Count Senator (Mu)barak Hussein Obama as one of them!

Posted by: pythagoras at February 27, 2008 2:05 PM

Um......am I being cynical by asking if the figures may have been slightly skewed by Taqiya?

Posted by: Abu_Lahab at February 27, 2008 2:07 PM

Pythagoras:

That's a lot of hooey.

Posted by: MarisolJW at February 27, 2008 2:12 PM

Abu Lahab,

Yeah, Dr. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed always team up to skew the results... I take all their polls with a grain of salt..

Cheers

Posted by: Doctor Bulldog at February 27, 2008 2:21 PM

If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear

for example, the verse that says taking one innocent life is like killing all humanity

UUUUUMMMMMMMMM

Posted by: ericthekuffar at February 27, 2008 2:25 PM

"Do you think John Esposito even noticed the chasm of cognitive dissonance widening at his feet?"

Yeah.
He is banking that no one else does.

Posted by: Mr Ape Pig at February 27, 2008 2:27 PM

Marisol:

Obama's 'church' has been investigated first-hand and found to be an active hiding place for Muslims. The IRS is now after the same church.

Thus it's NOT 'hooey'!

Either Obama is either a practicing dhimmi (assistant to Islam an daccessory to jihad) or a practicing Muslim and a jihadist. take your pick.

Posted by: pythagoras at February 27, 2008 2:27 PM

pythagoras - I agree that Obama should be looked at very closely due to this 'church' he belongs to, and that no stone should go unturned given his supposedly shallow Muslim background.

He may not be a Muslim, but he certainly is Mysterious - neither of which sets my mind at ease.

Posted by: champ at February 27, 2008 2:35 PM

Frankly, I, as do others, take this “survey” with a grain of salt. I have taken enough surveys, albeit, non-scientific, within the Muslim community in this city. The results: remain, extremely, vigilant, folks.
Needless to say, I am not some mollycoddling, apologist, leftist, nor am I a Nazi, as some of the trolls paint those posting on this site.
Agreed Pythagoras, the thought of Obama becoming commander-in-chief is blood-chilling. I am more than convinced if Castro was to run for president, the dullard supporters of Obama would have to toss a coin!

Posted by: ballzack at February 27, 2008 2:35 PM

These opinion polls, where it is Muslims who are being polled, are always skewed -- but not, as with other opinion polls, skewed now this way and now that way, but skewed in only one way. No Muslim, being interviewed as to whether or not he "approves" of a terrorist act, is going to say he approves of it if he does not. In other words, there will be no cases in which someone will declare, falsely, that he approves. [Compare a public opinion poll about support for candidates, in which one can imagine, in a despotism, people lying about whom they will support, or even in a democracy, lying in order to meet the expectations, as they see it, of the interviewer. How many Americans right now may be afraid of being thought either "racist" (so answering one way) or "sexist" (so answering another)?]

They are especially skewed because Muslims know perfectly well when the results are to be disseminated among non-Muslims, and they know perfectly well that non-Muslims are watching keenly to see for signs of support for violence.

So the figure of 91 million is not the absolute largest number of Muslims who support the most outrageous and famous attack on non-Muslim civilians, that of 9/11/2001, but the absolute rock-bottom number. And since it is a principle of Islam that "war is deception," since that injunction from Muhammad himself led to religiously-sanctioned dissiumulation, that is not limited to Taqiyya (which originates in Shi'a Islam but is no longer limited to it) and Kitman ("mental reservation") but has become a perfectly normal and natural way for Muslims to deal with non-Muslims when speaking about Islam, the entire spectacle of this Opinion Poll is not one that should comfort anyone, but rather be seen as the ludicrous effort it always was intended to be, to calm our fears.

And when we discount many of the responses as simply designed to allay non-Muslim fears, especially since those fears, if they grow, might actually lead to an ending of Muslim migration to Infidel lands, and that is something they do not wish to see stopped, not now and not ever, or to a hardening of Infidel attitudes toward Muslim demands, made at every level, for changes in the social arrangements (from women's gym hours) to those of the workplace (the demands for prayer rooms and time off, five times a day, for the canonical prayers), to public spaces (again, those prayer rooms or at least those "shared prayer rooms" that quickly become open for "Muslims Only"), to legal codes (demands for the Shari'a to be imposed on Muslims as a "community"), to political institutions (demands for changes in the basic understandings, including the rights guaranteed in this country by the Free Speech and Free Exercise clauses), that Muslims wish to transform so as to longer constitute what they consider an "obstacle" to the spread, and future dominance, of Islam.

It is your guess, or mine, how many answered with a lie.

It is also your guess, and mine, as to how many who claim to have been opposed to the 9/11/2001 attacks nonetheless have no trouble defending terrorist attacks on, say, Israel by Hamas and Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad and, before them all, by the PLO, or defending the terrorism of Pakistani and Indian groups that have driven 400,000 Hindus out of Kashmir, and that result in bombs being set off in Mumbai and attacks on the Indian Parliament in Delhi. And how many of those answering now claim to be opposed to the 9/11/2001 attacks just the way some imams did, when they noisily joined Interfaith Vigils, only for the security services to subsequently discover that their real views -- sometimes caught on tape -- were quite other, forcing some of them to flee abroad, and others to lie low.

What do the defectors say, those who, just like KGB defectors during the Cold War, are the surest and truest guides to what Muslims are taught to think, what the attitudes and atmospherics of those growing up in states or societies or even families sufffused with Islam, really think when they know there are no Infidels around to easvesdrop? We know what the defectors think. Ask Wafa Sultan. Or Nonie Darwish. Or Ibn Warraq, Or Irfan Khawaja. Or Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Or Ali Sina.To a man and a woman, they all think the same thing, about what Islam inculcates, and what a great many Muslims, the overwhelming majority of Muslims, therefore believe. And the numbers of those who support violent Jihad, through what we have no difficulty calling "terrorism" but that they consider to be legitimate "combat" or qitaal, would not then be 91 million, but five or ten times that number.

And what about those who don't support Jihad through terrorism? Oh, those? They support it through other means, through deployment of the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, demographic conquest from within the Bilad al-kufr. If the goal is the same -- the spread and dominance, all over the world, of Islam -- does it matter quite so much which instruments one chooses to further that goal? Is demographic conquest, are campaigns of Da'wa, less of a permanent threat?

Missing-the-pointness is the essence of this sweetly sinister, meant-to-comfort but deeply discomforting, opinion poll.

A word to the wise.

Keep your powder dry.

Count those spoons even faster.

Und so weiter.

Posted by: Hugh at February 27, 2008 2:37 PM

The most pitiful thing about all of this Islam crap we have to deal with? Allah doesn't exist.

I just watched Part 1 of Theo Van Gogh's film "Submission" on youtube, the film he died for. The Muslim woman speaking relates being forced to marry Aziz, whom she is repulsed by, so for her marital relations are just her being raped. In addition, she is beaten and battered by Aziz. Then, she is actually raped by her uncle Hakim, and tells her mother who tells her father who says "Don't question my brother's honor." So, she keeps getting raped by Hakim, who impregantes her.

Throughout all of this horror of a life, for which she will never receive any justice in Islam, she continually calls out to "Allah." Who never responds. Finally, she asks "why do you remain silent?" You see - there it is, allah "remains silent" because there is no Allah.

Any Christian who knows Jesus knows that if you call to Him, he DOES NOT "remain silent." That's because He is a true God and a Living God. He hears and He answers. He cares. Unlike "allah" Jesus IS "compassionate and merciful." This poor Muslim woman calling out to a pagan deity that never existed, a rock idol. The pitifulness of it is beyond belief.

Now I'm going to watch Part 2.

Posted by: darcy at February 27, 2008 2:43 PM

These opinion polls, where it is Muslims who are being polled, are always skewed -- but not, as with other opinion polls, skewed now this way and now that way, but skewed in only one way. No Muslim, being interviewed as to whether or not he "approves" of a terrorist act, is going to say he approves of it if he does not. In other words, there will be no cases in which someone will declare, falsely, that he approves. [Compare a public opinion poll about support for candidates, in which one can imagine, in a despotism, people lying about whom they will support, or even in a democracy, lying in order to meet the expectations, as they see it, of the interviewer. How many Americans right now may be afraid of being thought either "racist" (so answering one way) or "sexist" (so answering another)?]

They are especially skewed because Muslims know perfectly well when the results are to be disseminated among non-Muslims, and they know perfectly well that non-Muslims are watching keenly to see for signs of support for violence.

DUH

Posted by: GrennBeck at February 27, 2008 2:48 PM

“Only 91 million”, Alexander the Great only had a few tens of thousands and he conquered more of the earth then any one else. “Only 91 million”, bah! What a nice way to lure you into a false sense of safety if “Only 91 million” support blowing up markets and shops filled with Kafur just how many do you need to actually carry out these operations we’ve only had a little over ten thousand since 9/11.

“Moderate Muslims interviewed for the poll condemned the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington because innocent lives were lost and civilians killed.”

Errr… right… everyone remember the lesson on this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4

"Some actually cited religious justifications for why they were against 9/11, going as far as to quote from the Koran -- for example, the verse that says taking one innocent life is like killing all humanity," she said.

Oh she means this verse 005.032

“On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”

Nice, now if you read the WHOLE VERSE. It’s a death threat against the Jews. If they touch even one Mohammedan that kills a Jew. Or if they preach their own religion, the Mohammedan would take an eye for an eye and slaughter a WHOLE PEOPLE in return for it.

This, folks, is called Taqqiya! They take their own text out of context to perform this smoke screen and say, “see… it’s peaceful in the Koran”. They just hope you don’t really stop and read the verse they recite. And remember only Mohammedan are innocent.

“Meanwhile, radical Muslims gave political, not religious, reasons for condoning the attacks, the poll showed.”

Mohammedanism is political, there is no “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and render unto God what is God’s” verse in all of the Koran. In fact it’s the opposite, THE ONLY LAWS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ALLAH’S, ALL OTHERS ARE AMN MADE AND TO BE SMASHED, CRUSHED, AND DESTROYED BY THE MUJAHADEEN.

Posted by: senor doeboy at February 27, 2008 2:49 PM

"The poll has given voice to Islam's silent majority, said Mogahed."

Why does it require a poll to give voice to Islam's silent majority? If Islam is being hyjacked by Muslims misrepresenting True Islam, why are they so silent about it?

They're not all that shy about rampaging through the streets, murdering and burning, over a cartoon.

If the pollsters asked if someone should be put to death for apostasy or blasphame against the Prophet or Islam, they would have got a far more accurate picture of Islam's peaceful nature.

But then, that's not what they were looking for.

Posted by: rational at February 27, 2008 2:51 PM

This just in from the Center for Disease Control. When a single case of Mad Cow Disease is discovered, millions and tens of millions of animals are quarantined, and whole herds may be slaughtered. And similar measures are taken for what are, statistically, highly improbable events, including but not limited to other diseases. Think of what happened when a single passenger was believed possibly to be carrying TB, and the enormous coverage given to quarantining him.

Yet, we are told, that in the best of cases, a little less than about 1 out of 10 Muslims openly admits to supporting, still, the mass murder of American and other Infidels during the World Trade Center attack. A little less than 1 out of 10. Allowing for the keen awareness by those resopnding to the poll (and one may assume that all those who refused to participate did so because they did not wish to admit openly to such support) undoubtedly had, that its results would be made known to Infidels, and keeping in mind the enormous effort, from Tariq Ramadan on up and down and sideways, to utter soothing words, to do whatever can be done to explain away Muslim behavior and Muslim statements, so as to keep Infidels from becoming too alarmed and then responding in ways inimicable to the interests of Muslims, surely the real figure is not 1 out of 10 but 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 out of 10.

But what does it mean, if for every 100 Muslim immigrants allowed to freely enter the Western lands, the lands of the infidels, not one out of a million (like that TB patient, like those cows stricken with Mad Cow disease), nor one out of a thousand, nor one out of a hundred, but rather one out of ten, or two out of ten, or five out of ten, can be intelligently assumed to support violent Jihad, or if not Jihad through such spectacular terrorist acts, then less attention-getting terrorist acts, such as those committed against India or Israel, that the world has mostly gotten used to.

Why do we have a different probability we accept, when it comes to life-threatening doctrines and murderous attitudes, then we do with a disease?

In both cases, what is probabilistically acceptable should be the same, or roughly the same. And since, to make matters still more dangerous, there is evidence that second and third generation Muslims become more, not less radical (especially, but not only, in Western Europe) then that is one more reason why we may conclude that the level of danger, to indigenous Infidels, from Muslim immigrants, is even higher than one might otherwise suspect.

Finally, even if not a single Muslim were to declare openly his support for the 9/11/2001 attacks, and for some reason we were to believe this, the next question has not been posed: do you support other means of furthering the goals of Jihad, the duty of Jihad, that is other instruments to make sure that all barriers to the spread of Islam, and then to the dominance of Islam, the necessary dominance of Islam, are removed?

Posted by: Hugh at February 27, 2008 2:55 PM

In Part 2 she continues questioning why through all of her many trials Allah has never helped her. She says again "Yet you remain silent." And "Yet you remain silent like the grave I long for."

Some God.

So, the primary theme of "Submission" is questioning the existence of Allah. Another important comment by the Muslim woman is: "My faith in you feels like self-betrayal."

Indeed.

Posted by: darcy at February 27, 2008 3:00 PM

I don't believe you. You're a liar.

After 9/11 all the 1.5 gazillion Muslims in the world told us that it was done by the Jooozzz, but in their own language they said it was a great victory for Islam.

When we have their regular bouts of Koran rage, pope rage, Teddy Bear rage or cartoon rage all the 2.5 gazillion Muslims are enraged and want to kill us.

Then there are another 3.5 gazillion Muslims who tell us that Islam will dominate, that we must submit to the 'RoP', that we can't possibly fight 4.5 gazillion Muslims and that our children will be Muslim. Add to that the 5.5 gazillion Muslims who want sharia law, now....

We haven't got a chance. We're cooked.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 27, 2008 3:03 PM

I love popular distillations of statistical findings. What in tarnation is "a sample equivalent to 90 percent of the world's Muslims"? I would've also liked some follow-up questions, such as "Who was responsible for the attacks of 2001 which you are condemning?" How many would say: the CIA, the Zionists, those Danish cartoonists?

Posted by: Karl Pov at February 27, 2008 3:03 PM

".........The survey, conducted by the Gallup polling agency over six years and three continents, seeks to dispel the belief held by some in the West that Islam itself is the driving force of radicalism.
It shows that the overwhelming majority of Muslims condemned the attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001 and other subsequent terrorist attacks, the authors of the study said in Washington............"

'Why do muslims hate us?'
Is it....
* because of our foreign policy?
* or because of our [un-ISLAMIC] culture and 'immodest' lifestyle?
* or because we don't bow down, and pray five times a day to the 'father of lies'?
* OR, is it because we EXIST, as a non-muslim community [i.e. because our mere existence as non-muslims, is an 'insult' to ISLAM] ?
http://members.dodo.com.au/~wtt626/troublewithislam2.html#Why_do_they_hate_us

But those who reject (Allah),- for them is destruction, and (Allah) will render their deeds astray (from their mark).
That is because they hate the Revelation of Allah; so He has made their deeds fruitless.
Do they not travel through the earth, and see what was the End of those before them (who did evil)? Allah brought utter destruction on them, and similar (fates await) those who reject Allah.
That is because Allah is the Protector of those who believe, but *those who reject Allah have no protector*. [i.e. You can KILL the Kuffar who reject Allah's way!!! Its OK, because they are un-believers.]
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/047.qmt.html#047.008 - 011

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at February 27, 2008 3:05 PM

This just in from the Center for Disease Control.....

Posted by: Hugh at February 27, 2008 2:55 PM

Separate Hugh F. spinoff entry detected.

Posted by: Shy Guy at February 27, 2008 3:09 PM

ISLAM is a criminal Mafia, masquerading as a religion.

O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html#005.051

i.e. this text above, instructs 'muslims', .....'Those who take un-believers as friends are NOT muslims.'
They are *apostates* [non-muslims].

And the Koran instructs muslims, to take no apostates as friends. And when they oppose you [in Allah's way], kill them. [i.e. apostates, ex-muslims, are non-muslims!]
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.088 & 89

This is ISLAM....
ISLAM is a 'criminal mafia' NOT a religion.
ISLAM's most 'devout' followers, are all encouraged to be murderers, criminals, thugs, liars.

The violence and hatred towards non-muslims who reject ISLAM, is the ISLAMIC 'creed', read the Koran, read the Hadith.

88888888888888888888888
Its not rocket science.
88888888888888888888888

*Mohammad* himself was a mass murderer.
The Jewish tribe of Banu Qureza *surrendered*, and as an exercise of ISLAMIC 'mercy', Muhammad [himself] put that community's 800 men to death.
[historic facts, from muslim texts. muslims are 'proud' of it.]

Read ISLAM's own texts. and 'holy' books.

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at February 27, 2008 3:09 PM

The defense in the Australian Terrorism Trial against Nacer Benbrika:

He said the secretly taped conversations between Benbrika, a deeply religious man, and the men reflected their frustrations at the treatment of "his people" in the Middle East.

The prosecutor has said Benbrika justified jihad in Australia with the Koran, but his lawyer said the Bible and Koran had similar teachings, citing Bible quotes like the "fanatical destruction of whole cities" and a "fanatical, vengeful God."

In reference to Benbrika's criticism of the United States and Australia, his lawyer asked the jury to consider the "evil" the United States had done.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080227/wl_nm/australia_security_trial_dc_1;_ylt=AqDvHrv8Fd8vSeV0XOmBwPgTv5UB

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 27, 2008 3:12 PM

Wiki....

Banu Qurayza

"......In 627 CE, the tribe was charged with treachery and collaboration with the invading armies during the Battle of the Trench and besieged by the Muslims commanded by Muhammad.[1][2] The Banu Qurayza surrendered and all the men, apart from a few who converted to Islam, were beheaded, while all the women and children were enslaved."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza

The Koran states...... that Muhammad is a wonderful example to all muslims.
To emulate Muhammad's life values and actions [regardless of the fact, that he was, in fact, a mass murderer.]

And it seems many, many, muslims in the world today follow this 'holy' admonition in the Koran.

Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/033.qmt.html#033.021

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at February 27, 2008 3:15 PM

"The survey, ... seeks to dispel.."

I have serious problems with a survey that "seeks to dispel". This is a blatent admission that the survey was biased. They had an axe to grind, a theory to prove,... lo, and behold, ... they proved it!

This runs contrary to the results we have seen in other surveys that indicate even the so called "moderate" Moslems hold beliefs and world views similar to radical Islamists.

It also is contradicted by what we see around the world on a nearly daily basis. The riots and violence in Europe, UK, and Southeast Asia, etc, etc, etc.

Check out http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ for an updated list of what the "vast majority of moderate Muslems" are up to on a daily basis.

Posted by: StephenDvd at February 27, 2008 3:18 PM

Better questions to ask Muslims in a poll:

1) Do you believe in the right and necessity for Muslims to defend Islam through qital (physical combat)?

2) List and describe exactly all the things that would justify "self-defense through qital".

3) Do you support Sharia Law?

4) Do you think Sharia Law is superior to Western laws (also ask for specific Western country if Muslim resides there)?

5) Do you think the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights is superior to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? (Questioner cites a few of the most glaring details by which the two differ and asks the question again with reference to these.)

6) Do you support the following provisions of Sharia Law (questioner lists 10 of the worst provisions of Sharia Law)?

7) Do you hope and desire that Sharia Law will come to dominate over the West and replace existing laws?

8) What methods and measures do you support to hasten the eventual domination of Sharia Law over the West? If Muslim says he supports none, ask him to describe how that eventual domination will concretely take place.

I think these questions would tend to make greater numbers of Muslim respondents answer honestly.

Posted by: cantor at February 27, 2008 3:25 PM

"The survey, conducted by the Gallup polling agency over six years and three continents, seeks to dispel the belief held by some in the West that Islam itself is the driving force of radicalism."

Well cats out of the bag. That's the problem with all these lefty PC arranged polls and surveys, they SEEK to prove something. In other words the end result is pre-determined, just make it so.

Posted by: Sounder at February 27, 2008 3:26 PM

Of course, the 1.2 billion "moderates" are themselves targets for the jihadists. At the present kill ratio for victims/bombers, it's an open question if they will run out of victims before they run out of bombers.

Posted by: ebonystone at February 27, 2008 3:35 PM

from the main story....

".........But only seven percent of the billion Muslims surveyed -- the radicals -- condoned the attacks on the United States in 2001, the poll showed.
*Moderate Muslims* interviewed for the poll condemned the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington because innocent lives were lost and civilians killed.........."

There are no 'moderate muslims'.
If a 'muslim' is moderate in his world view, he is an apostate - he is [deemed by real muslims to be], a NON-MUSLIM.

*By definition*, a muslim [who follows the dictates of his 'religion'] is a Jihadist.

All real muslim follows the example of Muhammad's life.
The same Muhammad, who was a mass murderer.

Yep, i guess muslims, are all, ......real muslims!

All muslims who emulate Muhammad, .........are liars, deceivers, violent thugs, murderers [emulating their great chief pirate].

And all of these personal values are 'sanctified', and highly praised, in their *death cult*.

"....Further, what some non-muslims call 'moderate' ISLAM, is only rank deception, 'moderate' ISLAM is a 'mythical' creature, perpetrated upon the Kuffar, by real muslims.
Pointedly, 'moderate' ISLAM [is an illusion, a 'vapour', which] seemingly flourishes inside non-muslim nations.
But [strangely] 'moderate' ISLAM appears to be an unwelcome, and unclean, 'beast' in all ISLAMIC states?
Why?"
http://members.dodo.com.au/~wtt626/troublewithislam1.html

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at February 27, 2008 3:46 PM

Only 91 million? I thought that by now it's already 91 billion.

Of lies there is no end.

Posted by: unicorns62000 at February 27, 2008 3:46 PM

from my last post.....

"......All muslims who emulate Muhammad, .........are liars, deceivers, violent thugs, murderers [emulating their great chief pirate]......"

Muhammad, a murderer? A deceiver?
Read the Hadith, it records this information about an assassination, *procured by the chief pirate*....
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html#005.059.369

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at February 27, 2008 3:52 PM

7% is hardly a 'tiny' minority. If anything, it is far greater than the 1% people were led to believe.

Posted by: Rogster at February 27, 2008 4:01 PM

MarisolJW,

He (Obama) can't seem to shake the stench* from his person, no matter how much (too much) one doth protest. Attempts to wash him clean, even when coming from such an eminent authority on Islam as Mr. Spencer, does not wash the whiff of the poison of Arabia from his persona.

Nor does his association with "Palestinian" causes and such non-friends of Israel as Zbigniew Brzezinski, Anthony Lake, Robert O. Malley and Susan Rice help make him appear as cleansed and guiltless.
--------------
*of Islam

Posted by: unicorns62000 at February 27, 2008 4:02 PM

Sheik yer mami

Sure, there are a lot of them but the numbers are actually their achilles heel, even as it seems to be their strength. They have to feed that bunch and I think you may have noticed that they don't spend a lot of their time working in the fields. Further..they are far from united. Their hatred for Jews and Christians is only rivaled by the hatred they have for each other. When things get worse..things will get better, if you follow me.
Have faith..hang in there.

Posted by: pismopal at February 27, 2008 4:11 PM

They should take a poll as to how many of us believe in the crud called, 'moderate muslims', or 'moderate islam' anymore.

I don't. I believe taqiyya is much more prevalent than 'moderate' muslims. And I also believe that our own are completely, insanely stupid as to what it is. I say 'insanely' because I think too many chose ignorance in spit of what happens around this globe concerning muslim on non-muslim violence.

