| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Good thinking. But why isn't anyone, anywhere, telling those who are offended to grow up, and to recognize that a film, no matter how offensive, is no warrant to destroy things and kill people?
"Islam: European Commission braces for anti-Islam film," from AKI (thanks to James):
Brussels, 5 March (AKI) - The European Commission has warned all its offices around the world that the release of an upcoming Dutch film criticising the Koran could spark violent protest by Muslims."We have informed our delegations that the film - due for release soon, although we don't know exactly when - could draw protests," EU external relations commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner's spokeswoman, Christiane Hohmann, told Adnkronos International (AKI).
A series of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed which first appeared in Danish daily Jyllands Posten two years ago and which were republished in scores of papers around the world, angered many Muslims.
At least 50 people died in anti-cartoon protests in dozens of countries, including Afghanistan, and the cartoonist and his colleagues reportedly received death threats. Several Muslim countries boycotted Danish goods.
Afghan MPs on Tuesday staged a protest outside the country's parliament against the 10-minute film, 'Fitna' by far-right Dutch MP Geert Wilders. The MPs have called on the Danish and Dutch government to prevent such acts.
NATO secretary general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer also said last Sunday he was fearful the film could put troops at risk in Afghanistan. The same day, hundreds of people protested in the northern Afghan city of Mazar-i-Sharif, burned the Danish and Dutch flags and demanded that the government close the two countries' embassies in the capital, Kabul.
"We're not raising any alarm, and there's no reason to panic. It's just that after what happened over the Danish cartoons, we want to be prepared," said Hohmann.
Posted by Robert at March 5, 2008 5:07 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
I posted this in another thread, but it's probably more appropriate here:
Here is some hot news from the Netherlands. Geert Wilders' film will be presented to the world at Nieuwspoort (the international press center of the Netherlands) in The Hague.
http://www.nieuwspoort.nl/en/general-information.shtml
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 5, 2008 5:19 PM
Since film making was invented sometime after the 7th century, isn't watching films forbidden? so how would they know what was in Mr. Wilders' film unless they committed a sin and watched it?
My extremely limited understanding of islam and particularly wahabbi islam, is that anything invented after the death of mo is to be avoided.
Except for guns and c4 of course, and modern conveniences that can be used as weapons such as airplanes, cell phones, motor vehicles and the internet. Important things like clothing, education for girls, women supporting themselves etc. /sarc
Posted by: walterc at March 5, 2008 5:31 PM
People! Harvard is protesting against the no-men gym hours due to Muslim females!
Posted by: darcy at March 5, 2008 5:33 PM
Escalation in rioting crowd control:
1. Water cannons
2. Tear gas
3. Pepper spray
4. Unbearable noise that hurts ears
5. Flame throwers
Order of control techniques may be varied.
from comment "27. Antidotes to Rock-Throwing Crowds (Intifadas)"
to "Arab 'Third Intifada' Underway?"
at IsraelNN.com
at March 5, 2008 5:37 PM
The Rioting Crowd Control techniques listed in a post above are also applicable to such hot-spots as Kabul, Afghanistan and any other Afghani sites where rioting Moslems threaten NATO personnel.
In the case of Afghanistan, a combat area, I would recommend reversing the order of control techniques, i.e. employing #5 first, skipping #s2,3,and 4, and going directly to technique #1 so as to limit collateral damage, specifically to NATO materiel and facilities.
Posted by: unicorns62000 at March 5, 2008 6:00 PM
In combat areas I would use Mr. Smith and Mr. Westin personally or something stronger. Let's see how offending that is. These people only understand one thing, force and plenty of it. The enemy can and would use such demonstrations to get close to blow things up. I would let them know real quick that ant happening.
Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at March 5, 2008 6:08 PM
But why isn't anyone, anywhere, telling those who are offended to grow up, and to recognize that a film, no matter how offensive, is no warrant to destroy things and kill people?
Because it would make us hypocrites with our moral equivalence arguments that all religions and people are the same, it would also imply we have a higher moral standard, and the self haters can’t have any of that.
Posted by: BurgerBoy at March 5, 2008 6:09 PM
"...a film, no matter how offensive, is no warrant to destroy things and kill people?"
And more to the point, neither is any book.
Posted by: abolitionist at March 5, 2008 6:14 PM
Why should there be any cause for alarm?
We're just merely installing metal detectors, conducting bag searches, not allowing parking near the movie theaters, and rehearsing evacuation procedures while the movie plays.
Don't we do this for all the movies?
Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at March 5, 2008 6:16 PM
Ok Get ready for the riots... the more the merrier and have the police taking away all of them, back on a boat or on a plane with a one way ticket.
Europe has enough of all those clowns marching in the streets.... go march anywhere in the Middle East and see what happens,
at March 5, 2008 6:25 PM
Solution: All rioters will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Defense: Sharia law trumps stupid kaffir law.
Solution: Deport all Islamists now!
at March 5, 2008 6:35 PM
From Robert:
…why isn't anyone, anywhere, telling those who are offended to grow up, and to recognize that a film, no matter how offensive, is no warrant to destroy things and kill people?
With each story I read of things or actions perceived as "insults" to Islam, it becomes clearer that Islamic ideology stunts both intellectual and emotion growth in its followers. Islamic indoctrination seems to combine a reverence for immaturity and violence with an insecurity of personal worth separate from the Islamic collective.
Only such a Peter Pan meets Nightmare on Elm Street worldview could explain public officials responding to a cartoon, any cartoon, by making statements like:
"Freedom of speech must not be used to make a billion Muslims cry"
and
and of course, that old favorite:
"Death to the enemies of Islam"
At some point we have to grow up enough to realize that no amount of pampering, cajoling or appeasing can fix a problem that is not ours to fix. We need to summon enough character and conviction to respond in that assertive old school manner:
"Shut up! Or we'll give you something to cry about!"
... Then be prepared to carry through.
Sometimes, when perfect solutions aren't available, you have to go with what can be made effective.
at March 5, 2008 6:36 PM
Let's just all hope that Mr. Wilders surives in one piece after the film is released. He is definitely in the minority, at least among the political elite of the West. I'm just wondering if the film will do the trick- I say no. Not because Mr. Wilders doesn't know what he is talking about or because his film will be poorly produced. Those of us on here will probably love it for the most part. I just think that the 'problems' in the West are so far gone by now that it is going to take open warfare in the streets to wake (what's left of) the Western world up (by then). I really don't care about protesting gym hours at Harvard, that's incidental. Whoever wins that battle can pat themselves on the back for having won such a small engagement. If they still taught our history in school, people would be able to call such victories by their proper name- Pyrrhic. Allah's slaves are on the move and no one's stopping them where and when it counts.
Posted by: TheDiggler at March 5, 2008 6:44 PM
NATO secretary general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer also said last Sunday he was fearful the film could put troops at risk in Afghanistan.
You mean they are not already at risk?
I thought there was a war going on, oh well I guess it's just Ice cream and bingo parties. Why wreck that for some movie. I mean really, don't do anything that might make the enemy angry, and put soldiers at risk, now that's how to win a war...
at March 5, 2008 6:50 PM
'there's no reason to panic.'
Sure. Some of us remember this jape (re. panicking and Islamicking)
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2008/02/26/dont_panic_im_islamic.php
Posted by: Dane at March 5, 2008 7:00 PM
Dear Robert and RalphInfidel,
As I see it, if one attempts to offer the notion that Islam shouldn't use or promote violence, they respond with more violence to dissuade and stifle the notion.
Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at March 5, 2008 7:01 PM
So the Government worries about riots and violence by Muslims because a movie might portray them as violent and rioters who are easily enraged over any slight to Muhammad and Islam.
Ok , I get it , the film will create Jihadists because Islam has never ever ever produced a violent Muslims and all those 10'000 terrorism acts by Muslims since 9/11 are Islamaphobic propaganda that reports Christians and Hindu terrorist acts as done by Muslims.
Posted by: ala-sux at March 5, 2008 7:01 PM
So the Government worries about riots and violence by Muslims because a movie might portray them as violent and rioters who are easily enraged over any slight to Muhammad and Islam.
Ok , I get it , the film will create Jihadists because Islam has never ever ever produced a violent Muslims and all those 10'000 terrorism acts by Muslims since 9/11 are Islamaphobic propaganda that reports Christians and Hindu terrorist acts as done by Muslims.
Posted by: ala-sux at March 5, 2008 7:03 PM
From TheDiggler post:
"I just think that the 'problems' in the West are so far gone by now that it is going to take open warfare in the streets to wake (what's left of) the Western world up (by then)."
Sucks, don't it?
It seems every generation wants to stay in a warm, cozy, utopian dream up to, and even past, the last possible moment. Then we shudder at the cold blast of reality that must be absorbed to wake up, and get our wits about us.
