Great, I haven't got my filthy Koran on me right now, but I can only assume that the ACLU thinks its OK to lie in a court of law if you're a Muslim who sees that lie as an advancement to Islam. I've read the verse where its OK to lie if ye fear persecution being a Muslim.

How nice, now the Muslims will be legally allowed to lie to us infidels.

When will the people wake up and put the leaders of the ACLU in jail for treason, aiding and helping the enemy.

Posted by: 3rdtimelucky at July 26, 2005 8:55 PM

The ACLU bears no resemblance to the ACLU of Roger Baldwin. The McCarthyites of today are precisely in the ACLU and in the various Muslim groups that the ACLU is so solicitous of. The ACLU has done quite enough to attempt to prevent criticism of Islam, or even uninihibited discussion of Islam. Its members include people who are no longer civil liberarians, but the Old Left, the Oldest Left, and there are quite a few "Red Diaper" babies at the top -- apparently the ideological DyDee man forgot to include them on his route when he was dropping off the Democratic Bundle, not to mention such professional anti-Israel activists as Nancy Murray at the Boston branch (google "Nancy Murray" and "Palestine" or google her daugher "Rebecca Murray" and "Palestine" and see what you come with, by way of the kind of people who are presenting themselves as stout defenders of our liberties; and don't forget Matt Bowles, National Coordinator for the ACLU who showed his commitment to free speech by trying to coordinate a shout-down of Daniel Pipes at a lecture the latter was giving.

At one time every decent person would have been proud to support the ACLU. At the moment no decent person should have anything to do with the ACLU.

Posted by: Hugh at July 26, 2005 8:58 PM

From a post last February, anent the ACLU:

"Like so many other institutions (certain college and university faculties come to mind), the ACLU has gone bad. Something is not right. Matt Bowles and Nancy Murray are not sports, but representative figures. And they are still at the ACLU. The attitudes and efforts of the current leaders (you know what a "leader" is in American life: a leader is someone who "takes a leadership role") of the ACLU are deplorable.

Roger Baldwin had his points, and one likes to think that he would not have been in agreement with those who have taken control of today's ACLU (not your father's ACLU, not by a long shot). When the earth thaws out a bit in Chilmark, he will, no doubt, be turning over in his grave."

Posted by: Hugh at February 17, 2005 03:45 PM

Well, it is now late July, and the birds are chirping at Beetlebung Corner, and the fishermen are bringing their catch ashore at Menemsha, and Roger Baldwin is turning over in his grave -- slowly, but surely.

Posted by: Hugh at July 26, 2005 9:01 PM

This is insane...
We are not an Islamic regime.
The koran expressly condones LYING under oath.
I can prove that this is indeed sanctioned and encouraged in Islam.

I Quote from the Koran

Qur’an 9:3 “Allah and His Messenger dissolve obligations.”
Qur’an 66:1 “Allah has already sanctioned for you the dissolution of your vows.”

Bukhari:V2B24N555 “I heard the Prophet say, ‘Allah hates for you for asking too many questions.’”

Ishaq:519 “Hajjaj said to the Apostle, ‘I have money scattered among the Meccan merchants, so give me permission to go and get it.’ Having got Muhammad’s permission, he said, ‘I must tell lies.’ The Apostle said, ‘Tell them.’”

Posted by: jingoist at July 26, 2005 9:18 PM

A thought: Let us suppose that this case get into the supreme court. I assume that the goverment will be able to bring the Koran to demonstrate that Islam is NOT a religion but a political system and therefore it has not protection under our laws...I wonder how will the
ACLU defends this case...I guess they will have to deal with the Koran itself as the worth case to defend. Yes...defending a psychopath-book. It would be fun to watch the left dancing around 3:157, 4:74, 4:89, 8:12 and 9:123.

Posted by: seeso at July 26, 2005 9:24 PM

Let's please examine the contents of the Qur'an, to see if we think a Muslim, who swears on a book that instructs him to "kill the Unbelievers wherever you find them" and "do not take the Jews and Christians as friends, for they are friends only with each othre" and a dozen, or two dozen, or eight dozen other verses of similar import, could be a truthful witness if his evidence might be used against a fellow Muslim, or still worse, against a fellow Muslim and in support of a non-Muslim. If a Believer says he believes, I believe we should take him at his word -- and assume him to have knowledge of, and agree with, everything that counts in the Qur'an (the passages that have not been abrogated), the Hadith (those deemed authentic by such muhaddithin as al-Bukhari and Muslim), and the Sira, the biography of Muhammad whose life is an inspiration and an example of perfection for all Muslims for all time, in every way.

The lawsuit is a perfect way to get those Qur'anic passages, those Hadith stories, those disturbing details of Muhammad's life splashed on every front-page from Murphy to Manteo, as we North Carolinians like to say.

Posted by: Hugh at July 26, 2005 10:07 PM

Where exactly are you guys getting your translations or your quotes from?. I doubt any of you know arabic or have actually read the Quran to comment or quote. I am chinese and I have read both the chinese and the english versions of the Bible. The chinese version seems to imply that the Jews were responsible for christ's cricifixion and have to suffer...etc, but the english version is not so explicit about it. If I hated the jews for some reason, I would twist the statements in the bible (the chinese version) and justify the hatred. So if you hate muslims for whatever ..9/11 or racial (after all there are not many caucasian muslims), it doesnt take much to interpret the Quran to justify your prejudice or hatred for the "enemy".

Posted by: sam at July 27, 2005 1:38 AM

Where exactly are you guys getting your translation or your quotes from?. I doubt any of you know arabic or have actually read the Quran to comment or quote. I am chinese and I have read both the chinese and the english versions of the Bible. The chinese version seems to imply that the Jews were responsible for christ's cricifixion and have to suffer...etc, but the english version is not so explicit about it. If I hated the jews for some reason, I would twist the statements in the bible (the chinese version) and justify the hatred. So if you hate muslims for whatever ..9/11 or racial (after all there are not many caucasian muslims), it doesnt take much to interpret the Quran to justify your prejudice or hatred for the "enemy".

Posted by: sam at July 27, 2005 1:38 AM

Thank God for stupid lawyers!

This is THE case that needs Mr. Spencer as a witness when it reaches the Supreme Court -where the TESTING of the absurd premise of the legitimacy of allowing someone to swear on a book that promotes false-swearing could be brought out into the open, finally.

The Muslims have accidentally served their own heads up on a platter, with garnish provided by the naive idealistic scmucks at the ACLU.

Hallelujiah!

By the examination of the Koran, its other, bloodier tenets could also be exposed in this contest.

Any good lawyer could make his -or her- career on a case against the ACLU like this.

And win the eternal gratitude of his- or her- nation.

This is a potential turning point in the public awareness battle.

The contemptuous Koran's bloodthirsty suras finally bared.

Let's get it on!

Posted by: BigSleep at July 27, 2005 1:41 AM

sam,

Maybe you want to start here: www.faithfreedom.org.
These are people who have lived Islam and read the Qur'an in the original.

Start with READ THIS FIRST:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sinaprologue.htm

Posted by: sonshiya at July 27, 2005 1:56 AM

Sam-

The "blood libel" -in the Gospel of Matthew- is the root of all 'sanctified' "Christian" anti-Semitism. Where the Jewish 'mob' (audience) at Jesus' sentencing supposedly (after Pilate washed his hands of the "blood of this man") cried out for the "His blood" [the guilt of Christ's death] to "be on us and our children".

I guess you know little about Western religious history, since the Jews were thus blamed, for about 1000 years (beginning around 1000 A.D.), for the death of Christ by "Christians". Which led to terrorism which included pogroms, mass-murders and finally led to the holocaust. It was a popular aspect of history, and the neo-Nazis still hug it tightly, bathing in its absurdity to help them hate the Hebrews. So feel free to join them if it makes you happy.

Islam's anti-semitism is of another sort. (And I think applies more to you "Sam"). They don't believe Christ died on the cross, so their animosity of more of 'the resentful brother' (Cain=Islam) against 'the favored ["chosen"] brother' (Abel=Israel) variety of vendetta.

What your point is, exactly, seems coy and purposely murky, but it appears to be an irrelevant analogy between a no-longer-believed aspect of Christianity ("blood libel" hatred of Jews) and the still fervently-followed suras of the Koran which exhort all followers of Allah to spread Isam by the word and sword, and to force infidels to submit to the 'true' faith... whether they want to or not.

When the world is under daily threat from Imperialistic Islamic jihadists blowing civilians to shreds in order to intimidate them with terror -in order to win an ultimate Muslim conquest of the world for their theocratic tyranny, bad analogies like yours are mock-concerned foolishness.

Spare us the reheated b.s.

The Restored Caliphate wants better liars.

Posted by: BigSleep at July 27, 2005 2:16 AM

ACLU: American Collaborating Lying Union?
ACLU: American Cretins Lickass Union?
ACLU: American Credulous Loathsome Union?
ACLU: American Communist Leninist Union?

Posted by: iconoclast at July 27, 2005 4:31 AM

Sam is another troll. The usual BS, no need to bother...

Posted by: Terminator at July 27, 2005 4:34 AM

Is there any way that paper can be converted to ethanol
What a thought I have just had
Koranic driven cars

Convert Your Car to Alcohol
by Keat B. Drane
Chapter 1
Alternative Fuel Source
Are you as tired of the "gasoline shortage" as I am? Long lines at the pump, shorter service station hours and higher prices are here to stay. Rationing has affected various areas of the nation. Unstable, international politics threaten our continued dependence on foreign crude oil. Politicians and oil executives predict the situation to worsen.
Faced with these grim facts, I began to search for an alternative energy source. I wasn't looking for a solution to the entire country's energy problems. I simple wanted to insure that my family and I would have the fuel to power our vehicles when and where necessary, without interference or restriction from Uncle Sam's energy "experts" or the whims of a greedy oil sheik in the Middle East.
Alcohol fuel is the little man's best hope for relief from gas "pains". The all-but-untapped, domestic resource has many advantages. The following is a list of the ones I feel are most significant:
Almost any gasoline-powered engine can be made to run well on alcohol.
Only minor and inexpensive modifications to the engine are required.
Anyone with reasonable, mechanical skill and common handtools can make the modifications once they've learned the procedure.
Alcohol can be produced from a variety of organic materials and is a natural substance.
Distilling can be done a small scale by individuals or on a very large scale by local companies.
And profit generated by production of domestic alcohol fuels will stay in America and will pay American farmers.
With these thoughts in mind, I decided to undertake a test project. The first goal was to successfully convert a vehicle fuel rather than "gasohol". The vehicle was then to be driven daily to determine was practical for use under normal everyday conditions.