Posted by: R_not at February 27, 2008 4:30 PM

Sheik
In reference to Benbrika's criticism of the United States and Australia, his lawyer asked the jury to consider the "evil" the United States had done.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7PQw4J3ilo

Posted by: interestinconundrum at February 27, 2008 4:34 PM

"The survey, conducted by the Gallup polling agency over six years and three continents, seeks to dispel the belief held by some in the West that Islam itself is the driving force of radicalism."

So basically they had their answer, they just needed to collect some data and then conclude that the data supported their hypothesis. Highly scientific!

Posted by: mitch_b at February 27, 2008 4:39 PM

verse 005.032 “On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. “

Posted by: senor doeboy

It looks simple enough on the surface, but “taken out of context”. The real meaning is in the word choice:

1. “the whole people” is the Ummah
2. “slew a person” and “murder” is killing one, or more, of Allah's 'believers'
3. “spreading mischief” means hindering in any way the spread of Islam.

So what this verse really means is don’t interfere with Arab supremacist spread of Islam, you Children of Israel, or it will be bad for you. Allah’s messenger commands it. Don’t get in the way or you’re crucified, your fingers get cut off, your head chopped, your hands and feet cut off on alternate sides. Know who you are dealing with, oh Children of Israel, or we will get you. That is the real “in context” meaning of that superficially benign verse. Yep, this is their threat, know who you are dealing with…. Or else.

This opinion poll is a farce.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at February 27, 2008 4:55 PM

Battle_of_Tours said....

"...........if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people......
It looks simple enough on the surface, but “taken out of context”. The real meaning is in the word choice:
1. “the whole people” is the **Ummah**......"

Precisely!!

Kill muslims = wrong.
Kill Kuffar who resist ISLAM / Allah = right, and encouraged.

Muslims, ......such deceitful people.
ISLAM a false 'religion', for a false people.

Muslims must never knowingly kill **another [devout] muslim** --- is the ISLAMIC intent.

"........If a man kills *a believer* intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever): And the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.092 & 93 !

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at February 27, 2008 5:13 PM

ONLY 91 MILLION?

Well, just nineteen were able to kill thousands of people (an average of at least 157 innocents killed by each hijacker) ground US air travel for more than two days.

91 million divided by 19 = 4,789,473 (minimum attacks we can expect)?

Why is Islam's majority still SILENT?
Answer: they are in agreement with jihadists. A silent majority is an acquiescent majority. If they were so offended by the "hijackers of Islam" they would have done something long before now. They haven't. Case closed.

Posted by: PMK at February 27, 2008 5:22 PM

(posted in two different JW articles for your enjoyment- the more that read it the better)

If your logic is applied then every single Muslim is a violent, animal, without a grain of civilisation in his/her body, which you will deny ever having said, but you just did and you say it all the time.

This article needs to be corrected because it is a massive understatement to suggest only 91 million Muslims are jihadists, because the real figure is more closer 1.3 billion. Do you know why that is? Because they spend every single day of their lives (not all of them) fighting against their inner desires, and the whisperings of Satan to avoid true worship. It is one of your finest achievements to convince people jihad means 'holy war.' It is a sign of ignorance that you cannot even apply the correct meaning to something even when you acknowledge its true meaning, you still deny it.
'Don't listen to him he's an apologist.'

How do you define 'the war on terror? What is it called? Your president said it was a 'crusade' didn't he?

Hypocrisy in the extreme. You apply the wrong meaning to something, giving Muslims no chance in the first place.
Then do the same thing, call it by a different name, to make it seem acceptable.

Anything can be distorted. I can say Hitler, was a Christian, even though he was, I cannot refer to him as a Christian who read the bible- particularly the books of Matthew and John - to justify his actions against the Jews. I wouldn't do it anyway. But the point is, he's not a Christian in your eyes. Had a Muslim done the same thing, in your eyes, he's not an evil man, or a tyrant, he's a Muslim, before all else.

This is because to you jihad means 'holy war.' It means Muslims should bomb themselves, it means they should target civilians and woman and children, it means they should attack without being aggressed, it also means, they should emigrate to all corners of the world, to cause problems for those people, replace their laws with Sharia, disrespect them and their way of life.

There is a peaceful solution to all this and thats just leave their countries. If Bin Laden was the cause of 9/11, you would have captured him and killed him by now, but you haven't because you want to continue saying there are terrorists there. If it's the case that you have no evidence linking him with 9/11, then leave the country, whats the point of you being there.

Iraq is just the same; weapons inspectors couldn't find any weapons or any link with Al-Qaeda so leave their country.

Till then, of course they are going to be angry that you have taken over their country. I'm not justifying the things they do or the things your soldiers do, but to end it, all you have to do is leave their countries and let them decide.

To the people that committed the London, Madrid bombings, I don't care what you say they are not Muslim, they are just the same criminals as Hitler, Franco, Mussolini and Pinochet.

What have you got to attack a Muslim when I won't support the actions of a criminal who claims to be a Muslim, neither will I forget your hypocrisy, since the greed and lust for power of the West, is directly and indirectly involved in the suffering of people around the world?

Posted by: thesaracen at February 27, 2008 5:23 PM

in my last post.....

".......Muslims, ......such deceitful people.
ISLAM, a false 'religion', for a false people......"

Defining the muslim psyche, .......muslims are all KUFFAR.

Using *their own definition*, ALL MUSLIMS ARE KUFFAR.....

FROM THE WIKI SITE, AN EXPLANATION OF THE WORD 'KUFFAR'...
"...is an Arabic word meaning an unbeliever, a person who **hides**, **denies**, or **covers the truth**....an...infidel."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuffar

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at February 27, 2008 5:29 PM

Why is Islam's majority still SILENT?

--PMK

IT JUST OPENED ITS MOUTH (FIGURATIVELY)--see comment by "thesaracen."

Posted by: unicorns62000 at February 27, 2008 5:32 PM

CORRECTION......

".....I am truly sorry that Dubya is such *TREACHEROUS* a dolt."

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at February 27, 2008 5:39 PM

I've been visiting a couple of atheist websites and I am appalled at the fixation on Christianity. They are convinced that Christians are the boogey men and Islam is just a foreign problem.

The next time any of you run into these people and they start repeating the abortion clinic violence clap-trap, send them to this site:

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/history_extreme.asp

Then ask them what violence?

Posted by: Pelayo at February 27, 2008 5:47 PM

Is thesaracen still worshiping Allah? I thought he would have out grown that by now.

Posted by: duh_swami at February 27, 2008 5:53 PM

Pelayo said....

".....The next time any of you run into these people and they start repeating the abortion clinic violence clap-trap, send them to this site:......"

As far as i could see, 13 incidents listed since 2001.

Compared to 10,644 ISLAMIC terror incidents since 9/11, all *causing deaths*.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Good one Pelayo.

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at February 27, 2008 5:58 PM

"A billion Muslims should be the ones that we look to, to understand what they believe, rather than a vocal minority," she told AFP.
-----------------------------------------------
Actions speak a lot louder than words. If the moderate muslims aren't doing or saying anything to combat radicalism, then I guess we can understand what those moderates believe, can't we.

Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at February 27, 2008 6:43 PM

thes - my new nickname for you is Ostrich Man:

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1673824/2/istockphoto_1673824_hiding_ostrich_man.jpg

Posted by: champ at February 27, 2008 6:44 PM

"A billion Muslims should be the ones that we look to, to understand what they believe, rather than a vocal minority," she told AFP.
-----------------------------------------------
Here's another thing: 91 million jihadist is quite a large number. It makes no difference what the majority believe, if the 91 million are looking to kill as many "infidels" as they can.

If each of those 91 million kill one "infidel", then that means that 91 million innocent people will be killed by these nut jobs. That's "a whole lot of genocide going on", and it's probably a conservative estimate.

After all, the nut jobs are training their children to do the same, and they're having as many babies as possible.

In conclusion, the religion that 91 million people adhere to is a terrorist mafia religion for those 91 million people, and so, yes, we should definitely be concerned about the dangers of Islam.

Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at February 27, 2008 6:48 PM

Champ said....

.....something about Ostriches???

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/4932/88095000sb1.jpg

pity the image is not a lil larger.

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at February 27, 2008 6:51 PM

PU! ....lol

Posted by: champ at February 27, 2008 6:54 PM

Finally, a solid number for Jack Bauer's Secret Weapon to get to work on.

Posted by: Bosch Fawstin at February 27, 2008 7:03 PM

The figure of 91 Million isn't what bothers me. It's the fact that there's a spectrum of islamic activists who may not be prepared to be violent themselves but are all too willing to place themselves into a position of influence whereby they can assist violent muslims to accomplish their goal.

Just look at the DoD situation.

Posted by: Abu_Lahab at February 27, 2008 7:15 PM

LOL you people are strange. I won't be enticed into exchanging childish remarks. Ezekiel no need for hostility, because you wouldn't be laughing if I do it to you. You'd only bring it out the anti-semitic card.

How come Christians and Jews claim to share a bond, this friendship, when the Jews deny Jesus?

I've heard the term 'Judeo-Christian values' many times, but both sides claim to have religious superiority over the other.

Do you believe in Jesus Christ Ezekiel?

And if not, why not?

Posted by: thesaracen at February 27, 2008 7:16 PM

"The radicals are better educated, have better jobs, and are more hopeful with regard to the future than mainstream Muslims," John Esposito

Wow! Remember, he gets paid to say such earth shattering stuff. This is a top notch quote!

Esposito Math: 1+1 = -3, or it could be 1+1 = 2 1/2

It all depends on who he is enlightening. Bizarre...

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at February 27, 2008 7:17 PM

Mark Twain said it best (I think it was him)...

"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics"

Do I smell Taqiyya cooking?

"Kuffirs of the world, Unite!"
"Islam, abusing women and children since 622AD"

Posted by: OregonJake at February 27, 2008 7:18 PM

To The Saracen:

I'm sure you're a decent fellow, from your posts, without ill will for anyone, nor do you hate the 'infidels', and you probably feel we are unfair in our criticism of your faith. But do not take any of this personally. It is not you as a person that worries writers on this board, if I may say this, but what the history of your faith had come to represent in its more violent and belligerent aspects, something you have denied, so naturally you get flack for it. Here is how we see it, if I may, and why we feel you are laboring under such a tremendous burden as a believer in Islam, not as a faith of a personal belief in Allah, but as a politicized belief system promoted by your scholars and clerics who advocate Sharia law, and Islamic supremacy over man-made laws for the whole world. Here are the obstacles to peace posed by Islam:

1. Submission to your messenger's Allah means total surrender, to believe entirely on faith, which means also suspending reason, so all you may do is obey without questioning.

2. Obedience without questioning means you are forbidden, by the logic of your faith, from using your reason in any form of doubt as to what your prophet Mohammad had said to you in the uncreated word of Allah.

3. If you doubt, or use your reason, it is the work of the devil trying to sway you from a pure faith in your messenger's Allah, so must be resisted with all your might, which in part means internal Jihad resistance.

4. Anyone criticizing or in any way finding fault in your faith is therefore obviously responding to the devil's taunts to doubt the faith, so must be resisted with another external Jihad, against the infidels who question your faith, or Mohammad, or Allah's uncreated word.

5. Total submission as a true slave of Allah is the highest good, while questioning the faith or doubting anything written in the uncreated word of Allah is the gravest evil and must be resisted with all your strength.

6. Anytime someone not of the faith says anything against Islam, he or she must be resisted by the logic of all of the above.

Now, Saracen, do I have you figured out pretty well here? Is this why you feel compelled to keep coming back to this board, to set us straight because we are questioning, even ridiculing your faith, so it must be resisted with a verbal Jihad? Even if you are the nicest Muslim on Earth, is this not an obligation of yours to resist such criticisms? So when a teddy bear is named after the prophet, or cartoons drawn, or the Pope says something against the faith, is it not your duty to correct it? And if this takes violent demonstrations, all in a good cause for Allah and his messenger, is this not the highest good you can do as proof of your faith? You are duty bound to resist such mischief by the infidels who would doubt and question, and their use of devil inspired reason, to correct them, to show them how wrong they are. Why is this so important to you, and your religion? The answer is so simple that is defies logic to not see it: You must resist any temptation by the devil from swaying you away from a total belief without question of your messenger's uncreated word of your god Allah. Is this not the real reason you come here over and over again, even if you had said you posted your last?

You are not a bad fellow, of this I am quite sure, and you mean well. But can you see what terrible burden you carry in your obligation to obey in submission without questioning, or the use of reason which is from the devil, to preserve your faith? Islam puts this 'check' on you, that you must obey. And if there is anything that seems wrong with the faith, or the behaviors of Islam's followers, then it must be from external causes, like those Joows conspiracies, or evil Amerika, or Bush and company, all evil inspired by the devil? Is this not so? And to further check on your true compliance with your messenger's uncreated word of Allah, your are further checked by the Hadiths. And if that all still doesn't work to keep you in check, then there is the final 'death for apostasy' check mate, if you failed in your total submission to Allah. Do I have that right so far?

So where does that leave us who are not obliged to obey in full submission to your god, but have the right to question, to reason, to seek the God of the Universe in our personal beliefs, or atheistic nonbeliefs, or freedoms to exist as free beings, not agents of the devils, but as light filled beings of love, of compassion, and the use of our reason and logic, to know God better than you? So why do you feel you must correct us in our thinking, or that Robert and Hugh and all of us are evil people who put down your religion? We are a free people, unbowed before all the checks of submission to which you are obliged to bow in your obedience to your messenger's Allah, and we have the right as free men and women to stand tall and upright as human beings; not like you who have all those rights denied: the right to question and use reason. Is this it, Saracen, why you keep coming back, like a child outside a candy store, who is not allowed to have joy in life, but must fear hell in every moment of their waking being? Is that why? Envy or just curiosity? Either way, you are welcome. Life is beautiful.

If this is so, then read and learn. We who are the free do not bow down in submission to some 7th century Arabian desert dweller's idea of what is the uncreated word of Allah. We are free to stand tall and proud of our freedoms, and our heritage of freedom as human beings filled with love and compassion for all human beings, regardless of race or gender, and even for those whose yoke of submission weighs heavy on their necks. We are not against you, since you are probably a decent fellow. But we do disagree with your totally unacceptable lack of freedom, or lack of reason, or your slavery to Allah in total submission. Still, you will read this and wonder why is this a bad thing, it should be a good thing, to be in total submission to Allah in every breath you take. That we cannot help you with, until you unlock yourself from slavery, which only you can do.

Do not make the mistake to think that because we can think, and reason and question, that we are agents of the devil. Rather, it appears to us the other way around, that those who commit murder in the name of your faith are those agents of evil, 1400 years of evil, and we are duty bound to resist them with every breath we take. I hope you will learn to understand this. Your Jihad is nothing next to ours, and we will prove far more formidable than you can imagine, because we can think. And our 'Jihad' had not yet begun.

As salaam aleikum, with a glass of wine ;)

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at February 27, 2008 7:23 PM

I just deleted a number of comments with a gratuitous number of scripture passages and some proselytizing.

This is a non-sectarian site. Please refrain from both of those.

And don't feed the trolls.

Posted by: MarisolJW at February 27, 2008 7:36 PM

thesaracen said....

> LOL you people are strange. I won't be enticed into exchanging childish remarks. Ezekiel no need for hostility, because you wouldn't be laughing if I do it to you. You'd only bring it out the anti-semitic card.

I'm not Jewish.

> How come Christians and Jews claim to share a bond, this friendship, when the Jews deny Jesus?

Jesus was a Jew.
He *is* the Jewish messiah.

Jesus Christ, the Hebrew *atonement sacrifice*.

Exodus 12:5
Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:
6 And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.
7 And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it.

Leviticus 16:15
¶Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:
16 And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.

Hebrews 9:22
And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Why do you think the bible uses these [following] specific words thesaracen ?...

Matthew 27:25
Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. [See, jews redeemed!!!! They share in the messiahs blood. :) ]

Isaiah 43:1
¶But now thus saith the LORD that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for *I have redeemed thee*, I have called thee by thy name; *thou art mine*.

Israel are a 'chosen', 'special' people.

Physical Israel are redeemed by God.
The children of Israel were chosen [as a special people among mankind] to show Gods [spiritual] redemption plan.
When Jesus [the Jewish messiah] 'arrived', the Jews didn't 'get it', they were blind to the TRUTH of who he was.

1 Corinthians 10:11
Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

But all Israel are redeemed.

Romans 11:26
And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: *but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes*.
29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Israel are beloved of their God, their spiritual father [the spiritual father of ALL mankind].

Physical Israel made a covenant with God.
later, Israel sinned against God's covenant.
Israel were rebuked, *and were punished* in the dispersion among the nations [spiritual debt paid].

And Israel will share in the atonement sacrifice of Jesus, the *Jewish* messiah.

Zechariah 12:10
And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: *and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced*, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
Zechariah 13:1 ¶In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness.

Joel 2:28
¶And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.
30 And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.
31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.
32 And it shall come to pass, that *whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD* shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.

> I've heard the term 'Judeo-Christian values' many times, but both sides claim to have religious superiority over the other.

> Do you believe in Jesus Christ Ezekiel?

Yes.

> And if not, why not?

Again, yes.

Today, muslim hatred of the brothers, is a sin against God.
Muslims must repent, or face Gods wrath that is coming, upon all who do wickedness in this earth [in this flesh, made of the earth].

thesaracen you should read the Bible.
If you did you would realise how much of what is happening today, parallels endtime Jewish prophecy.
Read Isaiah.

Enough said

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at February 27, 2008 7:58 PM

How come Christians and Jews claim to share a bond even though Jews deny Christ?
paraphrase from above

Where do I begin? By Christian I know you mean someone born in the west because to a muslim, Hitler was a Christian. muslims don't get the picture of what is a Jew or a Christian but they never will so let me proceed. I think the bond has something to do with the fact that Israel and the west don't do violence to their neighbors in the name of religion. Israel and the west don't murder people because of their belief or disbelief in any form of religion. When the people of certain nations are hated and murdered and persecuted because the religious fanatics of islamic nations feel that their god compels them to do so...well..yes, there can be a bond there. In fact, the muslim habit of fleeing to a host nation (dumb enough to allow it) and then turning on that host nation by plotting the murder of their fellow non muslim citizens (the ones who pay the welfare checks), has caused many world wide to see what islam actually is. The bond is getting tighter and more universal. More and more westerners are becoming educated to the aims of islam and someday the whole non islamic world will turn into the enemy of your worst nightmares. This has nothing to do with who believes in Christ or no. This has to do with the rejection of an evil, violent and intolerant theocracy that has to be defeated utterly and decidedly for all time. There is no choice.

Posted by: pismopal at February 27, 2008 8:00 PM

Ezekiel--

I'm going to assume you may not have seen my comment at 7:36pm. Please read it.

Posted by: MarisolJW at February 27, 2008 8:00 PM

MarisolJW said......

I just deleted a number of comments with a gratuitous number of scripture passages and some proselytizing.

This is a non-sectarian site. Please refrain from both of those.

And don't feed the trolls.

MarisolJW, question......

How come i can freely quote **ISLAMIC** scripture on JW......
....but i am not allowed to quote Christian scripture....

....in responding to ISLAMIC lies, in answering people like the thesaracen ?

Your choice, but if i can't speak to the issues involving ISLAM **fully** ,
.....what is the point of me being here???

Perhaps its better if i just stop posting all together.

Result for ppl like the thesaracen......

Muslims, 1
Non-muslims, 0

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at February 27, 2008 8:05 PM

How come i can freely quote **ISLAMIC** scripture on JW..........but i am not allowed to quote Christian scripture....

Because this site is about the jihadist threat, its motivations, goals, and its basis in Islamic texts and teachings-- something which so many, including "counterterror" analysts, often will not deal with.

And there's a difference in quoting scripture to make a relevant textual comparison (see the "Jesus v. Muhammad" sidebars in The Politically Incorrect Guide) or refute claims Muslim apologists (or the just plain ignorant) make about certain biblical passages, and proselytizing.

Posted by: MarisolJW at February 27, 2008 8:13 PM

One can quote Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira -- or allow Muslim posters to do so -- in the right spirit. That right spirit is to note what is contained in those texts or, in the case of the carefully bowdlerized versions put up by Muslim apologists, what is being omitted, and what is being presented in misleading fashion. The site is not one where proselytizing, whether Christian, Jewish, Hindu or other non-Muslim, should take place. What is being held up for inspection, analysis, and discussion are the texts, tenets, attitudes, atmospherics of Islam. The wonderfulness of another faith is not, here, the point.

Posted by: Hugh at February 27, 2008 8:21 PM

Hugh.....

OK

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at February 27, 2008 8:25 PM

Would it be suprising that even during WWII, the Nazis had Arab support. Here is a URL about a conversation during that era.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/mufti2.html

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at February 27, 2008 8:38 PM

There is a peaceful solution to all this and thats just leave their countries.

Posted by: thesaracen at February 27, 2008 5:23 PM

More witless, inaccurate banter from 'thesaracen', this offering a bit more weepy, however.

Apparently, 'thesaracen' knows as much about his brethren than the masses in the West do...nothing.

Leaving Iraq is a peaceful solution? It seems that 'thesaracen' hasn't opened a newspaper or turned on the TV in a few years. The only other explanation is that saracen's definition of "peace" is consistent with many of his co-religionists...endless strife, chaos and bloodshed. Islamists don't even need any infidels around to whip up the fury. They are more than capable, alone.

Posted by: awake at February 27, 2008 8:44 PM

"The survey, conducted by the Gallup polling agency over six years and three continents, seeks to dispel the belief held by some in the West that Islam itself is the driving force of radicalism."

If that was the aim, then it failed. The more that I learn about Islam, as a member of the "some", the more persuaded I am that Islam itself is the driving force of radicalism.

Gallup spent a lot of time and money to discover the obvious, no?

Posted by: Lex at February 27, 2008 9:15 PM

darcy:

al-lah is an idol, the origins of which are mesolpotamian. al-lah's alternate name is of course baal.

That is the extent to which al-lah exists (in the minds of very backward, primitive people).

Posted by: pythagoras at February 27, 2008 9:33 PM

Maybe it's because I've never studied statistics, but I fail to see how "the poll, based on more than 50,000 interviews" two paragraphs later becomes "the billion Muslims surveyed". Even if we ignore the inherent bias of a study which seeks to prove something, and also the unsoundness of such a survey as touched upon by Hugh, how are we to consider an apparent sample size of ~0.004% accurate or representative, let alone "a sample equivalent to 90 percent of the world's Muslims"? That's some truly olympian extrapolation.

Posted by: crosseyedcyclops at February 27, 2008 9:33 PM

1.3 billion Muslims? Wasn't it 1.2 billion 6 months ago? Can anyone even verify this data?

Any study involving John Esposito is an outright lie.

John,
Recite the shahada and be done with it.

Posted by: PRCalDude at February 27, 2008 9:40 PM

crosseyedcyclops,

It's a Carl Sagan-esque "billions and billions" kind of extrapolation, ya know?

Luv your name!

Posted by: Lex at February 27, 2008 9:48 PM

Observations to prod thinking;
1) Why does the article give percentages (low 7%) instead of the 91,000,000 radical muslims calculated by the honorable ( I mean that literally!) Robert Spencer? My humble opinion..the same reason a car salesman tells you that it's only a few dollars more per month to get the extra options. It's a sales job..question..why are we getting a 'sales job'? Who's behind it ? What are their motives?
Hugh: Your closing comments about renouncing all forms of jihad ( soft, medium or hard boiled) and imposing Sharia on us infidels brings to mind another question. Why in the 1950's did immigrants to the USA have to swear that they had never been or were not a member of the Communist party? Why did they have to pledge loyalty to this great nation? Why is that standard not applied now?
Marisol: I respect your monitoring the message board to prevent proselytizing. Even though I am a Christian and enjoy seeing it touted instead of denigrated, there is a time and place. What a world it would be if everyone thought that way!

Posted by: Americantothecore at February 27, 2008 9:54 PM

Ezekiel
if your not Jewish then the question doesn't really apply to you. Had you been a Jew, you would not have said he is the messiah. Basically the Jews would disagree with you on Jesus. So since I can't discuss the topic let's leave it at that.

