all chewing the same cud?

Why are you all regurgitating crap that has been disproved time and time again and finally, why do you think you "have a right to live amongst infidels?"

We can get along fine if you all deport yourself's and stop infiltration and contamination of civilized countries!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami

at February 7, 2006 6:52 PM

funny we can mock al-jazeera and other media outlets of the middle east but applaud the media whores of america who falsify and lie to the american public and on daily basis. why on God's earth do we think we are good and the rest of the world is bad? that we are on the side of truth when in fact we do nothing but distort it?
If you have something of substance to impart please do so if not, people have been malingering for ages what can I say? we will all get a chance to look at truth someday
the grave is a place we visit alone with our deeds and the poisons we have spread over to man kind will come back to us one day

The Killing of Asma': True Story or Forgery?

Basically the charge is that the Prophet(P) had ordered the killing of Asma' when she insulted him with her poetry. As it is usually the case where the history of Islam and the character of the Prophet(P) is concerned, it is left to the Muslims to throw some light on authenticity of the story in which this incident is reported by the sources and educate the missionaries in matters which they have no clue about.

The story of the killing of Asma' bint Marwan is mentioned by Ibn Sa'd in Kitab At-Tabaqat Al-Kabir[3] and by the author of Kinz-ul-'Ummal under number 44131 who attributes it to Ibn Sa'd, Ibn 'Adiyy and Ibn 'Asaker. What is interesting is that Ibn 'Adiyy mentions it in his book Al-Kamel on the authority of Ja'far Ibn Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn As-Sabah on authority of Muhammad Ibn Ibrahim Ash-Shami on authority of Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj Al-Lakhmi on authority of Mujalid on authority of Ash-Shu'abi on authority of Ibn 'Abbas, and added that

...this isnâd (chain of reporters) is not narrated on authority of Mujalid but by Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj and they all (other reporters in the chain) accuse Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj of forging it.[4]

It is also reported by Ibn al-Gawzi in Al-'Ilal[5] and is listed among other flawed reports.

So according to its isnâd, the report is forged - because one of its reporters is notorious for fabricating hadîth. Hence, such a story is rejected and is better off being put into the trash can.

Prophetic Attitude Toward Women and Old Men in War

Here we are going to discuss the authentic Sunnah of the Holy Prophet(P) regarding women and old men in war. No baseless or forged reports are allowed here; we will only display authentic reports.

In brief, the authentic Sunnah of the Prophet(P) prohibits the killing of women in war.

Narrated Anas bin Malik: A Jewish woman brought a poisoned (cooked) sheep for the Prophet who ate from it. She was brought to the Prophet and he was asked, "Shall we kill her?" He said, "No." I continued to see the effect of the poison on the palate of the mouth of God’s Apostle.[6]

The Prophet(P) refused to kill a woman who did intentionally try to poison him, but the Christian missionaries, by using a fabricated story, wants us to believe that he ordered the killing of a woman who only abused him verbally. (note: in Islam a women can only be put to death if she commited murder as crime, for murder is (both for men and women) death punishment in islam),

Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Messenger of God (peace be upon him) 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.[7]

Due to this prohibition, scholars of Abu Hanîfah’s madhâb (school of thought) have stated that apostate women are not to be killed because the Prophet(P) forbade the killing of women, and since the prohibition is general it includes apostate women.[8]

Even after the Prophet's demise, his Sunnah remain preserved by the Muslims:

Abu Bakr advised Yazid: "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 camel except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly."[9]

Conclusion

The Western Orientalist Bernard Lewis notes that

From an early date Muslim scholars recognized the danger of false testimony and hence false doctrine, and developed an elaborate science for criticizing tradition.[10]

We have utilized their scientific methodology to expose the false narratives attributed to the Prophet(P) about the alleged killing of Abu 'Afak and Asma' bint Marwan. Examination of the isnâd (i.e., chain of reports) has revealed the unreliability of both stories. Also, an examination of the matn (i.e., text) has revealed their inevitable contradiction with vigorously authentic traditions and established Islamic principles. 'Abdûr Rahmân I. Doi had stated that

As far as the Matn is concerned, the following principles of criticism of the Hadith are laid down:

(1) The Hadith should not be contrary to the text or the teaching of the Qur'an or the accepted basic principles of Islam.

(2) The Hadith should not be against the dictates of reason or laws of nature and common experience.

(3) The Hadith should not be contrary to the Traditions which have already been accepted by authorities as reliable and authentic by applying all principles.

(4) The Hadith which sings the praises and excellence of any tribe, place or persons should be generally rejected

(5) The Hadith that contains the dates and minute details of the future events should be rejected.