Posted by: shiva at July 27, 2005 5:07 AM

Personally I don't see why the Koran should be allowed. Civil Liberties is all fine and dandy, but if they are going to let the Koran in, then why not met Mein Kamph (Spelling?) in as well since I am sure there are a bunch of wackos who are dying to have it recognised as a religious text.

The fact is that regardless of whether the Koran is a religious text or not, it clearly preaches hate. Although one cannot say that Christianity and Hinduism/Buddhism are equal, however we can all agree that fundamentally they both teach tolerance, love thy neighbour, be good to others, treat others as you would...etc etc etc etc.

Unlike the Koran which simply states: Killing and Rape of others are the gateways to Heaven! If they don't sound like you during prayers, kidnap their daughters...etc etc etc

ACLU needs to realise that freedom is a precious jewel which needs to be guarded, not to be abused by those who would deny its beauty to others.

Posted by: Gorkhali at July 27, 2005 6:08 AM

"The religious texts of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and faiths other than Christianity should be allowed"

King: I say rid all religious texts from the courts and have everyone swear in on a copy of the Constitution. The one thing we all have in common in the court is the rights granted to us by the Constitution, citizen or not, so why not use that as the common binder?

Posted by: KingTolerance at July 27, 2005 7:53 AM

Shiva:

Actually, methanol, or "wood alcohol," is easy to produce from wood and wood by-products, and is an excellent fuel. Many types of race cars use it. It will likely never be mass produced for public use, however, as it is extremely poisonous.

Posted by: Darius LaMonica at July 27, 2005 8:26 AM

Kinky coffee-filter, you back again?

Posted by: Terminator at July 27, 2005 8:31 AM

`I don`t have trust in you even equivalent to a drop (of water). Your army general and advisor (who came to me with your oaths on koran) were all telling lies.

If anyone trusts (you) on oath of Koran, that person is doomed in the end.`

-from Zafarnama
http://www.zafarnama.com/Pages/Persian.html

Posted by: hutchrun at July 27, 2005 8:41 AM

Why not make everyone swear on a copy of the Constitution?

Er, because some people don't believe in it?

Qur’an 9:3 “Allah and His Messenger dissolve obligations.”

Qur’an 66:1 “Allah has already sanctioned for you the dissolution of your vows.”

Du-uh.

Other fanatics (religious or secular) might easily also make the same mental gymnastics, although Christians are told to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and so forth.

Imam Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at July 27, 2005 8:45 AM

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the crusades)?!??! ha ha ha

Why not cross out politically and highlight INCORRECT. ^_^

-Islam teaches that Muslims must wage war to impose Islamic law on Non-Muslims.

How many times have you people said this??? Saying something over and over may fool a few people, but you won't fool people that can think and actually look at Islamic history, Islamic teachings, the sayings of the scholars and Awliyah and see how more than a Billion people go about their lives in a peaceful manner.

-American Muslim Groups are engaged in a huge cover up of Islamic doctrine and history.

A pathetic cheap shot.

So which group has been hiding the Quran and books of hadith, they are free for everyone. You here about people buying and reading the Quran and discovering it is the next step after the Torah and Bible. What are you so afraid of???

Who has been suppressing and plotting against the Quran??? Muslims????

-Today's jihad terrorists have the same motives and goals as the Muslims who fought the crusaders.

Which 'Jihad terrorists' are you referring to? Those terrorists that kill Non-Muslims and Muslims indiscriminately in the name of Islam, though these 'Holy warriors' have been condemned by scholars and have no standing in Islam.

What about the rebels in Iraq that refuse to have their country looted. What about the rebels that refuse to have their young boys and women raped, please don't generalise the resistance.

http://207.44.245.159/article9103.htm

The Muslims that fought the crusaders fought in defence. So your 'criticism' is not valid.

-The crusades were defensive conflicts.

Yeh (sarcasm)

" Oh Holy warriors stop fighting eachother here, go fight the brown Muslim devil. Go and DEFEND yourselves in a land that isn't yours. Go loot, pillage and rape your way through Europe, then loot, pillage, rape, murder and eat the flesh of Muslims in Muslim lands. Go and defend yourselves "

The Knights Templar's and crew actually weakened the state of Christianity in Europe, you're barking up the wrong tree mate.

Read about the history of the Freemason and Illuminati, read about how they are the helpers of the Anti-Christ, they are the ones preparing the World for his arrival. (Exercise great control over our lives, Media, top politicians, top businessmen etc.)

-Muslim persecution of Christians has continued for 13 centuries - and still goes on.

Please open your eyes, do you see any 'Brown' Muslim country occupying any Christian land????

Blah blah, Greater Israel is ours, blah blah Syria this, blah blah, India that, blah blah

I look at the World now and I see 'White' 'Christian' fundamentalists persecuting the whole World, other brown Muslims, brown/yellow Christians, brown Hindus, Black Christians, Black Muslims.

Pathetic, the 'White Christian fundamentalists' you hold so dear in your heart are nothing but crooks, they have starved Africa, armed dictators that ruthless kill their own people, looted the land of its resources and left the people with nothing, absolutely nothing. They will stand before God and be held responsible. They have held every nation back, starved the people of Iraq, littered it with DU, dropped Nukes on 'Non'-White' people in Japan, raped women and girls in France after WW2, maintained their forces in Germany and Japan for many, many years. Imposed their system on everyone else, on top of this they have been two-faced lying 8astards. I could go on and on.

Open your eyes.

This book is nothing but an act of Satan, a book to further 'White Christian' supremacy.

Get over yourself.

Posted by: ia786 at July 27, 2005 9:09 AM

Being sworn in, in our American courts on a Koran? The book that is a manual for murder, assassination, Jihad and conquest. A book filed with the hallucinations of the pedophile prophet. Beam me up Scotty!!

Posted by: dennisw at July 27, 2005 9:13 AM

"Sam" above wonders where "you guys" get your translations from. Well, four or five different English translations, that are laid out synoptically, can be easily found at the website of the University of Southern California: www.usc.edu. At the same website, one can find translations of the equally important Hadith of Bukhari (there are six collections of Hadith that are deemed, by Muslims, most trustworthy, and among those six, two -- those of Bukhari and Muslim (a proper name in this case) -- are accorded the most respect. If you want the Sira, the Sira of the Muslims, that too can be found on-line -- or you can read the biographies of Muhammad of Tor Andrae, of Sir William Muir (my favorite, for its prose and its detail), Arthur Jeffery. You can read the work of dozens of scholars of Islam, for a while buried by the small army of apologists, but now being once again published. You can start with Snouck Hurgronje, Schacht, Margoliouth, all the way up to Bat Ye'or and her study of the treatment of non-Muslims under Muslim rule (she limits herself to the Christians and Jews of the MIddle East, but Mary Boyce's study of what happened to the Zoroastrians of Persia, and the histories of Sarkar and K. S. Lal -- I am just reading the hair-raising book by the historian Lal entitled "Muslim Rule in India") confirm the remarkable similarities in the treatment of non-Muslims, though the Hindus, until they were granted a kind of honorary status as dhimmis, werre subject simply to mass murder or mass enslavement and forced conversion.

What is it, "Sam," among the passages referred to here, and which come out in all of the English translations, quite a few by Muslims, and which can also be seen in the French, German, Dutch, Italian, and no doubt Chinese translations of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, that you find have been presented here incorrectly?

Tell us exactly which passages have not been presented correctly? And keep in mind that the argument about having to read the original Arabic is, as Ibn Warraq so cogently demonstrates, silly -- for 80% of the world's Muslims do not know Arabic. Are they therefore full of a false impression of Islam, or would you wish to argue that by virute of being Muslms they have some special, almost genetic, understanding of canonical texts that mere Western scholars and translators, devoting their lives to the task, somehow do not possess?

Go ahead. Give us one passage in the Qur'an, or one Hadith, or one detail about the life of Muhammad (the Sira), that you think has been given incorrectly here.

Just one.

Posted by: Hugh at July 27, 2005 9:18 AM

ia786...

Nothing good can come of a religion founded by such a black hearted murderous bastard. You know it in your heart and will some day quietly become apostate so your Muhammedan "brothers" don't slit your throat or rape your wife.

The Koran is corrupt and useless as a spiritual guide because Muhammad is corrupt and useless. Except to the pirates and plunderers he has inspired such as the Sunnis who mass murder their Muhammedan "brothers" every day in Iraq. Because they are Shiite .

Islam = snake pit
Mohamed= the man who inspires the serpents

Posted by: dennisw at July 27, 2005 9:20 AM

Islamic Ummah= snake pit
Muhammad = the pit master
Allah = Muhammad's imaginary friend who will beat up all who disobey Muhammad
Koran = child's coloring book for atavistic 7th century savages

Posted by: dennisw at July 27, 2005 9:28 AM

Geoff: Why not make everyone swear on a copy of the Constitution? Er, because some people don't believe in it?"

King: Ok, so its a stack of the New York Times for you. For the others who find all religious texts inappropriate for the court room, it should be the Constitution or, simply, a right hand up in the air saying you'll tell the truth.

Believing in the Constitution is irrelevant, being held to one binding document is. If you think swearing on a Bible assures truth you are as assenine as you present yourself.

Posted by: KingTolerance at July 27, 2005 9:49 AM

Hi KingTolerance,

Your comments are really refreshing, you call things down the middle and I respect you for that, in times like this the weak people (death worshippers – ‘Muslim’ extremists and the extremists here) turn to extremism, and extremism is ignorance.

