I really do not know how they are supposed to think that this will take away the problem. I am afraid we are becoming more like the ones who deny the problem , as we have seen many times by Muslims and apologists when the issue comes up. In solving any problem you must face what it is even as much as you hate it. It will not go away because its ugly face will show up again and again. It has been doing so for 1400 years. It will not go away by using appeasing and nice words you must tackle it hard and fast. Islam is what it is evil in nature. It is everything that we in democratic societies believe to be antithetical to our values of liberty, human freedom and dignity, equality and justice.

Posted by: savsiv at April 29, 2008 12:02 PM

Here's what this kind of cowardly thinking does. It drive the real issues underground and that's no place for debate because debate doesn't live there very well, something sinister does instead. Is that really hat politicians want?

Posted by: Sounder at April 29, 2008 12:12 PM

"Majid Khadduri (1909-2007), an internationally renowned Iraqi scholar of Islamic law, explained in his 1955 book War and Peace in the Law of Islam that 'the Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world….The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state.'"
-- from the article above

Everyone's favorite Arab-Amercan analyst of "the Arab world" -- if by "everyone" we mean Bernard Lewis, Richard Perle, et al. -- is Fouad Ajami. Much acclaimed, with foundation grants and prizes galore, he has had his uses. He was very good on the subject of Edward Said, for example. He's an intelligent man, and on the side, really, of the angels. But because he has never permitted himself to think clearly and deeply -- or at least, if he has done so, to publicly acknowledge the Problem of Islam -- he has contented himself in sometimes boozily vague prose, about the Arab Dilemma, and his own personal "narrative" (shades of Patricia Williams) that begins with When All The World And Arab Nationalism Was Young, And We Were All Nasserites In Beirut), and he enjoys those adjectives that constantly evade the question of Islam and its effects ("In this hard land, among these unforgiving people, with their tragic destinies now intertwined, how could Americans have..." -- or words to that effect). What makes that land (Iraq, Syria, anywhere you damn please in the "Arab world") makes that land "hard" and what makes those people "unforgiving" and what makes their destinies so goddam "tragic"? This avoidinig-Islam business is wearing thin, among the very people whom Fouad Ajami should wish most to have as his admirers -- that is, the unignorant and the intelligent.

Fouad Ajami was greatly impressed with Sistani, the man who would not meet with "unclean" Infidels, including Bremer, and whose website continues to list as "unclean" or "najis" not only "blood, urine, excrement, semen, dogs, and pigs" but also, piquantly for some, unsurprisingly for others, "Infidels." He, Ajami, still defends the Iraq folly, the Iraq squandering, because he is not, despite his ostentatious use of the pronoun "we" (meaning "Americans") is still, alas, less concerned with the squandering of American men, money, and materiel, for a goal that does not make, from the Infidel point of view, much sense, but Ajami is still a child of his Shi'a background, and is delighted not only with Sistani (for more on Sistani, see the memoir of John Agresto, and Sistani's Islamic-based antisemitism), but with the "empowerment" (no, Ajami wouldn't stoop, at least, to that kind of word) of the Shi'a in Iraq.

The very idea that America, that "we," that is "we Infidels" (not "we, that is those of us who have American citizrnship, as I, Fouad Ajami do, with two sons at West Point)" should be thinking of ways ot exploit pre-existing fissures within the Camp of Islam, beginning with those in Iraq (sectarian and ethnic), and to do so because, unlike Ajami, we are willing to recognize the meaning, and menace, for ourselves, of Islam, is what makes Ajami, unless he dares to come round and start expressing himself, about the meaning of Islam, and about the instruments of Jihad (which include "terrorism" as, for Muslims, a form of qitaal, but go far beyond that, to include the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest designed to disrupt and change from within, by exploiting the freedoms of Infidel states, their legal and political institutions and social arrangements).

Ajami has his uses. But they are more and more limited, because he will not, can not, does not, address the Problem of Islam. So continue to pocket what he says that is true, continue to be glad that he's no Edward Said, but also see the limits of his usefulness and his truth-telling.

And why have I allowed myself here to begin with Majid Khadduri and go to the topic of Fouad Ajami? Because Fouad Ajami happens to be the Majid Khadduri Professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced (I like that "advanced") International Studies. One wonders if Ajami cares to enlighten his appreciative public -- the same public that listens to every word from Bernard Lewis with world's-greatest-authority-on-Islam adoration -- as to the clear explanation, given in Majid Khadduri's War and Peace in the Law of Islam -- as to the Hudaibiyya agreement, and its relevance to all that goddam settlementsjerusalemrefugeesborders aaron-millerish peace-processing that continues today, without any attention to the ideology of Islam that explains Arab opposition to Israel, whatever its size, whatever surrenders it is called upon to make.

He's been very well treated in America. He has risen to the top (J. B. Kelly, who spent time at in Washington in the early 1980s, had the distinct feeling that whenever they happened to be at the same gathering, Ajami would carefully avoid him, for Kelly knew how little Ajami -- still on his Being Young in Beirut phrase -- knew about Arabia and the Gulf), he gets grants and prizes galore, he's able even to help get jobs for Ms. Nafisi and others. He can appear in The Wall Street Journal anytime he feels like it.

But Edward Said is dead -- no need to debate him, or denounce him, on Charlie Rose. Now it is time to recognize what was always there -- behind Nasserite Arab nationalism, behind Ba'athism -- but remained unrecognized. That is Islam. And how to educate Infidels about Islam and to teach them to recognize the instruments of Jihad, and how to make clear to Muslims that "we" (and that can include Ajami if his residual filial piety -- like that of Kanan Makiya -- can be jettisoned) recognize, "we" make the connection, between the political, economic, social, moral, and intellectual failures of Muslim states and societies and even families suffused with Islam, and Islam itself -- so that they too, will ultimately have to recognize or at least take into account that widespread understanding -- that is what Ajami is going to have to start writing and talking about, unless he wants to become less relevant, and part of the problem of which he, until now, has been thought of as part of the solution.

Let's see how he handles this.

Posted by: Hugh at April 29, 2008 12:14 PM

Jihad is Jihad. Islam has used jihad down through the centuries to spread Islam under the "shadow of the sword".

I don't care what our "best and brightest" are up to in "our" government. I refuse to assist in my own execution.

Posted by: tanstaafl at April 29, 2008 12:31 PM

A Homeland Security report tellingly entitled “Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims” explains that this initiative comes from a concern not to offend moderate Muslims. By calling the terrorists “jihadists,” American officials could be “unintentionally portraying terrorists, who lack moral and religious legitimacy, as brave fighters, legitimate soldiers or spokesmen for ordinary Muslims.”

They will stand on their heads, and turn inside out to deny reality. Why does the US gov defend moderate muslims, when it does not defend moderate anything else. If I was a muslim, I would be insulted to hear infidels call jihadi's anything but holy warriors. And I would be insulted that kuffars in the hated gov of the great Satan, tries to erase Allah out of the picture.
All muslims should be insulted that the US gov is trying to turn the Sons of Allah into mere criminals. Jihad is fighting in Allahs cause...that cannot be 'criminal' in Islam...only filthy kuffars would try and make it so...
And so the Bush administration shoots itself in the foot...again...

Posted by: duh_swami at April 29, 2008 12:37 PM

I suppose we could just start referring to them as "Moslem murder squads", or "Islamic killers". But it takes up more type-space.

Posted by: ebonystone at April 29, 2008 12:48 PM

It's mind boggling how incredibly dense leaders in this country can be. I mean, who do they think is carrying out all the terrorism in the world today, the little sisters of the poor?

I wonder if this mind-set isn't related to Hitler's "big lie" theory -- If the lie is big enough and incredible enough, it becomes believable because no one can believe anyone could tell such a lie.

Is this what is is, or is it deliberate, willful ignorance?

Posted by: rational at April 29, 2008 12:52 PM

It's mind boggling how incredibly dense leaders in this country can be. I mean, who do they think is carrying out all the terrorism in the world today, the little sisters of the poor?

I wonder if this mind-set isn't related to Hitler's "big lie" theory -- If the lie is big enough and incredible enough, it becomes believable because no one can believe anyone could tell such a lie.

Is this what is is, or is it deliberate, willful ignorance?

Posted by: rational at April 29, 2008 12:55 PM

“Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims”

And therein lies the problem. Our government is letting muslims tell us how to define muslims.

Imagine if we had fought WWII without using the term Nazi or Nazis or gestapo, for fear of offending Americans of German descent?

What a stupid way to fight a war.

Posted by: walterc at April 29, 2008 1:01 PM

Give Pusillanimity A Chance!

