This is what happens when you disarm lawabiding citizens, and they then rely on the police for their protection. when they realize the police cannot and will not protect them, they cower in fear. This is why l am confident that Americans with their right to bear arms will never back to these cowards!

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

God Bless our second Amendment.

This is just more fuel for the fire in establishing islam's true intent for the world, they can not live in harmony with other's any where.

Posted by: chuck at February 10, 2006 4:49 PM

Will the West be able to get over its abject fear long enough to defend its principles?

Long before that happens, the left will have found a way to blame all this on Bush and the infighting will continue while the barbarians storm the gate.

Posted by: Big G In TX at February 10, 2006 5:06 PM

Is KAN daria:

"The assasination of Ghandi by a sikh did not spark world outrage against sikhdom. The massacre of unarmed Muslim men, women and children in Gujarat by crazed hindu crowds did not lead to hindu ostracization."

Exactly! No Outrage...........and you enlightened one could even research the written words of those events and probably could even view drawings or in modern times pictures and videos.......couldn't you? Why should the non-muslims in the world have their rights pushed aside so that Muslims can FEEL GOOD about their religion....yet ignore OURS!

When our MEDIA in the 21st century prevents one group from viewing a cartoon in order to stamp down someone like you.....or myself......forming their own OPINION after examining the facts......then I would have to say we are loosing our freedom of press.

Posted by: rumoret at February 10, 2006 5:39 PM

'Lulu, if you had a gun right now in your hand, and saw an American Muslim women in full islamic dress walking toward you, what would you do?'~ iskandaria

I suspect, iski, that she'd give the woman the gun, which would then give the woman a better chance of freeing herself from her husband.

'Religion itself is not to blame, but the way it is interpreted.' iskandaria

I almost agree with you on that score. It depends on the religion. For example, the Catholic Church helped over 800,000 Jews escape the clutches of Hitler:

http://members.aol.com/cmcginmd/PiusXII_Holocaust.htm

Would islam have done the same?

Oooops. Question answered:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/3/154714.shtml

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php

Posted by: Gary at February 10, 2006 5:40 PM

the massacre of 1099

Posted by: Beagle at February 10, 2006 5:44 PM

isKandaria,

When the islamic religion is telling it's followers to do horrible things to infidels and jews then who cares whether the interpretation is wrong. There is no interpretation. They're just doing what they've been commanded to do by their satanic deathgod.

And what do I care what muslims feel? True believers in the islamic deathcult have lost their humanity and are thus no longer fully human. They're sub-humans who should be treated like the sick animals they've shown themselves do be. What do I care what a rabid dog feels. It needs to be put out of it's misery before the disease infecting it's mind spreads to my fellow humans.

Islam is a mental disease which eats at the mind of those inflicted much the same way mad-cow rots the bovine brain. Muslims remind me of the walking dead in that old sci-fi moving "Night of the Living Dead". They mill around doing absolutely nothing constructive and their whole motivation for existing is to kill anybody who isn't one of them.

Islam is the problem. No amount of sugar-coating can change that.

Posted by: Mahdi Al-Dajjal at February 10, 2006 5:51 PM

Not surprising.There is a fine line between rights of publications and just plain fear.Its hard to say where the resent events stand.But over all id say the strong dose of reality over the past week is just to much for some to handle.Those who get the threat get it those who dont dont.Id say on balence the riots were a plus for a reality check.

Posted by: Rench at February 10, 2006 5:52 PM

Spencer: "Will the West be able to get over its abject fear long enough to defend its principles?"

Well, in spite of bad news like this I have to admit to feeling somewhat heartened after just reading the symposium today at frontpagemag called "Banning Sharia" (apologies if someone has already linked to it), but which was really about starting to confront the issue of immigration to the west. Some choice quotes:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21247

Andrew McCarthy: “If you believe jihad is a religious obligation that includes mass-murdering civilians, the law says you are entitled to believe what you like, as long as you don’t act on it. We as a society, however, are not so bound. We can condemn that belief. We can recognize that if a large number of people have such a belief, common sense says a certain percentage of them will act on it. It always astounds me that, if someone invokes religion, the very same people who would be ready to condemn you for saying you believe people should be able to smoke in restaurants go into cognitive arrest. They say, well, look, we can’t get judgmental about jihad, polygamy, the subjugation of women, rejection of the right to convert away from Islam, etc., because, after all, that’s a religious belief. “

Henry Marc Holzer: “I am in complete agreement with Andrew’s point about the abdication of judgments in a social context, but would emphasize one aspect differently. I don’t think the litigation of which he speaks is the cause of the judgmental problem, but rather the effect of something else: subjectivism and relativism. Too many people, largely I think because of the moral and intellectual corruption of the Sixties, are unwilling to make a judgment about anything. Indeed, many are now incapable of doing so. Contra our President, taken as a whole Islam is not a peaceable religion. It has not been hijacked by radicals, who have perverted its noble, humane tenets. It is a religion that explicitly brands unbelievers as “infidels” and demands their conversion or death (or worse). Although scholars of Islam have proven this beyond argument, most Americans (including most of our leaders) seem not to believe it. Why? Because that would require making a judgment. Because that would require eschewing notions like “who am I to say,” and “everything is relative.” Because that would require them to be Aristotelian, and accept that “A is A,” and that things are what they are, not what they wish (or don’t wish) them to be.”

McCarthy: “There is no constitutional right to come to the United States. Even less is there a right to come here believing our nation needs fundamental altering. I think we only want new people here who are truly faithful to the ideals I mentioned earlier (and those people we should welcome with open arms). We do not want people who disagree with those principles – even if they say they would work to change them peaceably as U.S. citizens are entitled to do. If our questioning and investigation reveals such attitudes, those people should be precluded from entry or not permitted to become permanent residents or citizens. They do not have a fundamental right to immigrate regardless of their views, and, as I discussed earlier, neither do they have a right to say: “You can’t impose those principles on me because they are inconsistent with my religious beliefs.” The principles I outlined are what America is. They are not just a current snapshot in some evolutionary process. If you don’t accept them, you don’t belong in our country. We can’t expel citizens with such attitudes, but there’s no reason we need to swell their ranks from without. “

Jamie Glazov: “I think this is a crucial point. America is held up to some crazy utopian ideal by everyone in the world and then found wanting and lacking. There is some kind of premise people have that every human being in the world has a constitutional right to enter the United States. This is so bizarre as to leave one speechless. How does a non-American have any relationship to the U.S. Constitution? Incredible.”

Clifford May: “Non-Americans deserve human rights. But by definition, non-Americans do not enjoy the rights guaranteed to Americans by the U.S. Constitution – essentially a contract between American citizens and their government.
American citizenship is a privilege that can not be shared with everyone in the world. So those who are American citizens must determine who is eligible to join this unique nation. That is our right. It also is our responsibility, and it is one we must exercise with caution because America’s future depends on it. I would argue that, in the 21st century, America citizenship should be offered to a select few who love freedom, who are willing and able to contribute to America’s democratic experiment, and who will not hesitate to defend America from her enemies. “

Posted by: Caroline at February 10, 2006 5:57 PM

Rape and islamic law:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2872/is_4_28/ai_94208058/pg_2

http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/12/immigrant-rape-wave-in-sweden.html

I like this one: A muslim religious leader thinks rape is just fine:
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4631

And there's plenty of other people here who can respond to you far better than myself. Stick around.