May I add that the Prophet told Muslims to abide by the laws of the land that they live in, even if it is a Non-Muslim country. Muslims have to obey the law of the land. If they don't want to, they are going against Islam and the Prophet, they shouldn't be there, they are free to leave.

I don't know much about the constitution but your comments sound reasonable and well thought out.

"King: I say rid all religious texts from the courts and have everyone swear in on a copy of the Constitution. The one thing we all have in common in the court is the rights granted to us by the Constitution, citizen or not, so why not use that as the common binder?"

People will want to use religious texts though, I don't see why not. The people here who oppose the Quran being used do so because they are blatant Islamophobes, that is all.

Posted by: ia786 at July 27, 2005 10:16 AM

The fags at the aclu continue their fight against Christianity.

Posted by: Cross at July 27, 2005 11:04 AM

ia786:

Not on topic, but here's something for you from a contributor to Asharq Al-awsat that was recently published in the Washington Post, someone who can honestly lay claim to being a Muslim moderate:

After London, Tough Questions for Muslims

By Mona Eltahawy

Sunday, July 24, 2005; Page B07

The July 7 London bombings did it for me. Perhaps it was because my parents moved us from Cairo to the British capital when I was 7 years old, and so London was my childhood "home." Or maybe it was because our route to work and school every morning crisscrossed those same Underground stations that were targeted.

I'm sure it was also those dog-eared statements that our clerics and religious leaders read out telling us that Islam means peace -- it actually means submission -- and asking us to please forget everything they had ever said before July 6, because as of July 7 they truly believe violence is bad. Their backpedaling is so furious you can smell the skid marks.

Some are not even bothering to put their feet on the pedals, such as the 22 imams and scholars who met at London's largest mosque to condemn the bombings but who would not criticize all suicide attacks.

Sayed Mohammed Musawi, the head of the World Islamic League in London, insisted "there should be a clear distinction between the suicide bombing of those who are trying to defend themselves from occupiers, which is something different from those who kill civilians, which is a big crime."

In a classic example of laying blame everywhere but at our own door, Musawi actually criticized the Western media (for supposedly confusing frustrated young Muslims) rather than those scholars who had blessed suicide bombings as long as they targeted Israelis.

Suicide bombings are the Muslim weapon of choice not only in London and Israel but in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. They are killing Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and yet our imams and scholars cannot condemn them.

As I said, the London bombings did it for me. Or maybe it's the knowledge that the more these faceless cowards strike, the more Muslim men in the West like my brother are pushed onto the stage of suspicion. After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Ehab -- who spends virtually all of his time caring for his cardiology patients or fulfilling his role as husband and father -- was one of the 5,000 Muslim men questioned by the FBI; two years later he was among the thousands more who had to submit to being fingerprinted and photographed as part of a special registration.

But most of all, the London bombings rid me of all patience with the excuse that "George Bush [or Tony Blair or take your pick of Western leaders] made me do it." We don't know who was behind Thursday's explosions, but an Arab analyst told a satellite channel that if Blair hadn't learned the mistake of the Iraq war, these new attacks were a firm reminder.

I never bought the explanation that U.S. foreign policy had "brought on" the Sept. 11 attacks, and I certainly don't buy the idea that the Iraq war is behind the attacks in London. Many people across the world have opposed U.S. and British foreign policy, but that doesn't mean they are rushing to fly planes into buildings or to blow up buses and Underground trains in London.

I was against the invasion of Iraq and would not have voted for George Bush if I were a U.S. citizen, but I'm done with the "George Bush made me do it" excuse. We must accept responsibility for this mess if we are ever to find a way out.

And for those non-Muslims who accept the George Bush excuse, I have a question: Do you think Muslims are incapable of accepting responsibility? It is at least in some way bigoted to think that Muslims can only react violently.

We all must ask a host of difficult questions. How about beginning by acknowledging once and for all that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a Muslim issue? It is a dispute over land that too many clerics and religious leaders, radical or otherwise, use to flesh out the victimized-Muslim scenario.

Yes, Palestinians deserve a state, and, yes, Israel must end its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

But rather than dwelling endlessly on these issues, we would do well to spend time encouraging our young people to become more active members of their communities and to not live caught between two worlds: a Muslim one at home and in the mosque, an "infidel" one outside.

And what about assimilation? It is not bigoted to ask Muslims if they are integrating into the societies they are living in. Just as the British government has responsibilities toward its citizens, immigrants included, so too do those immigrants. Muslims ask for time off work for prayer, for example, and they often get it. But are they truly living in Britain or are they perpetuating an existence that even their relatives "back home" long ago left behind? Domestic policy is too often ignored by many Muslims who are more concerned with Palestine, Iraq or any other place where Muslims are believed to have suffered injustice.

I raise these questions because London might have done it for me, but I'm not done with Islam. The clerics and the terrorists will not take it away from me. God belongs to me, too.

Mona Eltahawy is a New York-based columnist for the pan-Arab newspaper Asharq al-Awsat.http://

Posted by: waterdragon52 at July 27, 2005 12:53 PM

ia786: Hi KingTolerance, Your comments are really refreshing, you call things down the middle and I respect you for that"

King: I thank you for the kind words and appreciate your perspective as well. I also encourage you to hang in there since, really, there are no other people here to provide the proper balance to this otherwise unilateral free for all.

ia786: "May I add that the Prophet told Muslims to abide by the laws of the land that they live in, even if it is a Non-Muslim country."

King: Of course. Extremists who take selective parts of the Koran, intepret them out of context, and implement them while ignoring the rest of the book are no more Muslim than George Bush. Conversely, condemning all of Islam for the behaviors of these nuts is equally radical it its own right. This is the point I try to drive home on this website routinely.

Cross: "The fags at the aclu continue their fight against Christianity."

King: Challenge: If nobody else speaks up to denounce this obviously Christian opinion they are in kahoots with this Cross asshole. This is the exact same thing you all try to pull with Islam, so how does it feel?

Article: "The clerics and the terrorists will not take it away from me. God belongs to me, too."

King: Spoken like a true moderate who gets the situation. I agree with her 100%. I never claimed to be an apologist - you've all erroneously labled me as that and dismissed my points of view. In fact, as ia786 pointed out, I've remianed balanced and sympathetic to both sides, pointing out the oversites of the West in addition to the follies in the M.E.

Posted by: KingTolerance at July 27, 2005 1:14 PM

For those inclined to be impressed with Mona Eltahawy, I would like to direct them to the comments on her at another thread, the one entitled "Poll: Fewer People Link Islam,
Violence." She seems, superficially, to be okay. A closer look suggests otherwise. With these so-called moderates who suddenly have a revelation about the extremists and the apologists, one has to look to see if one is dealing with an even more cunning kind of apologetics -- a kind that fits better the new, more skeptical and for Muslims, more threateing, situation. And that is what Mona Eltahawy is all about. Don't be fooled by her.

Posted by: Hugh at July 27, 2005 1:23 PM

I don't understand why this matters in the least.

If an islamo-terrorist is going to lie because he swore on a qur'an, what makes you think he would have told the truth after swearing on a bible?

I think the more serious response would be to do away with them all - instead have the oath taken with direct reference to the penalties for perjury.

Or is there some legal justification for using the threat of going to hell as means to induce honesty?

Posted by: JonathanMurray at July 27, 2005 1:40 PM

Hugh: "She [Mona]seems, superficially, to be okay."

King: Gee, glad you've decreed your judgement, Hugh. Her opinion and perspecitve is no more or less valid than yours. Sorry its not what you want to hear, thus, you warn the other sheep to not be fooled. Fooled by what? Another point of view? Another way to peel the onion? An opinion (gasp) different than your own?

Posted by: KingTolerance at July 27, 2005 1:46 PM

JackTolerance:

Swearing alone, I think, will do. The Constitution carries no more weight than the belief in it, as any text. Your failure to grasp that most basic point is indicative of your own inadequacy, not mine. Moreover, your 'balanced view' has basically been used to peddle islamofacist sympathy

"Assinine", not "assenine".

"Oversights", not "oversites". You need to surf less porn and read more books.

Ia, by contrast, needs less neoNazi reading and more insight. The Crusades were, of course, defensive in nature, unless you'd care to illustrate why not. I doubt this is within your limited capabilities.

"Muslims have to obey the law of the land. If they don't want to, they are going against Islam and the Prophet, they shouldn't be there, they are free to leave."

And yet, they stay, and bomb, and try to create caliphates there.

"think and actually look at Islamic history, Islamic teachings, the sayings of the scholars and Awliyah and see how more than a Billion people go about their lives in a peaceful manner"

Till they feel "humiliated", of course. Then it's open season. Frankly, I've extensively researched islam and I still come to the same conclusion. Conversely, when will you open your eyes and see. You're right, no one has been hiding the Quran or hadiths - unfortunately for your religion, they're available for all to see. It's the speeches that seem to get varied - one thing in English or other home language, one thing in Arabic. Old story. And what evidence is there that the Quran is the "next step"? Why, then, should we not accept all self-titled prophets? Or why should we not stop at Christianity? Why are you so afraid of Christianity, Ia?

"Who has been suppressing and plotting against the Quran??? Muslims????"

Ahhhhh, and here we have Ia's main point - wait wait, let me guess...it's the Jews, right? My God, that's an old islamic rub. "The Jews are plotting against the Quran." Bet I could find that same conspiracy theory here without much trouble.

“these 'Holy warriors' have been condemned by scholars and have no standing in Islam.”

Determined by whom? They find plenty of scholars to support them.

“What about the rebels in Iraq that refuse to have their country looted. What about the rebels that refuse to have their young boys and women raped, please don't generalise the resistance.”

LMAO. Young boys raped? Are the Saudis fighting there? I thought there were no foreigners there, Ia. I also note the intrinsic humour in the word “Saudi”. Spare us the nonsense about women being raped in Iraq, lest you bring actual proof that this, indeed, is what the terrorists are doing. (Although, conversely, there actually is evidence of Iraqi terrorists doing exactly that to Christians in Iraq.)

