So, Armstrong is basically saying that everyone is a pawn of circumstance. Now, I'm not a Christian, but it seems to me that the message of Jesus to the Jews came at a very difficult time for the Jews, suffering under Roman rule. If circumstance ruled, you could just as easily said that Jesus should have come with a message of revolt (to get closer to a kingdom of heaven). Likewise, what conclusion can you draw about the times that Mohammed lived in? Would the warring nature of the tribes (was that case?) a reason for a message of pacifism or war?

One thing is clear however, Armstrong is a complete fool.

Posted by: Seymour Paine at November 13, 2006 2:00 PM

Is Karen Armstrong a muslim? If not, she hasn't done her homework. If she is, she's practicing her taquiya.

Her books aren't worth the time it takes to read them.

Posted by: freewoman at November 13, 2006 2:12 PM

"Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will" (2:223).

I'm sure a person like Ibrahim Hooper needs this mandate since a free woman would say no thanks to his tiny rake.

Posted by: Frank at November 13, 2006 2:17 PM

"sympathetic and sometimes academic profile"

Heh...
Yeah, a good source of accurate information.

Posted by: Eisenhund at November 13, 2006 2:17 PM

Robert,

I may have missed it, but have not seen your review of Karen Armstrong's work. What's her story? Is she incorrect, is she selecting different facts, is she deceitful, what?

Her book seems to be respected.

I am, StillBreathing

Posted by: StillBreathing at November 13, 2006 2:20 PM

There is a good book called Don't be Sad...it is a book written by a Muslim about the importance of being happy despite hardship and the natural sorrow of life...it is a good book to read to get a different perpsective of what it means to be a Muslim...I suggest that some of us might read this book...

Posted by: sikhy at November 13, 2006 2:23 PM

Still Breathing:

I discuss Armstrong's Muhammad in passing in my new book The Truth About Muhammad -- at several points in reference to how she treats events as compared to what the Islamic sources really say about those events.

Cordially
Robert Spencer, intermittently breathing

Posted by: jihadwatch at November 13, 2006 2:24 PM

"He mended his own clothes."

Hitler was a vegetarian who loved dogs and blonde German children. Fieldmarshall Goering was a lover of fine art, loved it so much that he brought a good deal of it back from his travels in Occupied Europe to decorate his own walls. Lenin was profoundly moved by the suffering of people just like himself. Stalin had an unforgettable sense of humor. Mao had quite a powerful crawl, and his backstroke was also nothing to sneeze at.

Why don't the naysayers who are so corrosively critical take a leaf out of one of Karen Armstrong's books on Islam or Muhammad, and focus, as she so clearly does, on what is right about people, instead of harping on their peccadilloes?

Posted by: Hugh at November 13, 2006 2:29 PM

"Her book seems to be respected."

Respected by whom?

The value of respect is relative to the value (in terms of intellect, knowledge, and intellectual honesty) of those who give it.

Posted by: Eisenhund at November 13, 2006 2:31 PM

Adding to Hugh's list..,

Reinhard Heydrich was a devoted family man and was pretty handy with a violin.

Posted by: Eisenhund at November 13, 2006 2:36 PM

Hell, Grunt, send her to Pakiland. I'm sure she and Nazeem would get along famously.

Posted by: Eisenhund at November 13, 2006 2:37 PM

"Karen Armstrong's sympathetic and sometimes academic profile, she argues that, unlike Jesus, who could be a pacifist because he lived during Pax Romana, Muhammad faced warring tribes across Arabia. "
How ridiculous!! Jesus was crucified and mercilessly tortured, he was not living in some utopian pax romana. Jesus's pacifism was most strongly expressed on the Cross, under the conditions of torture, humiliation, isolation, ridicule, something no human can undergo, to attribute his pacifism on the environment is the biggest insult one can do to Jesus and those who believe in him.
But I can understand the dilemma of Armstrong, if she has not painted in Mohmmad in good light, she would be carrying a fatawa on her head. But to save her ass, if she is somehow, bringing Jesus down, while lifting Mohammad up, it is either insanity or God knows what?

Posted by: pagan at November 13, 2006 2:39 PM

By the way, I also mend my clothes. Moreover I am not deluded to call myself a messanger of God, or order killing of anyone, or marrying a six year old.

Posted by: pagan at November 13, 2006 2:44 PM

It's funny how apologists can only defend Mo-Dogg by either ignoring facts or comparing his conduct to that of his peers (often ignoring facts while doing that, as well).

"Cow feces is better than dog feces because the former makes better fertilizer".

Comparisons do not obviate the essential nature of the subject. Just because one claims that Mo was less of a bloodthirsty savage than those around him (and we all know that just the opposite was true), it is not the case that he was therefore not a bloodthirsty savage himself.

Posted by: Eisenhund at November 13, 2006 2:48 PM

Armstrong's contention that Jesus was a "pacifist" because of living in Pax Romana is laughable. Mohammed introduced war to a peaceful mosaic of religions and cultures that coexisted with little more than minor squabbles in the desert for centuries. But Jesus lived among a people thirsty for rebellion against an oppressive dictatorship, and who tried, on more than one occasion, to thrust him into a position of military and political leadership. Is Armstrong a scholar or a (pathetic) spin-doctor? Don't bother answering.

The last 3 items on this NYT list look to be worth paying attention to. I wonder if Mr. Spencer, once he recovers from once again being shunned by a frightened media, has an opinion about these three books? Did the person making this list at least score 3 out of 5?

Posted by: Archimedes2 at November 13, 2006 2:50 PM

You may be an antheist or an agnostic; or you may belong to any of the religious denominations that exist in the world today. You may be a communist or a believer in democracy and freedom. No matter what you are, and no matter what your ideological and political beliefs, personal and social habits happen to be - you must still know this man.

ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA confirms:
"....a mass of detail in the early sources show that he was an honest and upright man who had gained the respect and loyalty of others who were like-wise honest and upright men." (Vol. 12)

GEORGE BERNARD SHAW said about him:

"He must be called the Saviour of Humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it much needed peace and happiness." (THE GENUINE ISLAM, Singapore, Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936)

He was by far the most remarkable man that ever set foot on this earth. He preached a religion, founded a state, built a nation, laid down a moral code, initiated numerous social and political reforms, established a powerful and dynamic society to practice and represent his teachings and completely revolutionized the worlds of human thought and behavior for all times to come.

"HIS NAME IS MUHAMMAD" May Peace of God Be Upon Him (pbuh)
He was born in Arabia in the year 570 C.E. (common era), started his mission of preaching the religion of Truth, Islam (submission to One God) at the age of forty and departed from this world at the age of sixty-three.

During this short period of 23 years of his Prophethood, he changed the complete Arabian peninsula from paganism and idolatry to worship of One God, from tribal quarrels and wars to national solidarity and cohesion, from drunkenness and debauchery to sobriety and piety, from lawlessness and anarchy to disciplined living, from utter bankruptcy to the highest standards of moral excellence. Human history has never known such a complete transformation of a people or a place before or since - and IMAGINE all these unbelievable wonders in JUST OVER TWO DECADES.

Posted by: Ramon at November 13, 2006 3:04 PM

I'd like to mend my own clothes, too, but this was not one of the Achievement Badges offered by the Cub Scouts when I was making my slow way from Cub to Wolf to Bear to...well, I don't know if I ever made Lion. I vaguely remember trading in the Cub Scout Lion for the MGM one at just about that time, the ars gratia artis lion that roars so satisfactorily. Consequently, the ravelled sleeves of care are still with me, and its off, off, you lendings, and putting on something new picked up for a swan song, rather than "let's be frugal and mend those lendings."