"If they still taught our history in school..."
... ain't it the truth.
That's why it repeats,
and repeats,
and repeats,
....
at March 5, 2008 7:07 PM
The Cool Ghoul,
I'd say you're right. Sort of a "I love you so much, I have to kill you" pathology.
Posted by: RalphInfidel at March 5, 2008 7:11 PM
Can they name the group of people that they should be prepared against?
Posted by: alaskan1000 at March 5, 2008 7:32 PM
"'It's just that after what happened over the Danish cartoons, we want to be prepared,' said Hohmann."
This is good news, people are learning what to expect from Muslims. The problem is, a rat in a laboratory cage would learn the same thing, only faster.
at March 5, 2008 8:01 PM
I'm looking forward to watching the film in bed with my dog, my mistress, a cross around my neck, a yamulka on my head, eating a ham sandwich wrapped in random pages torn out of the Koran, while softly humming the Hatikva. Come and get me, sucka!
Posted by: jewdog at March 5, 2008 8:09 PM
Muslims rioting and blowing themselves would be a great way for Wilder's movie to get lots of free press and hence exposure.
And it would probably help Geert politically since he say "see I told you so" and that Muslims don't play well with non-believers.
Once the movie comes out, Conservative groups on college campuses need to hold public showings of "Fitna" to show people how intolerant and violent Islam is towards non-believers. Plus showing it would spark riots, death threats by Muslims etc, which can only help make Wilder's case.
Posted by: waltc at March 5, 2008 8:12 PM
Revealing a few facts about Islam will make a billion Muslims cry. Boohoo....
Posted by: Alaskan at March 5, 2008 8:42 PM
Tell those billion crying muslims to just
Cowboy up"
at March 5, 2008 8:50 PM
F.E.A.R. False evidence appearing real.
W.I.L.D.E.R Why I Like(a) Determined Exceptional Representative
T.H.U.G.S Threatening Hitting Unscrupulous God-hating Scum
My version of soduku( spelling right?) for this thread.
Posted by: Americantothecore at March 5, 2008 9:13 PM
"We're not raising any alarm, and there's no reason to panic. It's just that after what happened over the Danish cartoons, we want to be prepared"
And just how does one prepare against being shot while bicycling again?
Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at March 5, 2008 9:22 PM
Let them reveal their true intentions.
As it reveals their true religion:
intimidation, subjugation, annihilation.
The crying of terrorists is a joy.
Let them bathe their doom in it.
Posted by: profitsbeard at March 5, 2008 9:25 PM
The mentality of many Islamist apologists out there defies belief.
It goes along the lines of this:
- When terrible killings and acts of hatred and murder are done in the name of Islam (as has been done everyday for, I don't know, the past 1400 years), then this is just Islam and leave it alone.
- When we decide to point out that this barbarity, wherever it occurs, is unacceptable in terms of universal behaviour, you get Muslims saying "don't criticise our religion" and you also get apologists saying "don't criticise Islam because that may produce more Islamic terrorists"
Therefore, one can't criticise Islam and one has to stay silent in the face of the barbarity it is producing daily. All because Islam is somehow that special and that if we say something, we might hurt their feelings!
Now comes along Geert Wilders who wants to expose this hatred and have an open, general discussion about what lies at the heart of Islamist rage, namely the Koran itself.
And we get the following: criticisms from Iran, Pakistan and other like-minded Islamic nutjobs saying this movie will promote hate against Muslims. They haven't even seen it yet.
We also get criticisms from apologists saying "don't rock the boat, Islam is peace, don't say anything because that will make more of them extreme, blah blah blah".
Well, tough. If you can't deal with it and you can't wear it, then you need to grow up. More and more people are becoming aware of this appalling behaviour amongst Muslims, whether they be the ones who fly planes into buildings or ones who stay silent in the face of such murderous Islamic acts, and realise that we need to turn the tide if we want to save ourselves.
If you don't like it, go back to your wastelands in Arabia. But don't live in our free societies and use those very freedoms to destroy our free societies.
Posted by: S Perry at March 5, 2008 9:39 PM
MoMo sez: If the looney Left *REALLY* want or troops to come home then they should consider releasing films that "insult" illslam. Although I am inclined to say any film that explains illslam does just that. It "insults" it.
I wonder why that is so. Hmmmmmm....
Could it be that the Truth about illslam makes illslam look bad?
And if it looks bad then logically it IS bad.
Hey, leftists.. are you still with me here? If it wasn't for you guys we wouldn't be in this mess.
Posted by: Allah Schmallah at March 5, 2008 9:59 PM
It looks like the European (that is supposed to be "Eurabian" now anyway) Commission has just committed a vicious 'hate crime'!! Punitive Islamic sanctions will be required immediately against all Eurabian states!
Posted by: pythagoras at March 5, 2008 10:06 PM
I think I may not have expresed myself clearly enough on the first part.
What I mean is that if the Lefties want the troops home then the best thing to do is drive the moslems into a frenzied rage and then maybe Bush will get it in his thick head that they don't want freedom and Democracy and he will maybe decide that our tropps shouldn't be put in harm's way for these loonatics any longer.
To paraphrase Bismarck: The whole Middle East isn't worth the bleached bones of one American Private.
Posted by: Allah Schmallah at March 5, 2008 10:06 PM
I think I may not have expresed myself clearly enough on the first part.
What I mean is that if the Lefties want the troops home then the best thing to do is drive the moslems into a frenzied rage and then maybe Bush will get it in his thick head that they don't want freedom and Democracy and he will maybe decide that our tropps shouldn't be put in harm's way for these loonatics any longer.
To paraphrase Bismarck: The whole Middle East isn't worth the bleached bones of one American Private.
Posted by: Allah Schmallah at March 5, 2008 10:07 PM
Getting them out of th Western Countries on the other and.. that may well be worth the price.. which never would have to be paid if the Left hadn't allowed illsam to get a foothold amongst us in the first place.
Posted by: Allah Schmallah at March 5, 2008 10:10 PM
Getting them out of the Western Countries on the other and.. that may well be worth the price.. for allof us.. Sad to say that this price never would have to be paid if the Left hadn't allowed illslam to get a foothold amongst us in the first place.
So all you "peaceniks" out there.. who's going to pull the chestnuts out of the fire this time?
The "Peace: you have now is bought at the expense of future generations. Either they end up slaves or they end up shedding much blood to cleaning up the mess which you Quislings are getting us all into...
I am not afraid to say that I hope the blood they shed shall be that of the enemy and not our own.
As long as it is still legal to say so in this country.
In Europe I'd have to fear a visit from the Stasi for saying this.
Posted by: Allah Schmallah at March 5, 2008 10:17 PM
Let's suppose that the Zionist position of this website that Islam is a violent, backward religions is accepted. That doesn't explain why Muslims coexisted peacfully with Jews and Christians till relatively recently. In fact, the last "holocaust" of Jews occurred in Europe. If you follow the roots of all anti-Islamic polemic today you will find behind it Zionism.
A Little Bit About Geert Wilders, the Zionist:
The Dutch newspaper Telegraaf reported in May 2007 that Geert Wilders had been shadowed by the Dutch General Intelligence and Security Service for years, when he was foreign affairs spokesman for the VVD. During that time, Wilders had been regularly meeting officials at the Israeli Embassy in The Hague.[5] Sources in the security service said that the agency was surveilling conversations between Wilders and Israeli personnel.[6] The security services denied the allegations, insisting it had never shadowed or eavesdropped on Wilders.[7]
Position on Israel
In the past twenty five years Geert Wilders has visited Israel about forty times, he says. According to his own sayings, he has met Ariel Sharon ("many times") and Ehud Olmert, among others, in Israel. Furthermore, he claims tight connections with the Mossad.[19]
Originally, Wilders wanted to move to the Jewish state because he thought one could in Israel, different than in the Netherlands, 'work for your own money'.[19] Wilders worked in bread factories and a moshav. With the money he earned, he traveled through Israel and some near countries. He started to love Israel, or as he states it in his own words in 2003: "The past years I have visited many interesting countries, from Tunisia to Turkey and from Cyprus to Iran, but nowhere I have that special feeling of solidarity that I always get if I set foot on the Israeli Goerion-airport." [19]
Wilders has, in the eight years he has served in the Dutch Parliament, always supported Israel and attacked countries he perceives as enemies of Israel.[19] More than a few members of the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy suspect Wilders of taking guidance from the Israeli Embassy in the Netherlands (which is only a few meters away from the Dutch Parliament) in order to question Dutch ministers. Wilders has always denied this. [19]
Furthermore, Wilders has made some proposals in the Dutch Parliament inspired by Israel. For example, in 2005 Wilders proposed implementing Israel's administrative detention in the Netherlands, a practice heavily criticized by human rights group Amnesty International. Also, at the time Wilders was member of the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy, he had an employee who directly came from the Israeli Embassy. [19]
[edit] References
at March 5, 2008 10:32 PM
Do you wonder why the press is so sympathetic towards islam?
