"AL-QAEDA "

.....there's that name again,, the one the dhimmicrats say is not in Iraq and the one the dhimmicrats say has not done us any harm....

"AL-QAEDA"...the organization the dhimmicrats say we should not be combatting....

....just who or what is Al-Qaeda?>......

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 24, 2008 4:05 PM

It's been four years and they're only now getting around to this? They must not have read the news in all this time. Haven't the Brits been pulling out for a while?

Posted by: PMK at January 24, 2008 4:06 PM

It's time for the Brits to stand up to the new Nazis. Threats of this type must be met with action, not words.

Posted by: Alaskan at January 24, 2008 4:08 PM

"The group, blamed for suicide bombings in London in 2005, vowed fresh attacks if Britain fails to withdraw its troops from Iraq and Afghanistan by the end of March."

....ha...Spain fell for this line in Iraq...hook, line , and sinker....and guess what...Spain is still having bombing threat, attacks and is still finding terrorist cells making bombs....

....rule 2...never try to appease Muslims....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 24, 2008 4:08 PM

OT I just peeked at Foxnews.com and their front page is full of fatwa and bad Muslim news stories. Any theories why they have suddenly gone non-dhimmi?
Are they preparing us for a peaceful Muslim Presidential candidate.
Of course we all know that none of them are Muslim now....

Posted by: Aunt Bea at January 24, 2008 4:17 PM

Aunt Bea,

Maybe they are sick of all my emails. LOL

Posted by: Elric66 at January 24, 2008 4:18 PM

PMK writes:

'Isn't it time to re-examine the question of who is fit to come to the Netherlands, who is fit to be allowed even to be considered for citizenship, and what an adequate test for such citizenship -- a test possibly that needs to be re-given to each naturalized citizen every few years -- would look like?'

Yes. We are restricted now to the air base at Basra where I believe about 2000 troops are stationed. Can't rightly remember where I read it but I thought the plans were to scale this back to zero by the summer with the bulk of the 2000 going by March.

I pity the poor devils left behind.

I think this is either a hoax or some group trying to claim media credit for something that was planned anyway.

They want to make it look like we ran with our tails between our legs.

Posted by: devorgilla at January 24, 2008 4:21 PM

"OT I just peeked at Foxnews.com and their front page is full of fatwa and bad Muslim news stories. Any theories why they have suddenly gone non-dhimmi?"

....good ratings?....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 24, 2008 4:26 PM

"They want to make it look like we ran with our tails between our legs.

Posted by: devorgilla "

...actually it is a look that will be accurate....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 24, 2008 4:29 PM

Well Britain and America ought to withdraw because other than for the goal of destruction, Islamic countries aren't worth a dime or a drop of western blood. We need to start going in when necessary and simply destroy infrastructure in a complete and ruthless manner. (A sharia govt. in Afghanistan and Iraq is a mortal insult to those who fought and died there in defense of human rights.) Once that's done who gives a rats *ss who's in charge. Rule over rubble and continue to kill each other as you have since the 7th century. It would also be nice to hear Brown simply say "Bring it on. And by the way we've decided the citizens of Britain have been castrated long enough. We're allowing our citizens to re-arm so that they may once again be able to protect themselves. The "no go" zones are now open."

Posted by: Rick at January 24, 2008 4:41 PM

The British Government should respond that within 24hrs of the attempt, Mecca and Medina will be 1 Mile wide craters, Make it quite clear that all of Islam will suffer the Actions of their most devout.

The Many will suffer, what the many will allow.

Islamic equality-everyone suffers.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at January 24, 2008 4:41 PM

The more I see of this kind of thing, the more I realize that the original Assassins were completely true to the spirit and the teachings of Islam.

And cannot anyone in the west see that this modus operandi of fervently Muslim Jihad groups - 'do what we tell you, or we send our hitmen to get you' - is exactly the same as that of 'the mob'?

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 24, 2008 4:57 PM

...are they mad at Blair because he did not convert to Islam?...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 24, 2008 4:57 PM

Do we really expect anything else from the Islamists? I believe we are getting to used to stories about the violence of Islam. They have become everyday things. If we didn't hear about a Muslim committing or planning to commit a violent act we would wonder what the hell was up.

Sad, isn't it?

Posted by: leeve at January 24, 2008 5:12 PM

Do we really expect anything else from the Islamists? I believe we are getting to used to stories about the violence of Islam. They have become everyday things. If we didn't hear about a Muslim committing or planning to commit a violent act we would wonder what the hell was up.

Sad, isn't it?

Posted by: leeve at January 24, 2008 5:16 PM

...are they still mad at Blair for not converting to Islam....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 24, 2008 5:17 PM

The more I see of this kind of thing, the more I realize that the original Assassins were completely true to the spirit and the teachings of Islam.

And cannot anyone in the west see that this modus operandi of fervently Muslim Jihad groups - 'do what we tell you, or we send our hitmen to get you' - is exactly the same as that of 'the mob'?

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 24, 2008 5:17 PM

sorry again for the double, after 10 minutes I shut down and tried again. Very slow on either my part or the sites.

Posted by: leeve at January 24, 2008 5:28 PM

Threats like this are not nice, but they are par for the jihadi course.We have seen it many times.

I can't help but wonder would Blair or Brown be missed should they succeed?

After all, they have totally ruined the UK by selling out to the saudis.

Posted by: Gramfan at January 24, 2008 5:28 PM

May the kind readers of this forgive me the Off Topic.. When it comes to islam and jihad there is urgent need for all of us to stay informed.

So.. from the categories of "from the "trojan" horse's mouth" and "lesser jihad" comes the following:

a moslem political party in Denmark whose stated goal is to become Denmark's largest political party, to be achieved by admission of turkey into the European Union.

They're saying everything WE've been saying.. Only they are full of glee about it which of course WE are not.

Read it all..

http://damp.mono.net/

Here a small excerpt fromn their convoluted homne page: {do our poloticians EVER read any of these things at all?}

Modern danish [sic] politics can be called apartheid politics- you cannot even read anywhere in Denmark what muslims or immigrants think or say about situation [sic] in Denmark.Nu er indvandreres og muslimers situation dårlig i Danmark.
'Muslim party' will be biggest [sic] party of Denmark- and it may be soon.First day after Turcey [sic] becomes EU member country- about one million 20-50 years [sic] old muslims moves to Denmark?And after that Denmark will be a muslim country?Be ready!
But we may not wait that [sic], - we must be a party of government already now.
'Muslim parti' vil blive den største parti i Danmark i fremtiden.Men danskere skal ikke være bange eller utilfreds med det-vi skaber fred og feremtiden vil blive bedre for alle.Men vi skal ikke vente Turkey-vi skal blive regerings parti allerede nu!
Vi skal kræve muslimsk integrationsminister- nu?We must demand [sic] muslim integrations minister -now?