On the other hand, there were also no Achievement Awards for attacking farmers or decapitating prisoners or marrying nine-year-olds.

Call me Pollyanna, but I'm going to look on the bright side.

Posted by: Hugh at November 13, 2006 3:09 PM

Yeah, Mr Perfect did it all. A supreme multitasker. What a peach of a man. Who wouldn't want to emulate such greatness?

Armstrong probably wishes she lived in Mo's time so she could really get to know Mo more intimately. Hell, she probably would have drowned poor little Aisha in a well or something just to get at such greatness.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 13, 2006 3:28 PM

"Armstrong probably wishes she lived in Mo's time so she could really get to know Mo more intimately. Hell, she probably would have drowned poor little Aisha in a well or something just to get at such greatness."

ISLAMSFORLOSERS - ROTFL!

Posted by: Josephine at November 13, 2006 3:35 PM

Ramon, the tranformation that you described has occurred many times throughout history. In fact everytime that a country or people or village was conquered, at least one side would make such a claim.

In some cases, there were survivors who could make counter claims. In the case of Muhammed, he left precious few non-converts alive to make any sort of a claim.

Posted by: FirePig at November 13, 2006 3:47 PM

I'm still gasping. No, I'm jsla. No -- I can't tell anymore...

Darsum craaazy shiite goin down in da WSJ today...

Posted by: jsla at November 13, 2006 4:06 PM

"Muhammad: he mended his own clothes!"

It's true - and there's more; when he was murdering innocent people, sometimes instead of slaughtering the women and children too he would just repeatedly rape them and enslave them as his lifelong personal property, which just goes to show he was a big softy at heart.

Also, sometimes when he was torturing people to death by chopping them into little pieces, he would only chop off their opposite limbs so that they died slightly slower, then he'd blame it on the voices in his head... so no one can say he wasn't conscientious.

I mean, anyone reading this thread might get the impression he was some kind of mysogonistic sadistic depraved psychopath. Not taking sides or nothing, but maybe we've been a bit hard on the guy? After all, Spiderman mends his own clothes, and everyone loves spidey....

Posted by: Domestos at November 13, 2006 4:13 PM

Human history has never known such a complete transformation of a people or a place before or since - and IMAGINE all these unbelievable wonders in JUST OVER TWO DECADES.

Posted by: Ramon at November 13, 2006 03:04 PM

Yes human history has!.. and Hitler killed 6-7 million Jews in just 8 years. JUST EIGHT YEARS!

.. but nice try!

Posted by: Alert at November 13, 2006 4:14 PM

Ramon...lest we forget...Mohammad died a miserable death. Niether Allah nor Gabriel showed up to see him off or give him a ride in a golden chariot.
His political decendents bickered over power with Abu Bakr winning the Calphate from Ali.
It was not Mohammad who conquored the Arab Peninsula, It was Bakr with his 'War of compulsion'. Bukhari:V9B84N59 “When the Prophet died, Arabs reverted to disbelief. Umar asked Bakr, ‘Should we fight these people? [Remember,] Allah's Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight everyone until they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,.' Bakr replied, ‘By Allah! I will fight whoever differentiates between Salat [prayer performance] and Zakat [tax payment], as the Zakat must be taken from property according to Allah's Orders. If they refuse to pay me, I will fight them.' Umar said, ‘I noticed that Allah opened Bakr's chest towards the decision to fight.'”

Yes Ramon...the whole thing was about money and power. Notice that Bakr demanded the money be paid to HIM. He needed that to buy more arms and men for future money gatherings...

Posted by: duh_swami at November 13, 2006 4:23 PM

But I need not worry that you will show up or not, so far I have seen nothing but cowards from islam (hidding behind woman and children), isn't that right ramon?

Posted by: Grunt at November 13, 2006 03:59 PM

.. specially their face-covered, hide-behind-women, disguised, whining complaining "fighters"!

Posted by: Alert at November 13, 2006 4:24 PM

well islam is not about Muhamed it is about Allah...about God and following the natural state of submission...it is not about the hadeeth or the traditions of men but about a love relationship between the believer and the creator...the truth about Muhamed...? more like A truth about mohamed...my concern is about the selective choosing of excerpts from hadeeth..Islam is what the individual believer does...not about what a group of terrorists might be doing... but than again i guess they just dont want western liberal culture with its Porn, maddona music, fast foods, indulgent hedonism, brittany spears, little girls dressed like whores. coming into their countries...

Posted by: sikhy at November 13, 2006 4:31 PM

Ahhh -- one less book to read.

Posted by: champ at November 13, 2006 4:34 PM

ramone you lose

Posted by: Grunt at November 13, 2006 04:22 PM

Heart-in-heart, muslims know they are born losers to be born and riased not to think, learn, educate, debate, discuss, evolve or reform, and to submit die and kill, without choice, to serve the pervert goal to subjugate those who are free to think, learn, educate, debate, discuss, evolve and reform.

Ofcourse, muslims are safe not to think lest thinking leads to a debate leading to violation of blasphemy laws, leading to certain death. Bottom line, For muslims thinking=death!

Posted by: Alert at November 13, 2006 4:35 PM

"Bottom line, For muslims thinking=death"

Really? so if you went to Iran and spoke to everyone who lives in Iran you honestly believe that none them think? Do you honestly believe that they would agree with your statement that for a Muslim thinking is death...?

Posted by: sikhy at November 13, 2006 4:37 PM

wow Muhammed mended his own clothes. I guess that makes up for marrying a 6 year old and having SEX with her when she was NINE YEARS OLD right? And of course he married his daughter in law too --his sons wife.

Yeah this guy was a gem. If he lived in the modern US today he would be in a max security jail where he belongs, most likely on death row. Their muhammed is out manson. A rose by any other name also works for a piece of dung by any other name...

MUSLIMS: REPENT. THIS IS NOT THE MIDDLE AGES YOU WILL LOSE. Allah is not God , guess what THE GOD OF ISRAEL IS GOD. And here you are hating the Jewish people --how do you like them bananas?!!

Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at November 13, 2006 4:41 PM

Their prophet is our charles manson ...

Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at November 13, 2006 4:42 PM

Really? so if you went to Iran and spoke to everyone who lives in Iran you honestly believe that none them think? Do you honestly believe that they would agree with your statement that for a Muslim thinking is death...?

Posted by: sikhy at November 13, 2006 04:37 PM

Why would I want to talk to brain-washed muslims in Iran or elsewhere? Hope that answers your next question about "they would agree with your statement". Since I wouldn't want to talk to brain-washed muslims, in Iran or elsewhere, I care less for their agreement... which makes me think that you don't think deep enough either...

Posted by: Alert at November 13, 2006 4:49 PM

We all know what a blind and stupid arse Karen Armstrong is, but what is disgusting and very alarming is that this puff piece on Islam came from the "conservative" Wall Street Journal.

But wait..who is the real (money) base of the Republican Party? Why Exxon Mobile, Haliburton, Carlyle Group, GE, Boeing etc (the guys that own and control the MSM) and where do they get their money from? To whom do they vend their wares? The Muslims of course.. Arab oil and oil money is what greases the economic and financial skids of USA Inc.

So I'm not surprised at all that a conservative source would play lapdog to Islam. Hasn't our President, hasn't even Bill Oreilly? Hasn't Rupert Murdoch of Fox ownership? Hasn't Grover (Abdullah) Norquist?

Posted by: Nariz at November 13, 2006 4:51 PM

This is the author of this piece who is clearly out of her league when it comes to Mohammedanism --->>>>

Karen Elliott House
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Karen Elliott House was appointed publisher of the Wall Street Journal, and a senior vice president of Dow Jones by her husband, then Dow Jones CEO Peter Kann.

