Ramadan and the upcoming holiday seasons are a good time to remember the common values that bind us together. Our society is enriched by our Muslim citizens whose commitment to faith reminds us of the gift of religious freedom in our country.

Laura and I send our best wishes for a blessed Ramadan. Ramadan Mubarak." - GEORGE W. BUSH

Thanks George and Laura, that was just lovely!

Posted by: witness at September 30, 2006 8:08 AM

one in a billion, big deal. The only response that is ever heard from "pigslam" is not apologies, just tired excuses blaming others. Qaradawi is the priest and al-Jazeerah is the pulpit. Satan is Allah pissbeuponhim.

Posted by: americanmadestrat at September 30, 2006 8:09 AM

Oh yeah, you people think I made this up on my own; nope.

"Follow the yellow brick road," but you won't get to the land of Oz in this case.

http://librabunda.blogspot.com/

Posted by: witness at September 30, 2006 8:09 AM

I read that lovely bit of speech you posted Witness. Will make a longer post about how warm and fuzzy it made me feel inside soon as I finish puking.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at September 30, 2006 8:21 AM

When ten million or a billion can be heard denouncing the aggression and violence at the heart of Islam, and its denial of mental freedom and insistence on mental submission, and when Al- Qaradawi and his ilk are no longer lionized but marginalized as sinister troglodytes, then there may be something, a very tiny something, about which to conduct this "dialogue" one hears so much about.

Posted by: Hugh at September 30, 2006 8:26 AM

Would Mr Mansur also apologise for the atrocities carried out by his beloved prophet Muhammed?

Posted by: western infidel at September 30, 2006 8:36 AM

"Below institutionalized Islam's scrutiny exists a vast unaccounted number of Muslims who seek anonymity to escape the coercive notice of authorities in mosques and in presidential or monarchical palaces. Their voices, were they heard, would be rudely dismissed as heretical."

AS well they should be.

"From its beginnings, institutionalized Islam's representatives hollowed out the spiritual content of Islam in the service of political expediency. The inevitable followed -- politics dressed in the robes of religion."

Im sure he is including Mohammad in this distingished grop.

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at September 30, 2006 9:17 AM

"When ten million or a billion can be heard denouncing the aggression and violence at the heart of Islam, and its denial of mental freedom and insistence on mental submission, and when Al- Qaradawi and his ilk are no longer lionized but marginalized as sinister troglodytes, then there may be something, a very tiny something, about which to conduct this "dialogue" one hears so much about".
Hugh, I would not hold my breatwaiting for it.

Why Islam is so uncompromising and violent?
I have been trying to find an answer for quite a while and could not find one which has satisfied me.
One can quote verses from Koran, which obligate a Muslim to carry out violent acts, but one can also quote Koran massages of peace and compassion.
So is it Koran itself, which makes its followers to become violent?

History might have the answers.

Is Judaism violent? The answer is: absolutely!
Many passages in The Bible are not only violent, but also considere violence as a virtue.
Are the Jews violent? They were, but not any more!
Is Christianity violent? The answer is: absolutely!
Bible is an essential part of Christian doctrine and The New Testament has also some passages, which even glorify violence.
Are The Christians violent? They were, but not any more.
Is Islam violent? No doubt and even more so then Judaism and Christianity put together.
Are the Muslims violent? Very much so!

How come that out of the 3 related faiths, 2 could part with violence and one can not?
Could it be that violence in Koran just the means for something else? Why is it so essential to Islam?

Historically, Judaism was developed as a local religion, with The Temple as a centre. Very much the same as other Pagan religions with a good as a city-state protector.
Judaism was not intended to become a world religion and even rejected such notion. Forced conversion of Samaritans is still haunting Judaism.

Paul, having problems with Jerusalem Church, quickly understood that the Jews were no hope for the new Faith. Rome and Romans were the obvious choice. In that situation Christianity had to present itself as a religion of peace and as such to be acceptable to the roman authorities. Enlightened Romans would not tolerate anything else.

It was a question of survival. The choice was simple: “to go deep or to go wide”.
Judaism went deep. It would not survive without Hellenism. Amalgamation of Religious doctrine with Greek philosophy produced Pharisee movement, which is still the main force in Judaism.
It produced a closed, but rich culture and stimulated education, art and almost total immunity from surrounding cultures.
Everybody, but the Jews, were surprised of how quickly after emancipation, they achieved success.
Christianity went wide. It became a world religion and could influence politics, economy and culture. It developed its own structure and burocracy. Survival of Christianity was assured.

History shows that when an inferior culture mixes with a superior one (even when forced by the carriers of inferior culture on superior one), the superior culture wins every time.
To prevent such natural outcome, a superior culture has to be destroyed in its entirety and it can not be achieved by peaceful means.

From the very begining, Islam has been surrounded by the peoples of superior culture.
Today, Islam is represented by people with far inferior culture then the European one. Leaving it to the natural flow of history will destroy Islam in a life of one generation. It has no ability to go deep and the only natural way for it is to go wide.
Jews and Christians can ignore violence in their Holy Books. Islam can not.
Jews and Christians had to adjust religious doctrines in order to survive. Islam can not do the same. In a world of Global culture it would be equal to a suicide.
It is not Koran dictating violence. Without violence Islam is doomed.

Therefore, destruction of Western culture is the primary and essential aspect of Jihad. Without it Jihad loses its meaning.
Such conception is not new. Communism was aimed on destruction of values and culture as a primary objective of its struggle with The West and as it was then, as it is now that our leaders, educators and media can not and do not want to understand the simple answer to the present problem with Islam, which history has for us.

Posted by: pong at September 30, 2006 9:23 AM

A very brave reporter, apology accepted and come over for dinner anytime. But ‘Institutionalized Islam’ is not a creation of Qaradawi, it is a creation of Mohammed, and is layed out very clearly in his texts. Islam’s war against the west, with all of its perversions, is a part of the religion. The image painted by Western media of the ‘moderate’ Muslim is by definition someone who rejects Mohammed’s basic teachings.

Posted by: limes at September 30, 2006 9:52 AM

there needs to be concensus among non muslime that islam has to go if they will not reform. l now know it is not reformable witout considerable loss of life among muslims, so we need to label islam a terrorist organization. lets put the swtich on them, iether they lose their islam or they get lost.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at September 30, 2006 10:05 AM

I doubt this Qaradawi is the face of institutionalized Islam, as much as we all might wish there was one guy to send our complaints to.

It's like Rummy's line about there not being any good targets to bomb in Afghanistan and therefore Saddam was a good choice. Likewise, Islamic fundamentalism is supported by its masses, and not sustained by the pronouncements of some obscure guy named Qaradawi who most Muslims and non-Muslims have never heard of.

If there was an Islamic Pope, we'd all have heard about him long ago.

Posted by: sanman at September 30, 2006 10:11 AM

I don't see any good in these apologies. The moderately muslim people are not the problem, it's the fully muslim people who are the danger.

You cannot oppose the disease of jihad while supporting an increase in the number of non-symptomatic carriers. It was the non-symptomatic "moderate muslims" who begot the jihadists of 7/7. Reduce the number of carriers and you reduce the outbreak of symptoms.

Posted by: Menetheos at September 30, 2006 10:22 AM

Pong said.....

"Is Christianity violent? The answer is: absolutely!
Bible is an essential part of Christian doctrine and The New Testament has also some passages, which even glorify violence."

hahah.

i love this guy. He is truly a biblical scholar and also a master in comparitive religions.....

lolz ive heard better stuff from the mouth of amahdinejad.............

Posted by: W_D_J_D at September 30, 2006 10:28 AM

I did an In T View of Canadian Bloggers and Writers on: What Does Canada Stand For?
and Salim was nice enough to respond, and said:

Hi Mister Ghost:
I'd say Canada stands for Decency and Civility, two qualities becoming increasingly rare in our world. A lot of people might scorn at the idea of what Canada stands for, but I believe these are worthy qualities once were prized by gentlemen above all. Now what do gentlemen stand for these days? Regards,
Salim

So, I've always had a lot of respect for Salim - I think he's a real stand up guy, not just because he contributed to my In T view.

Because there are so few Muslims willing to put themselves at risk and criticize Islam publicly, that we have to encourage those that do so.

If you are wondering about Salim's background, voila:

Salim is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Western Ontario. A writer, his column appears at London Free Press alternate Wednesdays, and the Toronto Sun on Thursdays... Salim is a member of the Board of Directors for the Center for Islamic Pluralism based in Washington, D.C., a Senior Fellow with the Canadian Coalition for Democracies, and an academic-consultant with the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C...