The above is an exact copy from their website. I am not responsible for any errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar and so on.

Notice also the arrogant demanding tone..

HOLGER DANSKE - VÅGNER!!!!!!

NO Treacherous Trojan Turkey in the EU!!!!!

Posted by: Allah Schmallah at January 24, 2008 5:48 PM

Gordan Brown? Goodness, some guys spent way too much time in the Madrassa, but very little time i the library.

Posted by: Crusader at January 24, 2008 5:51 PM

The brits have acheived their objectives, help to remove saddam and to hand over power to the southern states, basra etc. We lost over 300 in afgan and iraq, thousands wounded and armchair warriors @ jw still want the troops to do more? Even as you read this hundreds more brits are on their way to afgan and troops are patrolling the mountains whilst you slag us off. Thanks

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at January 24, 2008 6:00 PM

This fits Brown's new lable of 'Anti-Islamic', so is the Islamic community condemning this 'Anti-Islamic' action.

Or is the Islamic community 'OK' with this action which confirms that it is NOT 'Anti-Islamic'.

What is Brown going to do if bombs start blowing up? Will create a new word for damage, death, or fear?

Come on Al-queda, leave Brown alone. He is trying to surrender and give you Britain as quickly as he can....give him a little more time.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at January 24, 2008 6:03 PM

Hi leonthepigfarmer
what happened to your 'blog? Some of us have noticed it is down.

Posted by: Gramfan at January 24, 2008 6:37 PM

It vowed that suicide bombers would also "target all embassies, crusaders centre(s) and their interests throughout the country."...

They are going to be mighty busy, this is GB we are speaking of. If the mosque dwellers haven't noticed, the land is full of native "Crusaders".
These cretins are going to push too damn far, and I would like to be around to see the backlash.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at January 24, 2008 6:44 PM

Why now do they want to take over when they could have started this a century ago.

You know why, the moslem population has gotten large enough for them to start demanding their own way.
The time is now. The 12th Imam crowd believes the mahdi's return is imminent, they believe that allah is guiding them so they cannot be defeated.
The supremacist ideas of mohammadans will fail.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at January 24, 2008 6:55 PM

Thesaracen,

Many of us are still waiting for you to fulfill your promise you made yesterday.

Refute exsgtbrown, Champ, DDA, and me, here:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019653.php#comments

Until then, keep your drivel to yourself!

Posted by: boneshack at January 24, 2008 7:06 PM

Looks like RS has the banning stick out. Heh®

Posted by: interestinconundrum at January 24, 2008 7:14 PM

"Come on Al-queda, leave Brown alone. He is trying to surrender and give you Britain as quickly as he can....give him a little more time".
Posted by: alaskan1000.

so true ! Brown's generation of politicians are, for the most part, a curse on Britain. i would like to think of them as mere fools, but it is hard to do so when the stench in the air smells like active betrayal.
for now, i will console myself a little by laughing at the Al-Qaeda franchise's rabid enthusiasm for biting the hand that feeds....

Posted by: M Al-Content at January 24, 2008 7:14 PM

"crusaders centre": Christian church? If they really do start bombing Christian churches in England they will have massively overplayed their hand. I guarantee such an act will pull England out of its dhimmitude-wracked slumber.

Posted by: aynrandgirl at January 24, 2008 7:18 PM

Hi Boneshack! Did thesaracen leave a comment on this thread?

Posted by: champ at January 24, 2008 7:23 PM

boneshack
Had exsgtbrown attacked the black sheep in the muslim community around the world then fair enough I would not have been able to refute the things he said. But instead he attacked the Quran claiming the Quran is the problem well let me show you why you, him, the granny and all the people on jihadwatch are liars.
I've referenced the surahs he mentioned and I can refute all of them because he has lied and for verses left words out. Single words can change the whole meaning.... enough talk here comes...

Posted by: thesaracen at January 24, 2008 7:27 PM

Champ,

Yes, but it got pulled. Marisol pulled out the "Big Stick".

But apparently, not banned.

Posted by: boneshack at January 24, 2008 7:29 PM

Come on, Al-Qaeda. Your video production department has a much larger output than your "Single Use Activist" training camp, at least here in Europe.

If you restrain to scaring us via YouTube, that'd absolutely be fine with us. But we'd have to remove your 'Terrorist' designation, 'cause you don't deserve it.

Posted by: Henrik at January 24, 2008 7:50 PM

"....the granny"

HAHAHA LOL!! Love it!

Posted by: champ at January 24, 2008 8:04 PM

from article: al-Qaeda in Britain will target all the political leaders, especially Tony Blair and Gordan (sic) Brown," the message said.
It vowed that suicide bombers would also "target all embassies, crusaders centre(s) and their interests throughout the country."...

Now if that ain't the darndest way to win friends and influence people. Dale Carnegie would roll over in his grave. Of course, Carnegie did not write the Quran. Allah did that. And Allah knows best.
Intimidation and murder is the best way to influence people. Allah wrote about it exhaustively in his book...

Posted by: duh_swami at January 24, 2008 8:08 PM

"But instead he attacked the Quran claiming the Quran is the problem" --thesaracen

exsgtbrown is correct. The Koran is a book of Hate Speech. Yep, Hate Speech! How ya like them apples - throwing your own oft-used dumb phrase back at you.

Ha-Ha! No one on JW is a liar! Except thesaracen.

Posted by: darcy at January 24, 2008 8:37 PM

The Brits have lived through worse before and they've got SO15 and the SAS on the job. I see no reason to think they can't handle this bunch.

Posted by: Not Telling at January 24, 2008 8:38 PM

Not Telling - With the UK and the US, it is not a question of ability to deal with this enemy. Rather, it is a question of political and social will to do so. We can not even name the enemy out loud. It is up to liberty loving people like ourselves to drive this war effort.

Posted by: MP at January 24, 2008 8:47 PM

The insane veneration of psycho Mo by Muslims is also a problem. Mo was a Terrorist, and so we have Islamic Terrorists today, just following the example of their "perfect man."