House, a native of Matador, Texas, won a Pulitzer Prize in 1984 in international reporting for her coverage of the Middle East while a reporter with the Wall Street Journal. House's stories were a series of interviews with Jordan's King Hussein, which anticipated the problems Ronald Reagan's Middle East peace plan would face.

House is a Board Member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

House is a graduate of the University of Texas at Austin.

Posted by: dennisw at November 13, 2006 4:51 PM

@Ramon

Mohammad = Terrorist

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at November 13, 2006 5:43 PM

Ramon extracts and sends us a standard piece of Dawa literature, that proliferated across the internet about 6 months ago by chain mail. It would be more impressive if he had some original thoughts, but apparently it is much easier for such folks to cut and paste someone else's ideas, word-for-word.

I got my copy from one of my Islamist friends ages ago, titled

"What do Historians have to say about a non-litrate man raised in the dessert" (Misspelling retained)

and for those who haven't seen it before I'll mention that it has some hilarious knee-slappers that Ramon was thoughtful enough to cut out, such as that G.B. Shaw's opinion of Mo is worth noting because he is a great "HISTORIAN" in the west.

For any who don't know ... Shaw was famous for his PLAYS (he wrote FICTION...get it?)

A "historian" who said "Hegel was right when he said that we learn from history that man can never learn anything from history." Among Shaw's deep historical insights into the nature of Islam is this gem, quoted by many Islamist apologists:

"It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age."

Right, so the great quality of Islam, according to Shaw, is that it keeps changing, like a chameleon, to suit the times. Not like, let us say, Christianity or Judaism, for example? Let someone try this observation out on your friendly local Salafist Imam; the keyword, for them, is "innovation" ... my suggestion: take the precaution of wearing full body armor before trying this.

Note to Ramon: The thousands of people engaging in these discussions generally do not cut and paste from playbooks titled "How to win arguments against Islamists" -- you are talking to thousands of living, thinking, human minds (some, apparently, fresh from the gutter, but thinking original thoughts all the same).

Your piece and others like it, copied over and over blindly by those who have no actual knowledge of the people being quoted or the issues involved, is pretty pitiful. If we had thousands, or millions, of Muslims thinking original thoughts like this, half-baked as they may be, and presenting them coherently, this might be impressive, though you'd need something better than this piece to make any headway among westerners with any kind of education. This one just plays on ignorance.

By the way, I've started a project, that I heartily recommend to all: when you get these chain mails from your islamist friends, save the list of addressees in an easily searchable text file. When they find something they think is "really good" (this one, I suspect, rates on their "top 10") they not only mail it to all their Kufir friends, but to all their fellow Islamists, so you often get a free mailing list.

If it turns out that, beyond just being rude, your friend is also connected to a terrorist cell or some front organization, this list may be valuable in helping law enforcement agencies trace his personal contacts (hang on to it and keep your ear to the ground...don't flood the CIA with useless laundry lists). Don't send out rude mail to all his friends, though. That's not nice, and could be dangerous...

Posted by: Archimedes2 at November 13, 2006 5:47 PM

Holding up my right hand: I pledge, from this day forward,that I shall do everything in my power to defeat islam nomatter where I find it, That I shall spread the truth of this hate cult to all of my fellow men wherever they may be. I pledge that I will stand up for truth and my God and will not let the darkness fall over me or the evil of islam. If I should fail in my efforts, if I should falter, than may God forgive me.

Posted by: Grunt

Grunt - I've made a similar vow. I've only made one other vow in my life and so far after 15 years I've kept true to that one. I mean what I say and I don't take this lightly. I will not stop my fight against the belief system named Submission of my own accord.

So help me God.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at November 13, 2006 5:48 PM

This kind of blinkered boosterism is incomprehensible to me. I fail to understand the eager even zealous willingness of Westerners, even friends of mine, (most of whom repudiate the existence of god and equate religiousness with a symptom of insanity), who will nevertheless instantly and reflexively take the side of Islam, Muslims, and Muhammad -- always without the slightest clues as to Islam's nature or that of its progenitor. They know little to nothing about the paranoic so-called 'religion' he invented out of badly mended whole cloth, or so I imagine. They must be unknowing, for otherwise, how could Karen Armstrong, WSJ, and so many people I know be so fatuous and blind?

I also fail to comprehend the wilful-seeming lack of criticism of Muslims, who are, after all, guests in our home and dominion, or of Islam's deplorable track record in the world... These apologists, witting or otherwise, are often the first to leap up wildly criticising this or that with which they disagree -- volubly spouting their bona fides for rectitude, "social justice", "fair play" and all manner of whatnot -- but they consistently remain mum about obvious Muslim depravities, blatant Muslim failures, and Islam's heinous history.

I suppose we can go into all kinds of cuddly warm hearted analysis of why the poor little orphan Muhammad was the was he was, or why the dirty little desert vagabond took such a nasty turn in life, or why the little Arab tyke eventually did all the nasty things he did, and thought all the nasty thoughts he thought. What I cannot comprehend is how anyone, the Reuel Marc Gerechts and the Karen Armstrongs and the Juan Coles and John Espositos can come to know the slightest track record of Muhammads predations and the blood drenched history of Islam only to brush it all aside like so much inconvenient atmospherics.

I don't speak much French, but I remember a common saying I've often heard them trot out -- they like to say (and this explains alot about their nature and behavior -- it sounds all reasonable and liberal until you realise they only apply this axiom to understanding the bad guys...):

"Tout comprendre, c'est toute pardonner."

To understand all, is to forgive all.

Yeah. Right. Tell that to the millions upon millions of severed heads, all cut on behalf of this screwy pyschotic freak from 1400 years ago. They all make a good audience because, you see, they can't turn away in disgust any longer. Islam took care of that.

Posted by: jsla at November 13, 2006 5:49 PM

So I'm not surprised at all that a conservative source would play lapdog to Islam. Hasn't our President, hasn't even Bill Oreilly? Hasn't Rupert Murdoch of Fox ownership? Hasn't Grover (Abdullah) Norquist?

Posted by: Nariz at November 13, 2006 04:51 PM

.. now, why would a conservative Journal, whose bureau-chief, Daniel Pearl, was butchered by Islamic barbarians, coddle up to the same barbaric cult? And then your answer.. yes starting with wahabbi-kisser dubya, propped-up by wahabbi blood-money and his administration of intelligent fools like Condi, pampering Islamic terrorists, under the guise of that phoney 'war on terror' (why else would you want Pakistani and Wahabbi terrorists, 'allies in war on terror'), CAIR, MAS and ISNA have thorughly corrupted American government (except Tom Tancredo and Jeeny Brown-Waite).

Posted by: Alert at November 13, 2006 5:59 PM

You know Grunt, they don't necessarily need to become Christians. Last time I checked, there were no Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, Zoroastrians, Baha'i, Confuscionists, Shintoists, Rastafarians, Pastafarians (followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) or even Satanists blowing themselves up in the name of their God. Pretty much anything is better than being a Slave of Muhammad.

Posted by: Professor PyroSkank at November 13, 2006 6:30 PM

.. now, why would a conservative Journal, whose bureau-chief, Daniel Pearl, was butchered by Islamic barbarians, coddle up to the same barbaric cult?

Alert,

One word: OIL.

Like it or not, this bunch of crazies sits on one of the largest known reserves of crude in the world today and that resource is used to create something the WSJ understands: MONEY.

They don't see the murderers of Daniel Pearl and the leaders of Saudi Arabia as equivalent.

We can't condemn all Middle Eastern Muslims for the actions of a few whackos. (WSJ's sentiment, not mine.)