Posted by: John C at April 29, 2008 1:06 PM

By calling the terrorists “jihadists,” American officials could be “unintentionally portraying terrorists, who lack moral and religious legitimacy, as brave fighters, legitimate soldiers or spokesmen for ordinary Muslims.”

Now wait just a gosh darned minute! You mean to tell me that "jeehad" isn't referring to that innocuous "inner struggle" we keep hearing about?//

Such linguistic shell games playing any part in national security is contemptable.

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at April 29, 2008 1:09 PM

As soon as he said it, I knew he hadn't gotten the memo.

Posted by: PRCS at April 29, 2008 1:14 PM

A very telling report by Sean Osborn entitled: “America’s Final War” over at Northeast Intelligence Network’s site is well worth anyone’s time who seeks to fully grasp our government's deadly game at refusing to properly identify our enemy by using silly “methodology” substitutional terms. It is truly one of the best analogies I have yet read on the roots of our current dilemma. Do not fail to also follow the source lead “ And for a truly enlightening look at the true meaning of “Civilizational Jihad” and the stated goals of the Muslim Brotherhood in America: do not fail to follow the source lead at the bottom of the page entitled “Government Exhibit 003-0085”. You will be amazed!

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/node/1358

Posted by: descendantofacrusader at April 29, 2008 1:35 PM

Well, I can live with this. Would rabid islamic dogs work? Maybe islamic scum? Islamic pigs? The term Jihadist apparently VIOLENTLY offends "moderate" muslims. Go figure, huh? Muslims...continuing to teach the world how "peaceful" islam is. George Bush is a clueless idiot. Ever read ANYTHING about islam, George? Ever watch the news on tv, George? Bye bye George.

Posted by: Rick at April 29, 2008 1:44 PM

Love the 'consensus' opinions of identified 'minority' groups. This consensus comes from he who has biggest megaphone coupled with checkbook.

I have consigned this consensus voice of moderate Muslims to the group which has such members as: bigfoot, the yeti, unicorns, the Loch Ness monster and the tooth fairy.

When it comes for this particular group of ultra sensitive 'moderate' Muslims to apply for full membership of the mythical beings union. They will probably be rejected for being too far fetched!

Posted by: James at April 29, 2008 1:47 PM

Last week the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the National Counter Terrorism Center issued new guidelines forbidding personnel from using the words “jihad” or “jihadist” in reference to Islamic terrorism and its perpetrators.

At this pace, the State Dept./DHS/NCTC will soon be reduced to playing charades.

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at April 29, 2008 1:52 PM

The guidelines from moslems (!) says:
By calling the terrorists “jihadists,” American officials could be “unintentionally portraying terrorists, who lack moral and religious legitimacy, as brave fighters, legitimate soldiers or spokesmen for ordinary Muslims.”

and therein lies the problem. From what I have learned here at JW (the importance of parsing moslems' words among other things), they aren't saying that at some point, the jihadis won't be legimate fighters and soldiers who can speak for ordinary moslems. What they are saying is that because there is no caliphate, no one can declare jihad and thus the fighters can't be called jihadis.

Will they go for muhajadeen? That seemed to work during the afghanis fighting the soviet union.

Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at April 29, 2008 2:04 PM

IGMANPAY EANSMAY EACEPAY

Posted by: Bosch Fawstin at April 29, 2008 2:11 PM

guideline say....

Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at April 29, 2008 2:12 PM

“unintentionally portraying terrorists, who lack moral and religious legitimacy, as brave fighters, legitimate soldiers or spokesmen for ordinary Muslims.”
-- from the original government announcement, banning use of the word "Jihad"

Terrorists do not "lack moral and religious legitimacy." Sheik Tantawi, formerly the sheik al-Azhar, and Al-Qaradawi, and many others have managed to find ways to assimilate what we call "terrorism" to the Muslim notion of "qitaal" or combat, and have done so largely on the basis that such methods of attack are, you see, legitimized by the relative weakness of Muslim armies. So necessity justifies this form of combat.

In similar fashion, what we call "suicide bombing" has been justified by mainstream Muslim clerics, who have managed to define such acts not as "suicide" (which is forbidden in Islam) but as simply "enormous risk-taking while engaged in the praiseworthy act of killing Infidels" -- likened to the brave Muslim warrior, sword in hand, who might a thousand years ago have attacked a large group of Infidels, knowing he would almost certainly be killed but not committing suicide because, you see, you never know what might happen, given the whims and ways of Allah.

The Administration, with the comical
Rice -- with her well-tailored tailleur, but with little brains -- in the lead, is worried about offending Muslims. And they know that use of the word "Jihad" will offend Muslims. How do they know? Because Muslim diplomats are careful to tell them so, and Muslim groups in this country echo that. In other words, they fall for this line, fall for the very idea that Muslims are more likely to collaborate if we do not show that we, the Infidels, are making the clear and obvious connection between Muslim behavior, including the behavior of those who participate directly in violent Jihad, and the very large group of Muslims to justify, or finance, or lend moral support to those who directly participate, and the texts, and tenets, of Islam.

In fact, the reverse is true. The more we show Muslims that we are making, that we will continue to make, that connection, with untellable consequences for Muslims (including the position of Muslims living in the Western world, which they are worried about, and should be made to worry), the more likely it is that they will be less aggressive -- they are quick to sense when the enemy is on to them, and quick to change words and tactics if they have to -- in making constant demands for changes in Western legal and political institutions. The more we show how much we know, and how suspicious we are of them, the more they will feel compelled -- only out of temporary self-interest, not for any other reason -- to be less aggressive, and even to change behavior.

If, for example, members of Congress were to speak and write openly about the Money Weapon, and to demand that Saudi Arabia stop its massive funding of mosques, madrasas, public relations campaigns, and employment of Western hirelings, this is more likely to get results, especially if there is talk that someday Saudi-owned assets might be seized, as the assets of enemy aliens making war on us -- then that Saudi funding might actually be much diminished.

Finally, the policy of banning the very words that we most need to employ, and employ constantly, until everyone knows what they mean -- such words as Jihad, and dhimmi, and Jizyah -- will not only not obtain the desired results among Muslims, who will rightly interpret this as a sign of Infidel weakness and pusillanimity, but it also ignores entirely the need to educate the peoples of the West. For until a sufficient number of Americans, and British, and French, and German, and Italian, and Spanish, and others in Western Europe (or in the greater Infidel world), can learn about the meaning, and permanent menace for Infidels, of Islam, there will be little chance of obtaining support for the kind of intelligent measures -- far less "military" in nature, and far less expensive, than the idiotic long-term project in Iraq, where instead of coolly exploiting fissures, we are still attempting, despite all the evidence that our undertaking not only cannot work, but if it were to work, would not in any way diminish the world-wide menace of Jihad (would not, for example, have any effect on the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, and continued demographic conquest by Muslims in Western Europe), would do nothing except rescue the Camp of Islam from its own ethnic and sectarian fissures, fissures we should devoutly welcome, and work to widen.

Posted by: Hugh at April 29, 2008 2:34 PM

What do you call a Jew or a Christian?

A pig and monkey respectively according to the holy (spit) koran.

If those who have usurpted our government really want to be sensitive to muslims and to islam, perhaps they should start calling non muslim taxpayers pigs and monkeys.

After all, not following the koran is offensive to muslims is it not?

Indeed, I dare the DHS et al to do the right thing according to the koran -- call the American people pigs and monkeys as your koran demands you do -- or do you prefer to inslut islam by not so doing?

Posted by: witness at April 29, 2008 2:35 PM

what we call "suicide bombing" has been justified by mainstream Muslim clerics, who have managed to define such acts not as "suicide" (which is forbidden in Islam) but as simply "enormous risk-taking while engaged in the praiseworthy act of killing Infidels" -- likened to the brave Muslim warrior, sword in hand, who might a thousand years ago have attacked a large group of Infidels, knowing he would almost certainly be killed but not committing suicide because, you see, you never know what might happen, given the whims and ways of Allah.

Thanks for the historical background. Nowadays, however, the jihadist (or whatever we're supposed to call him how) has no qualms in attacking unarmed non-combatant infidels, who pose no danger to him, not with sword in hand openly visible, but with bomb concealed underneath clothing. And instead of knowing he would almost certainly be killed, from the weapons carried by those historic infidels, with the possibility that Allah would preserve him, he makes sure he kills himself, by using the weapon that he himself carries. Of course, if I tried to explain the difference between then and now to a jihadist, such an attempt would likely be my last mistake.

Posted by: Bigfoot at April 29, 2008 3:25 PM

Don't worry, citizens! Jihadist is not really an unword.