Posted by: darcy at January 24, 2008 8:47 PM

Sure, we've heard Al-Qaeda threaten Britain with jihadist attacks etc, but check out this story:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=371505

Al-Qaeda doesn't even need to set foot in Britain. Unfortunately, the British are so scared of Muslims killing innocent Britons that, as the article says, the children's book based on the classic tale of the Three Little Pigs has been rejected for a UK award amid fears it could offend Muslims.

Where's Winston Churchill when you need him?

Posted by: S Perry at January 24, 2008 8:48 PM

"Where's Winston Churchill when you need him?"

In his books. I have "Second World War" and a collection of his finest speeches, as well as a CD with BBC recordings. His speeches are immensely inspiring and a fine example of how one can say tough things with the purest of motivations.

I believe one becomes a better debater by revisiting these, and thus more useful defeating Jihad.

Posted by: Henrik at January 24, 2008 8:52 PM

Henrik, you are spot on. I have Churchill's Second World War 6-volume series and his speeches too.

Pity we don't have a live one leading Britain today. That's what's required, at least for a start.

Posted by: S Perry at January 24, 2008 9:08 PM

"Pity we don't have a live one leading Britain today."

Well, then we have to become like him :)

Posted by: Henrik at January 24, 2008 9:11 PM

More threats to kill innocent people...no doubt they are on a campaign to win hearts and minds!

As a matter of interest what exactly would happen in the UK if such an attack happened? Will the british people sit quietly by and let there country go to waste or will they awaken and vent their frustration on the muslims residing in the UK? They may view the muslims in the UK as nothing more than a 5th column and thus deservedly attracting the ire of the brits. Afterall, it would no longer be just some non descript pol living in a country a thousand miles away but rather a blue blood of the soil. Can the ensuing rage be mollified by some sweet words and multicultural shit spin?

I for one would like to see the response...I think every single mosque in the UK would be shuttered, and not by the PC liberal retards in power but by the people themselves.

interesting times...very interesting

Shunkleash(PBUH)

Posted by: Shunkleash at January 24, 2008 9:20 PM

Skunkleash,

I for one would like to see the response...I think every single mosque in the UK would be shuttered, and not by the PC liberal retards in power but by the people themselves.

Sorry, mate, but in my humble opinion, that isn't going to happen.

Moving the Salisbury Cathedral, stone by stone, to Arizona, is going to be the only option.

Elected leaders in the sorts of Gordon Brown only prove us correct.

Posted by: boneshack at January 24, 2008 11:02 PM

enough talk here comes...
Posted by: thesaracen

This should be good.
Quran 9:29
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or the Last Day, who do not forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, or acknowledge the Religion of Truth , (even if they are) People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the Jizyah tribute tax in submission, feeling themselves subdued and brought low." [Another translation says:] "pay the tax in acknowledgment of our superiority and their state of subjection."

What one word will change that meaning?

Posted by: interestinconundrum at January 24, 2008 11:49 PM

Oh, I think I've got it.
Qur'an 9:29 "Hug those who do not believe in Allah or the Last Day, who do not forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, or acknowledge the Religion of Truth (Islam), (even if they are) People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the Jizyah tribute tax in complete happiness, feeling themselves included and all squishy."

That about right?

Posted by: interestinconundrum at January 24, 2008 11:55 PM

Mp. I agree. There have been 2 aircraft hijacked and flown to the uk, both times were afgan hijackers. The sas were stood down on each occasion after lengthy standoffs. The british government is at war with the british people. My question is, at what point did the american colonists realise that an armed struggle was their only option against, as yet, a non violent but operessive imperial regime?

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at January 24, 2008 11:59 PM

Had exsgtbrown attacked the black sheep in the muslim community around the world then fair enough I would not have been able to refute the things he said. posted by thesaracen

So you admit that there are a few black sheep" muslims in the "muslim community"? Would you care to speculate on the exact number of renegade muslims in your lovely "community"? I think the only renegades are muslims that ignore the vitriol in the malevolent qur'an and the sadomasochism, scatology,and pornography in the hadiths. That leaves about a billion devout, supremacist muslim time bombs for the rest of the world to contend with.

The qur'an is a manifesto of war, hate and intolerance in Arabic, English, French, Chinese, Urdu, or any other language. The qur'an is replete with gratuitous hate for non-muslim humanity, the majority of humanity. I know muslims are like aliens from another planet but have you never wondered why your god allegedly created billions of people just for you to loathe and spend your life trying to convert, conquer, subjugate, or murder? People who worship and enslave themselves to a god like yours are not just aliens, they are psychopaths.

Posted by: Susanp at January 25, 2008 12:04 AM

"I can refute all of them because he has lied and for verses left words out. Single words can change the whole meaning.... enough talk here comes..."

Posted by: thesaracen

Didn't he post that comment about 4 hours ago? We're still waiting for his refutation.

Posted by: champ at January 25, 2008 12:15 AM

Champ,

A good January 25th morning to you!

(I'm awake, again, because some some certain dogs in my neighborhood don't know it's nearly 1:00 in the freakin A.M!!!)

Anyhoo, Thesaracen won't be back for several days because he has to consult with his local Wahabbi High Priest (Witch Doctor) for the correct responses to the Sarge's citations.

Don't hold your breath. I sure won't.

Posted by: boneshack at January 25, 2008 1:09 AM

Hey Boneshack!

OK - so you're on Eastern time, as it's 10:15 Pacific time where I live. What state do you live in? Unless of course you want that to remain private....I'm in California.

"Witch Doctor", very funny, and very TRUE!!

Posted by: champ at January 25, 2008 1:23 AM

Hey, Champ!

I love your support in dealing with this fool "Thesaracen" and others.

I live in central Indiana, 40 miles west of the great city Indianapolis.

Posted by: boneshack at January 25, 2008 1:31 AM

All power to their elbow in the case of Brown and Blair, in the case of Blair he did a certain amount in support of the USA, but in the UK his policies have really empowered the Muslims.

Can they take out the entire Labour cabinet while they are at it, best to get rid of all those incompetent fools. I never thought I would be wishing AQ success in their endevours!!!

Posted by: Daffersd at January 25, 2008 2:12 AM

Thanks, Boneshack! Your support is also appreciated!