Posted by: PMK at November 13, 2006 6:45 PM

We can't condemn all Middle Eastern Muslims for the actions of a few whackos. (WSJ's sentiment, not mine.)

Posted by: PMK at November 13, 2006 06:45 PM

Seems WSJ, in all it's reputation, is ignorant that UBL and Al-Sauds belong to the same umma, serve the same Islamic agenda of world subjugation, thru Jihad, of which, Daniel Pearl was a victim.

Posted by: Alert at November 13, 2006 7:01 PM

To not include the NY Times Best Seller, "The Truth About Muhammad" by Robert Spencer is either sloppy research at best, or simply disingenuous. I fear the worst.

Posted by: Murf the Surf at November 13, 2006 7:07 PM

I hear Mohammed cleaned dingleberries out of his navel too...

Posted by: Galloglass Warrior at November 13, 2006 8:01 PM

Ramon,

You have been duped, first by an incomplete hearsay-jumble of writings (called the Quran) put together according to sura-length (they didn’t know the chronology) allegedly quoting a fairly obvious womanizing, critic assassinating, get-rich-from-looting charlatan named Muhammad many years after he died! - and then by the foolish GEORGE B. SHAW, who is famous for being a dupe and useful idiot for tyrants:

'“Despite the fact that he identified as being a democratic socialist, in the 1930s Shaw approved of the regime of Stalin and also made some ambiguous statements that are often interpreted as being pro-Hitler. In 1945, his preface to the play Geneva staked a claim that the majority of the victims of the Nazi extermination camps had in fact died of "overcrowding". However, he also stated that Hitler had become a "mad messiah" over time. Shaw contrasted this with the situation in the Soviet Union where, according to Shaw, "Stalin... made good by doing things better and much more promptly than parliaments". Shaw also made numerous anti-semitic comments at this time, although the extent to which he was merely being ironic or provocative is unclear. '

http://experts.about.com/e/g/ge/george_bernard_shaw.htm “

Posted by: FM at November 13, 2006 8:05 PM

Ramon's absurd piece of excuberant praise for his "prophet" (the only one who never actually prophesied about anything) reminds me of many such bits of propaganda written about men, such as:

Mao Tze-tung
Kim Il-sung
Kim Jong-il
Adolf Hitler
Joseph Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili (aka "Stalin")
Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (aka "Lenin")

All of these men have one thing in common, and that is they built a national religion around themselves that demanded worship from their subjects, just as Mohammad did in his day. Mohammad's "Islam" (which purports to worship a deity called "Allah") is nothing more than a personality cult, no more or less different than the ones in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia, China, or North Korea.

Why else does any word that "insults their prophet" cause them to fly into insane rages? It has nothing to do with "Allah." It has EVERYTHING to do with Mohammad. Mohammad is their god.

Posted by: yohannbiimu at November 13, 2006 8:27 PM

--- --despite having multiple wives--even mends his own clothes---

Probably had to mend his own clothing. All of his wives hands were likely mangled as punishment for looking out from under their veils.

Posted by: dlbnfla at November 13, 2006 9:12 PM

so what is he mended his own clothing he married and screewed a pre-pubescent girl and over ran anyone who called lier and hurt his ego.
the cult he founded is evil
sigh i just wish pc peaple like my very liberal retired teacher father would wake up come down from thier ivory towers up on cloud nine and realize that con menlike muhamad were perverts and the cult that he started discised as a religion are evil

Posted by: islamakapigeaters at November 13, 2006 9:41 PM

Mo killing.
Mo violence.
Mo lying.
Mo whining.
Mo oppression.
Mo dhimmitude.
Mo misogyny.
Mo intolerance.
Mo insanity.

That's Mr. Perfect,
Mo hammed.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 13, 2006 9:51 PM

What happens when men who don't socialize with women get near one?

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23336_Video-_Frenzy_in_Downtown_Cairo&only

Posted by: Borg at November 13, 2006 9:59 PM

It is disturbing to find that Armstrong dosnt mention of one of Aisha’s tasks as Muhammad’s wife. The young bride was required to clean semen marks from Muhammad’s clothes before he would go out to pray:

Ibid., Number 230,
Sulaiman bin Yasar narrated: “I asked Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) about the clothes soiled with semen. She said: ‘I used to wash it off the garment of Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) and he would go for the prayer with water spots still visible.’

Sahih Muslim, Number 566.
Aisha said: In case you saw it (i.e. drop of semen), it would have served the purpose (of purifying the garment) if you had simply washed that spot; and in case you did not see it, it would have been enough to sprinkle water around it, for when I saw that on the garment of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), I simply scraped it off and he offered prayer, while putting that on.

Ibid., Number 232.
Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated: I used to wash the semen off the clothes of the Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) and even then I used to notice one or more spots on them.

Posted by: shiva at November 13, 2006 9:59 PM

Ramon like most members of the cult of islam you just cant stand peaple saying anthing like the truth about muhammad your get rich quick pagan moon god allah worshiing con man pedifile profit but thier might be hope for you ,you do post here so you must read what jihad watch says , now if you can just pull your head out of your ass andget some air to your allged brain you might just learn and accept crhist and be saved

Posted by: islamakapigeaters at November 13, 2006 10:09 PM

Ramon, your islamic da'wa is futile.
People here are not going to "submit" to your warm and fuzzy jihadist insanity.

Posted by: Syndic Nuruodo at November 13, 2006 10:14 PM

"It is disturbing to find that Armstrong dosnt mention of one of Aisha’s tasks as Muhammad’s wife. The young bride was required to clean semen marks from Muhammad’s clothes before he would go out to pray..."

What's disturbing is that this sort of rubbish was seen as a significant matter worth repeating. Is there anything written about what was done when excess snot accumulated within the nostrils of "the prophet," and who cleaned what when said snot was removed?

Posted by: yohannbiimu at November 13, 2006 10:17 PM

yohannbiimu- as a matter of fact there was much mention of nostrils. Something about the devil resides in there at night.

http://www.searchtruth.com

The things muslims do to imitate him are sad.

Posted by: Borg at November 13, 2006 10:22 PM

http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=nose&translator=1&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all

The word "nose" appears 56 times in hadith.

Posted by: Borg at November 13, 2006 10:27 PM

to Ramon

there is nothing good islam can offer to humankind... I live in Indonesia that has more muslims than Arabs. And what you see happen now here? corruption everywhere by the majorities! people have no genuine love, they will give if they know they can get more in return. People easily kill for even simple thing, they can kill for religion difference. It's been known that minorities here can not have the same treatment over freedom of worship, Christians can not easily worship. We even had our places of worship burned by muslims, our pastors killed (one just killed last month)... those they carried out because they believe those are their duties as muslims. Justice is biased, and tends to protect the majorities. Nevertheless, I have many good muslims friends. But what I understand is that they are not a real muslims because they do not follow the teachings of their religion strictly. We call them here "Islam abangan" or in other word liberal muslims. Okay, hope I tell you enough of what happen when Islam is in majority. God bless you!!

Posted by: asian crusader at November 13, 2006 10:37 PM

Spengler had a great column awhile back about Islam vs. Christianity. The differences are telling....
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FD16Aa02.html
Here's a snippet:
As Ratzinger observes, Christian (as well as Jewish) prayer is a dialogue among lovers. "The soul prayers in the words of the Psalms: let not my prayer and your love depart from me (Psalm 66:20). "It prays to be able to pray - and this is already given to the soul in the assurance of Divine Love," wrote the Jewish theologian Franz Rosenzweig...
Here's the moderate, learned wise man Ayatollah Sistani(from Spengler): "If a person has sexual intercourse with a woman and the male organ enters either of the private parts of the woman up to the point of circumcision or more, both of them enter janabat, regardless of whether they are adults or minors and whether ejaculation takes place or not.