In President' Bush's press conference today (April 29, 2008) he used the word.

"...Does that mean, you know, that it's over? No, it doesn't mean it's over. We're in a long struggle, as I've told you many a time, against these jihadists."

If our leader continues to use the term, so should we.

Posted by: n1cholson at April 29, 2008 4:01 PM

If the Tomatoes and Cucumber was the Only Export...

With what ever cleverness, the corporate western media portrays and tries to articulate the case of ‘Global war on Terrorism' and hikes up the flimsy pretexts to invade the sovereign countries beyond Iraq and Iran in the Middle East; it is bound to meet its failures and end up in desperation and frenzy. The myth of terrorism has no future and bears no ethical grounds to stand on. It is only by the vile choices of few assailants; the big wicks like United States with their vicious designs and evil choices; aiming at siphoning the resources of this area to run the western oil edict economies through deceit and fallacy.

The committal of atrocities by the western forces in Middle East is enormous and it is a crime against humanity openly being committed to fulfil the rapacious greed. Where as western violence has learnt how to parcel it self out neatly; the deputed police always hauls up the usual suspects; the Jihadists for the blood of corpuses at their hands?

If the Tomatoes and Cucumber was the only export from Middle East; there would have been no invasion of Iraq; no mega bases and military presence; no infestation of seas of Middle Eastern peninsula with navel fleets; no mass killing of defence less innocent people; no toppling of government; no show trail for silencing of witnesses like saddam Hussien and sending them down the gallows; no draconian sanctions against Iran restricting them to gain knowledge and defensive technology; no subjugation or oppression of people; no displacement of million of people and no agents like Israel.
For the Muslims in the area, life is but a misery?

For Neocons the terms Jihad has proved to be a Magic Wand. First the term Jihad was used to scramble the Muslim devotees forces (Mujahideen) from all over to fight Soviet Union and topple the Soviet Empire; the same term was later turned against them to declare them terrorist and grab many more lands and turn them into military mega bases. But now this term-Jihad, although is still in use very effectively but has been given a new name called…Al-Qaeda.

Neocons- show … goes on!
-------------------
Adabarez

Posted by: Adabarez at April 29, 2008 6:23 PM

The myth of terrorism has no future and bears no ethical grounds to stand on.

I couldn't agree more. "Terrorism" makes it sound like "terror" is the ultimate goal. Jihadism is a much better term. Let's use that.

The committal of atrocities by the western forces in Middle East is enormous and it is a crime against humanity openly being committed to fulfil the rapacious greed.

Gee, the atrocity of 9/11 is still a stinging memory, not to forget those beheadings, etc. "Rapacious greed" -- interesting term given the massive financial drain on the US economy, not to mention the trauma to the value of the dollar. Meanwhile, Iraq racks up a $30 billion reserve on oil sales.

restricting them to gain knowledge and defensive technology;

Defensive technology like methods of rape and butchering of captives. To coitus interruptus, or not to coitus interruptus, better if you don't. Oh wait, they already had that technology from the Qur'an. Defensive weapons like biological and chemical warfare agents like they used on the Kurds, the nukes the Israelis (thank God, the real God, for the Israelis) kept them from getting, the defensive weapons shipped to Syria,....

grab many more lands and turn them into military mega bases

And to build mosques and Islamic education centers, and rebuild Shi'a shrines and infrastructure. And watch what happens to those mega bases when they get abandoned. Who gets to keep them?

BTW; (notice the semicolon) anyone wanting to know who Adabarez is should click here.

(Hint, hint)

Love for All,Hatred for None

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at April 29, 2008 6:52 PM

From above: big wicks like United States with their vicious designs and evil choices; aiming at siphoning the resources of this area to run the western oil edict economies through deceit and fallacy.

Yes, and one of those evil choices is to PURCHASE the oil, at market prices that are shooting upwards like a NASA rocket. The OPECS of the world, and all those oil comps and speculators are pricing themselves out of business. Every economy will collapse with ten dollar gas, probably less than ten. The work force won't be able to get to work, and goods wont get delivered, and when they do the price will be astronomical. When you go to the store there will be a closed sign saying 'come back next week' and you will be asked to pay for it in real gold or silver, not worthless paper. Most trade will stop because no one can afford it, or ship it. This includes trade to the Mid East and other oil producers. It costs to much to ship tv's and cell phones. No spare parts for anything. The MI because of it's reliance on things western, will collapse under it's own weight. The Saudi Royals will fly to Venezuela where Hugo will put them on welfare. There may be riots, even wars. Mahdi may come out of his well when it gets bad enough. He better have a waiting camel, because there will be no gas for a car, not even in Iran.

Posted by: duh_swami at April 29, 2008 8:39 PM

Where is a "Brothers" outrage at their Brethren who build Sand Castles on the Sea Shore? So much Money for So many Brothers who see but a Gun and Bullets.

Brothers given a promise of luxury beyond what they see the Movers and Shakers enjoy. Taking comfort in the knowledge that it really is Allah's will they suffer under. To engage in Politically Incorrect Religiously Criminal Anti-Social Behavior for time Immortal. Shortened to Jihad because it rolls off the Tongue better when yelling.

Please Brother, do not blame me for purchasing your fine goods. It is not I who provides you the Gun and Bullets and to live a miserable life with it.

Ask for something different Brother. Then see your self get closer to the Beach.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at April 29, 2008 9:44 PM

adabarez

do you really think we're stupid?

For the benefit of any new visitor to this site, I submit a few sample texts from the sacred books of Islam, from the Quran, and from the earliest known 'historian' of Islam, a Muslim himself, Ibn Ishaq [ca. 704-773] author of the canonical 'Life of Mohammed'.

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" - Quran Surah 9: 29.

Also:
"Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost." Quran Surah 47: 4.

Qur’an:8:39 “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.”
(and in another translation): Qur’an:8:39 “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).”

Ishaq: 327 "Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’"

Ishaq: 204 - “‘Men, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man [Muhammad]?’ ‘Yes. In swearing allegiance to him we are pledging to wage war against all mankind.’”

Quran surah 9 was first written down, as far as anyone can tell, in the 8th/ 9th century. No 'neocons' around then. Jews were a persecuted minority within the non-Jewish world, whether pagan or Christian. Nobody in Eurasia even knew that the Americas existed. The Mongol invasions hadn't happened. The tribes of northwest Europe were sorting themselves out after the collapse of the western Roman empire.

A bit before then, in the 7th century, when Ubul Qassim, later to be accurately dubbed ha-Meshugga, 'the Madman', by Maimonides, cooked up his grand program for self-promotion by means of ruthless morals-free Arab assault upon and ruination of the known world, the United States didn't even exist, and all that came out of Arabia was frankincense, not oil.

The Hindus and Buddhists of parts east of Persia were minding their own business; the animists of Africa were minding their own business.

Persia and Byzantium were so busy with their own squabbles that they didn't notice that a hellish new ideology was being developed by Arab warlords in what is now southern Jordan and Saudi Arabia, an ideology that both commands and sanctifies "undiscriminating and exterminating war against all mankind'.

They didn't realize that the Arabs had gone mad with a toxic, misogynistic, imperialistic, supremacist, murderous and profoundly amoral war cult that, over the next 13 centuries, would be directly responsible for the murders of more defenceless human beings (rough guess, 270 MILLION) than any other single source known to history, and for the mass rape and mass enslavement of millions of others.

Nope. The 'neocons' didn't invent the Jihad, and the Jihad is not a new thing, nor is it an illusion: it is 1300 years old, horribly real, and it is behaving today toward Europe and America and India PRECISELY as it has behaved toward non-Muslims throughout the entire period of its existence. It was in abeyance during the mid-19th century through 1930s because it had been pushed back upon itself and had destroyed its own resource base; when it got a vast injection of oil wealth it exploded into action again.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at April 29, 2008 10:18 PM

Post scriptum.

'adabarez' - BTW are you Persian? You should think about investigating either Christianity or Zoroastrianism as human-friendly, life-affirming alternatives to the death-cult. Google Daniel Shayesteh - 'Exodus from Darkness' - and listen to his story. Or check out the cheerful agnostic, Ali Sina, at faithfreedom. Be brave!

If Persia were liberated from the death-cult/ slave-cult/ war-cult which is Islam, Persia could blossom into one of the most beautiful, poetic, creative, colourful and delightful human societies on the planet. It makes my heart ache to imagine all that Persia might have become, if the Arab Muslims hadn't invaded and ruined and poisoned it and driven its people mad.

