All you have to ask yourself, was Mohammed more like Jesus or more like jihadists like Osama?

OT Britian is busy nailing up its coffin. I have to say, this is the most disturbing report out of the UK to date.

http://the-gathering-storm.blogspot.com/2007/08/storm-track-appeasement-islam-on-track.html

Posted by: Elric66 at August 12, 2007 7:07 AM

OT, Elric, but it seems very strang that the U.K. is taking steps to institutionalize Islam, and yet still has Established Churches. "Fides Defensor" rings hollow.

Posted by: John C at August 12, 2007 7:24 AM

I dont get the love afair the Brit elites have with Islam but nothing good will come from it

Posted by: Elric66 at August 12, 2007 7:31 AM

"There is a more robustly appropriate term, which is being increasingly used to describe the Muslim position: denial. The view that Muslims are in denial of the extent of the problem and their own responsibility in dealing with it is no longer confined to right-wing Muslim-bashers. Even liberal opinion has started to shift."
-- from the article by Hasan Suroor above

In fact, this article that some may think isbravely truth-telling is simply an example of what it purports to denounce. It misdescribes things. It is not "denial" that Muslims are practicing when they pretend to Infidels that there is nothing at all wrong with Islam: it isIt is a classic position, justified by Muhammmad's exemplary "war is deception." There is a long history of such deception: taqiyya (which originates as an elaborated doctrine in Shi'a Islam, by those wishing to be protected from Sunni persecutors, but has long been part of general Muslim practice) is religiously-sanctioned deception about the nature of the faith, and about the speaker's own beliefs. There is kitman, or "mental reservation," which describes the practice of deliberately keeping back from your enemies (all Infidels, in Islam, are enemies, for a state of permanent war, if not open warfare, exists between Believers and Infidels).

The writer Hasan Suroor never says what he needs to say if he is to tell the truth: the texts of Islam, those supposedly immutable texts, and the tenets of Islam, that are derived from those supposedly immutable texts, naturally give rise to the hostility, the hatred even, that Muslims are taught to feel for all those who are obstacles to the spread of Islam, to the dominance of Islam.

He mentions, this Hasan Suroor, the proferred explanations -- the "Palestinians" or "poverty" -but in the first case does not clearly state that the reason Muslims are upset about the "Palestinians" is that they do not believe any Infidels, much less the long-despised Jews, have a right to re-establish themselves on land once possessed by Muslims, and that that war has, for Muslims, no conceivable end until the land (it is the land that counts, the control of the land, and what does or does not happen to the local Muslims is of little concern, except insofar as they, as the shock troops of the Lesser Jihad against Israel, are to receive financial support for their terrorism and other war-making activites, but as for their actual material, moral,and intellectual wellbeing, that is a matter largely of indifference).

Similarly, in discussing the false idea of "poverty" as a "root cause" of Muslim violence, he carefully refrains from pointing out what he might have -- which is all the evidence, collected by Western students of the subject, that shows the exact opposite: that it is by and large those who are better off and have received some education, not the illiterate peasants who live at the subsistence level and have neither the time nor the interest nor the ability, to conduct Jihad, who are the chief worry.

And Hasan Suroor carefully avoids the discussion of what happens to non-Muslims in Muslim countries. He does not discuss the disguised Jizyah of the Bumiputra system in Malaysia, that forces the Chinese and Indians to subsidize the Muslims. He does not discuss the discrimination, persecution, and even murder of Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh, or the millions driven out since 1947; he does not discuss the identifying marks for Infidels -- the yellow mark for Jews introduced into Abbasid Baghdad, a millennium before Hitler with his yellow star), the blue zunnar or belt for the Christians, nor the fact that the Taliban reviv3d the practice when it insisted that Hindus wear orange garb "for their own protection" (yes, the "protection" of the "protected peoples" by which, if they paid the Jizyah and did all the other things demanded of them, they would be "protected" from violence by the Muslims themselves). He nowhere discusses what Muslims, in the countries they rule, do to the Christians, as with the slitting of Christian throats in Algeria by the FIS, the harrying-out of Christians from the "Palestinian"-controlled territories, the absolute ban on any practice, even the possession of a Bible for personal use or the singing, behind locked doors, by English nurses of a few Christmas carols, in Saudi Arabia; the murderous attacks on Christians in Iraq now that local Muslims are free to express themselves; the attacks on Christians by Khomeini and his regime in Iran; the threats against Christians demanding their immediate mass convesion, in Peshawar; the murder of 1.8 million Sudanese blacks, most of them Christians, some pagans, in the southern Sudan (and of course no mention of the Arab supremacism, of which Islam is a vehicle, that explains Arab murders of Muslim blacks in Darfur).