Posted by: Mister Ghost at September 30, 2006 10:31 AM

I've read a lot of Salim's columns and agreed with him often...the only problem: According to his beliefs, he wouldn't be considered an orthodox, i.e., "real, authentic" muslim by 99% of his co-religionists.

Posted by: Galloglass at September 30, 2006 10:49 AM

Although I acknowledge it will be long long while before we see such a critical assessment as Salim's being spoken of by any Muslim in a position of authority in the Middle East, well, maybe except Ghaddafi, he's been known to shoot from the hip - but an Islamic religious leader in the Middle East of any orthodox caliber, apologizing for Islam - hah. That's a good way to be no longer in a position of authority.

How many assassination attempts or trials would the Imam or Ayatollah face for such basphemy?

Would he even be able to complete Friday's sermon without the attendees slaughtering him?

Posted by: Mister Ghost at September 30, 2006 10:54 AM

Hi Galloglass,
I think most Muslims in the inner core, that would be the Middle East, view our Western Secular Muslims as outcasts, heretics, liberals, and non-Muslims. I like what Irshad Manji has to say, but I doubt very many Muslim women in the Middle East are influenced by her - she's a Lesbian and they don't identify with her, or more importantly they don't want to identify with her.

Lesbianism is a sin against the precepts of Mohammed. It's a complete hypocricy, as there's likely a higher rate of Lesbianism in these Islamic societies, than there is in the West, due to sexual stratification, closeness between the females, clositering of females, lack of opportunities for intermingling between the males and females, etc.

LOL, I bet you could make a great Lesbian porn movie in Saudi Arabia, if you knew where to look.

Posted by: Mister Ghost at September 30, 2006 11:06 AM

W_D_J_D.
To criticize someone’s views on this site is what the site is about.
A personal attack is not welcomed even against supporters of Islam.
From your remarks one might conclude that your parents are very wealthy people (saving money on teaching you good manners).
Though you took the passage out of context, you still could not do much with it, could you?
“Hahah” is not something, most of us would consider as a part of an intelligent debate.

As for your “love” for me, you are a bit late. I am already married..

Posted by: pong at September 30, 2006 11:13 AM

QUOTE: "How come that out of the 3 related faiths, 2 could part with violence and one can not?
Could it be that violence in Koran just the means for something else? Why is it so essential to Islam?" --pong

Something very serious takes place here between these three versions of Abrahamic religion based on One-god. If one were to believe in 'progressive revelation' as do Muslims, then we should expect an evolution towards a better understand of One-god; and commensurate evolution of human behavior to better reflect this understanding. However this is not what we witness, where Judaism and Christianity drop violence from their religious interpretations, while Islam accentuates violence in their interpretations, fundamentally. So it appears that rather than 'evolution' in religious matters of One-god, we are witnessing a 'devolution' coursing back down into barbarity of human behavior. For this, there is justification for apology from Islam for its regression into barbarity. However, there will never be a real universal apology from this third errant branch of Abrahamic faith because there exists within it a flaw, a very deeply ingrained crack of self negating logic that cannot be overcome by any rational mind, except through violence. This violence then begets more violence, and from it the growing threat of Islamic Jihad globally. Here is how I see that internal flaw which runs straight through the center of that third errant branch of faith, here is the essential logic:

The Koran in Arabic on earth is the same as held by One-god in heaven, Allah, so it is absolutely above criticism from anyone; no portion of the Koran may abrogate another, so the peaceful passages must coexist with the violent passages; the call to subdue through conquest or conversion, with an intermediary acceptance of subdued dhimmi status, is fundamental to the Koran, which is Jihad; because of non-abrogation principle, any Muslim who desires peace with non-Muslims and fails to do Jihad is in violation of this principle, as it is held in the heavenly Koran by Allah; this principle must be obeyed until the return of One-god's special messenger, the Mahdi, to bring Allah's Koran to earth universality for all mankind; any Muslim failing in his Jihad duty is thus in violation of Allah's demand to get 'submission' from all mankind to doing his will, or what they call 'god's will' in strict obedience to the un-abrogated heavenly Koran. This is essential logic of Islam as laid down by their prophet Mohammad.

So it is impossible to be a peaceful Muslim while at the same time working for Jihad to subdue all mankind in submission to Allah, which is anti-peaceful at its core. This means Islam is of necessity inherently in a perpetual state of war with all humanity, until that humanity is subdued and ruled by the Mahdi until the end of days. Exceptions are truce and takiyya, but otherwise this is an un-abrogatable duty for all Muslims to do Jihad. Therefore any apology, no matter how sincere from that individual Muslim, can never speak for total institutionalized Islam without violating the principle demanding Jihad. One can even say that to 'apologize' for Islamic crimes against mankind is a form of 'criticism of the faith', and a crime against Allah. The very best one can expect from Muslims, given these conditions within their errant branch of Abrahamic faith, is to forestall the inevitable in their minds, world conquest, but never to avert them from Jihad except under conditions of temporary truce. This is their essential need for violence, and why it is a regression in terms of progressive revelation. Apologies cannot exist, except as a crime against Allah.

In conclusion, Islam cannot ever be a 'religion of peace' by its own definition. Violence must beget more violence until the end of days, so the peaceful passages must lose to violence. Only way to change this is to do, for them, the unthinkable. They must strike at the principle of Jihad. But if this happens, it becomes instantly their 'end of days', which they find unthinkable. By their own logic as given by their prophet's Jihad, peace undermines any possibility of peace in their misnamed 'religion of peace.' Islam is a cult of endless war without apology.

Given all this, is it any wonder they will keep insisting on apologies from us, but never offer real apologies in return? They can't, because apology for them is a crime against Allah, so it is physically impossible for them to apologize. An apologizer for Isllam instantly becomes apostate. And you know what that means. Death.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at September 30, 2006 11:31 AM

To the fools in the west that seek an apology, I say, are you that thick? Do you not have morals or values? I refuse to lower my standards for an apology and embrace the devil and his cohorts. Want to live in a world where you have to watch everything you do or say otherwise some pathetic criminal muslim may take it upon himself(to become god) and stick a knife in your back for any insult, real or perceived? It is a culture of pure evil. We all know as soon as they are able they will try to blow up the world. The time for apologies has passed. I now demand to see substantial physical action against the jihadis before I believe any of them. I don’t think it will ever happen.

Posted by: tgusa at September 30, 2006 11:42 AM

Good link witness.
I have wondered about GWB, he's got a war in Iraq, but all the while letting muslims into our country through the front door. He has left the back door wide open....through which come Central Americans, Mexicans and jihadis. He resists closing the back door.
Now he sends love notes to our enemies (of course he does every Ram-it-down), assuring them that we aren't fighting who we should be fighting.
What do you make of that?

Posted by: Carolyn2 at September 30, 2006 11:54 AM

Now if Harvard could only apologize.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at September 30, 2006 11:56 AM

Here's a Muslim's response to a question of mine from another site (Parenthetical text is my editorializing) :
Galloglass: Is the Moslem god a rational god? Is violence proscribed by Allah? Is not acting in accordance with reason contrary to God's nature? Is God pure love? Or is he pleased by decapitations and forced conversions?

Muslim: God is not bound by human rationality. He is God, he can do whatever he wants. (He is capricious, no real response, ergo he is pleased.)

The Absolute nature of God means that he is both Absolute Good and Absolute Evil. (Can anyone explain this one to me? Logically? In terms of Judeo-Christian theology? This makes no sense if Islam is really an “Abrahamic faith”)

The mullahs and ayatullahs begin their studies with the Platonic Trivium: Logic, Rhetoric, and Grammar. To suggest that they need to be lectured on Rationality & Reason by the Pope or Christains is the epitome of ignorance of their intellectual millieu (sic). (Then they all must have failed Logic 101)

Galloglass: Well Babak, there's the crux of the problem...God transcends moral boundaries? God is absolute good and evil? So if tomorrow Allah said that murder was actually good, and charity evil, you'd agree with him? Nothing is intrinsically good or evil? By its very nature? When Christians and Moslems can't agree on a basis for morality, then we will never agree on anything.

Muslim: Christians and Muslims can agree on the basis of morality for human beings and not require, at the same time, for God to be moral in human sense. (According to Christian doctrine our morality is derived from God, through revelation and natural law. It looks like you’re making a moral hole big enough for a Mack truck, or Allah to drive through.)