Posted by: Gary at February 10, 2006 6:03 PM

Until we reach this point where we hold all to the same standard,~ iski

Sure as Hell not going to be your standard, buddy. Why would we want to step backwards off a cliff?

Gah. Have at 'em, people. I'm house-sitting 8 cats and no time for jokers. btw, you do remind me of nariz, iski.

Posted by: Gary at February 10, 2006 6:06 PM

"I suspect, iski, that she'd give the woman the gun, which would then give the woman a better chance of freeing herself from her husband."

Good one, Gary. While I've read the trolls complaining about how we are so full of hate and accuse us of wanting to murder the Muslims, they are really pointing one finger at us and three back at themselves. We are not the adherents of the Satanic religion. We do not offer human sacrifice in the form of rape, murder, beatings, humilition, terror, etc., to the dark "god" Allah. That is their department and I just have to laugh when they become very calm and try to deceive us with the kinder gentler act. Like a demon who must flee when the name of Jesus is uttered in it's presence, hold one of the Mohammad cartoons up to them and watch them go off.

This site doesn't have any cartoons, just more irreverent humor:

http://beautifulatrocities.com/archives/2006/02/international_o.html

Enjoy!

Also, thank you, Gary for posting the information about Catholics helping the Jews during WWII. If you do a Google search and put in "Holocaust Heroes" you can read all about how the Catholics did indeed hide and help the Jews during the dark times of WWII. See what Yad Vashem says about this at:

www.holocaust-heroes.com/credit_clergy.html

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 10, 2006 6:08 PM

"You may think it's funny and cute to suggest a muslim woman needs a gun to be free from her husband, but Islam is one of the few religions that gives a woman the right to ask for a divorce even if she just can't bare to look at the man (she doesn't need any other reason). Can a woman walk into a court here and divorce her husband because he's ugly? Think about it.

Maybe you think, Gary, that if a woman covers up her body, it's because a man is making her do it. I can guarantee you that if she's walking around displaying it, it is because she thinks men want her to do it. So isn't that reverse psychology? "
-posted by "isKANdaria"

Do me a favour. Read the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira. Then read:

"Women and the Koran" by Anwar Hekmat
"Rage against the veil" by Parvin Darabi
"Shame" by Taslima Nasrin
"Islam and Human Rights" by Ann Elizabeth Mayer
"Human Rights in Iran: The Abuse of Cultural Relativism" by Reza Afshari
"Reliance of the Traveller" by Ahmad Ibn Lulu Ibn Al-Naqib
"The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam" by Yusuf Al-Qaradawi
"Milestones" by Sayyed Qutb

After you read all those, then talk to us about "women's rights" in Islam. Don't be so ignorant in the future.

Posted by: igor at February 10, 2006 6:10 PM

isKANdaria

Your point that I think you are trying to make is that most people are wrong, but that you have taken the higher road and have more insight to life, to errors and peoples ways.

You are quoting history and point out wrongs of any society, people, nation, or religion. But what are you hiding regarding your end vision of this society that we call earth?

You spew issues but no reason, you address wrongs only to make a even playing field but you don't make a point.

No one knows what a muslims thinks (you asked). They are not allowed the freedom of thought or actions. A person can be brought up in a extremely unhealthy environment, and them their natural throught process is irational to the norm. So when you have brought up enough people in that bad environment and their numbers exceed the norm, who wins. I believe we all lose.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at February 10, 2006 6:13 PM

Igor, I have read the qur'an. Actually, rights were restored in the qur'an that had been lost and taken away previously (need I say it, in interpretations of torah and bible).

If you want to know about women's rights in Islam, try talking to a muslim woman for a change. Oh, that's right, you don't think she can even read, they're all illiterate. That explains why so many of them are doctors and hold advanced degrees.

Shucks.

Posted by: isKANdaria at February 10, 2006 6:14 PM

Dang it! I need remedial website posting!

http://www.holocaust-heroes.com/credit_clergy.html

'Sorry about that.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 10, 2006 6:15 PM

Yes.. this iskandaria is a mind-numbed islamic automaton who is out to dupe infidels and jews into believing that all relgions are equal. Oh how times have changed. Just a few short years ago all these muzzies had to do was to post that islam was the religion of peace and they'd leave it at that. Now that the world isn't buying that any longer, they've now taken to asserting moral equivalence (all religions have their bad side thus islam is no worse).

But they can't escape one glaring fact... WE KNOW ABOUT ISLAM! You can't lie to us any longer and get away with it.

Posted by: Mahdi Al-Dajjal at February 10, 2006 6:19 PM

isKANdaria, funny you should talk about women's rights when Islam allows them none. A woman's voice does not have the same weight in a sharia court of law as a man's. Women can only inherit half as much as their brothers. It takes 4 male witnesses to convict a man of rape. We know how women were treated under the taliban. How many Muslim women actuall get a divorce if they want one? You don't want to talk about that, do you? Or the murder of women in Islamic society to preserve the "family honor". Why does the Q'uran tell husbands to beat their wives and keep a whip on the wall to remind them of their place? Why aren't women in Saudi and other Islamic countries allowed to drive, or be out in public without male escorts? Why aren't they allowed to eat with the men at the same table? What about the 18 year old girl in Iran who defended her and her sister against four rapists and killed one of them? They hung her for that, didn't they? And the attempted rapists got off. Your lies fall on deaf ears here.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at February 10, 2006 6:31 PM

isKANdaria,

You haven't read the aHadith or Sirat, so you do not understand the Qur'an properly. Umdat al-Salik is also important in order to understand the application of Islamic law. As for asking a Muslim woman, why not read those books? All of them save one are written by Muslims. One is written by the highest ranking cleric and one is written by one of the most popular modern Islamic scholars. Your average Muslim woman does not know her religion as indepth as these people so that is why this is probably a better way to getting informed about Islam. Perhaps in the future you wouldn't be making misinformed statements such as women divorcing their men for being "ugly". Tell that to those Pakistani women who are forced to marry men (usually cousins or kinsmen) that they don't like. You are approaching Islam from a Western anachronistic view and that is why you are applying "enlightened" ideals to it that are not present. As for the Qur'an giving women more rights than they had before, does that include:

1. The Qur’an likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: “Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will” (2:223);

2. It declares that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man: “Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her” (2:282);

3. It allows men to marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave girls also: “If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice” (4:3);

4. It rules that a son’s inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter: “Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females” (4:11);

5. It tells husbands to beat their disobedient wives: “Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them” (4:34).

I'm sure Elizabeth Cady Stanton would be proud.

Posted by: igor at February 10, 2006 6:31 PM

isKANdaria

how do you explain the beheadings, the rapes, the murders and suicides in the name of your so called noble religion? You live in america then u can see how other religions are defamed everyday on every channel on every radio station. You dont see christians, catholics or Buddhest protesting. Why because we are confident enough in our faiths that we do not have to shun at every moron that speaks blasphamy. Nothing in your religion keeps you from neing free? Well what about the clerics in Iran. They dont let woman walk on the same side walk as men, the new president praise the fact that extremists ride around on motor bikes and throw acid in womans faces in the name of Allah and the "fight against western corruption". yet muslim men adopted certain fasions from the west like the western business suite. Hypocrites all of them. I pray that you see the light a shun away from the lies that you false prophet have told you. Its so sad to know thet one pervert, war monger pedophile of a man could decieve so many people. But then again. he is doing the work of satan.