"I live in central Indiana, 40 miles west of the great city Indianapolis"....Right On! It's just below Michigan where my husband grew up in Ann Arbor.

Thesaracen sure has given us all an education by allowing us a look inside the brainwashed mind of a Muslim. It's one thing to read the violent passages in the Qur'an and feel the sting of their message, but it's quite another to engage in a dialog with a violent Muslim and feel the sting of HIS message firsthand. What an eye opener!

....sleep beckons....

Posted by: champ at January 25, 2008 2:50 AM

"enough talk here comes..."

Posted by: thesaracen "

....typical Muslim speak....you can talk only if you agree with them ....prove they are wrong, point out their inconsistencies, defy their logic, point out that their history is, well, their history, prove to them you can read and that you have an independent thinking mind not controlled by some crazed bearded fingerpointing cleric, show them the fallacies of the Qur'an and give them reason to think they may be the violent people that the world recognizes them to be and then they threaten (and often attack)....

...really sore losers!....

....because they are so intolerant and violent, you do not want them in your neighborhood...Ban Muslim Immigration....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 25, 2008 6:42 AM

exsgtbrown - did you read the comment by thesaracen that was deleted? I didn't read it, so I'm curious why it was deleted; without repeating what he said, of course. Did he make threats? Use colorful language? What? Thanks.

Posted by: champ at January 25, 2008 12:39 PM

....I merely pointed out several Qur'nic quotations that Muslims proudly use when they are attacking Jews/Christians. I then pointed out several Qur'anic verses relating to discrimination of women and the "authorized" use of beating women and the "authorized" use of virtual slavery of women....I asked him to name some Muslim rulers that are not oppressive....I then pointed out the Muslim violence in the world is usually carried out by Muslims who cite the Qur'an as the authority to do so...I called the Qur'an an evil text....

....He misread comments intentions and thought I agreed with him....

....I guess I made his FATWA list.....as he ended with "enough talk here comes...", probably after his blood pressure reached the boiling point...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 25, 2008 3:22 PM

Thanks for writing back, exsgt!

Posted by: champ at January 25, 2008 4:32 PM

exsgtbrown You done nothing but plagarise from another website as it didn't take me long to find the exact same qoutes in the exact same structure. How weak and what a phony.

I have finished answering all 'You're' arguments and will post it in the next 30 mins.
So stay tuned.

and champ why are you so interested in what I said I don't want to be you're freind.

Posted by: thesaracen at January 25, 2008 5:42 PM

"So stay tuned"

....fire in the hole...run for cover!!

Posted by: champ at January 25, 2008 7:17 PM

exsgtbrown- stop claming you came up with these arguments. They are the same arguments that have existed for centuries also the same arguments you copied and pasted of topixx. So I'll answer you're questions. It's regarding this topic and also this misconception that woman in Islam are mistreated.

A man came to Prophet Muhammad (P) asking, "O Messenger of Allah, who among the people is the most worthy of my good companionship?" The Prophet (P) said, "Your mother". The man said, "Then, who is next?" The Prophet (P) said, "Your mother". The man said, "Then, who is next?" The Prophet (P) said, "Your mother". The man further asked, "Then who is next?" Only then did the Prophet (P) say, "Your father." (Al-Bukhari) [19].

"I shall not lose sight of the labor of any of you who labors in My way, be it man or woman; each of you is equal to the other (3:195)"

The Qur'an:
- (Inheritance) "The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females" (see also Sura (4:176)).

Because it is the mans duty to spend the inheritance on sustaning himself as well as his family and his wife. Whereas the wife can do whatever she likes with the inheritance. She can retain it if she wishes and still expect to be sustained by the husband or her brother or father. Refer to the Torah. Nothing will be given to the female. The bible has nothing on the matter.

[4:7] The men get a share of what the parents and the relatives leave behind. The women too shall get a share of what the parents and relatives leave behind. Whether it is a small or a large inheritance, (the women must get) a definite share.
This was revealed because the jews and the christians denied any inheritance rights to woman.

Sura (2:282) - (Court testimony) "And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not found then a man and two women"
This verse is regarding a financial transaction. Financial transactions are the ONLY situations where two women may substitute for one man as witness. This is to guard against the real possibility that one witness may marry the other witness, and thus cause her to be biased. It is a recognized fact that women are more emotionally vulnerable than men. It's also addressing the fact that in a Islamic society men have more knowledge in financial dealings as they encounter these situations more frequently. Islam is not addressing your society because you don't follow the Quran. If it seems like Islam is chaining up woman to the home then you can ask God when you stand before him. Then again I can refer you to the surah which says woman can go out and work if they wish as long as they find a nanny.

Sura (2:228) - "and the men are a degree above them [women]"
“…And they (women) have rights (over their husbands) similar (to the rights of their husbands) over them­ according to what is equitable. But men have a degree (of responsibility) over them…” (Quran 2:228)
The word used is RESPONSIBILITY NOT RIGHTS!!!!! a degree of responsibility above or over them.
In Islam the husband not only has to provide food and comfort to his family. It his duty to go and work and ensure the family do not face hardship. Whereas the wife's only obligation is to look after the family home. She doesn't have to go and find work and be the breadwinner, although a woman also has the huge task of pregancy and giving birth. With regards to bringing up the children both have to do it. So who has the more responsibility?

Sura (5:6) - "And if ye are unclean, purify yourselves. And if ye are sick or on a journey, or one of you cometh from the closet, or ye have had contact with women, and ye find not water, then go to clean, high ground and rub your faces and your hands with some of it"
Men are to rub dirt on their hands if there is no water to purify them following casual contact with a woman (such as shaking hands).
[5:6] O you who believe, when you observe the Contact Prayers (Salat), you shall: (1) wash your faces, (2) wash your arms to the elbows, (3) wipe your heads, and (4) wash your feet to the ankles. If you were unclean due to sexual orgasm, you shall bathe. If you are ill, or traveling, or had any digestive excretion (urinary, fecal, or gas), or had (sexual) contact with the women, and you cannot find water, you shall observe the dry ablution (Tayammum) by touching clean dry soil, then rubbing your faces and hands. GOD does not wish to make the religion difficult for you; He wishes to cleanse you and to perfect His blessing upon you, that you may be appreciative.
Wow what a blatant phony you are exgstbrown.

Sura (24:31) - Women are to lower their gaze around men, so they do not look them in the eye. You cut parts out to try and decieve but it won't work.

Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and be modest. That is purer for them. Lo! Allah is Aware of what they do. And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigor, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed.}*

Sura (2:223) - "Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will..."

[2:223] Your women are the bearers of your seed. Thus, you may enjoy this privilege however you like, so long as you maintain righteousness. You shall observe GOD, and know that you will meet Him. Give good news to the believers.

This is regarding sex not ownership of woman my freind. The verse was revealed to counter claims from the jews and people at the time of the prophet pbuh who said having sex with your wife from the back even through the vagina would result in your offspring being cross-eyed. So Allah swt revealed this verse to inform the muslims that they can have sex with their wives in any position they wished but only through the vagina.

Anal sex is strictly prohibited.
Abu `Isa At-Tirmidhi and An-Nasa'i reported that Ibn `Abbas narrated that Allah's Messenger said:
Allah does not look at a man who had anal sex with another man or a woman.)

[2:223] Your women are the bearers of your seed. Thus, you may enjoy this privilege however you like, so long as you maintain righteousness. You shall observe GOD, and know that you will meet Him. Give good news to the believers.

Sura (4:3) - Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four. Complete the surah. as it says if you fear you will be unjust to any of them then marry only one! Besides in the pre-marriage contract the woman can say i will not except you marrying another.

4:3] If you deem it best for the orphans, you may marry their mothers - you may marry two, three, or four. If you fear lest you become unfair, then you shall be content with only one, or with what you already have. Additionally, you are thus more likely to avoid financial hardship.

Sura (53:27) - Those who believe not in the Hereafter, name the angels with female names.
53:27 Those who believe not in the Hereafter, name the angels with female names.

This verse is not saying anything about males being superior, because the next verse is questioning your knowledge. How can you talk about something which you have no knowledge of.
53:28 But they have no knowledge therein. They follow nothing but conjecture; and conjecture avails nothing against Truth

Sura (4:24) and Sura (33:52) - A man is permitted to take women as sex slaves outside of marriage.
What are you talking about!!!

[4:25] Those among you who cannot afford to marry free believing women, may marry believing slave women. GOD knows best about your belief, and you are equal to one another, as far as belief is concerned. You shall obtain permission from their guardians before you marry them, and pay them their due dowry equitably. They shall maintain moral behavior, by not committing adultery, or having secret lovers. Once they are freed through marriage, if they commit adultery, their punishment shall be half of that for the free women.* Marrying a slave shall be a last resort for those unable to wait. To be patient is better for you. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.

Sex slaves Outside of marriage? Is that what this surah you have qouted says?
Allah swt refers to them as slave woman. What else will they be known as.
If you argue Islam condones slavery then refer to the same verse:
'and you are equal to one another, as far as belief is concerned.'

Billal one of the companions of the Prophet pbuh was a former black slave. He embraced Islam and was given the role of mu'adhin. Not because of a political move but because he had the best voice. Thats true Islam.

You should know that no Arab is superior over a non-Arab and, no non-Arab is superior over any Arab, no white is superior over black and no black is superior over white. Superiority is by righteousness and God-fearing [alone]. (Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, 411)

Posted by: thesaracen at January 25, 2008 7:19 PM

My knowledge of the hadith is not so great. But you have not considered the different degrees of hadith. Some are weak and others are authentic.
From the Hadith:

Bukhari (6:301) - "[Muhammad] said, 'Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?' They replied in the affirmative. He said, 'This is the deficiency in her intelligence.'"

Her testimony as a witness is half that of men only in matters wherein she is GENERALLY less versed than men in Islamic socieities. In other matters wherein women have particular knowledge, like fosterage and virginity, the testimony of a woman is accepted but not that of a man.

Bukhari (6:301) - continued - "[Muhammad said] 'Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?' The women replied in the affirmative. He said, 'This is the deficiency in her religion.'" Allah has made women deficient in the practice of their religion as well, by giving them menstrual cycles.

These are matters of Islamic Law. A woman is neither sinful nor blameworthy because of the prayers and fasts that she misses. She, in fact, receives blessings by obeying Allah and abstaining from those acts while she is menstruating. Niether is her brain weaker than a man's. You've simply taken this hadith out of context and haven't applied the correct meaning to it. Allah swt would not give a certain characteristic to a woman only to punish her with it.

Bukhari (2:28) - Women comprise the majority of Hell's occupants. This is important because the only women in heaven ever mentioned by Muhammad are the virgins who serve the sexual desires of men.

The majority could mean 1 woman more than a man. Do you know the exact figure? Because I don't.
Thats nonsense because the Prophet pbuh doesn't just talk about virgins.These woman you are referring to can die virgins if they wish but if they are not muslim then it doesn't matter. Even if they were muslim and died as virgins thats no gaurentee that they will be admitted into heaven. The Quran doesn't say die as virgins either.

(A weak Hadith, Kanz al-`ummal, 22:10, even suggests that 99% of women go to Hell).
A weak hadith!!! Need I even discuss this. 99% of woman! why would god create woman if only 1 % of them will go to heaven. Evey man and woman is judged on their deeds not their gender.
“Whosoever works evil will not be requited except with its like; and whosoever works righteousness, whether male or female, and is a true Believer, such will enter Paradise, wherein they will have provision without limit.” (Quran 40:40)

Bukhari (62:81) - "The Prophet pbuh said: "'The stipulations most entitled to be abided by are those with which you are given the right to enjoy the (women's) private parts (i.e. the stipulations of the marriage contract).'" In other words, the most important thing that a woman brings to a marriage is between her legs.

It's very important in any marriage that the sex life is there. Without it the marriage is likely to fail. But to think that this hadith means the womans private parts and access to them is the most important right in a mans life is not true. You have to consider previous or subsequent hadiths because you'll realise that a man's right over his wife includes things such as the wife not allowing anyone whom you dislike to enter your home. But this works both ways otherwise it would not be righteousness. The (stipulations) also is a plural meaning this particular right is one of many.

Bukhari (62:58) - A woman presents herself in marriage to Prophet Muhammad pbuh, but he does not find her attractive, so he "donates" her on the spot to another man.