On this topic, maybe your forgetting that you have illegally gone into Iraq? Like I said, the Iraqi's are mightily pissed off with you. Just leave their country and you will have no reason to worry about terrorism.
Will someone come forward and tell me why Bush can't see this obvious solution, which will end this bloodshed?

91 million jihadists- what is jihad is my question to you?

Posted by: thesaracen at February 27, 2008 9:57 PM

It seems apparent that islam itself is the enemy.

Can we reach out to the unfortunates born into this faith and ideology and still reject islam ?

If we are to save ourselves, there isn't really much choice.

We might have to.

The faith is at best a sham, producing either empty all over the football field smiling types like the empty O, or raving fanatics like Zawahiri.

Does it have a religious leader of widely accepted stature who is admirable ? Is Farrakan admirable ? Are the Mullahs admirable ?

Posted by: dgene at February 27, 2008 9:58 PM

thesaracen said....

".....91 million jihadists- what is jihad is my question to you?....."

My question to you thesaracen....

Why do 'muslims' accept the prophet hood of Muhammad, when the whole of ISLAM is based, is built upon, the the words [and i will say this again, the words] which passed through the lips of *one* man.

To believe in ISLAM, you are compelled to accept as true, the utterances of ONE single man, a self professed warlord, a murderer, a pirate, a brigand, a **deceiver**, a thief.

ISLAM in its entirety, is based upon the utterances of *one* man, Muhammad.

The cult of ISLAM is a false 'religion', ISLAM is entirely an edifice of falsehood and lies.

i.e. All of the obvious errors in the Koran....

example1, calling Jesus, 'Jesus Christ' ['Christ' means messiah], this wording is in the Koran.

example2, refering to, identifying, Mary [Miriam], the sister of Aaron [and Moses], as the mother of, ...Jesus.
Koran 19:27-34
Falshood upon falsehood, that is ISLAM.
THE KORAN...
WHAT UTTER, UTTER, UTTER, UTTER, UTTER, ....'INERRANT', RUBBISH!

Don't muslims read the Koran in their own language???

Or do muslims just recite the Koran, parrot fashion, in Arabic [not their native language].
I believe that his is what happens?

Wasn't Muhammad just a warlord / deceiver?

What proof is there of his profit hood?

Muhammad, a murderer? A deceiver?
The Hadith as a record says this....
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html#005.059.369

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at February 27, 2008 10:19 PM

At 91 million, all they have to do is ask for mass political asylum, build one suicide vest each, and take out 4 Americans per jihadi, and they win.

I guess they're waiting for Obama to win before they apply.

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 27, 2008 10:21 PM

CORRECTION

".....What proof is there of his profit hood?....."

......er, profit hood.
:)))

I know Muhammad got his 1/5 of all the war booty.
....so it was profit-able.

What proof is there of his PROPHET HOOD?

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at February 27, 2008 10:25 PM

Thanks Lex. I'm quite fond of it too. Inspires an image of supreme, almost constipated focus. >=)

Billions upon billions notwithstanding, I think Sagan would be in awe of these guys. Applying their numbers elsewhere, it's like asking Roger Clemens' foot if it has ever used steroids, then claiming based on the answer that none of the 700 active Major League Baseball players have ever used steroids.

Posted by: crosseyedcyclops at February 27, 2008 10:35 PM

Like I said, the Iraqi's are mightily pissed off with you. Just leave their country and you will have no reason to worry about terrorism.

Posted by: thesaracen at February 27, 2008 9:57 PM

All of them are pissed off, even the remnants of the slaughtered Kurds under Hussein's regime? Or maybe you think that after Saddam invaded Kuwait and was rightfully rebuffed by UN driven, US lead, coalition forces, with subsequent sanctions and resolutions of which he violated no fewer than 17 times, that he and his regime had no rimpetus to comply with?

Leave Iraq and poof!, Islamic terrorism disappears? Well I could agree with that 'thesaracen' if and only if it is logical to ignore the chronology of history. Please, refresh my memory saracen. What Islamic country was the US occupying right before 9/11?

Posted by: awake at February 27, 2008 10:36 PM

"A billion Muslims should be the ones that we look to, to understand what they believe, rather than a vocal minority," she told AFP.

Multitudes of these are illiterate, and can't read or write in any language, so where do they get 'what they believe'. Bingo!!! From the Imams of course.
Friday evening sermon, bought to you by the snarling, west, and infidel hating, Imam.
He will tell them what Allah wants them to do, and how to go about it. Why ask a few billion muslims what they believe, when we can ask a few thousand Imams. We kind of know what they believe, because they tell us all the time, often following up with deeds. The vocal minority are the Imams, and their source material is what?? The Wiccan Book of The dead? Nope, the wicked book of Allah, co-authored by his chief scribe and henchman, Mohammad.
As nearly everyone who is anyone knows, muslims are not encouraged to look too deeply into things best left to scholarly Imams, like ahadith.
Thanks to the internet, many 'are' looking into it, and many of those are leaving Islam. So looking to what the billions believe, is the same as looking at what the Imams believe...Mirror images...

Posted by: duh_swami at February 27, 2008 10:42 PM

Ezekiel2012
Christians do not talk like that. You are a complete fake. They do not speak this blasphemy.

Since you believe that the Qu'ran is a lie. Tell me what is the true Christian believer test (Mark(16:17-18) and what does it involve? I already know it does not only apply to the disciples and so on,it applies to every Christian.

I'm gonna retire for the night, but by tomorrow if you have a shred of credibility, you will have answered my question?

Posted by: thesaracen at February 27, 2008 10:43 PM

In the 'inerrant' Koran...

Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be *Christ Jesus*, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah;
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.045

And.....

"O sister of Aaron!...." mother of 'prophet Jesus'
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/019.qmt.html#019.027 - 34

Not really so inerrant is it?

Don't any muslims actually read the Koran?

Or do they let their clerics interpret all things for them?
.......even the errors?

So that these errors wont hurt the ears of silly muslims?

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at February 27, 2008 10:43 PM

A loooong time ago when my hair had not yet turned grey, the American voters lashed out against the Republicans and elected a Democrat president. A good ole boy from Georgia.

The only difference between that good ole boy and Obama may only be the color of their skin.

Posted by: Pelayo at February 27, 2008 10:46 PM

To Ezekiel and all other readers,

Sorry to interrupt your "feeding the trolls", but I have recommended several times this book by Craig Winn, author of "Prophet of Doom".

http://prophetofdoom.net/Prophet_of_Doom_Islams_Terrorist_Dogma_in_Muhammads_Own_Words.Islam

You can read the book on-line or download it as a *.pdf file. It's about 1000 pages, but the file size is quite compact. Thus you can read at your leisure.

But do read it! Then when you're done with that, be sure to check out his synopsis of the Quran:

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/POD_Quran.Islam

This reference is "must download and save" file. For future reference to the "authority" and veracity of the Quran.

To my knowledge, our friend, TheSaracen, has not yet bothered to read either.

I did.

Posted by: boneshack at February 27, 2008 10:55 PM

thesaracen said......

"......Christians do not talk like that. You are a complete fake. They do not speak this blasphemy........"

What 'blasphemy'?

The TRUTH you mean?
That Muhammad was a mass murderer, and a fake prophet?
Why do you think that TRUTH blasphemy?

Murder most foul......
Banu Qurayza

"......In 627 CE, the tribe was charged with treachery and collaboration with the invading armies during the Battle of the Trench and besieged by the Muslims commanded by Muhammad.[1][2] The Banu Qurayza surrendered and all the men, apart from a few who converted to Islam, were beheaded, while all the women and children were enslaved."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza

Regards the question.....
".....Tell me what is the true Christian believer test (Mark(16:17-18) and what does it involve?....."

.......I could *easily* answer this thesaracen .
But i am not allowed to [quote Christian scripture here].

But that doesn't have to stop you replying to *my* question.

If you can?

And giving proof of why you believe in Muhammad's prophet hood.

Another question thesaracen, do you worship the God of Israel?
Did Moses worship the God of Israel?

Why don't muslims????

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at February 27, 2008 10:59 PM

I know Muhammad got his 1/5 of all the war booty.
....so it was profit-able.
What proof is there of his PROPHET HOOD?
Posted by: Ezekiel2012

The proof was in the pudding, a camel ate that in the year 635. Allah and Mohammad got 1/5th of the loot. It was never disclosed, that I know of, just how Allah split it with Mohammad. Nor is it stated what Allah did with his share. I suspect he bought building materials, to build more rooms on the Paradise Hotel and Brothel. While there is some evidence that Mohammad made a few donations to the poor and needy, I don't think it is recorded that Allah ever donated anything, Gabriel either.
Not big spenders, or overly generous, either one of them. They totally punked out at Mohammad's death. Didn't even bother to show up. And after all he did for them... :)

Posted by: duh_swami at February 27, 2008 11:01 PM

boneshack said....

"....Sorry to interrupt your "feeding the trolls", but I have recommended several times this book by Craig Winn, author of "Prophet of Doom"....."

Feeding the trolls.
:)))

boneshack, POD, i'm familiar with the online version, and Winn's site [though have not been there in > 12 months now].
An interesting read.

Good info on his site too.

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at February 27, 2008 11:15 PM

thesaracen: To the people that committed the London, Madrid bombings, I don't care what you say they are not Muslim, they are just the same criminals as Hitler, Franco, Mussolini and Pinochet.

HMM, but 'they' say they are muslims. Who should we believe, you or them?
I don't think it is within your purview to decide who is a muslim and who is not. Unless you are accusing them of apostasy, in which case, it is your duty to kill them.

Sorry Allah knocked you out and you had to go to bed. Protect yourself from Iblis while you sleep, put cotton up your nose and in your ears. That will keep him out...Maybe...

Posted by: duh_swami at February 27, 2008 11:19 PM

Theserasen: To the people that committed the London, Madrid bombings, I don't care what you say they are not Muslim, they are just the same criminals as Hitler, Franco, Mussolini and Pinochet.

HMM, but 'they' say they are muslims. Who should we believe, you or them?
I don't think it is within your purview to decide who is a muslim and who is not. Unless you are accusing them of apostasy, in which case, it is your duty to kill them.

Sorry Allah knocked you out and you had to go to bed. Protect yourself from Iblis while you sleep, put cotton up your nose and in your ears. That will keep him out...

Posted by: duh_swami at February 27, 2008 11:19 PM

The analogy that comes to my mind is a steaming pile of dung (Islam). A steaming pile of dung stinks (Jihad). You can add ventilation (policemen), or spray flowery scents on the dung (jizya) to temporarily reduce the stench.

But there is no way to keep a steaming pile of dung from stinking. It just does.

Posted by: pez at February 27, 2008 11:24 PM

We should ask our own leaders why they continue to tell us not to condemn Islam, and instead prop up new Islamist nations in the Balkans, create mock-democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan without using the U.S. Constitution as the model and why they import more Muslims than ever before into Europe and the United States, Australia, Ireland, Iceland and every other nation on Earth.

Yes, I'd like to do that.

Trouble is, I'm beginning to know the answers to my own questions and you aren't going to like to hear them.

More on that on another day...

Posted by: Foehammer at February 27, 2008 11:29 PM

I have a phrase rattling around in my head that I heard about statistics that I thought would fit this thread, but I can't for the life of me remember. Maybe someone will remember it.

What I do remember is that statistics are almost meaningless and can easily be made to say or prove or show just about anything. As others have noted the wording of the article gives away the motive for the survey ie. "We know what is true lets ask a few questions to get the result." That is way the questions are all important.

I am not a statistician but I would venture to say that if you don't have ten carefully worded questions you will get back misleading results and the more questions the less misleading the results. Say ten or twenty or thirty well worded questions. And as one poster noted sampling only 0.004% of the population is fraught with more error. On top of that the culture of Islam is so different, we are usually talking past one another. Not counting 'taqiyya' which is almost away of life for them.

The bottom line, as one of the first posters said, "That's a lot of hooey."

PS thesaracen, Jesus rose from the dead. Were is Mohammad?

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at February 27, 2008 11:30 PM

First of all, with everyone talking about Taqiyyah: In Shi'a Islam, Taqiyyah means to conceal one's faith and/or beliefs when one's life is in danger. Most Sunnis reject Taqiyyah altogether. Taqiyya does not constitute a part of either the Shi'a Roots or Branches of Religion, in the same manner as, for example, the Hijab rules do not. The practice was a method of self-preservation for the Shi'as who historically were the minority and severely persecuted and oppressed by Sunni Muslims. Shi'as say that Sunnis would sometimes force them to curse the House of Ali - believing that no devout Shi'a could commit such an act. Ayatollah Sistani, a 21st century Shi'a Islamic scholar states:

1) Taqiyah is done for safety reasons. For example, a person fears that he might be killed or harmed, if he does not observe Taqiyah. In this case, it is obligatory to observe Taqiyah.
2) Reconciliatory Taqiyah. This type of Taqiyah is done when a person intends to reconcile with the other side or when he intends to soften their hearts. This kind of Taqiyah is permissible but not obligatory.
3) Sometimes, Taqiyah may cause a more important obligation to be lost or missed, if so it is forbidden. For example, when I know that silence would cause oppression and infidelity to spread and will make people go astray, in such a situation it is not permissible to be silent and to dissimulate.
4) Sometimes, Taqiyah may lead to the death of an innocent person. If so, it is not permissible. It is therefore haram (forbidden) to kill another person to save your own life.

And by the way, Jihad is only permissible in self defense or when the an attack on the Islamic State is imminent:

"Fight in the cause of Allah those against those who fight you, but do not transgress, for Allah loves not the transgressor. Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers." (Sura Al-Baqarah (2):190-193)

Fighting in defense is considered obligatory upon Muslims, according to the Qur'an. The Qur'an, however, says that should enemy hostile behavior cease, then the reason for engaging such enemy also lapses. The Hanafi school of thought holds that war can only be launched against a state that had resorted to armed conflict against the Muslims. War, according to the Hanafis, can't simply be made because a state was not Islamic. Muhammad ibn Idris ash-Shafi`i, founder of the Shafi'i school of thought, was the first to permit offensive jihad (200 years after Muhammad). He limited this warfare against pagan Arabs only, not permitting it against non-Arab non-Muslims. Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, a well-known Pakistani Islamic scholar, exegete, and educationist, states that after Muhammad and his companions, there is no concept in Islam (until Shafi'i) obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam. The only valid basis for military jihad is to end oppression when all other measures have failed. Islam completely prohibits the killing of those who have not participated in war. Commentators of the Quran agree that Muslims should always be willing and ready to negotiate peace with the other party without any hesitation. According to Maududi, Islam does not permit Muslims to reject peace and continue bloodshed.

By the way, regarding suicide bombing: The Oxford-based Malayist jurist, Shaykh Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti, issued his landmark fatwa on suicide bombing titled 'Defending the Transgressed, by Censuring the Reckless against the Killing of Civilians'. Also, one of Shia Islam's highest ranking marja clerics, Ayatollah al-Udhma Yousof al-Sanei also decreed a fatwa against suicide bombing, declaring it as a "terrorist act" There are many scholastic refutations of suicide bombings. Ihsanic Intelligence, an Islamic think-tank, published their 2-year study into suicide bombings, titled 'The Hijacked Caravan', which concluded that, "The technique of suicide bombing is anathema, antithetical and abhorrent to Islam. It is considered forbidden... a reprehensible innovation in the Islamic ... an enormity of sin combining suicide and murder and theologically an act which has consequences of eternal damnation." Present Muslim sentiments are almost certainly motivated by political reasons (ie occupation of Palestine by Israel, Arab media gives a LOT of sympathy to Palestinians). Anti-Semitism and extremism in the Islamic world is a relatively new phenomenal. People forget that antisemitism was extremely common in the Christian world right up to the end of WWII. In 2006, Imam Khaleel Mohammed (yes, he’s an Imam), an associate professor of Religion at San Diego State University said that “95% of contemporary Muslims are exposed to anti-Semitic teachings, beginning between the ages of 5 and 8. And we know that things learned at this stage of life become ingrained, almost to the point of being in one's DNA.” In a 2004 interview, Professor Khaleel created quite a bit of controversy in the Islamic community when he said that Qur’an 5:21 says that Israel belongs to the Jews: “(Moses said): 'O my people! Enter the Holy Land which God has written for you, and do not turn tail, otherwise you will be losers.” See "Von den Jüden und iren Lügen" (On the Jews and Their Lies) by Martin Luther. . We can interpret the anti-Semitism in the Islamic World as another development that will end sooner or later. In his "World without Islam" essay, Graham Fuller, former vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council at the CIA and a professor of history at Simon Fraser University, analyzed the “internal dynamics of the region without religion” and- realized that a Middle East without Islam would still be “complex and conflicted.”

Posted by: Comment at February 27, 2008 11:46 PM

"Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be *Christ Jesus*, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah" http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.045 ~From Ezekiel's post.

I don't know about you, but I can't help laughing a little at the very idea of a passage from the Qur'an being written in King James' English. Did he commission such a version on the sly?

Posted by: Lex at February 27, 2008 11:47 PM

Sorry about double post. Question, why did the last word, 'maybe' appear on one post but not the other.
Allah works in strange and mysterious ways, Mostly strange and mysterious...

Posted by: duh_swami at February 27, 2008 11:49 PM

"...apostasy, in which case, it is your duty to kill them."- duh_swami

The validity of execution has historically been heavily criticized. Wael Hallaq states the death penalty was a new element added later and "reflects a later reality and does not stand in accord with the deeds of the Prophet." Montazeri believes that it is probable that the punishment was prescribed by Muhammad during early Islam - due to political conspiracies against Islam and Muslims, and not only because of changing the belief or expressing it. Islamic jurists, such as Shafi`i Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa and Shi'a Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, argued or issued fatwas that the changing of religion is not punishable. Medieval Muslim scholars, like Sufyan al-Thawri and modern, like Hasan at-Turabi, have argued that the hadith used to justify execution of apostates should be taken to apply only to political betrayal of the Muslim community, rather than to apostasy in general. These scholars argue for the freedom to convert to and from Islam without legal penalty, and consider the aforementioned Hadith quote as insufficient confirmation of harsh punishment. : S. A. Rahman, a former Chief Justice of Pakistan, argues that there is no indication of the death penalty in the Qur'an. Abdullah Saeed and Hassan Saeed argue that the law of apostasy and its punishment by death in Islamic law conflicts with a variety of fundamentals of Islam. They contend that the early development of the law of apostasy was essentially a religio-political tool, and that there was a large diversity of opinion among early Muslims on the punishment. Although execution was accepted by most in early Islam, many medieval Islamic jurists, notably the Hanafi jurist Sarakhsi, Maliki jurist Ibn al-Walid al-Baji and Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyyah, held that apostasy carries no legal punishment.

Posted by: Comment at February 27, 2008 11:53 PM

Comment wrote, "Professor Khaleel created quite a bit of controversy in the Islamic community when he said that Qur’an 5:21 says that Israel belongs to the Jews."

I'll bet he did, and he's still alive?

Posted by: Lex at February 27, 2008 11:55 PM

Comment, don't you find it just a tad disconcerting that early Islam would allow execution as a punishment for apostasy, whatever the context, while early Christianity's most severe punishment for apostasy was to be banished from the fellowship?

Islam is superior to Christianity, right?

Posted by: Lex at February 28, 2008 12:08 AM

@Comment

What you say may or may not be correct, that is not the point. THE POINT is that 91 million are saying something else. You are preaching to the wrong group. We, could careless about the specifics of the Koran. They are the ones reading it differently and no one is telling them.

As far as 'taqiyah' goes it means justified lying. Good old making wrong/right. Christians were given the choose to admit they were Christians or lie. But God never condone lying and honors those that were willing to die because of faith in Him. Do please, give us a better word for what they practice, which is lying continually to infidels.

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at February 28, 2008 12:19 AM

@Comment

What you say may or may not be correct, that is not the point. THE POINT is that 91 million are saying something else. You are preaching to the wrong group. We, could careless about the specifics of the Koran. They are the ones reading it differently and no one is telling them.

As far as 'taqiyah' goes it means justified lying. Good old making wrong/right. Christians were given the choose to admit they were Christians or lie. But God never condone lying and honors those that were willing to die because of faith in Him. Do please, give us a better word for what they practice, which is lying continually to infidels.

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at February 28, 2008 12:20 AM

A poster above,"comment" at 11:53 p.m., known to all of us as a tireless apologist for Islam, exaggerates both the number of those Islamic scholars who accept, and the persuasive force of, arguments against the death penalty for apostates within Islam. He lifts almost all of his text from Wikipedia’s entry on Apostasy in Islam, but is careful to leave out the important parts.

Here is the Wikipedia entry:
“Apostasy in Islam (Arabic: ارتداد, irtidād or ridda) is commonly defined as the rejection of Islam in word or deed by a person who has been a Muslim.
The four major Sunni and one major Shia Madh'hab (schools of Islamic jurisprudence) agree that a sane adult male apostate must be executed.[1] They differ on the punishment for a female apostate - some schools calling for death and others for imprisonment. Whether Sharia laws governing apostasy are derived from the hadith traditions alone or also from the Quran is disputed. According to Wael Hallaq nothing of the apostasy law are derived from the Qur'an,[2] although the jurist al-Shafi'i interpreted the Quranic verse [Qur'an 2:217] as providing the main evidence for apostasy being a capital crime in Islam.[3]
A minority of medieval Islamic jurists, such as Hanafi jurist Sarakhsi,[4] Maliki jurist Ibn al-Walid al-Baji, and Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyyah,[5] and some contemporary Islamic jurists, such as Shafi`i Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa[6][7] and Shi'a Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri,[8] argued or issued fatwas that either the changing of religion is not punishable or is only punishable under restricted circumstances, but these minority opinions have not found broad acceptance among the majority of Islamic scholars.[9][10][11][12]”
And here is how the Muslim-apologist poster, “comment,” uses carefully-edited parts of the Wikipedia comment just quoted above:

“The validity of execution has historically been heavily criticized. Wael Hallaq states the death penalty was a new element added later and "reflects a later reality and does not stand in accord with the deeds of the Prophet." [Note that “comment” implies that Wael Hallaq, author of a recent work on Islamic [Sunni] law, was one of those who “heavily criticized” the “validity of execution.” That is a natural implication of mentioning him just after the first sentence, but a false one. For Wael Hallaq does not “criticize” so much as note that the punishment for apostasy is derived from the Sunnah [the Hadith] rather than from a specific provision of the Qur’an. That goes to the sources. But for Muslims to whom the Sunnah is as important (and in some cases even more important) than the Qur’an, this source for the punishment for apostasy is as convincing as would be a Qur’anic passage.
And “comment” mentions, more than once, Ayatollah Montazeri:
“Montazeri believes that it is probable that the punishment was prescribed by Muhammad during early Islam - due to political conspiracies against Islam and Muslims, and not only because of changing the belief or expressing it. Islamic jurists, such as Shafi`i Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa and Shi'a Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, argued or issued fatwas that the changing of religion is not punishable. Medieval Muslim scholars, like Sufyan al-Thawri and modern, like Hasan at-Turabi, have argued that the hadith used to justify execution of apostates should be taken to apply only to political betrayal of the Muslim community, rather than to apostasy in general. These scholars argue for the freedom to convert to and from Islam without legal penalty, and consider the aforementioned Hadith quote as insufficient confirmation of harsh punishment. : S. A. Rahman, a former Chief Justice of Pakistan, argues that there is no indication of the death penalty in the Qur'an. Abdullah Saeed and Hassan Saeed argue that the law of apostasy and its punishment by death in Islamic law conflicts with a variety of fundamentals of Islam. They contend that the early development of the law of apostasy was essentially a religio-political tool, and that there was a large diversity of opinion among early Muslims on the punishment. Although execution was accepted by most in early Islam, many medieval Islamic jurists, notably the Hanafi jurist Sarakhsi, Maliki jurist Ibn al-Walid al-Baji and Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyyah, held that apostasy carries no legal punishment.”