"If a person doubts whether or not his penis penetrated up to the point of circumcision, ghusl [bathing] will not become obligatory on him.

"If (God forbid!) a person has sexual intercourse with an animal and ejaculates, ghusl alone will be sufficient for him, and if he does not ejaculate and he was with wudhu [ritual ablution] at the time of committing the unnatural act, even then ghusl will be sufficient for him. However, if he was not with wudhu at that time, the obligatory precaution is that he should do ghusl and also perform wudhu. And the same orders apply if one commits sodomy.

"If movement of seminal fluid is felt but not emitted, or if a person doubts whether or not semen has been ejaculated, ghusl will not be obligatory upon him....

Posted by: Galloglass Warrior at November 13, 2006 10:55 PM

But wait! There's even more!

"It is obligatory to conceal one's private parts in the toilet and at all times from adult persons, even if they are one's near relatives (like mother, sister etc.)

"It is not necessary for a person to conceal the private parts with any definite thing, it is sufficient, if, for example, he conceals them with his hand.

"While using the toilet for relieving oneself, the front or the back part of one's body should not face the holy Ka'bah [shrine in the Great Mosque, Mecca.]

"If a person sits in the toilet with the front part of his body or the back facing the Qibla [direction towards the Ka'bah] , but turns the private parts away from that direction, it will not be enough. Similarly, when the front part of the body or the back does not face Qibla, as a precaution, he should not allow the private parts to face that direction.

* "In the following three cases, the anus can be made pak [clean] with water alone: If another najasat [uncleanliness], like blood, appears along with the faeces.
* If an external najasat reaches the anus.
* If more than usual najasat spreads around the anus.

"In the cases other than those mentioned above, the anus can be made pak either by water or by using cloth, or stone etc, although it is always better to wash it with water.

"If the anus is washed with water, one should ensure that no trace of faeces is left on it. However, there is no harm if color and smell remain. And if it is washed thoroughly in the first instance, leaving no particle of stool, then it is not necessary to wash it again."

Posted by: Galloglass Warrior at November 13, 2006 10:58 PM

Ranking by popularity at Amazon.com:
"Muhammad" by Karen Armstrong; released Oct. 2006. Rank: #13,354
“The Truth About Muhammad” by Robert Spencer; released Sept. 2006. Rank: #122

In other words after buying The Truth About Muhammad, the public would rather buy 13,232 other books before buying Karen Armstrong's fluff. Need I say more?

Posted by: Xero G at November 14, 2006 12:34 AM

Ramon ... you are a chickensh!T, Muhammad-worshipping, tool!!! The Islamic world (which includes the pan-Arab-Muslim nations) is a world of oppression, regression, un-enlightenment, and general ignorance. The USA and Western Europe should stop allowing adherents of the tenets of I-SLAM (I Slam!) to enter their borders to become citizens. Anyone espousing or endorsing the implementation of Shariah of ANY sort/level should be IMMEDIATELY deported!!! Shariah and Islam in general are both the antithesis to free and open societies that promote/exude freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of worship. Just like Europe wallowed in the mire that are the Dark Ages .... We should let the Islamists/Muhammadans and their masses (mostly in the Middle East) wallow in their perpetual state of anti-intellectualism!!!!

Posted by: secular4ever at November 14, 2006 12:57 AM

yeah he mended the clothes alright....

BUT my dear infidel friends guess who cleaned the stains of the "mo"???

If you guessed pre puberscent Aisha, you guessed right!

Volume 1, Book 4, Number 229:

Narrated 'Aisha:

I used to wash the traces of Janaba (semen) from the clothes of the Prophet and he used to go for prayers while traces of water were still on it (water spots were still visible).

Volume 1, Book 4, Number 230:

Narrated 'Aisha:

as above (229).

Volume 1, Book 4, Number 231:

Narrated Sulaiman bin Yasar:

I asked 'Aisha about the clothes soiled with semen. She replied, "I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah's Apostle and he would go for the prayer while water spots were still visible. "

Volume 1, Book 4, Number 232:

Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun:

I heard Sulaiman bin Yasar talking about the clothes soiled with semen. He said that 'Aisha had said, "I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah's Apostle and he would go for the prayers while water spots were still visible on them.

Volume 1, Book 4, Number 233:

Narrated 'Aisha:

I used to wash the semen off the clothes of the Prophet and even then I used to notice one or more spots on them.

BUT WAIT THERES MORE!!!!

Chapter 24: WASHING AWAY OF'THE SEMEN FROM THE GARMENT AND ITS SCRAPING
Book 002, Number 0566:

Alqama and Aswad reported: A person stayed in the house of A'isha and in the morning began to wash his garment. A'isha said: In case you saw it (i. e. drop of semen), it would have served the purpose (of purifying the garment) if you had simply washed that spot; and in case you did not see it, it would have been enough to sprinkle water around it, for when I saw that on the garment of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). I simply scraped it off and he offered prayer, while putting that on.

Book 002, Number 0567:

Al-Aawad and Hammam reported A'isha as saying: I used to scrape off the (drop of) semen from the garment of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him).

Book 002, Number 0568:

Qutaiba b. Sa'id, Ishaq b. Ibrahim, Ibn Abi 'Aruba, Abu Ma'shar, Abu Bakr b. Abu Shaiba, Mansur and Mughira have all transmitted from Ibrahim, who transmitted it on the authority of A'isha's narration pertaining to the scraping off of the (drop) of semen from the garment of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) like the hadith of Khalid on the authority of Abu Ma'shar.

Book 002, Number 0569:

Hammam narrated the hadith from A'isha like the (above-mentioned) traditions.

Book 002, Number 0570:

'Amr b. Maimun said: I asked Sulaiman b. Yasir whether the semen that gets on to the garment of a person should be washed or not. He replied: A'isha told me: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) washed the semen, and then went out for prayer in that very garment and I saw the mark of washing on it.

Book 002, Number 0571:

Abu Kuraib, Ibn al-Mubarak, Ibn Abu Za'ida all of them narrated from Amr b. Maimun with the same chain of transmitters. Ibn Abu Za'ida narrated as was transmitted from Ibn Bishr that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) washed semen, and in the hadith transmitted on the authority of Ibn Mabarak and Abdul Wahid the words are:" She (A'isha) reported: I used to wash it from the garment of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)."

Book 002, Number 0572:

Abdullah b. Shihab al-Khaulani reported: I stayed in the house of 'A'isha and had a wet dream (and perceived its effect on my garment), so (in the morning) I dipped both (the clothes) in water. This (act of mine) was watched by a maid-servant of A'isha and she informed her. She (Hadrat A'isha) sent me a message: Whatprompted you to act like this with your clothes? He (the narrator) said: I told that I saw in a dream what a sleeper sees. She said: Did you find (any mark of the fluid) on your clothes? I said: No. She said: Had you found anything you should have washed it. Incase I found that (semen) on the garment of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) dried up, I scraped it off with my nails.

How utterly disgraceful that the Wall St Journal did not mention this along side that he mended his own clothes.

Posted by: W_D_J_D at November 14, 2006 1:09 AM

She paints a portrait of a very human prophet who is expedient and clever, who loves women and--despite having multiple wives--even mends his own clothes.

But not expedient and clever enough to clean up his own sperm,but leaves it for a young child to scrape off

Posted by: shiva at November 14, 2006 1:16 AM

Just in , more from the religion of peace...