(6) The Hadith that contains some remarks of the Prophet which are not in keeping with the Islamic belief of Prophethood and the position of the Holy Prophet or such expressions as may not be suitable to him, should be rejected.[11]

But critics may have an objection: if these stories are false, then why they are mentioned in Islamic references in the first place? In response, we have earlier shown the position of learned Muslim scholars toward these references in the biographies, whose authors used to relate hundreds of reports without checking them or relying on serious criticism. These particular stories even proved their unscientific methodology because they are reported without isnâd at all. This is extremely irregular of any respectable scholar. Ibn Jarîr At-Tabârî (224-310 A.H.) in his encyclopedic book of history Tarikh Al-Umam wa Al-Mulûk did not give mention of these stories at all despite the fact that he had mentioned far less significant reports in his work.

Hence, based on the empirical evidence, we can therefore conclude that the so-called "killing" of Abu 'Afak and Asma' bint Marwan respectively are inherently false and had never happened. This certainly throws the spanner into the works of the missionary's conclusions, which is based upon nothing but hatred, paranoia and xenophobia towards the elect Apostle of God, Muhammad(P).

Posted by: ambrosia

at February 7, 2006 7:00 PM

Further on the London Telegraph's admiration for Mohammed:

The West is split: Should it take a pass on freedom of expression knowing that Muslims might be angered by the publication, say, of a cartoon, and would respond with threats of death and other violence? To do so would mean it's all right to tweak those religions the adherents of which protest with a letter or a sit-in, but don't mess with those Muslims.

In an article in the London Telegraph doing an update on the mounting Muslim protests, the French foreign minister, rather astonishingly for a French official, had this to say:

"It is not normal to caricature a whole religion as an extremist or terrorist movement." But the extreme reaction to the cartoons "would suggest the caricaturists were right."

Charles Moore, the former editor of the Telegraph, thinks it's time to stand up to the angry of Islam.

"There is a great deal of talk about responsible journalism, gratuitous offence, multicultural sensitivities and so on. Jack Straw gibbers about the irresponsibility of the cartoons, but says nothing against the Muslims threatening death in response to them. I wish someone would mention the word that dominates Western culture in the face of militant Islam - fear. And then I wish someone would face it down."

Read the whole piece here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/02/04/do0402.xml

This is what the Telegraph used to be.

Posted by: Fran

at February 7, 2006 7:02 PM

Posted by: ambrosia at February 7, 2006 06:03 PM
" This is the first and last time I post here. This is an ugly vortex and a waste of time a pseudo-illuminati society who decided who is most worthy and as expected chose itself!"

then...
Posted by: ambrosia at February 7, 2006 06:38 PM
Posted by: ambrosia at February 7, 2006 07:00 PM

So, you're a liar who likes to throw hissy fits?
What's new? We see lots of mohammadan liars
here.

Is this the latest incarnation of the Naseembot?
Too bad hubby isn't sleeping with the raisins,
huh? Better luck next time!

Posted by: American

at February 7, 2006 7:07 PM

lol I love that the "civilized countries. Do you deem yourself civil? Do you rate yourself like the American army who is dying everywhere from friendly fire? and what do you know about where I live? perhaps I dwell in cave countries? they have Internet access too!!! said Charlemagne to Aaron(harun) the upright after being handed an intricate piece of machine invented by Muslim scientists.
I don't know what you have disapproved time and again. I have sources, you have your A$$ for truth? I really don't wish to reduce myself to this level of arguing. You can assumes the position of comic boy guy sit your blubber on the computer and type up more of your pseudo-intellect oh civilized one, or better yet assume the lithotomy and ply with thyself

Posted by: ambrosia

at February 7, 2006 7:09 PM

ambrosia-

Love your history!

But to clarify:

Rosa Parks, who was allowed on the bus with whites in the 1950's American South, but had to defer to them and move if she was in the front seat of the vehicle and white wanted that seat, so she protested peacefully, instigated a city-wide bus-boycott, and won her fight to not have to move "to the back of the bus" in law-abiding, freedom-loving America.

So, your point would be peaceful, tolerant Muslims should protest noviolently against the outrageous behavior of their fellow extremist Muslims who use the Koran to incite mindless mayhem and murder, I hope?

And:

No Mexicans were interned in the 1930's or 1940's. Japanese Americans, living on the West Coast, were interned -from 1942-1945 (as much to prevent racist retribution by angry non-Japanese citizens as to prevent them from potential sabotage and spying) after the Imperial Japanese Empire surprise-attacked the U.S. During wartime, extreme measures for security can occur. War is hell.

And these Japanese Americans were later given reparations and a govenment apology.