Here are some of the great things Iranian woman have to endure day after day.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5188

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5183

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5152

www.iranfocus.com

Posted by: jawknee at February 10, 2006 6:35 PM

"Senior police officers at Scotland Yard warned the magazine its staff could not be guaranteed protection from possible protests."
Of course, they will be busy protecting 100,000 Muslim protesters tomorrow! Revolting!

Posted by: Polish infideless at February 10, 2006 6:36 PM

To answer the question: "The question remains: why, then, is Islam the object of your despise?"
The Q'uran COMMANDS Muslims to kill infidels. The Q'uran is considered by Muslims to be eternally valid, so the commands to slaughter infidels have just as much weight today as they did in the 7th century when Mohammed spoke them. The Q'uran also COMMENDS Muslims for doing these things.
The bible on the othe hand CONDEMNS people who do such things in the name of God or the Lord Jesus Christ.
BIG DIFFERENCE.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at February 10, 2006 6:37 PM

Everyone, please remember, the trolls do tend to come out in pairs, when something big is going on. Repeating the same mantras over and over again, while ignoring each and every question put to them.

Keep hitting them with islam's own words, drop any name calling, or Ignore them.

iski- Jesus, the Son of God, loves you. There's always time to turn back- with Him. With allah, all bets are off, along with the head, should you become murtad.

Posted by: Gary at February 10, 2006 6:37 PM

isKANdaria: "That means no single group of people have the moral perrogative to kill and maim a single innocent person, whatever the reason, and that all life is sacred"

So when 2 thugs show up at your door boldly announcing their intention to slit your little girl's stomach open with the big fat knife they are brandishing, you will watch them do it, knowing in your righteous heart that you are taking the high moral ground? And what happens when its a bigger group of folks, hiding out in the bushes and butchering your kids on their way to school and assassinating their teachers? And what happens when because of folks like you, who refuse to maim even a single human being, your entire town is eventually run over by thugs having their constant violent way with both your children and your neighbors?

Are you unable to discern any difference between self-defense and unjustified aggression? Should we get rid of cops altogether? Do you think Israel has no grounds to defend itself against Islamic jihad? Are we right to stay out of Darfur so that we don't harm a single hair on the precious heads of the janjaweed? Were we wrong to stop the KKK from lynching folks, even it meant shooting those caught in the act?

Are you really so disdainful of your fellow man that you think he hasn't even thought through these sorts of moral dilemmas? Have you never even figured out rationally for yourself that if all good people did absolutely nothing in the face of violent aggression that the bullies in the schoolyard would take the schoolyard over completely and have free reign to torture and subjugate everyone else?

What don't you get about that? What planet do you live on? What evidence do you see in the world that Jews and Christians and Buddhists and Hindus represent any serious, sustained threat (on the basis of their religions) to eachother as compared to Muslims? Are you aware that all but a very few of the dozens of violent conflicts raging across the world right now involve Muslims against non-Muslims? Do you think the Thai Buddhists and the Indonesian Christians are equally responsible for the violence occurring on a daily basis as are the Muslim separatists who pick them off as they go about their daily lives, walking to school, teaching, eating in restaurants and so on? What should those little girls do? Turn around and implore the men who are about to rape and behead them, "Please. I beg of you. Can't we just get along?"

Posted by: Caroline at February 10, 2006 6:40 PM

Let them keep posting so the appropriate agencies can track them. Give them enough rope to hang themselves.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at February 10, 2006 6:40 PM

Gary, Jesus may be the Sun, the light, but sorry to tell you, God has not children.. sons, daughters, aunts, uncles or otherwise.

I don't want to offend you, but that's the truth.

I went through this lengthy exegesis with another christian friend of mine (a true brother in faith) and pointed out several passages in the bible where the jews also said they were "sons of God". It was the vernacular of the times, Gary, don't take it literally. But then again, what do I, an illiterate muslim know?

No God, No Peace, Gary. Know God, Know Peace

Posted by: isKANdaria at February 10, 2006 6:43 PM

Ahhh but I do know. And HE is not allah. I would never put Limits to God, as islam does.

Enough. You can talk until you are blue in the face, but your 'brothers' prove you wrong scores of times every day. And that is one of the purposes of this site- to detail their 'interpretation' of islam.

I have better things to do tonight than to argue with a closed mind.

Posted by: Gary at February 10, 2006 6:47 PM

Isky, I don't care where you go, and rest assured I will not weep over the likes of one as insignificant as you. As I said, please keep posting. America is a free country. America has freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of the press, unlike Ilsamic countries which have none of these and are all third world nations.
You said "...God has not children.. sons, daughters, aunts, uncles or otherwise." So when Jesus calls God His father accoriding to you, he is lying? Then the Q'uran is wrong for calling Him a prophet of God. A true prophet is never wrong. If Jesus is right and God IS His father, then the Q'uran is wrong and Mohammed is a liar. But then Mohammed was wrong when he thought Allah had three daughters, right? Then he said he was deceived by Satan. Except when was a true prophet of God ever deceived by Satan?

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at February 10, 2006 6:52 PM

isKANdaria

The Holy bible says that we are to love our wives as we love the church(jesus),. When the wife knows that she is loved like the church she has no problem submiting her self to her man.

In other words. Treat the woman the way you wanted to be treated and the way u would treat Jesus she will love you back.

Did you know in Autrailian Muslims are trying to change the laws to fit their beliefs when it comes to wife beating. To many muslims men are being arrested for beating their wives and are using their religion as an excuse. They are also uning the excuse that "jihad" is a muslims duty in the courts when being tried for terrorism or killing innocents or inciting to kill. Your very lost my friend. If you believe so strongly in what you say then go to Iran and see for your self. You'll see that its an entire different world then here. No freedom to speech, No tolorence for woman. Men and woman cant even attended birthday parties together our of the fear of being flogged in public. All inspired by your false prophet and you false god.

Posted by: jawknee at February 10, 2006 6:54 PM

Isky says "...just don't threaten violence or use this website in an inciteful way,". Don't worry, I'm not a Muslim, I don't do that.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at February 10, 2006 6:55 PM

From Gary's link above at www.mapleleafweb.com posted at 6:03pm:

"I keep running across these disturbing stories of gang rapes in Europe involving Muslims and European girls, and some nasty interviews with young Muslim men who say local women are whores anyway, good for only one thing."

