not acting like good little dhimmis is a good way to get yourself hurt, you can ask Nadeem apparently.

How gut-wrenchingly revolting is the uncle's assurance that "she would be returned in a few days"? After what, after he's "done" with her?
Don't want to think about it? Well you better.
Think about the terror, think about the possibly irrepairable physical damage, think about the mental damage, THINK ABOUT YOUR DAUGHTER.

Dhimmihood isn't some trite little phrase that people use to sell books, or tittilate, or impress at cocktail parties. It is a living, breathing ghoul that feeds on the blood of children, the lives of the innocent, the evil of the dominant, a monster nurtured with lies and deceit, strengthened by brutal oppression, and rejuvenated in the black hole of ignorance.

Posted by: t-ham at August 17, 2005 9:11 AM

Well said, t-ham. The coming war of resistance to islam and sharia in both Europe and America must begin by imparting a thorough understanding of dhimmitude. I found Bat Ye'or's book to be a very good place to start.

Posted by: NonProphet16 at August 17, 2005 10:34 AM

a few christians ive met in pakistan think they would get a much better deal if they actually had dhimmi status, which they do not as they are not a conquered people. they are just plain despised because they acknowledge the lord for who he is. most sweepers and toilet cleaners(something muslims will not do) are christian. jobs ads for shite removers often often say "for christians only" this being put forward as positive discrimination so that christians can get a job. hundreds of thousands work as slaves at brick kilns and in agricultural labour, suffering all the attendant evils of slavery. how far removed the country is from the original vision of mohammed ali jinnah who proclaimed equality for all citizens in every way regardless of creed. the above story is another sickening reminder of muslim abuse of christians and the impotence of the police to apply the law of the land

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 17, 2005 11:39 AM

Tautalos:

There are others better equipped to address the issue as to whether your cite has been abrogated although I think it's a safe bet that it has.

But note your sorce. The site may be the University of Southern Califonria's, but I suspect the "msa" in the URL means that your authority is the Saudi Arabian funded campus lobby group, the Muslim Students Association.

Think they'd engage in a bit of cherrypicking?

I'd bet on it.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at August 17, 2005 3:18 PM

You are correct.
The following was lifted directly from their site...
"The MSA of USC is a student organization comprised of Muslim students attending USC. It is part of a nationwide network of MSA's distributed across hundreds of universities, colleges, and even high schools. The first MSA's were established in the East and northern Midwest back in the 1960's. The idea spread rapidly, and eventually found its way to southern California, where in 1969, the MSA of USC was formed, serving not only USC but the entire Los Angeles area as well (yes, even our brothers and sisters at UCLA)."

Posted by: DhimmiNot at August 17, 2005 4:08 PM

During the first Conference of the Islamic States Foreign Ministers, held in Jeddah in 1970, Islamic states put forth a plan of action to dechristianize the Islamic world, and more specifically the Middle East. The plan of action involved placing massive pressure on the local community to convert or to immigrate to the West. One of the major hallmarks of this plan is the kidnapping, rape and forced conversion of women and young girls as a double edged sword, which is not only a demographical assault on the community, but more importantly, it serves to terrorize and humiliate the local community as few measures can. President Sadat of Egypt, a former Arab fascist and Muslim brotherhood member, was a major architect of this plan. With Saudi money in hand, government sponsored conversion offices opened all over the country in liaison with terrorist groups empowered to use any means necessary to convert Coptic women including the seduction and compromising of vulnerable girls, kidnapping, raping, and forcefully converting girls specially those from notable families. A major facet of the plan is both the active and passive support of the local police and the legal system, which facilitate such unconscionable acts.

Posted by: have_mercy at August 17, 2005 4:52 PM

A new blog keeping a watchful eye on the Muslim Council of Britain

MCBWATCH

http://mcbwatch.blogspot.com/

Well researched and written. This site is worth keeping an eye on.

Posted by: DP111 at August 17, 2005 5:05 PM

For Have_Mercy: Could you please tell me where you got the documentation about the 1970 Islamic Conference that put in place the kidnapping plan. Thank you so much.