" Oh Holy warriors stop fighting eachother here, go fight the brown Muslim devil. Go and DEFEND yourselves in a land that isn't yours.”

Because, of course, the Christian kingdoms that the muslims invaded there were really muslim land. LOL. Talk about hypocritical. How exactly do those invasions count as ‘defensive’, anyway? Guess it doesn’t matter; Sura 9 isn’t about defense anyway.

“Read about the history of the Freemason and Illuminati, read about how they are the helpers of the Anti-Christ, they are the ones preparing the World for his arrival. (Exercise great control over our lives, Media, top politicians, top businessmen etc.)”

How fortunate that you only read books written by such well-balanced individuals! I’ve seen them too, and they’re good for a laugh, if only that. ‘Illuminati’, indeed. LOL

“Please open your eyes, do you see any 'Brown' Muslim country occupying any Christian land????”

What’s race got to do with it? But, speaking of muslim persecution of Christians –

Saudia Arabia
Indonesia
Pakistan
Algeria
Libya
Egypt
Iraq
Iran
Syria
Afghanistan
Sudan
Turkey
Jordan

So, as you can see, basically there’s very few countries where the persecution of Christians by muslims occurs. Only ten or fifteen at a minimum. Unless you count that which occurs in Western nations? Anyway, only all the muslim nations of the world for starters.

“Greater Israel is ours”

Actually I think you’ll find that it belongs to the Israelis. They had to take it, you see, to avoid being massacred by Islamic armies three or so times this century. Do you remember those events?

“White Christian fundamentalists' you hold so dear in your heart are nothing but crooks, they have starved Africa, armed dictators that ruthless kill their own people, looted the land of its resources and left the people with nothing, absolutely nothing. They have held every nation back, starved the people of Iraq, littered it with DU, dropped Nukes on 'Non'-White' people in Japan, raped women and girls in France after WW2, maintained their forces in Germany and Japan for many, many years. Imposed their system on everyone else, on top of this they have been two-faced lying 8astards. I could go on and on.”

I’m sure you could, but you’d still be talking out your arse. They did all these things in the name of Christ? OK. Uh-huh. And you ask Christians to open THEIR eyes? They nuked Japan to actually reduce deaths overall (your grasp on history seems a bit…tenuous), they have given more in aid to almost every nation in the world than any five or six muslim nations ever has (or will). Of course there were rapes of women – as every marching army has treated women since the dawn of time. Of course, no army ever marched with explicit instructions to rape women – well, muslim armies have, I suppose. So not EVERY army. They would also have ‘littered’ Germany (another nation composed of, as you say, evil white people) with DU as well in order to stop a Soviet attack, which somewhat destroys your racist theory.

I have a suggestion: pick up a history book, and let it fall so that the spine is down. It will crack open to reveal white things inside. These are called “pages”. If you look closely, you will see that they have writing on them. Be warned – it may not be Quranic writing, but rather factual events or scientific knowledge. Then again, it might be Quranic writing after all. In the latter case, please ignore it, but if you peruse books of the former type you might obtain a specialized form of retainable information known as “knowledge”. You may not have come across this concept in your religious education, but be assured that there are many people worldwide who benefit from this seemingly esoteric concept.

Also, it’s spelled “ruthlessly”.

“This book is nothing but an act of Satan, a book to further 'White Christian' supremacy.”

Have you completely snapped?

Imam Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at July 27, 2005 2:10 PM

Posted by King

Posted by: helox at July 27, 2005 2:31 PM

Posted by King
"The religious texts of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and faiths other than Christianity should be allowed"

King: I say rid all religious texts from the courts and have everyone swear in on a copy of the Constitution. The one thing we all have in common in the court is the rights granted to us by the Constitution, citizen or not, so why not use that as the common binder?

I agree with King on this one. Swear on the Constitution. It does not matter what one swears on these days b/c those who are going to lie are going to lie anyway.

Posted by: helox at July 27, 2005 2:33 PM

Would the "White Christian" supremacy mentioned by the mad mullah above have any relevance to t e longest-running slave trade in human history, that of Arab slavers in black Africa, who routinely went for young black African boys, castrated them on the spot, and then brought them by slave coffle or dhow, or both, to the Arab and Muslim slave-markets? The mortality rate was 90%; tens of millions, over many centuries, died -- next to the Muslim massacres of the Hindus, it was the greatest mass killing done by Muslims. Would that "White Christian" supremacy have to do with the continued existence of slavery, which is recognized in the Qur'an (Muhammad owned slaves), and which, therefore, can never be banned for it is immutably and eternally part of Islam. There is no Muslim Wilberforce. Slavery was formally banned in Saudi Arabia, to placate outsdiers, only in 1962; in the interior, if we are to judge by stories, by some newspaper ads, and by the reported treatment of wage-slaves, slavery never really ended. And of course blacks are this very day being treated as slaves, enduring life as slaves, in the Sudan, in Mali, in Mauritania.

This, of course, has nothing to do with the illiterate and confused rant above by some Defender of the Faith whom, I suggest, be simply kept away. He may not scare the women and children and the horses, but even to have the eyes glaze over as they glance through his hysterical rant, can disturb.

A well-aimed click, here and there, Robert, would take care of the problem. He has so many Islmaic websites to visit and declare his undying affection and loyalty to the umma al-islamiyya. Everyone will be happier, all way round.

Posted by: Hugh at July 27, 2005 2:34 PM

Geoff: "Swearing alone, I think, will do."

King: OK, opinion noted. The rest of your long dissertation, including spelling lessons and assumptions about porn, do nothing to help or hinder this opinion.
NEWS FLASH: You've proven to be nothing more than a person who leaves an opinion and does little, if anything, to help change one F'ing thing.

SECOND NEWS FLASH: I've never claimed to be a good speller. Feel free to take the time to correct me all you want!

Posted by: KingTolerance at July 27, 2005 2:45 PM

No King, you only claim the higher moral ground for yourself based on what you hold to be a "balanced view", but invoking bad moral equivalences, your stock-in-trade, isn't taking a balanced view -- it's dissembling and nothing more.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at July 27, 2005 2:58 PM

Waterlilly: "No King, you only claim the higher moral ground for yourself based on what you hold to be a "balanced view""

King: True!

Water: "but invoking bad moral equivalences, your stock-in-trade, isn't taking a balanced view -- it's dissembling and nothing more.""

King: Your opinion. Duly noted, my position does not change.

Hugh: "A well-aimed click, here and there, Robert, would take care of the problem."

King: Go right ahead! Your 'well-aimed click' will be censorship, plain and simple. Trouncing on free speech, thumbing your nose at a two sided argument. Doing this would speak volumes of what you and your ilk really stand for!

Posted by: KingTolerance at July 27, 2005 3:11 PM

"Ia, by contrast, needs less neoNazi reading and more insight. The Crusades were, of course, defensive in nature, unless you'd care to illustrate why not. I doubt this is within your limited capabilities."

Defensive, you want me to prove that the crusades were not defensive, you are out of your mind Geoffrey. You prove it to me, how can rape, pillaging, looting, cold-blooded murder of both Muslims and JEWS possibly be defensive?!?!?! How?!?!? lets not forget the cannibalism displayed by some of the ‘holy’ fighters of Christendom.

The truth is the fought for money, for women, for gold. Not for God. Defensive, ha ha ha. You talk such rubbish Geoffrey. This is where you and I differ, you hate Muslims and Islam, you use World events to further reinforce this ‘irrational’ hatred. You use event to suppress you conscience, you don’t want to hear how Muslims can practice Islam peacefully, you don’t want any of that as that would cause you to question your ‘irrational’ hatred, you can live in hatred if you want, that is upto you , that is your burden and I know it hurts. I on the other hand see injustice in the World and will oppose it, no generalisations from me, No, life is not that simple, things are not always black white. Geoff, Hazrat Ali (r.a.) said Extremism is ignorance, I will say this to both Muslim extremists and those at the other end of the spectrum, haters like you. Listen, extremism is ignorance. Its easy to do what you do, hate is easy, it’s the brave that call things down the middle and their evil desires.

"And yet, they stay, and bomb, and try to create caliphates there."

Same old Geofforey, generalisations, blah blah blah, Muslim this, Muslim that blah blah

"Till they feel "humiliated", of course. Then it's open season. Frankly, I've extensively researched islam and I still come to the same conclusion. Conversely, when will you open your eyes and see. You're right, no one has been hiding the Quran or hadiths - unfortunately for your religion, they're available for all to see."

Yes. Islam is for everyone. How many have bought a Quran out of curiosity and read it and had tears flow down their cheeks??? How many have been brought to tears and drawn to Islam by simply hearing the Quran being recited.

FORTUNATELY for me they are available, it is unfortunate for Islamophobes like you.

"It's the speeches that seem to get varied - one thing in English or other home language, one thing in Arabic. Old story."

Same old Geoffory. You shouldn't speak about things that you know nothing about. You only lose credibility.

"And what evidence is there that the Quran is the "next step"? Why, then, should we not accept all self-titled prophets? Or why should we not stop at Christianity? Why are you so afraid of Christianity, Ia?"

Okay Geoffrey??????

I have no fear of any religion, all religions lead to God, that is if the person follows his God given conscience and shuns his/her evil desires. God alone is the best of Judges.

"Ahhhhh, and here we have Ia's main point - wait wait, let me guess...it's the Jews, right? My God, that's an old islamic rub. "The Jews are plotting against the Quran." Bet I could find that same conspiracy theory here without much trouble."

Same old Geoffrey. Searching my comments up and down in order to find a place where he can call me anti-Semitic. Go ahead Geoff, same rubbish. Tell me, where have I displayed a hatred for all the Jewish people, come on Geoff, twist my words.

"Determined by whom? They find plenty of scholars to support them."

You're a no hoper. I asked the people here to tell me how 7/7 could be justified under Islam, the silence was deafening, actually there was one big cut/paste job. Very weak.

"LMAO. Young boys raped? Are the Saudis fighting there? I thought there were no foreigners there, Ia. I also note the intrinsic humour in the word “Saudi”. Spare us the nonsense about women being raped in Iraq, lest you bring actual proof that this, indeed, is what the terrorists are doing. (Although, conversely, there actually is evidence of Iraqi terrorists doing exactly that to Christians in Iraq.)"