But YHWH, God of the Bible, promises: " I will restore the years that the locusts have eaten" - why don't you do what many other wise Persians are doing, and give Him a chance to heal your life? Some years ago I witnessed the joyful baptism of a Persian guy who had left Islam and embraced Christianity. He was SO happy!

Meanwhile, 'Adabarez', I do advise you to note the following: that the regulars on this comments floor are completely unmoved by all attempts to play the 'victim card'; and that mad-hattery, nonsense and lies, and bizarre conspiracy theories, whether originating from Muslims or non-Muslims, will be met by ruthless mockery and irrepressible laughter.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at April 29, 2008 10:45 PM

A Khokar wrote:

"The myth of terrorism has no future and bears no ethical grounds to stand on."

Utter hogwash. Islam is the divinely mandated, textbook definition of terrorism. This is the typical taqiyya-ridden nonsense that the jihadists rely on to continue their ideological assault on the West under the relative covert protection of "religion".

Before the historical beginning of US imperialism of the 1950's, Islam has no excuse for the actions of its adherents. Nor does it ever have the excuse for the written words in the Qur'an and other historical texts of Muhammad's own cognition, with the noted deficiency of understanding due to a lack of a proper Arabic translation, notwithstanding.

Enlightenment for all, ignorance, (of Islam), for none.

Posted by: awake at April 29, 2008 10:52 PM

I've quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2008/04/re-spencer-jihad-is-over-if-you-want-it.html

Posted by: Consul-At-Arms at April 30, 2008 12:26 AM

So the 3,000 dead on 9/11 were victims of unspecific non-denominational mass-murder?

Jihad: no one here but us chickens.

Posted by: profitsbeard at April 30, 2008 3:10 AM

Bush and Rice don't want to insult the Jihadist Community.

Posted by: Bosch Fawstin at April 30, 2008 3:16 AM

While the Storm is Raging

To recall the writings of my Guru will be appropriate here that “local wars are fought mainly on three issues like women, wealth and land; the international wars may stem from the insatiable, covetous greed of the oppressors. In pursuance of the greed, the assailants coerce, subjugate and oppress the targeted nations to deprive them of their lands and siphon up their economic resources; like the one we see in Middle East; where inhabitants are deprived of the lands and usage of its resources and they are driven off forcibly from their own home lands on very flimsy pretexts.

The current Middle Eastern occupations after invasion of sovereign nations like Iraq and later the war in Afghanistan; oppressors forces are in physical occupations of Arab lands and they are all out in subjugation, coercion and forcing the inhabitants to shed their sovereignty and forsake their rights on their mineral resources. We also find that Arabs natives are virtually defenceless and with no arms or potent arsenals to fight back. The natives also find that oppressors are all out; not only to defeat them and grab-n-siphon out their land resources like gas and oil but also are bent upon hijacking and targeting their ideology and faith—Islam which bears God’s latest commandments issued through Quran-e- karim. The oppressors and their allies also want to see this religion go down defeated, maligned and for good. This is two prongs invasion in operation; a double whammy, an attack on lands as well as on Muslim faith. Recent screening of anti-Quran ‘Fitna’ movie of Geert wilders as well as a fanning out given by many others; is one of the examples; where a deceitful effort has been made to depict ‘Islam and Quran’ pitched against the life found in the west…so called the free world.

Armed forces of any country are meant to defend their land. All the soldiers they know well that their lands and their Borders; may these be physical or the ideological borders; these borders always take the toll of their lives and demand a spillage of blood of their patriots to keep these borders in tact.

The oppressors can easily be checked at borders or driven out, if the inhabitants have the ability to fight back in equal coins; provided they are equipped with reasonable potent forces and other lethal deterring arsenals and are able to stage counter tactical attacks. The weak nations have no dignity and no place to stand in the eyes of the World.

The humans are born free and bear a natural instinct to fight back for their freedom; they fight back always and under all the circumstances. The Armed Forces may surrender and people might have been forced to bow their heads but minds …never bow! The next chain action starts and underground forces get gather to fight back,...more vehemently to free their Home land. The oppressors should be ready to face that.

In the situation like this it may not be difficult to understand that lucrative Arab lands are being targeted and oppressors forces are all out to grab, annex and bring the Arab lands along with the inhabitants; subjugated into their folds.

To fight back is the right of natives; feeble and destitute or armless they may be (that they are restricted to possess potent defensive arms) but they are not mindless. In order to retrieve their honour, dignity and home lands; they have learnt it well that ‘a right sting by the little dog fly at a right place can spin even the ferocious terrier bull dog.’

While the dust storm of occupation of Arab lands is raging and the natives may be blamed resorting to some terrifying activities and tactics, but this all is in retaliation of onslaught of aggression of foreign forces to compel the oppressors to take heed and leave them alone.

Religion has got very less or nothing to do with this!”

Link: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=9935
--------------------
Adabarez

Posted by: Adabarez at April 30, 2008 4:35 AM

It was Britain - the FO, Gordon Brown, the Home Secretary etc, that first came out with this policy of not referring to Jihad and Islam in relation to terrorism. In fact, Jihad is actually anti-Islamic, according to the UK government.

Now we see that this approach has been taken up in the US as well. Is this coordinated? And if so, to what ends.

Posted by: DP111 at April 30, 2008 5:04 AM

'Adabarez'

I told you not to bother trying to play the 'victim' card.

Because if the subject turns to victims, we Infidels have a much bigger 'victim' card to play - the guesstimated TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY MILLION innocent people, on three continents, who have been viciously, systematically butchered by Muslims in the name of the war-god 'allah', during the past 1300 years of jihad and dhimmitude.

Those numbers don't include the millions gang-raped, the millions enslaved, and the thousands and thousands of children torn from their families to be brainwashed and abused and turned into slave warriors/ janissaries (the boys) or sex toys (the girls). It doesn't include the millions who would have died from starvation after their economies were deliberately wrecked by Muslim armies, or as a result of punitive taxation (jizya) and total misgovernment and mismanagement by greedy, corrupt, and cruel Muslim despots (Saddam Hussein was a little lamb compared to some of the Caliphs).

http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/tears-of-jihad/

I advise everyone here who doesn't already know about the 'political islam' website to follow the link.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at April 30, 2008 5:17 AM

Re: politicalislam.com

I recommend the following books, which are produced by the site, and recommended to be read in the following order:

Mohammed and the Unbelievers

The Political Traditions of Mohammed

An Abridged Koran

The first is a condensed Sira based largely on Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah via Alfred Guillaume's translation, The Life of the Muhammad.

The second is a topically arranged condensed Hadith.

The third is a contextualized chronological survey of the Qur'an with the repetition removed.

These are not polemical; for the most part they allow the Islamic texts to speak for themselves. They are selective in that the religious aspects of Islam are underemphasized. They are mostly concerned about how Islam treats non-Muslims.

Since this sounds like an advertisement, I have nothing to disclose financially. There are a few typo's and minor formatting errors, but are quick reads and have some good source material.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at April 30, 2008 7:30 AM

What Khokar didn't learn the first time he got banned was that the pointless, bloviating, unresponsive, off-topic, vapid taqiyya is really boring and tedious to screen, and unworthy of response. This is not the place to post endless, dissimulating, pre-written haughty diatribes.

Khokar, please stay on topic and debate. Where you've met response (we would say refutation), respond back. Be honest. And since your presence is tolerated as pedogogical, teach about your views. Don't dodge the serious questions. That's the only reason you're here.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at April 30, 2008 7:44 AM

Concerned Citizen,
I hope you know that topic of this thread is the Jihadist of Al-Qaeda. Earlier the entire media was beating the drums of purported killing of Jihadists; but lately there is some change of hearts and top notches are suggesting now that they may not be called as Jihadist? Why not? Well the horses may know the best who have got the mouth; but to understand them what all is there on their mind; it may not be that difficult?
My earlier submission was exactly to the point which you tried to hijack and lately again in order to distract me and the readers; you suggested me to read few books on Islam and connected tradition etc. This will be going totally off the topic and waste of space on JW. Where as I respect and will also defend what all you say but agreeing to it or not is my prerogative.

There is whole lot world out there beyond the boundaries of misconceptions carved by the earlier religious denominations. And please better refrain from slandering and going into personal matters.

I know for sure that there is no religious business involved in the Global war on Terrorism or its connected conflicts. This is mere a play let of fallacy of US hegemonic greed at its play. In this regards US policy is the policy of exterminator and they want to see any body either be on their side till they accomplish this adventurism or be ready to be exterminated.
Religion is the subject of God fearing and pious peoples. It will be better that religion is kept out of this hegemonic business.