But the question is: what do Muslims actually appear to believe, and what do they act on? Does Montazeri’s view of apostasy and the punishment for it, even if we accept “comment”’s interpretation, prevail in Iran? No. It does not. It has no force, it is merely an argument, of appeal to only a handful. The primitive masses will never give up their notion of what should be done to apostates from Islam, and it is those primitive Muslim masses whom apostates must worry about.

Furthermore, for “comment” to describe Hasan al-Turabi (or "at-Turabi") as anything like a stout defender of the right to apostasy is absurd, and he knows why. For it was in the Sudan that a well-known dissenter was put to death for apostasy, though in his 80s, by the ferocious regime of which Hassan Al-Turabi was a key figure.

How much of his sly misrepresentation, and his nonsense, and his lies, does he expect visitors to this site to accept? We have eyes. We can look around the world. We know the punishments trhat Muslims-turned-Christians are threatened with -- like the man in Afghanistan a few months ago, in "moderate" and "Western-backed" Afghanistan. And all kinds of cases could be adduced, from that of Robert Hossein (Qambar) in Kuwait, that caused such a stir a decade ago, until he was forced back (by the "moderate" Kuwaitis) to recant -- with his business seized, his wife and children taken away, and then he himself threatened with death, and to become a Muslim, at least outwardly, once again.

Do the Qur'an and Hadith on the matter of apostasy have to be quoted again? "He who changes his religion [i.e., Islam] must be killed." We know it. "Comment" knows it. But he would like to try, yet again, to convince us otherwise.

Since the Muslim poster attempting to pull the wool over our eyes about the punishment for apostasy – often carried out by vigilantes, and the state is secure in the knowledge that many such people exist, and all the state need do is to let them work their will, and do nothing to stop them – relied on Wikipedia, I will offer up what Wikipedia offers on the subject of recent attacks on apostates from Islam, mainly but not exclusively in Muslim countries:
“The greatest threat to apostates in the Muslim world derives from individuals who take punishment into their own hands, because they know they will not be held accountable by the authorities. An example among many is the case of a Bangladeshi Murtad Fitri Christian evangelist who was stabbed while returning home from a film version of the Gospel of Luke.[27] Bangladesh does not have a law against apostasy, but some Imams encourage the killing of all non-Muslims; so, someone was incited to kill the man. Many ex-Muslims in Great Britain have faced abuse, violence, and even murder at the hands of Muslims;[28] one estimate suggests there are 200,000 apostates in Britain. There are similar reports of violent intimidation of those electing to reject Islam in other Western countries.[29]
• In 1980 Pakistan incorporated making any disparaging remark against any personality revered in Islam into the penal code as an offence. In 1986 the law was extended to specifically include "Penal Code 295-C: Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of [Muhammad]: whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of [Muhammad], shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine." In October 1990, the Federal Shariat Court (FSC) ruled that "the penalty for contempt of [Muhammad]... is death and nothing else." In their 1996 report on Pakistan, Amnesty International stated that these laws have been extensively abused to harass members of religious minorities such as Christians and Ahmadis and that
"In all the cases known to Amnesty International, these charges have been arbitrarily brought, founded solely on the individual's minority religious beliefs or on malicious accusations against individuals of the Muslim majority who advocate novel ideas. The available evidence indicates that charges were brought as a measure to intimidate and punish members of minority religious communities or non-conforming members of the majority community and that the hostility towards minority groups appeared in many cases compounded by personal enmity, professional envy or economic rivalry or a desire to gain political advantage" .[30]
An example of the passions and the feelings of extreme outrage that are evoked within the Muslim community is provided by Amnesty International's 2005 Report on Pakistan:
• Samuel Masih, a 27-year-old Christian, was arrested in August 2003 and charged with having thrown litter on the ground near a mosque in Lahore. This was deemed an offence under section 295 of the Pakistan Penal Code, which provides up to two years’ imprisonment for defiling a place of worship. Samuel Masih was held in a Lahore prison but transferred to hospital in May, suffering from tuberculosis. He died after his police guard attacked him in the hospital. The police officer stated that he had done his “religious duty”; he was charged with murder.[31]
Other examples of persecution of apostates converting to Christianity have been given by the Barnabas Fund from Kuwait, Sudan, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Egypt, and Bangladesh. Barnabas Fund report concludes:
"The field of apostasy and blasphemy and related “crimes” is thus obviously a complex syndrome within all Muslim societies which touches a raw nerve and always arouses great emotional outbursts against the perceived acts of treason, betrayal and attacks on Islam and its honour. While there are a few brave dissenting voices within Muslim societies, the threat of the application of the apostasy and blasphemy laws against any who criticize its application is an efficient weapon used to intimidate opponents, silence criticism, punish rivals, reject innovations and reform, and keep non-Muslim communities in their place."
Similar views are expressed by the 'non-religious' International Humanist and Ethical Union.[32]

This article does not cite any references or sources. (June 2007)
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.
• In March 2006 an Afghan citizen Abdul Rahman was charged with apostasy and could have faced the death penalty for converting to Christianity. His case attracted much international attention with Western countries condemning Afghanistan for persecuting a convert. Charges against Abdul Rahman were dismissed on technical grounds by the Afghan court after intervention by the president Hamid Karzai. He was released and left the country to find refuge in Italy. [33]
• Two other Afghan converts to Christianity were arrested in March and their fate is unknown. In February, yet other converts had their homes raided by police.[34]
• Bahá'ís in Iran, the nation of origin of the Bahá'í Faith and Iran's largest religious minority, are considered apostates by the Shi'a clergy because of their claim to a valid religious revelation subsequent to that of Muhammad. Iranian law therefore treats Bahá'ís as heretics rather than members of an independent religion, as they describe themselves. Bahá'ís have therefore been subjected to much persecution (documented by various third party entities such as the United Nations, Amnesty International, and the European Union) including beatings, torture, unjustified executions, false imprisonment, confiscation and destruction of property owned by individuals and the Bahá'í community, denial of employment, denial of government benefits, denial of civil rights and liberties, and denial of access to higher education.[35]
• Since the 1990s, the Islamic Republic of Iran has used death squads against converts, including major Protestant leaders, and under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, engaged in a systematic campaign to track down and reconvert or kill those who have changed their religion from Islam.[36]
• In 2003, Egyptian security forces arrested 22 converts and people who had helped them. Some were tortured, and one, Isam Abdul Fathr, died in custody. Last year, Gaseer Mohamed Mahmoud was whipped and had his toenails pulled out by police, and was told he would be imprisoned until he gave up Christianity.[37]
• It appears that actual state-ordered executions are rarer than killings by vigilantes, mobs, and family members, sometimes with state acquiescence. In the last two years in Afghanistan, Islamist militants have murdered at least five Christians who had converted from Islam.[38]
• Vigilantes have killed, beaten, and threatened converts in Pakistan, the Palestinian territories, Turkey, Nigeria, Indonesia, Somalia, and Kenya. In November, Iranian convert Ghorban Tourani was stabbed to death by a group of fanatical Muslims. In December, Nigerian pastor Zacheous Habu Bu Ngwenche was attacked for allegedly hiding a convert. In January, in Turkey, Kamil Kiroglu was beaten unconscious and threatened with death if he refused to deny his Christian faith and return to Islam.[39]
• On March 21, 2006, the Algerian parliament approved a new law requiring imprisonment for two to five years and a fine between five and ten thousand euros for anyone "trying to call on a Muslim to embrace another religion." The same penalty applies to anyone who "stores or circulates publications or audio-visual or other means aiming at destabilizing attachment to Islam."[40]
• Converts and Baha'is are not the only ones subject to such violence. Ahmadis, whom many Muslims regard as heretics, suffer a similar fate throughout the Muslim world. The victims also include many Muslims who question restrictive interpretations of Islam. In traditionally moderate Indonesia, Yusman Roy is now serving two years in prison for leading prayers in Indonesian and Arabic instead of only in Arabic. [41]
• In April 2006 after a court case in Egypt recognized the Bahá'í Faith, members of the clergy convinced the government to appeal the court decision. One member of parliament, Gamal Akl of the opposition Muslim Brotherhood, said the Bahá'ís were infidels who should be killed on the grounds that they had changed their religion.[42]
• On January 21 2007, the Central Council of Ex-Muslims was founded in Germany, an association lead by exil-Iranian Mina Ahadi and Turkish-German immigrant Arzu Toker. The association stands up for former muslims who chose to abandon Islam. Shortly after going public on February 28 2007, the group received death threats by radical islamists[43]
• On April 18 2007, two Turkish converts to Christianity, Necati Aydin and Uğur Yüksel were killed in Malatya / Turkey Malatya bible publishing firm murders. The attackers slit their throat having tortured them for several hours and stated that they did it in order to defend the state and their religion. The government and other officials in Turkey had in the past criticized Christian missionary work while the European Union, which Turkey hopes to join, has called for more freedom for the Christian minority.[44]

I don’t think “comment” will cease to try to mislead us. He has to. It’s his job. It’s part of his jihad. He’s only doing his duty, as a good Muslim.

Posted by: Hugh at February 28, 2008 12:30 AM

Hell suggested,

“We, could careless about the specifics of the Koran.” (sic)

Huh? RS blogs the Koran, remember?

Whatever happened to “Know thy enemy”?

Posted by: skevin at February 28, 2008 12:40 AM

Thank you Hugh,

Taqqiya artist like comment are so tiresome. Every time they post I have to go research where they got their lines. Why? Because most of the time they leave half (or more) of the information out in the for of telling half truths and distortions.

I now have a new axiom to tell when a Mohammedan or their apologist are lying.

How can you tell when a Mohammedan is performing Taqqiya? When they are speaking in front of Kafur. It's that simple.

And now the Trolls shall howl.

Posted by: senor doeboy at February 28, 2008 12:52 AM

@skevin

My statement was in response to the misdirection and valueless drivel about this taqiyya and that taqiyya. My statement stands on the fact that comment was giving a snow job. I know enough about cesspools without jumping in and I know enough about the Koran without caring about the variations of lying they preform.

What did you learn out of comment's valueless comment other than reading almost unpronounceable names?

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at February 28, 2008 12:55 AM

Dig the following from here:

http://www.marxists.de/religion/harman/pt09.htm

“The Islamists are not our allies. They are representatives of a class which seeks to influence the working class, and which, in so far as it succeeds, pulls workers either in the direction of futile and disastrous adventurism or in the direction of a reactionary capitulation to the existing system – or often to the first followed by the second.”

Think of it. It is possible to criticize the American left from a strictly Marxist perspective.

Islam is a petty-bourgeois ideology that alienates the worker from the means of production.

Gonna get me onto some strictly Marxist e-mail lists, and have me some fun!

Posted by: skevin at February 28, 2008 1:40 AM

Comment,

I'm still waiting for your responses to my questions on this previous thread from Dhimmi Watch:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/020080.php#comments

Posted by: cantor at February 28, 2008 2:49 AM

Hugh notes in his comment to Comment:

"apostasy is derived from the Sunnah [the Hadith] rather than from a specific provision of the Qur’an. That goes to the sources. But for Muslims to whom the Sunnah is as important (and in some cases even more important) than the Qur’an, this source for the punishment for apostasy is as convincing as would be a Qur’anic passage."

Not only that, but as Chibli Mallat, a Muslim historian of Islamic law wrote:

“...none [of the 4 schools of Islamic Law] would disagree with the statement attributed to the Syrian jurist Awza’i (died 774 a.d.) that the Book [the Koran] is in greater need of the sunnah than sunnah is of the Book.”

From Islamic to Middle Eastern Law a Restatement of the Field (Part I)
The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Autumn, 2003), p. 724

Posted by: cantor at February 28, 2008 2:59 AM

91 Million jihadis, that is STILL A LOT of jihadis!

Plus did not the Koran commanded Muslims to support jihad, even if it is by financial support?

True, not all Muslims are into jihad, BUT they are under obligation to be supportive.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at February 28, 2008 5:51 AM

Assalamau Laikum all,

Many here have been talking about your next president Barak Obama being a muslim/wuslim or not. This disgusting yet delightful dabate has been made worse by Hillary’s camp in releasing the photo of him dressed as his ancestors would have.

One sure way to know I feel is if someone can identify if he has had the khitaanaan in childhood. The khitaanaan as you may not know is circumcision and obligatory to muslims (unless medically prohibited).

Circumcision is the most frequent operation on males in Islamic countries. The performance of circumcision is one of the rules of cleanliness in Islam. It is reported by Abu Hurairah that the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) mentioned:

Five are the acts quite akin to fitra: circumcision, shaving the pubes, cutting the nails, plucking the hair under the armpits and clipping (or shaving) the moustache (Recorded in "Sahih Muslim", "Sahih Bukhari", "Musnad Ahmed" and "Sunnah At-Tirmidhi").

The word fitra in relation to cleanliness implies an inner sense of cleanliness in man which is proof of his moral convictions and mental health.

Ofcourse as the Amerike becomes more Islamic, many of your grandsons too will undergo the khitaanaan.

The Prophet Muhd (pbuh) recommended performing circumcision at an early age....)champ please take note).

The chosen time is the 7th day after birth, but it can be carried out up to 40 days after birth or thereafter until the age of 7 years, depending upon the health of the infant or child at the time.

Jazakum Allahu Khieran for looking after the cleaniness of your grandsons who will the next generation of stalwarts of Islam.

Posted by: Naseem at February 28, 2008 6:25 AM

Warning to readers:

This "Naseem" claims to be a Muslim woman living in Pakistan.

Several people have noted on numerous occasions the many incongruities in "her" scenario, not least of all being that "Naseem" is a man's name. This person is likely not a Muslim at all, as is suggested by several of his more absurd posts. He is either not a woman or is so ignorant of actual Islamic culture that he didn't know "Naseem" was a man's name until it was too late, and had to concoct a phony story accordingly. And he is not in Pakistan: his IP traces to Winchester in the UK.

I am leaning toward banning him at this point, but even if I don't I do urge you to ignore him and recognize him for what he is: a non-Muslim provocateur enjoying getting you riled.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at February 28, 2008 7:13 AM

TAKE A SMACK IN THE HEAD! Muslims can't leave the islamic murder cult because they are allah's slaves (abdullah), and a slave contract with the nominal deity is unbreakable. Muslims exterminate contract breachers because they believe they are allah's viceregents on earth.

We have to look at West Muslims in generational terms. Youth tend to be even more fanatic than their parents. Muslims are a threat, period. I advocate the deportation of each and every one of them. And that includes clowns like Irshad Manji who delude themselves into thinking that a slave of allah is free to adopt a personal philosophy (madhab).

Posted by: supercargo at February 28, 2008 7:16 AM

Addendum:

Just think about it for a minute: when actual Muslims comment on this site, they don't taunt and play Tokyo Rose. They invariably insist that Islam is peaceful and that Muslims are victims, etc.

Posted by: jihadwatch at February 28, 2008 7:17 AM

"I have a phrase rattling around in my head that I heard about statistics that I thought would fit this thread, but I can't for the life of me remember. Maybe someone will remember it."

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL!

Here are a couple of expressions that are relevant: "There are lies, then there are Damn Lies, and then there are STATISTICS." And "Figures can't lie, but liars can figure."

Posted by: ebonystone at February 28, 2008 7:53 AM

Assalamau Laikum Mr. Spencer,

So you think that Naseem is soley a man's muslim name is it.

So why don't you ask these womens that they are also called Naseem:

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=165786098

http://www.indmedica.com/cdis/cdis.cfm?cdid=518&catid=16

http://www.healthgrades.com/directory_search/physician/profiles/dr-md-reports/dr-attia-naseem-md-8dde5c85.cfm

One them.... the doctor is in New York....why don't you look her up and ask her why she is not a Man.

It is like I said in a previous thread somewhere....you may know a lot about the ingredients of Islam...but (unlike me)you are not a muslim. You look at things from afar and can never understand Islam completely....and you make such a basic mistake about names....

Mr. Spencer....You don't have to ban me, I always said that when you don't want me here...I'll stop posting and so I will keep my promise and thus...

This is my ever last posting here on JW

It seems though that for you there is a way to go to learn about Islam...

know that like the examples I gave... many of the future Amerike womens will be called Naseem too.

Goodbye to all

Allah Hafiz

Ameen

Posted by: Naseem at February 28, 2008 8:03 AM

"Naseem"

Interesting that you didn't explain why you're posting from Winchester in Britain and claiming to be in Pakistan. Winchester ain't Pakistan yet.

As for your "Naseem" links, two of them use the name as a surname. Don't you know the difference? As for the third, when I was in college I knew a woman who had an an aunt named "William." Her existence did not change the fact that William is a man's name.

As for your stopping posting here, goodbye, and thank you for leaving.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at February 28, 2008 8:17 AM

Naseem the Crybaby boohoos to Robert, "You look at things from afar and can never understand Islam completely."

Uh, Naseem, womanly woman that you are, it seems to me that to understand Islam as completely as you would prefer of Islam's critics, a person would have to be to somewhat insane, because only then would it make perfect sense, like it did to that 7th century Arabian Psychofiend that you know and love so well.

Posted by: Lex at February 28, 2008 8:24 AM

Goodbye Naseem and thanks for honoring Robert's wishes.

Posted by: awake at February 28, 2008 8:41 AM

118 comments, evidence of Naseem or a troll. I am not calling Naseem a troll.

After more discussion at one of those atheist sites, I have a new definition for agnostic. An agnostic is an atheist with an open mind.

I'm an agnostic.

I may have heard that a long time ago and it just now floated the the surface.

Posted by: Pelayo at February 28, 2008 9:27 AM

Robert, I have an Uncle and a female cousin both named Leslie.

Posted by: Pelayo at February 28, 2008 9:31 AM

Robert,

"Warning to readers:

This "Naseem" claims to be a Muslim woman living in Pakistan.

Several people have noted on numerous occasions the many incongruities in "her" scenario, not least of all being that "Naseem" is a man's name. This person is likely not a Muslim at all, as is suggested by several of his more absurd posts. He is either not a woman or is so ignorant of actual Islamic culture that he didn't know "Naseem" was a man's name until it was too late, and had to concoct a phony story accordingly. And he is not in Pakistan: his IP traces to Winchester in the UK.

I am leaning toward banning him at this point, but even if I don't I do urge you to ignore him and recognize him for what he is: a non-Muslim provocateur enjoying getting you riled.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch"

Robert, thank-you for your wise decision to "ban" Naseem. The way the postings have been going, it looked more like this Naseem troll is really not Muslim to begin with. For the most part, I have put him on my mental ignore a long time ago. Plus the way the postings coming from Naseem have become, the postings have become much more strange as time went on. Overall, this should send a needed message to any trolls, Muslim or non-Muslim attempts to hijack discussion threads will not be tolerated.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at February 28, 2008 10:08 AM

GOOD BYE and THANK-YOU Naseem for doing THE RIGHT THING by leaving JW/DW.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at February 28, 2008 10:14 AM

Naseem's probably gone already. So bye Naseem. It's been lots of laughs, but all good things must end...

Thank's Hugh for responding about apostasy/death penalty. You did a much better job than I would have...

Posted by: duh_swami at February 28, 2008 11:40 AM

Comment,

Would it suprise you that on 9/11/01 when word of the attacks that took place in America had happened, many Palistine Arabs in the West Bank and in the Gaza celibrated the attacks? Goes to show there is still support for violent jihad.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at February 28, 2008 12:02 PM

@ebonystone

LOL thanks for those I will adopt them for future use. These were not what I remember but just as good.

Thank you

PS Im.less.mad.now 8^)

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at February 28, 2008 12:11 PM

I should expand on something I said earlier to thesaracen to better explain:

So why do you feel you must correct us in our thinking, or that Robert and Hugh and all of us are evil people who put down your religion?

I do not think Robert and Hugh and all who post here “put down” Islam, the religion, though it may appear that way to some Muslims. What I meant is that we are free to criticize Islam, especially the coercive Sharia and Jihad aspects of the faith that are political in nature, those ideas of total mind control ‘submission’ to Mohammad’s ‘uncreated word of Allah’ that drive so many evil doings by Islamists around the world. These evils acts in the name of Islam are unacceptable in modern civilized society, anywhere on the globe.

They are not “put down” but open eyed criticisms, though such questionings of the Mohamedan faith may be interpreted by their followers are as unreasonable. JihadWatch means just that, that we are watching over jihadi tendencies to sow ‘mischief’ in the world, to sow terror in the hearts of non-believers with attacks on their physical persons with suicide bombings, beheadings, riots and murder, all in the name of their ‘faith’ in the uncreated word of Mohammad’s Allah. This cannot and will not be tolerated. And if our intolerance of such violent and evil coercive behaviors annoy their sensitivies, the true believers must accept criticism, even if it offends their sense of slavish submission to the words of a 7th century Arab desert warlord, who incidentally was not a very nice or enlightened person as history is told. This criticism is not meant as a “put down” of Islam, but it does challenge all those who feel that their Allah generated ‘uncreated word’ of Mohammad is better than our man-made laws of freedom, of human rights, of equality including gender equality, and of freedom of belief, all of which are implicitly condemned by the words of Mohammad. Islam is to be challenged whenever it motivates people to force social division, sow fear and mental enslavement, of anyone, whether or not they are Muslims, which are conditions of society no longer acceptable in the 21st century. Slavery is ended, and we who are free are duty bound to challenge all attempts by Islamists to re-impose slavery once again on mankind. We will not allow it. And if that is a “put down” in their eyes, then let their eyes open to the fact that they no longer live in the barbaric norms of the 7th century, nor in the delusional ravings of some 7th century Arab, but in a free world. That was what I meant.

My apologies to Robert and Hugh and others who post here if I misrepresented your intent in any way. But since 9/11 we must not let up on questioning and criticizing those who would represent their Islamic faith with violence and mayhem. More and more of us are opening our eyes to what this world wide threat is, in many ways thanks to you all.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at February 28, 2008 12:31 PM

Bon Voyage, Naseem. Happy Trails, and all that jazz.

"Allah Hafiz"

May allah protect you - is that some kind of joke?

A fitting farewell from someone who 'truly' cares. How nice. No one here is looking for allah's protection. No thanks. Glad you're leaving so we don't have to put up with that rubbish any more.

Thanks Robert!!!

Posted by: champ at February 28, 2008 1:03 PM

Ezekiel2012- please do answer the question if it's so easy to explain. I've verified all the possible avenues you can go and there's not one legitimate reason that you can up with other than 'God put it there.'

Battle_of_tours
I'm not here to stop you criticising Islam, you would do that anyway my friend. My basic Islamic duty is to invite people to the religion by giving Dawah. You won't take me seriously unless I respond to the criticism. Do you see.

It is not hard for me to give up these minute things and worship my Lord, who created me and you and wants both of us to show how grateful we are. With the reward that awaits if I obey Him, then there are many more things that I could give up in my life as no soul shall be tested with more than it can bare.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that a slave to God is anywhere near the same as a slave to a human being. What reward can a human give me?

Once I have shown that what you believe about the religion is false, then your heart is free to decide whether it is true or not.

Most of what you believe about Islam comes from linking terrorism, the actions and words of the terrorists, with Islam. But there is a problem here. On the one hand you despise these terrorists. That's why your here right? But when I tell you that these terrorists are not following Islam you leap to their rescue, to give them credibility and are adamant that it must be coming from Islam. So what gives?

When it comes to the laws on apostasy, it rarely happens in the Islamic world. So what good is it to discuss a law that is applied every blue moon. They deserve to die no question, because they don't just leave the religion and keep their mouth shut, they spread their filthy lies, creating doubt in the hearts of the Muslims.

Ayaan Hirsi is an example. Just who is she trying to fool. This is the same woman who left Islam, do you know why? Because she wanted to drink alcohol.