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=29149_Society_of_Professional_Journalists_Advocates_Whitewashing_Islam&only
at March 5, 2008 10:38 PM
"We're not raising any alarm, and there's no reason to panic. It's just that after what happened over the Danish cartoons, we want to be prepared," said Hohmann
The first step in preparation should be in the Eu countries themselves. Their governments should all issue proclamations stating that vandalism, arson, rioting, and public disorder in response to a TV show will not be tolerated; and that the police and army have been authorized to use whatever force necessary to quell such acts.
at March 5, 2008 10:39 PM
"We have informed our delegations that the film - due for release soon, although we don't know exactly when - could draw protests..."
All the more reason to show the film.
Posted by: rational at March 5, 2008 10:52 PM
Coming soon.
http://fitnathemovie.com/
at March 5, 2008 10:53 PM
Mr Wilderss contribution to the parliamentary debate on Islamic activism
http://www.groepwilders.com/Viewdata.aspx?ID=44&CID=4
at March 5, 2008 11:17 PM
AllahSchmallah said,
"I hope the blood they shed shall be that of the enemy and not our own."
Comment:
I believe it is still legal to hope but not to incite or urge that this should happen. You did neither, so in my unprofessional legal opinion, you're still in the clear.
S Perry,
We also get criticisms from apologists saying "don't rock the boat, Islam is peace, don't say anything because that will make more of them extreme, blah blah blah".
(answer to this, see the final comment to these quoted comments.)
RalphInfidel said (first quoting),
"Freedom of speech must not be used to make a billion Muslims cry"
At some point we have to grow up enough to realize that no amount of pampering, cajoling or appeasing can fix a problem that is not ours to fix. We need to summon enough character and conviction to respond in that assertive old school manner:
"Shut up! Or we'll give you something to cry about!"
COMMENT to the foregoing comment:
To which can be added: There is something much more suitable to make a billion Moslems cry." Isn't it about time that this be brought out?
From TheDiggler post (re-posted by RalphInfidel):
"I just think that the 'problems' in the West are so far gone by now that it is going to take open warfare in the streets to wake (what's left of) the Western world up (by then)."
Comment on the immediately foregoing comment:
Perhaps that would be the best for all concerned--especially us. Let 'em pull out all stops, riot in our streets. Here in the US, it will mobilize those who are fed up with Moslem threats to do violence if "we do not show sufficient respect" for Islam and make them prepare for the time when the authorities no longer can protect us.
Reminiscent of the 1992 Los Angeles riots when the properly motivated armed themselves and protected their own neighborhoods. The police and National Guard were too trying to protect firemen and their equipment.
Rioting Moslems here in the U.S. will help bring the situation to a head. Of course, it would not change the "hate crime" laws as affects dropping a koran into a toilet--although one can be certain that were one to take a Bible and especially Hebrew prayer books and consign them to one or more toilets--one would not be charged with a hate crime, unless one were to do that brazenly, trying to provoke devout followers of Christianity and Judaism. Casual observers of such Bible and prayer-book toilet-dunking would be annoyed at most.
Rioting "Youths" fire-bombing cars and dwellings would bring an overwhelming response here in the U.S.--at least it would from the people whom I know.
Posted by: unicorns62000 at March 5, 2008 11:27 PM
Posted by: Muslim at March 5, 2008 10:32 PM
Thanks for that. I always anticipated Wilders to be a closeted Zionist, that long, long, repeated reference to footnote # 19, without an actual source, notwithstanding.
Backwards is as backwards does, at least from where I stand.
Back at ya', oh enlightened one.
Posted by: awake at March 5, 2008 11:38 PM
Posted by: Muslim at March 5, 2008 10:32 PM
Thanks for that. I always anticipated Wilders to be a closeted Zionist, that long, long, repeated reference to footnote # 19, without an actual source of course, notwithstanding.
Backwards is as backwards does, at least from where I stand.
Back at ya', oh enlightened one.
Posted by: awake at March 5, 2008 11:40 PM
"At least 50 people died in anti-cartoon protests in dozens of countries"
The fact that even one person died over a stupid cartoon of Muhammad is one too many casualties.
This is just a dumb drawing, and the only one to blame for why there's a bomb on Muhammad's head is Muhammad himself. Your prophet is to blame, because he has earned the reputation for being a violent man by BEING a violent man.
I know, I know, the Truth hurts, which I why I recommend that you take two aspirin and then call me in the morning.
Posted by: champ
at March 6, 2008 12:14 AM
get the "muuussssleeembb" outta here.. PLEASE.. I am positively **RETCHING**.
Hey, mooseleemb.. I am a ***GERMAN*** Zionist who is NOT a JOO.. so go f••• you!
I wish the rest of my Germans were Zionists like me.. I know how "mooooseeleembs' eyes just **GLOW** when you talk of Hitler. I am on the INSIDE, buddy and I am ***OUTING** you bastards to the rest of the world!
YOU KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!!!
be ***GONE*** "moosleeeeeemmbeee".
Posted by: Allah Schmallah at March 6, 2008 12:57 AM
"Let's suppose that the Zionist position of this website that Islam is a violent, backward religions is accepted. That doesn't explain why Muslims coexisted peacfully with Jews and Christians till relatively recently."
Written by a Muslim upstairs.
Wow, he came late to the party.
at March 6, 2008 1:29 AM
It is amusing to keep up with Muslim websites. Where there is an attempt to tell people not to be violent, it is never couched in terms of denunication of violence. It is, rather, always a matter of "not letting the non-Muslims make us look bad." Keenly aware that Islam has an image problem, and wrongly hoping that somehow that image problem can be made to go away-- it's permaent, now, and won't ever go away as long as Infidels can both observe the behavior of Muslims, right now, and over 1350 years, and familiarize themselves with the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sira, and make the obvious connections. Muslim clerics issuing their opinions have never, on these websites, simply said that violence and aggression as a response either to cartoons about Muhammad, or to a movie, lasting 15 minutes, that consists almost entirely of Qur'anic passages that no Muslims can deny exist, and visuals that are not concocted, but simply taken from current news reports. No, they keep talking about making sure not to give Infidels a "weapon" to be used against them. That, and that alone, is the only reason given for not engaging in violence.
Quite telling. Go to the Muslim websites. Take a look for yourself.
Posted by: Hugh at March 6, 2008 2:05 AM
It's amusing - but it's also very patronizing to listen to a Muslim try to convince me that I'M the problem and not their religion; that my perspective & attitude is the thing that needs to change, not their evil & revolting religion.
Reminds me of dealing with a drug addict - they use the same bullshit tactics in trying to convince you that YOU are the problem and not their addiction, and they will take you down one mindbinder alley after another in an attempt to steer you away from the Truth - their addiction. They will go to incredible lengths to protect the reputation of their addiction & substance of choice, as if protecting their very own life.
Stoned on Islam? Just Say No!
Posted by: champ at March 6, 2008 2:33 AM
“That doesn't explain why Muslims coexisted peacefully with Jews and Christians till relatively recently.”
Posted by: Muslim
And Muhammad and the Muslims:
BESIEGED the Jew tribe Banu Qaynuqa and drove them out of Medina. They then took the lands and houses for their own, setting aside a 1/5 share for their Prophet Muhammad.
BESIEGED the Jew tribe Banu Nadir and drove them out of Medina. They then took the lands and houses for their own, setting aside a 1/5 share for their Prophet Muhammad.
BESIEGED the Jew tribe Banu Qurayzah Nadir and then beheaded all their men – some 800 souls. The Muslims then took the women and children of those that they had just murdered as slaves. They then took the lands and houses for their own, setting aside a 1/5 share for their Prophet Muhammad. The Prophet Muhammad, “Uswa Hasana” The “Model of Conduct”, took the beautiful and freshly widowed Rayhana, to be his concubine.
And Muhammad declared, “Kill any Jew who falls under your power”
Yup, clear to me, “Muslim”, Jews and Muslims been getting along famously since 622 A.D.
There seems to be a constant of the universe that holds:
“IF A MUSLIM IS COMUNICATING TO AN INFIDEL, HE IS LYING”
at March 6, 2008 2:38 AM
That is "Banu Qurayzah" not Banu Qurayzah Nadir.
Posted by: Davegreybeard at March 6, 2008 2:46 AM
Interestinconondrum wrote:
"Do you wonder why the press is so sympathetic towards islam?"