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=6542&t=UK%3A+Muslim+MP's+son+in+bomb+attack

Posted by: aladdinsane57 at November 14, 2006 1:54 AM

W_D_J_D

Truly disgusting that little Aisha had to clean the semen off the false prophet's trousers (robes?) I wonder if this was before the phony prophet stated boinking her or if this was between his marriage to her (age six) and consummation (age nine)

If this ain't a pagan cult then nothing is.
Child slaves and child sacrifice. That's Islam

Posted by: dennisw at November 14, 2006 2:21 AM

>>Probably had to mend his own clothing. All of his wives hands were likely mangled as punishment for looking out from under their veils. >>

My guess is that none of them were getting enough you know what, so they refused to mend his clothes!!!!!! Thems the breaks of polygamy I guess :)

Posted by: lafn at November 14, 2006 2:29 AM

Yay Muhammad! Why don't we congratulate him for making the world a worse place for everyone! Why don't we throw a cake party and all dress up as Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and more! Screw the people that were actually positive, that actually tried to make the world a better place. Jesus? Fogetta bout it. Buddha? What a fatty. George Harrison? He was the quiet Beatle.

All in all, these people aren't worth mentioning, because they actually contributed something to the world. Now let's all jump off a bridge, because Muhammad did it!

Posted by: TheVoiceofTruth at November 14, 2006 2:30 AM

>>

What do they want? The little girls dressed in burkas bringing their dolls to the marriage bed like Aisha?

Posted by: lafn at November 14, 2006 2:33 AM

W_D_J_D

It gets sicker

Young Ashia most probably had to clean after the skumbag had done the rounds,and was too exhausted to wipe up himself

Bukhari,Volume 1, Book 5, Number 268:
"The Prophet used to visit (had sex with) all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number. Prophet was given the sexual strength of thirty men."

Muslims regard Mohammed as the perfect man,the problem is there are more verses concerning his sexual perversions than his house-keeping skills.
Thus many muslims seem to follow Mohammed and are going on a RAPE JIHAD

This jihad is getting very popular among young Mujahids all over the world. Muslim youth are raping vulnerable young and beautiful infidel girls wherever they are finding them

Thus changing the surah 9.5 “Slay the infidels wherever you find them”,
to
“Lay the infidels wherever you find them”

Then there is BEDROOM JIHAD This is the most important and effective of all jihads and is bringing European kafirs to their knees through explosion in muslim population. Muslims who had failed to capture Europe repeatedly in the the battlefield, are finally winning through achievements in their bedrooms. Many of the Mujahids in European countries have four wives and over 20 children. Many of these wives are acquired from kafir ranks and converted to islam for extra blessings. The best part of this Jihad is that the infidels themselves are paying for it by providing welfare cheques to them, thus freeing the Mujahids from the worry of earning a livlihood, and allowing them to devote all their time to their jihad.

One Singaporean religious muslim jihadi got so carried away in bedroom jihad and his passion to increase muslim umma by impregnating as many women as possible that he even impregnated his own adult daughters along with all his wives. Here is from a Singapore newspaper Strait Times:

A 45-year-old man practising muslim man , whose identity was withheld to protect his victims, used quranic interpretations to justify sex with his daughters, Deputy Public Prosecutor Eugene Lee told the High Court.

While conducting religious lessons, he convinced his wives that he had ownership over his children, which included having sex with them,

The Straits Times said.
Forty-three charges were levelled against the father, who preyed on his daughters when they were between 12 and 15 years old, from December 2003 to June 2005. The charges included rape, attempted rape and aggravated rape.
Two of the girls became pregnant and had abortions.

The incidents 'were so numerous that they were hard-pressed to keep count, much less remember the exact specifics of each incident,' Lee was quoted as saying.

The man would send one of his wives to tell a daughter to go to their father's bedroom, Lee said. He had sex with them even though the girls cried out in pain.

The eldest of the abused daughters reported her father to the police on June 24, 2005. He was arrested the next day.

Posted by: shiva at November 14, 2006 2:39 AM

Charlatan is a fine description of the false prophet--->>

From Wikipedia

A charlatan is a person practicing quackery or some similar confidence trick in order to obtain money or advantage by false pretenses. If the ascription is false, then "charlatan" is derogative; if it is true, then the description "charlatan" is not defamation.

The word comes from French charlatan, a seller of medicines who might advertise his presence with music and an outdoor stage show. The greatest of the Parisian charlatans was Tabarin who set up a stage in the Place Dauphin, Paris from 1618, and whose commedia dell'arte-inspired skits and farces inspired Molière. Ultimately, etymologists trace "charlatan" from either the Italian ciarlare, to prattle; or from Cerretano, a resident of Cerreto, a town that was apparently notorious for producing quacks.

Famous American charlatans include John R. Brinkley, the "goat-gland doctor" who implanted goat glands as a means of curing male impotence, helped pioneer both American and Mexican radio broadcasting, and twice ran unsuccessfully for governor of Kansas. Another famous charlatan was Albert Abrams, the advocate of radionics and other similar electrical quackery who was active in the early twentieth century.[1]

In usage, a subtle difference is drawn between the charlatan and other kinds of confidence people. The charlatan is usually a salesperson. He does not try to create a personal relationship with his marks, or set up an elaborate hoax using roleplaying. Rather, the person called a charlatan is being accused of resorting to quackery, pseudoscience, or some knowingly employed bogus means of impressing people in order to swindle his victims by selling them worthless nostrums and similar goods or services that will not deliver on the promises made for them. The word calls forth the image of an old-time medicine show operator, who has long left town by the time the people who bought his snake oil tonic realize that it does not perform as advertised.

Synonyms for "charlatan" include "mountebank" and "quack". "Mountebank" comes from the Italian montambanco or montimbanco based on the phrase monta in banco - literally referring to the action of a seller of dubious medicines getting up on a bench to address his audience of potential customers.[2]

"Quack" is a reference to "quackery" or the practice of dubious medicine.

Posted by: dennisw at November 14, 2006 2:40 AM

Shiva

You are so right about the Muslim passion for raping infidel women and teenagers. And taking them as additional wives to make them into Muslim baby factories, breeding more zombies and zombie killers for the so called Ummah

Muhammadanism (Muhammad worship & idolatry) has not changed one bit from it's start as a predatory 7th century Bedouin cult. The phony prophet with his imaginary Allah gave religious sanction to all the evil Bedouin traditions of thievery, war, terrorism, depredation, slavery, rape, hyper-tribalism, inbreeding.

Posted by: dennisw at November 14, 2006 2:51 AM

The Rape Jihad
By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 24, 2004

“Each of us was raped by between three and six men….One woman refused to have sex with them, so they split her head into pieces with an axe in front of us.”

This happened in Darfur, from which Sudanese military personnel actually airlifted women to Khartoum to serve as sex slaves.

Meanwhile, Indira Dzetskelova, the mother of one of the child hostages in Beslan, Russia, reports that “several 15-year-old girls were raped by terrorists.” Her daughter “heard their terrible cries and screams when those monsters took them away.”

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=15206

Posted by: shiva at November 14, 2006 2:52 AM

Assalamau Laikum all,

I love peoples like Grunt who are only good enough to have a go at "Razor" Ramon.

Ramon maybe a bit slow....only going with a "cut and paste" job as opposed to original thought but he is not really the problem for you.

No it's peoples like Karen Armstrong...Grunt have you written to her...have you tackled her view of Islam with your view...her book will be read by thousand of peoples who will all become Nancy Pelosi supporters....all thinking that Muhd SAW was a decent, kind and Pious man.

I don't think he (Muhd SAW)was the perfect man...I cannot forgive him for what he did to Aiesha...but then again we pray to allah SWT not Muhd SAW.

I also am unhappy at the abrogation of the earlier peaceful suras....but he did deliver the miracle that is the Koran...and all of humanity needs to thank him for that.