What a beacon of truth and honesty she is. A proven liar at that. Had it been that apostates would just leave, then that would be between them and God. But as is the case time and again, they feel it is their duty to call people to disobedience to their Lord.

To all of you who have this belief about Prophet Muhammed pbuh. One source cannot give you a picture that is credible. If I hate something, I can come up with lie upon lie, simply by distorting what is in front of me, to make it look truthful. I can do it with the bible, mother Theresa, anything.
So to verify something, you have to use more than one source even if they have differing stances. As you will find that somethings are common whereas others are not.

The Prophet pbuh came to rid Arabia of idolatory and to guide people back to the worship of the one true God.
He guided people back to the humanity they abandoned; to protect woman from misuse, to shelter orphans and the elderly, to look after the sick and needy, to not turn away in cowardice at those who fight you. To respect other religions and their places of worship.

He was a man who could have had all of the riches Arabia had to offer but would never keep anything of value in his house for more than three days, only to give it away in charity.

If he was false, truth always stands above falsehood. 1400 years later there's more than a billion Muslims, from every colour, background and status. And it began with one man.
We cannot find these things you claim about our religion and our Prophet pbuh.

What is it about him that you dislike?

Posted by: thesaracen at February 28, 2008 1:59 PM

What is it about him that you dislike?

Posted by: thesaracen at February 28, 2008 1:59 PM

thesaracen,

Muhammad's well-documented moral "imperfections", coupled with his creation of Allah as modified from and gratuitously peppered by aspects from the previous ideologies of Judaism and Christianity, are more than enough to relegate him to his proper place, as an absolute false prophet, in my estimation.

Forget about the logical inconsistency of the proposition that Allah established Islam to correct the corrupted texts of the Old and New Testaments, implying that Allah either changed his mind or that all followers of the previous faith were corrupt or lead astray by the corrupt, instead try to embrace the fact that Islam directly insults all the followers of Judaism and Christianity based on the supposed divine inimitable Qur'anic text.

The concept of the superiority of Islam based on the divinity of the Qur'an is the greatest obstacle to reformation and peaceful co-existence. Can you imagine what would happen if the very foundation of Islam was so shaken as to prove that the Qur'an was not Allah's direct and perfect dictation? Yes, that's right, Islam would be forced to embrace introspective criticism and more than likely, would crumble.

Well Sir, open thine eyes and see the truth. The Qur'an has been corrupted by men. It has been adulterated over time just like it accuses Judaism and Christianity of being. The Ulum al Qur'an by Ahmed Von Dennfer, widely recognized as the authentic tasfir of the sciences of the Qur'an, unwittingly says so.

http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/ulum_al_quran/index.htm

http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/ulum_al_quran/Ch2S2s4.htm

http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/ulum_al_quran/Ch2S4s1.htm

http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/ulum_al_quran/Ch2S4s3.htm

Sorry to be the one to piss in your Cheerios, but someone had to do it.

Posted by: awake at February 28, 2008 2:40 PM

91 million is likely more than all the armies of all the countries in the non-muslim world combined.

That is not a small number.

Posted by: Borg at February 28, 2008 2:58 PM

thesaracen said......

".....Tell me what is the true Christian believer test (Mark(16:17-18) and what does it involve?....."

Here is my answer....
http://members.dodo.com.au/~wtt626/Mark161718.html

I noticed you are unable as a muslim, to answer any of my questions, thesaracen .....

Give proof, of why you believe in Muhammad's prophet hood.

Another question thesaracen, do you worship the God of Israel?
Did Moses worship the God of Israel?

Why don't muslims????

And why do muslims think that TRUTH, is blasphemy?

Answer....
Because muslims bow down every day, and worship the father of lies.

TRUTH, more 'blasphemy', is it?

Very funny [and very obvious], how muslims aways define things *in their own terms*, to make everything fit in with their sick 'religion'.
example....
Killing people [un-believers], is a 'charity [a gift] to Allah'.
and.....
Hating non-muslims, is Allah's 'love'.

ISLAM, is a false religion, for a false people.

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at February 28, 2008 3:16 PM

When it comes to the laws on apostasy, it rarely happens in the Islamic world. So what good is it to discuss a law that is applied every blue moon. They deserve to die no question, because they don't just leave the religion and keep their mouth shut, they spread their filthy lies, creating doubt in the hearts of the Muslims.

-thesaracen

"They deserve to die"...!!??

Thanks for the clarity of statement that you are in fact another crazed jihadi who believes in death for apostasy. So I am forced to take back what I said earlier, that you are a decent fellow. Obviously you are not. Calling for the death of anyone, even just in principle, is unacceptable behavior on most discussion boards, which far outweighs the penalty for proselytizing. You have therefore lost my respect. Good bye.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at February 28, 2008 3:23 PM

thes asks: "What is it about him that you dislike?" (referring to Muhammad)

May I suggest that you read Robert's book:

"The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion"

It's featured on the home page of Jihad Watch.

Read it, and you will learn that Muhammad is in fact behind the violence that is so widespread within Islam.

Posted by: champ at February 28, 2008 4:01 PM

thesaracen

For swine being haram, you sure spew a lot of hogwash.

Could you possible attempt to explain why wine is considered the devils handiwork, yet rivers of the devils handiwork flow in Islamic paradise?

Drunken sexually debauchery in paradise, that cant possibly be something God would or could allow.

And that is just one of the too numerous to mention contradictions found in the Qur’an.

Posted by: BurgerBoy at February 28, 2008 4:19 PM

Battle_of_Tours,

After I experienced the same wake-up moment over a year ago during an exchange with a Muslim, I realized that one has to ask the right question to elicit the pathology.

When thesaracen admitted -- late in the game and almost in passing -- that apostates "deserve to die", you could have elicited this way back with the right question.

The question does not involve apostasy in the abstract. Ask the Muslim, "Under ideal Islamic law, what is the appropriate punishment for someone who leaves Islam and then afterward persists in talking about how bad Islam is and how great his new choice is?"

(Don't get stymied by the attempt at evasion when the Muslim says, "He should be told to stop doing that" -- the follow-up question at that point should be pressed: "What if he refuses to do as he is told and continues his bad behavior of speaking out?")

The vast majority of Muslims, I am confident, would respond to the question with the same sentiment as thesaracen. His point about how rare the punishment is in the Muslim world (however he might be fudging the stats) really means that most Muslims who leave Islam try their utmost to hide that fact and lay low, because to call attention to their apostasy too much would, in fact, arouse either official execution of the punishment, or a lynch mob (oftentimes consisting of the person's own family members).

(This technique of my question also applies to that other capital crime in Islam, mocking Mohammed: one must press the Muslim with the point that the mocker is persisting in mocking Mohammed (through speech, writing, etc.) and that he is not mentally deficient (in which case in Islam they tend to treat them as insane and put them in asylums -- which of course is also an outrageous repudiation of human rights.)

I have had several exchanges with Muslims on these points, and even a couple of them who seemed clever with taqiyya had no qualms in candidly admitting the unacceptable sentiment of thesaracen.

Posted by: cantor at February 28, 2008 4:24 PM

BurgerBoy said....

"........Could you possible attempt to explain why wine is considered the devils handiwork, yet rivers of the devils handiwork flow in Islamic paradise?......."

Muslims have not worked it out yet BurgerBoy.

There is no Islamic paradise!

There are no rivers of sweet wine, and no sexual depravity, for the *depraved*.

Just a *hot box*.

Muslims will learn that all of their prayers were made to the 'deceiver', the father of lies.

And they will join him.

Have you never heard the expression...

"Misery loves company."

.....and so does SATAN, in his *hot box*!!!!

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at February 28, 2008 4:36 PM

Just think about it for a minute: when actual Muslims comment on this site, they don't taunt and play Tokyo Rose. They invariably insist that Islam is peaceful and that Muslims are victims, etc.

Posted by: jihadwatch

Robert

Naseem did that as well - only thing that (s)he insisted that Ahmadiya Islam is peaceful and that Ahmadiyas are victims, while playing Tokyo Rose for the rest of the Ummah. Not all that different, don't you think?

This is my ever last posting here on JW

It seems though that for you there is a way to go to learn about Islam...

know that like the examples I gave... many of the future Amerike womens will be called Naseem too.

Goodbye to all

Allah Hafiz

Ameen

Posted by: Naseem

Robert

Such a major event calls for a cover post. Don't you agree?

Naseem

Such womens are quite likely to be wild and slutty

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 28, 2008 4:36 PM

I have a feeling that some of "Naseem"s personalties are already posting here under other names.

Posted by: special_guest at February 28, 2008 5:28 PM

"Goodbye to all".....

I shall need another box of tissue.

sniffle-sniffle

Posted by: champ at February 28, 2008 5:41 PM

IP - I agree! Robert needs to give Naseem a proper burial.

Posted by: champ at February 28, 2008 5:43 PM

cantor, good point. Most True Believers do not have any shyness or embarrassment at saying what the true beliefs of Islam are. Why should they care how a filthy kufir feels about the immutable word of Allah? Check any of the "Ask-an-Imam" websites.

Even embarrassed Muslims-for-identification-purposes-only would gladly answer the questions, if phrased not as "What do you think the punishment should be for..." but as "What does mainstream Islam teach the punishment should be for...".

But no-one is asking them those types of questions, and when they spontaneously tell us (for example, in their triumphant speeches after one of their murderous rampages), we ignore it, or deny it, or make excuses for it.

Posted by: special_guest at February 28, 2008 5:44 PM

Ezekiel2012
Thank you for your answer but you have answered nothing. Take away the word test.

Mark (16:17-18) still says 'believers' can cast out devils, speak with new tongues, pick up serpents (fair enough), drink any deadly thing and it shall not harm them....

To me that means you are capable of doing these things. That's what it says.

But scientifically and logically thats just not possible. If you are trying to say you need a certain level of belief to be able to do such things, then even that is not a good enough answer.

What you have to fast 20 days and be a good Christian to be able to do it? You can fast and pray for the rest of your life, no human is capable of doing these things.

'Give proof, of why you believe in Muhammad's prophet hood.'

The Qu'ran is your answer; a book from an illiterate man, who knew nothing about the religions and the people mentioned in the Qu'ran; who knew nothing about embryos and what they looked like in the womb. A book free of contradiction. He never met Jesus pbuh, Moses pbuh, Joseph pbuh, yet he was able to tell their stories. Inspired by God is the only answer.

I believe his prophet hood because he was mentioned in your books. I believe his prophet hood because he's not asking me to worship him, Muhammed pbuh is asking me to worship one God. I believe his prophet hood, because before him there was Jesus, Moses, Abraham, David, Soloman, Aaron, Noah, Adam (pubt). All prophets who came to preach the worship of one God. Moses pbuh came with a book, so did Jesus pbuh, so when Muhammed pbuh was chosen by God to convey the message in a new book to the whole of mankind not just his nation, 'oh he must be false.'

There's only one God. Prophet Moses pbuh worshiped him, Prophet Muhammed pbuh worshiped Him, I worship him. His name in Arabic is Allah. In English, God, in Hebrew, Jehovah. Doesn't matter what different languages call Him, he is the same God.

What you claim is truth is not truth, because I'm not a scholar, yet logic suffices and a fairly sound knowledge is enough to answer your questions.

What better way to worship your Lord than to bow down to him. You on the other hand, you don't worship God, you worship Jesus Christ.
You think he died on the cross for you, but why? To take your sins away? You still repent don't you?
But did Jesus say worship me? When Jesus pbuh was merely a man created by God. For that you can blame people whose surnames you don't know, who were men who never met Jesus, never even saw Jesus pbuh, yet they can say these are the words of Jesus pbuh. Had they said according to Peter, Jesus said ..... then no problem, if it goes against the teachings of Jesus then you can tell easily what's true and what's not, but it's their words.

Trinity comes from Paul- a man, whose original occupation was to hunt down and kill Christians. You're supposed to believe a murderer?

As proof that mere men are responsible for the false teachings that you have come to believe that Jesus preached, the bible is littered with contradictions. Mainly basic mathmetical errors. I could take over this whole post listing them all but I'll give you a couple.

in the Second Book of Kings (8:26) basically Ahaziah was two and twenty (22) when he began to reign. Ok fine

Second Book of Chronicles(22:2)
Ahaziah was 42 when he began to reign. (not 22?)

Second Book of Chronicles (21:20)
Jehoram, who was the father of Aheziah, reigned at the age of 32 and his reign lasted for 8 years and he died at the age of 40. Ahaziah took over his reign. But wasn't Ahaziah 42 when he is the son of Jehoram who died at the age of 40.

Can a father be younger than his son?

Is it possible for God to make such mistakes? If you can find ONE contradiction in the Qu'ran, then I'll never bring this subject up again.

If you can do that, then we can discuss which book is truthful. Only once you have come up with a good answer for both the believer test and these contradictions then I'll discuss the wikipedia excerpt about the Banu Qurayza.

[4:82] Why do they not study the Quran carefully? If it were from other than GOD, they would have found in it numerous contradictions.

Posted by: thesaracen at February 28, 2008 7:29 PM

Muhammad stole scriptural knowledge, from Jewish & Christian scripture.
Jewish & Christian communities were his contemporaries on the Arabian Peninsula.

Just read the 'inerrant' Koran [i have], it does not take an Einstein to work out Muhammad made it up as he went along.

Every time Muhammad wanted to break another law of his society, he wondrously got another 'dispensation' in a vision from Allah.
How convenient.
[....e.g. to marry his daughter-in-law. etc, etc.]

Its laughable to say the Koran is inspired by a divine being.

Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be *Christ Jesus*, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah;
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.045

And.....

"O sister of Aaron!...." mother of 'prophet Jesus'
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/019.qmt.html#019.027 - 34

Not really so inerrant is it?

Don't any muslims actually read the Koran, critically?
No!!!!

Because they die as apostates.
All critical thinkers in all Sharia jurisdictions have short life spans.
That is why 90% of muslims are idiot children, all the smart ones [the critical thinkers] are culled [culled, that means killed].

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at February 28, 2008 7:51 PM

Ezekiel2012
I'm not here to win debates friend, We are discussing truth. Before you can discuss terrorists, you have to know what the truth is.

It is illogical to say Prophet Muhammed pbuh plagarised from books he had no knowledge of. Even if he did, which he didn't, you won't find one sentence that is similar to the Torah or The Bible, in The Qu'ran. Some of the teachings are the same but that does not mean the Quran has plagarised.

Firstly Muhammed pbuh has no power to plagarise when the Quran were not his words originally. They came from God, who sent the Angel Gabriel to Muhammed pbuh. After many years of Gabriel teaching Muhammed pbuh, God's words, the Qu'ran was finally complete.
Did Muhammed pbuh know what to put into the Qu'ran and what to omit to avoid plagarism and contradiction? Illogical.

And lastly, stop the attacks against Prophet Muhamed pbuh and the Qu'ran since you have no knowledge or proof of what you are saying. 91 million Jihadists!! Nonsense what is jihad in the first place? Answer this question, and then we'll be on to something.

Muslims are idiot children???? LOL
You are better than this Ezekiel. You sure as hell won't be able to pass the test if you talk like this.

Posted by: thesaracen at February 28, 2008 8:37 PM

You worship a god, called Allah.

I worship another God, i worship the God of creation, the Holy One of Israel.

We worship two different God's.

Tell me....
Why are so many muslims today having visions of Jesus Christ, and abandoning ISLAM, and converting to worship Jesus Christ?

Are they all faking it???

No they are not.

I *know* they are not.

You can never know God thesaracen, while your heart is in 'darkness'.

I have been to the 'other side', and i still have the memory of being in the presence my God, thesaracen, and i want so much to return, to be in his presence again.

Perhaps a muslim will help me one day, to return 'home'.

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at February 28, 2008 9:10 PM

thesaracen

You do know that Mohammed himself did not write the Qur’an, it was written hundreds of years after his death with some questions on its authenticity.

Mohammed does not fit the Biblical definition of a prophet.

If you can find ONE contradiction in the Qu'ran, then I'll never bring this subject up again.

Ill be your huckleberry.

Contradiction # 1
Who was the first Moslem?
Muhammad, no wait, it was Moses, no wait, it was some Egyptians, no wait, it was Adam, no wait, it was Abraham. (Sura 6:14, 163, 7:143, 26:51, 2:127-133, 3:67)

Contradiction # 2
Sura 4:82 claims the Qur'an has no discrepancies

Contradiction # 3
Who misleads people, Allah or Satan?
Sura 4:119-120 claims it is Satan who leads people astray, while Sura 14:4, 16:93 claims Allah is the one who misleads.

And my all time favorite quote from Mohammad

How many intestines do infidels have?
Sahih Muslim
Book 023, Number 5113:
Ibn 'Umar reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying that a non-Muslim eats in seven intestines whereas a Muslim eats in one intestine.

Yes, the words of a one intestine “prophet” with seven times the gas.

Posted by: BurgerBoy at February 28, 2008 9:12 PM

saracen,

So you say that Muhammad (Perish Blight Upon Humanity) knew about earlier revelations because he recieved a later one? Unlikely. Rather, he heard these regurgitated stories in distorted second-hand form, and he had no fidelity to their original form or purpose.

Otherwise, why are his biblical accounts so utterly lacking in historicity? Muhammad's Isa is NOT the historical Jesus, for Jesus is NOT the son of "Maryam," that is, Miriam, daughter of Amron ("Imran"), the sister of Aaron and Moses; nor is Jesus of the tribe of Levi, as Amron's family is, but rather of Judah. Jesus--Yasou--and his mother Mary are separated by EIGHTEEN CENTURIES from Amron ("Imran")!!

If you know the Gospels and the histories of Flavius Josephus, you know that John the Baptist was NOT the uncle of Herodias, the illicit consort of Tetrarch Herod Antipas and wife of his brother Phillip; nor did "Herodiya" dance for him, but rather her daughter, Salome.

The Quran is neither history nor truth.

Posted by: John C at February 28, 2008 9:13 PM

thes - don't you think it advisable that you read Robert Spencer's book, The Truth About Muhammad, if you are going to post comments on this forum?

You've stated several times that you want to know why most of us don't like Muhammad, so don't you consider that book a good place to start?

Don't you want to know what's behind Jihad Watch besides all the headlines?

Posted by: champ at February 28, 2008 9:16 PM

saracen,

The much-touted Aya 32, Sura 5, is a direct plagiarization and distortion of the Talmud, Mishna Eduyot 1:6.

Posted by: John C at February 28, 2008 9:27 PM

BurgerBoy,

Riot, riot, riot! LOL!!

Posted by: John C at February 28, 2008 9:39 PM

Thesaracen,

I'll be quite frank and honest with you. To try to understand Islam I have, indeed, read the Koran and most of Hadith several times. Really! I have.

And every time I do read it, I need a notepad at my right hand to keep score of who's saying what, and who said what. (Plus my Sam's Club super-ultra size bottle of Tylenol as well.)

Contradictions in the Koran. For sure. Burger Boy (above) scratched the surface of this "unholy and completely inspired" book called the Koran.

I know you will dismiss this link as "lies" against Islam, the profit (er, prophet), and your il-lah, but nonetheless you will read each article?

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/index.html#internal

Nah, you won't. It's all lies and deceit to you.

Sorry, but your da'wa doesn't fool anyone here.

Posted by: boneshack at February 28, 2008 10:07 PM

Ezekiel2012 You actually met God?

Well boneshack looks like your onto something lol which one of these feeble contradictions would you like me to answer? I've had a look at these contradictions, which are far better than some of the ones offered on here. But to think that I won't be able to come up with a conclusive answer for each and every single one of them by God's will, is rather naive boneshack.

As for reading the Qu'ran, I've never read a book as clear and as beautifully written as the Qu'ran. The words are like poetry. Hearing it recited in Arabic, is a million times better than reading it in English.

As for History, Maths, science, Geology, whatever the Quran is spot on.

Which one of these contradictions do you think is the hardest to answer boneshack?

champ I'll read Spencer's book when I have time. Do you think there's no holes in that, my friend?

Posted by: thesaracen at February 28, 2008 10:31 PM

thesaracen

May I remind you that only 20% of all Moslems read Arabic and Osama Bin Laden is one of them. What I mean by that is he quotes the Qur’an to justify his jihad position, which is contrary to your version. I mean you personally no disrespect when I post about the Qur’an and Islam, I have a Moslem friend and you remind me of very much of him, he’s not afraid of debate either.

Posted by: BurgerBoy at February 28, 2008 11:47 PM

Ezekiel2012,

I must remind you that 'thesaracen' has taken a personal interest in you. Do not feed the uninformed troll, at your and JW's expense.

Forget about scripture for a moment, and I believe Lady Marisol has reminded you of that already. He will not last long. Unfortunately, visitors like he and his ilk will always remain.

Get educated and remain vigilant. Robert, Hugh and Marisol are the best recommendation that I have, with regards to Islam.

By the way, there is a reason why 'thesaracen' will not engage ME directly.

P.S. Enough with the Christian biblical references ad nauseum. It is a major turn-off.

Your Brother in Christ,

awake

Posted by: awake at February 29, 2008 1:27 AM

thes states: "champ I'll read Spencer's book when I have time. Do you think there's no holes in that, my friend?"

Good, cause it will be time well spent.

Holes? Nope. You won't find a single hole, but you will find the truth.

Posted by: champ at February 29, 2008 1:33 AM

Champ,

Good try, but he will do no such thing as read Robert's book. Libraries and bookstore are an anathema to muslims.

I gave him a link (above) that would would keep most rational poeple tied in knots for weeks, but he dismissed them as "feeble".

Thesaracen has now declared himself "Allah" because he, alone, can refute each and everyone of the known and conclusive contradictions of the Koran.

Let us chant now:

"The Koran is perfect. The Koran is perfect. The Koran is perfect."

And the earth is flat, too!

Posted by: boneshack at February 29, 2008 2:04 AM

awake said....

"......I must remind you that 'thesaracen' has taken a personal interest in you. Do not feed the uninformed troll, at your and JW's expense......"

Thanks awake for your good advice.

Too much 'darkness' in some ppl to reach them, .....ourselves.

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at February 29, 2008 5:59 AM

boneshack- Never did I say such such a thing. A human came up with these contradictions, so as the Quran says there are no contradictions, I won't find a single one. I've looked at some of them and they don't have me tied up in knots. There are answer to everything boneshack, but there are no answers for mathmetical errors attributed to God. Later on I will answer a couple of them hopefully.

I have no power whatsoever to answer any of these contradictions without God's will, so stop trying to make it seem as if I'm saying blasphemous things.

Your a liar you have not read the Quran at all. You read that website and then said 'oh I need and notepad and pen to keep track.'

Awake, Ezekiel2012 said the same thing 'Muslims avoid me when I ask them this simple question,'.

I answered him and what is this reason that I'm avoiding you for, I've never heard from you.

Posted by: thesaracen at February 29, 2008 9:04 AM

Awake, Ezekiel2012 said the same thing 'Muslims avoid me when I ask them this simple question,'.

I answered him and what is this reason that I'm avoiding you for, I've never heard from you.

Posted by: thesaracen at February 29, 2008 9:04 AM

Uh-huh, sure. I have directly refuted several of your posts on this particular thread. Anyway, now that you have admitted freely to not reading comments in context in a thread, I will remit for your pleasure:

Posted by: awake at February 28, 2008 2:40 PM

Do you care to respond with Dawa-free logic?

Posted by: awake at February 29, 2008 9:17 AM

You have refuted nothing mate, I don't know who you are. I have not admitted to anything either stop taking my words out of context as you do with the Qu'ran. I only answer those people who I think will be remotely interested in what I have to say.
You are now interested, so what is it that I have been avoiding?

Posted by: thesaracen at February 29, 2008 9:25 AM

Read my comment at 2:40 pm as a direct reply to your question to Battle_of_Tours.

I and others have offered examples that challenge the divinity of the Qur'an and thus Muhammad's status as a prophet.

Stop playing dumb!

I have provided links as well. What say you?