Nor does Hasan Suroor dare to mention the murder of thousands of Buddhists in southern Thailand over the last three years, by Muslims, usually through decapitation. He does not mention the repeated attacks on villagers, and murders of Christian hostages, by Muslims in the southern Philippines. He does not mention the murder of 1 million Christians, some by local Muslims, some by the Egyptian pilots who happily strafed and bombed completely helpless Christian villagers, in the Biafra War, a war described by the Biafran leader Col. Ojukwu, quite correctly, as an act of self-defense by the Christians of Nigeria against a "Jihad" conducted against them.

No, he does a little. Butit is not possible to continue the line of "denial" -- as he calls this lying -- by offering simply a different, not quite so obvious a level, of such "denial" himself.

Finally, and most importantly, he never discusses, never comes close to discussing, the texts of Islam, the tenets of Islam, what world-view Islam inculcates. The defectors from Islam -- Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Wafa Sultan -- would treat with scorn the complete inability of this writer, Hasan Suroor, to begin to come close to, even to hint at, the heart of the matter.

Is he a frightened would-be truth-teller, who if he could would tell more? Or is he simply someone who is keenly aware of the change in the level of Infidel understanding, keenly aware that the same kind of absurd responses by Muslims as before are not working, but instead are revealing too much, and are rightly alarming Infidels even more? In other words, is he trying genuinely to change Islam, and to change Muslims, or merely giving them advice on how best to preserve the "image" of Islam?

Whichever it is, this article is hardly satisfactory, unless one's standards are so low that anything other than CAIR's nonsense and lies, so widely offered, is to be hailed.

We have the real thing, the truth-tellers, the defectors from Islam, those articulate apostates, and we also have the keenest Infidels, who always refused to be fooled and have not been.

Why settle for less?

Posted by: Hugh at August 12, 2007 8:11 AM

Hugh's comments are as so often, the opening up of the obfuscation, even of the seemingly open-minded author of the article. Hugh, did not touch on this however.

'...When Islam was in its infancy and battling against non-believers violence was deemed legitimate to put them down. Today, when it is the world’s second largest religion with more than one billion followers around the world and still growing that context has lost its relevance'

But Islam, who's 'prophet' made of his koran, 75-80% a bad copy of the Torah and Talmud, and proceeded to demand their acceptance of his scriptural authority, religious authority, even as his life was a despicable assemblage of murder, piracy, child abuse, abuse of 'infidels' slaughter of infidels, and as the final act- the slaughter of those whose religion he stole, to place himself as it's center.

This is the homicidism, that is root to the 'homicidism' that is colloquially mentioned within the context of 'there are violent aspects to islam, or the Koran'.

Yes... like the belief that all others must be submitted.
Well, I'll tell you- there were 56 recorded prophets in the Torah, and the books of the Jews. All told a consistent and literate message. None, mention 'mohammed' or 'Islam' just as 'Jerusalem' is never mentioned in their koran.

The fact is, that the homicidism, of those whose works were badly copied, and who's messages are entirely different, and whose history likewise, was and is entirely different than the homicidal, self aggrandizing self perception disorder that is the theology of 'mohammed' that is the theology of 'Islam' that is the history of 'Islam' and 'Muslims' is an obloquy to their source and sight. An obloquy to the despicable life of that guy, Mohammad. Yes- despicable. Read his book, and the hadiths that describe his 'life' and one will see a sociopath in training, who left a trail of homicide, torture, child abuse, and a tyranny that is conceptually unable to self examine, let alone, self correct.

Enough of this nonsense about 'abrahamic' traditions, and all the niceties where we try to support what the illusions of 'brotherhood' are. The religion of Islam, was a distortion and an attempt to destroy that which was the bringer of western civilization ( some of the very best parts) and whose history defines how we grew into the culture that was vastly vastly better, more productive, more self critical, more adaptable, more
sincere in it's growth and it's shame, than islam ever was, or could ever ever be.