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=29149_Society_of_Professional_Journalists_Advocates_Whitewashing_Islam&only
*******
Dear Interestinconondrum,
I just read the link that you provided. This is well worth the reading. A direct link to the "Society of Professional Journalists" guidelines can be found here:
http://www.spj.org/divguidelines.asp
at March 6, 2008 4:02 AM
"We're not raising any alarm, and there's no reason to panic. It's just that after what happened over the Danish cartoons, we want to be prepared"
- from the article
Yea.
Everyone wear a steel neck brace.
at March 6, 2008 5:15 AM
"We have informed our delegations that the film - due for release soon, although we don't know exactly when - could draw protests,"
COULD? I think he means:-
"when this film is released the same imams who travelled around Europe with their own, home made cartoons of mohammed, will stir up hatred against non-muslims in order to push forward the supremacist agenda of islam."
Every time we take a step backwards for the sake of not causing offence the islamists take a step towards their ultimate agenda of running the world with a medieval, twisted and ultimately fake theocracy.
When do you EVER see islam concerned about anyone other than muslims? If you read the koran it states quite clearly that muslims must rule the world and that their apparent god who supposedly created everything is ecstatic when muslims murder non muslims.
Is that the work of God or the work of the devil?
Posted by: DaveMate
at March 6, 2008 5:22 AM
Hugh,
I am not suprised that the Muslim Imans do not condemm the violence or admit to it, because now with the very powerful internet, non-Muslims can go to these websites and if the Muslims say anything that looks like they endorse violence and threats that could be shown as proof against them bigtime.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 6, 2008 5:52 AM
When do you EVER see islam concerned about anyone other than muslims?
Posted by: DaveMate at March 6, 2008 5:22 AM
You have to remember that in Islam, member of the umma (a muslim), regardless of their crimes, are innocent and non-muslims, regardless of their innocence, are guilty. These are the umma's battle-lines to their "war" (Dar-al-harb). Good luck looking for muslims "concerned" (except as a deception) for non-muslims.
at March 6, 2008 6:24 AM
"We have informed our delegations that the film - due for release soon, although we don't know exactly when - could draw protests," EU external relations commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner's spokeswoman, Christiane Hohmann, told Adnkronos International (AKI).
Comment: I don't think it's the possibility of "protests" that's of concern. Protests would be a WELCOME CHANGE.
It's the threatening messages and the probability of violence that is of concern.
Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at March 6, 2008 9:46 AM
Muslim,
"Let's suppose that the Zionist position of this website that Islam is a violent, backward religions is accepted. That doesn't explain why Muslims coexisted peacfully with Jews and Christians till relatively recently. In fact, the last "holocaust" of Jews occurred in Europe. If you follow the roots of all anti-Islamic polemic today you will find behind it Zionism. "
Would it suprise you that the reason WHY Muslims "coexisted peacfully" with Jews and Christians is BECAUSE Jews and Christians were considered vanqished and oppressed second class citizens via the "dhimmis laws" ? Would it suprise you that Hitler got some help from some Muslims during WWII and the holocaust of the European Jews?
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 6, 2008 10:05 AM
Muslim,
A URL about Hitler's conversation with a Muslim mufti.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/mufti2.html
at March 6, 2008 10:08 AM
Hey Muslims, if Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, now would be a good time to demonstrate that.
Posted by: Sounder at March 6, 2008 10:57 AM
Q: "But why isn't anyone, anywhere, telling those who are offended to grow up, and to recognize that a film, no matter how offensive, is no warrant to destroy things and kill people?"
A: Well, Robert, as you've so many times pointed out - the Koran and Sharia consider such a film more than adequate for a death warrant. The faith must be defended, must it not?
Posted by: INFIDELATLARGE at March 6, 2008 1:05 PM
Muslim wrote :-
"Let's suppose that the Zionist position of this website that Islam is a violent, backward religions is accepted. "
What, just because of all the violence and backward attitudes? Well, I can't imagine how anyone could think islam is violent, except for all the violence of course.
And backwards? Well in the 21st century what could be backwards about stoning women to death or killing homosexuals, or forcing little girls back into burning buildings because they dared to try and escape the blaze without covering their heads? Or homicide bombers, and failed homicide bombers, and flying planes into buildings, and genital mutilation, and marrying children off to old men to copy the example of mohammed, and murdering your own daughters for daring to date non-muslims, and murdering daughters for refusing to agree to forced marriages, and murdering people because of a drawing, and murdering people for selling falafel, and murdering people for releasing a film you don't like, and paedophile gangs praying specifically on non-muslims, and openly calling for the murder of an entire nation of people.
Yeah, I can't imagine how anyone could possibly consider islam backward and violent. Apart from all the violence that is..............
at March 6, 2008 3:52 PM
You see "muslim", it's not for us to change our attitude to islam, it is for islam to change its attitude to the rest of the world. Islam is stuck in the past. Time to grow up. Time to take a long, honest and open look at your religion and ask some painful questions, and accept some even more painful answers. You can do it, you just need to take that first step.
Posted by: DaveMate at March 6, 2008 3:59 PM
But why isn't anyone, anywhere, telling those who are offended to grow up, and to recognize that a film, no matter how offensive, is no warrant to destroy things and kill people?
If we tell them to "grow up" that means we are telling them to accept our standard of behavior and that is a no-no in a politically correct world.
We may believe that a film, no matter how offensive, is no warrant to destroy things and kill people but that is not the MUSLIM belief. How DARE we tell them to give up their beliefs!
WE are the ones that need to grow up. WE are the ones that need to realize that our pointing out the obvious will not change things. WE are the ones who need to be willing to fight for our freedom to offend Muslims. (It's not our fault they can't comprehend irony or sarcasm.) If we don't, we shall surely perish.
Posted by: PMK at March 6, 2008 4:22 PM
Champ wrote:
"At least 50 people died in anti-cartoon protests in dozens of countries"
The fact that even one person died over a stupid cartoon of Muhammad is one too many casualties.
This is just a dumb drawing, and the only one to blame for why there's a bomb on Muhammad's head is Muhammad himself. Your prophet is to blame, because he has earned the reputation for being a violent man by BEING a violent man.
I know, I know, the Truth hurts, which I why I recommend that you take two aspirin and then call me in the morning.
Actually, those 50 people didn't die for Mohamamd (p), they died for his (p) values, the corner stone of which is freedom of speech. Those that used vulgarity (Rushdie called Mohammad (p) "dog." What purpose did this fulfil apart from his desire to hide the reality of the magnificent personality of Mohammad (p) from the rest of the world?)
You see, Zionists don't ever dare attend an academic debate on Mohammad because they know they would lose. Instead they prefer to privately fund and encourage people like Rushdie (may the curse of God be upon him) and the Danish newspaper because they know that that is the only way they can obfuscate the truth of the beauty of Mohamamd (p), by killing all true instances of a free, debate on Mohammad (p).
We should ask ourselves why George Bernard Shaw said on Mohamamd (p)
If a man like Muhamed were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness.
And why was Mahatma Gandhi, statement published in 'Young India,'1924.
I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind.... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.
So, you see, it is Zionism with its efforts to obfuscate any serious discussion about Mohamamd (p) by funding and encouraging sources that only call him (p) vulgar names and draw rude cartoons of him like intellectualy challenged demented children that are the true opponents of freedom of speech. they want to use the excuse of freedom of speech to quash all dissent on Zionism. They hate Mohammad (p) and Islam because both stood up to and eradicated the kind of injustice that Zionism disseminates.
And yet, Albert Einstein said of Zionism:
http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/writings/other/einstein.htm
So, Champ, yes the truth hurts. I suggest you face it never the less, and stop being a proponent of the fascist ideology of Zionism, the biggest enemy of Judaism.
at March 6, 2008 10:28 PM
Champ wrote:
"At least 50 people died in anti-cartoon protests in dozens of countries"
The fact that even one person died over a stupid cartoon of Muhammad is one too many casualties.
This is just a dumb drawing, and the only one to blame for why there's a bomb on Muhammad's head is Muhammad himself. Your prophet is to blame, because he has earned the reputation for being a violent man by BEING a violent man.
I know, I know, the Truth hurts, which I why I recommend that you take two aspirin and then call me in the morning.
Actually, those 50 people didn't die for Mohamamd (p), they died for his (p) values, the corner stone of which is freedom of speech. Those that used vulgarity (Rushdie called Mohammad (p) "dog." What purpose did this fulfil apart from his desire to hide the reality of the magnificent personality of Mohammad (p) from the rest of the world?)
You see, Zionists don't ever dare attend an academic debate on Mohammad because they know they would lose. Instead they prefer to privately fund and encourage people like Rushdie (may the curse of God be upon him) and the Danish newspaper because they know that that is the only way they can obfuscate the truth of the beauty of Mohamamd (p), by killing all true instances of a free, debate on Mohammad (p).
We should ask ourselves why George Bernard Shaw said on Mohamamd (p)
If a man like Muhamed were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness.
And why was Mahatma Gandhi, statement published in 'Young India,'1924.