Posted by: awake at February 29, 2008 9:58 AM

Contradictions in the Koran. For sure. Burger Boy (above) scratched the surface of this "unholy and completely inspired" book called the Koran.

I know you will dismiss this link as "lies" against Islam, the profit (er, prophet), and your il-lah, but nonetheless you will read each article?

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/index.html#internal

Nah, you won't. It's all lies and deceit to you.

Sorry, but your da'wa doesn't fool anyone here.

Posted by: boneshack

Doesn't fool me neither. Feeding this troll's appetite for your soul through da'wa only empowers his dunce headed stupidity. He never looks at the links, and never gives a straight answer. This is so typical of debating verbal jihad Muslims. Who knows? Maybe the Saracen is really Rage Boy in disguise with an English tutor? LOL

OTOH, feeding the troll makes for good amusement, watching his deceitful lips moving, as he totally ignores the 100 listed contradictions in the Quran in link. The troll uttered:

boneshack- Never did I say such such a thing. A human came up with these contradictions, so as the Quran says there are no contradictions, I won't find a single one. I've looked at some of them and they don't have me tied up in knots.

Ha ha! No contradictions? Reading Quran in arabic has a musical quality? Ha ha ha ha! Good one troll! It's just the sound of lying lips mumbling. He reads with his eyes closed. There is no penetrating his darkness, as Ezekiel2012 said, with the light of truth. Don't feed the dunce troll, except for amusement, because a Muslim jihad troll is unable to answer truthfully. Or as Awkae pointed out, to answer with da'wa free logic. Impossible for him! LOL!

Only 91 million? Add one more, the one who said "the Quran says there are no contradictions, I won't find a single one." Ergo, eyes closed, and no light of contradictions will ever penetrate those closed lids with the light of reason. Hopeless.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at February 29, 2008 10:16 AM

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at February 29, 2008 10:16 AM

Agreed.

Everyone should know that the Qur'an is not divine.

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Gilchrist/Jam/index.html

Even Muslims know it.

http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/ulum_al_quran/

Once you reveal that foundational flaw, the entire house of cards comes crashing down.

Posted by: awake at February 29, 2008 10:50 AM

Can a father be younger than his son? ~ Posted by thesaracen at February 28, 2008 7:29 PM

thesaracen

You are getting names confused, same names but different people.

Ahab had two sons, Ahaziah and Jehoram. (2 Kings 8:16)

Jehoshaphat had a son and a grandson also named Ahaziah and Jehoram. (2Kings 8:27-29)

I wonder if the Qur’an contradictions will be so easy to dispel?

Posted by: BurgerBoy at February 29, 2008 11:27 AM

Why do you all get happy when you think Islam is flawed? awake, enlighten me please, what do the links say since I'm having an 'off day'?

On the one hand, I'm being asked to explain contradictions and on the other, I'm being asked to explain the divinity of the Quran. Why not help each other out and stick to one topic?

I've asked boneshack to pick one of them since I will not sit here and answer all 80 of them.

If I pick one, then you will say, 'oh what about the rest.' So why don't you pick one?

Awake don't give me 5 different links, just ask the question you want answered. Is it because you don't want to make life easy for me so that doubt will not creep into your hearts. You haven't got me cornered, awake.

I might not have the answer, just to show you I'm not acting like a scholar or a 'divine being', but surely there is a logical explanation for all of these points you have bought up and so far I have an answer for some of them. Thats painful for you to read.

I bought up two, I didn't give you 20 links either. You still cannot answer them.

I'm not at war with you people. So calm down with the anti-Islamic rhetoric.
I'm not in darkness nor am I evil.

Since I can't discuss it in detail on this website without annoying people, then to those who want to discuss topics without any childish remarks you can e-mail me on thesaracen83@googlemail.com.

By the way, it's armed to the teeth with anti-virus software, so try as you might, you won't get nowhere.

Posted by: thesaracen at February 29, 2008 11:29 AM

Correction

Jehoshaphat had a son and a grandson also named Ahaziah and Jehoram and they had sons and grandsons with those names also.

Posted by: BurgerBoy at February 29, 2008 11:34 AM

burgerboy -I've looked at the verse and thats not what it says. I'm confused because not only is that the wrong conclusion to the verse but the verse itself is hard to follow. (round of applause) Not quite my friend, try again.

Explain to me how you came to this conclusion, burger boy? You've even confused yourself.

Posted by: thesaracen at February 29, 2008 11:48 AM

thesaracen,

The purpose of the links was to show that historical records reveal that the Qur'an was modified over time. This fact is contradictory to most Muslim claims that the Qur'an is the direct immutable word of Allah.

Many Muslims say that Allah revealed Islam through Muhammad because previous 'editions' of the religion, specifically Judaism and Christianity, were textually corrupted by men over time. That is the selling point for Islam's supposed superiority over the other two faiths. The Qur'an is ripe with references to Jews and Christians who have strayed from the straight path.

The central point is: If the Qur'an is not divine, as most Muslims claim, and it was modified in any way by men, to which the links contend it to be, then the foundation of Islam is shaken. If the main presupposition about the Qur'an is patently false, then logically the rest follows accordingly.

I am not attempting to corner you. Islam has cornered itself.

This is my question: Do you believe the Qur'an to be the perfect and unaltered words of Allah and if so, what would you put forward to support your claim?

A single, direct question.

Posted by: awake at February 29, 2008 12:04 PM

thesaracen: ”I'm not in darkness nor am I evil.”

Have you forgotten your own words? “They deserve to die no question.” For leaving that self-contradicting faith of your Mohammad’s ‘uncreated’ word of Allah, when they awake to their lack of divinity? Ha ha ha ha! LOL If that is not pure evil, to kill a person for turning away from that nonsensical 7th century gibberish, what is? On second thought, don’t answer that, no need to. We understand, you poor lost soul. In the corner with you.

BTW, I am impressed this thread is still active. Great fun! LOL

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at February 29, 2008 12:25 PM

Boneshack - I know what you're saying, and thes probably won't heed my advice and read the book, but perhaps someone else reading my suggestion will, because that's how important knowing the truth about Muhammad is; especially for those who visit this site - like I have to tell YOU that! :-)

thes -

You of all people really need to read Robert's book - The Truth About Muhammad - because you're the one who is constantly attempting to educate US on Muhammad, when you won't even bother to find out what are our real objections.

You're the one who continually asks WHY we hold a certain point of view about Muhammad, but you never really listen to what we have to say, and Robert's book would answer all your questions - and more - as they pertain to Muhammad & Company.

Otherwise you are nothing more than a spin doctor for Muhammad who is ill equipped at best.

And I would be willing to bet that you don't even bother reading the links that other posters have provided for you to look at; perhaps because you believe you already HAVE the answers. Gee, why haven't you written a book Mr. Know-It-All? A man will your wealth of information should have written at least one book by now. Such a waste of good talent.

Posted by: champ at February 29, 2008 12:46 PM

thesaracen

I stand corrected.

One commentary says, either the transcriber make a mistake and put 42 in place of 22 and that has been repeated, claiming many ancient translations read 22 not 42.
It is also argued the original reads ‘he was the son of 42 years’, meaning 42 is the age of his mother.

Posted by: BurgerBoy at February 29, 2008 1:04 PM

'The purpose of the links was to show that historical records reveal that the Qur'an was modified over time. This fact is contradictory to most Muslim claims that the Qur'an is the direct immutable word of Allah swt.'

I'm afraid the links don't show any proof of modification. They don't even hint the notion.

It says that the Quran wasn't compiled in the original book we see today. Does that mean it was modified?

Not only was the whole Qu'ran memorised by the prophet pbuh and by his companions, but it was written down in parchments, pieces of wood, stone, whatever they could find and then compiled after the death of the Prophet pbuh and it was not done hundreds of years later, as you'll notice from the links you provided.

There is no suggestion in the links whatsoever that there were different versions of the Qu'ran. Have another look, is that what the links are implying?

So since you have not been able to bring forward concrete proof that it has been tampered with, what good is your question, awake?

BTW awake, Muslims don't agree that the book IS NOT divine. I have no reason so far to object to it.

As for the 'contradictions' in the Qu'ran, there is a simple answer. It was not revealed in English but in Arabic. Two different languages. The same word can have different meanings. The supposed 'contradictions' are all in the English interpretations, which is not the Qu'ran, but an interpretation of it. So to answer them, the original Arabic term has to be applied.
If your argument to this is that not all Muslims speak Arabic, fair enough, but the vast majority of them can read it and also understand the meaning.

I don't know what language the Bible was revealed in, maybe you can help me with that.
But maths is universal. Doesn't matter where you come from, 22 and 42 are two different numbers.

But this answer is not good enough for you, so examples will be necessary.

However this has not come from my 'infinite' knowledge, it has come from people who have more knowledge than I do. They have already answered these supposed contradictions with answers that I can't find any problems with.

If I can't answer a question, that does not mean the Qu'ran is wrong and the Bible is right or vice versa. I will let you know that I can't answer it, I'm only human.

champ- I've provided my e-mail address, please do bring your questions to me, because I do want to listen. If I don't agree with it, of course I'm going to object.

I'm trying to answer many different things at the same time. Until I can make myself clear I cannot leave that topic. So use the e-mail address. I'm not a liar either you can all trust me.

Is Robert Spencer's book, the Quran and the Sunnah? Because believe me the Quran and the Sunnah would give you a clearer picture than he ever could.

burgerboy let's leave it at that my friend.

Posted by: thesaracen at February 29, 2008 1:24 PM

thes - I appreciate your offer, but I make it my policy not to write anyone on JW because I want my e-mail address to remain private; so we can simply discuss things here on this forum. Thanks.

Posted by: champ at February 29, 2008 1:29 PM

'The purpose of the links was to show that historical records reveal that the Qur'an was modified over time. This fact is contradictory to most Muslim claims that the Qur'an is the direct immutable word of Allah swt.'

I'm afraid the links don't show any proof of modification. They don't even hint the notion.

It says that the Quran wasn't compiled in the original book we see today. Does that mean it was modified?

Not only was the whole Qu'ran memorised by the prophet pbuh and by his companions, but it was written down in parchments, pieces of wood, stone, whatever they could find and then compiled after the death of the Prophet pbuh and it was not done hundreds of years later, as you'll notice from the links you provided.

There is no suggestion in the links whatsoever that there were different versions of the Qu'ran. Have another look, is that what the links are implying?

So since you have not been able to bring forward concrete proof that it has been tampered with, what good is your question, awake?

BTW awake, Muslims don't agree that the book IS NOT divine. I have no reason so far to object to it.

As for the 'contradictions' in the Qu'ran, there is a simple answer. It was not revealed in English but in Arabic. Two different languages. The same word can have different meanings. The supposed 'contradictions' are all in the English interpretations, which is not the Qu'ran, but an interpretation of it. So to answer them, the original Arabic term has to be applied.
If your argument to this is that not all Muslims speak Arabic, fair enough, but the vast majority of them can read it and also understand the meaning.

I don't know what language the Bible was revealed in, maybe you can help me with that.
But maths is universal. Doesn't matter where you come from, 22 and 42 are two different numbers.

But this answer is not good enough for you, so examples will be necessary.

However this has not come from my 'infinite' knowledge, it has come from people who have more knowledge than I do. They have already answered these supposed contradictions with answers that I can't find any problems with.

If I can't answer a question, that does not mean the Qu'ran is wrong and the Bible is right or vice versa. I will let you know that I can't answer it, I'm only human.

champ- I've provided my e-mail address, please do bring your questions to me, because I do want to listen. If I don't agree with it, of course I'm going to object.

I'm trying to answer many different things at the same time. Until I can make myself clear I cannot leave that topic. So use the e-mail address. I'm not a liar either you can all trust me.

I'm not here to cause problems, or to make people feel bad. If I have done that champ, If I have hurt you by what I have said, I am truly sorry. But don't you guys care about my feelings when you talk about Prophet Muhammed pbuh and call me and Muslims trolls?

champ-Is Robert Spencer's book, the Quran or the Sunnah? Because believe me the Quran and the Sunnah would give you a clearer picture than he ever could.

burgerboy let's leave it at that my friend.

Posted by: thesaracen at February 29, 2008 1:31 PM

*sorry about the double post*

Posted by: thesaracen at February 29, 2008 1:33 PM

thesaracenwrote:
"I'm afraid the links don't show any proof of modification. They don't even hint the notion."

Patently false.

"At the time of its codification Zaid knew that his text could not be regarded as an absolutely perfect record as some passages were acknowledged as having been lost and the redactor himself overlooked at least two verses until he was reminded of them by Abu Khuzaima. If Zaid and Abu Bakr were persuaded that his text was unquestionably authentic to the last word and letter, it would almost certainly have been given immediate public prominence."

"On the other hand, if Zaid knew that it was only relatively authentic and no more accurate than the many other codices simultaneously being compiled by Abdullah ibn Mas'ud and others, we can understand why it quickly disappeared into relative obscurity."

"By the time Uthman became caliph, although the other codices were gaining prominence in the various provinces, this codex had in fact receded into the private custody of one of the widows of the Prophet of Islam who simply kept it indefinitely in her personal care. It may have been compiled under official supervision, but it was never regarded as the actual official and solely authentic text of the Qur'an. It had become just one of many codices of equal authority that had been put together at roughly the same time."

"Uthman's action was drastic, to say the least. Not one of the other codices was exempted from the order that they be destroyed. It can only be assumed that the differences in reading between the various texts was so vast that the Caliph saw no alternative to an order for the standardising of one of the texts and the annihilation of the rest. The fact that none of the other texts was spared shows that none of the codices, Zaid's included, agreed with any of the others in its entirety. There must have been serious textual variants between the texts to warrant such action. One cannot assume that Zaid's text, hidden from public view, just happened to be the perfect text and that, wherever it differed from the others, they must have been in error. Such a convenient shielding of this codex from the disputes about the reading of the Qur'an is unacceptable when the matter is considered objectively."

"Zaid's text was simply one of a number of codices done by the companions of Muhammad after his death and shared in the variant readings found between them all. In its favour is the consideration that it had been compiled under Abu Bakr by one of the foremost authorities of the Qur'an. Its preference also depended, however, on the fact that, not being widely known, it had been sheltered from the disputes surrounding the others and it was, of course, conveniently close at hand."

"Furthermore, it was not an official text as we have seen but a compilation done by just one man, Zaid ibn Thabit, in the same way as those of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud and the others had been compiled. It was not the authorised text of Muhammad himself but simply one form of it among many then in existence and uncorroborated in every single point by the others in circulation. It was compiled under the discretion of only one man and came to official prominence purely because Uthman chose it as the appropriate one to represent the single codex he wanted to establish for the whole Muslim community."

"Modern Muslim writers who make bold claims for the absolute perfection of the Qur'an text as it stands today are aware that evidences of a host of different readings in the earliest manuscripts will make such claims sound hollow indeed, so they argue that the differences were not in the texts themselves but only in the pronunciation of the Qur'an as it was recited."

"If there had not been serious differences between them, why would he thus have destroyed such cherished copies of what all Muslims believe to be the revealed Word of God? One cannot understand the casualness with which modern Muslim writers justify his action especially if, as Siddique claims, there had never been any differences in the texts."

"What would Muslims think if anyone had a ceremony today such as Uthman had then, and consigned a number of Qur'ans to the flames, especially if these were cherished hand-written texts of great antiquity? Uthman burnt such Qur'an texts and destroyed them. Only one explanation can account for this - there must have been so many serious variant readings between the texts themselves that the Caliph saw only one solution - the establishment of one of these as the official text for the whole Muslim community and the elimination of the others."

"The order to consign all but one of the Qur'ans in existence to the flames at such a crucial time cannot be explained away so lightly. Muslim writers are not seriously assessing the gravity of Uthman's decree. As we shall see, Abdullah ibn Mas'ud reacted very strongly to Uthman's order and we are also informed that when Uthman enquired into the grievances among the Muslims who were rising in opposition to him, one of their complaints against him was his destruction of the other Qur'an codices, that he had "obliterated the Book of Allah" (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.36)"
--Gilchrist--

saracen wrote:
"and it was not done hundreds of years later, as you'll notice from the links you provided."

I never said it was. Those are someone else's words.

saracen:
"BTW awake, Muslims don't agree that the book IS NOT divine."

I suggested that Muslims who are genuine inherently know that. There is no mainstream view that it is not divine, nor have i claimed there to be one.

More:

The Difference between Abu Bakr's and 'Uthman's Collection

"Abu Bakr had made one single copy from the various verbal and written material. This copy was later kept by 'Umar and then by his daughter Hafsa."

'Uthman had many copies prepared from this copy and sent them to various places in the Muslim world, while the original suhuf were returned to Hafsa and remained with her until her death. Later, Marwan b. Hakam (d. 65/684), according to a report in Ibn Abi Dawud, collected it from her heirs and had it destroyed, presumably fearing it might become the cause for new disputes. 'Uthman also kept one of the copies for himself. This version of the text, also known as 'Mushaf 'Uthman in fact constitutes the ijma'(consensus) of the sahaba, all of whom agreed that it contained what Muhammad had brought as revelation from Allah."

Consensus.

Chronology:
653

"Serious differences arose among muslims about the correct recitation of the Quran. Uthman instructs Zaid together with three other sahaba to prepare copies from the suhuf kept with Hafsa."
--Ahmed Von Denffer--

You are intellectually lazy and willfully disingenuine to make your claim based on those links.

Posted by: awake at February 29, 2008 2:39 PM

awake- are these quotes (Gilchrist) from the same website as the one you gave me a link to before?

Give me the link to where you found this quote furthermore. I just want to make sure it is from the same person.

You say I'm making false claims about the Qu'ran being modified and so on. But burgerboy has just inadvertently admitted that the Bible is corrupted, something which the Qu'ran accuses it of.

Posted by: thesaracen at February 29, 2008 2:58 PM

awake- are these quotes (Gilchrist) from the same website as the one you gave me a link to before?

Posted by: thesaracen at February 29, 2008 2:58 PM

Of course they are. First I provided links to 'Ulum al Qur'an' by Ahmed Von Denffer, then later to also refute the Qur'an's divinity I provided the link to 'Jam al Quran' by Gilchrist.

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Gilchrist/Jam/index.html

That is the main page.

Talking about the Bible and 'BurgerBoy' is skirting the issue. No one should claim the Bible to be the literal word of God, hence they are called "Testaments". Your statement that the Qur'an claims the Bible to be corrupted is accurate. Unfortunately, the Qur'an is subject to the same flaws.

What is your support to claim otherwise?

Posted by: awake at February 29, 2008 3:29 PM

thesaracen

It’s a well known mistake, the commentary I used is from Matthew Henry 1662-1714, not something written yesterday. There is nothing accidental about it, it in no way has an effect on theology, it doesn’t make the Bible corrupt, it doesn’t make the 10 commandment immoral.

As you admitted here you think someone who changes their religion from Moslem to something else should get the death penalty, which we all know sharia law calls for, this and many other moral issues are the opposite of the morals contained within the Bible, the golden rule ( love your neighbor as yourself ) for example, this is one reason why people reject the Qur’an and Mohammad as a prophet and it is considered morally corrupt.

Posted by: BurgerBoy at February 29, 2008 3:29 PM

"Modern Muslim writers who make bold claims for the absolute perfection of the Qur'an text as it stands today are aware that evidences of a host of different readings in the earliest manuscripts will make such claims sound hollow indeed, so they argue that the differences were not in the texts themselves but only in the pronunciation of the Qur'an as it was recited." "If there had not been serious differences between them, why would he thus have destroyed such cherished copies of what all Muslims believe to be the revealed Word of God? One cannot understand the casualness with which modern Muslim writers justify his action especially if, as Siddique claims, there had never been any differences in the texts." "What would Muslims think if anyone had a ceremony today such as Uthman had then, and consigned a number of Qur'ans to the flames, especially if these were cherished hand-written texts of great antiquity? Uthman burnt such Qur'an texts and destroyed them. Only one explanation can account for this - there must have been so many serious variant readings between the texts themselves that the Caliph saw only one solution - the establishment of one of these as the official text for the whole Muslim community and the elimination of the others."

Excellent post, Awake, per the above by Gilchrist. Why burn the originals indeed, if they were so ‘sacred’ and cherished copies? Shouldn’t Uthman have been called on the carpet for this serious breech of intellectual honesty? But what Muslim would contest these travesties of intellectual honesty today, without facing dire consequences from their rabid co-religionists? This includes that feckless Saracen here, whose eyes are blinded to any reason by his baseless conviction that the Quran simply cannot be wrong. Or the other strawman argument that it reads perfectly in Arabic but not in other languages? It’s all smoke, deceitful smoke, to blind not only the infidels but their own. There is no proof Mohammad’s inspired Allah’s (uncorruptable?) Quran is anything other than man-made.

What a travesty to enslave such a large swatch of uneducated and willfully blind humanity to believe such 7th century absurdities, in the 21st. They don’t get it, do they? They will never get it even if their collective noses are rubbed in the truth, that their ‘uncreated word of Allah’ was written by men, fallible men, and even complicitly devious men. Allah shmallah, it’s all a bunch of primitive nonsense, where they burned the original copies to preserve their lying tongues, and fool the gullible ‘believers’, as well the gullible ‘infidels’ in the pot. Not really a religion, is it? Just power politics, that's all, Mohamedan style.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at February 29, 2008 3:30 PM

Well awake, you call me a liar when you give me a link (Ulum Al-Quran) claiming it said the Qu'ran was modified, I checked it couldn't find it. So I told you that I can't find your claims there.

Then you reply but thats a lie, because Gilchrist says it in this website (answeringIslam.org.uk) How am I supposed to know what Gilchrist said if I haven't seen what he has said?
In your reply you only mentioned Ulum Al-Quran once, and what you quoted from it is not even about the Qu'ran being modified or it's divinity.

But fair enough I didn't answer your question or address your latest quote from Gilchrist regarding the authenticity of the Quran.

The Qu'ran was revealed to Muhammed pbuh via the Angel Gabriel by the order of God. They were God's words.

Now the Qu'ran didn't come in one go. It came in stages. Sometimes, verses were revealed to the Prophet after a question was asked that he had no knowledge of. All the while, the verses are being memorised and also written down by scribes from amongst the companions. The prophet would recite them, order them to be written, as he was illiterate, have them read back to him to ensure there were no mistakes.

Every Ramadhan, the Prophet would recite the whole Qu'ran once under the supervision of the Angel Gabriel but in the final Ramadhan before his death, he was ordered to recite the Qu'ran twice.

Bare in mind the Qu'ran wasn't compiled into a book at this stage. After the death of the Prophet pbuh, Abu Bakr (ra) succeeded him in leadership and ordered that the Quran, which was in his heart and also written down in all kinds of materials, which were checked meticulously by the Prophet (pbuh)and his companions, supervised by the Angel Gabriel. So there is absolutely no question of a mistake from the sources used to compile the first Qu'ran in book form.

Abu Bakr (ra) gathered all the materials the verses of the Quran were written on which also had the sequence of how they should be compiled and had them copied on to sheets. Once that book was complete it was kept safe in the house of the Prophet's wife Hafsha (ra). So the original book, perfect and free of mistake, has been compiled and kept safe.

Uthman (Usman) the third caliph found that there were disagreements regarding the Qu'ran and decided to act. The disagreements came about because many companions would write portions of the Qu'ran without verifying them with the Prophet pbuh so there was a possibility that there were mistakes. But remember, there is already an original Qu'ran in book form, which would clear up all these disagreements.

'Usman (r.a.) borrowed the original manuscript of the Qur’an, which was authorized by the beloved Prophet(pbuh), from Hafsha (may Allah be pleased with her), the Prophet’s wife. Usman (r.a.) ordered four Companions who were among the scribes who wrote the Qur’an when the Prophet dictated it, led by Zaid bin Thabit (r.a.) to rewrite the script in several perfect copies. These were sent by Usman (r.a.) to the main centres of Muslims.'