Posted by: Galloglass at September 30, 2006 11:59 AM

Whitehouse link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ramadan/2006/

Posted by: Carolyn2 at September 30, 2006 12:08 PM

Quotes on islam
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ramadan/islam.html

Posted by: Carolyn2 at September 30, 2006 12:12 PM

I would have thought they would long ago had given up the Islam has been hijacked and twisted line . That dead horse has been beat hollow .

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at September 30, 2006 12:20 PM

"It looks like you’re making a moral hole big enough for a Mack truck, or Allah to drive through."

Or big enough to fly two Boeing 767s through.

Posted by: remote_control at September 30, 2006 12:43 PM

It's not much, but at this point any statement that isn't full of references to the Crusades,killing this guy and that one or screeching about "occupied Palestine" is OK by me. Maybe if enough Mansurs come out and take control of Islam they can finally civilize it and drag it into the 21st century. This is a long shot because I'm not sure if Islam can be reformed without destroying it but these guys should at least take a shot at it. You moderate Muslims out there should install Mansur as your "Pope" soon, before the whole world collapses into a new Dark Age or worse.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at September 30, 2006 12:46 PM

Salim Mansur is a nice guy.
A few nice guys are trying to intervene into a headbutting between two implacable opponents. But do they have enough influence?

Posted by: The Pig Loving Maldivian at September 30, 2006 1:00 PM

Are we witnessing the beginnings of a schism in the Muslim faith, and an internal struggle to claim the title of "mainstream" Islam? Here we have Salim Mansur admitting that he is a non-institutionalized Muslim without rank in Islam. On the other hand, there is Sheikh Qaradawi, an institutionalized Muslim who is the authoritative guardian of Islamic ideology, and who sanctions jihad against Western civilization.

Now the question: Who is the mainstream Muslim? Is it the "spiritual" leader Qaradawi, or the apologetic Mansur? How can Mansur continue to worship in the Islamic faith if he rejects the views of the institutional guardian of that faith? Is Mansur now, in fact, by admitting to his non-institutional status, actually one of the tiny minority of extremists who have hijacked a violent religion?

Posted by: Kreuzueber Halbmond at September 30, 2006 1:01 PM

I personally am grateful for individual Muslims such as Salim Mansur who cannot be brainwashed into buying into Islam's homicidal ideological components. He rightly comprehends that slaughtering innocent humans for not 'submitting' is an unspeakable crime perpetrated on humanity by demented, morally warped people we know and loathe as Muslims. However, I am quite certain institutionalized Islam and its henchmen would kill Mansur as quickly as it would kill any of us. So as heartening as this letter by a good (Muslim no less) man is, I do not feel that much better. The horrors perpetrated by Islam cannot be revoked by anyone and they are a long way from being put under control.

BTW-- President Bush should hang his empty head with shame over his Ramadan greeting(!??!?!). He's an American not an Arab(Although he may be turning into a Hispanic or something which I now call 'Jorge Buschitez'...). I suspect Mr. Bush has made us Americans the laughing stock of the Islamosphere (when they are allowed to laugh over there of course)--if not the entire planet! Oh, God--what an embarrassment!!! My eyes are rolling thinking about that one.

Posted by: pythagoras at September 30, 2006 1:43 PM

The good news: every time I read something like this, I realize no human is totally beyond hope.

The bad news: every time I read something like this, then right after that realization, I think to myself, "That guy is in deep trouble now". Far deeper than Redeker, actually, because he's going to be branded an apostate.

All these affairs involving the abridgment of our freedom of expression are highlighting the conflict better than anything else. But there are still lots of people who are acting like the three monkeys.

Posted by: ZionistYoungster at September 30, 2006 1:52 PM

Is Pong dangerous? The answer is: Absolutely!

Posted by: champ at September 30, 2006 1:56 PM

Thank you champ.
Though I find the compliment a little ambiguous.

Posted by: pong at September 30, 2006 2:10 PM

One can quote verses from Koran, which obligate a Muslim to carry out violent acts, but one can also quote Koran massages of peace and compassion.
So is it Koran itself, which makes its followers to become violent?
Posted earlier.

If the above it true all you need do is rank the verses. A little more reading and you will find almost all of the verses that obligate violence demand it against non muslims. True an exception to policy is written into the koran for musilms who attempt to convert or in other ways do things against traditional islam. Then the title of apostate is used and once again there are verse, which obligate violence. This is allowed mostly because the offending muslim has lost the tile of “muslim” so again the obligatory violence is directed against a non muslim.

The verses calling for compassion are almost all directed toward muslims. Once again an exception to policy allowing for non muslims does exist but only if the non muslim excepts a dhimmi role. There are no real quarantines even a dhimmi will be treated well as there is no penalty for disobeying.

So that answers your question “is it Koran itself, which makes its followers to become violent”? The koran does demand violence except in rare instances. As far as the other religions mentioned, none have been shown in recent history to demand, require or even encourage violence against anyone muslim or not. Until we see any other religions demand violence against anyone this discussion has been settled. If you disagree by all means open a Christian watch and Judaism Watch and I will be happy to continue this.

Yours truly,

Imam Ronin

Posted by: Ronin at September 30, 2006 2:13 PM

Whitehouse link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ramadan/2006/

Posted by: Carolyn2

That link is deyond DISGUSTING! It is in fact DISTURBING!

As I am listening to Monica Crowley describing her visit to
Camp Gitmo.;; They even have the Geneva Conventions
posted all over the place in Arabic, she said.

WHO is RUNNING this country??!! We are being sold down the
RIVER!!

Posted by: germaninamerica at September 30, 2006 2:19 PM

The world is blind. A menace is growing every day. It does not grow on a unified front. It is not organized as a country. It does not have a seat at the UN. Some of its membership worldwide are not participating in open acts of violence, yet the insidious oppressive nature of this force finds its ways in through the front door of openness and inclusion. Openness and Inclusion are doctrines of the West. They are noble and just. But taken to the extreme, these doctrines can bring in division and oppression. Peace at any price, meaning the absence of conflict, is the most costly form of peace. It means submission. The world, primarily the West, is submitting. This is the aim of the adherents to the peaceful force that I am describing. Islam.

To offend somebody in the western Islamic community can bear either violent consequences or western societal submission. The moment speech is abridged, true freedom dies. The moment a woman in Western Civilization hesitates going into public dressed in a certain manner, true freedom dies. The moment law enforcement turns from protecting law abiding citizens, true freedom dies. When the predominating reason for tolerance is precipitated by fear, freedom dies.

Western society has two choices. Vanquish, or be vanquished.

Islam, by its nature, is not a status quo worldview. It is a jealous master. It will not submit by choice. If you doubt, open your eyes and read the Quran and the Hadith. Then read history. You can not come away from this study and find a worldview compatible with Western Civilization. This study coupled with today's headlines is a loud message from over a billion Muslims. It is visible everywhere, even in the UN. To miss this, one must willfully choose to disbelieve glaring evidence.

Understand, these encroachments on liberty will continue, and like a snowball at the top of a mountain, the onslaught will grow in size and speed. Ask yourself, why do I want to accept and appease Islamists? Is it because of your openness, your respect for multiculturalism? Or are you now starting to fear deep down inside. The hurried frenzy to negotiate and appease a fascist dictator in Iran is a great example of this problem. Iran will become a nuclear power if the world just keeps on negotiating.

How does it make you feel? Ahmadinejad, Iran's President, has stated numerous times that the Holocaust did not happen. He has also on numerous occasions called for the Muslim world to envisage a world without Israel. He is very direct in his statements. Ahmadinejad is not alone. There is a hunger in the Muslim world to see the destruction of Israel. It is not just Arabs. It is Muslims worldwide that desire the eventual removal of Israel from the map.

If you choose to willfully ignore the facts and believe that the threat can be negotiated with and contained, you are mistaken. Again, I ask you to conduct your own study. Read the Quran and the Hadith. Then read history. You can not come away from this study and find a worldview compatible Western Civilization. This study coupled with today's headlines is a loud message. It is visible everywhere, even in the UN. To miss this, one must willfully choose to disbelieve glaring evidence.

Bubba's Pravda
bubbaspravda.blogspot.com

Posted by: Bubba's Pravda at September 30, 2006 2:26 PM

I have posted Mr. Mansur's article to the politics forum I argue on from time to time. As I suspected, those looking for dialogue and Movement from the 'moderate' muslim community, applaud him. So far, the first muslim poster I read is already tearing him down.