So, by this example, you must want the heirs of the marauding Islamic Imperialists -who over-ran North Africa, Spain, and the Jewish, Christian, Zoroastrian, Hindu, Buddhist, and animist areas of the Middle and Far East (Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc.) should pay reparations for their multi-continental thefts, and apologize for the torment, humiliation, mass-murder and forced conversions that resulted?

I commend you!

Inshallah!

Posted by: profitsbeard

at February 7, 2006 7:11 PM

Well, Hugh, I guess that shows the hypocrisy of the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights".
It is illegitimate in my eyes. At least for America. or pre-Soviet Americans.

Posted by: kentim

at February 7, 2006 7:12 PM

again, to American and others who wear their ignorance like a badge of honor, I don't think you are ready for a Pulitzer yet with that winning piece and drive by shootings with your BB guns, if you have something of substance to impart do so otherwise I am exercising the freedom that you are criticizing other people for trying to oppress. Can you get past your football game, freedom fries monster cars and sexual innuendos as if your very virility relied on it.
My husband is as WASP as they get, and johns Hopkins grad.
Amazing thing is Muslims come from all regions and backgrounds. your Doctor might be one, your police officer, it is time to contain yourself with other hate mongers, because you wouldn't believe how diverse we are. if you want to attack the middle east for the grotto that it is, which it might be? that would be only 20% of the Muslim world, tons of us out there =)

Posted by: ambrosia

at February 7, 2006 7:21 PM

Ambrosia, you don't really expect anyone to wade through your pile of Allah's droppings do you?

Anyone can instead, by turning on the TV and looking at the distorted, howling visage of the average ignorant and stupid Muslim burning down embassies and burning flags, see the true face of Islam.

Save your breath, Islam is irredeemably broken.

No-one can ever, ever believe anything a Muslim says so most will simply not read your posts.
Nothing a Muslim writes is worth reading, as nothing a Musim says can be believed.

You Muslims think the West is weak, like Hitler thought it was weak prior to WW2.
So Hitler went on the rampage for a while, getting his way and exulting in triumph...

until the world got organized.

Then Hitler got his arse kicked.

Exactly the same thing will happen to Islam, but I fear that the atrocities Islam will commit will ensure Islam's complete destruction when scores are settled.

Posted by: Mike_W

at February 7, 2006 7:25 PM

wow you really told me
Allah, Yahweh, are the Semitic ways of saying God, or did Jesus speak English while I was too busy being ignorant in the street? You really told me fellow
That is the only way to live I tell you. If you can't come up with something other than hypocrisy and mass killings and imperialism and blah to get by then there is no reason we should be posting here at all. I'd really love to get back to my work a day activities but this has just turned out more fun than I could have imagined. You really are bourgeois and one can't fault you for it, half the country has turned medieval. I look forward to more sentences of rant, and glib and hypocrisy and crud and and and ....
so what next America moves to Iraq, works its way to Syria, Egypt, then Iran, while ignoring Korea and its pygmy leader for admitting to have nuclear weapons? may I please head that under globalization and imperialistic ambitions? or would that be too cruddy of me? too repetitive too hypocritical? too Islamic? after all the civilized world is the only voice for truth justice and the comics
Please do ignore my posts. I post them for those who wish to reflect on the other side. I have never considered your public opinion or those like you as a measure by which to live my life. Someone so very filled with hatred and despise for his fellow man and the human condition is not very worthy of being a part humanity

Posted by: ambrosia

at February 7, 2006 7:39 PM

True, Mike_W,

The muzzies don't have a clue, we've been humoring them so long. There's a force in the world that even the average American does not comprehend, and while that force is corrupt and deviant, it is ALL ABOUT POWER AND CONTROL, and nothing, nothing, will interfere with it's agenda. Extermination of a billion people is not out of the question for this power, once they rationalize that it is "for the best'(of humanity).
That force is the NWO, based on "humanism".

Posted by: kentim

at February 7, 2006 7:41 PM

I understand Ambrosia, but all you gotta do is defect, and practice an "enlightened" form of islam. But you won't, and I understand that too.

Posted by: kentim

at February 7, 2006 7:45 PM

Now, Infidel, let's get this straight!
We Muslims are so full of hate
If we don't get a turn
To pillage and burn
You'll never be safe in your state...

And if we find something new
Which you did, (or did not do)
Which inflames our rage
Again we'll rampage
Till our message is getting through...

Our rules are the rules of the world!
Into the abyss you'll be hurled
If you cannot comply
With our rules as we cry
For Islam's black banner unfurled...

Be forwarned! Our soldiers are cunning!
Before them you all should be running!
No one will escape
Our wrath or our rape
Our victory will be quite stunning

And now if you do what we say --
And do it without any delay
then you may yet have survived
For Islam has arrived!
ON YOUR KNEES! IT IS NOW TIME TO PRAY!