'There were other personal collections of the portions of the Qur’an that people had with them. These might have been incomplete and with mistakes. Usman (r.a.) only appealed to the people to destroy all these copies which did not match the original manuscript of the Qur’an in order to preserve the original text of the Qur’an.'

So there you have it awake does that answer your question?

If you want to continue this discussion, just e-mail me. as I'm breaking the rules by doing what I'm doing.

Posted by: thesaracen at February 29, 2008 4:40 PM

I know the history. What was your source?

Posted by: awake at February 29, 2008 4:56 PM

http://www.islam101.com/quran/preservedQ.htm

I can if you wish find you more sources awake.
Either way I have answered your question.

Posted by: thesaracen at February 29, 2008 5:12 PM

Gilchrist's analysis goes into much greater detail. That source implies justification simply based on the statement of belief.

Gilchrist uses hadith to support his claim. That source is lacking.

That being said, yes, you did answer.

Posted by: awake at February 29, 2008 7:14 PM

awake- That maybe true, but I can bring forward numerous hadith to back up the authenticity of the Qu'ran. Gilchrist uses hadith yes, but so do the Shia's when they say transexuals are ok and they are allowed to have a sex change and some rubbish about occults. They use the hadith also to back up their beliefs. Same goes for the Ahmaddiyas.
If someone who has a fairly sound knowledge wants people to believe something, he can't just say 'oh I believe this....' He must back it up with something solid.

So it's up to you awake. Only you can decide the difference between truth and falsehood. People can't force it upon you.
It's the same for me. I can't follow what my parents taught me, I have to seek knowledge and verify it and see if it's true.

I can't find anything wrong with the Qu'ran, I've looked at what you have shown me, I couldn't find it there either.

But this post is about Jihad. Now you seem like a reasonable person awake. Does jihad mean holy war?

If we agree on this, then that's one myth destroyed.

If jihad, which means 'to struggle in the way of God' is something only found in the Qu'ran, then explain to me what the bible and the Torah are referring to in the Gospel of Luke (22:36), Book of Numbers (31:1-19), Book of Exodus (22:18-20), Exodus (32:27-28)

They all speak of fighting or struggling in the way of God. Doesn't matter if it happened all those years ago. Moses pbuh and Jesus pbuh are an example for you. What they do, you must do. Otherwise you won't be following their teachings. If your fighting in the way of God, you cannot be wrong. But in today's world a lot of Muslims are transgressing and doing things that they think is fine, when it really equates to disbelief.

Do you agree?

Posted by: thesaracen at February 29, 2008 8:43 PM

saracen said,

"......A human came up with these contradictions, *so as the Quran says* there are no contradictions, I won't find a single one. I've looked at some of them and they don't have me tied up in knots........"

saracen here, sums up ISLAMIC 'theology' precisely, when engaging with non-muslims in debate.

i.e. 'These people are non-muslims. Ergo, all their arguments are false.
ISLAM, is true.
Non-muslim, is false.'

Archimedes2 explains this muslim debating 'logic' very well here....

"........I think one "refutation" that we are blinded to is simply the following:

#102: He is criticizing Islam.

We kuffar don't realise, and strangely enough, the Islamists and their apologists appear not to realise that we don't realise, that they regard this as a self-evident, complete refutation of all your arguments.

Although it is a logical non-sequitor, this doesn't seem to bother them in the least. The argument goes: 1. Spencer is criticizing Islam (which they would posit as self-evident); 2. Ergo, all his statements are wrong and invalid. Case closed......."
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016511.php#c396355

ISLAM......a false religion, for a false people.

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at February 29, 2008 8:47 PM

Thesaracen,

I would venture to say that the proverbial "horse" has been kicked to death a 100x over.

Can you spare some of your "debating" energy for current topics. Man, there were some doozies today alone.

Examples of hot topics for today (29 Feb) alone:

At JW -

1. Turkey's big Islamic reform: Never mind
2. 'Al Qaeda Fatwa against MP Wilders'
3. Spencer: The MSA: Segregation Not Integration
World braces for Wilders' Qur'an film
4. Six Christian Fundamentalists arrested in Norway, Sweden raids -- no, wait...

Then at DW -

1. Iran to Punish Apostasy with Death
2. Iraq: Chaldean bishop of Mosul is kidnapped
3. Death to Denmark! But, uh, how 'bout that debt relief?
4. Good news! Egyptian woman sentenced to three years in prison for putting her religion as "Christian" on her marriage certificate more than two decades ago has been released
5. Saudi professor faces lashes for having coffee with female 'student'
6. Wilders to critics: Get lost
7. Berlin gallery shuts after Muslim threats

And you wonder why us 'unbelievers' believe that Islam is the word of God.

Please, read each, and all comments, and, well, comment responsibly. You'll find a few of your fellow muslims who are trying their da'wa trick on other threads. And guess what?

It isn't working!

Posted by: boneshack at February 29, 2008 9:24 PM

Sorry about that last post:

Major correction required here!

And you wonder why us 'unbelievers' believe that Islam is NOT the word of God.

Posted by: boneshack at February 29, 2008 9:30 PM

thesaracen,

Your point about belief and faith being the deciding factor in the concept of the Qur'an's divinity is conceded. Actually, it was never disputed, only in the fact that the Qur'an's divinity is disputable in my estimation, and that I do nOT believe that it is perfect and unaltered.

Regarding jihad, yes I believe that it does mean holy war, even though I believe the actual word "jihad" does not appear in the Qur'an. It is certainly prevalent in the Hadith, most noticably Bukhari, book 52. It is often put forth as "internal struggle", sometimes deceptively, and I believe that point is conceded as well, that their is a dual meaning.

Your references to the content of aggressive tones (I am assuming) in the Old and New Testament scriptures that you listed are conceded at this point, simply because I haven't the time to review them in depth. I do know however that these historical passages, particularly the ones in the OT, that they are not acted upon by Christians, nor are they sanctioned by ANY Christian authority today.

However, your statement: "Doesn't matter if it happened all those years ago" is not valid. If jihad was a historical concept widely abandoned in practice and principle by Muslims today, that point would be substantiated, but alas, it is not.

Your statement: "But in today's world a lot of Muslims are transgressing and doing things that they think is fine, when it really equates to disbelief." is at the heart of the problem. Without a unifying voice currently in the global Islamic community, proper Islamic practice is relatively open-ended and subject to varied interpretation. One man's piety is another's heresy. Case in point: For every respected scholar that renounces violent agression against unbelievers, one can be provided to counter their argument. Who is to say who is correct in their interpretation.

I will not concede the point that jihadists are inherently wrong and un-Islamic. There is too much support for their actions within portions of the Islamic community which celebrate their actions as sanctioned and even mandated by their faith. It is a common ploy to attempt to seperate jihad from Islam and it does nothing to solve the problem that Robert refers to in the purpose of this site.

In reality, to get any scholar to denounce violence without a qualifier like, "unless it is in defense of Islam", is truly a rare bird. If you have some examples, I will be glad to examine them.

I have tried to respond to each point in your last post thesaracen, but now I must retire for the evening. I will return tomorrow for your follow-up reply.

Regards.

Posted by: awake at February 29, 2008 9:54 PM

awake said.....

".........Your references to the content of aggressive tones (I am assuming) in the Old and New Testament scriptures that you listed are conceded at this point, simply because I haven't the time to review them in depth. I do know however that these historical passages, particularly the ones in the OT, that they are not acted upon by Christians, nor are they sanctioned by ANY Christian authority today........"

Many Christians regard these OT accounts, as *one off*, 'in suitu' commands, to kill the occupiers of the land, *at that time* when the children of Israel came in, to possess the land.

These commands were not open-ended commands [such as the many 'kill the un-believers' instruction from the Koran and Hadith].

In fact many OT verses instructed the Hebrews NOT to oppress strangers, not to take away their rights under law.

You listening, muslims?

e.g.

Deuteronomy 1:16
And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, *and the stranger* that is with him.

Jeremiah 22:3
Thus saith the LORD; Execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, *do no violence to the stranger*, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood in this place.

ISLAM......a false religion, for a false people.

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at February 29, 2008 10:16 PM

awake said.....

".........Your references to the content of aggressive tones (I am assuming) in the Old and New Testament scriptures that you listed are conceded at this point, simply because I haven't the time to review them in depth. I do know however that these historical passages, particularly the ones in the OT, that they are not acted upon by Christians, nor are they sanctioned by ANY Christian authority today........"

Many Christians regard these OT accounts, as *one off*, 'in situ' commands, to kill the occupiers of the land, *at that time* when the children of Israel came in, to possess the land.

These commands were not open-ended commands [such as the many 'kill the un-believers' instruction from the Koran and Hadith].

In fact many OT verses instructed the Hebrews NOT to oppress strangers, not to take away their rights under law.

You listening, muslims?

e.g.

Deuteronomy 1:16
And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, *and the stranger* that is with him.

Jeremiah 22:3
Thus saith the LORD; Execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, *do no violence to the stranger*, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood in this place.

ISLAM......a false religion, for a false people.

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at February 29, 2008 10:20 PM

We kuffar don't realise, and strangely enough, the Islamists and their apologists appear not to realise that we don't realise, that they regard this as a self-evident, complete refutation of all your arguments.

Although it is a logical non-sequitor, this doesn't seem to bother them in the least. The argument goes: 1. Spencer is criticizing Islam (which they would posit as self-evident); 2. Ergo, all his statements are wrong and invalid. Case closed......."
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016511.php#c396355

ISLAM......a false religion, for a false people.

Posted by: Ezekiel2012

Strangely enough this totally explains why 'dialogue' with Islamists don't work. If you are not part of Allah's 'in crowd' you don't have a chance per their non-sequitor logic. What is 'self evident' for them is that we cannot possibly every be correct, since we are not part of the 'in crowd' of Allah's slaves of submission to this non-reasoning belief system structured so cleverly by their early Caliphate. And it is for this reason they can NEVER hear what you say, or answer truthfully, or admit error in their belief system, but will always seek some clever way to wiggle out of having to answer directly. Why is this so? Because they are answering a kuffr who is outside the 'in crowd'. This is pure supremacist ideology, akin to Nazism, that we who are not part of there 'in crowd' are of no worth, not even to bother to answer except in the duty of performing Da'wa against us, to entice us into the 'in crowd' of Allah's slaves. Clever, devious, and power hungry for our souls.

Always resist, and be very clear eyed when discussing with a Muslim, because they are blind to their irrationality and will walk around like blind men mumbling the same mantras all over again. It's all they are empowered to do. I suspect 91 million is too small a figure. In fact, I would put the figure closer to 90% of 'true believers' of that 'in crowd' of Allah's slaves, with 10% who have doubts. The reason more Muslims are not actively doing Jihad is because they do not feel empowered enough to do so, so default quietly with support to those who are actively engaged. Scary but simple truths here, that Muslims must be held at arms length in all discussions with the understanding they are not speaking for themselves as truthful individuals, but as mouthpieces for their 'in crowd' of Allah's slaves.

The only saving grace in this 21st century is that the 'true believers - in crowd' is a lot smaller than 1.2 billion members of this political religious sect, in part because they are now exposed to the cultural universality of our freedoms and their successful socio-economic democratic systems. Why do you think they are migrating in such large numbers to the West? It is not because their own Sharia societies are such a glowing success, but rather the opposite, that they represent tyrannical repression and socio-economic failure. The saving grace for the West is to keep emphasizing its own Freedom values with strong reason, and in time the numbers for the 'in crowd' of Allah's slavery will decline to non-threatening levels, though their Jihad will remain a threat for as long as Muslims do not execute meaningful liberal reforms within both their Hadiths and their Quran. The more they rub against the values of the West, the more they will be forced to reform the values of their Allah slavery. But God works in mysterious ways... Disempower the Jihadists, including those who are quietly complicit with their evil creed of Da'wa and verbal jihad, such as being done on JW/DW here. With enough pressure, their numbers must decline, if the world is to be safe of this mental slavery and violence. The key to world peace is here, and in empowering those within Islam who genuinely seek liberal Reform.

I agree with Awake:

I will not concede the point that jihadists are inherently wrong and un-Islamic. There is too much support for their actions within portions of the Islamic community which celebrate their actions as sanctioned and even mandated by their faith. It is a common ploy to attempt to seperate jihad from Islam and it does nothing to solve the problem that Robert refers to in the purpose of this site.

There is only one reasonable conclusion to be had about Sharia and politicized Islam:

ISLAM......a false religion, for a false people.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at March 1, 2008 11:24 AM

Only 7% of Muslims identified themselves as radical and condoned the 9/11 attacks. Out of 1.3 billion Muslims that’s 91 million people. If all of those radicals were put into one country it would be the 13th most populous nation on earth, and that’s not even considering the one-way margin of error. If 5% of those polled were radical but claimed to be otherwise (and that’s being generous), that brings the total to 12% or 156 million people, that’s over half the population of the US. Put all them into one country and it would be the 7th largest.

The most nauseating headline to come out of this – not surprisingly - comes from the BBC – “Most Muslims 'desire democracy'” - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7267100.stm

(Populations based on CIA World Factbook July 2007 estimates)

1 China 1,321,851,888
2 India 1,129,866,154
3 US 301,139,947
4 Indonesia 234,693,997
5 Brazil 190,010,647
6 Pakistan 164,741,924
7 Bangladesh 150,448,339
8 Russia 141,377,752
9 Nigeria 135,031,164
10 Japan 127,433,494
11 Mexico 108,700,891
12 Philippines 91,077,287
13 Jihadistan 91,000,000 *******
14 Vietnam 85,262,356
15 Germany 82,400,996
16 Egypt 80,335,036
17 Ethiopia 76,511,887
18 Turkey 71,158,647
19 Congo (DRC) 65,751,512
20 Iran 65,397,521
21 Thailand 65,068,149
22 France 64,057,790
23 UK 60,776,238

1 China 1,321,851,888
2 India 1,129,866,154
3 US 301,139,947
4 Indonesia 234,693,997
5 Brazil 190,010,647
6 Pakistan 164,741,924
7 Jihadistan 156,000,000 ******
8 Bangladesh 150,448,339
9 Russia 141,377,752
10 Nigeria 135,031,164
11 Japan 127,433,494
12 Mexico 108,700,891
13 Philippines 91,077,287
14 Vietnam 85,262,356
15 Germany 82,400,996
16 Egypt 80,335,036
17 Ethiopia 76,511,887
18 Turkey 71,158,647
19 Congo (DRC) 65,751,512
20 Iran 65,397,521
21 Thailand 65,068,149
22 France 64,057,790
23 UK 60,776,238

Posted by: Futureman at March 1, 2008 2:18 PM

If you want to define something foreign to your language you can't apply your own meaning to it. To call jihad 'holy war' is ignorant of Arabic and the hadith's if you claim to have knowledge.

'Struggling in the way of God' is not limited to warfare although warfare comes under the scope of Jihad.

You know full well that jihad can include many things i.e what I'm doing on this website can be classed as Jihad, since I'm not doing this for my own ego, I'm doing it because God ordered me to.

There are hundreds of other examples, which have nothing to do with violence or bearing arms.

I quoted parts of the bible, which clearly show that even Jesus pbuh and Moses pbuh called for jihad or warfare in the path of God, numerous times. Now although the passages are relating to a specific incident in their time, that does not mean it has been abandoned.

Say for example a Muslim country launched a war against the Vatican. What is the pope going to say to the Christians. He's going to call for a crusade, no doubt about it. And you can bet, he's going to use these passages. But you think, it has been abandoned, but that's because no Christian nation is under attack from a Muslim nation or whoever. So there are similarities between the scriptures on that front.

The Quran clearly outlines a specific set of rules in warfare, the Bible and the Torah contains no such rules. It also clearly outlines the one instance that a Muslim nation or person can bare arms and thats after it has been aggressed.

The verses you feed so much on, are also relating to a specific battle (Battle of Badr)(9:29),(8:12), if you would only go out research properly.

It is a call to the Prophet pbuh and his companions to defend themselves from the Quraysh. After 13 years of attack and persecution, they could not retaliate and then as a mercy to them, God reveals these verses. 'Fight them back'.

If the Quran is false, it challenges you over and over to find a fault.

How did a book revealed 1400 years say in Surah Al Anbya (The Prophets)[21:30] 'Do the unbelievers not realize that the heaven and the earth used to be one solid mass that we exploded into existence? And from water we made all living things. Would they believe?'

Big Bang theory?
When did scientists find that every living organism is made almost entirely from water: 1973 and to come to this conclusion, they needed microscopes. When were microscopes invented?

Posted by: thesaracen at March 1, 2008 3:19 PM

thes states: "....I'm doing it because God ordered me to."

Interesting choice of words: "ordered me to", what would cause you to say that?

Sounds like your god is more of a dictator, not at all like the God I know.

Posted by: champ at March 1, 2008 4:27 PM

thesaracen said.....

"..........The Quran clearly outlines a specific set of rules in warfare, the Bible and the Torah contains no such rules. It also clearly outlines the one instance that a Muslim nation or person can bare arms and thats after it has been *aggressed*.........."

Taqiyya, Taqiyya, Taqiyya, Taqiyya, Taqiyya.

Muslims come to non-muslim nations, welcomed as co-citizens by non-muslims, often as people seeking political sanctuary, welcomed as co-citizens by non-muslims.

When the muslims are politically weak [low in numbers], muslims are polite and peaceful.

As their numbers increase, muslims seek political power, and seek to introduce Sharia [upon all].
Sharia does not share power, wherever it is resident, Sharia must be dominant, and displace all other legal codes.

"Allah 's Apostle said,"
I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say,
'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,'...."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.196

But non-muslims in non-muslim nations, insist that resident muslims [and that all citizens] must be subject to the same local secular laws.

Muslims clerics then declare non-muslims are oppressing muslims [i.e. muslims are being 'aggressed'], non-muslims are subjecting muslims to 'unjust' secular law.

Muslims clerics declare non-muslims are oppressing muslims...... "ALAH AKBAR! ALAH AKBAR! ALAH AKBAR! You must Jihad against the unjust 'aggressors', who are unjustly oppressing muslims."

To muslims, the mere existence of all non-muslim communities, is an aggression against muslims / Allah.

ISLAM......a false religion, for a false people.

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at March 1, 2008 4:56 PM

thesaracen,

you wrote:
"If you want to define something foreign to your language you can't apply your own meaning to it. To call jihad 'holy war' is ignorant of Arabic and the hadith's if you claim to have knowledge."

"'Struggling in the way of God' is not limited to warfare although warfare comes under the scope of Jihad."

You just contradicted yourself. If 'jihaad' includes warfare fighting in the cause of Allah, what part of my claim is ignorant? Is it the holy part? I believe in my last post I declared that jihad had dual meanings.

Anyway, Sahih Bukhari seems to think that jihad includes warfare as well. What am I missing?

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html

you wrote:
"There are hundreds of other examples, which have nothing to do with violence or bearing arms."

OK, fine. Unfortunately non-Muslims do not care nor should they be concerned about those facets of jihad. The warfare part, as is indicative of this site, is really all that matters.

Your argument is flawed here. It is akin to excusing the rapist for the crime of rape because the rapist is benevolent in many other areas, like he cuts his grandmother's grass.

you wrote:
"I quoted parts of the bible, which clearly show that even Jesus pbuh and Moses pbuh called for jihad or warfare in the path of God, numerous times. Now although the passages are relating to a specific incident in their time, that does not mean it has been abandoned."

Clearly? Hardly. The number of times Jesus is involved in warfare in the New Testament?...Zero. The passage in Luke that you referred to speaks of the sword in an allegorical sense. See below:

http://bible.cc/luke/22-36.htm

There is another major flaw in your statement. I already acknowledged the OT passages. Robert has explained them in depth in his latest book and yes they are historical. That being said, you state that they have not been abandoned. This is entirely untrue. They have.

Provide a single example in the last 100 years to support your claim that they have not.

you wrote:
"Say for example a Muslim country launched a war against the Vatican. What is the pope going to say to the Christians. He's going to call for a crusade, no doubt about it."

Illogical. First your are hypothesizing, whereas Robert repeatedly shows Islamic jihad as an every day occurence. Also, you cannot be iron-clad sure about what the Pope would or would not do in a hypothetical situation. Lastly on the matter. How many divisions does the Pope have and what sway does he hold on secular governments?

you wrote:
"The Quran clearly outlines a specific set of rules in warfare, the Bible and the Torah contains no such rules. It also clearly outlines the one instance that a Muslim nation or person can bare arms and thats after it has been aggressed."

Agreed. there are no protocols for war for there is no call for it, besides the few historically specific calls in the OT. Once again, the problem of properly interpreting the protocols of war in Islam is limited to the Islamic community, misunderstanders and all.

you wrote:
"The verses you feed so much on, are also relating to a specific battle (Battle of Badr)(9:29),(8:12), if you would only go out research properly."

I don't "feed" on anything. The passages are historical yet they are in recent history, timeless mandates that are used to justify jihadist action everywhere. Little research is needed to discover that and once again, the problem is amongst Muslims, not non-Muslims.

I will address science and the Qur'an in a bit. Gotta make dinner.

Regards.

Posted by: awake at March 1, 2008 4:56 PM

For thesaracen:

"If you want to define something foreign to your language you can't apply your own meaning to it. To call jihad 'holy war' is ignorant of Arabic and the hadith's if you claim to have knowledge."

"'Struggling in the way of God' is not limited to warfare although warfare comes under the scope of Jihad."

"You know full well that jihad can include many things i.e what I'm doing on this website can be classed as Jihad, since I'm not doing this for my own ego, I'm doing it because God ordered me to."

"There are hundreds of other examples, which have nothing to do with violence or bearing arms."

So what? There are tons of examples in the news every day which have everything to do with violence. I don't care what your version of a 'jihad' is. The nutcase with explosives strapped to him, it's his interpretation of 'jihad' that I worry about. Regardless, arguing over semantics is just cheap deflection and obfuscation.

"I quoted parts of the bible, which clearly show that even Jesus pbuh and Moses pbuh called for jihad or warfare in the path of God, numerous times. Now although the passages are relating to a specific incident in their time, that does not mean it has been abandoned."

Where exactly in the Bible do Jesus pbuh and Moses pbuh Moses pbuh call for warfare, violent warfare, against nonbelievers? And when was the last time you heard any of those passages used to justify violence against non-Christians?

"Say for example a Muslim country launched a war against the Vatican. What is the pope going to say to the Christians. He's going to call for a crusade, no doubt about it. And you can bet, he's going to use these passages. But you think, it has been abandoned, but that's because no Christian nation is under attack from a Muslim nation or whoever. So there are similarities between the scriptures on that front."

Almost every Christian nation in the Western world has either been attacked or threatened with attack by Muslims terrorists, which are STATELESS organizations. They are stateless because Islam is stateless. And as a Christian I take exception to your use of the word 'crusade'. In Christianity, a crusade has many meanings. A crusade is not limited to warfare although warfare comes under the scope of a crusade. If you want to define something foreign to your language you can't apply your own meaning to it. To call crusade 'holy war' is ignorant of English and the Bible if you claim to have knowledge. You know full well that crusade can include many things.

"The Quran clearly outlines a specific set of rules in warfare, the Bible and the Torah contains no such rules. It also clearly outlines the one instance that a Muslim nation or person can bare arms and thats after it has been aggressed."

'The Bible and the Torah have no rules concerning warfare.' Maybe it's because warfare is not central to Christianity and Judaism they way it is to Islam. Maybe there's a link between the confrontational language of the Quran and the culture of death and destruction which permeates the Muslim world?

"The verses you feed so much on, are also relating to a specific battle (Battle of Badr)(9:29),(8:12), if you would only go out research properly."

"It is a call to the Prophet pbuh and his companions to defend themselves from the Quraysh. After 13 years of attack and persecution, they could not retaliate and then as a mercy to them, God reveals these verses. 'Fight them back'."

Again, so what? Nitpick the verses from the Quran recited by suicide bombers and confront people in jihadist chat rooms about how wrong THEY are.