Geoffrey, it was you that stated the Americans have behaved well in Iraq. Well Mr American Arse kisser, please explain the bombing of weddings, demonstrators, raping kids, kidnapping women and using them as bargaining chips, shooting unarmed innocents, using DU, cluster bombs, torture and plain murder. Please explain. Also please explain why no one in the World now supports America, why has America isolated herself???

Why??? Why????

"Because, of course, the Christian kingdoms that the muslims invaded there were really muslim land. LOL. Talk about hypocritical. How exactly do those invasions count as ‘defensive’, anyway? Guess it doesn’t matter; Sura 9 isn’t about defense anyway."

So cannibalism is a form of defence, I never knew that (sarcasm)

"Actually I think you’ll find that it belongs to the Israelis. They had to take it, you see, to avoid being massacred by Islamic armies three or so times this century. Do you remember those events?"

Ha ha, lets invade Syria, Lebanon, half of Iraq, abit of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, we need to do this in order to avoid being slaughtered. Actually lets get the Americans to die for us!!!

"no army ever marched with explicit instructions to rape women"

Really, you sound pretty certain?!?!?

Geoff you supported the nuking of Mekkah right????

Posted by: ia786 at July 27, 2005 3:14 PM

We hear God Bless the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Well that’s merely the icing on the cake.

God Bless White Supremacy.

Posted by: ia786 at July 27, 2005 3:22 PM

To ia786: Indeed, the "supremecy" is piling awfully high here. Please keep up your perfectly valid perspective. I see the same things you do and 'seeing' them does not mean we condone them! Hiding from reality will not change anything, pretending that other religions have a squeaky clean past will not change it, nor will the facade of blaming Islam as a whole change it.

Posted by: KingTolerance at July 27, 2005 3:33 PM

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_dailymirror_dumb_people.jpg

Posted by: ia786 at July 27, 2005 3:35 PM

I remeber that. I loathe Bush. I loathe extremism of any sort, I loathe ignorance.

I'd like to perpetuate an e-mail thread with you, IA, but I refuse to post my e-mail in public for obvious reasons.

Posted by: KingTolerance at July 27, 2005 3:41 PM

Hi Kingtolerance,

You can send me details through email, my address is:

ia786@hotmail.co.uk

Most of the people here know it, I've only had a bit of abuse, nothing I can't handle.

Posted by: ia786 at July 27, 2005 3:51 PM

KingTolerance
When posting to this site or any other site concerning islam I use an internet cafe run by the local masjid here in Indonesia,so I do not have to be so careful about contacting Islamic sites.
Your fears are solidly founded,as ia 666 does like to play a little cyber hanky-panky

Posted by: shiva at July 27, 2005 4:37 PM

Yes. Islam is for everyone. How many have bought a Quran out of curiosity and read it and had tears flow down their cheeks??? How many have been brought to tears and drawn to Islam by simply hearing the Quran being recited.

How many, please tell us, we can’t wait to hear.

I will bet anyone than the number is still less than the number of mentally challenged members of our society. However it is remarkable how many of that unfortunate assembly “have been brought to tears and drawn to Islam by simply hearing the Quran being recited”.

Anyway, a better question than “how many have been brought to tears…” is how many more felt like throwing up trying to read the QuQuran.
What a piece of a murderous, hateful, disgusting ranting of a madman.

Geoff, you support nuking Mekaka?!?!
I say NO, NO, NO! Think of the noise, dust and radioactivity! What mess...

A hundred ton of pig manure dropped over Kaaba will turn the trick better than a nuke - and without all the ecologically incorrect side effects.

Posted by: thomas. h at July 27, 2005 4:37 PM

Swearing on the Bible is unbiblical.

Matthew 5:37 Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

f.g.

Posted by: f.g. at July 27, 2005 4:38 PM

King:

If it's your right to free speech you are concerned about, why don't you put up your own KingTolerance website to really get your message out? I'm sure IA786 would be happy to help you.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at July 27, 2005 4:40 PM

King Schwanz:

"I remeber that. I loathe Bush. I loathe extremism of any sort, I loathe ignorance."

Surely you have a mirror? (perhaps you can't see your reflection?)

Recently there was another King posting here who swore by Muhammeds foreskin and by Allahs knickers that "he is not a Muhammedan". Was that you?

And Saladin, 1a, Queen of the desert:

Would you mind to post that homoerotical depiction of the marauding "Profit" once more, you know the one with "the fragrant sweat" and the crap that didn't stink?

I really liked that one!

Posted by: Terminator at July 27, 2005 4:45 PM

does swearing on a book any book realy stop a man giving a false statement,if by telling a lie can save him for a long prison sentenc or worse

Posted by: shiva at July 27, 2005 4:48 PM

Water: If it's your right to free speech you are concerned about, why don't you put up your own KingTolerance website to really get your message out?

King: Its equally my right to access a website in the public domain and post my thoughts as well. I'm not as concerned about my free speech as I am amused that the threat was made!

Water: "I'm sure IA786 would be happy to help you."

King: He's doing a fine job right where he is. Sorry, but if its the sound of one hand clapping you're after perhaps you ought to grow a spine and be prepared to actually defend your point of view.

Turdinator: "King Schwanz......"

King: Zzzzzzzz. Finished with you and your diaper talk.

Posted by: KingTolerance at July 27, 2005 5:35 PM

"Cross: "The fags at the aclu continue their fight against Christianity."

King: Challenge: If nobody else speaks up to denounce this obviously Christian opinion they are in kahoots with this Cross asshole. This is the exact same thing you all try to pull with Islam, so how does it feel?'"

A statement by someone who identifies themselves as Christian does not equal a Christian statement. If Cross was quoting the Bible and trying to say that it supported violence against the ACLU, you bet people would speak up. Saying that the ACLU are "fags" at war with Christianity might be wrong, but it's not a Christian statement for the obvious reason that the Bible doesn't mention the ACLU. If a Muslim says that the US are "fags" at war with Islam he'll be wrong, but it's not really a Muslim opinion. On the other hand, if a Muslim quotes extensively from the Qur'an and Hadith to argue that Americans are under Allah's curse and incites war against the US, then I think it's fair to call it a Muslim opinion.

I see the point you are making re ia786. Several people seem to expect him to prove his anti-jihad credentials by arguing against extremists. I don't agree that Muslims should feel obliged to go around correcting extremist websites, nobody has sufficient time to deal with all the idiots on the Internet. I would argue that Muslims have an obligation to challenge extremism in their communities, eg in their mosques or schools. Indeed the very definition of a community brings with it such an obligation. I think Christians have the same duty. I'm sure that if anyone came to any church that I've known and tried (for example) to incite violence against abortion clinics, people would not let it pass. Nor should they.

As for the swearing thing, I disagree that religious texts should be banned from courtrooms. Swearing on a Bible is not a church and state issue unless someone is compelled to do it. It's supposed to be a symbolic statement of personal belief. A person who swears "by the almighty God" on a Bible is saying that they believe in the God of the Bible and fear his punishment if they commit perjury. Of course, anyone who wishes should be allowed to use whatever holy text they desire, or no text, if that's what they prefer. It's folly to expect a Muslim or Hindu or atheist to swear on a Bible, since they don't fear the God of the Bible.

Posted by: Viking5 at July 27, 2005 6:33 PM

Well, finally. Viking has it right. He has a good explanation of why taking an oath on the Bible was instituted. It was to remind the witness that there is a commandment which prohibits "bearing false witness," that is, giving false testimony. The reminder of one's faith and belief in a higher power was to give pause before testifying, by introducing it as a formality.

It has been a long time since I have seen anyone take an oath on a Bible in Texas, except for the oath of office taken by Judges, city Mayors and Councilmen, etc., who routinely do so. But I do remember asking one witness to take his oath on an ancient Bible, which I supplied, during a deposition. The twerp lied anyway, but it was a joy to watch him sweat under the examination, since he had claimed to be such a good Christian.

In any event, lawyers often refer to the family courts (divorce, custody, etc.) as the "perjury palace," as people lie all the time. Righteous people will avoid telling lies, but they would probably do so without the oath, anyway.

Posted by: texan at July 27, 2005 9:29 PM

I really wish IA and King Tolerance would practice what they preach, and,

"go ye forth into The House of Peace, preaching tolerance and love"

- from the book of 3x lucky - I need to pay the bills so I'm becomming a "profit" like Mo.

Hey IA??? If you did go to live in Dar al Islam you could get yourself a nine year old for a wife/sex. Are you still looking?? Do you still think its OK????

Oh Hummm IA is like other Muslims, those pesky Crusades!! Yes that's right all and sundry Islam never invaded Europe before the crusades, never invaded France, Spain, the Balkins, the underbelly of Russia. It was all done peacefully. Just like MO never slept with a nine year old, never married a six year old, no one ever died in his presence (just like Christ) - NOT!!!!!!.

Just like no Muslim was involved in 9/11, or Bali, or Kenya's bombings, or Egypt's bombings, or wait for it....... London's bombings.

Actions speak louder than words IA. But in the case of Islam, both the actions and words of murder are of one.

Oh and IA, as for reciting the Koran, I remember a family member of mine telling me that they used to do it all time, in Arabic. They couldn't understand Arabic. When they found out what they were reciting, they were horrified, becuase unlike many Muslims, she actually used her brain and could see that it has nothing to do with freedom and peace, but war and submission.

Posted by: 3rdtimelucky at July 27, 2005 10:47 PM

Thomas, f.g, nice points.

Jack:

I do little to change “one f’ing thing”? Gosh, I don’t have time to go out and blow stuff up. What other medium of political expression, save the amelioration of awareness, do you think I ought do? I was of the opinion that merely educating the ignorant was sufficient: sadly, I see that this has not worked in your case.
“I've never claimed to be a good speller.” No, you merely claimed I was “assenine”. I presumed you were also implying you weren’t.

Well, you are. Crying censorship with regard to a privately owned website? Go back to your nephew’s school projects on Christophobia.