Posted by: jsla

at February 7, 2006 7:47 PM

http://www.cyberistan.org/

Posted by: ambrosia

at February 7, 2006 7:47 PM

damn well said profitsbeard. I salute you!

Ambrosia - I'm so relieved to hear that islamic law forbids the killing of women and children, and that those parts of it which seem to suggest otherwise are forgeries.

My problem remains that in many parts of the world today muslims intentionally target and kill women and children.

You see my problem?

Posted by: religion_of_peas

at February 7, 2006 7:50 PM

Ambrosia:

"..Hence, based on the empirical evidence, we can therefore conclude that the so-called "killing" of Abu 'Afak and Asma' bint Marwan respectively are inherently false and had never happened..."

Yeah!

Mo wasn't a pedophile, caravan robber, psychopath, torturer, mass-murderer, arsonist...

9/11 never happened, 7/7 never happened, Madrid, Moscow, Bali, Beslan never happened, Koran rage never happened, cartoon rage is not happening:

Its all a ploy by the Mossad and the CIA!

Rub it with camel-dung and eat it, ambrosia, it will just go away...
(but it may cause you some severe flatulence...)

Posted by: sheik yer'mami

at February 7, 2006 7:58 PM

most Muslims know there is a world war three coming, they know no one will know of great victory on all sides, Muslims or otherwise, it has been parenthesized , perhaps it explains the complacency over atrocities committed against them, YES AGAINST THEM they are oppressed by their own leader who love the throne as much as George the V loved his over saving his cousin, and oppressed by westerners many not very unlike yourselves who get their knowledge from Fox news. Thing is you can push and push and push and at some point these people are going to discover they are dying en masse, their image has been tarnished, there really is nothing else to lose. You have most to fear the man who has nothing to lose.
with this I believe DinDin is waiting, and there is still beauty that I can sit in my study and enjoy, and kind people whom if in their heart there is disagreement at least not hatred, and that really is all that matteres you can continue this ad nauseam, I believe others exist who don't share you obtuse point of view of others
Good day

Posted by: ambrosia

at February 7, 2006 8:01 PM

Ambrosia,
You need to understand, truth and logic don't matter. The fact that you believe in a metaphysical idea is not the issue. That part is non-sense and a non-issue. You're brainwashed about that.(we're all brainwashed to some extent). The truth and logic part is tied to the scriptures, they are unacceptable to the non-muslim world. I understand that maybe most of the actions by the islamic terrorists are defensive(outside of Israel), but there is an offensive aspect that cannot be ignored. And while in the past there was a "live and let live" attitude in the rest of the world, the actions of 9-11 changed that, 9-11 exposed a belligerant, imperialistic aspect of islam that had mostly been ignored. This is a DIRECT CHALLENGE to the NWO, and it will be crushed. It does not matter if it is right or wrong, might makes right, there will be no reasoning with your enemy, there is an obstacle, and it will be removed. Hard or easy, it's the islamic world's choice.

It would be best if you just pretend to believe, and try to avoid death. But then again, some things are worth dying for right? Death ain't the worst thing that can happen, right?

Posted by: kentim

at February 7, 2006 8:07 PM

sure 911 happened, it happened with plastic knives a plane did go into the pentagon with no trace, a passport did survive the burning of two buildings to a pulp and was the right passport the one of the culprits. I am a woman of science, Have done molecular bio then medicine for the past 13 yrs, please speak to me with something that answers to logic not bull sh**. why are people screaming reopen investigations for the fun of it? to rehash old wounds? or to find out the truth?
also for the gent who is concerned with the killing of women and children, heinous crimes occur in all parts of the world, I never saw them connect christianity with the oklahoma bombings did you? wasn't timothy and extremist? I never saw the catholic church going down for all its priests involved in pedophile crimes, and I certainly didn't see christiandom at war for the action of the irish IRA, morover I didn't see Israel condemned for the lavon affairs the bombing of the SS liberty, and and and, if we are going to dig into each others history, the books will be colored with many things

Posted by: ambrosia

at February 7, 2006 8:08 PM

I love the ones who have such an insight to my mentation, my spirituality, my religion my this. Are you me?I can read your writing and not know whether you have an osteogenisis imperfecta defect about to die of temporal arteritis or have a pshizotypal persoanlity disorder.
This isn't a competition of words. Where the winner is the one who imparts the most insults only to be high fived by his buddies. Why do you have such an insight to my psyche and the rest of the world's what makes you think you have all the right answers? Please focus on American domestic affairs, the ailing economy, the poverty that hits one out of 4 children in new York alone, the worthless wars that have dragged on for years by your "intelligence" that hasn't to date found the so-called weapons. then can you come focus on what ails the Moslem world!!!!!!!!