I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind.... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.
So, you see, it is Zionism with its efforts to obfuscate any serious discussion about Mohamamd (p) by funding and encouraging sources that only call him (p) vulgar names and draw rude cartoons of him like intellectualy challenged demented children that are the true opponents of freedom of speech. they want to use the excuse of freedom of speech to quash all dissent on Zionism. They hate Mohammad (p) and Islam because both stood up to and eradicated the kind of injustice that Zionism disseminates.
And yet, Albert Einstein said of Zionism:
http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/writings/other/einstein.htm
So, Champ, yes the truth hurts. I suggest you face it never the less, and stop being a proponent of the fascist ideology of Zionism, the biggest enemy of Judaism.
at March 6, 2008 10:38 PM
Champ wrote:
"At least 50 people died in anti-cartoon protests in dozens of countries"
The fact that even one person died over a stupid cartoon of Muhammad is one too many casualties.
This is just a dumb drawing, and the only one to blame for why there's a bomb on Muhammad's head is Muhammad himself. Your prophet is to blame, because he has earned the reputation for being a violent man by BEING a violent man.
I know, I know, the Truth hurts, which I why I recommend that you take two aspirin and then call me in the morning.
Actually, those 50 people didn't die for Mohamamd (p), they died for his (p) values, the corner stone of which is freedom of speech. Those that used vulgarity (Rushdie called Mohammad (p) "dog." What purpose did this fulfil apart from his desire to hide the reality of the magnificent personality of Mohammad (p) from the rest of the world?)
You see, Zionists don't ever dare attend an academic debate on Mohammad because they know they would lose. Instead they prefer to privately fund and encourage people like Rushdie (may the curse of God be upon him) and the Danish newspaper because they know that that is the only way they can obfuscate the truth of the beauty of Mohamamd (p), by killing all true instances of a free, debate on Mohammad (p).
We should ask ourselves why George Bernard Shaw said on Mohamamd (p)
If a man like Muhamed were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness.
And why was Mahatma Gandhi, statement published in 'Young India,'1924.
I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind.... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.
So, you see, it is Zionism with its efforts to obfuscate any serious discussion about Mohamamd (p) by funding and encouraging sources that only call him (p) vulgar names and draw rude cartoons of him like intellectualy challenged demented children that are the true opponents of freedom of speech. they want to use the excuse of freedom of speech to quash all dissent on Zionism. They hate Mohammad (p) and Islam because both stood up to and eradicated the kind of injustice that Zionism disseminates.
And yet, Albert Einstein said of Zionism:
http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/writings/other/einstein.htm
So, Champ, yes the truth hurts. I suggest you face it never the less, and stop being a proponent of the fascist ideology of Zionism, the biggest enemy of Judaism.
at March 6, 2008 10:38 PM
Champ wrote:
"At least 50 people died in anti-cartoon protests in dozens of countries"
The fact that even one person died over a stupid cartoon of Muhammad is one too many casualties.
This is just a dumb drawing, and the only one to blame for why there's a bomb on Muhammad's head is Muhammad himself. Your prophet is to blame, because he has earned the reputation for being a violent man by BEING a violent man.
I know, I know, the Truth hurts, which I why I recommend that you take two aspirin and then call me in the morning.
Actually, those 50 people didn't die for Mohamamd (p), they died for his (p) values, the corner stone of which is freedom of speech. Those that used vulgarity (Rushdie called Mohammad (p) "dog." What purpose did this fulfil apart from his desire to hide the reality of the magnificent personality of Mohammad (p) from the rest of the world?)
You see, Zionists don't ever dare attend an academic debate on Mohammad because they know they would lose. Instead they prefer to privately fund and encourage people like Rushdie (may the curse of God be upon him) and the Danish newspaper because they know that that is the only way they can obfuscate the truth of the beauty of Mohamamd (p), by killing all true instances of a free, debate on Mohammad (p).
We should ask ourselves why George Bernard Shaw said on Mohamamd (p)
If a man like Muhamed were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness.
And why was Mahatma Gandhi, statement published in 'Young India,'1924.
I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind.... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.
So, you see, it is Zionism with its efforts to obfuscate any serious discussion about Mohamamd (p) by funding and encouraging sources that only call him (p) vulgar names and draw rude cartoons of him like intellectualy challenged demented children that are the true opponents of freedom of speech. they want to use the excuse of freedom of speech to quash all dissent on Zionism. They hate Mohammad (p) and Islam because both stood up to and eradicated the kind of injustice that Zionism disseminates.
And yet, Albert Einstein said of Zionism:
http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/writings/other/einstein.htm
So, Champ, yes the truth hurts. I suggest you face it never the less, and stop being a proponent of the fascist ideology of Zionism, the biggest enemy of Judaism.
at March 6, 2008 10:38 PM
Champ wrote:
"At least 50 people died in anti-cartoon protests in dozens of countries"
The fact that even one person died over a stupid cartoon of Muhammad is one too many casualties.
This is just a dumb drawing, and the only one to blame for why there's a bomb on Muhammad's head is Muhammad himself. Your prophet is to blame, because he has earned the reputation for being a violent man by BEING a violent man.
I know, I know, the Truth hurts, which I why I recommend that you take two aspirin and then call me in the morning.
Actually, those 50 people didn't die for Mohamamd (p), they died for his (p) values, the corner stone of which is freedom of speech. Those that used vulgarity (Rushdie called Mohammad (p) "dog." What purpose did this fulfil apart from his desire to hide the reality of the magnificent personality of Mohammad (p) from the rest of the world?)
You see, Zionists don't ever dare attend an academic debate on Mohammad because they know they would lose. Instead they prefer to privately fund and encourage people like Rushdie (may the curse of God be upon him) and the Danish newspaper because they know that that is the only way they can obfuscate the truth of the beauty of Mohamamd (p), by killing all true instances of a free, debate on Mohammad (p).
We should ask ourselves why George Bernard Shaw said on Mohamamd (p)
If a man like Muhamed were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness.
And why was Mahatma Gandhi, statement published in 'Young India,'1924.
I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind.... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.
So, you see, it is Zionism with its efforts to obfuscate any serious discussion about Mohamamd (p) by funding and encouraging sources that only call him (p) vulgar names and draw rude cartoons of him like intellectualy challenged demented children that are the true opponents of freedom of speech. they want to use the excuse of freedom of speech to quash all dissent on Zionism. They hate Mohammad (p) and Islam because both stood up to and eradicated the kind of injustice that Zionism disseminates.
And yet, Albert Einstein said of Zionism:
http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/writings/other/einstein.htm
So, Champ, yes the truth hurts. I suggest you face it never the less, and stop being a proponent of the fascist ideology of Zionism, the biggest enemy of Judaism.
at March 6, 2008 10:38 PM
Champ wrote:
"At least 50 people died in anti-cartoon protests in dozens of countries"
The fact that even one person died over a stupid cartoon of Muhammad is one too many casualties.
This is just a dumb drawing, and the only one to blame for why there's a bomb on Muhammad's head is Muhammad himself. Your prophet is to blame, because he has earned the reputation for being a violent man by BEING a violent man.
I know, I know, the Truth hurts, which I why I recommend that you take two aspirin and then call me in the morning.
Actually, those 50 people didn't die for Mohamamd (p), they died for his (p) values, the corner stone of which is freedom of speech. Those that used vulgarity (Rushdie called Mohammad (p) "dog." What purpose did this fulfil apart from his desire to hide the reality of the magnificent personality of Mohammad (p) from the rest of the world?)
You see, Zionists don't ever dare attend an academic debate on Mohammad because they know they would lose. Instead they prefer to privately fund and encourage people like Rushdie (may the curse of God be upon him) and the Danish newspaper because they know that that is the only way they can obfuscate the truth of the beauty of Mohamamd (p), by killing all true instances of a free, debate on Mohammad (p).
We should ask ourselves why George Bernard Shaw said on Mohamamd (p)
If a man like Muhamed were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness.
And why was Mahatma Gandhi, statement published in 'Young India,'1924.
I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind.... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.
So, you see, it is Zionism with its efforts to obfuscate any serious discussion about Mohamamd (p) by funding and encouraging sources that only call him (p) vulgar names and draw rude cartoons of him like intellectualy challenged demented children that are the true opponents of freedom of speech. they want to use the excuse of freedom of speech to quash all dissent on Zionism. They hate Mohammad (p) and Islam because both stood up to and eradicated the kind of injustice that Zionism disseminates.
And yet, Albert Einstein said of Zionism:
http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/writings/other/einstein.htm
So, Champ, yes the truth hurts. I suggest you face it never the less, and stop being a proponent of the fascist ideology of Zionism, the biggest enemy of Judaism.
at March 6, 2008 10:39 PM
Champ wrote:
"At least 50 people died in anti-cartoon protests in dozens of countries"
The fact that even one person died over a stupid cartoon of Muhammad is one too many casualties.