Check out the unbelievable answer:

"Some Muslim immigrants admit their bias quite openly. An Islamic Mufti in Copenhagen sparked a political outcry after publicly declaring that women who refuse to wear headscarves are 'asking for rape.' Apparently, he's not the only one thinking this way. 'It is not as wrong raping a Swedish girl as it is raping an Arab girl,' sayd Hamid. 'The Swedish girl gets lots of help afterwards, and she had probably f*cked before, anyway. But the Arab girl will get problems with her family. For being raped is a source of shame. It is important that she retains her virginity until she marries.' It was no coincidence that it was a Swedish girl that was gang raped in Rissne - this becomes obvious from the discussion with Ali, Hamid, Abdallah and Richard. All four have disparaging views on Swedish girls, and think this attitude is common amoung young men with immigrant background. It is far too easy to get a Swedish whore.......girl, I mean,' says Hamid, and laughs over his choice of words. 'Many immigrant boys have Swedish girlfriends when they are teenagers. But when they get married, they get a proper woman from their own culture who has never been with a boy. That's what I am going to do. I don't have too much respect for Swedish girls. I guess you can say they get f*cked to pieces.'"

They get f*cked to pieces. You heard it from their own mouths here, folks.

Of course they get f*cked to pieces, by adherents of the religion of pieces. Giving those Muslim women guns is a good idea, especially considering they are forced to marry pigs like Ali, Hamid, Abdallah and Richard.

Let's hear what the trolls have to say about this one.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 10, 2006 7:01 PM

Alaskan, you're talking to an American-born-and-bred 100 grade A muslim. Nothing in my religion keeps me from being a free thinking or expressing my point of view.

Who gives a shit? Muhammad was the first Muslim terrorist. All Muslim terrorists are merely emulating his example as the Koran commands them too

 The barbaric terrorism of Islam killed 60 million Hindus. You idiots ruined Persia. You idiots want to wipe out Israel same as you ruined Lebanon and Kosovo

Posted by: dennisw at February 10, 2006 7:09 PM

Theres no sense on wasting anymore time with Islam and muslims. Whats importent is that anyone who believes in the Holy Bible and Jesus Christ find the foot hold in their faith and get right with Jesus. Cause is coming very soon and its sad but i think its obvious were the muslims are going.

Posted by: jawknee at February 10, 2006 7:14 PM

You wives are as a tilth unto you so approach your tilth when or how you will, But do some good act for yours beforehand and fear God and know that ye are to meet him...
Sura 2,223

Read this in understanding with this Aya. The field is a symbol of wholesomneth and not what your twisted fantasies make out of it. It means to be treated with the needed fear for God. Read this Aya also.

Permitted to you on the night of the fast is the approach to your wives They are your garments and
ye are their garments Allah knoweth what ye used to
do secretly among yourselves...
Sura 2, 187

If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice (4:3)

If you are so picky why not notice the specific emphasis on orphans? The whole premise is built
on justice. It is not incouraged, on the contrary, but limited and built on conditions. Only one percent of all Muslims worldwide are polygamists.

Oh ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inheir women against their will Nor should you ye treat them with harshness, that ye may take away part of the dower ye have given them- except where they have been guilty of open lewdness: On the contrary
live with them on footing of kindness and equity.
If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good.
Sura 2,19

Does that sound like a woman wanting a gun to shoot her husband?

Let me give you the correct translation of the verse.

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women because God has given the one more( strenght) than the other, and because they support them from their means therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard. As to those woman
on whose part ye Disloyalty and ill-conduct Admonish them( first (next) refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them(lightly) But if they return to obedience seek not against them means (of annoyance) for God is Most High Great( above all)
Sura 2,34

Where is your erotic whip fantasy?
No one reasonable would draw out of these statements that men are encouraged to beat their wives. Quite the contrary. If all men followed Allahs words then its would never even come to this. Notice the absolute discouragement from any
act of annoyance against the partner and read along with the other verses that tell Muslims to treat their wives kindly. Also Remember that the Koran came into a primitve Desert culture, where
women were nothing but chattle. The restrictions on polygamy, beating and Slavery and not the complete prohibiton were meant to introduce a gradual change. As for the other verses there is
a lot of details to them, mainly coming from the Idea that men are the breadgivers of their family.
I have to look them up and I will give them to you. It is only you who fits them into your own meaning. About Iran, well it is funny that these two girls splashed with acid by some maniac were University students. Doesnt look like there is so much prohibition on education when there are more University Students in Iran then in Germany and Iran had a female presidential candidate. As for the appaling human rights condition I say men are not much better off. But what is your take on American soldiers raping and kidnapping the wives of insurgents, or then year olds? Is that ok with you or does that stem out of some cultural malignancy? I have dont to answer every red hering infront of me. I will do as much as I can and if I can. Allah knows best.

Posted by: karim at February 10, 2006 7:18 PM

isKANdaria: "Justice implies innocents will not be killed,"

Then you have a whole lot of explaining to do regarding the sheer number of human beings who are being slaughtered daily across this planet by Muslims, and for 1400 LONG years now, and IN THE NAME of Islam, and FOLLOWING DIRECTLY in the footsteps of Muhammad himself.

"From what I have gathered from some of your posts, you seem to be strongly anti-muslim, almost xenophobic. Not wanting to use labels as I sincerely dislike to do so, but that is the way your posts come across."

I am a first generation American myself so you are way off on the xenophobia. Stongly anti-Muslim? I have no objections if the label fits but it would be more correct to say strongly anti-Islam. Oh yes. You bet.

I am not swayed at all by "my religion-your religion" arguments. I was raised a Christian - a Catholic actually (ex-Catholic now), but I have read a great deal of eastern philosophy and considered myself quite ecumenical in religious matters, basically believing that all religions are different paths to the same basic truths or spiritual insights.

Until I learned about Islam. Islam is the anti-religion. It is the very antithesis of the spiritual truths that are contained within every other religion. If the whole Islamic world converted to Sufism tomorrow, I would rest much easier but the bulk of the Islamic world is not Sufi.

Islam is defined by its prophet, Muhammad. We all know very well what atrocities he committed. I find it mind-boggling, if not almost disgusting, that any human being, knowing what that man did in his lifetime, would call themselves a Muslim - which means to acknowledge him as the most perfect moral example, the final prophet of God's word.

I don't care what psychological problems you suffer from that make you capable of actually believing that God would speak to mankind through such a man. I'm not even certain that God has ever spoken through any man as a "prophet" and I can live with that uncertainty. And normally I wouldn't care what others believe. I think spiritual matters are very private things. Kudos to the Amish. They have my blessings. But the Amish aren't killing anybody. The Amish don't wish to impose their beliefs on anybody. Neither do the Jews. Nor the Buddhists. Christians wish to do so but their religious texts specifically call for peaceful proselitization.

Muslims are utterly unique in the pantheon of world religions for having sacred texts that mandate the death, forceful conversion or subjugation of other peoples, in the service of spreading their faith.

So call me any name you want. I couldn't care less. I utterly despise Islam. And I question not just your sanity, but your sense of what is spiritual and true, that you could embrace such a faith, knowing that you weren't raised culturally in it, and assuming that you are fully aware of who Muhammad was and the heinous crimes he perpetrated upon innocent people. Those innocent people that you profess to care about.

How ironic really that you talk about nonviolence while embracing as your ultimate moral example such an incredibly violent man.

Posted by: Caroline at February 10, 2006 7:19 PM

Allah=Satan=Lucifer=FallenStar=Sin=Lust=Lies=Murder=Steeling....okay can i stop..or need i say more?