“Defensive, you want me to prove that the crusades were not defensive, you are out of your mind Geoffrey. You prove it to me, how can rape, pillaging, looting, cold-blooded murder of both Muslims and JEWS possibly be defensive?!?!?! How?!?!? “

As I said, beyond your limited capabilities. Not to fear; I’ll explain it to you. You can’t seem to grasp that the rape, pillaging, looting, enslavery and cold-blooded of Christians (and others) when the muslims invaded the region PRIOR TO THE CRUSADES, AND BEFORE THE INTERFERENCE OF MUSLIMS IN CHRISTIAN PILGRIMAGE TO THE HOLY LAND, WHICH PARTIALLY CAUSED THE CRUSADES is also not ‘defensive’ as Ia seems to think it is. (and why Jews in caps here? Does he think I'm "on their side"? If so, what 'side' he on?) Perhaps he assumes the muslims living in those regions had always been there? Or that the Christians living in those regions had no right to defend themselves? Perhaps Ia doesn’t understand the nature of 9th-11th century logisitics.

No matter. I do.

Or perhaps he never read Urban II’s call to crusade, or the specifications therein? (Sigh.) No matter. I have.

“lets not forget the cannibalism displayed by some of the ‘holy’ fighters of Christendom.”

But I thought we were not supposed to judge entire religio-political movements on the basis of an isolated fringe of lunatics? So all the Crusaders were cannibals? Or all Christians? Are you just confused about the whole “Body of Christ” thing, because that’s easy to explain. Seriously.

In any event, these isolated fringe Crusader group was merely attempting to follow the example of Mohammed, whose ‘allah’ supposedly transformed Jews into lizards, which Mohammed’s companions then ate. Perhaps this tiny minority of Crusaders were merely cutting corners. Perhaps they’d been insulted by muslims, or offended by the islamic treatment of women in the Middle East after the muslim invasion.

LOL. Actually, I expect this story is rather apocryphal, like your historical education.

“The truth is the fought for money, for women, for gold. Not for God.”

So they were like muslim armies. Actually, I think you’d be hard pressed to prove that the Crusaders fought only for money and gold, as it is also quite apocryphal. But how were muslim Crusades against Christians from 650-1050 in any way “defensive”? By definition all Crusades were indeed defensive, since they were a counter-attack to regain lost territory.

“you hate Muslims and Islam, you use World events to further reinforce this ‘irrational’ hatred”

Nope. While I can agree with you that this suspicion (not hatred) is in fact not irrational (since you kindly put quotes around the word), I can partially agreed that it is increased from world events. Those, of course, are real and caused by muslims, as opposed to what makes islamists hate everyone else, which is usually falsified or misinterpreted. Or perhaps you believe that the Mossad created 9/11 after all? My distaste for islam began with world events, and with the simple appreciation of the real motivation about the Crusades.

In short, I realized that it was islam that had committed the first act of aggression. Pretty obvious point, really.

Of course, I’m certain certain muslims practice in peace, I’d just like to see it more in practice. There always seems to be this constant threat of reversion back to islam as Mohammed saw it: murder, rape, violence, oppression of all those different from islam. My opinion, of course, is braver in this day than yours. Also, I’d like to see the questioning of islam not called ‘islamophobic’ or whatever other term is being cooked up these days. ‘Islamophobia’ used to refer to those that hated islam; now, it instead refers to those that muslims hate.

“How many have bought a Quran out of curiosity and read it and had tears flow down their cheeks???”

I hate to break it to you, but that’s mostly tears of laughter. Half the value of a man, indeed! Of the several muslims I’ve known, about 1/3 have abandoned their religion here and either adopted atheism or another religion. How about those who have read the Bible out of curiousity and had tears run down their cheeks? Are they suddenly valueless in your mirthless world?

Imam Geoff: "It's the speeches that seem to get varied - one thing in English or other home language, one thing in Arabic. Old story."

Ia666: “Same old Geoffory. You shouldn't speak about things that you know nothing about. You only lose credibility.”

Agreed. You shouldn’t, Ia. Saying one thing in Arabic, then another in English is old hat to numerous islamists. Or are you not aware of this. Ia, don’t speak about things you know nothing about. Like islam, maybe.

“I have no fear of any religion, all religions lead to God”

Oh? Then why so scared of Christianity? Why the constant demand for Christians to accept this ‘next point’ in Abrahamic faith? No answer?
As for conspiracy theories, again, you alluded to a well-known one, then backed and ran when it was clear I’d heard it from other islamists. Simple enough.

“I asked the people here to tell me how 7/7 could be justified under Islam, the silence was deafening, actually there was one big cut/paste job.”

I agree that your cut-and-paste jobs are very weak, but I saw the arguments there and you were routed as usual. Sura 9. Say it again. Sura 9. You lose. Thanks.

“Geoffrey, it was you that stated the Americans have behaved well in Iraq.”

Correct. They have.

“Well Mr American Arse kisser, please explain the bombing of weddings, demonstrators, raping kids, kidnapping women and using them as bargaining chips, shooting unarmed innocents, torture and plain murder. Please explain.”

I can’t. You’d have to ask the islamic terrorists why they do those things. Especially the raping kids part. Is that in the Quran? Also, if I disagree with you, why do you call me an arse kisser? Perhaps that’s some kind of compliment in Saudi Arabia?

“So cannibalism is a form of defence, I never knew that”

Yes, that was the major point of that entire conflict. Hell, everything revolved around that. Of course. Why, that explains all the islamic violence now.

Isn’t it funny how fascists use the tiniest, smallest excuse to justify their requiem for hatred and vengeance. Hitler, for example, was pissed because he’d got syphilis from a Jewish prostitute. Strange, isn’t it?

“Ha ha, lets invade Syria, Lebanon, half of Iraq, abit of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, we need to do this in order to avoid being slaughtered. Actually lets get the Americans to die for us!!!”

And we’re back to the conspiracy theory stuff. I thought you’d said you weren’t into that. Please make up your mind, if any. And since when did the Israelis invade Syria (oh, the Golan? That place Syrians like to lob rockets at Israeli villages from?), Iraq OR Saudi Arabia? Or maybe this is more conspiracy stuff.

Geoff: "no army ever marched with explicit instructions to rape women"

Ia: “Really, you sound pretty certain?!?!?”

Not sure whether this is a question or a comment on your part, and you don’t seem to know either. Aside from specific SS (who were, in the opinion of the Mufti of Jerusalem, great friends to islam), no - no army has ever marched with specific orders to rape women. Except muslim armies. Think I said that already. That’s all coded in the Quran under “women taken by the right hand” etc, so all islamically legal, have no worry.

For I know that’s the only thing you care about, since you’ve already told us.

Conversely, I know it’s immensely popular ‘round the mosque these days to believe that evil BushitlerMcChimpy (note: I don’t like Bush either. Note: I don’t hate him enough to call him names like “Bushitler”) has issued “rape on sight” orders for American soldiers. If you actually believe this, you’re a fool. If you know it’s utter nonsense but are spewing it anyway, you’re worse than a fool.

Ooh! One more.

“Geoff you supported the nuking of Mekkah right????”

Wrong, although that was a credible attempt at deliberately deceptive reasoning. You’re getting better. No, I supported the ransoming of Mecca in exchange for the prevention of islamic terrorist attacks using weapons of mass destruction, which, if you’d read my comments, you’d know. I no more support nuking Mecca outright than you support nuclear attacks outright on Western cities. And why not? It would cause massively fewer human casualties than an islamic attack on a major city, and would effectively remove the raison d’etre of the islamic terrorists: no allah would jump in to save Mecca, which would in effect become a giant parking lot. Why should I attach any religious importance to your holy site? I’m a secularist; for me, only human lives matter, and frankly islam’s observance of respect to the religious sites of various great world faiths has been sketchy at best, and outright hostile at normalcy. Of course, if islamic terrorists never used a WMD, then where’s the harm? Soviets and Americans pointed such weapons at each other for decades, and they were all quite sane enough never to use them. I hope you’re not accusing me of suggesting a pre-emptive nuclear strike? Not even the Ayatollah is that mad. (One hopes.)

It boggles my mind how you can have such festering theistic hate for Jews, for Israelis, for Christians, for Americans, and still claim your religion is about peace. The hate you feel for others not like you (secularists, Christians, etc.) is manifest with each exclamation point or question mark. You accept as truth every sick conspiracy theory about Jews, about the West, about Freemasons and all the rest – yet real knowledge, real truth is hidden from you by a veil and a book.

I honestly hope you come to understand true peace soon.

Imam Geoff

PS: Did you give up over at FFI? I accept your surrender.

Posted by: Geoff at July 27, 2005 10:49 PM

Thomas H are you from NZ?

Posted by: 3rdtimelucky at July 27, 2005 10:57 PM

Oh King Tolerance - plenty here have and read the Koran. I often get tears of joy (being sarcastic - but I do get joy), when I get my English Koran and show it to infidels.

They see all the killing, commands to kill, hate, not to befriend Jews or Christians, beating your wife/s, all the non stop verses of condemnation of infidels to hell, etc.

Then as they read these verses, and see that Bib Laden is right, that our politicians are liers, I get great tears of joy - on the inside - knowing that I have done a small bit in the War on Terror... er, the War on the Infidel.

In fact, I have come accross many people who I have had the joy of opening their eyes to the lies of Islam. My Koran? I rarely leave home without it!

Posted by: 3rdtimelucky at July 27, 2005 11:02 PM

Imam Geoff - good post, but it uses reason and logic. Maybe you need to issue an edict to IA and his ilk to recite it 100000000000000000000000000 times, and it might just sink in....