This is just a dumb drawing, and the only one to blame for why there's a bomb on Muhammad's head is Muhammad himself. Your prophet is to blame, because he has earned the reputation for being a violent man by BEING a violent man.
I know, I know, the Truth hurts, which I why I recommend that you take two aspirin and then call me in the morning.
Actually, those 50 people didn't die for Mohamamd (p), they died for his (p) values, the corner stone of which is freedom of speech. Those that used vulgarity (Rushdie called Mohammad (p) "dog." What purpose did this fulfil apart from his desire to hide the reality of the magnificent personality of Mohammad (p) from the rest of the world?)
You see, Zionists don't ever dare attend an academic debate on Mohammad because they know they would lose. Instead they prefer to privately fund and encourage people like Rushdie (may the curse of God be upon him) and the Danish newspaper because they know that that is the only way they can obfuscate the truth of the beauty of Mohamamd (p), by killing all true instances of a free, debate on Mohammad (p).
We should ask ourselves why George Bernard Shaw said on Mohamamd (p)
If a man like Muhamed were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness.
And why was Mahatma Gandhi, statement published in 'Young India,'1924.
I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind.... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.
So, you see, it is Zionism with its efforts to obfuscate any serious discussion about Mohamamd (p) by funding and encouraging sources that only call him (p) vulgar names and draw rude cartoons of him like intellectualy challenged demented children that are the true opponents of freedom of speech. they want to use the excuse of freedom of speech to quash all dissent on Zionism. They hate Mohammad (p) and Islam because both stood up to and eradicated the kind of injustice that Zionism disseminates.
And yet, Albert Einstein said of Zionism:
http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/writings/other/einstein.htm
So, Champ, yes the truth hurts. I suggest you face it never the less, and stop being a proponent of the fascist ideology of Zionism, the biggest enemy of Judaism.
at March 6, 2008 10:39 PM
Champ wrote:
"At least 50 people died in anti-cartoon protests in dozens of countries"
The fact that even one person died over a stupid cartoon of Muhammad is one too many casualties.
This is just a dumb drawing, and the only one to blame for why there's a bomb on Muhammad's head is Muhammad himself. Your prophet is to blame, because he has earned the reputation for being a violent man by BEING a violent man.
I know, I know, the Truth hurts, which I why I recommend that you take two aspirin and then call me in the morning.
Actually, those 50 people didn't die for Mohamamd (p), they died for his (p) values, the corner stone of which is freedom of speech. Those that used vulgarity (Rushdie called Mohammad (p) "dog." What purpose did this fulfil apart from his desire to hide the reality of the magnificent personality of Mohammad (p) from the rest of the world?)
You see, Zionists don't ever dare attend an academic debate on Mohammad because they know they would lose. Instead they prefer to privately fund and encourage people like Rushdie (may the curse of God be upon him) and the Danish newspaper because they know that that is the only way they can obfuscate the truth of the beauty of Mohamamd (p), by killing all true instances of a free, debate on Mohammad (p).
We should ask ourselves why George Bernard Shaw said on Mohamamd (p)
If a man like Muhamed were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness.
And why was Mahatma Gandhi, statement published in 'Young India,'1924.
I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind.... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.
So, you see, it is Zionism with its efforts to obfuscate any serious discussion about Mohamamd (p) by funding and encouraging sources that only call him (p) vulgar names and draw rude cartoons of him like intellectualy challenged demented children that are the true opponents of freedom of speech. they want to use the excuse of freedom of speech to quash all dissent on Zionism. They hate Mohammad (p) and Islam because both stood up to and eradicated the kind of injustice that Zionism disseminates.
And yet, Albert Einstein said of Zionism:
http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/writings/other/einstein.htm
So, Champ, yes the truth hurts. I suggest you face it never the less, and stop being a proponent of the fascist ideology of Zionism, the biggest enemy of Judaism.
at March 6, 2008 10:41 PM
Champ wrote:
"At least 50 people died in anti-cartoon protests in dozens of countries"
The fact that even one person died over a stupid cartoon of Muhammad is one too many casualties.
This is just a dumb drawing, and the only one to blame for why there's a bomb on Muhammad's head is Muhammad himself. Your prophet is to blame, because he has earned the reputation for being a violent man by BEING a violent man.
I know, I know, the Truth hurts, which I why I recommend that you take two aspirin and then call me in the morning.
Actually, those 50 people didn't die for Mohamamd (p), they died for his (p) values, the corner stone of which is freedom of speech. Those that used vulgarity (Rushdie called Mohammad (p) "dog." What purpose did this fulfil apart from his desire to hide the reality of the magnificent personality of Mohammad (p) from the rest of the world?)
You see, Zionists don't ever dare attend an academic debate on Mohammad because they know they would lose. Instead they prefer to privately fund and encourage people like Rushdie (may the curse of God be upon him) and the Danish newspaper because they know that that is the only way they can obfuscate the truth of the beauty of Mohamamd (p), by killing all true instances of a free, debate on Mohammad (p).
We should ask ourselves why George Bernard Shaw said on Mohamamd (p)
If a man like Muhamed were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness.
And why was Mahatma Gandhi, statement published in 'Young India,'1924.
I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind.... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.
So, you see, it is Zionism with its efforts to obfuscate any serious discussion about Mohamamd (p) by funding and encouraging sources that only call him (p) vulgar names and draw rude cartoons of him like intellectualy challenged demented children that are the true opponents of freedom of speech. they want to use the excuse of freedom of speech to quash all dissent on Zionism. They hate Mohammad (p) and Islam because both stood up to and eradicated the kind of injustice that Zionism disseminates.
And yet, Albert Einstein said of Zionism:
http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/writings/other/einstein.htm
So, Champ, yes the truth hurts. I suggest you face it never the less, and stop being a proponent of the fascist ideology of Zionism, the biggest enemy of Judaism.
at March 6, 2008 10:41 PM
Champ wrote:
"At least 50 people died in anti-cartoon protests in dozens of countries"
The fact that even one person died over a stupid cartoon of Muhammad is one too many casualties.
This is just a dumb drawing, and the only one to blame for why there's a bomb on Muhammad's head is Muhammad himself. Your prophet is to blame, because he has earned the reputation for being a violent man by BEING a violent man.
I know, I know, the Truth hurts, which I why I recommend that you take two aspirin and then call me in the morning.
Actually, those 50 people didn't die for Mohamamd (p), they died for his (p) values, the corner stone of which is freedom of speech. Those that used vulgarity (Rushdie called Mohammad (p) "dog." What purpose did this fulfil apart from his desire to hide the reality of the magnificent personality of Mohammad (p) from the rest of the world?)
You see, Zionists don't ever dare attend an academic debate on Mohammad because they know they would lose. Instead they prefer to privately fund and encourage people like Rushdie (may the curse of God be upon him) and the Danish newspaper because they know that that is the only way they can obfuscate the truth of the beauty of Mohamamd (p), by killing all true instances of a free, debate on Mohammad (p).
We should ask ourselves why George Bernard Shaw said on Mohamamd (p)
If a man like Muhamed were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness.
And why was Mahatma Gandhi, statement published in 'Young India,'1924.
I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind.... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.
So, you see, it is Zionism with its efforts to obfuscate any serious discussion about Mohamamd (p) by funding and encouraging sources that only call him (p) vulgar names and draw rude cartoons of him like intellectualy challenged demented children that are the true opponents of freedom of speech. they want to use the excuse of freedom of speech to quash all dissent on Zionism. They hate Mohammad (p) and Islam because both stood up to and eradicated the kind of injustice that Zionism disseminates.
And yet, Albert Einstein said of Zionism:
http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/writings/other/einstein.htm
So, Champ, yes the truth hurts. I suggest you face it never the less, and stop being a proponent of the fascist ideology of Zionism, the biggest enemy of Judaism.
at March 6, 2008 10:41 PM
I apologize for the multiple postings, that was unintentional.
Posted by: Muslim at March 6, 2008 10:43 PM
To Dave Greybeard who wrote:
“That doesn't explain why Muslims coexisted peacefully with Jews and Christians till relatively recently.”
Posted by: Muslim
And Muhammad and the Muslims:
BESIEGED the Jew tribe Banu Qaynuqa and drove them out of Medina. They then took the lands and houses for their own, setting aside a 1/5 share for their Prophet Muhammad.
BESIEGED the Jew tribe Banu Nadir and drove them out of Medina. They then took the lands and houses for their own, setting aside a 1/5 share for their Prophet Muhammad.