Posted by: ambrosia

at February 7, 2006 8:15 PM

"..their image has been tarnished.."

As if they had "an image" to begin with! "The image of the prophet has been tarnished.." I think I'm going to puke if I hear that one more time!

"Muslims are oppressed, Muslims are afraid of the backlash..."

(after they committed the worst atrocities of course)

Yes indeed: We have to learn to counter the hatred with hatred.
Oriana Fallaci said it: 'We have a right to love and we have a right to hate those who want to bomb us into submission and kill us..."

Mohammedans suck the hatred with the mothers milk. Its time to teach our children what Islam teaches the Mohammedans...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami

at February 7, 2006 8:16 PM

ambrosia,

I never assumed that Islam was a bad ideology until I read the Koran. There are, according to an on-line skeptical annotation of the Koran, 406 verses showing religious Intolerance, 531 verses showing Injustice, 333 verses showing Cruelty and Violence, 51 verses showing disrespect or mistreatment of Women, and there are only 64 verses showing what would generally be considered Good moral values (Source, retrieved January, 2006: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm ). Even the 'good' verses mostly only apply to Muslims; the positive sentiments are often not extended to the treatment of non-Muslims.

Over 250 separate verses condemn disbelievers (non-Muslims) to eternal hell-fires/torture for the crime of disbelief--the worst crime. Allah boasts of having carried out multiple genocides throughout history to wipe out the disbelievers (17:17, *10:13, 38:3, 32:26). Allah has destroyed whole towns/townships of disbelievers (7:4, 17:16, 21:6, 18:59, 28:58, 46:27). (How could the whole town or whole generation be guilty?). Allah destroys all of a people due to what a small number of them have done against him (27:51). Allah brings death through disaster upon those who disbelieve and dismiss his words as fable (16:22-26); He strikes at the foundation of their building, causing their building to collapse on them.

Posted by: Archimedes

at February 7, 2006 8:20 PM

I'd love for you to teach your children what Islam teaches, I'd also love for you to come up with your own quotes. I'd love for you to stop bombing people in Iraq and afghanistan and chechnya and bosnia and Pakistan. And claim it is becuase they hate your freedom, I'd love for you to go to your local library and buy a real history book. Muslims are only afraid of the creator. I guarantee none of us will live two hundred years, do unto others follow your scriptures for a change before you parrot and mimic.

Posted by: ambrosia

at February 7, 2006 8:21 PM

Look, I don't like this anymore than you. But it is REALITY. McViegh? Yes, he was an extremist, the problem is, his motivation was CORRECT, but his METHOD was WRONG. And, he probably DID hook up with some islamics, because they both opposed the same thing, for different reasons.

It does not matter what we wish, it only matters what IS. Allah will save nobody.
The only thing that matters is REALITY. The reality is that islam is in deep sh-t. Your people need to BACK-DOWN NOW!! You need to ADAPT to the new reality. The games are over. This is serious.

Power determines truth and rationality. You really do not have the power to define it. And it will be defined for you if you resist.

Posted by: kentim

at February 7, 2006 8:21 PM

archmides ana sa3eeda gidan inak bit3rif tiqra quran. I have already posted above quotes from the bible very similar just scroll back up, again anyone can quote out of context it also says in the quran
And thou wilt find the nearest of them in affection to those who believe (to be) those who say: Lo! We are Christians. That is because there are among them priests and monks, and because they are not proud. When they listen to that which hath been revealed unto the messenger, thou seest their eyes overflow with tears because of their recognition of the Truth. They say: Our Lord, we believe. Inscribe us as among the witnesses [5:82-83]
Muslims think of jews and christians as people of the book. Do you consider yourself an infidel? why do you care so much what it says in the books if there is no heaven or hell, and just a secular happy world? God is ultmiate judge if you don't believe in him there are no worries. No human being has the right to decide who goes where that is as much a trangression as depicting the messangers of God

Posted by: ambrosia

at February 7, 2006 8:26 PM

what truth what power what people? we are all over like I said muslims in the middle east make up about 20% of the muslim world, there is 1.4 billion muslims, I told if you read above they are not colored by the images you have in your mind, they are from moritania, russia, even WASP americans have embraced Islam, it shall remain until you kill each and every one of us. and that might very well happen who knows? we shall all return to that from which we were created from, each man holding on to his own moral compass. You speak as if I am the town leader keeping my people at bay, I am as american as they get. I just happen to be muslim I am writing here in english aren't I? does this country not boast freedom of speech and religion? well let me excercise my rights
you need this and you need that, quelle culot?