Posted by: 3rdtimelucky at July 27, 2005 11:11 PM

"As I said, beyond your limited capabilities. Not to fear; I’ll explain it to you. You can’t seem to grasp that the rape, pillaging, looting, enslavery and cold-blooded of Christians (and others) when the muslims invaded the region PRIOR TO THE CRUSADES, AND BEFORE THE INTERFERENCE OF MUSLIMS IN CHRISTIAN PILGRIMAGE TO THE HOLY LAND, WHICH PARTIALLY CAUSED THE CRUSADES is also not ‘defensive’ as Ia seems to think it is. (and why Jews in caps here? Does he think I'm "on their side"? If so, what 'side' he on?) Perhaps he assumes the muslims living in those regions had always been there? Or that the Christians living in those regions had no right to defend themselves? Perhaps Ia doesn’t understand the nature of 9th-11th century logisitics.

No matter. I do.

Or perhaps he never read Urban II’s call to crusade, or the specifications therein? (Sigh.) No matter. I have."

Really weak excuses. Europe in the midst of its darkest hour decided to look for an excuse to turn attention elsewhere, look for an excuse to loot, murder, rape and pillage. They did this through Europe on their way to Muslim lands. That is, they killed other Christians, they raped, looted and pillaged Christian lands. I can't remember the exact details but I recall mayors of towns paying bribes in order to avoid having the 'Holy Warriors' from passing through their towns.

I highlight JEWS because they were killed and raped ruthlessly, just like the Muslims. What happened in Jerusalem was just absolutely horrid, Salahuddin displayed Islamic principles, chivalry and honour when he recaptured the apple of our eyes.

"But I thought we were not supposed to judge entire religio-political movements on the basis of an isolated fringe of lunatics?"

I like that Geoffrey. I like it.

I'm surprised you don't tell your fellow Islamophobes on JW the same thing?!?!?

"So all the Crusaders were cannibals? Or all Christians? Are you just confused about the whole “Body of Christ” thing, because that’s easy to explain. Seriously."

Cannibalism, eating the flesh of Muslims, an act inspired by Satan.

"In any event, these isolated fringe Crusader group was merely attempting to follow the example of Mohammed"

A bunch of 'Holy Crusaders' fighting in a defensive holy war organised by the Church suddenly became inspired by Muhammad and decided to loot, rape, pillage, murder and eat the flesh of other Muslims. That makes alot of sense Geoffrey!!!!

Its gets better.

"Perhaps they’d been insulted by muslims, or offended by the islamic treatment of women in the Middle East after the muslim invasion."

Crusader to Muslim: How dare you humbly prostrate do God in my presence, this is an insult and I will now have to kill you, rape your wife and eat your children.

Hey Geoff, perfectly understandable, you know it happens to us all (sarcasm)

The crusades, a way to salvation, a path to forgiveness, a path to God, that is as long as you rape, murder, pillage and eat the flesh of live children.

"Those, of course, are real and caused by muslims, as opposed to what makes islamists hate everyone else, which is usually falsified or misinterpreted."

Hey Geoff can I use some of your earlier comments???

"But I thought we were not supposed to judge entire religio-political movements on the basis of an isolated fringe of lunatics?"

I have done alot of research regarding 9/11. I am 100% sure that it was not carried out by Al-Qaeda and the 19 hijackers.

I know what you think.....blah blah Muslim conspiracy, blah blah, Mossad, Zionist, blah blah waaahhh.

Listen. The Pentagon was hit my a missile, the second plane that hit the tower had a missile underneath it, the towers had bombs placed in them and these all went off on 9/11. It was a controlled demolition. The blood of those killed on 9/11 and the Muslims killed as a result are on the hands of the American Admin, they will stand before God and be made to answer for their crimes.

'Here were talking about plastic knives, and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building, and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Centre'

Donald Rumsfeld, interview with Parade magazine on October 12th, 2001.

I know what you're going to be thinking, you make me laugh. People like you complain about the mainstream media, how they are too 'PC' how they don't know anything about Islam yet when it comes to everything else you believe everything they say without even thinking.

I have watched countless documentaries, I have read many articles and that, it all points to the same thing. An inside job.

http://www.911wasalie.com/phpwebsite/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=22

Watch the documentary, Loose change (9/11), I dare you, may I add it may lead you to question your hate of Islam/Muslims. Your choice, what will it be, will you suppress your conscience or will you want to open your eyes and see it from the 'other' perspective?

The download link is on there.

"‘Islamophobia’ used to refer to those that hated islam; now, it instead refers to those that muslims hate."

Sounds familiar.

"I hate to break it to you, but that’s mostly tears of laughter. Half the value of a man, indeed! Of the several muslims I’ve known, about 1/3 have abandoned their religion here and either adopted atheism or another religion. How about those who have read the Bible out of curiousity and had tears run down their cheeks? Are they suddenly valueless in your mirthless world?"

Listen Geoffrey, why are you on JW right now, why did you register on FFI. Why????

That says it all.

"Oh? Then why so scared of Christianity? Why the constant demand for Christians to accept this ‘next point’ in Abrahamic faith? No answer?
As for conspiracy theories, again, you alluded to a well-known one, then backed and ran when it was clear I’d heard it from other islamists. Simple enough."

Christians and Muslims have so much in common, their are certain people on both sides that don't like this. Well when Jesus returns their will only be the believers under the King of Kings, nothing will matter. I have no fear, I put my trust in God, aim to do Good and shun evil, why should I be scared.

Those that seek guidance will be guided.

"I agree that your cut-and-paste jobs are very weak, but I saw the arguments there and you were routed as usual. Sura 9. Say it again. Sura 9. You lose. Thanks."

Sura 9. That’s all. Countless months on JW trying to attack ALL Muslims and twist Islam and all you can come up with is Surah 9. I'm disappointed, what a waste.

“Geoffrey, it was you that stated the Americans have behaved well in Iraq.”

"Correct. They have."

Ha ha ha, so why are American soldiers being killed in Iraq, may I add by GOOD, HONEST Iraqis.

That doesn't make sense.

http://207.44.245.159/article9103.htm

"I can’t. You’d have to ask the islamic terrorists why they do those things."

Weak.

Isn’t it funny how fascists use the tiniest, smallest excuse to justify their requiem for hatred and vengeance. Hitler, for example, was pissed because he’d got syphilis from a Jewish prostitute. Strange, isn’t it?

Is that true (Hitler)???

"And we’re back to the conspiracy theory stuff. I thought you’d said you weren’t into that. Please make up your mind, if any. And since when did the Israelis invade Syria (oh, the Golan? That place Syrians like to lob rockets at Israeli villages from?), Iraq OR Saudi Arabia? Or maybe this is more conspiracy stuff."

Is greater Israel a conspiracy, watch it Geoff, you may upset the Zionist death worshippers here.

Just Nod your head.

Syria belongs to the Israelis.
Lebanon belongs to the Israelis.
Half of Iraq belongs to the Israelis.
A Chunk of Arabia belongs to the Israelis.
A chunk of Egypt belongs to the Israelis.

"Conversely, I know it’s immensely popular ‘round the mosque these days to believe that evil BushitlerMcChimpy"

I cannot help but laugh at your bigoted arrogant attitude. You don’t speak for anyone.

"and would effectively remove the raison d’etre of the islamic terrorists: no allah would jump in to save Mecca"

Never in my life have I ever worried about Americans or anyone bombing Makkah. God is the protector of Makkah, you can say what you want, you can dream, you can fantasise, your dream will never become reality, that is unless you live long enough to witness the last few days of Mankind. That is when the Kaabah will be destroyed. Their will be no believer on Earth, only evil doers and the Final Hour will come upon them. Only then. Not by an America, nothing happens but by the will of God. I put my trust in God, HasbeeAllahwahnaymulwakeel, God alone is sufficient for me.

"Why should I attach any religious importance to your holy site?"

Respect??? Decency??? Manners??? So you don't have any of these?!?!?

"It boggles my mind how you can have such festering theistic hate for Jews, for Israelis, for Christians, for Americans, and still claim your religion is about peace."

You are not a liar, however please don't try to make false accusations against me. You don't know anything about me, you don't know what I do in real life. You haven't got a clue.

"You accept as truth every sick conspiracy theory about Jews, about the West, about Freemasons and all the rest – yet real knowledge, real truth is hidden from you by a veil and a book."

Explain.

"I honestly hope you come to understand true peace soon."

I think I am a reasonable, moderate peaceful British Muslim. I think I do know the meaning of peace.

I hope that you become more reasonable and begin to show Muslims more respect. You don't have to agree with Islam, you can believe what you want about Islam, however if you plot to harm me and my family I will not just sit back and let it happen.

"PS: Did you give up over at FFI? I accept your surrender."

As you wish.

ia786.

Posted by: ia786 at July 27, 2005 11:57 PM

ia 666

lets not forget the cannibalism displayed by some of the ‘holy’ fighters of Christendom

Brings to mind Idi Amin

Discussing with ia 666 is like banging your head against a brick wall or stone floor

Posted by: shiva at July 28, 2005 1:01 AM

Europe's darkest hour, and they turned on islam? And you talk about weak analysis. There was plenty of looting and pillaging that could have been done at home, rather than wander off on some Middle Eastern excursion. I note just as easily that muslim rulers fell to fighting one another before, after and during the Crusade period. Hardly a united proliteriat there. Or is there one rule for the evil Franks and another for the muslims? The points I laid out were exactly that - points. Analyses. Don't blame me that you can't understand them. Loot far far away, indeed.

"Salahuddin displayed Islamic principles, chivalry and honour when he recaptured the apple of our eyes."

Actually he had thousands butchered. But why worry about details, right Ia? They don't concern you.

"Cannibalism, eating the flesh of Muslims, an act inspired by Satan."

Ah. So it's only cannibalism when muslims are being eaten - as only muslims, presumably, are human? Where exactly are you going here?

Geoff: "In any event, these isolated fringe Crusader group was merely attempting to follow the example of Mohammed"

Ia767: "A bunch of 'Holy Crusaders' fighting in a defensive holy war organised by the Church suddenly became inspired by Muhammad and decided to loot, rape, pillage, murder and eat the flesh of other Muslims. That makes alot of sense Geoffrey!!!!"

Well, you do say 'other' muslims, so perhaps I've hit a chord here. Maybe they just suddenly came round to their destiny as converts to the islamic faith. Seriously, Mohammed did, what, three out of four there. Now, that's not bad, whatever a suicide bomber might tell you.