I don't agree that the prophet found the lady unattractive because thats not what the hadith says. I don't agree that he 'donated' her either. The lady in question was not property she obviously wanted to get married. A man came up to the Prophet pbuh asked if he could marry her and the Prophet pbuh on numerous occasions asked the man to present something for her dowry. When the man returned and said I cannot find anything apart from this piece of cloth the Prophet pbuh asked how much of the Quran do you know? When the man replied and the Prophet pbuh was satisfied he knew enough of the Quran The Prophet pbuh said, "Go I let you marry her for what you know of the Quran. Do we know if the lady rejected the marriage or not? NO. And marriage in Islam is not the complicated process you have in todays world. If the two people like each other and the two families are happy with the marriage then the marriage goes ahead asap. There's no 4 years of dating involved.

Ibn Abbas reported that a girl came to the Messenger of Allah, and she reported that her father had forced her to marry without her consent. The Messenger of God gave her the choice...(between accepting the marriage or invalidating it) (Ahmad, Hadith no. 2469). another version of the report states that "the girl said: 'Actually, I accept this marriage, but I wanted to let women know that parents have no right to force a husband on them.'" (Ibn-Majah) [11]

Abu Dawud (2:704) - "...the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: When one of you prays without a sutrah, a dog, an ass, a pig, a Jew, a Magian, and a woman cut off his prayer, but it will suffice if they pass in front of him at a distance of over a stone's throw."
If you have a sutrah (an object of clothing, a stick or even a line drawn on the ground) in front of you from what I know it doesn't matter if the person or animal is a million miles away or right in front of you, your prayer will not be broken. But if the person or animal was to come between you and you're sutrah then you must resist it and repel it. Funny you forget to mention that a man regardless of whether he is a muslim or not can also brake your prayer by walking in front of you.

Ishaq 593 - "From the captives of Hunayn, Allah's Messenger gave [his son-in-law] Ali a slave girl called Baytab and he gave [future Caliph] Uthman a slave girl called Zaynab and [future Caliph] Umar another." - Even in this world, Muhammad treated women like party favors, handing out slave girls to his cronies for sex.

First of would Prophet Muhammed pbuh hand out woman like presents, considering all the things he has said about their treatment? Secondly would the Sahaba you have mentioned here have sex with these slave girls outside of marriage considering how grave a sin it is in Islam? Neither of these scenarios is possible. So I can't agree with your conclusion to the hadith. They must firstly have been seeking a husband and secondly they became the wives of the Sahaba even though they are 'slave girls', not just for sex but for companionship and all the other virtues of marriage. You can't just marry someone for sex.

Ishaq 969 - "Men were to lay injunctions on women lightly, for they were prisoners of men and had no control over their persons." - This same text also justifies beating women for flirting.
I can't find where you got this hadith from. Nor do I agree that it is something that is in the Quran. How can a woman be a prisoner of a man when in the Quran they are equal. So for example if a husband was to go against the teachings of Islam. The quran says she must speak to him and try to make him correct his error and vice versa. Is that the behaviour of a prisioner? The woman in Islam can keep whatever they want to keep and are still entitled to more from their husband. Thats according to Islam.

“The believing men and women are protectors of one another. They enjoin the good and forbid the evil; they establish prayer and give alms (to the needy); and they obey God and His Messenger. These, God will have mercy on them. Lo! God is Mighty, Wise.” (Quran 9:71)

Posted by: thesaracen at January 25, 2008 7:23 PM

The fourth Caliph, who was Muhammad's son-in-law and cousin, said just a few years after the prophet's death that "The entire woman is an evil. And what is worse is that it is a necessary evil."

I know that is an outright lie. Show me where you got this statement from?

A traditional Islamic saying is that, "A woman's heaven is beneath her husband's feet."

a son or daughter's heaven are at the pearents feet. The same thing applies to a husband regarding his wife. But these are just terms, sayings. It's not possible to enter heaven without the permission of Allah swt. HE has the final say. You have to observe Islamic teachings as a whole. You can't abandon any of the laws of our lord.

The revered Islamic scholar, al-Ghazali, who has been called 'the greatest Muslim after Muhammad,' writes that the role of a Muslim woman is to "stay at home and get on with her sewing. She should not go out often, she must not be well-informed, nor must she be communicative with her neighbors and only visit them when absolutely necessary; she should take care of her husband... and seek to satisfy him in everything... Her sole worry should be her virtue... She should be clean and ready to satisfy her husband's sexual needs at any moment." [as quoted from Ibn Warraq]

The greatest muslim after Muhammed pbuh!!! was this man gaurenteed Heaven like the the ten sahaba mentioned. This is the same al-ghazali who was killed for his lies against Islam in the 11th century. How can he be a great man in the eyes of muslims and how can you even qoute his rubbish. He was a heretic and virtually unknown in Islamic history, which makes he's testimony worthless.

The many opportunities denied women under Islamic law, from giving equal testimony in court to having the right to exclude other wives from their marital bed, is very clear proof that women are of lesser value then men in Islam.

I've explained all of this above so look there as I won't comment on this anymore.

Muslim women are not even free to marry outside the faith without being killed by their own families.

No way does the Quran say kill them but yes it does say don't marry outside the faith. Because in any family the husband is the leader and the wife is his 'assistant'. Very few marriages are the other way round. Because of this fact woman are prohibited to marry outside of the faith because they may in time turn away from Islam due to their non-muslim husbands beliefs.

Islamic law also specifies that when a woman is murdered by a man, her family is owed only half as much "blood money" as they would be if she had been a man.
No authentic hadith supports that notion im afraid. Stop speculating.

Although a man retains custody of his children in the event of his wife's death, a non-Muslim woman will automatically lose custody of her children in the event of her husband's death unless she converts to Islam or marries a male relative of within his family. Even the rights of Muslim mothers are subordinate to her husband's family. Speculation! Where did you read that in the Quran? Show me passages from the Quran and the hadith and I'll discuss it.

Contemporary Muslims like to counter that Arabs treated women as camels prior to Muhammad. This is somewhat questionable, given that Muhammad's first wife was a wealthy woman who owned property and ran a successful business prior to ever meeting him. She was even his boss... (although we're sure that changed after the marriage).
You have this problem with generalising everyone.

You think just because one person was this, it must mean everyone ese was the same. Didn't the quraysh bury their female infants?? It was widespread and was part of their culture.
When news is brought to one of them of (the birth of) a female (child), his face darkens and he is filled with inward grief! With shame he hides himself from his people because of the bad news he has had! Shall he retain her on (sufferance and) contempt or bury her in the dust? Ah! what an evil (choice) they decide on! (Qur'an 16:58-59)

When the female (infant) buried alive is questioned for what crime she was killed.... (Qur'an 81:8-9)

At best, Islam elevates the status of a woman to somewhere between that of a camel and a man.
O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should you treat them with harshness, that you may take away part of the martial gift you have given them, except when they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary, live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If you take a dislike to them, it may be that you dislike a thing through which Allah brings about a great deal of good. (Qur'an 4:19)

The immutable, ever-relevant Qur'an explicitly permits women to be kept as sex slaves, and this is hardly something in which Muslims can take pride.