Posted by: jawknee at February 10, 2006 7:21 PM

Nice red herring isKANdaria. Firstly, the Bible and Torah are not the final word on women's rights. The Catechism, canon law, the Talmud, and rabbi rulings are. And if you can point to me rulings that allow either of them to 1) give men the right to have sex with their wives against their will, 2) declare that a woman has less the value in court than a man, 3) allows for polygamy, 4) gives a woman a lesser inheritance, and 5) allows for wife abuse then your "interpretation" argument would have more merit. And btw, I am not a Christian but a Reform Jew. If you know anything about Reform Judaism you would know that women are the 100% equals of men. No citations necessary. Also, even if any whacko sect of Judaism or Christianity did allow one of these rules, they would be prosecuted by the state. It does not happen to the same degree in Muslim countries because there is no separation between Islam and law. That is why Islamic family law is rarely tampered with in Muslim countries. The Koran is the final word in Islam but it must be supported by the Sunnah and its application is made explicit in sharia. Btw, isKANdaria, do you support the implimentation of sharia?

"Further more, now muslim woman HAS to work. In islamic society, she is not responsible for earning a living (contrast that with passages in the bible and post them please for comparison)."

In the West and some of the more secular Muslim states, yes. Even in some of the more fundamental Muslims states they are allowed to work. But to imply that they have the same freedom in the Muslim states is not true. The more seriously sharia is taken by that respective country the more restrictions women suffer. The Taliban did not allow for women to be educated. In Iran, segregation of the sexes was taken far more seriously and women were banned from certain jobs. Saudi Arabia and Yemen also ban women from certain jobs. And I don't know if you've ever been to Yemen, but some towns seclusion is taken so seriously that you'll barely even see women outside. However, I disagree with your statement that it is all about interpretation. No, it is not. Sharia is very clear about certain societal matters. What it is about is how seriously sharia is respected, not the interpretation. You should not confuse a lax application of sharia law as "interpration".

"Are women supposed to be offended by the suggestion that their husbands can approach them for sex whenever they please?"

From Ask the Imam:

Q: I know that if a woman refuses her husband to bed, the angels curse her till dawn. What if the husband refuses his wife? She has rights over him too.

A: One of the primary purposes of Nikah is to protect the chastity of the spouses from Haraam. This is a common factor shared by both the husband and wife.

The reason why it is necessary for the wife to answer his call is that the husband should not resort to Haraam. Since the wife also needs her desires to be fulfilled in a Halaal way in order to save herself from Haraam, she will have similar rights over the husband.

and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

Mufti Ebrahim Desai

Sounds good, right isKANdria? Well, it does and doesn't. The angels don't curse the husband if he refuses his wife's call (if so it would have been made explicit in the Qur'an). And for one thing, a woman cannot rape a man. Say you have a headache one night and your husband wants to have sex. Do you think that he has the right to take you even if you have a similar right over him? Is this equality or is the Imam wrong? If so, then email him.
http://www.islam.tc/cgi-bin/askimam/ask-imam.pl?act=ap_f

"And the qur'an does not tell men to beat their wives, that is what you inferred, but not what is said."

O RLY?

Sheikh Yousef Qaradhawi, one of the most influential clerics in Sunni Islam and head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, has advocated non-painful wife-beating.

In his 1984 book 'The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam,' he wrote:
"Because of his natural ability and his responsibility for providing for his family, the man is the head of the house and of the family. He is entitled to the obedience and cooperation of his wife, and accordingly it is not permissible for her to rebel against his authority, causing disruption. Without a captain the ship of the household will flounder and sink.

"If the husband senses that feelings of disobedience and rebelliousness are rising against him in his wife, he should try his best to rectify her attitude by kind words, gentle persuasion, and reasoning with her. If this is not helpful, he should sleep apart from her, trying to awaken her agreeable feminine nature so that serenity may be restored, and she may respond to him in a harmonious fashion. If this approach fails, it is permissible for him to beat her lightly with his hands, avoiding her face and other sensitive parts. In no case should he resort to using a stick or any other instrument that might cause pain and injury.Rather, this 'beating' should be of the kind which the Prophet (peace be on him) once, when angry with his servant, mentioned to him, saying, 'If it were not for the fear of retaliation on the Day of Resurrection, I would have beaten you with this miswak (tooth-cleaning stick)' [as reported by Ibn Majah and by Ibn Hibban, in his Sahih].

"The Prophet (pbuh) admonished men concerning beating their wives, saying 'None of you must beat his wife as a slave is beaten and then have intercourse with her at the end of the day.'

"It was reported to the Prophet (pbuh) that some of his Companions beat their wives, whereupon he said, 'Certainly those are not the best among you [as reported by Ahmad, Abu Daoud, and al-Nisai. Ibn Hibban and Al-Hakim classify it as sound, as narrated by Iyas ibn 'Abdullah ibn Abu Dhiab].'

"Says Imam Al-Hafiz ibn Hajar, 'The saying of the Prophet (pbuh), 'The best among you do not beat,' could imply that beating wives is in general permissible. To be specific, one may beat only to safeguard Islamic behavior and if he (the husband) sees deviation only in what she must do or obey in relation to him. It is preferable to warn (her) or something of the sort, and as long as it is possible to achieve things through warning, any use of force is disallowed because force generates hatred, which is inimical to the harmony expected in marriage. Force is applied only when sin against Allah Ta'alah (masiyah) is feared. Al-Nasai has reported 'Aishah as saying, 'The Prophet (pbuh) never beat any of his wives or servants; in fact, he did not strike anything with his hand except in the cause of Allah or when the prohibitions of Allah were violated, and he retaliated on behalf of Allah.'

"If all these approaches fail, and the rift between the husband and wife deepens, the matter then devolves on the Islamic society for solution. Two individuals of good will and sound judgment, one from the wife's and one from the husband's side, should meet with the couple in order to try to resolve their differences. Perhaps the sincerity of their efforts may bear fruit and Allah may bring about reconciliation between the spouses."

Although there are restrictions on wife beating and it should only be used as a last resort, it is still permissible.

"You're trying to apply 1,400 year old standards to today's practices."

Is Muhammad al-insan al-kamil or not? You tell me.

Posted by: igor at February 10, 2006 7:31 PM

no its not okay with me if an american soldier rapes a muslim woman. that person is just as guilty as the muslim men who take other peoples wives for then own. Islam is no justification for any of the humanity crimes that you commit in the name of Allah. Whers rationality in murdering your own daughter that was raped by her brothers. How does killing the one that was raped restore honor to the family? Islam is all about "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" unfourtunitly in todays world its about "an eye for a cartoon and an tooth for criticism".OOOOH wait. thats how Muhammad was too. Didnt he murder poets? sounds like one of Satans forign policies.

i cant speak for everyone but this is not hatred. I dont hate Muslims. I hate the idea that someone can hate me just because i am a westerner. You dont see protest in america with people shouting death to Islam or death to Iran.

Posted by: jawknee at February 10, 2006 7:36 PM

Its in Jesus. I'll pray for you iski..