BESIEGED the Jew tribe Banu Qurayzah Nadir and then beheaded all their men – some 800 souls. The Muslims then took the women and children of those that they had just murdered as slaves. They then took the lands and houses for their own, setting aside a 1/5 share for their Prophet Muhammad. The Prophet Muhammad, “Uswa Hasana” The “Model of Conduct”, took the beautiful and freshly widowed Rayhana, to be his concubine.
And Muhammad declared, “Kill any Jew who falls under your power”
Yup, clear to me, “Muslim”, Jews and Muslims been getting along famously since 622 A.D.
Well, lets see what an unprejudiced, free of Zionist inspired hatred and polemics review of the historical reality of the Jewish tribes you alluded to would state:
On Muhammad's treatment
of Banu Qurayzah, a Jewish tribe
Karen Armstrong
There then ensued desperate days for the ummah. Muhammad had to contend with the hostility of some of the pagans in Medina, who resented the power of the Muslim newcomers and were determined to expel them from the settlement. He also had to deal with Mecca, where Abu Sufyan now directed the campaign against him, and had launched two major offensives against the Muslims in Medina. His object was not simply to defeat the ummah in battle, but to annihilate all the Muslims. The harsh ethic of the desert meant that there were no half-measures in warfare: if possible, a victorious chief was expected to exterminate the enemy, so the ummah faced the threat of total extinction. In 625 Mecca inflicted a severe defeat on the ummah at the Battle of Uhud, but two years later the Muslims trounced the Meccans at the Battle of the Trench, so called because Muhammad protected the settlement by digging a ditch around Medina, which threw the Quraysh, who still regarded war rather as a chivalric game and had never heard of such an unsporting trick, into confusion, and rendered their cavalry useless. Muhammad's second victory over the numerically superior Quraysh (there had been ten thousand Meccans to three thousand Muslims) was a turning point. It convinced the nomadic tribes that Muhammad was the coming man, and made the Quraysh look decidedly passe. The gods in whose name they fought were clearly not working on their behalf. Many of the tribes wanted to become the allies of the ummah, and Muhammad began to build a powerful tribal confederacy, whose members swore not to attack one another and to fight each other's enemies. Some of the Meccans also began to defect and made the hijrah to Medina; at last, after five years of deadly peril, Muhammad could be confident that the ummah would survive.
In Medina, the chief casualties of this Muslim success were the three Jewish tribes of Qaynuqah, Nadir and Qurayzah, who were determined to destroy Muhammad and who all independently formed alliances with Mecca. They had powerful armies, and obviously posed a threat to the Muslims, since their territory was so situated that they could easily join a besieging Meccan army or attack the ummah from the rear. When the Qaynuqah staged an unsuccessful rebellion against Muhammad in 625, they were expelled from Medina, in accordance with Arab custom. Muhammad tried to reassure the Nadir, and made a special treaty with them, but when he discovered that they had been plotting to assassinate him they too were sent into exile, where they joined the nearby Jewish settlement of Khaybar, and drummed up support for Abu Sufyan among the northern Arab tribes. The Nadir proved to be even more of a danger outside Medina, so when the Jewish tribe of Qurayzah sided with Mecca during the Battle of the Trench, when for a time it seemed that the Muslims faced certain defeat, Muhammad showed no mercy. The seven hundred men of the Qurayzah were killed, and their women and children sold as slaves.
The massacre of the Qurayzah was a horrible incident, but it would be a mistake to judge it by the standards of our own time. This was a very primitive society: the Muslims themselves had just narrowly escaped extermination, and had Muhammad simply exiled the Qurayzah they would have swelled the Jewish opposition in Khaybar and brought another war upon the ummah. In seventh-century Arabia an Arab chief was not expected to show mercy to traitors like the Qurayzah. The executions sent a grim message to Khaybar and helped to quell the pagan opposition in Medina, since the pagan leaders had been the allies of the rebellious Jews. This was a fight to the death, and everybody had always known that the stakes were high. The struggle did not indicate any hostility towards Jews in general, but only towards the three rebel tribes. The Quran continued to revere Jewish prophets and to urge Muslims to respect the People of the Book. Smaller Jewish groups continued to live in Medina, and later Jews, like Christians, enjoyed full religious liberty in the Islamic empires. Anti-semitism is a Christian vice. Hatred of the Jews became marked in the Muslim world only after the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 and the subsequent loss of Arab Palestine. It is significant that Muslims were compelled to import anti-Jewish myths from Europe, and translate into Arabic such virulently anti-semitic texts as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, because they had no such traditions of their own. Because of this new hostility towards the Jewish people, some Muslims now quote the passages in the Quran that refer to Muhammad's struggle with the three rebellious Jewish tribes to justify their prejudice. By taking these verses out of context, they have distorted both the message of the Quran and the attitude of the Prophet, who himself felt no such hatred of Judaism.
Muhammad's intransigence towards the Qurayzah had been designed to bring hostilities to an end as soon as possible. The Quran teaches that war is such a catastrophe that Muslims must use every method in their power to restore peace and normality in the shortest possible time.18 Arabia was a chronically violent society, and the ummah had to fight its way to peace. Major social change of the type that Muhammad was attempting in the peninsula is rarely achieved without bloodshed. But after the Battle of the Trench, when Muhammad had humiliated Mecca and quashed the opposition in Medina, he felt that it was time to abandon the jihad and begin a peace offensive. In March 628 he set in train a daring and imaginative initiative that brought the conflict to a close. He announced that he was going to make the hajj. to Mecca, and asked for volunteers to accompany him. Since pilgrims were forbidden to carry arms, the Muslims would be walking directly into the lions' den and putting themselves at the mercy of the hostile and resentful Quraysh. Nevertheless, about a thousand Muslims agreed to join the Prophet and set out for Mecca, dressed in the traditional white robes of the hajji. If the Quraysh forbade Arabs to approach the Kabah or attacked bona fide pilgrims they would betray their sacred duty as the guardians of the shrine. The Quraysh did, however, dispatch troops to attack the pilgrims before they reached the area outside the city where violence was forbidden, but the Prophet evaded them and, with the help of some of his Bedouin allies, managed to reach the edge of the sanctuary, camped at Hudaybiyyah and awaited developments. Eventually the Quraysh were pressured by this peaceful demonstration to sign a treaty with the ummah. It was an unpopular move on both sides. Many of the Muslims were eager for action, and felt that the treaty was shameful, but Muhammad was determined to achieve victory by peaceful means.
Hudaybiyyah was another turning point. It impressed still more of the Bedouin, and conversion to Islam became even more of an irreversible trend. Eventually in 630, when the Quraysh violated the treaty by attacking one of the Prophet's tribal allies, Muhammad marched upon Mecca with an army of ten thousand men. Faced with this overwhelming force and, as pragmatists, realizing what it signified, the Quraysh conceded defeat, opened the city gates, and Muhammad took Mecca without shedding a drop of blood. He destroyed the idols around the Kabah, rededicated it to Allah, the one God, and gave the old pagan rites of the hajj, an Islamic significance by linking them to the story of Abraham, Hagar and Ismail. None of the Quraysh was forced to become Muslim, but Muhammad's victory convinced some of his most principled opponents, such as Abu Sufyan, that the old religion had failed. When Muhammad died in 632, in the arms of his beloved wife Aisha, almost all the tribes of Arabia had joined the ummah as Confederates or as converted Muslims. Since members of the ummah could not, of course, attack one another, the ghastly cycle of tribal warfare, of vendetta and counter-vendetta, had ended. Single-handedly, Muhammad had brought peace to war-torn Arabia.
Courtesy: Karen Armstrong, Islam (New York: The Modern Library, 2000), pp. 19-23)
I suggest you read history not with the rancour and hatred of a Zionist, greybeard, but with honesty and integrity.
at March 6, 2008 11:14 PM
Zionism and Islam:
The Attack on Al Aqsa Mosque in 1981
The United Nations Security Council was convened in April, 1981, to discuss the new attack and desecration by Zionists of the Holy Al Aqsa Mosque. Dr. Hazem Nusseibeh, the Ambassador of Jordan, described the attack in his statement to the Council in its meeting of April 13, 1982. The following are excerpts of the statement:
On Sunday, 11 April, at 9:20 a.m., a gang of armed Israeli troops directed heavy fire from various directions at the Al Aqsa Mosque…
That Israeli carnage was carried out to give cover to an Israeli soldier-- or is he an American? He is in fact both-- by the name of Alan Harry Goodman, who was on a murderous journey of death and desecration. He killed in cold blood a 65-year old unarmed Arab guard at the Magharba-- Moroccan Gate-- evidently unchallenged by the armed Israeli trooper who sits there. He murdered in cold blood two other unarmed guardians and seriously wounded a third at the entrance to the Dome of the Rock, opened up his fire-arms at the worshippers in every direction, for a duration of half an hour. Eyewitnesses at the scene reported that he had a large stock of ammunition on his shoulders, to murder the maximum number of devout worshippers and civilians in the vicinity. Having murdered nine and wounded 40 other in the Mosque, this Israeli-American criminal directed his fire at the Al-Minbar-- pulpit-- the chandeliers, the mosaic, the marble and the carpets, some of which caught fire. The casualties in that premeditated and well-planned assault totaled at least 100 inside and outside the holy Mosque.