Posted by: mgoldberg at August 12, 2007 9:02 AM

please forgive those multiple postings; however that mistake happened... there was, what? Five copies of my posting?

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to do that, and my computer was not sending the message properly. I hit the return key about five times, and look what happened.

My apologies for the multiple postings, please... it was unintentional. It was that interesting, the first time, let alone the next four or five.

Mark :^((

Posted by: mgoldberg at August 12, 2007 9:47 AM

...When Muslim lips are moving, they are usually telling lies....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at August 12, 2007 10:00 AM

Hasan Suroor is a great admirer, those who read his full text will at once realize, of Ziauddin Sardar, a Muslim who pushes the line about the Great Achievements of Islam in Science, and who hews to a slightly-less obvious version of the Musliim cant about how "all of subsequent science is to be found in the Qur'an" -- an extraordinary belief that ought to disqualify anyone from being taken seriously in the advanced West, much less be allowed to review books having to do with "Islam and Science" in Nature and The New Statesman (as Ziauddin Sardar has been allowed to do).

Here's a good comment from British science writer Lewis Jones:

01/23/2006

Science Allah Carte

"Muslim science? On the face of it, it seems as incongruous as Christian physics or Jewish oceanography. But can Islam plead a special case? A popular element along these lines has always been Islam's historical track record. When Ziauddin Sardar published his thoughts on the subject in New Scientist almost a quarter of a century ago, he titled his article, not "Can science come to Islam?" but "Can science come back to Islam?"

In the words of F.R. Rosenthal (The Classical Heritage of Islam): "Islamic rational scholarship, which we have mainly in mind when we speak of the greatness of Muslim civilization, depends in its entirety on classical antiquity . . . Islamic civilization as we know it would simply not have existed without the Greek heritage."

Ibn Warraq, author of Why I Am Not a Muslim, points out: "Islamic science was founded on the works of the ancient Greeks, and the Muslims are important as the transmitters of Greek (and Hindu) learning that may well have been lost otherwise" (Aristotle, Plato, Galen, Hippocrates, Archimedes, Euclid, Ptolemy). And even so, "most of the translators were Christian."

Warraq writes: "There is a persistent myth that Islam encouraged science. Adherents of this myth quote the Koran and hadith [traditional sayings of Muhammad] to prove their point . . . 'Seek knowledge, in China if necessary'; 'The search after knowledge is obligatory for every Muslim.' This is nonsense, because the knowledge advocated in the previous quotes is religious knowledge. Orthodoxy has always been suspicious of 'knowledge for its own sake,' and unfettered inquiry is deemed dangerous to the faith. . . . All sciences are blameworthy that are useless for acting rightly toward God."

"Those who kill do not think they are committing any crime," said Girija Shankar Jaiswal (a lawyer who argues cases for victimized women). "They think they are becoming martyrs. They do not mind going to jail."

Al-Hasan ibn al-Haytham was one of the greatest scientists of medieval Islam, and his "Optics" strongly influenced Kepler. The French philologist Ernest Renan wrote: "A disciple of Maimonides, the Jewish philosopher, relates that he was in Baghdad on business, when the library of a certain philosopher (who died in 1214) was burned there. The preacher, who conducted the execution of the sentence, threw into the flames, with his own hands, an astronomical work of Ibn al-Haitham, after he had pointed to a delineation therein given of the sphere of the earth, as an unhappy symbol of impious Atheism."

One is reminded of the nineteenth century English politician John Morley, discussing the life of Voltaire: "Where it is a duty to worship the sun, it is pretty sure to be a crime to examine the laws of heat."

In the twelfth century Averroes studied medicine and philosophy, and his work on Aristotle was responsible for the development of the inductive, empirical sciences. His reward was to be tried as a heretic, condemned, and exiled. Yet his name is often put forward as being at the forefront of the Islamic history of science.

Renan begged to differ: "To give Islam the credit of Averroes and so many other illustrious thinkers, who passed half their life in prison, in forced hiding, in disgrace, whose books were burned and whose writings almost suppressed by theological authority, are as if one were to ascribe to the Inquisition the discoveries of Galileo, and a whole scientific development which it was not able to prevent."