Robert, if this is not a good idea, please delete this post, but here is Mr. Mansur's (Academic) email:

smansur@uwo.ca

Please, people, if any of you write him, Buck Him Up! Rather than take him to task with more questions.

Posted by: Gary at September 30, 2006 2:44 PM

Hello Champ:

You are as thin skinned about taking criticism as the Muslim whiners. I saw nothing "dangerous" in Pong's analysis, in fact I was thinking about the same things today.
Being brought up first hand with strict totalitarian Roman Catholic teaching, I am aware and am disgusted of how they behaved historically much like the Islamists do today. However, I saw no evidence of any massive movement toward projecting Catholicism on non-Catholics through violence. The teachings of Christ were emphasized and the totalitarian doctrines were not emphasized even by the most fundamental catholics. The Islamists have, unlike Mansur, drawn upon and emphasized the violence in the Koran as being the representation of true Islam. Wolves in sheep's clothing, like CAIR, also maintain and administer the totalitarian control of Islam through Sharia.

I think Pong's point is that Judaism and Christianity have long outgrown their thirst for blood and have integrated their followers into secular societies that get along quite well with other faiths and those of no religion. Islam still spreads its religion by the sword and its followers do not integrate well into Western societies and in fact seek to take over their societies as we see so clearly in Europe and Africa. I do not see an army of Mansur like Muslims defending their religion against the beasts of darkness, and these beasts are gradually defining Islam and forcing non Muslim to take a stance against the violence and totalitarian idealogy like we did against the Nazis and Fascists.

Posted by: Briars at September 30, 2006 2:46 PM

CORRECTION: " so it is physically impossible for them to apologize."

I meant to say 'psychically' in my post, not physically. My gaff.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at September 30, 2006 2:52 PM

Pong,
The difference betweeen Christianity, Judaism and islam might be just what I have witnessed in my short life, and read in history books. Only the latter calls for the sawing off heads of animals in its holy places, the mosques, what I have witnessed (The grandpas make their grandsons do it, and actually are proud of the fact that their kiddie sawed off the head off a goat held down by 10 beleivers) . And the history of islam is the only one that is written in blood, upon the carcasses of infidels ; nothing ever I have ever read in history comes even close to it.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at September 30, 2006 2:53 PM

Posted by: witness [TypeKey Profile Page] your post is pathetic about a card sent to mo from Bush.
you needed to listen to Rush's thrid hour with Bush's speech. it was great! you dont hear this stuff on the drive by media! it was great... you need to hear it.. and others. Bush says we are not responsible for muslim reactions, ie killings, sucicde bombs belts..
so again, if you can hear his speech from this past friday's third hour on Rush 's show.. you need to get a copy. it was a great third hour!

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at September 30, 2006 3:05 PM

Has it ever occurred to some of the religious "experts" here that the reason why Judaism and Christianity are not violent today is NOT because the doctrines changed or adjusted, but that the FOLLOWERS of the doctrines changed and adjusted???

Man's nature is violent and brutal. It is FALLEN. We see that brutality every day in the news and throughout history. Judaism and Christianity attempts to CHANGE that nature, to TRANSFORM it into what God intended it to be. To be a "disciple" of a religion is to be DISCIPLINED into something improved or better than one is.

The fact that Jews and Christians are peaceful people comes as a result of centuries' of spiritual growth or spiritual "evolution" so that the teachings of Yahweh or Jesus have finally become policies within societies. Within those societies the rule of law emerges. Within those societies the concepts of liberty, justice, and equality among its citizens emerge.

The roots of Western Society is Judeo Christian, and the fruits of it have been good, albeit with some problems, which can be attributed to the fallen nature of man. However, we see no good fruits from Islam, because the roots are ROTTEN.

Posted by: atheling at September 30, 2006 3:25 PM

Briars:

"Totalitarian: Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed." American Heritage Dictionary

Using the word "totalitarian" to describe Roman Catholicism Doctrine is unjust and sloppy thinking.

Communism is totalitarian. Fascism is totalitarian. And now we see that Islam is totalitarian.

To equate your catechism to those ideologies reflects poorly on your comprehension of the word and of the nature of Christianity. There is free will in Catholic Doctrine. Maybe you fell asleep in class that day.

Posted by: atheling at September 30, 2006 3:36 PM

Bible is an essential part of Christian doctrine and The New Testament has also some passages, which even glorify violence.

Dear "Pong" you seem to behave the way Islam does, by using a generalization to falsely accuse while making use of an out of context reference and abstract moral-equivalence assumption. Please go study a few things before you spout off, thanks.

(note the absence of chemical oxidation after insult to Christianity)

Posted by: Report at September 30, 2006 3:43 PM

Report:

Pong likes to spout assertions without any substantiation. When you call him on it he will call you "hysterical" and then disappear.He's done it before on this board.

Pong: Please give us examples in the New Testament where violence is "glorified".
Use chapter and verse, please.

Now watch him call us names and disappear.

Posted by: atheling at September 30, 2006 4:16 PM

Atheling:

Sorry, maybe I meant to say "supremist" doctrines although I think during the times of the Inquisition it could have been called Totalitarian. However, If you read the rest of my text you will see that it makes no difference. I was going to commend you on you post about evolution of spiritual perspective. It is my hope that we all evolve into a Brotherhood of Man without any religion. I am sorry if I feel that religion seems to be the primary scourge of mankind and the number one excuse for human barbarity. Maybe if this was the case (no religion) Mr. Mansur would be accepted as a brother because he wishes to live in peace with his fellow men regardless of what dogma he grew up in. That is why I refuse to wage this war against the Islamic tyrants on religious grounds. It goes much beyond that for me.

Posted by: Briars at September 30, 2006 4:36 PM

Why Islam is so uncompromising and violent?
I have been trying to find an answer for quite a while and could not find one which has satisfied me.

We all are.

One can quote verses from Koran, which obligate a Muslim to carry out violent acts, but one can also quote Koran massages of peace and compassion.

Even bin Laden would say the same.

So is it Koran itself, which makes its followers to become violent?

Depends on their objectives.

History might have the answers.

It usually does.

Is Judaism violent? The answer is: absolutely!

Not necessarily, but I'll keep reading.

Many passages in The Bible are not only violent, but also considere violence as a virtue.

Read the ten commandments and the prohibition about killing.

Are the Jews violent? They were, but not any more!

Palistinians have a different take.

Is Christianity violent? The answer is: absolutely!

This is not what Jesus taught, nor did any of the Pauline doctrines teach that violence was acceptable. Nor do any of the synotpic gospels make such a claim, and neither does the gospel of John.

Bible is an essential part of Christian doctrine and The New Testament has also some passages, which even glorify violence.

The NT does not in any version that I have seen glorify violence. In the OT, violence is a metaphor and a direct consequence of disobedience to God. In the context of the times, the ancient Jews were actually the least violent of any of their neighbors who did in fact glorify violence.

Are The Christians violent? They were, but not any more.

All the apostles of the early christian church died as non-violent martyers; even the casual members were sacrificed in the area but did not resist. These were not violent, so your claim is inaccurate.

Is Islam violent? No doubt and even more so then Judaism and Christianity put together.
Are the Muslims violent? Very much so!

Will the calls to action by the founder of christianity are directly opposite of those made by the founder of islam. The God of the ancient Hebrews really wasn't bad if you read the whole story.

How come that out of the 3 related faiths, 2 could part with violence and one can not?
Could it be that violence in Koran just the means for something else? Why is it so essential to Islam?

Listen to al-jazrerra or to any of the immams in palistine.

Historically, Judaism was developed as a local religion, with The Temple as a centre.

Trure

Very much the same as other Pagan religions with a good as a city-state protector.

Similar, not surprising with ancient cultures however in many ways the jews were very different in that they were not as violent nor did they have the ritual blood sports.

Judaism was not intended to become a world religion and even rejected such notion. Forced conversion of Samaritans is still haunting Judaism.

I am not sure where you got this.

Paul, having problems with Jerusalem Church, quickly understood that the Jews were no hope for the new Faith. Rome and Romans were the obvious choice. In that situation Christianity had to present itself as a religion of peace and as such to be acceptable to the roman authorities. Enlightened Romans would not tolerate anything else.

Mark was the gospel written for them and if my memory serves it was the only one written in Latin. Besides, Paul was the only apostle who understood many languages -- Peter could not.