Posted by: ambrosia

at February 7, 2006 8:31 PM

Yeah, well, your writing was'nt very good.
Suit yourself, if you're an American as long as you don't break the law, nothing should happen to you. Keep up the grandiose proclaimations, you're setting yourself up for quite the left-down.
What will at most survive is a corrupted islam, a pacified islam. Like you practice here.

Posted by: kentim

at February 7, 2006 8:39 PM

Those who make their children follow Islam end up in Jail or dead.

Are your children 'martyrs' yet, ambrosia?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami

at February 7, 2006 8:40 PM

I care about what it says in the Koran because some people actually believe this stuff, form opinions about the world and other people based on it, and then act on those beliefs.

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).

BTW, Christians and Jews are called "disbelievers" (9:29-9:35), and Islam (a.k.a. the Surrender) is the only acceptable religion 3:85. You seem to be confused about which Christians and Jews are to be saved. Those _from among_ the Christians and Jews who believe Mohammad's revelations (which happen to contradict the Koran), Allah, the Last Day, and who assign no partners or ascribe no rivals will be saved. (But Allah says Jews and Christians ascribe partners to Allah (9:29-9:35), and Allah cannot be wrong within the Islamic belief system. In other words, those who reject major tenets of Christianity and Judaism and embrace Islam will be saved. Those from among the Christians and Jews who reject Islam are "worst of created beings" (98:6).

Posted by: Archimedes

at February 7, 2006 8:43 PM

The Middle-East is the source. Control of the source will determine what "true" islam is. Alive or dead.

Posted by: kentim

at February 7, 2006 8:43 PM

Many European states, unlike the U.S., do have anti-blasphemy or religious hatred laws, though rarely enforced. See this link at Deutsche Welle's English-language site: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1894686,00.html. If the OIC had had more sense they would have framed this as an issue of equal application of the laws rather a subordination of press freedom to Islamic law or "sensitivity". However, the story notes somebody did bring a case against the Jyllands Posten in October, so even with the anti-blasphemy law the Muslims did get their day in court.

Posted by: sceptico

at February 7, 2006 8:49 PM

"Mohammad's revelations (which happen to contradict the Koran),"

I meant to say, "...contradict the beliefs of Jews and Christians),"

Posted by: Archimedes

at February 7, 2006 8:49 PM

Enlightened nations need to enact a reciprocity law which states that the practice of Islam will be sanctioned within the USA, UK, France, etc. only to the extent that the practice of infidel religions are sanctioned within Saudi Arabia. Constitutions may need to be amended. Forcefully confronting Islam with it's own hypocrisy may end this threat to the West.

Posted by: jgreen44

at February 7, 2006 8:56 PM

1.4 billion dos'nt compare well with over 5 billion non-muslims. Especially with the current kill-ratio of at least 50-1.

Posted by: kentim

at February 7, 2006 8:57 PM

"focus on what ails the Moslem world!!!!!!!!"

Oh, that's easy Ambrosia, Islam ails the Muslim world.

Everyone is getting sick and tired of hearing from Muslims that every single problem Muslim's have is the fault of the West.
Grow up and take some responsibilty for your position.

I agree with a something I read here the other day,
"Islam is the abomination that brings desolation".

I wonder what those 60 million Hindus kiled when Islam tried to conquer India thought of the merciful Allah (aka Satan), Mohammed(pork be upon him) and the religion of peace.

Islam is a curse on mankind and it's greatest victims are the poor Muslims themselves.

Posted by: Mike_W

at February 7, 2006 9:00 PM

Ambrosia, I have one simple sentence to prove to you that the Koran is bogus. Mohammad states the Jesus was a Prophet and not the Son of God. What gave him the authority to make such a judgement.
Jesus was either the Son of God or a liar.

But if YOU read enough you will find that Islam is satanically inspired. There is a reason the Satan is called the Great Deciever in the Bible and he has certainly decieved you!

Posted by: learjet0450

at February 7, 2006 9:11 PM

Because that piety is threatened, the extremists flourish.

Stop right there. Extremists? A young male Moslem activist on the streets or in a Jihad terror group is no more extreme than an old lady Moslem sitting at home rooting them on.

They both adhere to the same scripture, and that scripture calls for terror and murder and world totalitarian conquest. Dunno about you, but a "religion" calling for terror and murder and world totalitarian conquest is... well, extreme.

But the suicidal myth of Moderate Moslem Man persists. Sigh. I give up. Where's the Koolaid, and please hand me a cup.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer

at February 7, 2006 9:28 PM

Ambrosia,
I am not qualified to assess whether you know anything beyond propaganda when it comes to exegesis of islamic texts.