Posted by: jawknee at February 10, 2006 7:42 PM

Isky, it's hypocritical of you to say "Be more Jesus-like." When you don't believe Him when He said that God is His father, or that He prophesied His death on the cross, His burial for 3 days and His resurrection. Stick with your prophet who married Aisha when she was six and consummated their union when she was nine years old.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at February 10, 2006 7:42 PM

How about answering my questions isKANdaria? How am I defaming Muslims by quoting their imams? I'm not interested in how Judaism was practiced a long time ago, but how it is practiced now. Same thing applies to Islam. It is you who is "waging a rhetorical argument that leads no where".

Do you think that women should have sex with their husbands against their will lest the angels curse them?

Do you think that wives should be beaten "lightly" if they are disobedient and there is no reasoning with them?

Do you think Muhammad is the example for all time and that everything he did in the Sunnah is valid for all time?

Do you think polygyny should be permitted in modern times? I noticed you didn't say I was "lying" about this point.

I await your response. And if I am wrong, then point me in the right direction.

Posted by: igor at February 10, 2006 7:44 PM

isKANdaria: "Try love. Be more Jesus-like."

Why do you invoke Jesus when you wish to admonish people to be more loving? Why don't you invoke your own prophet? Why don't you say,

"Try love. Be more Muhammad-like".?

Is it because it just doesn't fit? Do Muslims always throw back at Christians that they should strive to be more like Jesus, when they wish to admonish them to be more loving and peaceful and tolerant, for the reason that it just doesn't make any sense to invoke their own prophet's name in the context of instructing people to be peaceful and loving? I've seen numerous Muslim posters here do it and I think it's a really manipulative thing to do. So, please isKANdaria - why don't you instruct us all to

Try love. And be more Muhammad-like?

Posted by: Caroline at February 10, 2006 7:46 PM

Isky, you said " I was born and raised as a christian..." Sadly you show that you have no understanding of Christianity. An organized religion, perhaps, but Christ? No. Unlike Islam, noone is "born" a Christian. Being a Christian is a choice you make. That is why Christians say they are "born again". Being "raised in a Christian home" is like living in a garage; it doesn't make you a car, and living with Christians or around Christians doesn't make you one. As a Christian you are a brother or sister to Jesus Christ and are adopted into God's family. As a Muslim the best you can ever be is a "slave to Allah", which is why Mohammed had slaves and why slavery is still practiced and condoned in many Muslim countries.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at February 10, 2006 7:49 PM

I'm not interested in how Judaism was practiced a long time ago, but how it is practiced now. Same thing applies to Islam. It is you who is "waging a rhetorical argument that leads no where"

How about Haredim women in Israel being almost completely prohibited from studies? How about the Jewish Law that permits a wive only a divorce with the absolute permission of Husband and being financially milked by him? How about Orthodox Jewish women shaving their hair and waring a wig after getting married? Mind you, Judaism is everything but a progressive loving religion.Everyone who attacks Islam and exhalts Judaism must be out of his mind.
Ofourse dont misunderstand me, there are many virtues
in the Torah.

Posted by: karim at February 10, 2006 7:52 PM

No, ofcourse you are not doing anything wrong. Except for building illegal torture bases all over Europe, kidnap german citizens, illegally detain thousandths of Muslims in Guantanamo, use illegal weapons in Iraq
while torturing men, children and women. I didnt that American soldier shooting a wounded man in the mosque. Maybe you did.Then again that is just your way of saying Jesus loves you. And the reason you are not seeing anything is you are watching to much CNN.
Get over the freedom of press thing. Why did Bush bomb the office of Al-Jazeera in Afaghanistan?
Because there is nothing comparable to Al-Jazeera in
your mainstream mediae.

Posted by: karim at February 10, 2006 8:00 PM

Right akrim. We can spot a liar a mile away, which is why al-jizya would never make it in an educated informed society.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at February 10, 2006 8:02 PM

BTW, karim, we are at war. We will do whatever we have to do in order not to fall under the tyranny of Islamofascists. And that means that if we have to, there is probably a plan to nuke Mecca and Medina somewhere in the state department.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at February 10, 2006 8:05 PM

isKANdaria: "I studied and CHOSE to become a muslim. So being a muslim was an informed choice I made."

And so I assume that when you made that informed decision, you knew that Muhammad had beheaded 700 or so Jews, you knew that he had approved of the murder of various people he encountered - (knives driven through their eyes, tied and ripped apart between 2 camels, a fire lit and kindled on someone's chest, left out in the desert to die of thirst and so on) - and you're actually PROUD of that choice.

I can be a real dunce sometimes. When I first read your posts denouncing violence against innocent people, I actually thought you were a bleeding heart western liberal! I thought you actually detested violence and my first post to you was guided by that assumption! Silly me. It turns out that you are someone who has had the freedom to fully explore ALL spiritual paths, having been raised in the west, and given that freedom you CHOSE Islam. You CHOSE to follow in the footsteps of a mass-murderer and torturer. And You're darned PROUD of it, as you've made abundantly clear. It definitely doesn't take long for even Muslim converts to pick up on that "Muslim arrogance vibe".

If I were a more genuinely religious sort of person, I'd have to come to the stark realization that you consciously CHOSE EVIL. I guess if I believed in Hell, I would conclude that you've made your bed and will now have to lie in it. But I don't believe in Hell. And for people who don't, the deeply sad thing is that there may be no justice of the sort that gives so many other people comfort and somehow rights something like you. I suppose on this earthly plane, there could be a sort of justice were you to be woman (as is possible), who gets whisked off to Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan with your new Muslim lover and then you would get to spend the rest of your life reflecting on your utter stupidity. But you could well be a man for all I know. And then, I don't think there will be any justice for the fact that you have consciously chosen evil. And if there is no such justice, then people like me, people who can admit that we simply cannot possibly know for a fact what happens after we die and that it is literally impossible to know, will have to redouble our efforts to defeat idiots like you. Now. Here. On this planet. Because you are very very dangerous. What other choice do we have?

Posted by: Caroline at February 10, 2006 8:09 PM

Jawknee, in Arabic, the word "abeed" means both "black" and "slave". Islam still has slavery in at least 3 countries, and since Mohammed had slaves, it must be ok, right? The question is not why does prejudice still exist in the West (as it still does in all Islamic countries), but why have people of color in Islamic countries failed to achieve the successes that they have in the Western nations? (Not counting Idi Amin.) Where are the black artists, athletes, educators, inventors, musicians, et al., in Islamic nations? Why aren't they represented?

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at February 10, 2006 8:12 PM

That's right, karim, run away without defending your faith.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at February 10, 2006 8:14 PM

"... American-born-and-bred 100 grade A muslim..."

Mind me asking what a "100 grade A muslim" is?

Does the "A" stand for "A-sole?"

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 10, 2006 8:18 PM

IsKANdaria: "If you are referring to Homeland Security, or the FBI, you'd be surprised to learn who's tracking how Bohem. Let's not be smug and contrite. Aren't we supposed to be exercising free speech here? As a red-blooded American citizen, you'd be surprised the places I've been, the people I've seen and the clearances I've gotten. I'm not saying that "tongue in cheek".
Read 'em and weep."

A very pointed message from our Muslim convert "fellow American" citizen....