I suggest you get a book on the new testiment history written my Metzger.

Your notions are not correct -- suggest you research more. You will find it interesting.

Posted by: witness at September 30, 2006 5:51 PM

Briars:

A brotherhood of man without religion is impossible. John Lennon was wrong. Man cannot live and grow in a vacuum. Man needs morals and ethics in order to grow and for his society to be just. Those morals and ethics spring from religious doctrine and require discipline and learning. Generation after generation, man needs to be taught Judeo Christian values in order to live in a peaceful society.

Your comment that man's barbarism is a result of religion is erroneous and throws the baby out with the bath water. Man's nature without morals and ethics IS cruel and barbarous, just like Nature herself. Do you see how Nature is amoral? When man rejects the discipline of religion, he reverts to barbarism. (I am referring to Judeo Christian dogma) The problem is the choosing of the right doctrine to follow! That requires honest discernment and intelligence.

Your position also ignores the GOOD which has sprung from religious people. There are saints and religious people whose lives have been perfect examples of how to live a good life. Mother Teresa, Corrie Ten Boom, Maximilien Kolbe, Deitrich Bonhoeffer are just a few. Many good deeds have been done by those who follow religion (good Samaritans). It's unfair to lump all religions into one category, and unjust to those who truly live what they preach.

Lastly, Briars, your assertions reveal some ignorance about human nature. I mean this in no scornful way towards you personally. You seem to subscribe to a Rousseauist philosophy, that man is born good and that society and religion makes him evil. Rousseau, the father of postmodern liberalism, is wrong. Man is good, and created in the image and likeness of his Creator. But his free will, which is bestowed upon him because he is not a machine, tends to choose what is wrong or bad. It is RELIGION which attempts to sway him from that deviant course and to choose what is good and noble.

You seem like an intelligent person. Have you ever read GK Chesterton? His books "Orthodoxy" and "The Everlasting Man" are excellent and enjoyable works which can better explain my reasoning and position which opposes yours. Chesterton was a pagan and then agnostic who developed his own philosophy, later to be surprised that his philosophy mirrored Roman Catholicism.

"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision." - Orthodoxy, 1908

Posted by: atheling at September 30, 2006 5:52 PM

I'm definately noticing a huge difference in the National Post in it's opinion of Islam. A couple of days it had a political cartoon that depicted a group of angry Muslims holding up a sign that read, "Death to Mozart". I haven't read the words "Religion of Peace" in quite some time now, so that makes me feel pretty good about the world, and humanity in particular. The news on television is still generally worthless, though. Seems like the pinheads on television are much less thought-driven people than those of the written word.

Posted by: TheVoiceofTruth at September 30, 2006 6:08 PM

As far as the TOPIC goes, that is the message from this Muslim journalist... my answer is "IT'S A START"...

On the rest of the off topic "comment" here.. these "experts" on Judaism and Christianity have no idea.. except "witness" who's rebuttal of "pIng" I agree with. Honestly I think some of the experts on here pull their views from their sphyncters

Posted by: payingattention at September 30, 2006 6:53 PM

An apology by Salim Mansur : indeed by any 'Moderate Muslim' ought to be welcomed & encouraged.There are two problems though even if ONE BILLION Muslims apologised...
The character of their 'beloved' Prophet [the perfect man] is so wicked Mohammed can never be redeemed by even their most vocal Apologists.The foundations of Islam are rooted in worst sort of violence and intimidation where criminal acts are glorified i.e Jihad and killing of Apostates,
sexual pervision-rape of little girls [boys] is sanctified and takes place every hour of the day in Muslim countries.Barbaric punishments i.e the stoning of alleged Adulterers and RAPE VICTIMS,beheadings and cutting off of hands under
'Holy' Sharia Law.Does Mr Mansur believe in Sharia Law??
It is true Christianity once had a great taste for burning heretics and witches but this changed when THE CHURCH LOST ITS POWER TO SECULAR
GOVERNMENTS.Islam is about 500 yrs behind the West in everything so the chances of reform in Muslim countries before they are thrown out of Infidel countries-who finally have lost patience with their backwardness & violence-is virtually Nil.There will be a mass exodus of Muslims from the West and 'rivers of blood' will flow in Europe.A few moderates,alas, cannot stem the tide of History which made Dinosaurs extinct.
Islam has no place in the modern world and any Western country under 'the caliphate' emerged into freedom,poor,backward and greatly decimated in numbers of ethnic populations.Having experienced the 'peace and tolerance' of Islam,no
European country will willingly submit to it's
yoke again but IS PREPARED TO FIGHT TO THE DEATH TO PREVENT ENSLAVEMENT .Mr Mansur,please leave the accursed Death Cult you have been brainwashed
with since birth and convert to Buddhism,Judaism,
Christianity or B'hai etc.Or be a happy Atheist or Agnostic...This is the BEST APOLOGY YOU COULD MAKE.

Posted by: Morgane at September 30, 2006 6:55 PM

Hmmmm. In the post and the comments, I see three people trying to be civil and neighborly--Mr. and Mrs. Bush, and Salim Mansur. It is because of people like Mansur that I believe that North America (on both sides of Line Forty-Nine) is far from doomed. It may also explain why even in such dark days as these, there is an active Christian witness based on ex-Muslims in places as dark as Mashad, Iran. And my guess is that if radical Islamicism goes on much longer, people like Salim Mansur AND MILLIONS OF OTHERS will end up in the bosom of some other religion--preferably Evangelical Christianity.

I wholeheartedly agree with the many commentators here who see Ahmadinajad, Nasrallah, Bin Laden, and their ilk as dangerous men; and I am for vigilance. Yet an unthinking pessimism is no less dangerous than an unthinking optimism, for it can be just as crippling.

As I see diapsora Muslims fed up with the likes of Qardawi, immigrant Somali kids thinking of joining the US Army after graduating partly because they see their old country as overrun by people rightly called "terrorist", and a small but visible movement towards Christ in the Turko-Persian lands, I consider that the wild-eyed crazies and their slogans to assassinate the Bishop of Rome and umpteen others are the cries of a wounded beast. Yes, the beast is dangerous; but it's wounded.

Posted by: Kepha at September 30, 2006 6:56 PM

QUOTE: "How come that out of the 3 related faiths, 2 could part with violence and one can not?
Could it be that violence in Koran just the means for something else? Why is it so essential to Islam?" --pong

Simple. The Bible is descriptive and the Koran is prescriptive. The Bible relays , this is what happened in those days (Old Testament wars etc.) it does not tell its adherrants to go and do likewise. The Koran does, it tells its adherrants to go and DO LIKEWISE, go kill the infidel where you find them etc.

Posted by: bondservant at September 30, 2006 7:34 PM

Atheling:

The Taliban are also students of religion and believe they follow the "right doctrine". One does not need an orthodox structure to find Truth or to know God. If you do that's fine. Don't assume that because one is not part of an orthodox religion they have no morals, conscience, ethics or ability to live as decent human beings. You can follow all the religious dogma you want but each individual is responsible for their own enlightenment. I have trouble with people who believe they have the "right doctrine" especially when they want to force it on everyone else as is the case with Islam today. I refuse to accept the validity of the religious masks people wear. The militant Muslims I see are psychotic, pathological, sadistical personification of evil. They are "bad" people as opposed to "good" people. Mr. Mansur seems to be a good person despite the fact he is a Muslim and his own soul is testifying to that. Erase the Muslim and see him for what he is. The point I think we can both agree on is that Christianity and Judaism evolved to the point where it outgrew its supremist, dangerous arrogance and let its followers to a peaceful coexistance with people of other faiths and those with no religion. Islam is doing the opposite.

Posted by: Briars at September 30, 2006 9:51 PM

Pong asks, "Why Islam is so uncompromising and violent? I have been trying to find an answer for quite a while and could not find one which has satisfied me."
Well, I have an answer that satisfies me, which I will offer you. It's very simple, it's based on a principle that requires no deep understanding of any religious dogma, and it explains a lot of world history:

Nothing Succeeds Like Success

The reason why Judaism and Christianity ended up modernized and non-violent was that violence wasn't working for them--so they had to find other ways to live. The Jews had been conquered repeatedly by others. Revolts were brutally suppressed. The Jews had to learn to live inside non-Jewish societies that they couldn't overthrow.

Had Jesus led an open violent rebellion against the Romans as the Jews had originally hoped, he and all his Jewish followers would have ended up just like Spartacus and his followers--wiped out. In contrast, Jesus preached a message of peace that was an attractive idea even to peoples subjugated by the Romans.