Muslims don't take pride in something they have no widespread knowledge or experience of.
...oppresive rulers?.....you must be
joking...Name some that are not>....

....Honor Killings:.....
There is nothing in the Koran, the book of basic Islamic teachings, that permits or sanctions honor killings. However, the view of women as property with no rights of their own is deeply rooted in Islamic culture, Tahira Shahid Khan, a professor specializing in women's issues at the Aga Khan University in Pakistan, wrote in Chained to Custom, a review of honor killings published in 1999.

"Women are considered the property of the males in their family irrespective of their class, ethnic, or religious group. The owner of the property has the right to decide its fate. The concept of ownership has turned women into a commodity which can be exchanged, bought and sold."

Whosoever has a daughter and does not bury her alive, does not insult her, and does not favor his son over her, Allah will enter him into Paradise. (Ahmad)

“…They (your wives, O men) are a garment for you and you (men) are a garment for them…” (Quran 2:187)

“…And live with them in kindness…” (Quran 4:19)

In a truely Islamic society women have the following rights in Islam:
1. The right and duty to obtain education.
2. The right to have their own independent property.
3. The right to work to earn money if they need it or want it.
4. Equality of reward for equal deeds.
5. The right to express their opinion and be heard.
6. The right to provisions from the husband for all her needs and more.
7. The right to negotiate marriage terms of her choice.
8. The right to obtain divorce from her husband, even on the grounds that she simply can't stand him. (pls note that God deeply frowns upon divorce as a solution unless there is hardly any other alternative but it does not mean that men have more right to divorce their wives than women do.)
9. The right to keep all her own money (she is not responsible to maintain any relations).
10. The right to get sexual satisfaction from her husband.
11. custody of their children after divorce.
12. to refuse any marriage that does not please them

Honor killings are perpetrated for a wide range of offenses. Marital infidelity, pre-marital sex, flirting, or even failing to serve a meal on time can all be perceived as impugning the family honor.

“Verily, those who slander chaste women; innocent unsuspecting believing women: they are cursed in this world and the next. And for them will be a great torment.” (Quran 24:23)

....it seems to me that the Qur'an may say nothing about "honor killings" (probably because this is a relatively new term), it certainly does allow a Muslim to dispose of unwanted property (i.e. a Muslim woman)...

If muslim individuals do something against the teachings of Islam, then don't say it is Islamic. It's their own ignorance that has caused them to do something and then say 'it's what the Quran says.' If you want to attack these individuals on merit then I will join you. But if you want to attack Islam as a whole and the noble Quran for you're own beliefs then you will never win. You'll be fighting a losing battle. It's something the west seems to have forgotten. Everytime something bad happens in the muslim countries it's headline news in every type of media. Then you think all muslims must be the same. But these actions are not Islamic so you have to distance it from the Quran and realise the ignorance of humans is the only fault here, whether they are muslim or not they can still be ignorant. But Im a muslim I don't know if I will go to heaven or hell (may Allah spare me from it) even if I don't do these actions you see in today's world. Nor do I know if any of you will go to heaven or hell because you may embrace Islam at any moment. Whether you do or not is totally up to you. Get this in you're head and think about it. Worship what you will but take heed of the consequences.

thesaracen ....I believe you either lie or you just do not understand your religion at all....

I understand it well, neither have I knowingly lied.

Posted by: thesaracen at January 25, 2008 7:27 PM

saracen -

I have some questions. As you answer them, remember: we are not talking about what happened, or is alleged to have happened, in 7th century Arabia, or 13th century Baghdad or 16th century Turkey. We are talking about TODAY, and what you think should be done, or not done, TODAY.

Here are the questions.

What should Muslim parents and the Muslim 'community' do, here in 'the west', if a girl or young woman
a. stops wearing hijab and/ or
b. starts going out with a non-muslim boy and declares that she intends to marry him WITHOUT requiring him to convert to Islam and/or
c. declares that she has left Islam and either 1. become an atheist or 2. converted to a non-Muslim religion such as Christianity or Buddhism.

Should a girl who does one, or more, of these things, be killed? - Yes, or No?

Remember: sharia law requires her punishment and, in the case of b and c, her execution.

Should Patrick Sookhdeo, who converted from Islam to Christianity in 1969 and is now an Anglican Bishop, be executed for committing the crime of apostasy from Islam? - Yes or No?

Do you agree that a woman who has been raped has a right to justice even if there were *not* four male witnesses to the act? Yes or No?

in a court of law, should a woman's word and witness have equal weight with that of a man? - Yes or NO.

In a court of law, should the word and witness of a non-Muslim have equal weight with that of a Muslim? - Yes or No?

Do you agree that a father may, if he chooses, leave instructions that his daughter should inherit ALL of his property? Yes or No.

Do you think that Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Taslima Nasreen, and Salman Rushdie, who have questioned and criticised aspects of Islam, should be killed by Muslims, ? Yes or No?

Do you think that a girl of nine may be married and may be subjected to conjugal relations, even if she has not yet menstruated? Yes or NO?

Would you yourself, if you had the opportunity, kill Ms Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or one of the Danish cartoonists, or Mr Mohammed Hegazi (Egyptian Muslim who has converted to Christianity)? - Yes or No?

Do you think that Muslims in Gaza were right to publicly beat and shoot the Arab Christian, Mr Rami Ayyad, for the 'crime' of selling Christian books, and of openly explaining his faith to Muslim inquirers, in a Muslim-dominated city?

Come on. Be honest. Was the killing of Mr Ayyad, by Muslims in Gaza, the cold-blooded murder of an innocent human being- or the execution of a dhimmi who had rebelled against the requirements of the dhimma? Which was it?

Murder - no or yes?

Justice - no or yes?

How about the killing of Theo van Gogh, for making the film 'Submission', which was critical of Islam and of Islam's treatment of women?
Murder? - no or yes?
Justice? - no or yes?