But I also know that there are lobbies of opportunists who love to keep cashing on, on the purported business of this fallacy and deceit and may like to keep the anti Islamic agenda on their front burners for their own vested interests.
But is there any body serving God; not seen yet!

BTW; just to inform you a true Muslim very much believes in Torah of Moses (as); he believes in the teaching of true Bible and this will be right to say that a true Muslim is first a true Christian before… this that he claims to be a Muslim.
-------------
Adabarez

Posted by: Adabarez at April 30, 2008 1:12 PM

I hope you know that topic of this thread is the Jihadist of Al-Qaeda.

No, the topic of this thread is inane semantic appeasement of slow-jihad pressure groups for political gain.

My earlier submission was exactly to the point which you tried to hijack

I and others pointed out the mischaracterizations and fallacies you posted.

you suggested me to read few books on Islam and connected tradition etc.

I have suggested that you read nothing but the Bible, particularly the Torah, the basics of which you seemed so uncomfortable and disingenuous with on another thread. Another poster recommended the site I quoted from; I amplified that with additional information, which is particularly relevant to this thread, vis a vis nomenclature and misnomers. From the Political Traditions of Mohammed, "Epilogue", page 165ff, "In the early nineteenth century America sent the Navy and Marines to war against the Barbary pirates on the Berber coast in north Africa. For centuries the Islamic Barbary pirates had raided Europe and taken nearly a million white slaves, and their shipping raids in the Mediteranean had taken a great toll. But the Muslims never called their naval raiders "Barbary Pirates." The called them ghazis, sacred raiders. A raid led by Mohammed againt the unbelievers' caravans was called a ghazwah. the Muslims were clear that naval raids by the "Barbary pirates" were actually jihad by the army of Mohammed. Naming them "pirates" showed that the unbelievers had no idea about the doctrine and history of Islam." It goes on like this for 10 paragraphs, concluding "Correct naming leads to correct thinking."

misconceptions carved by the earlier religious denominations

There are no larger "misconceptions" than the distortions and annulments of JudaeoChristian traditions attempted by the immoral Bedouin, Mohammed.

I know for sure that there is no religious business involved in the Global war on Terrorism

Really? Please go directly to Iraq or Afghanistan and explain it to your co-religionists.

This is mere a play let of fallacy of US hegemonic greed at its play...blah, blah...lobbies of opportunists who love to keep cashing on...blah, blah... their own vested interests.

This has been addressed above, and rebutted. Your lack of acknowledgement and interaction is what got you banned before. Demonstrate how the United States has profitted by the Gulf war. Stable gas prices?

BTW; just to inform you a true Muslim very much believes in Torah of Moses (as); he believes in the teaching of true Bible and this will be right to say that a true Muslim is first a true Christian before… this that he claims to be a Muslim.

Really?! Oh, God, I am so glad...wait..."true" Bible...that's right, you don't believe the Bible actually exists in uncorrupted form, even though you love to point at isolated episodes in the Tanakh as being true when it fits the Muslim tu quoque.

Sorry, a true Christian believes in the vicarious atonement of Christ's crucifixion to propitiate God's wrath for our dishonoring him by our sin in our ignorance.

BTW; (note the semicolon), Khokar, do you ever read anything? You are absolutely a broken record.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at April 30, 2008 4:18 PM

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at April 29, 2008 10:45 PM

Dear Dumbledoresarmy,

I appreciate the stand of website Jihadwatch that it keeps us all, up date to the minuet details and moves in the name of Jihad in the Muslim world and they all are reflected here. We stay thank full to the dedicated administration and all other keen contributors for this.

Where as same regular contributors are seen on almost every thread but their deliberations loose charm when we don’t have the diversity of opinion on the critical subjects and one find hardly any participant representing the Muslim world or the counter comments from other side being received whole heartedly except the frequent mocking and slandering; in case some one does appear.

There was lot of trumpets beating observed in favour of Freedom of Speech and even the Fitna movie was hailed on the website the most. There were score of threads repeatedly put forward for discussion to attain the favourable comments and scoring but at the same time we have seen that persons commenting against the movie were very conveniently shunted out.

I may not object to make some one a laughing stock for fun during the discussions; you may jeer but mocking be discouraged. We must respect the other people’s beliefs and must curb the habit of slandering their prophets how ever we may feel justified. It does make us just feel good but What happens if other side happens to be true?

We should invariably respect the exercise of right of freedom of speech by others.
----------------------
Adabarez

Posted by: Adabarez at April 30, 2008 6:18 PM

I may not object to make some one a laughing stock for fun during the discussions; you may jeer but mocking be discouraged. We must respect the other people’s beliefs and must curb the habit of slandering their prophets how ever we may feel justified. It does make us just feel good but What happens if other side happens to be true?

Leaving aside the hair-splitting between jeering and mocking, here Adabarez/Khokar brings up an interesting and weighty issue worthy of discussion (leaving aside also that it is off-topic):

What is the nature and extent of respect required of another's religious beliefs?

Respect
Is it truely respectful to avoid pointing out factual errors, inconsistencies and contradictions, in the ethical, moral, and logical foundations of a belief system for mere sake of voiced or perceived sensitivities, comity, and general decorum?

Required
Who arbitrates the demands for meeting the expected level of "respect", polices its boundaries, and exacts its tolls?

Religious
Must a religion be a pure entity, or may it be mixed with political and militant elements and retain the same "respect"?

Beliefs
If a stated personal tenet is at variance with the published or official tenets of a faith system, should these beliefs enjoy the same, if any, protections afforded above, especially if they differ in a way that is provocative of inquiry, or appear to obscure the presence or intentions of the "mixed elements" above?

It is possible, that when someone ventures into the public arena to tout his beliefs, he invites criticism and debate, and if he performs poorly, may rightly deserve correction and even mockery. In reality, the mocker may be doing him a service. Exiting one street corner for another to resume should be no safe harbor form the prior discussion, either.

The only safe place to exercise your right express your beliefs without expectation of criticism, debate, or even mockery, is in private, or in your privately owned site of corporate worship, and frankly the latter is within the restrictions of the orthodoxy of the owner.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at April 30, 2008 8:35 PM

Concerned Citizen and Friends,

I need not give my personal opinion about Bible and not to go down that road whether Bible is corrupted or not; I only know what God tells me in Quran and what all he wants me to know. If people of the old have done some thing or have been playing with the Word of God for their vested interests. Their reward or the punishments all rest with God. That is ‘done and dusted’; I only know that there is latest book of guidance with us called Quran and I follow that and adhere to its bindings only. The old are just history.

If some one wants to remain stuck in the past and is bent upon to refute any thing that comes in his way; which may make him happy and give him reason to stay with the remnants of the past or join hands with other such like groups for his consolation; well that is their problem. Every soul is vested with self stirring bell called conscious; to give them awakening call and People will surely be judged what they are holding on to!

My sole duty is that under all the circumstances I should give the glad tiding to the entire human where ever I can that there is some thing new which God has revealed. It validates the old and completes and finalizes the religion planned by Almighty for the mankind. It is guidance for the people who posses knowledge and fear God.

I know that people will mock, jeer and will slang the dirt and mud but at the end of the day; resist they may but come to terms; they have to.
-----------
Adabarez

Posted by: Adabarez at May 1, 2008 6:33 AM

validates the old and completes and finalizes the religion planned by Almighty for the mankind.

On a thread about semantics, misnomers, nomenclature and secondary intentions, I find this comment provocative.

1. Validates the old. What exactly are you calling "the old"? How does relegation to "just history" give it value? What evidence do you have of its existence in its original manuscript form? How do the terms "validate" and "negate" compare in your mind?
2. Completes the religion. In what way? By replacing it and being in diametric opposition?
3. Finalizes the religion. Do you consider Islam to be frozen in time with Mohammed, the "gates of ijtihad" closed, or do you find it open to interpretation? If the latter, please give examples?

You see, Khokar, the problem is we are not communicating. Our words may be common, but their meanings are not.

God. I mean YHWH, you mean Allah and try to claim they are the same. If I provide proof they are not, you will discount it without consideration.
Bible. I mean a collection of documents and fragments from antiquity, collated and translated with high accuracy into a volume I carry with me, that contains the plenary inspiration of God. You mean something that doesn't exist in a form worthy of schlarship, and hasn't for 14 centuries, and even if it did, you wouldn't study it or feel inclined to follow its precepts.
People. I mean everybody, unless I specify. You interchangeably mean all people, infidels or Muslims, and intentionally allow the ambiguity to remain.
Peace. I mean our ability to coexist without designs or ambitions against each other. You mean my ultimate subjugation or annihilation.