Karen Armstrong is important to Islam...and I can sense a "support for Islam" momentum building up, Pelosi, Conyers, Armstrong....Bush and Blair pleadiing with Syria and Iran to help them. I think you can sense it too...which is why the critcism and hate rhetoric seems to have stepped up a notch.

The momentum I think will also lead to a democrat President in the next election ...and a lot more muslim congress persons.

I know that lund running Iran has built a $17M blue mosque for the 12th Imam....but it is my belief that the 12th Imam will be a member of the Amerike Congress.

Posted by: Naseem at November 14, 2006 6:44 AM

I don't think he (Muhd SAW)was the perfect man...I cannot forgive him for what he did to Aiesha...but then again we pray to allah SWT not Muhd SAW.

You pray to that dirty old man. That child raper. That bugger. That phony prophet. Rioting is also how Muslims pray so you freaks riot when cartoons are drawn of your false prophet who never delivered one damn prophesy

Posted by: dennisw at November 14, 2006 6:58 AM

No it's peoples like Karen Armstrong...Grunt have you written to her...have you tackled her view of Islam with your view...her book will be read by thousand of peoples who will all become Nancy Pelosi supporters....all thinking that Muhd SAW was a decent, kind and Pious man.

LOL LOL
Hacks like Nancy Pelosi won't be reading that shit

Armstrong's book is selling poorly so it's doubtful many will be reading it. Crazy Karen wrote a Mo book in 1990. Her latest one is undoubtedly a rehash because she has learned nothing about awful Islam and awful Muhammad.

Posted by: dennisw at November 14, 2006 7:03 AM

but he did deliver the miracle that is the Koran..............................

It's no miracle. It is a war manual/ sex handbook for muslim males/idiocy. The idiocy part is because allah thought the world was flat and the sun sets in a mud puddle. He's an almighty, but doesn't know the world is round. Not a very good almighty if you ask me.

Posted by: freewoman at November 14, 2006 7:13 AM

Trying to tarnish Muhammed with the Gandhi brush?

Gandhi learned how to wash and make his own clothes - which was quite remarkable for the times he lived in - but which would not have been so remarkable more than 1000 years earlier.

Strangely enough - people all over the world make their own clothes even now in the 21st century - although it is an art being lost in the Western World - except for hobbyists, craftists, artists and purists -(or anyone who wants to wear badly self-made clothes to make a point)

shiva: are you Indian? or have you just adopted that nick/handle? I'd like to know - I have been to India lots and interacted with Hindus, Moslems and Christians there, and your take on things could be quite important (e.g. the "swastika" debate).

Posted by: drk at November 14, 2006 7:14 AM

Re: "Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action".

The truth is that "moderate" Muslims don't want any questions asked about this kind of nonsense or facts pointed to that contradict their beliefs. Who takes it upon themselves to force others to submit to a belief-system? It's mental illness to do that. Eventually, a great many people (including Muslims) are going to see the pathological nature of treating beliefs as absolute-truth, and mandating that others not ask questions or engage in any analysis which shows facts that contradict what Muslims desire to believe.

This habit of thought that attacks facts that contradict beliefs is the reason there are practically no new scientific breakthroughs in the Muslim world. Beliefs may not be facts but they have consequences.

Posted by: Frank at November 14, 2006 7:29 AM

So Muhammad was forced away from pacifism by his circumstances?

See how deeply engrained the victim culture has become in todays degenerating society. Muhammad sounds like a kid in one of Britain's law courts. It wasn't that the kid was evil, your honour, it was because he was poor, and a victim of his circumstances.

Heavens to betsy is indeed correct.

And of course, the same people who excuse criminality, are the ones who ridicule Christianity. Why? Because christianty holds out hope for the poor, but says there is no reason to resort to criminality. It implies that poverty is no excuse for criminality, and that one's circumstances, no matter how dire, are no justification for evil.

The literal and symbolic proof of this is when Peter picks up the sword and cuts off a mans ear to try and prevent Jesus from being arrested. Jesus's life is at stake, and there can be no more dire circumstance. But Jesus shows right there that violence must be rejected (and he even rectifies the consequences) and shows that more can be achieved through self-sacrifice.

The difference between Jesus and Muhammod cannot be more plain. And it shows how corrupt our society has become when a large portion of it hates Christianity, but will rush to defend Islam from its legitimate critics.

Posted by: FREE LEE at November 14, 2006 7:40 AM

Assalamau Laikum Grunt,

I am not into making promises...but I do like to learn...and I have recently read phrases from the bible...and truthfully they sound quite nice....but the intoxication of an Imam reading from the koran is all powerful...you should try it sometime.

Also I am not blindly going to say that Muhd SAW was perfect...he wasn't.

Muslums revere Muhd...but we don't pray to him...it is all powerful Allah SWT that we pray to.

In the longer run, muslims will HAVE to accept that Muhd did some things which even he perhaps would regret...if he had his time over again....I have.

At the same time infedels need to calm down...accept that muslims will make good congress mens and womens. They will however try to see religion and politics as one and not separate.

Posted by: Naseem at November 14, 2006 7:42 AM

In the longer run, muslims will HAVE to accept that Muhd did some things which even he perhaps would regret...if he had his time over again....I have..............................

Naseem, admitting there is a problem is the first step to recovery. GOOD GIRL!!

Posted by: freewoman at November 14, 2006 7:46 AM

Naseem, Jesus warned us what would come after.
Where? Matthew the 24th chapter

In this chapter Jesus said that false prophets will come/
and they can decieve the elect so you dont have to be dumb/

the characteristics of these men are plain to see/
for their actions will be about "me, me ,me"/

"by their fruits you will know them" said Jesus/
muhammed didnt portray good fruit its so plain to see for us/

but this rhyme is a must/
and its content is true/
muhammed showed us his lust/
through the things he did pursue/

the fact is that muhammed is the liar/
he denied the death of Christ, thus he is in the friar/
so please naseem dont listen to the denier/
because he who denied truth is sent by the deciever/

muhammed didnt die for your sins/
muhammed didnt love you or your friend/
muhammed would probably rape you and take you as a slave/
muhammed didnt rise from the grave/
muhammed didnt know how to behave/
muhammed is the one who can save/

on the other hand Jesus is the one who set us free/
Jesus is the one who created you and me/
Jesus is the one who walked and calmed the raging sea/
Jesus is the one who hung on the "t" shaped tree/
Jesus is the one who lived a perfect life/
Jesus is the one who can save you and take u out of strife/

so which one will you follow?/
the one that was full of love or the one who was dark and shallow?/

choose Christ choose life/
trust in His sacrifice/
do it before its too late/
otherwise you wont make it through heavens gates/

God bless u naseem. salaam unto you from Yahweh!

Posted by: W_D_J_D at November 14, 2006 9:07 AM

Naseem, Jesus warned us what would come after.
Where? Matthew the 24th chapter

In this chapter Jesus said that false prophets will come/
and they can decieve the elect so you dont have to be dumb/

the characteristics of these men are plain to see/
for their actions will be about "me, me ,me"/

"by their fruits you will know them" said Jesus/
muhammed didnt portray good fruit its so plain to see for us/

but this rhyme is a must/
and its content is true/
muhammed showed us his lust/
through the things he did pursue/

the fact is that muhammed is the liar/
he denied the death of Christ, thus he is in the friar/
so please naseem dont listen to the denier/
because he who denied truth is sent by the deciever/

muhammed didnt die for your sins/
muhammed didnt love you or your friends/
muhammed would probably rape you and take you as a slave/
muhammed didnt rise from the grave/
muhammed didnt know how to behave/
muhammed is the one who cant save/

on the other hand Jesus is the one who set us free/
Jesus is the one who created you and me/
Jesus is the one who walked and calmed the raging sea/
Jesus is the one who hung on the "t" shaped tree/
Jesus is the one who lived a perfect life/
Jesus is the one who can save you and take u out of strife/

so which one will you follow?/
the one that was full of love or the one who was dark and shallow?/

choose Christ choose life/
trust in His sacrifice/
do it before its too late/
otherwise you wont make it through heavens gates/

God bless u naseem. salaam unto you from Yahweh!