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 26, 2008 11:37 PM

There's no point in me saying what I would do personally to any of you're questions. If you take the time to read my post you will realise I have answered most of them using the Quran. I can't say what I would do personally because that's not Islamic.
But you're all hypocritcal, dumbledorsarmy my next post is the bible and the torah and it's treatment of woman. Where in the Quran you obviously misunderstand the torah and the bible you can't. It's in plain text and can't be interpreted in any other way. From what im coming across both you're books cannot be divine inspirations. Some of it is but there's far too much that just cannot be the word of god.

Posted by: thesaracen at January 27, 2008 1:08 PM

saracen

everything you have said, in every thread since you first appeared, has clearly shown that you adhere to the following principle, as elucidated in Tawfiq Hamid's account of the formation of a Jihadist's mind:

"Muchtar emphasized the central importance in Islam of the concept of al-fikr kufr, the idea that the very act of thinking (fikr) makes one become an infidel (kufr). (In Arabic both words are derived from the same three root letters but have different meanings.)
"He [Muchtar] told me [Hamid]: "Your brain is just like a donkey [a symbol of inferiority in the Arab culture] that can get you only to the palace door of the king [Allah]. To enter the palace once you have reached the door, you should leave the donkey [your inferior mind] outside."
"By this parable, Muchtar meant that a truly dedicated Muslim no longer thinks but automatically obeys the teachings of Islam."

I assume this is what you mean when you say you will not answer my questions. That is, you have stopped thinking; in every part of your life you will slavishly follow the literal instructions of the Quran, and the model of the Sira and Hadith.

In that case I have to assume that your answers to my questions would be as follows:

if you had a daughter and she refused to wear hijab, you would punish her severely.

If she dated, or worse, married a non-Muslim without demanding he convert, you would kill her.

If she, or a son of yours, or any Muslim friend or relative, apostasised, you would feel obliged to kill them.

You would kill, if you got the opportunity, Bp Sookhdeo, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie, the Danish 'mohammed' cartoonists, Taslima Nasreen, and Mohammed Hegazi.

You have no problem with the killing of Theo van Gogh - you would regard it as due punishment for 'insulting' Islam.

You have no problem with the killing of Arab Christian Rami Ayyad in Gaza - you would regard it as due punishment for the 'crime' of selling Christian books and attempting to explain the Christian faith.

You would condemn a raped woman as 'immoral' and punish her severely, perhaps even kill her, if she could not produce four male witnesses.

You would feel obliged to leave a smaller inheritance to a daughter than to a son.

You would see nothing wrong in marrying, and taking to bed, a nine or ten year old prepubescent girl.

You would not accept a woman's testimony as equal to that of a man, in a court of law; you would not accept a non-Muslim's testimony against a Muslim.

In which case, 'saracen', many of the things that you regard as moral and just, since sharia requires or permits them, are things that are regarded, here in 'the west' and in many other societies as well, as immoral and unjust.

I hope that you are not living in any 'western' country, for if you are, it is possible that sooner or later, by slavishly obeying the tenets of the Quran, Sira and Hadith, and by slavishly imitating the example of Mohammed, you will do something that the people around you will judge to be immoral, unjust, and, indeed, evil. And they will be right.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 28, 2008 12:41 AM

As for the Bible, the Torah and the Gospels: yes, they are very different from the Quran, or the Sira or the Hadith.

I will tell you what the difference is, from a Christian point of view.

The entire moral teaching of the Bible is summed up in something sometimes called The Golden Rule. Jesus - Yeshua of Nazareth - taught: "therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets" (Matthew 7:12). In teaching this Jesus/ Yeshua spoke as a fully observant Jew.

St Paul, also Jewish, taught the same: "See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, among yourselves, AND TO ALL MEN." - 1 Thessalonians 5: 15.

Paul and Yeshua were Jews. Here is the Jewish foundation of the same rule:
"Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the LORD [i.e. YHWH]", Leviticus 19:18.

Jewish theologians expressed the principle in these words: "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a. Note it says 'your fellow man'; it does not say 'your fellow Jew'. One must seek not to harm ANY person (though legitimate self-defence is not forbidden, in other places).

This is the principle by which pious Jews and Christians interpret their scriptures and govern their daily lives. It is in fact interpreted as reflecting and expressing God's love and mercy which are shown even toward sinful, weak human beings.

Matthew records that Jesus taught people to love in the same way that God loves:

"But I say to you: Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you, and persecute you; that you may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans do so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect." Matthew 5: 44-48.

Luke records a similar teaching:
"But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again: and your reward shall be great, and you shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind to the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful." Luke 6: 35-36.

Jesus also said: 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbour as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" (Mark 12: 30-31).

By contrast, Islam does not teach the Golden Rule.
Quran 48:29 says: "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other.”

Whereas the Bible says that God is kind even 'to the unthankful and the evil' (which even means you, 'saracen', despite your rejection of Him), the Quran says 'allah' only likes good Muslims. In another thread you said, straightout, that your allah 'HATES' us kafir.

Many passages in the Quran clearly teach Muslims to distrust non-Muslims and not to make friends with them. Many passages teach Muslims to attack non-Muslims.

Everything that the Quran, the Hadith and Sira teach Muslims to do to non-Muslims, show that in Islam non-Muslims are regarded as having no real rights, and as not to be treated in the same way that Muslims are to be treated. (The dhimma pact is institutionalised inequality and indeed, gross injustice).

The following passage from the writings of a famous Sufi 'saint', is horrifying to any moral and fair-minded human being:

"One who respects the kafirs dishonours the Muslims... The real purpose of levying jiziya on them [the kafir] is to humiliate them to such an extent that they may not be able to dress well and to live in grandeur. They should constantly remain terrified and trembling. It is intended to hold them under contempt and to uphold the honour and might of Islam".
Sufi saint Ahmad Sirhindi (1564-1624), letter #163.

There is no charity here, only contempt, and an active will to harm and hurt, to keep the non-Muslims wretchedly poor, powerless and frightened, so that Muslims can prance around arrogantly lording it over them.

In Quran 48:29, and in Surah 9, and in Sirhindi's elaboration upon the command in 9:29 to make the kafir 'feel themselves subdued', I do not see beauty. I see ugliness.

I am not surprised that some people, steeped in such ugly teachings, are prepared to become suicide murderers.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 28, 2008 1:30 AM

Excellent assessment, DDA!

Posted by: champ at January 28, 2008 1:47 AM