There is also a current line of thought that assumes Islamic science has been "hijacked" by fundamentalists, and that all ills can be conveniently attributed to them. But shifting the burden of anti-science to an isolated hard-core fundamentalist group evades the central issue. Taslima Nasreen had a government warrant issued for her arrest in Bangladesh (for "outraging religious feelings"), and has some experience of official Muslim displeasure. "I don't find any difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalists," she says. ". . . I need to say that, because some liberals always defend Islam and blame fundamentalists for creating problems."

In New Scientist (15 December 2001), Ziauddin Sardar reported: "One particular study, sponsored by the International Federation of Institutes of Advanced Studies (IFIAS) in Stockholm brought together Muslim scientists and scholars worldwide in seminars held between 1980 and 1983. The IFIAS study, published as The Touch of Midas, concluded that the issue of science and values in Islam must be treated within a framework of concepts that shape the goals of a Muslim society."

Sardar also reports that the early 1990s brought a shift into obscurantism by the defenders of Muslim science: "it began to be argued that all knowledge, including scientific knowledge, could be found in the Koran. This thesis received a tremendous boost from the well-funded Saudi project, Scientific Miracles in the Qur'an (Koran). The project spanned both empirical work, involving comparisons of those verses of the Koran that deal with astronomy and embryology with the latest discoveries, and popularizations through conferences and seminars. Relativity, quantum mechanics, big bang theory, embryology-practically everything was 'discovered' in the Koran."

In summary: "science becomes not a problem-solving enterprise or objective enquiry, but a mystical quest to understand the Absolute. Conjecture and hypothesis have no real place; all enquiry must be subordinate to the mystical experience."

Nor are there any visible prospects that there will even be open debate in print on the subject. It is a numbing thought that there does not exist a single secular Arabic periodical. In any case, debates that revolve around the concept of heresy are unlikely to lead anywhere worth reaching.

"The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas-uncertainty, progress, change-into crimes." Those are the words of Salman Rushdie in his Herbert Reade Memorial lecture in February of 1990, while in hiding from a fatwa for blasphemy."

Ziauddin Sardar is a more sophisticated and better educated Defender of the Faith, but as Lewis Jones notes, when Ziauddin Sardar published a piece in New Scientist almost a quarter of a century ago, he titled his article not "Can science come to Islam?" but "Can science come back to Islam?"

In other words, Ziauddin Sardar at this point would not dare to suggest direcdtly that all of modern physics and biology can be found in the Qur'an, knowing perfectly well he would be laughed out of the court of public opinion. But he still maintains, even as he denounces those who, by straightforwardly making such claims, cause damage to the "image" of Islam and, as important, to the standing and professional well-being of Ziauddin Sardar and all those like him busily defending and protecting Islam as best they can, as reality keeps breaking in and Infidels begin, horrifically for people like Ziauddin Sardar to wake up and start to inform themselves, and do so not because there is some vast Western conspiracy to blacken the name of Islam, but only because the behavior of some Muslims themselves in Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, and the obvious support given to that behavior by many other Muslims, and finally the obvious nonsense and lies that the Defenders of the Faith indulge in, even when they purport to be the good guys, the reformers, the people who want, as Hasan Suroor wants, an end to "denial" but does not go nearly far enough, goes only so far as to do what he can to protect the image of Islam and to avoid talking about the deep and possiblly immutable problem that a Total Belief-System, predicated on a state of permanent hostility or war between Believers and Infidels, poses to all those Infidels -- who, it might be added, comprise 85% of the world's population.
Muslims themselves, through their behavior, have made it impossible to ignore the texts, tenets, attitudes, and atmospherics of Islam which do all the damage to the "image" of Islam that could possibly be done. Nothing Infidels say or do has anything to add to what Muslims themselves say and do. All Infidels are now doing is looking, less naively, at reality, and with growing understanding the more they connect the dots from, say, southern Thailand to southern Sudan to southern Nigeria to bombs that go off in metros in Madrid and London, and murders that are committed in Amsterdam and Beslan and Moscow and Toronto, and connect the dots between all of these, and the other dots -- the Money Weapon deployed to pay for mosques, and madrasas, and propaganda, and to silence all Infidel critics by threats of litigation, and to pay for armies of Western hirelings, and the campaigns of Da'wa that target the psychically and economically marginal in Infidel societies, and finally, the demographic conquest that is spoken and written about so openly, so enthusiastically, by Muslims in public (see Boumedienne at the U.N. in 1974, about the future conquest of Europe by the forces of Islam not through military might but through the "wombs of Muslim women"; see the letters pages of Muslim newspapers such as the English-language "Dawn" in Pakistan), and on Muslim websites everywhere.