Fearful that the highly provoked victims would capture that gutter terrorist, his accomplices-- the Israeli so-called anti-riot police-- imposed a total curfew on that historic and ancient City, demolished a part of one of the walls of the holy sanctuary, stormed the Dome of the Rock and ensured the safety of the criminal by firing at the crowd, and then whisked him away to safety in a closed military van…
The Islamic Council in Jerusalem, which has called a seven-day strike throughout the occupied territories, denounced a statement issued Sunday by the office of Prime Minister Menachem Begin which described the Israeli soldier as mentally ill. The criminal, Alan Harry Goodman, formerly of Baltimore, was inducted into the army last month for a brief service customary for immigrants. Of course, he has dual nationality.
The Higher Islamic Council said it was absurd of the Prime Minister’s office to describe the assailant as deranged, because soldiers were supposed to undergo physical examinations. Moreover, the Higher Islamic Council added, the assailant was not alone. It asserted that he had been covered during his attack by fire from many directions. How else could he have continued his shooting spree within the Dome of the Rock for half an hour until he had expended all his bullets?
The Zionist designs against the Islamic Holy Sanctuary are long and infamous. A chronology survey of these activities includes the following:
Continuous and sustained deep digging under the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Holy Sanctuary as a whole-- structures which are 14 centuries old-- began immediately after the Zionist occupation of the Holy City, in addition to the demolition of hundreds of buildings in the area adjacent to it. These deep diggings have reached such depths that entire structures are threatened with collapse.
On 21 August, 1969 the Zionists carried out a plot of arson to set the entire Al Aqsa Mosque on fire. The arsonist, Michael Rohan, a Zionist Australian, was declared deranged-- not unlike the person in question today-- and sent to Australia.
On 9 May 1980, 120 kilos of high explosives, scores of bombs, wires and other explosive contraptions were accidentally discovered a mere few minutes away from the time of detonation on the roof of a Jewish school in the Old City, 150 yards away from the target. The Gush Emunim terrorist movement was behind the plan, which aimed at blowing up the Al Aqsa Mosque and other historical buildings. The day was a Friday and tens of thousands of worshippers might have been killed or maimed if that arsenal of explosives had not been accidentally discovered two minutes before explosion.
Repeated attempts by Israeli groups to force their way into mosques of the holy sanctuary, leading to numerous clashes.
Last year, the Israeli Gush Emunim started digging a tunnel leading to the Dome of the Rock. The attempt was discovered and foiled by the civilian inhabitants.
7 April, 1982-- that is, three days before the Easter Sunday massacre-- explosive charges placed by (Gush Emunim) were discovered at the entrance to the Al Aqsa Mosque and dismantled. Beside the charges were pamphlets threatening to blow up the Al Aqsa Mosque and physically liquidate the religious dignitaries. The threats were written in broken Arabic and issued from the Kiryat Arba illegal settlement overlooking the City of Al-Khalil (Hebron).
(New York Times correspondent David Shipler revealed the following on 12 April 1982, p.12). He said, referring to the Israeli troops, that “Just before going, one of them, with a laugh, threw a tear gas grenade near the (Al Aqsa) Mosque upwind of the main door. Smoke from the perfectly placed canister blew into the mosque, and worshippers came out coughing and wiping their eyes. One elderly man was carried to an ambulance. A few of the troops walked away laughing.”
If the spot is as sacred to those troops as they claim it is, it is truly incongruous that the soldiers would have behaved with that bellicose and nauseating meanness…
at March 6, 2008 11:18 PM
"I apologize for the multiple postings, that was unintentional."
Posted by: Muslim at March 6, 2008 10:43 PM
No worries. It is symptomatic of Islamic rage, a phenomenon we are quite accustomed to here at this site.
Just a quick word of advice...Do not use Armstrong references here if you expect to be taken seriously by ANYONE at this site.
Besides the lack of Qur'anic references to support Armstrong's revisionist view of early Islamic history under Muhammad and his tribute of 1/5th of the spoils of war, of course mandated by the "all wise and oft-forgiving", Allah, Armstrong unwittingly validates Muhammad as a savage warrior, not talking about a peaceful Muhammad, but rather providing a rationality to justify his savagery.
Armstrong is a paid Saudi handmaiden, but at least she is shilling for a few bucks. You on the otherhand, 'muslim', are simply wasting time here with those references. Yours and ours.
Enjoy the remainder of your short stay here.
Posted by: awake at March 7, 2008 12:06 AM
Muslim states 10 GDTimes: "So, Champ, yes the truth hurts. I suggest you face it never the less, and stop being a proponent of the fascist ideology of Zionism, the biggest enemy of Judaism."
It gives me great pleasure knowing that my comment really got under your skin, and I imagine that you took my advice and goobled down a few aspirin to relieve the nagging pain that reading the Truth causes.
No Mus, I will not STOP supporting Israel as you suggest - oh foolish & blind proponet of Islam - but I will continue to be a strong support of Israel. Always!!
I Stand 4 Israel!! Now & Forever!!! Islam be gone!
....and may that message chap your lily-white hide....
at March 7, 2008 1:54 AM
Muslim:
“Muhammad's second victory over the numerically superior Quraysh (there had been ten thousand Meccans to three thousand Muslims) was a turning point. It convinced the nomadic tribes that Muhammad was the coming man, and made the Quraysh look decidedly passé”
DGB:
Yes Muhammad’s victories gained him followers. A fact of life some here choose to ignore, at our peril. But I have confidence that common sense will prevail and thus the brave American Trooper will deny the Jihadi victory anywhere he seeks it.
Wherever you hide in the world we will hunt you down, like the dogs you are. You will be sport for our brave young men and a fun game for our predator pilots. You will taste only defeat and death and humiliation - and this will deny many "slaves for Allah".
Muslim:
“The struggle did not indicate any hostility towards Jews in general, but only towards the three rebel tribes. The Qur’an continued to revere Jewish prophets and to urge Muslims to respect the People of the Book.”
DGB:
And Muhammad declared, “Kill any Jew who falls under your power”.
Muslim:
“It is significant that Muslims were compelled to import anti-Jewish myths from Europe, and translate into Arabic such virulently anti-semitic texts as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, because they had no such traditions of their own.”
DGB:
9:33 “He it is who hath sent His Apostle with the Guidance and a religion of the truth, that He
may make it victorious over every other religion,
albeit they who assign partners to God be averse from it.”
Muslim:
some Muslims now quote the passages in the Quran that refer to Muhammad's struggle with the three rebellious Jewish tribes to justify their prejudice. By taking these verses out of context, they have distorted both the message of the Quran and the attitude of the Prophet, who himself felt no such hatred of Judaism.
DGB:
5:56 “O Believers! take not the Jews or Christians as friends. They are but one another’s
friends. If any one of you taketh them for his friends, he surely is one of them! God will not
guide the evil doers.”
Muslim:
I suggest you read history not with the rancour and hatred of a Zionist, greybeard, but with honesty and integrity.
DGB:
Oh, but I do Muslim, I do. With utmost honesty and integrity.
I consult my very own copy of the “Sirat Rasul Allah” and my own copies of the Qur’an, five in all, by the following translators:
J.M. RODWELL (Ballantine) - my first Koran!
J.M. RODWELL (Phoenix) - my second Koran, with a bit more ancillary stuff
M.H. Shakir (Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an, Inc.) - my first Qur’an! (Seems like the first two)
Abdullah Yusuf Ali (SH.Muhammad Ashraf) – my first “The Holy Qur’an” a very nice looking big green book (with Arabic text!)
Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilall and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan - my first “Interpretation of the Meanings of The Noble Qur’an”
now THIS is an impressive work, very beautifully done, nine volumes in all. Took me three months and $130 (discounted on amazon) to get it.
For Hadith, I confess I use the Internet. I find Sahih Bukari and Sahih Muslim to be most informative.
Perhaps some day I will find bound volumes of Hadith to purchase – but I suspect this is a little obsessive-compulsive even for me.
Finally Muslim, do not waste your time with dihimi apologists for Islam. These people will only confuse you more and delay your recovery.
Kill the Jihadi - educate the Muslim
DEUS VULT!
at March 7, 2008 2:37 AM
Muslim, why all the spaming?
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 7, 2008 5:49 AM
Muslim, when it comes to the history of Islam or about Muhammed, the best books come from the person who founded this website, Robert Spencer. He presents both from the historic perpective.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 7, 2008 5:52 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)