"If the Quran is false, it challenges you over and over to find a fault."

You believe a book is infallible? That kind of irrationality is exactly the problem.

"How did a book revealed 1400 years say in Surah Al Anbya (The Prophets)[21:30] 'Do the unbelievers not realize that the heaven and the earth used to be one solid mass that we exploded into existence? And from water we made all living things. Would they believe?'"

"Big Bang theory?
When did scientists find that every living organism is made almost entirely from water: 1973 and to come to this conclusion, they needed microscopes. When were microscopes invented?"

Great. I'll stop reading Stephen Hawking and Michio Kako and just pick up a copy of the Quran. What other mind-blowing scientific revelations are in there? Can it help me figure out how to set my Tivo?

Sincerely,

Futureman, pbuh

Posted by: Futureman at March 1, 2008 6:08 PM

thesaracen said.....

"....If the Quran is false, it challenges you over and over to find a fault....."

Again, saracen promotes ISLAMIC 'logic', when engaging with non-muslims in debate.

i.e.
'These people are non-muslims.
ISLAM, is true.
Non-muslim, is false.
Ergo, all the non-muslim arguments are false.'

again.....
Archimedes2 explains this muslim debating 'logic' very well here....

"........I think one "refutation" that we are blinded to is simply the following:

#102: He is criticizing Islam.

We kuffar don't realise, and strangely enough, the Islamists and their apologists appear not to realise that we don't realise, that they regard this as a self-evident, complete refutation of all your arguments.

Although it is a logical non-sequitor, this doesn't seem to bother them in the least. The argument goes: 1. Spencer is criticizing Islam (which they would posit as self-evident); 2. Ergo, all his statements are wrong and invalid. Case closed......."
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016511.php#c396355

thesaracen said.....
"I'm not in darkness nor am I evil."

again.....
"ISLAM, is true.
Non-muslim, is false.
Ergo, all the non-muslim arguments are false."

ISLAM......a false religion, for a false people.

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at March 1, 2008 6:19 PM

The Saracen wrote:

"You know full well that jihad can include many things i.e what I'm doing on this website can be classed as Jihad, since I'm not doing this for my own ego, I'm doing it because God ordered me to."

That is one hell of an Ego to have, to think that you had been selected to do what God told you to do. Why you? Are you such a special human being that God talks to you? Does God ignore the rest of humanity except You? Are all your co-regionists as Ego driven as you, so they all think they are ordered to do what they do because God told them to? Do you have any conception of how many human beings live on the planet, or how insignificantly little this planet really is in the scale of galaxies and universe? How BIG is your Ego in that frame of reference to all humanity and all existence? It's unbelievably BIG of you to think you can act for God! Your Mohammad madman told you this?

What makes we who believe in Freedom so different from your religio-cult of Allah is that we recognize the importance of each human being in the frame of reference of all humanity and existence, and that no one is so EGO riddled as to think they can act for God. Does your Ego have any idea of what we are about, or what we are talking about, when we say all human beings are inherently Equal by natural right? Or is your Ego so pumped up with thinking it is doing things, often deceiftul, evil and violent things, for God? Dunce! By WHAT RIGHT do you have to act for God?! Idiot!!

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at March 1, 2008 6:30 PM

The Koran states that....

Muslims must never knowingly kill another [devout] muslim. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.092 & 93 !

And yet every day, "In the name of ISLAM..."

http://members.dodo.com.au/~wtt626/comeinpeace.html#And_more_of_what_passes_for_political_debate_in_any_society_where_devout_muslims_predominate.

Muslims murder muslims.
Muslims murder non-muslims.

ISLAM, the death cult.

ISLAM......a false religion, for a false people.

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at March 1, 2008 6:33 PM

Battle_of_Tours said to saracen....

"......By WHAT RIGHT do you have to act for God?! Idiot!!"

Tours.....
ISLAM is, muslims, *are* anti-christ.

These actions were prophesied....

2 Thessalonians 2:3
¶Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; *so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God*, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

Note....
".....*so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God*, shewing himself that he is God."

1 Corinthians 3:16 ¶Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Evil men displace the spirit of God, within us.

And THAT, is the abomination [spoken of by the prophet Daniel].

'In darkness', saracen!!!

ISLAM......a false religion, for a false people.

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at March 1, 2008 6:49 PM

awake- Jihad does include warfare thats true. And I agreed with that but I didn't agree that it meant 'holy war.' This is the problem.

Since many people in the West think it means 'holy war' they relate it to warfare, solely. If the correct definition is applied then warfare is only a part of Jihad and doesn't force people who have limited knowledge on the issue, to conclude that it must have something to do with war. They see 'Holy war', they're going to think it means a religious war.
Thats the point I am trying to address. Only the definition of it.

Having said that, it is not 'taqqiya' to say warfare is only permitted in defense. Muslims can only attack in defense if you can find evidence against that then do so.
Therefore since it is in defense, how can it be evil? To say jihad is evil, you'll have to claim Islam is evil, and that's a whole new topic, which you will not win either.

So the only thing that you have, is to link the actions of a minority with Islam and claim that since they do some crazy things, Islam must be teaching it.
It must be Islamic teachings, from the hadiths and the Quran, which say go out and kill innocent people and blow yourselves up. Once again if you can bring forward a hadith, which clearly states this, then I won't question these terrorists.
But bare in mind, that you have tried the same thing hundreds of times and there's always a logical answer. Nevertheless you won't find them.

As for these chapters in your scriptures, what difference is there between your scriptures and the Quran, if all three have passages relating a story of when God called on his prophets to fight?
There is none. So why not distance the actions of some people who have gone far, far beyond the limits of the Qu'ran and Sharia? You have agreed that there is not open call in these passages for 'Muslims' to do something of the things they are doing in todays world.

If someone attacks you, of course you will have to fight back. So authentic jihad, when all its different forms are considered, cannot be evil. Everyone should have a right to defend what is theirs. Do you agree with this? Muslims and all mankind should fight against evil inclinations. Yes or no? We should all stand up for justice and truth. Yes or no?
Whatever is truth to you, stand up for it. Whatever rightfully belongs to you,and whatever it is that you have a responsibility for, i.e your family, stand up for them and defend them.
This is not evil to me.

So some of these so-called Muslims, they have done wrong, and they will be held accountable by God. But just because they say 'Allahu Akhbar' and this hadith allows me to do this and that, does not mean it is Islamic. They are just using the same method that Gilchrist, the Shia's and the Ahmaddiya's used to back up their claims.

Provide a single example in the last 100 years to support your claim that they have not.
awake this is exactly my point. There are no examples. Until there is, you won't know. History suggests it will happen. If a Christian nation comes under attack from a Muslim nation, a crusade would be launched.

If the Vatican came under attack, it's only natural the Pope will ask for help to defend the centre of Christianity. He won't just sit back in the name of peace and allow the Muslim army to invade will he? And I'm sure many of the most powerful nations in the world who are mainly Christian, are going to oblige.

So the problem is with all-sides. The Quran and hadiths have no blame at all.
Muslims should try more to educate there youngsters and ensure they do not get brainwashed. It's not like they are silent, but they can do more.

Misunderstanders, should fear God before they go ahead with what they do.

You, need to understand the religion more before you comment and hold a particular position.
Even though they have made a list stating that I would say this, it is true, since you don't even know (not you awake) the meaning of Jihad or taqqiya.

If you want knowledge on Islam, you will get it best from a Muslim source. Yes or no?

The West, needs to leave these countries, which they have invaded without justification and this problem would never happen in the first place.

Since you keep calling for the Muslims to go back home, then leave their countries and let them do whatever the hell it is they want to do with their countries.

The West needs to stop sanctioning any country which threatens it's dominance and stop bullying weaker countries. I believe this would stop the terrorism in today's world. People are going to be angry and will blame you directly for their families dying because of hunger due to sanctions imposed by the West. Had it been the other way round, you would not be happy either.

However, this is not to condone what the terrorist's are doing. Since they kill a lot of people including Muslim's directly and indirectly it's crazy to suggest us Muslim's secretly support them.

I want peace too. I don't want to see people die.

Futureman- The Qu'ran came way before Hawkings. How is it the Qu'ran can state something only discovered a few decades ago? Go and explain that away.

And it is without fault. You will never find one about the Qu'ran; not the translation, but the Qu'ran, find one bring it forward, let the world know.

Ezekiel2012- Keep up with attacks about what Archmedies2 said, it doesn't answer anything about Islam does it? Like I said I could do the same list easily. Only wastes time my friend.

Battle_of_tours - It is my basic Islamic duty to give dawah to non-believers. God ordered not just me alone, but all Muslims to spread the message. No more than that.

Posted by: thesaracen at March 1, 2008 6:54 PM

thes states: "Misunderstanders, should fear God before they go ahead with what they do."

Misunderstanders my ass!!! More smoke & mirrors from thes!!! Just more smoke & mirrors!!!

Posted by: champ at March 1, 2008 6:58 PM

thes -

Note the title of this headline:

"There are only 91 million jihadists!"

There are no MISUNDERSTANDERS of Islam, only mobots like you working for the CAUSE OF ISLAM!!!

Posted by: champ at March 1, 2008 7:02 PM

Again.....

....these *supposed* "misunderstanders of Islam" are the ones you need to confront, thes, NOT US.

Is backwards the only thing you know ?????????????????????????????????????????????

Posted by: champ at March 1, 2008 7:13 PM

champ- Please explain to me what you are trying to say. I've written something I'm not lying, because if I lie, I contradict myself sooner or later.

Are you trying to say a human cannot misunderstand something? I can misunderstand a simple order, so can you, you are human.

To misunderstand something in the Qu'ran is possible my friend. Aside from the basic teachings, a book that vast, you cannot possibly understand everything unless your learnt in the teachings and the logic. Misunderstanders do exist I'm afraid.

So do Misguider's. Some people are very cunning and can misguide people. That's not me, by the way. So if I'm lying, you have to disprove logic, go ahead and try.
And furthermore give me the links to these jihadist chat rooms I'll take it to them as well and you can observe if you want. But every time i post something champ, refute me properly.
It's a sign that you have nothing to say if you keep focusing on one line without elaborating. If you have nothing to say then be my guest; keep doing what Ezekiel2012 and battle_of_tours are doing.

Posted by: thesaracen at March 1, 2008 7:20 PM

champ said, to saracen....

"Again.....
....these *supposed* "misunderstanders of Islam" are the ones you need to confront, thes, NOT US....."

Exactly champ!

"misunderstanders of Islam" are murdering muslims.

In completely dis obeisance to the directive in the Koran....

Muslims must never knowingly kill another [devout] muslim. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.092 & 93 !

saracen.....
Please point me to all of the fatwas, against these "misunderstanders of Islam" who are **murdering muslims**.

Not one fatwas is made against those [muslims] killing muslims.

Why is this?

Instead, why a fatwa against Geert Wilders, who wants to show the TRUTH about the contents of the Koran???

Darkness, and falsehood, saracen.

You are up to your neck in it.

ISLAM......a false religion, for a false people.

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at March 1, 2008 7:37 PM

The 'da'wa' saracen:

Muslims can only attack in defense if you can find evidence against that then do so.
Therefore since it is in defense, how can it be evil? To say jihad is evil, you'll have to claim Islam is evil, and that's a whole new topic, which you will not win either.

But since Muslims get offended by everything non-islamic, they are in a perpetual 'state of war' with everybody else.... What a 'religion of peace' bunch of crap, deceitful nonsense.

Yes, you are evil, no question, misinformed, ignorant, and not too bright either.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at March 1, 2008 7:42 PM

CORRECTION....

Darkness, and falsehood, saracen.

You are are *SWIMMING* in it.

ISLAM......a false religion, for a false people.

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at March 1, 2008 7:43 PM

I wonder if 'willful blindness' is a kind of Islamic disease, where they are more predisposed to catch it than others on the planet, a kind of genetic marker of the followers of Mohammad? The above posts by the saracen muslim troll is a good example of this disease, where his answers barely connect with anything said, with no acknowledgement of ideas expressed, and willfully blind to understanding that his Ego is immense to think God makes him do things for Him. This disease is truly sickening to the heart, which is why debating Islam is such a sickening enterprise. In the end there will be only one solution, if they do not drop their egomaniac Mohammad's dictates to take over the world. There can be no 'peace on Earth' with Islam around. It must go, it has no place in the modern ways of the world. Our freedoms of thought, freedom of belief, and freedom of being human are too much at risk. It must go.

Thanks to Saracen for clarifying how truly evil his da'wa really is.
The responsibility of the next World War rests with you and your kind. If the Crusades of a thousand years ago frighten you, you have no idea....

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at March 1, 2008 8:08 PM

Thesaracen,

Just to point out one of you most fatal flaws in logic, you said once:

Say for example a Muslim country launched a war against the Vatican. What is the pope going to say to the Christians. He's going to call for a crusade, no doubt about it....

Then you later said this:

If the Vatican came under attack, it's only natural the Pope will ask for help to defend the centre of Christianity. He won't just sit back in the name of peace and allow the Muslim army to invade will he? And I'm sure many of the most powerful nations in the world who are mainly Christian, are going to oblige.

If a Muslim country launches a "war" against the Vatican, that is a direct attack on Rome, on Italy, and on NATO. And you better believe that all 26 member states (of NATO) will respond in full fury.

Will this be a Crusade? No, it will mean total annihilation of one or more Muslim countries.

But if your stupid, moronic, tribalistic, goat-fornicating "misunderstanders" of the Koran and Hadith manage to blow a bomb in Sistine Chapel, then I hope your il-lah protects you, because the Italians will come down on you like a hammer!

Drop the scenario - it won't work. Would you muslims do us all a favor and learn the true nature of the Crusades (a defensive action to protect and reclaim the Holy Land from the marauding arabs) and not regurgitate what your Imam tells you?

No, I didn't think so.

Posted by: boneshack at March 1, 2008 8:11 PM

Thanks for backing me up, Ezekiel, at least you understood my point; unlike thes the obtuse little muse.

Posted by: champ at March 1, 2008 8:14 PM

Have anybody studied how the poll was made, does it stand up to scrutiny. How is the sampling done to cover the claimed 1.3 billion muslims, I always had the idea that it was a geographic thing this how many Muslims Christians etc there is not at true account of religious people. UN reports done by muslim academics say there is alarmingly high degree of illiteracy in middle east and Arabic speaking countries. Was it made by phone. Can one assume that it was easiest to reach the part of the better of population in the muslim world, wouldn’t that narrow the size of the size of actual population the poll covered. And if so the percentage of wannabe jihadist will be much larger.

Posted by: Engelbrekt at March 1, 2008 8:29 PM

Battle_of_Tours said to sarecen.....

"......The responsibility of the next World War rests with you and your kind. If the Crusades of a thousand years ago frighten you, you have no idea."

Muslims always point to the Crusades [of 1100's-1200's], as Christian aggression against ISLAM.

Muslims never mention that ISLAM firstly overran the Christian Holy lands, much earlier.

And secondly, muslims never mention, or acknowledge, the ISLAMIC *aggression* of the muslim 'Crusades' into Europe, in the 700's.

Why is that?

ISLAM......a false religion, for a false people.

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at March 1, 2008 8:31 PM

sarecen must have gone to bed in disgust.

:))))

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at March 1, 2008 8:48 PM

thesaracen wrote:
"Since many people in the West think it means 'holy war' they relate it to warfare, solely."

Like I said previously, its alqternate meanings are of no concern to non-Muslims. I thought I made myself clear. Semantical arguments in this regrad are essentially valuless.

you wrote:
"Muslims can only attack in defense if you can find evidence against that then do so."

'Defense' is the operative word in that statement. What constitutes a defense of Islam? Is it teachers naming teddys Muhammad? Is it Salman Rushdie's offensive book? Danish cartoons?....ad nauseum, these examples of the eternally offended Islam are. Who is a qualified authority to make these claims that jihad must be waged as a 'defense' of Islam, SPECIFICALLY? Likewise, who can officially declare a fatwah?

you wrote:
"To say jihad is evil, you'll have to claim Islam is evil, and that's a whole new topic, which you will not win either."

There is no winning or losing, only the truth. Awhile back when you claimed that apostates should be killed, you belied a central point about your ideology. Since the apostate was "spreading lies" and didn't "keep their lying moths shut" about his former religion, death was justified in your estimation. That sentiment is supported by the Qur'an as I am quite sure that you will agree with. To me, your sentiment seems contradictory to "There is no compulsion in religion". Remember, I have not mentioned taqqiya once in our exchange, you did.

you wrote:
"So the only thing that you have, is to link the actions of a minority with Islam and claim that since they do some crazy things, Islam must be teaching it."

Muslims themselves provide the ammunition for this, not my fabrication. These "crazy things", when they use the word jihad over and over again, reinforces that position. Mosques preach hatred of the West and the infidel. This is no secret. This particular thread talks about the 7% minority of extremists (those that didn't lie when polled) and it totals about 91 million Muslims worldwide, with the actual number never being lower but quite possibly higher.

you wrote:
"So authentic jihad, when all its different forms are considered, cannot be evil. Everyone should have a right to defend what is theirs. Do you agree with this?"

Once again, "authentic" jihad warfare is subjective, but yes I do believe people have the right to "defend what is theirs". The situational specifics are paramount for justification, however. I would need some clarification on this to concur with your statements further.

you wrote:
"Once again if you can bring forward a hadith, which clearly states this, then I won't question these terrorists."

How about a name? Yusuf al Qaradawi, the well-repected Islamic scholar, who justifies suicide-bombers against the Israelis and has found a nice workaround to the Qur'an's prohibition against suicide. If he is an Islamic heretic, why is his head not on a pike as we speak?

you wrote:
"As for these chapters in your scriptures, what difference is there between your scriptures and the Quran, if all three have passages relating a story of when God called on his prophets to fight?"

The difference is also cventral to Islam's self-induced cornering. The Bible for example is not the literal word of God. The Qur'an supposed is. These passages I have maintained are abandoned contrary to your claim. The Qur'an offers no such 'wiggle-room', for lack of a better term.

you wrote:
"You have agreed that there is not open call in these passages for 'Muslims' to do something of the things they are doing in todays world."

I have not agreed with this one iota. That is false.

In response to my challenge to find a single example in the past CENTURY to support your claims that Christian passages have been used to justify violence against non-Christians, you wrote:

"There are no examples. Until there is, you won't know. History suggests it will happen. If a Christian nation comes under attack from a Muslim nation, a crusade would be launched."

More speculation, but I thank you for FINALLY conceding a point. Let's leave the prophecizing to Muhammad, shall we?

you wrote:
"If the Vatican..."

Baseless speculation. Shoulda coulda woulda and has no place in this debate.

you wrote:
"So the problem is with all-sides."

Disagreed 100% as far as religious ideology is concerned. Your previous admission to my challenge says the exact opposite of what you claim when one disregards the hypotheticals of the future.

you wrote:
"Muslims should try more to educate there youngsters and ensure they do not get brainwashed. It's not like they are silent, but they can do more."

I wholeheartedly agree.

you wrote:
"If you want knowledge on Islam, you will get it best from a Muslim source. Yes or no?"

At this point, no. This falls into the whole understanding the Qur'an in its native Arabic tongue excuse. If Islam can only be fully understood in Arabic, then why do Muslims translate the Qur'an into English?

you wrote:
"The West, needs to leave these countries..."

Whether agreed or disagreed, this is off-topic to the discussion at hand.

you wrote:
"However, this is not to condone what the terrorist's are doing. Since they kill a lot of people including Muslim's directly and indirectly it's crazy to suggest us Muslim's secretly support them."

To steal a sentiment from George Orwell. "All Muslims are created equal, but some are more equal than others." 'Muslim' is substituted for 'animals, but not intended as a slight, but rather to make a point about inequality.

finally, you wrtote to me:
"I want peace too. I don't want to see people die."

With the noted exception of "lying apostates". I presume you meant to clarify that point and just omitted in error.

Science and the Quran:

www.answeringislam.com

I'm probably off until tomorrow.

Regards.

Posted by: awake at March 1, 2008 8:54 PM

Thesaracen,

It's interesting that the only counter-arguments you choose (in light of all I said against you) are the most ridiculous.

"Futureman- The Qu'ran came way before Hawkings. How is it the Qu'ran can state something only discovered a few decades ago? Go and explain that away."

I admit, Saracen, that Stephen Hawking, pbuh, was in fact born in 1942 and came way after the Quran. I have egg all over my face. But does the following one-sentence, vague declaration that heaven and Earth were closed then suddenly opened really sum up the Big Bang Theory and all it entails:

The Prophets [21.30] Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the earth were closed up, but We have opened them; and We have made of water everything living, will they not then believe?

So what happened to all the remaining particles which didn't make up our world, but the billions of stars, galaxies and planets out there, some of which may have life and have never heard of Allah? Does the Quran talk about wormholes, time travel, the theory of relativity? ... sorry, the last one formulated by a Jew, so of course not.

One thousand years before the Prophet Mohammed pbuh, Thales contended that everything in the universe was derived from water. He was wrong in a literal sense. But going by Saracen logic, the ancient Greeks were infallible because of their incredibly shrewd declaration of a scientific fact.

"And it is without fault. You will never find one about the Qu'ran; not the translation, but the Qu'ran, find one bring it forward, let the world know."

The world sees it. We know it. The problem is people like you don't.

Posted by: Futureman at March 1, 2008 10:29 PM

Muslims always point to the Crusades [of 1100's-1200's], as Christian aggression against ISLAM.

Muslims never mention that ISLAM firstly overran the Christian Holy lands, much earlier.

And secondly, muslims never mention, or acknowledge, the ISLAMIC *aggression* of the muslim 'Crusades' into Europe, in the 700's.

Why is that? - posted by: Ezekiel2012

It is because of their collective guilt over the fact that they themselves initiated a European response to their kidnapping into slavery and harassment of Christian pilgrims to the Middle East's holy sites, what initiated their much feared Crusades. They are afraid Christian nations may do it again. Of course, there will never again be a "Christian" Crusade against Islam, it is not in our interest nor is it something Christianity would stoop so low to do no matter how much they harass us now. But the world, the whole world, can turn against Islam's aggressive religo-politics of Sharia trampling our freedoms, which could initiate a very serious retaliation against the Ummah, what they would dub the new 'Crusades' against them. The Christian kingdoms were conquered by force and brutality all over the Middle East, North Africa, the Buddhist kingdoms of Central Asia, and the Hindu kingdoms of India, so Mohamedan hands are dirty with the blood of the innocents for centuries. They therefore live in a collective fear that one day all this will come back as pay-back for all their past aggressions. Ergo, they keep bringing up the old Crusades as if they happened yesterday, because of their collective fear.

The more they push with da'wa and jihad, the closer they edge to the precipice. The know this, and it scares the hell out of them. So they try to preempt a forceful response by trying to appeal to any guilt they can find in the now secular Judeo-Chistian Western world, trying to appeal to our sense of tolerance and multiculturalism ideals by calling it 'holy war'. It will do them no good, and they know it is only a matter of time for their needed comeuppance. They fear us, which makes their evil jihad and dea'wa more vocal. It's only a matter of time, and they know this. Even the Saracen in his deepest fears knows this, as a collective member of the Ummah, so he brings it up here. It will do no good. When the time comes, our freedoms will be protected no matter how big their 'army' of jihadists. In the end, Islam as a political movement is doomed. They know this, and they fear us, which is why they hate us. The truth is that Islam, with all its deceitful falsehoods and violence against humanity, is headed for mass extinction.

Ever wonder why they made such a stink about the film "300"? They remember it as the first "Crusade" though it predated Islam by millinnea. Same principle, peoples freedoms must be protected against aggressions that will enslave them. THAT is self-defense, not the defense of some perceived 'insults' like the teddy bear Mohammed, or Motoon riots, or a Pope's speech. The 'slaves of Allah' fear us going all the way back, because we are free.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at March 2, 2008 10:49 AM