Posted by: Hugh at August 12, 2007 10:17 AM

Enough of this nonsense about 'abrahamic' traditions, and all the niceties where we try to support what the illusions of 'brotherhood' are. The religion of Islam, was a distortion and an attempt to destroy that which was the bringer of western civilization ( some of the very best parts) and whose history defines how we grew into the culture that was vastly vastly better, more productive, more self critical, more adaptable, more sincere in it's growth and it's shame, than islam ever was, or could ever ever be.

Absolutely. I have no idea why Christian and Jewish religious leaders don't denounce the use of the adjective "Abrahamic" to describe Islam's origins. A moment's reflection on the actions of modern-day Muslims, never mind a serious engagement with the texts of Islam, would show that whatever Muslims are worshipping, it is not the God of the Bible. I know Christianity and Judaism both prefer peace to war, but if the Christian and Jewish religions are meant to be serious guides to life (and I assume they are), somewhere in their intellectual traditions they must distinguish between the peace of submission and the peace of fellowship. We can have the former with Muslims, but we can't have the latter, which leads us directly into a situation where war againt Muslims is just. I, for one, refuse to believe that, if God exists, He created Judaism and Christianity to make the adherents of those religions into slaves for Muslims. Yet, that's the road the religious leadership of both Judaism and Christianity are taking their followers. It disgusts me.

In other words, Ziauddin Sardar at this point would not dare to suggest direcdtly that all of modern physics and biology can be found in the Qur'an, knowing perfectly well he would be laughed out of the court of public opinion.

At this point, with the intellectual degradation of education in the West, I'm not sure that 'the court of public opinion' would bat an eyelash if Sardar made this claim.

The "intellectuals" of the West already know that Islam is a heapin' helpin' of BS. The problem is they don't do a damn thing about it.

Posted by: venividivici at August 12, 2007 10:46 AM

Excellent comments, Hugh.

'Is he a frightened would-be truth-teller, who if he could would tell more? Or is he simply someone who is keenly aware of the change in the level of Infidel understanding, keenly aware that the same kind of absurd responses by Muslims as before are not working, but instead are revealing too much, and are rightly alarming Infidels even more?'

I think he's a typical islamic dualistic who's extremely intelligent and cunning and is both the would-be truth-teller and the taqiyya-teller formed by his mohammedan upbringing.

Posted by: the poetess at August 12, 2007 11:16 AM

"and it remains in denial."

Nope, I prefer the term dishonest. They are lying to us.

And we need to wise up to the extent of their lies. Especially that stinker about western foreign policy toward palestine. If that is the case, why is Thailand losing more civilians to the jihad every day than the entire western world?

Why are Christians under threat in Egypt, Lebanon, the Philipines, Malaysia, Indonesia, when none of these states is pro-Israel?

We desperately need to learn how to bite the liars, instead of swallowing their lies.

Posted by: Monty at August 12, 2007 11:50 AM

I believe the following phrase is critical to the topic of "moderate" Islam:

"When Islam was in its infancy and battling against non-believers violence was deemed legitimate to put them down."

If you have time, read this lengthy debate Mr. Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, one of the world’s top Islamic scholars from Pakistan and Ali Sina,
one of the leading critic of Islam and the founder of faithfreedom.org.
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/downloads/probing-islam.pdf

Mr. Ghamidi comes across a lot like Mr. Sarder. He is unlikely to ever pick up a knife to cut off a head or otherwise personally commit an act of violence. (Mr. Ghamidi apparently requires bodyguards in Pakistan to protect him many "true believers").

However, even Mr. Ghamidi cannot truly rationalize the violence of Muhammed in a way that satisfies his logical threshold. He ultimately concludes that God wanted him to do those things so it was ok to murder, rape, etc. The weakness of this position is of course if "God willed it" is an acceptable excuse for Muhammed then, then "God willed it" is a viable justification for violence now. Mr. Ghamidi pretty much crumbled at that point. No doubt Mr. Sarder would as well.

Thus, "moderate" Islam is pretty much limited to "lukewarm" Islam.

Posted by: JSobieski at August 12, 2007 11:58 AM

Taqiyya, obviously. Mr. Suroor's target audience must be the Infidel, as I doubt many Mohammedans would be caught dead reading a publication called The Hindu.