Posted by: Caroline at February 10, 2006 8:30 PM

Karim you are a liar.
http://www.iabolish.org/slavery_today/slave_experience/mental.html

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at February 10, 2006 8:45 PM

"A very pointed message from our Muslim convert "fellow American" citizen...."

Which I should have added, smacks of arrogance ("Read em and weep"), smacks of the narcissism that is so characteristic of Muslims. Smacks very loudly of Ego.

The one thing it doesn't smack of is spirituality. There is absolutely no sense of spiritual humility displayed in isKANdaria's multiple posts.

In fact, having read with some interest about myriad spiritual traditions - from an ecumencial perspective - the one thing I gleaned from all of them was HUMILITY, an understanding that the human EGO was the basic human impediment to spiritual realization and "enlightenment".

And what consistently strikes me about Muslims, is an utter failure to grasp that fundamental point. Muslims, who presumably ought to have found the ultimate path to defeating the Ego, given that their religion blatantly calls for "submission" (which ought to eradicate the ego altogether) - consistently demonstrate hubris, Ego, narcissism, supremacism, and so on.

They've totally missed the boat. They put all their emphasis on the external displays of piety while all the while, the inside is utterly rotten. But what surprise could there possibly be there? Their prophet was a consummate egotist - and thus an obvious fraud - a man who conveniently had "revelations" from God which always supported his own base instincts. Always supported and reinforced his Ego. The rest of us see the effects of that celebration of Ego. It's ultimate expression being the idea that his followers can massacre their fellow human beings with complete impunity, and still be assured of 72 virgins in heaven - the ultimate egotistic, narcissistic, materialistic fantasy.

And isKANdaria is downright PROUD of choosing Islam. Bully for Isky.

Posted by: Caroline at February 10, 2006 8:51 PM

And here:"the Arabic word abeed carried three meanings-"slave," "black" and "filth. ..."
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000C9WXXG/103-4211267-8292613

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at February 10, 2006 8:51 PM

karim,

"You are a reform Jew, that means you are about as religious as Kermit the frog. What is to you what traditional Judaism has to say on women?"

Ah, yes. The Reform Jews are lax Jews argument. Some are, some aren't. It depends on the Temple you go to. Their observance of the mitzvoth is not as detailed as Orthodox Jews or the ultraorthrodox but then again they interpret the mitzvoth differently. And FYI, there are Jewish sects that are far more to the left of Reform (Reconstructionist and Renewal come to mind). I don't agree with everything traditional Judaism has to say about women, but do you agree with everything Islam has to say about women? I find it interesting how you know that Reform Judaism respects women 100% so you resort to the "you're not religious then" argument. Why is that? Does respecting women and giving them the same rights as men automatically not make you religious? I think that reveals more about you than it does about me.

"There is a Talumdic reference to "women being nothing but sacks
of excrement"."

Could you provide the entire section please and citation? Antisemites are prone to quoting a line or two from the Talmud in order to prove how vile Judaism is. Usually the line in question is part of a larger argument and not the point of the teaching at all. I provided the entire texts for my points. You could atleast return the favour.

"Othodox Jews in Israel thank their
god every morning that he didnt create them a woman."

Have any idea how old that prayer is? It's older than Christianity itself. It refers to status in ancient Israelite society, not spiritual value. Hence the part about slaves and Gentiles. Did you know that there are Ashkenazi prayer books for women that include "who did not create me a man". Bad example, dude. And Judaism changes over time (even Orthodox) whereas Islam does not.

"And what about that infamous Jewish Law that gives a widow to the brother of her deceased husband, or that a raped girl has to marry her rapist?"

LOL. Those are not practiced anymore. They are re-interpreted. Levrite marriage was not practiced by most Ashkenazim but it was practiced by Sephardim in the Middle East during the the Middle Ages. In 1950 it was finally banned for all Jews and the halitza (ceremony involving the brother to allow the widow to remarry) was made obligatory for all Jews. The rape thing has not been practiced for atleast a thousand years.

"How about Haredim women in Israel being almost completely prohibited from studies?"

Even religious studies? Wow, that's news to me! Again, it depends on which Haredi community you talk about, they are not all the same (some are readically different from each other). Many ultraorthodox women do work.

"How about the Jewish Law that permits a wive only a divorce with the absolute permission of Husband and being financially milked by him?"

There are regulations in the Beth Din to prevent this from being abused. It's not always successful, but she can still have a secular divorce and have it legally recognized by the state. Quite different from Islam. The situation in Israel is a little murky, but it will change in the future to prevent abuse. It is kind of like the Catholic church not recongizing a divorcee from remarrying I guess.

"How about Orthodox Jewish women shaving their hair and waring a wig after getting married?"

What about it? Is it weird? Yes. But some Haredi sects ARE weird.

"Mind you, Judaism is everything but a progressive loving religion."

I find this very ironic coming from a Muslim who thinks women should be beaten "lightly".

Also, this is my last post on Judaism since we are entirely off topic (tu quoque). I'm just humouring you so don't bother responding. I don't have time to sift through your misinformation that you learned from Al-Jizz and Radio Islam.

Posted by: igor at February 10, 2006 8:54 PM

karim, hope we're not keeping you from Friday prayers, but glad you're still around. You haven't answered my posts on the word "abeed". I was NOT talking about "abd". Either you misunderstood, or are purpously trying to confuse the issue. Which is it?

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at February 10, 2006 9:21 PM

http://www.19thofjune.com/archive/032201.htm
"Francis Bok escaped from ten years of slavery in Sudan.... "They told me I was an animal," Francis recalls. "Everyday they called me "Abeed, abeed" " black slave." Francis's master " Giema Abdullah " forced him to sleep outside with the cattle and fed him awful food. "For ten years, I had no one to laugh," Francis notes. "For ten years, nobody loved me."
I think you need to Google "abeed" and "slave". and while you're at it, you might try and help us understand why Muslim countries like Sudan, Sennegal and Mauritania still have slavery.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at February 10, 2006 9:31 PM

Israel Shahak is a communist and a self-hating Jew. His book that you are reading has been featured on Radio Islam many times. Google his name and Radio Islam. His book was also an inspiration for David Duke's "Jewish Supremacism" book. He even dedicates it to Shahak. Shahak's book has been discredited a long time ago and even much of anti-Zionist left does not use his materials on Judaism anymore because of his lack of scholarly credentials (he's a chemist) and falsehoods. For example, Shahak claimed that an Orthodox Jew in Israel chose not to help a Gentile when he was dying on the Sabbath. Later Shahak admitted that no such event occurred. Say the shit you read in his book to a rabbi and you'll be laughed out of the room. It's nice to know that you get your information about Judaism from self-hating Jews and antisemites. What are you going to quote next? The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion? You are behind the times. But considering that you are a Muslim, I don't find that surprising.

Posted by: igor at February 10, 2006 9:37 PM

Respected? LOL. He is respected by the Left for his anti-Zionism, not his "mastery" of classical Judaism. His PhD is in Chemistry, not Jewish theology. If he's not a self-hating Jew then why would David Duke get inspired by his work and basically write a lite version of his book and dedicate it to Shahak? Duke is an antisemite but somehow he likes Shahak. Now why would that be? Did you go to Radio Islam and see his material on there? Does that not disturb you? Go to any neo-Nazi website or white nationalist page and you'll see Shahak quoted in abudance. But no, he's not a self-hating Jew. Not at all! All of these antisemites liking him is just one big coincidence.