Instead, Muslims just kept winning all the time--on the battlefield. Their empire grew and grew, till it stretched from what is now Spain to what is now Pakistan, and as far south as what is now Sudan. When violence accomplished so much for them, why should they ever abandon it? There was no incentive to reinterpret Sura 9, or redo it, or even find themselves another prophet who might preach a more peaceful way of life. Even modern Muslims are nostalgic for their old Caliphate Empire--which was built with violence.

Nothing Succeeds Like Success is also the reason why the Japanese finally gave up their Code of Bushido and the samurai tradition--only after they were atom-bombed. They were forced to give up militarism and build Toyotas instead. Had Japan won World War II, there would still be Bushido and samurai in Japan to this day. Had Germany won World War II, Nazism (which had mystical elements) would still exist today.

So the question we should really be asking ourselves is: What made Muslims such great warriors on the battlefield? How did Mohammed raise armies that could do so much?

And if I'm right, then the only way Islam will become less violent is if the West proves to them, once and for all, that violence doesn't work, and that they will end up like the Japanese if they continue on their violent path.

Posted by: Steven L. at September 30, 2006 10:13 PM

Does the White House officially recognize Jewish religious holidays? If so, I never hear any mention of it. But ramadan is such a big deal, people everywhere are falling all over themselves to recognize and even participate in this pagan rite. In many places, it's just an excuse for the rabid muslims to take their barbaric violence to a higher level. Why can't they enjoy fireworks displays like the rest of us, instead of butchering innocent people with machetes and guns? I guess that would be too hands-off for them; they prefer to commemorate their "religious" holidays by offering animal and human sacrifices to their beast, allah. Blood must taste even better to these savages during the "holy" days of ramadan.

I think it's really funny that during the ramadan fasting month, muslims gain weight. It's a real struggle to gorge yourself right before the crack of dawn and again at sunset.

Posted by: Susanp at September 30, 2006 10:13 PM

Carolyn2 you are absolutely right.

Bush is so two-faced it's not funny anymore.

I saw him on t.v. not long ago and he was repeating his famous line of: "We have to fight the enemy abroad, so that we won't have to fight them at home".

Uh, hello???

In which world do you live George? The enemy is in our home! And you're letting them in! All nice and legal, or illegal. Doesn't seem to bother you George, that they're coming in through the front and back doors!

You also don't seem to mind that the terrorist-supporting C.A.I.R. has gotten guided tours of our airport security systems AND Homeland Security.

Now, you're praising muslims and islam out of one side of your mouth and out the other side you're saying we've got to fight against extreme "individuals".

Gee George, I can't figure out whose side you're really on.

Posted by: americaningermany at September 30, 2006 12:32 PM

.... and AMArtinez wonders why I pick on Dubya. Take a close look and you will see how dangerous this man is. Look at his past and you will find hin neck deep in wanabbi wealth. His mom even adopted Bandar. His businesswees were financed by Salem Bin Laden. And peopel wonder why he let Bin LAdens off to safety. Why dubya blackened pages on Saudi Arabia in 9/11 commission report. Why he quickly danced away from 'Islamo-Facist' at one phone call from Riyadh. Why he twists the truth around to push criminal illegal aliens as victims and patriotic minutemen as 'vigilantes', Why he sends Condi to twist Israel's arm against Hezbolla and why he hires Karen Hughes to appease mislims. Dubya is a corrupt and a timid fool. This was clear when he pleaded Pakistan for 'help' even when Bin Laden is / was a guest there, when Daniel Pearl was slaughtered on camera and when ISI was found behind 9/11. Add to that Saudi Arabia and tell me if dubya is as usless as a bad coin. What makes dubya more dangerous is that he uses the govt. assets, he is suppose to protect Americans with, against Americans (opening borders to illegal criminals, guided tours to CAIR, tax dollars to Jihadi Egypt and Pakistan and thousands of visas to the very enemy who attacked America). Does this look like someone who cares for America? Look a little behind Bush's tough speaches and you will find he as a president/commander-in-chief has compromised American security to dangerous proportions.

So, americaningermany, your alarm / distrust is not misplaced.

Posted by: Alert at September 30, 2006 10:35 PM

Strangely enough, because of Islam and all the crazies, my faith in God and Christianity is much deeper rooted than it was before I discovered what was going on around the world under the veil of "peace".

Posted by: TheVoiceofTruth at September 30, 2006 10:51 PM

Susanp's comments are right on the money. She reminded me, inter alia, of how repelled I was when, several years before 9/11, while still quite ignorant about Islam, I learned that the slaughter of lambs is to Ramadan as the lighting of a menorah is to Chanukah. Despite my knowing next to nothing about Islam at that time, I suspected, a priori, that there was something dark and barbaric about both Islam and its adherents, who could revel in the purchase of newborn animals, the purpose of which is to slaughter them. Sickening.

Posted by: commonsense at September 30, 2006 11:19 PM

Briars:

"The point I think we can both agree on is that Christianity and Judaism evolved to the point where it outgrew its supremist, dangerous arrogance and let its followers to a peaceful coexistance with people of other faiths and those with no religion."

I disagree. And I guess you didn't read my post before the one I addressed to you in particular. It isn't the RELIGION which evolved (Judeo Christianity to be specific), it's the PEOPLE who evolved and their society over the centuries as a RESULT of the Judeo Christian teachings. The religion was NOT "supremist, dangerous and arrogant", it was the FOLLOWERS.

Do you see what I mean?

Posted by: atheling at October 1, 2006 1:19 AM

Morgane:

"It is true Christianity once had a great taste for burning heretics and witches"---!

CHRISTIANITY?

I think you should re-phrase that!!

Posted by: Sencit at October 1, 2006 2:06 AM

Briars -

Huh? When/where have I been thin-skinned about taking criticism? Please elaborate.

Pong is dangerous! On another thread he stated that he's an atheist -- an ATHEIST -- and yet he claims to be very knowledgeable about religions in general. In fact, he almost sounds like an "expert" on religion.

Come on, man, does this make sense to you?!? This guy doesn't believe in God, and yet he proposes to know the in-and-outs of some many different kinds of religions.

In my opinion this is a dangerous person to pay close attention to because he speaks from a spiritual void, and his aim is so declare all religions equal, flawed and empty to support his misguided reasoning: that there is no God.

I for one do not agree with him. There is a God, and his name is Jesus Christ.

Posted by: champ at October 1, 2006 2:24 AM

Brairs:

Your anti-religion theme doesn't hold water.
If there would be no religions....(you think that the world would be a better place.)

You forget evil. Just because you have come to to the conclusion there is no evil, doesn't mean there isn't any.

What about the Nazi's? They were not Christian read your history and Communision, well there they outlawed religion. Yet millions were murdered all in the name of: communision.

But you have done yourself a disservice...by thinking that it is because of 'religion or G-d' that is the root cause of all conflicts. It is so much more than that.

Answer this why is it that so many unreligious evil governments/so-called religions want to kill all the Jews and Christians? Then they will move on to the others.....

Posted by: Suz at October 1, 2006 2:57 AM

P.S. Briars -

I know you're agnostic and that you're anxious to see a Brotherhood of Religion emerge that would make us all "one"; but oneness in religion isn't where the truth lies.

Jesus said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me." John 14:6

Jesus didn't say that all religions are "one" in the same, but that He is the One. Read the entire book of John and learn what Jesus said about himself FOR yourself.

Posted by: champ at October 1, 2006 2:58 AM

Champ..

Well said...better than I.

Suz

Posted by: Suz at October 1, 2006 3:02 AM

Within the Arab Sunni world the Egyptian-born Sheikh Qaradawi, 80, of Qatar, is the face of institutionalized Islam. He is the closest to what might pass for a titular head of Muslims akin to the Pope. Qaradawi's words, now broadcast by television network al-Jazeerah, are taken as authoritative pronouncements of Islam. He is the "spiritual" leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, a movement formed to repudiate freedom and democracy, and a defender of Islam's war against the West by any means, including suicide bombing
aslong as these old men are not willing to acept change islam will not change and the old as group don;t change all that well

Posted by: islamakapigeaters at October 1, 2006 6:38 AM

Coren is right. I, as a Muslim, apologize !!!!
If the Muslim person who is apoligising was for real he would have read that it is what Muslims do and what the Quran endorses for ALL Muslims to do to the infidel, and surely he would have been so sick of what he reads that he would have got out by now...