And those are just a few nouns.

Neither of us has intention of being vulnerable to conversion by the other. You primarily write soliloquys, and seem shocked when anyone questions or finds fault with your propositions. I, perhaps in misguided hope, strive to awaken you from the fallacies, company, and ethical and moral errors I see you drowning in. Unlike you, I have studied your religion, and I find its dualism and agenda repugnant, especially in light of the "Golden Rule". Far from discounting your religion as unworthy of study, I find your religion the greatest threat to humankind (all of us, you, too).

In the United States, this is "The National Day of Prayer". All over, people of differing faiths are gathering, straining to do what you do so naturally, preening a neutered version of their deity as though Universalism will save us. I'm not there. Your Allah is not my YHWH, and pretending they are won't mean that we've found common cause or that you won't find glee in my becoming a dhimmi ("coming to terms", as you like to call it). I think far from falling on deaf ears, your prayers invoke God's wrath, and I don't want to stand next to it. I will find another forum, or pray at home. I will pray that my president and Secretary of State shake off the sleep dust and realize they are in process of selling out our country, and especially, in a matter of weeks, our national friend and ally, the nation of Israel. Selling out our country, for a willfully misguided attempt at generating peace by demonstrating vulnerability via appeasement, a path which will be interpreted as weakness, and will lead cataclysmically to protracted horrific war.

Peace. This is exactly where our worlds collide, exactly because it doesn't mean the same to both sides. If we were going to forbid the use of a word, it should be this one. Perhaps it should be replaced by something more cumbersome like "vigilant perpetual egalitarian coexistence", so that there would be less temptation to glibly muse about it.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at May 1, 2008 10:29 AM

Dear Concerned Citizen,

From your contributions it looks like that you have been studying a lot about Islam and I am sorry to note that you have not been fully convinced for the truth of the word and you prefer to stay with your preconceived ideas and myths generated by the zealots in support of the misconceptions in the past. In order to know about Islam first and foremost will be to bear in mind that ‘[3:60] This is the truth from thy Lord, so be thou not of those who doubt.’

The Muslims they believe [3:84] Say, 'We believe in Allah and that which has been revealed to us, and that which was revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and in that which was given to Moses and Jesus and other Prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them and to Him we submit.' [3:62] This certainly is the true account. There is none worthy of worship save Allah; and surely, it is Allah Who is the Mighty, the Wise.

If we are serious about resolving the issue of the truth; to start with we need to find a common ground to develop the case further. Allah suggest[3:64] Say, 'O people of the Book; come to a word equal between us and you’ (and but this must be borne in mind)- that we (Muslims)worship none but Allah, and that we associate no partner with Him, and that some of us take not others for Lords beside Allah.'

But Muslims know that their Christian brethren like to believe and emphasis that Jesus (as) be considered as God; but the God Almighty declares in Quran otherwise and says; [3:79] It does not befit a truthful man (like Jesus) that Allah should give him the Book and Wisdom and Prophet hood, and then he should say to men, 'Be my worshippers instead of Allah; but he would say, 'Be solely devoted to the Lord because you teach the book and because you study it'. Allah admonishes;[3:70] O People of the Book! Why do you deny the signs of Allah, while you are witnesses thereof? And in [3:71] O People of the Book! Why do you confound truth with falsehood and hide the truth knowingly?

Allah further narrates that [5:18] ‘The Jews and the Christians say, 'We are the sons of Allah and His beloved ones.' Say, 'Why then does He punish you for your sins? Nay, you are mortals from among those He has created.' He forgives whom He pleases and punishes whom He pleases. And to Allah belongs the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them, and to Him shall be the final return’. [13:38] ‘And, indeed, We sent Messengers before thee, and We gave them wives and children. And it is not possible for a Messenger to bring a Sign save by the command of Allah. For every term there is a divine decree.’ [13:39] ‘Allah effaces and establishes what He wills, and with Him is the source of all commandments.’
[3:69] A party of the People of the Book would fain lead you astray; but they lead astray none except themselves, only they perceive not.

Allah; [3:74] 'He selects for His mercy whomsoever He pleases! And Allah is the Lord of mighty grace.'[13:26] Allah enlarges His provision and straitens it for whomsoever He pleases. And they rejoice in the present life, while the present life is but a temporary enjoyment as compared with the Hereafter. [13:29] 'Those who believe and do good works - happiness is decreed for them, and an excellent place of return.'

Allah vouch safe for Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and says [33:40] Muhammad is not the father of any of your men (like You), but he is the Messenger of Allah, and the seal of the Prophets and Allah has full knowledge of all things.’ [21:107] And We have not sent thee;
but as a mercy for all the peoples.

[3:63] But if they turn away, then remember that Allah fully knows the mischief-makers. [3:137] Surely, there have been many dispensations before you; so travel through the earth and see how evil was the end of those who treated the Prophets as liars.’

There is no coercion in religion but Quran reveals that this is a sole desire of God Almighty that his subject; we the human beings should turn to Him for his blessings and submit the way it is required of us- the humans.
------------
Adabarez

Posted by: Adabarez at May 1, 2008 4:51 PM

Dear Khokar,

I appreciate your time, but if I need a hagiography of Mohammed or a discourse in benign Meccan surahs, I will consult the published English volumes by Esposito, Armstrong, and other hired dhimmis. Your response is exactly a perfect description of what I wrote about above: you are not listening.

If we are serious about resolving the issue of the truth; to start with we need to find a common ground to develop the case further.

I think we need to resolve the problems of developing consensus on 1) vocabulary free of doublespeak and 2) vigilant perpetual egalitarian coexistence, before we attempt to tackle the issue of "truth". Rest assured, even at that time, we will not start with surah 3 ayah 60. And when it is resolved, it will resolve with you bending your knee, and your tongue confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Hebrews 6:4-7 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.

Hebrews 9
Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron's staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.
When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing. This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.
When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep." In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at May 1, 2008 7:56 PM

Dear Concerned Citizen and Friends,

To take Jesus as God is surely a Myth and a conjuncture because no Scripture of God supports it neither Jesus claimed that he be worshiped as a god? So to kneel or bow in front of any one else, other than the God does not arise.

They say; bowing to one God Almighty, may save you thousands of bowings before others.

In Book of Matthew when Jesus Sent Out the Twelve disciples, he instructed them; as it is described in Matthew chapter10:-

[1]He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.

[5]These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles (peoples other than Israelites) or enter any town of the Samaritans. [6]Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.

At other place in the Book of Matthew 15; it says
[21]Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."
[23] Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."
[24] He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
[25]The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.
[26]He replied, "It is not right to take the children's (Israelite) bread and toss it to their dogs."
Above also shows that Jesus subjects were just Israelite and he had no intentions to help or deal with any one else other than the Israelite.
Quran also clarifies the position of Jesus (as); in Chapter 3, Aal-e-Imran; where an angle said to Mary [3:50] And (God) will send him as a Messenger to the Children of Israel with the Message;’…,
All the reformers may enjoy a higher authority over their predecessor. Since Jesus was sent as the Reformer for the sheep of Israelites so in that respect he may be vested with exalted position but that does not means that a reformer of a sheep of Israelites be considered as god also. This elevated station given to Jesus is probably out of sympathy and emotional respect given by (later) followers… Christians; who by keeping in view the bad treatment of rejection and sentencing to humiliation and death given to him by Israelites and preferred to turn the incident in to a myth as a son of god.
The Holy Quran says in Surah Al-Nisa [4:171] ‘O People of the Book! Exceed not the limits in your religion, and say not of Allah anything but the truth. Verily, the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only a Messenger of Allah, and a fulfilment of His word which He had sent down to Mary, and a mercy from Him. So believe in Allah and His Messengers, and say not, 'They are three.' Desist, it will be better for you. Verily, Allah is the only One God. Holy is He, far above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. And sufficient is Allah as a guardian’.
[3:18] Allah bears witness that there is no god but He - and also do the angels and those possessed of knowledge, maintaining justice; there is no god but He, the Mighty, the Wise’ [3:19] Surely, the true religion with Allah is Islam. And those who were given the Book did not disagree but, after knowledge had come to them, out of mutual envy. And whoso denies the Signs of Allah, then surely, Allah is quick at reckoning.’
To come to Common grounds may be that we come to a terms and declare that; we bear witness that there is no god but God and Muhammad is the Messenger of God.
[2:132] The same did Abraham enjoin upon his sons, - and Jacob also - saying, 'O my sons, truly Allah has chosen this religion for you; so let not death overtake you except when you are in a state of complete submission.'
[3:85] ‘And whoso seeks a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him, and, in the Hereafter he shall be among the losers’.
After thorough pondering and due deliberation; if still not convinced then; here applies the verse of Al-Kafirun Chapter 109 : Verse 6
'For you your religion, and for me my religion.
--------------
Adabarez

Posted by: Adabarez at May 2, 2008 5:23 AM

For the benefit of any new readers who may not know as much as the regulars, and may be finding 'adabarez' confusing, I think it is time to refer to Raymond Ibrahim, The Al Qaeda Reader.