I can't speak for Robert Spencer, so you can ask him for his credentials. Of course you think you know more than him because you are Muslim and you magically understand Islam better despite Robert studying the subject for over 20 years and having read more books on the subject than you and knowing Arabic.

As for losing this argument, any argument with you is lost because like most Muslims you refuse to use reason and rely on propaganda for your arguments whether it be al-Jizz, Radio Islam, or Israel Shahak (who is featured on Radio Islam). But out of the both of us, I've answered all of your questions. You have only answered a few of mine. You did not give me the full context for that quote, just a page number from Shahak's book. I have pointed out where your arguments were dead wrong and I have admitted to where they had some merit. You on the other hand respond with childish taunts. "You make me laugh" is not an argument. If only you could use the energy you have to criticize Judaism on Islam, but of course that can never happen because you would become an apostate if you even questioned the morality of any of Muhammad's actions. What makes this even funnier is that I'm not even Orthodox and disagree with it in general yet your arguments are so poor that it comes off like I'm in favour of Orthodoxy. The fact is you can't criticize Reform Judaism for being backwards because you know it isn't. You know that women have far more rights in Reform Judaism than in Islam and that Reform Judaism is by far a more progressive religion than Islam could ever be.

Posted by: igor at February 10, 2006 10:29 PM

I think the fear that Islam's "peace" mask has slipped, Big Time, brings the disinformation brigade here trotting out the cob-webbed exegetics once again to cloud the real issue:

-why believe what any other mind believed?

Why not determine your own insights and vision of the Universe?

Why lean on the superstitious, ignorant, pre-scientific, pre-psychological minds of long-dead dogmatists?

I prefer to judge what is before my eyes myself.

At the moment, it is that believers in one monotheism called "Submission" think that they should rule the world and force their idea of reality on everyone.

I'll oppose and resist this until they desist.

I am unconvinced that they mean me well.

They only want co-prisoners.

The hell with that.

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 10, 2006 10:36 PM

Islam and its dark souled cowardly male Muslims are so afraid of America that they soil themselves every time they think of America.

The black souled and cowardly Muslims show all of the bravedo of a school yard bully in all countries that do not have the right to keep and bare arms.

All male Muslims are evil, vile, liars, perverts, child molesters and child rapists, for how can you be anything else and follow Mohammed who was evil, vile, a liar, murder, chiled molester and child rapist.

You cowardly black souled male pervert Muslims, why aren't you roiting in Amercia??????

There is more written and drawn demeaning Islam and Mohammed the child molester and child rapist than ever done in Europe.

Do not tell me it is coming you cowards. Do it now so we can get the war started and end the false religion of Islam.

The Texican,

Freedom. The only choice at any costs.

Posted by: Texican at February 10, 2006 11:05 PM

karim

Perhaps because his work is nothing new and has been done before by Jews like him. He fits the profile. And yes, I have read his books pertaining to Judaism: "Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years" and "Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel". He is not attacking the "fundamentalists" but Orthodoxy as a whole. Later in his career he started to backtrack from his more extreme positions but that did not stop him from distorting the text, falisifying events, and magnfiying the problem of Jewish fundamentalism to absurd proportions. His work is not "research" but activism. You clearly do not know the difference. And yes, he is at fault for his work being used by antisemites. Obviously there is something in his work that appeals to them that they wouldn't find in other Judaism critical books that are available.

The fact that he is a Holocaust survivor does not grant him respect. And Shahak would have not liked being remembered as a Holocaust survivor but as a human rights activist.

"You may not support Orthodoxy and you may be secular, yet that does not stop you from
sharing in many believes that Haredim Jews have."

You just proved my point. That's the thrust of his book, that this Jewish supremacism is inherent in Jewish culture and not restricted to Haredim, why else would you have made that comment? He extends this to Zionism which was a product of socialist Jews and nationalist Jews. Very few Haredim even wanted to take part Zionism before the Holocaust (they were quietist and thought Zionism was apostasy). There were Haredim that were in Israel during this time but they did not support a Zionist state because it was secular. The Haredim had very little influence on Zionism in its early stages yet Zionism is somehow a product of the Haredim's racism? The only exception to this rule was Rav Kook but he did not have as much influence as the fundamentalists have today. His son however was more of a hardliner than his father and after the Six Days War he did gain a huge following and his Haredi-nationalism is what we see today.

Jewish racism being inherent in Jewish culture is David Duke's thesis as well. Why is it that one book is praised (Shahak's) and the other demonized (Duke's) if they both argue the same point but in different ways? Shahak was a fan of prophetic Judaism and Spinoza. But he clearly saw traditional Judaism (for most of his career) as inherently racist and immoral. Again, he paints with too broad a brush among religious Jews, the Orthodox, and even the Haredim community itself which is far more diverse than Shahak would admit. Some are against Zionism, some are for a theocracy, some are racist (because they isolate themselves from society and become xenophobic), some discourage secular learning, and some work in secular jobs. Some are dangerous to both Israel and the Palestinians, but they are not all like that. And the case Shahak presents is disingenuous at best and sinister at worst. This is obvious to anyone who has a cursory understanding of Jewish history, Jewish theology, and the development of modern Judaism in Europe.

Posted by: igor at February 10, 2006 11:33 PM

Two groups . . . both alike in dignity . . . the ultraorthodox Jews and the Amish. Both are fundamentalist derivitives of their religions. I've never seen a black-clad chassid commandering a 747 to 'kill' . . . always to 'kill.' I don't recall many Amish protesting cartoons or beheading somebody, but who knows for sure. My point. Look at these extreme derivations of the religions and what do you have? I'm not expert, but what you don't have is suicide bombings or thugs or mobs, just meek people who want to live as they see their chosen paths, not converting poeple at the sword . . . just showing their devotion to god. I'm just a stupid Kaffir, but where's the sister example of the Amish or Chassids within 'the religion of piece.'

Posted by: biorabbi at February 11, 2006 3:00 AM

To the coward named The Texican:
You are no better than all those extremists because you are an extremist yourself chanting and daydreaming of murderijng every muslim man , woman and child in the face of this planet.

Posted by: RJLCyberPunk at February 11, 2006 9:38 AM

We have been down this road before. The war against the Japanese Empire featured many of the same themes. An Emperor who was considered divine. A culture of suicidal warrior’s intent on victory or death. Monstrous treatment of all other cultures and races. The cutting off of heads of prisoners. The desire to subjugate and dominate the world. If anyone is uncertain of America’s response try reading some books on the war in the Pacific. The war in Europe almost seems a humanitarian conflict in comparison. We don’t treasure war but what choice are we left with when faced with the facts?

Posted by: tgusa at February 11, 2006 11:59 AM

tgusa-

A good book (no pun intended) on the Japanese Imperialists, as opposed to the Islamic Imperialists (whose 'book' is currently being written) is: "Ghost Soldiers".

Chilling, -and inspiring.

Every Muslim should read it, too.

For a clue for what they can expect from the West if they lose control of their "perfect" arrogance.

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 11, 2006 8:28 PM