Posted by: Gaye at October 1, 2006 7:35 AM

Champ and Friends:

You continually seek to define me. I did not say that I want to live in a world of One religion (this is what the Islamists want), I said i would prefer to live in a world with no religion. Would you persecute me for that? Do you believe that because I espouse no orthodox faith, I am not religious? Do you think that the enlightened message of Jesus can only be obtained through participation in an orthodox religion? Do you think that Mr. Mansur cannot be enlightened because he was brought up in the Muslim religion? Do you think people with no religious affiliation are Communists and evildoers and cannot discern a moral code in our Universe that portrays a sense of goodness and purpose? I refuse to fight the Islamist under the pretense that my religion is the true religion and there's is not. I prefer to fight them on the grounds, as the Pope so greatly pointed out, there are many among them who spread their religion by the sword and adhere to a totalitarian idealogy that seeks to enslave or annihilate non-Muslims.

You have been so kind as to offer me texts to explain your point of view. Let me offer you the creed of Anne Hutchinson, who was persecuted by the religious hierarchy that governed Massachusetts in colonial times, and together with Roger Williams founded the colony of Rhode Island where I thankfully was born. Here in God's Providence a man could live with his own personal beliefs and not have the fear of being persecuted for those beliefs, nor could government become an arm of religion. Were Roger and Anne possibly posessing the same vision of John Lennon's Brotherhood of Man?

http://www.annehutchinson.com/creed.htm

Posted by: Briars at October 1, 2006 7:42 AM

Laura and I send our best wishes for a blessed Ramadan. Ramadan Mubarak." - GEORGE W. BUSH...

WHAT!!!!, I cant believe Bushes stupidity once again, doesnt he know that there is a world wide non stop Muslim violence going on out there and it is because of what is written in their holy books...... THEN he said ....the upcoming holiday seasons are a good time to remember the common values that bind us together!!!! BIND US TOGETHER what a laugh, SURE Mr Bush so that is why they are slaughtering tens of thousands of christians every year. YEP well, I am speechless or should I say letterless... lets get the common values going.

If we have common values and the Quran says to slaughter all who will not submit, then lets all get out there and kill, kill, kill...if we have common values we will have to throw away verses like, 'thou shalt not kill, ' thou must love your enemies as yourself', etc, that the Bible talks about which the Quran doesnt, and get the common values.... I cant see any common values in any of the parts of the quran that I have read, or at least not the ones that were changed once Mohammad's numbers grew enough to become a force and Allah changed his mind about many of the verses that he had given Mohammad in the first quarter of the Quran. come on Mr Bush wake up and stop being such a fool...start reading for yourself and stop listening to the Muslims who would have us dead, although lying is not permitted in the Quran however they are allowed to lie to the infidel, in times of war, for the cause of Allah etc...I once had respect for Mr Bush, but I can see why people see him as a fool... Imagine if world leaders had of listened to Hitler when he said he didn't intend to conquer the world, while all the time his weapons and numbers were mounting up...

Posted by: Gaye at October 1, 2006 8:00 AM

pong what you are saying in regards Christianity and Judaism is a very board assumption and I cant understand where on earth you get that idea about Christianity and Judaism...??? I haven't come across any historians who says anything of what you are saying, of course that doesnt mean that it isn't there.....

Yes, there has been violence in all societies including Christianity and Judaism, but it is not part of the writings from Moses where God told Moses that they (the Jews were not allowed to kill) and this is why even though Israel could have wiped the Muslims off the map today that they have not retaliated, but I believe that they will not continue to allow themselves to be destroyed they are only a tiny little country surrounded by a sea of angry Muslims... I would suggest that you read the Bible and see the roll that a loving God plays in the lives of Jews and Christians, unlike Mohammad who slaughtered and tortured everywhere he went Jesus taught peace and love...

Posted by: Gaye at October 1, 2006 8:25 AM

So, americaningermany, your alarm / distrust is not misplaced.

Posted by: Alert

I agree for the same reasons.

Posted by: witness at October 1, 2006 9:24 AM

Pong likes to spout assertions without any substantiation. When you call him on it he will call you "hysterical" and then disappear.He's done it before on this board.
Pong: Please give us examples in the New Testament where violence is "glorified".
Use chapter and verse, please.
Athenling and Champ.
I do disappear. There are 2 main reasons for it:
1. My local time is 6-7 hours ahead of Europe and 12 hours of East Coast of US (your post came at 04:16 a.m, local time);
2. The nature of my job is to be on call 24/7 in addition to a “normal” 12-16 hours working day.
A thread on this blog does not go for long and often by the time I am ready to have some fun, no one is there.
Some posts I ignore for the reasons of being boring and some because we went through the subject on previous days. Sometimes other people get in and do “the dirty work” (Archimedes first comes to mind} often so well, I can hardly to add anything.
Ones I referred to some of the posts being “hysterical”, but never addressed such accusation to anyone in particular. At the same time a statement like: “There is a (!?) God, and his name is Jesus Christ” would be difficult to qualify in a more charitable manner. (I have a terrible feeling of doing something wrong! You project like a woman. I won’t forgive myself).
I never “proposed to know the in-and-outs of some (?!) many different (?!) kinds of religions”, but you seem to have higher opinion of my knowledge, then I do. I have studied Judaism, Christianity and Islam as much as one can being busy with more important things. I studied Latin, Greek and Hebrew in order to understand more. Sometimes I am late with my posts because it takes time for me to find a quotation in English (I have a good library, but English is not my first language, not even a second one).
For not believing in Heaven and Hell, perpetual virginity, virgin birth, resurrection, parting of the sea and other “true miracles”, I have been called names, quoted out of context, sent “to study” in the most patronizing manner, compared to Amahdinejad and Mullahs. Yet, I came down to personal level only once against a personal attack from W_D_J_D, whose “hahah” argument together with a sub-sexual innuendo were even worse then many other un-intelligent comments.
Two of your assumptions I would like to question:
1. You seem to be of an opinion that only a believer can have knowledge of religions. I can give you a list of experts, who are not.
2. That I, being an atheist, “speak from a spiritual void” (Briars have already criticized such an assumption, but with tact you hardly deserve).
I shall be even harder on myself and quote St. John Chrysostom:
“…God… is integral to the nature of man. Therefore, the man who does not fear God somehow does not exist, and his nature is somehow not human.” Osama and Co. will give thumbs up to this statement.
“The religion was NOT “supremist (?!), dangerous and arrogant”, it was the FOLLOWERS”. Oh, yes. Those ones who hijacked Christianity the way Osama hijacked Islam.

Briars.
“However, I saw no evidence of any massive movement toward projecting Catholicism on non-Catholics through violence.”
We”ve read different books about history of Central and South America.

Atheling, just a few as you asked.
Mark 19:27;
Matthew 10:14-15; 10:34-35; 13:41-42;
Acts 12:23;
Revelations 2:20-23; 6:8-11; 9:18; 11:5-10; 14:10; 16:1; 18:8; 19:15-18; 19:21

Posted by: pong at October 1, 2006 9:36 AM

Pong likes to spout assertions without any substantiation. When you call him on it he will call you "hysterical" and then disappear.He's done it before on this board.
Pong: Please give us examples in the New Testament where violence is "glorified".
Use chapter and verse, please.