I am qualified to say, however, that you are either profoundly incapable of reading, or posting willful distortions in your little note about christian texts.

Jesus does not order the killing of those who refuse to obey him: in the text you cite he is telling a parable, and the speaker of the words you cite is a character in the story he is telling. At a minimum, you should make that clear. For if you are positing the crackpot theory that Jesus is identifying himself with said character, then we can readily dismiss you as being, indeed, a crackpot--or simply a person lacking the literacy required to make ever a reasonable guess as to the meaning of a simple story.

The other cite you make from the Christian bible is also a rank distortion. Jesus does NOT reprimand anyone for failing to put their children to death. First of all, the Judaic formula he quotes is a curse rather than a death sentence. Secondly, it is clear from the text that Jesus is criticizing, not the lack of punishment, but the fact that the pharisees have created a simple mechanism by which children are no longer obliged to care for their parents.

Please note well: these are not reconstructions of the texts to suit modern readers' sensibilities. I'm simply reporting what the text means literally to anyone fluent enough (in any language for which there is a credible translation of the bible) to read a paragraph and get the essentail points related therein.

Despite your shameful efforts, the Christian texts are quite clear at least about this much: violence has no place for a christian. And this is why, in answer to your later protestations, Christianity is not universally condemned because of the warfare and violence "christians" have sponsored in the past. There is a clear discontinuity between these behaviors and the command of Christ, so it is simple even for a person of limited intelligence to look at the violence and say, "They may call themselves Christian, but clearly they aren't."

Such is not the case, sadly, with Islam. The texts are at best ambiguous. Thus, figures who hold great sway in the muslim world--perhaps the most popular of all muslim public figures--routinely paint an antipodal vision of Islam from the one you paint. They call for violence against any and all infidels. They say violence is a duty for muslims. Indeed, on a daily basis you can read the incitements to violence in the sermons and public statements from mullahs around the world. And these respected men are not reviled by the greater part of the muslim world, but rather, lionized, precisely because the texts ARE ambiguous (at best). In other words, these muslim leaders who say violence is a muslim duty--they don't seem to be making it up.

In contrast to this, where are the bishops, vatican officials, and christian politicians who urge christians to murder muslims and Jews? What evangelical leader is rallying his congregation to blow up mosques and cut the heads off of muslim immigrants? Where are they?

Should we ignore these differences? Is this what you, a woman of science would do, ignore the data?

So you see, I am inclined to think you are not a woman of science at all, but a poor poseur, an ideologue and propagandist, who has memorized a few easy verses and sings them over and over, hoping that no one who knows anything will challenge. Thus, I am also inclined to think your postings about Islam are not to be accorded much authority. That is, you show yourself prone to willful distortions in matters about which I know a great deal, so why should I believe you will be more careful, scrupulous about not misleading me, in matters about which I know little?

Posted by: mountainecho

at February 7, 2006 9:40 PM

"1.4 billion..."
-- from a posting above

A figure pulled from the air. A few months ago it was 1.3, then a few months before 1.2, and so on. It's all nonsense. Do the math yourself. Take every single member of the O.I.C. Now add up the total populations. Now subtract for the known non-Muslims. Now get the figures on the Muslim populations of non-Muslim countries.

What do you come up with? Even if one assumes that every last man, woman and child in these Muslim countries who is not specifically identified as Christian, or Hindu, or something else (so that we are to assume that everyone else is Muslim) I can't make my number budge much beyoond 1 billion, out of a world population of 6.5 billion. And that 1 billion would be, were it not for oil, the least productive, in every sense, the least important, in every sense, to the rest of the world.

Don't accept figures tossed off by Muslims. They exaggerate. "War is deception." It makes them feel good.

Is there conversion into Islam? Sure. Just look. There is Richard Reid, and John Walker Lindh, and Jose Padilla, and others similarly impressive, looking for a "community" and the brand-new Arab name you get to take, and the Total Regulation of LIfe, and Complete Explanation of the Universe, that so soothes some people who never really got the hang of thinking for themselves or finding mental freedom terribly soothing. The totalitarian temptation, at different levels, is a strong one.

Is there converstion out of Islam -- or rather, people leaving as others go in? Yes. Not Richard Reid or John Walker LIndh, but Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina and Irfan Khawaja and others of that caliber.

Which side is making the better trades? Which one will win the pennant?