Ibrahim discovered that 'Al Qaeda' had two entirely different modes of address.
One, directed toward non-Muslims, primarily the western world, set out to press what I might call all our 'guilt buttons', re colonialism, etc and so forth. It played the 'victim card' just as our visitor, adabarez, has attempted to do, on occasion.

But the other, the discourse that Bin Laden and his cohorts addressed to fellow Muslims did not bother with any of that. It dealt in purely in-house Islamic texts and themes. Infidels are to be fought and either absorbed, crushed, or exterminated, simply and solely because they are ...Infidels.

Bruce Thornton, reviewing Ibrahim's book -read the review in full at:
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/thornton081907.html

points out that "contrary to the deceptions of apologists and the naïve delusions of some Westerners, the bases of the jihadists’ actions lie squarely within Islamic tradition, not in the alleged Western crimes against Islam."

Thornton notes:
"He [Ibrahim] has organized these writings into two sections:
theology, writings intended for fellow Muslims that ground al Qaeda’s war against the West in the traditional Islamic doctrine of jihad;
and propaganda, writings meant for Westerners that cast bin Laden’s war as a just response to the depredations of Western powers."

So: leaving aside the Quran-vs-Bible discussion for the moment, I warn all Infidel visitors present and future to take with a heaping grain of salt any of 'adabarez'' postings that invoke the alleged 'oppression' of the Poor Muslims by the Wicked Westerners.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at May 2, 2008 8:49 AM

Now: as for interpreting the Bible -

ladies and gentlemen, observe what 'adabarez' has done, above, to the gospel story of Jesus and the Syro-Phoenician woman.

Mohammedans perpetually accuse people like Spencer of taking Quranic verses out of context.

And yet: when 'Adabarez' quotes the BIBLE, what does he do? He brazenly rips the verses right out of context: so much so that his claimed interpretation "this shows that Jesus subjects were just Israelite and he had no intentions to help or deal with any one else other than the Israelite" completely REVERSES the meaning of the exchange which Matthew recorded, between Jesus and the Syro-Phoenician woman. Adabarez, in a display of sickening dishonesty, leaves out the rest of the story.

Unfortunately for Adabarez, anyone who has ever attended a good Sunday School knows that the Gentile, the Syro-Phoenician woman replies "but the little dogs [in the Greek it's a word implying 'pet dogs', 'household dogs'] eat the crumbs which fall from their master's table"; and Jesus strongly commends her faith, and heals her daughter.

So instead of 'proving', as Adabarez claims on the basis of an out-of-context fragment, that Jesus didn't care about anyone who wasn't a Jew, the story in its entirety proves the exact opposite - that he showed love to Gentiles AS WELL AS to his fellow Jews. (One might refer also to the healing of the Roman centurion's servant - Matthew 8: 5-13 - in which Jesus commends the faith of the centurion).

Yes, in Matthew 10 Jesus sends his disciples 'to the lost sheep of Israel': that was appropriate at that point, to restrict the message and ministry largely (but not exclusively) to Israel.

But: Adabarez does not want anyone to remember what is said LATER, after the Passion and the Resurrection, in Matthew 28: "Then Jesus came to them [the disciples] and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. THEREFORE GO AND MAKE DISCIPLES OF ALL NATIONS, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

So: Matthew records a two-stage Sending of the Disciples. Being sent to the Lost Sheep within Israel, during Jesus' three-year earthly ministry, is Stage One; going to the Nations, after his resurrection and ascension, is Stage Two. Adabarez wants us to think that there is no Stage Two.

Now: even an atheist, a Hindu, a Jew or a Buddhist who looked at the whole of Matthew's text and then compared it with what Adabarez tries to make from two sets of verses, could see that Adabarez is wilfully misreading it.

Note to any new visitors, commenters or lurkers who may be reading this: I have been reading and commenting here for two years, now, and have also read many exchanges, in the archives, between Muslim spin-doctors and Mr Spencer himself, as well as other folks. To be quite frank: attempting to argue with the average Muslim daawa artist is generally about as useful as banging your head against a rock, for they appear completely closed to rational argument, and employ every dirty trick in the book.

What 'adabarez' just did, to Matthew's Gospel, is absolutely typical (and it isn't just the gospels that the average Muslim troll will mistreat in this way, either).

Ubul Kassim ha-Meshugga was a liar and a deceiver and a great many of his followers are just like him.

(NOTE: Ubul Kassim was 'mohammed''s real name, 'mohammed' being just an honorific title; ha-Meshugga is Hebrew for 'the madman' and it is the term by which Maimonides, the brilliant Jewish physician and philosopher, chose to refer to the Arabs' false 'prophet'. I have chosen to use it because I think Maimonides was right; and because using a vivid Hebrew epithet is the best way I can think of, to convey my disgust at the sheer wickedness of what Ubul Kassim did to the Jews of Arabia.)

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at May 2, 2008 10:13 AM

dumbledoresarmy,

Well done. I had begun to respond with the same texts, but yours is better. Since I can't help but beat my head against the rock, please forgive the following.

Khokar,

So to kneel or bow in front of any one else, other than the God does not arise.

Oh, it will arise. Better practice that kneeling. You probably won't arise afterward.

READING ASSIGNMENT:
Daniel 9:20ff
STUDY QUESTION: Do your own research, when was the prophecy given, and when does the prophecy say the "Moshiakh/Messiah/Anointed One" was to come? When did Y'shua/Jesus come? Did else anybody memorable come around that time? (This one's a freebie -- no.)

Prior to the Messiah's crucifixion in 30 A. D., the Romans had taken away the Sanhedrin's authority to execute criminals. The last judgement that the Sanhedrin made from the Temple was to sentence the Messiah to death. (Talmud Sanh.1:1,7:2). Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the Sanhedrin was BANISHED (from the Chamber of Hewn Stone) and sat in the trading station (on the Temple Mount) - Shabbat 15a

READING ASSIGNMENT:
Matthew 23:1-35
STUDY QUESTION: When was this prophecy fulfilled? Do your own research. (Hint)

Babylonian Talmud
"Forty years before the destruction of the Temple the lot did not come up in the right hand, nor did the crimson stripe become white, nor did the westernmost light burn; and the doors of the heikhal (the Holy Place of the Temple) opened of their own accord, until Rabbi Yochanon ben Zakkai rebuked them. He said to it [the Temple]:
'O heikhal, heikhal, why do you alarm yourself? I know full well that you are destined to be destroyed, for Zechariah ben Iddo has already prophesied concerning you 'Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour the cedars' (Zech. 11:1).'
Talmud Bavli, Yoma 39b
"Our rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple the lot ['For the Lord'] did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-colored strap become white; nor did the western most light shine; and the doors of the Hekel [Temple] would open by themselves"
Soncino version, Yoma 39b

Jerusalem Talmud:
"Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the western light went out, the crimson thread remained crimson, and the lot for the Lord always came up in the left hand. They would close the gates of the Temple by night and get up in the morning and find them wide open" (Jacob Neusner, The Yerushalmi, p.156-157). [the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE]

REVIEW
1) The Western light would not stay lit.
A particular Menorah that was to be kept lit at all times went out every day for 40 years. Apparently nothing could keep the lamp lit.
2) The crimson thread remained crimson.
A Day of Atonement ritual from the 3rd century B.C.E. noted a particular thread turning color from red to white, or vice versa, depending on God’s apparent displeasure or approval of God’s people and leadership. For 40 years before the Temple’s destruction, the thread was consistently red. A portion of the crimson sash was attached to the door of the Temple before the goat was sent into the wilderness. The sash would turn from red to white as the goat met its end, signaling to the people that God had accepted their sacrifices and their sins were forgiven. The Mishnah tells us that 40 years before the destruction of the Temple, the sash stopped turning white.
3) The lot for the the Lord always came up in the left hand.
The lottery of the goats on the Day of Atonement consistently came up black for the right hand of the High Priest for 40 years. The people believed it was a good omen if the tablet marked "For the Lord" was drawn out by the priest’s right hand, but from 30 AD to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD and for those forty years only--the High Priest drew the "For Azazel" tablet with his right hand.
4)The gates of the Temple opened by themselves every night.
Finally the Temple doors (behind the curtain that tore in two) were opening of their own accord at night (when the people were not around). This also happened for 40 years, and relates back to the one sign mentioned by Josephus. Forty years before the Temple was destroyed. . .the gates of the Hekel [Holy Place] opened by themselves, until Rabbi Yohanan B. Zakkai rebuked them [the gates] saying, Hekel, Hekel, why alarmist thou us? We know that thou art destined to be destroyed... Jewish Talmud in Yoma 39b
http://www.askelm.com/prophecy/p040701.htm

Wars of the Jews
Josephus made these miracle claims:
(1) a heifer being led to the temple altar gave birth to a lamb,
(2) one night the temple altar glowed with such brilliance that it gave the appearance of daylight for half an hour,
(3) the eastern gate of the temple, which had taken twenty men to shut "with difficulty," opened one night of its own accord, and
(4) soldiers and chariots were seen surrounding the city of Jerusalem in the clouds (6:5.3). Of this last "certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon," Josephus said, "I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those who saw it" (v:297).