Posted by: W_D_J_D at November 14, 2006 9:09 AM

please delete first of the two duplications.....

thankyou i made a mistake on the first one.

cheers

Posted by: W_D_J_D at November 14, 2006 9:11 AM

Naseem: 'but the intoxication of an Imam reading from the koran is all powerful...you should try it sometime'.

This intoxication is not ALL powerful, but it is strong. It is one of the symptoms of Allahic demon possession. It is possible to place yourself in a state of awe, but it is unwise to not protect yourself first. Christians during intense prayer, doing the Rosary, or Hindus doing the beads, japa with a mala, can produce the same effect. They dont usually need to protect themselves first, because they are not possessed by any demons. The act of intense prayer, or doing the beads (there are other methods as well), because they are dedicated to a higher principal, are protective in themselves. And they are not reading the demons handbook when this intoxication happens.
Imams often awaken from such intoxications ranting and raving, calling for the death and destruction of someone. This is the demon Allah speaking through him. This only happens to muslims. Thats because they have voluntarilly allowed the demon to possess them. Thats what 'submission' really means. 'Abdallah', is the result. Slave to the demon.
Thanks for the invitation to 'try it sometime', but I think I will pass. I already have enough problems without being demon possessed...

Posted by: duh_swami at November 14, 2006 9:14 AM

Why should anyone be surprised about the Wall Street Journal. This is a newspaper that doesn't believe that America should control its own borders, supports the McCain-Kennedy Death to America guest worker/amnesty bill, thinks its a great idea to ship our entire manufacturing base to China and, like Bush, misunderstands the true nature of the war declared on us by resurgent Islam and thinks we can "bring democracy" to seventh century troglodytes.

Posted by: RBLA at November 14, 2006 12:12 PM

Posted by: drk

shiva: are you Indian? or have you just adopted that nick/handle? I'd like to know - I have been to India lots and interacted with Hindus, Moslems and Christians there, and your take on things could be quite important (e.g. the "swastika" debate).

Nope I am not Indian,yet I try to follow the teaching of Shiva :-

Be kind. Be compassionate. Be honest. Be sincere. Be truthful. Be bold. Be pure. Be wise. Be virtuous. Enquire: 'who am I'? Know thy-Self and be free

I live most of the time in East Java,so I have first hand knowledge of Muslims and what it is like to live amongst them

If you are interested you can view my blog so you can get an idea of view on islam,but I have to warn you beforehand,it is very graphic

http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/

And I guess OL MO aint doing much sewing just now

http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2006/02/x-rated.html

Posted by: shiva at November 14, 2006 2:51 PM

Naseem: 'but the intoxication of an Imam reading from the koran is all powerful...you should try it sometime'.

You are no more than a junkie

Remember this

Posted by: Naseem at December 13, 2004 05:19 AM

If you listen to the Koran, especially by one who has a good resonating voice, it has a relaxing effect, you can sit and and listen and listen and listen.

The effect is like a sweet smelling perfume, in a hot bath having your very best meal and drink ….all at the same time….absolutely intoxicating….yes been there , got the jilbab.

It’s slow at first….a gentle tug….but a nagging one….and 5 times a day prayer starts to grow on you….you start to look at your watch…not being able to wait for the next prayer time. Within a week…you start to want to ask for more, to get books and to research further. And you start to gain acceptance…drawing you in ….much like when you enter the sea for a swim. At first the waves push you out but if you go further in , you bob with the waves, you enjoy the experience, go in further and it gives you buoyancy….all that water around you and you cannot drown. Go in further and get caught in the current …..and you cannot escape.

Sounds like the sweet pleasures of
HEROIN

Posted by: shiva at November 14, 2006 3:08 PM

A Christian has ranked the Prophet Muhammad as the most influential person in history, having compared what according to him are the 100 of the greatest religious personalities, statesmen, scientists, explorers, philosophers and artistic and literary figures.

"My choice of Muhammad to lead the world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels. Of humble origins, Muhammad founded and promulgated one of the world's great religions, and became an immensely effective political leader. Today, thirteen centuries after his death, his influence is still powerful and pervasive. (Page 33).

The 100 A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History
By Michael H. Hart.

http://www.iqra.net/articles/the100.htm

Posted by: Ramon at November 14, 2006 5:05 PM

drk

What's the swastika debate?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at November 14, 2006 5:24 PM

"A Christian has ranked the Prophet Muhammad as the most influential person in history, having compared what according to him are the 100 of the greatest religious personalities, statesmen, scientists, explorers, philosophers and artistic and literary figures."

Wow, I hate to be redundant when I reply to your dimwitted posts, but SO? Who ever said that a person couldn't be a Christian AND be in idiot at the same time? I mean, it's a shame that this person is so terribly misinformed about "the Prophet (snicker-snicker!!) Muhammad," but it's terribly obvious that this Michael H. Hart person (whoever the hell HE is) doesn't know what he's talking about.

Posted by: yohannbiimu at November 14, 2006 7:19 PM

Islam often misunderstand - depending on who you are and what you have been taught but when
analysed with pure intentions, it never fails to pleasantly surprise - regardless of who you are and what you've been taught. Islam is for every single human being that walks this earth - whether you are sick or healthy, rich or poor.

If you are one who holds prejudices against this religion, someone who loves to hate and condemn..then, a renowned convert, Gary Miller has these words to say to you...

There is no compulsion for man to accept truth. But it is certainly a shame upon the human intellect when man is not even interested in
finding out what the truth is. Islam teaches that God has given us the FACULTY OF REASON and therefore expects man to reason things out
objectively and systematically for ourselves - to reflect and to question and to reflect.

Posted by: Ramon at November 15, 2006 9:19 AM

Unbiased Non-Muslims: Muhammad, the Greatest Man Ever

I am only surprised when some Muslims ask me as to why I always use black blankets; I tell them that I do so as a token of my personal homage to Prophet Mohammad who was the greatest man the world has ever produced. He was so simply in his day to day life that one could hardly imagine that he was the man who was ruling over the hearts of the millions all over the world. I instructed the Congress Governments, immediately after they assumed power after the
election of 1936 that they should follow the footsteps of Hazrat Umar who throughly implemented every preaching of Prophet Mohammad and thus bettered the lot of the common man.

(Bishop Lefry, Mankind and the Church)

Posted by: Ramon at November 15, 2006 9:41 AM

During the centuries of the Crusades, all sorts of slanders were invented against the Prophet Muhammad.

Despite his position as leader, the Prophet Muhammad never behaved as if he was greater or better than other people. He never made people feel small, unwanted or embarrassed. He urged his followers to live kindly and humbly, releasing slaves whenever they could and giving in charity, especially to very poor people, orphans and prisoners, without any thought of reward.

The Prophet Muhammad himself was never greedy. He ate very little and only simple foods. He preferred never to fill his stomach. Sometimes, for days on end, he would eat nothing but raw food. He slept on a very simple mattress on the floor and had almost nothing in the way of home comforts or decorations.

Posted by: Ramon at November 15, 2006 1:06 PM

Ramon

Too your last four posts I can only say Bullshiit

Posted by: shiva at November 15, 2006 2:38 PM