Athenling and Champ.
I do disappear. There are 2 main reasons for it:
1. My local time is 6-7 hours ahead of Europe and 12 hours of East Coast of US (your post came at 04:16 a.m, local time);
2. The nature of my job is to be on call 24/7 in addition to a “normal” 12-16 hours working day.
A thread on this blog does not go for long and often by the time I am ready to have some fun, no one is there.
Some posts I ignore for the reasons of being boring and some because we went through the subject on previous days. Sometimes other people get in and do “the dirty work” (Archimedes first comes to mind} often so well, I can hardly add anything.
Ones I referred to some of the posts being “hysterical”, but never addressed such accusation to anyone in particular. At the same time a statement like: “There is a (!?) God, and his name is Jesus Christ” would be difficult to qualify in a more charitable manner. (I have a terrible feeling of doing something wrong! You project like a woman. I won’t forgive myself).
I never “proposed to know the in-and-outs of some (?!) many different (?!) kinds of religions”, but you seem to have higher opinion of my knowledge, then I do. I have studied Judaism, Christianity and Islam as much as one can being busy with more important things. I studied Latin, Greek and Hebrew in order to understand more. Sometimes I am late with my posts because it takes time for me to find a quotation in English (I have a good library, but English is not my first language, not even a second one).
For not believing in Heaven and Hell, perpetual virginity, virgin birth, resurrection, parting of the sea and other “true miracles”, I have been called names, quoted out of context, sent “to study” in the most patronizing manner, compared to Amahdinejad and Mullahs. Yet, I came down to personal level only once against a personal attack from W_D_J_D, whose “hahah” argument together with a sub-sexual innuendo were even worse then many other un-intelligent comments.
Two of your assumptions I would like to question:
1. You seem to be of an opinion that only a believer can have knowledge of religions. I can give you a list of experts, who are not.
2. That I, being an atheist, “speak from a spiritual void” (Briars have already criticized such an assumption, but with tact you hardly deserve).
I shall be even harder on myself and quote St. John Chrysostom:
“…God… is integral to the nature of man. Therefore, the man who does not fear God somehow does not exist, and his nature is somehow not human.” Osama and Co. will give thumbs up to this statement.
“The religion was NOT “supremist (?!), dangerous and arrogant”, it was the FOLLOWERS”. Oh, yes. Those ones who hijacked Christianity the way Osama hijacked Islam.

Briars.
“However, I saw no evidence of any massive movement toward projecting Catholicism on non-Catholics through violence.”
We”ve read different books about history of Central and South America.

Atheling, just a few as you asked.
Mark 19:27;
Matthew 10:14-15; 10:34-35; 13:41-42;
Acts 12:23;
Revelations 2:20-23; 6:8-11; 9:18; 11:5-10; 14:10; 16:1; 18:8; 19:15-18; 19:21

Posted by: pong at October 1, 2006 9:37 AM

I have an idea. Lets all try not to behave like muslims when discussing religion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and interpretations as long as they don’t force them on others. Seems like its Bush bashing time, anyone have any helpful ideas? I know lets elect Agor or John Skerry that will do the trick! Some have mentioned bin ladens family, here in America as of now, if someone does something terrible we don’t go after their friends and family. For those who still cant grasp this I will put it this way, if you murder someone I care about I am not going to hunt down your Brothers, Sisters or Parents and take it out on them. I am all for wiping out the jihadis but I am sure it can be done without turning into a monster like them. After all isn’t that what the spirit of “love your enemies as you love yourself” is all about? Let’s all get together and fight the enemy not each other. We need each other more than ever now.

Posted by: tgusa at October 1, 2006 10:33 AM

A few points I'd like to make.

Survival and adaptation of your own life and well-being are of paramount importance in human beings. This is not an opinion, it is a fact. These are genetically encoded into each person and animal. If at any point a species, through choice (humans) or genetic dysfunction (humans and animals), no longer holds these concepts as important, that species will not survive.

Self-sacrifice in some form or another is a valuable trait and is encouraged by every religion I know. Any religious belief that instructs its follower(s) to sacrifice their body(suicide, martyrdom, etc), actively opposes man's ability to survive and adapt.

There is an interesting duality concerning such religious teachings. Survival and adaptation are selfish traits, but they are necessary for life to continue. It is common for religions to teach selflessness (ie. renunciation of material posessions/temptations and the choice to pursue a more simple path--monks, priests, brahmans, clerics, etc) in order to attain heaven. Here exists the duality. Why would a religion teach selflessness as a virtue (especially the ultimate--suicide), and offer a selfish reward (heaven)?

Any religion that encourages the ending of one's own life for selfish gain is a religion that not only opposes life in general, but contradicts itself by offering a selfish goal attained by selfless means.

The actions of Islamic extremists can be dangerously written off as a misinterpretation of the Qur'an, or it can be understood as a perfectly valid interpretation by a primitive audience of extremist followers.

Posted by: Virabhadra at October 1, 2006 1:43 PM

Pong: I don't know what Bible you use, but mine doesn't have a Mark 19...it stops at 16. Matthew? I don't know what you're driving at with the first reference. In the second, "the sword" is metaphorical and has always been construed as such. It refers to his message, some will accept it, others will not. It may divide friends and family.
The 3rd Matthew reference is a metaphorical discourse on Judgement Day.
The Acts reference refers to an angel slaying Herod because he did not glorify God.
As for the Book of Revelation, it has almost always been assumed to be metaphorical in nature, at least by the Catholic Church. Find me one injunction in the NT or the Catechism that involves violence against your fellow man. I'll save you the trouble, you won't find it. The Koran has legions of them. Is that the best you can do?

Posted by: Galloglass at October 1, 2006 3:13 PM

Briars -

This may surprise you -- but religion turns me off. The spiritual path I have chosen for myself is directly tied to my having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, not to any particular church. I do attend a Christian church every week, and I have for years, but that isn't where my focus lies.

Jesus said, "No man comes unto the Father except through me." John 14:6

I would never force someone to recognize their sinful state and their need for God by having faith in Jesus Christ; and those who do are not following Jesus' directives. I may sound passionate about my faith, but I would never force a decision on someone.

Jesus said, "I stand at the door and knock: if anyone hear my voice and open the door, I will come in and sup with him, and he with me." Revelation 3:20

The bottom line, Briars. Either Jesus was who He claimed to be: God -- or Jesus was a lunatic. I have chosen to believe He's God. What are you going to choose?

Posted by: champ at October 1, 2006 5:18 PM

....and I'll be praying for you. Take care.

Posted by: champ at October 1, 2006 5:21 PM

Although there have been wars all the way through history and christians have a lot to be ashamed about, we have to keep in mind that up until the last 150 years that most people couldnt read so were easily manipulated by greedy evil religious leaders however the base of the matter is, from Moses time that if every nation had followed the 12 commandments there would be no wars in the world, no poverty and no hurt.......

The founder of the Christian faith wanted love and peace to be the distinguishing characteristic of his followers.
The founder of Islam wanted slaughter, torture and horrors to be the distinguishing characteristics of his followers and promised virgins in paradise if they did...

The fruits of the spirit of a Christian are love, joy, peace, long suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control.
The fruits of a Muslim are slaughter, torture and horrors for the cause of Allah, and to die for Allah, in this Muslims guarantee their place in paradise...

Posted by: Gaye at October 1, 2006 8:05 PM

Pong -

Sorry if I came across too strong in my assessments of you. You stated, "You project like a woman. I won't forgive myself."

It sounds like you're asking me if I'm a woman? Yes I am! But I'm not too sure why you need to forgive yourself. Please explain.

Anyway....

My first husband was an atheist, and when I became a Christian he suddently became an expert on God/religion and why I shouldn't believe in Jesus Christ -- and these INSIGHTS of his were coming from someone who claimed there "was no God."

I guess some of your statements remind me of him and his annoying efforts to shatter my faith. He would make similar comments, like you, that made me feel stupid for believing in what I believe, so I understand what you mean about feeling talked down to.

Of course none of these attempts by my ex worked, but I did form a negative opinion of atheists. Obviously. Anyway, I simply wanted to write back and explain where I'm coming from too. Take care.

Posted by: champ at October 2, 2006 12:13 AM

Briars, I myself don't like religion, I believe it is the devils way of confusing the minds of people, however in having said that, I do believe in Jesus Christ and that he was who he said he was. Archaeologist are continually digging up things which prove that this time in history was for real, but it doesnt worry me if I am wrong, as if I am wrong I have nothing to loose but if the non believer is wrong????? it is a long time in eternity to be wrong...

And as I have said before, many bad things have been done in the name of RELIGION, but it is strange that no one seems to want to talk about the many wonderful things that Christianity has done. If it weren't for Christians there would not be schools, hospitals, universities, welfare, etc etc,, in the west and many other places, simply because even though Christians have made mistakes, real Christians cared..
Because Christianity was the main stay and the laws by which our countries have gone by for centuries, these beliefs, ideals and values have permenated through all our lives christian and non christian, just as the hateful, violent beliefs of Muslims have permenated their all their lives and thinking

Posted by: Gaye at October 2, 2006 12:34 AM

I feel the same as tgusa. Their "apologies" don't interest me a bit. Are never spurred by genuine contrition. Also is expiation so glib and facile?

Posted by: Crows&Cows at October 2, 2006 2:41 AM

One sparrow doesn't make a spring.
Apologies are acceptable if they are accompanied by massive action and the creation of a new movement against violence and arrogance among Muslims.

Posted by: rocky at October 2, 2006 5:52 AM