Thus also, before the Jewish rebellion, and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people were come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus [Nisan] and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day-time; which light lasted for half an hour. This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it. At the same festival also, a heifer, as she was being led by the high priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple. Moreover, the eastern gate of the inner, [court of the temple,] which was of brass, and vastly heavy, and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and rested upon a basis armed with iron, and had bolts fastened very deep into the firm floor, which was there made of one entire stone, was seen to be opened of its own accord about the sixth hour of the night. Now, those that kept watch in the temple came thereupon running to the captain of the temple, and told him of it; who then came up thither, and not without great difficulty was able to shut the gate again. This also appeared to the vulgar to be a very happy prodigy, as if God did thereby open them the gate of happiness. But the men of learning understood it, that the security of their holy house was dissolved of its own accord, and that the gate was opened for the advantage of their enemies. So these publicly declared, that this signal foreshewed the DESOLATION that was coming upon them - Josephus, Wars of the Jews, IV,5,3.
http://www.windowview.org/jandg.files/frms/talmds.frm.html

So by now you're wondering, what is this all about? The point: WHY DID ALL OF THESE JEWS WHO WERE HOSTILE TO THE GOSPEL RECORD SO MUCH INFORMATION CORROBORATING THE TIMELINE FOR THE FULFILLMENT OF CHRIST'S PROPHECY AS DIVINE JUDGEMENT ENDING THE SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM, EXCEPT BECAUSE IT WAS TRUE?

You can call them "myths" if you want, but they had no incentive to produce them.

WHY IS SOMETHING OF SUCH MASSIVE THEOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE LEFT OUT OF THE QUR'AN?

Because you've got no atonement in the Qur'an; the Qur'an is a trivial, ahistorical, plagiarizing confabulation. You have nothing comparable to the above documentation from antiquity supporting Islam, because it doesn't exist. Mohammed found all of the scriptures inconvenient and inhibiting to his narcissism, because there was nothing about him (Mo) that was needed. All had been fulfilled. So you've only got your miserable, feeble efforts at pleasing your made-up deity, totally dependent on his capricious mood that day. You're never going to make it on that. You need a better deal, one with a guarantee.

So you don't buy it. Okay. Here's the conclusion: all the prophets (Mohammed does not rank) except the one's "taken up" were killed. So the "message" isn't just to bring salvation, it is to notify, to increase the judgement. You've shown some knowledge of the real scriptures. You're notified.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at May 2, 2008 10:07 PM

Waking Up to Reality

All the Muslims they do believe in the True Books of Judaic and true Bible of Christianity. Quran validates these old books and confirms the old denominations as true. The latest Commandments in Islam place Muslims at higher place in the line of religion that they believe in all the previous denominations as well as their Prophets, where as the ‘Followings of the old’ (still found vibrant in may parts of the world) wants to stick to the teachings of bygone days.

This is dilemma and a riddle which is a matter of our contentions. There may not be any supremacy factor of Islam at its display that old denominations fear. Only the old have to wake up to the reality that there is no monopoly in respect of God or His inheritance to be exercised by any denomination. God’s show moves on. Certain people at certain times perform the assigned task and at the end of their term they earn their rewards or punishments and are ‘Done and dusted’. All the people have their predecessors and they will surely see their successors. There is no stagnation in the flow of Word of God and His Waters never stops flowing under the bridges.

You may never know; what all is there in store for this planet earth, which has yet to come?

Wishing you the best in future.
Adabarez

Posted by: Adabarez at May 3, 2008 4:51 AM

Why do I care?

All the Muslims they do believe in the True Books of Judaic and true Bible of Christianity.

No, they don't. You don't believe they exist. You discount the proof that they still do. It is an inconveniency.

Quran validates these old books and confirms the old denominations as true...they believe in all the previous denominations as well as their Prophets,

No, you don't. It offends their message by distorting it. You talk out of both sides of your mouth. Validated. Meaningless ("The old are just history", "bygone days"). You can't have it both ways. I am doing my best to believe that either you are brain damaged by all the incessant chanting, or that you are practicing taqiyya. I want to believe that, because to believe that you are lucid and actually believe this crap is just too saddening.

there is no monopoly in respect of God or His inheritance to be exercised by any denomination.

Well there's some taqiyya. If Islam actually taught that, there would have been 11,000 fewer terrorist attacks in the last 7 years.

The latest Commandments in Islam place Muslims at higher place in the line of religion...supremacy factor of Islam

No they don't. I don't perceive or fear any portrayed "supremacy" of Islam. We've been over this. Islam is a moral, ethical, intellectual, and socioeconomic failure. There is nothing attractive about it that doesn't appeal to the basest lusts of men. It's not about "submission", it is about domination. Domination by murder, theft, rape, slavery, fear. The more I study Islam, the more my Christianity is confirmed.

This is dilemma and a riddle which is a matter of our contentions.

Assuming a contradiction is always a paradox is a dangerous lapse of logic. There is no dilemma. Islam is false. Archaeology proves it. History proves it. Ethics proves it. Science proves it. Just looking around proves it. Which 20% of the world has the greatest natural resources, lowest personal wealth, education and standard of living, despite what their book predicts?

‘Followings of the old’...still found vibrant... There is no stagnation in the flow of Word of God and His Waters never stops flowing under the bridges.

Ezekiel 47:6-10,12 He asked me, "Son of man, do you see this?" Then he led me back to the bank of the river. When I arrived there, I saw a great number of trees on each side of the river. He said to me, "This water flows toward the eastern region and goes down into the Arabah, where it enters the Sea. When it empties into the Sea, [d] the water there becomes fresh. Swarms of living creatures will live wherever the river flows. There will be large numbers of fish, because this water flows there and makes the salt water fresh; so where the river flows everything will live. Fishermen will stand along the shore; from En Gedi to En Eglaim there will be places for spreading nets. The fish will be of many kinds—like the fish of the Great Sea. Fruit trees of all kinds will grow on both banks of the river. Their leaves will not wither, nor will their fruit fail. Every month they will bear, because the water from the sanctuary flows to them. Their fruit will serve for food and their leaves for healing."

Ezekiel 47:11 11 But the swamps and marshes will not become fresh; they will be left for salt.

Finally, Islam revealed in prophecy.

Also,

2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Notice the literary style and content here. The Qur'an is infantile by comparison.

Prototypical Qur'anic verse template:

SAY: What Mohammed did today that seemed wrong was really okay, even better than okay. Those who don't believe this will burn in hell. Don't you know hell is a bad place? They will meet a really bad end.

Can't you see that? It is mindnumbingly pathetic. The Qur'an reveals nothing new about God. It's just the propaganda vehicle of a cynical Bedouin narcissist who, after being rightly rejected for not knowing the scriptures and having no message, retaliated, seeking to dominate by murder, theft, rape, slavery, and fear.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at May 3, 2008 8:44 AM

BTW; folks, notice the phrase above:

"All the Muslims they do believe in the True Books of Judaic and true Bible of Christianity."

If you Google this, you get this posted today under the name A Khokar.

He has also re-posted material from above at the same site, and the Tomatoes and Cucumbers post above was posted under "A Khokar" here.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at May 4, 2008 12:48 AM

The post at The Daily Star Lebanon was at 11:34 am which corresponds to 4:34 AM EST. The post 537980 above was at 4:51 AM EST. No wonder I feel like I am talking to a wall and getting no relevant responses. He's not even writing for this thread.

AK: This is exactly why you got banned before.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at May 4, 2008 1:10 AM