=)

Are you familiar with an English expression known as "taking the piss"? I thought not.

"Crusader to Muslim: How dare you humbly prostrate do God in my presence, this is an insult and I will now have to kill you, rape your wife and eat your children."

LOL. Yes, yes, that was the problem, of course, that caused the Crusades. That terrible prostration. That was it. Oh - and the decapitation of Christians. But other than that, nothing. And the enslavement of entire Christian nations at the hands of a perverted moon-god. Err...and the rape, the jizya, the destruction of churches and an entire culture, the wanton cruelty of islamic rulers, the oppression of whole populations, the continuing threat of islamic invasions of Europe, the destruction of the Christians' holy relics, the lowering of the value of non-muslims in the conquered Middle East to a fraction of that of muslims, and rampant slavery as a punishment forced on those unable to pay the oppressive jizya.

But other than that, there was no reason for the Crusaders to go over there.

Islam, a way to salvation, a path to forgiveness, a path to God - that is as long as you rape, murder, pillage, force others into your religion and oppress women and minorities.

On demographic balance, which was worse then - that tiny radical lunatic minority of Crusaders or all islam? Hmm. A poser!

And heeeeeeeere's the kicker from our nutty little troll, the point where he finally comes out from under his tinfoil hat, complete with obligatory Wahhabi website link:

**************************************************
"I have done alot of research regarding 9/11. [Ooh - chills! Here it comes! - Geoff]

I am 100% sure that it was not carried out by Al-Qaeda and the 19 hijackers.

Listen. The Pentagon was hit my a missile, the second plane that hit the tower had a missile underneath it, the towers had bombs placed in them and these all went off on 9/11. It was a controlled demolition."
**************************************************

Wow! And when the buildings fell down, was that controlled too?? Whoa! Those damn Jews are everywhere, no? [sarc]

Op! But Ia has "proof". The pointy-headed kind.

**************************************************
'Here were talking about plastic knives, and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building, and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Centre'

Donald Rumsfeld, interview with Parade magazine on October 12th, 2001.
**************************************************

You utter shithead. "using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens AS the missile to damage this building" AS. AS. Moron.

Mystery - solved. It was, unlike in Scooby Doo, NOT the cranky old white guy, but rather 19 muslims from Saudi Arabia. I bet they don't fit in the Scooby-Van.

"I know what you're going to be thinking, you make me laugh."

No, YOU make ME laugh. =D

"People like you complain about the mainstream media, how they are too 'PC' how they don't know anything about Islam yet when it comes to everything else you believe everything they say without even thinking."

Yuh-huh. And those pics I saw of the planes crashing into the towers, the witnesses who saw it happen, the survivors who were there, the missing dead people (where did they go? Cuba?), all that's just a big coincidence. Or...the Mossad!

Wow, I solved it. [sarcasm]

I've seen Loose Change, and it should have been called Loose Brains. Not-very-convincing. Even by the high quality normally associated with webcast standards.

"Listen Geoffrey, why are you on JW right now, why did you register on FFI. Why????"

Simple. I saw JW mentioned in a local newspaper. I went to see what it was about. I rated the stories as consistent, believable and likely. I stayed. I went to FFI because you were shooting your mouth off there. I merely wished to piss in your cornflakes. I have done so. Are you sad about that?

"why should I be scared."

I don't know. Why are you scared? Shirk? Please. Without any proof of an actual deity rather than an epileptic ambitious merchant's word on it, shirk is meaningless. Besides, all the Qurans got altered during the roundup by the third caliph. Why do you think everyone was so mad at him? Who knows what the old versions said? Even Mohammed's biographers left stuff out deliberately.

"Countless months on JW trying to attack ALL Muslims and twist Islam and all you can come up with is Surah 9."

Sorry, chief, Sura 9 (among others) is the key. Kill non-believers. That's pretty much all I need. I'd add in 4:11 and 4:34 and a few others, of course. By contrast, have you any explanation for them, or the hadiths commanding the murder of apostates?

Because if you don't, then your time here has been put to far less use than mine.

"so why are American soldiers being killed in Iraq, may I add by GOOD, HONEST Iraqis."

Since when are terrorists who blow up weddings and children "good honest Iraqis"? Perhaps, though, that's just cultural imperialism on my part.

Geoff" "You’d have to ask the islamic terrorists why they do those things."

Ia: "Weak."

Weak. You have no proof for any of those things being done by US troops, and yet you consider my argument weak. Meanwhile, I could search on here or elsewhere and find the same crimes committed by your terrorists quite easily.

When you look in the mirror and ask yourself how many Shiite children must die today to maintain Sunni honour and supremacy, what do you see?

IA seethes: "Is greater Israel a conspiracy, watch it Geoff, you may upset the Zionist death worshippers here.
Syria belongs to the Israelis.
Lebanon belongs to the Israelis.
Half of Iraq belongs to the Israelis.
A Chunk of Arabia belongs to the Israelis.
A chunk of Egypt belongs to the Israelis."

Er. Did I say anything about Arabia or Iraq? Moreover, did I say those other countries belong to the Israelis? And what ought the Israelis do? Say "Oh, sorry about you invading us and then us beating the tar out of you, as though you were preposterous schoolchildren; here's your land back from which to launch another attack"? Yeah, that's a great idea. I'll recommend that to the Grand Master at the next Lizardoid-Freemason covenant. He'll be sure to pass it directly on to Karl Rove and the secret assembly of the Knesset.

Ia, the Masons are not going to hurt you. We promise. Don't be scared, ok? We don't run the world, and we're not trying to 'get' you. Your name is not in some kind of sick "bag-the-clown-then-give-him-paper-cuts-and-dunk-him-in-iodine-then-tar-and-feather-him-and-beat-him-with-rubber-hoses-then-drive-him-west-and-dump-him-in-the-Wye" list.

...I mean, if we even HAD a list like that. C'mon. Seriously.

[sarc - do I even have to say it?]

"I cannot help but laugh at your bigoted arrogant attitude. You don’t speak for anyone."

I'm bigoted because I DON'T think Bush issued "rape-on-sight" orders for US troops? This must be the greatest leap of nonsense for you yet, save the stuff above. And if I don't speak for anyone, who am I not speaking for? I thought we Masons were all-powerful. You're confusing.

Ia767: "God is the protector of Makkah, you can say what you want, you can dream, you can fantasise, your dream will never become reality...[blah blah blah jihad rant]...I put my trust in God, God alone is sufficient for me."

Good. Nukes work for me. Now we have an understanding. What would you say once Mecca had been flattened? Just curious.

Geoff: "Why should I attach any religious importance to your holy site?"

Ia767: "Respect??? Decency??? Manners??? So you don't have any of these?!?!?"

I do. Does islam? Then there need be no worrying! For you or any other islamist. You can keep your holy site. No need to fret. Just observe the Golden Rule - I know, I know, it doesn't exist in islam. Just read up on it, that's all we're asking. Stop killing people in the name of islam. Try to understand that sometimes people are actually trying to help. Not every situation is ripe for advancement of the ummah at the expense of everyone else. Do you have any respect? Decency? Manners?

Geoff: "You accept as truth every sick conspiracy theory about Jews, about the West, about Freemasons and all the rest – yet real knowledge, real truth is hidden from you by a veil and a book."

Ia767: "Explain."

Ah, if you can't follow my point from your own posts about conspiracy theories and how the Masons are running the show, don't worry. Just put the tinfoil hat on your dresser - you won't need it now - and call a licensed psychiatrist.

"I think I am a reasonable, moderate peaceful British Muslim. I think I do know the meaning of peace."

One of the above would appear to be true. I can guess which one. I think anyone else not into tinfoil chapeaux might also hazard a throw at it.

"if you plot to harm me and my family I will not just sit back and let it happen."

Ditto, and that goes for my civilization. Except you're far likelier, given history, to harm my family. Sorry, Ia: I won't let that happen either, whatever your fictional allah says.

I, at least, do have respect for muslims. I wish your religion could also learn to respect other faiths and non-faiths.

My favourite part is this one:

Geoff: "PS: Did you give up over at FFI? I accept your surrender."

Ia: "As you wish."

Done and done. I won.

BTW - Kingie, did you still appreciate Ia's diverse and refreshing viewpoint? How about when he said the US blew up the Twin Towers? Did you enjoy that one? Is that still a "perfectly valid perspective" for you?

I think the expression we're looking for here is:

"pwnage"

Imam Geoff
Lion of Man
and Tinfoil Tailor

Posted by: Geoff at July 28, 2005 1:42 AM

Who knows.
Maybe Kingie and 1a786 were the brains behind the blowing up of the towers.
ia has even said there are no verses advocating evil on the non-muslims in the execrable book that he follows.
So this `peace` loving piece of wog is in fact supporting the activities of those of his countrymen who go out to rape, kill, maim etc. But oh by the way ia is peace loving.
I learnt the art of extracting nutriment from eggs by means of suction long ago.
Kingie and 1a are just starting.

Posted by: hutchrun at July 28, 2005 5:12 AM

Geoff:

I admire your patience!

But you see, no matter how much time you waste with the trolls, nothing sinks in: Quite the opposite!

Ia-Shirky-Saladin -Queen -of- Africa calls himself a 'moderate'- some time ago he also described himself as 'healthy'- now you know!

Nothing but hatred (and bullets) penetrates a coffee-filter.

I disagree with you about 'respecting Moahammedans'- they don't deserve the light of day. Mohammeds cult and the brainwashed nuts,- who are as much victims as perpetrators when following his ideology,-have no place among us.

Everyone in the western world should treat them worse then they would treat us should the situation be reversed:

Deportations NOW!

Posted by: Terminator at July 28, 2005 5:13 AM

Geoff:

I admire your patience!

But you see, no matter how much time you waste with the trolls, nothing sinks in: Quite the opposite!

Ia-Shirky-Saladin -Queen -of- Africa calls himself a 'moderate'- some time ago he also described himself as 'healthy'- now you know!

Nothing but hatred (and bullets) penetrates a coffee-filter.

I disagree with you about 'respecting Moahammedans'- they don't de