Posted by: Hugh

at February 7, 2006 9:49 PM

Ambrosia:

I am sure you are a well-meaning, highly intelligent, probably female being. Whatever the case may be, please understand just a few things:

1. Speaking for myself, the son of diplomat who grew up in several countries in the Middle East, including Afghanistan, Egypt and Turkey, there is something inherently very wrong, very disturbing, about Islam. This is not hyperbole, it is based in scripture: specifically, the Qur'an, the Hadith and the Sira.

2. There is no true secular scholarship in Islamic countries because of the cult-like force of Islam. Truth be told, most advances in the Western world have been made by people who, were they truly honest and forthright, would admist that they were atheists or agnostics, or Christians and Jews only "culturally."

3. I am an immigration lawyer with numerous clients from the Muslim world. I think most of my better clients are actually decent, family-loving, and essentially moral people. However, they just CAN'T shirk the Islamic stuff. It is my biggest frustration. Specifically, knowing that no matter how much of the American Dream they desire, they will never "get it" as long as Islam continues to infect their lives.

4. You may be an exception, but Islam will never tolerate your kind if it gains any kind of real power in the world. It never has acknowledged its female denizens in any meaningful sense. Sorry, that is the unvarnished truth.

5. The U.S. has, indeed, been imperfect in its conduct of foreign policy over the years. That does not negate the fact that this place is still the best, most desired place to live in the Universe as we know it. There is a reason for this. Islam will NEVER, I repeat NEVER, be compatible with American values.

6. Most of us, regardless of how liberal, how sensitive, how tolerant, how whatever, are SICK TO DEATH of Islam, its childishness, its deception, its all-encompassing insane view of morality. Sick of it. I'm not kidding.

7. Islam is not capable of a reformation. It is what it is. There is no tradition of real critical thinking or self-examination. It is a curse on this world, regardless of the 1.2 billion adherents, almost all of whom were either born into it, forced into it by gunpoint (metaphorically speaking), or adopted it in prison (as in the United States, primarily among African American inmates).

8. If Islam were not 1400 years old, but simply invented today, it would universally be considered simply another dangerous cult. Unfortunately, it is classified as a "religion," notwithstanding that its texts are merely terrible cut and paste jobs, stealing from central parts of Judaism and Christianity, with a good measure of violence and Arab tribal vengeance thrown in for good measure.

9. It's a shame. A damned shame.

Peace.

Posted by: Matt

at February 7, 2006 9:52 PM

mountainecho,

I am inclined to agree with you. Here's (one example) of what ambrosia passed off as an argument:

"...anyone can quote out of context..."

This "argument" gets used so often because it is so cheap and easy, and, anyways, it's not really an argument; it's the name of an argument. Now the onus is on ambrosia to follow through and explain how my above quotations convey the wrong meaning by having been quoted.

Quotation is, by definition, taking a statement out of its original context. But the important question is 'Does this quotation reflect the intended meaning in the original source?' Everything that I quoted reflects the intended meaning in the Koran. For example, adding several verses of textual context and providing the historical context does not change the meaning of the insults that I quoted. "Worst beasts in Allah's sight" does not get transformed into "Fine upstanding citizens"!

Posted by: Archimedes

at February 7, 2006 9:58 PM

Arch,
Well, exactly. She is pretending to be a scholar--a person with a great reserve of knowledge about the exegesis of the holy texts of various religions, especially Islam.

In reality, she has a cheat sheet with a couple of chapters and verses that she trundles out, hoping that people will just shut up when confronted with an actual text.

Because most people can't, or won't read, most of the time she probably gets away with her willful distortions. But since she herself really doesn't read, she has nothing to say when challenged on a specific textual point.

To wit: no rational, halfway literate person could argue that she is representing the New Testament--OR EVEN THE PRECISE PASSAGES SHE CITES--accurately, or that your citations can be reconstructed all the way to neutrality (or, as she would seem to have it, full-on meekness).

It really is a perfect example of what Hugh's post was about: false symmetries. Christianity and Islam have virtually nothing in common when it comes to violence--either in the behavior of their founders, their scriptural commands, or their authoritative teaching traditions.

Judging by her posts, there are some disparate trajectories when it comes to deceitfulness as well.

Posted by: mountainecho

at February 7, 2006 10:21 PM

ambrosia- (or is it dystopia?)

A final thought-

-what is an ostensible woman doing defending a creed that considers her, as a female, only worth half of a man?

(I'm sure you know all the relevant Koranic and Hadithic citations, the long Sharia history, and the present conditions of women throughout the Islamic world within the partiarchally-tainted "religion" of "submission" to answer easily and voluminously.)

But, as a male, I can only give any answer you attempt half credit, naturally.

A strange desire to want to belong to a group which treats you with such sanctified disdain.

(Veiling it as "honor", of course, the usual misogynist cloak to disguise its patronizing contempt for your "weak inte