Posted by: Abscedere at August 12, 2007 12:01 PM

Hugh-

Islamic scientists did invent one thing: the head-ectomy.

In which the noggin (A) is removed from the body (B) for strictly textual religious reasons (C).

A French apologist for Islamic science, named Maurice Bucaille, goes through entertaining contortions to match modern Physics and biological principles to the Koran's fertile obscurities. ("The Bible, the Koran, and Science")

A phrase like "man is created from a clot" (which an early spontaneous abortion would demonstrate to even the densest dolt) is taken and spun -like Rapunzel on steroids- to signify that Mohammad was inspired by Allah to record this secret code which only now reveals that Mohammad knew of the entire theory of evolutionary cellular development, the intricacies of human reproduction, the panoply of fetal stages, and DNA to boot.

Islam's "debates" appear to have closed with the dismissal of the idea of free will around the turn of the first millennium, and through the hounding and heretic-ing of their main scientific and philosophical thinkers.

"How the Irish Saved Civilization" is a good antidote to much of the mythos of Islam preserved Western thought during the Dark Ages.

The Muslims saved what ancient they could used to defeat their rivals in religious arguments and in literal warfare (or to remain healthy enough to be fit warriors), and burned the rest as contrary to Islam.

Until they re-open the debate, specifically about the collection and arrangement of the Koran (sura fragments found in an old Yemeni mosque show that the book was not "perfectly transmitted by Allah"), Islam is paralyzed into an infantile dogmatism based on bluff.

Time to call it.

Posted by: profitsbeard at August 12, 2007 1:45 PM

venividivici wrote:

The "intellectuals" of the West already know that Islam is a heapin' helpin' of BS. The problem is they don't do a damn thing about it.

They lie. Both Moslems and their liberal apologists are lying to us. This goes against the truth, which always wins in the end. But if the truth is perverted, and lied to long enough, it comes to a bad end. Not 'denial' but lying, as you say, is what they all are doing. Any accommodations built on deceit likewise comes to a bad end. Our so called 'liberal' thinkers should stop accepting lies. Will they? Can they? Where is objetivity in Islam if they lie? There is none.

Dar-al-Harb liberals should read the Koran and understand what their prophet told his minions, "war is deceit." And we are at war. We must always, liberals and others alike, hold up these thruths in their face, that we know where they're coming from. They lie.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at August 12, 2007 3:03 PM

While I admire this belated "self-critique" on Mr Suroor's part, the one issue that he (and others) keeps dancing around...
The only "dilemma" is that, if discussion truly and honestly IS expanded on, and thoroughly discussed in open and unbiased fashion, given historical words and actions on their part, is this...

"can islam itself survive?"

It won't get that far, no matter how hard they work at it, as rational people already know the answer to said "dilemma".

Posted by: jcom972 at August 12, 2007 7:26 PM

When Islam was in its infancy and battling against non-believers violence was deemed legitimate to put them down. Today, when it is the world’s second largest religion with more than one billion followers around the world and still growing that context has lost its relevance.

If this is true then the jizya should also be passe. Violence should have lost its context in Islam's "golden age", when Europe was in the dark ages. Today, there should be no underclass in countries where Muslims rule. The very concept of the infidel should be null and void. It isn't.
Saudi Arabia should be open to all. It isn't.

Posted by: PMK at August 12, 2007 8:40 PM

Combine that with the fact they're loathe to admit.
Much as they try to claim islam is the fastest growing religion on Earth-it's NOT.
It's (surprise!) Christianity
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/blogline.asp
a MAJOR reason the jihad has recently (in terms of recent decades) resumed in full force.

Reality scares them worse than pigs blood.

Posted by: jcom972 at August 12, 2007 8:56 PM

Just off hand I'd say there is a far more robust term than denial that should be used. By now it has become obvious that the best term is complicit.

{^_^}

Posted by: jdow at August 13, 2007 6:31 AM

What else can one expect from the devil's very own religion and it's sick as hell and twisted servants!

Posted by: RJLCyberPunk at August 14, 2007 9:46 PM

Anyone who uses the term 'islamophobic commentators' cannot be taken seriously. Sorry Mr Suroor, you've just misnamed and insulted everyone who is concerned about islam.

Posted by: Lili at August 14, 2007 11:48 PM