Posted by: maryrose at August 17, 2005 5:12 PM

have_mercy

The plan seems to have worked in almost all muslim countries.

Orianna F also wrote of a plan by the Islamic conference, to encourage muslims to emmigrate or seek asylum in Western countries. The whole damn thing is a demographic two pronged attack on civilisation.

Meanwhile our MSM stays silent to the diabloical crimes being committed by muslims/states - Sudan comes to mind.

have_mercy, you seem to have a very intimate knowledge of Arabic/muslim "culture".

Stay safe.

Posted by: DP111 at August 17, 2005 5:21 PM

The West is an active participant in the ethnic cleansing of Christians in Islamic lands. The great Dhimmi, Jimmy Carter, still believes that Sadat, one of the most evil men in the twentieth century, is the greatest leader that he ever met. While Sadat imprisoned and tortured Coptic clergy, community leaders, and innocent Copts, enshrined the Shar’ia in the constitution, co-opted Islamic groups to destroy the Coptic community, allowing unprecedented levels of persecution in recent memory, opening the gates of hell on the Coptic community and then the world.

Sadat’s role in the revival of Islamic terrorist groups cannot be underestimated and must be exposed to the world as a lesson of Dhimmis being misled by a seemingly charismatic ruthless Islamist. It is worthwhile to note that he was killed by bullets bought from the blood of Coptic Jewelers that were slaughtered and robbed by the very people that he empowered.

Anyhow, immigration from all Muslim countries except for the local non-Muslim population must be stopped entirely. The line that the Dhimmi governments must allow those cruel psychopathic killers, rapists and terrorists into the West because their homeland is persecuting them is nonsense. Such people are the worst persecutors alive today --- Many began their career by terrorizing the local infidels since childhood. Muslim children often terrorize their non-Muslim peers and relive their raging hormones by molesting Christian women in crowded places.

Such people that are nursed hate from their mother's breast, grew up taking pleasure in terrorizing the infidel and committing violent malevolent acts, do not make good citizens, much less human beings, Tiqqya and kittman notwithstanding. Muslims do not only have a significant percentage of nutcases however, overwhelmingly they are evil people. Please do not be fooled by the demeanor of some and their seemingly genteel exterior, more likely a ravenous wolf or shewolf is just beneath the surface waiting to show themselves for what they truly are.

Posted by: have_mercy at August 17, 2005 5:32 PM

The Vatican library holds a copy of the document containing the resolutions issued by the conference, which I believe was not widely circulated. The document speaks of the goals of cleansing the Islamic world and especially the Arab Middle East of infidels and put forth a deadline to accomplish such goals. However, I believe it does not go into the level of very specific details for implementing the plan. Such specifics were worked out by the Egyptian and the Saudis under the umbrella of the conference.

The specific actions and methodology are garnered through firsthand sources such as former Islamists that ran such operation and later apostated, for instance, Ahmed Shelqami. In his book, the Confessions of a Devil, sets forth details about the Sadat’s regime and the Saudi plan to destroy the Copts by converting Coptic women and marrying them to Muslims

Posted by: have_mercy at August 17, 2005 5:54 PM

http://www.islameyat.com/pal/aldalil/the_true_face_of_islam.htm

This site has recording of the book in Arabic along with victim statments. It spells the beans, the who, the where, the when on the plan in Egypt. Sorry, it is all in Arabic. I hope that oneday reources will be made available to translate them and all relvent documents.

Posted by: have_mercy at August 17, 2005 6:11 PM

have mercy: I hope that oneday reources will be made available to translate them and all relvent documents.

It might be worth requesting MEMRI to translate these documents.

Posted by: DP111 at August 17, 2005 6:22 PM

have mercy posted:Anyhow, immigration from all Muslim countries except for the local non-Muslim population must be stopped entirely.

I agree. I have posted for a long time that something has to be done about the terribly persecuted Christians in muslim nations. It would be just ideal to exchange populations. Muslims in the West with Christians in muslim nations. India as well as Greece, had the chance but both fluffed it.

Posted by: DP111 at August 17, 2005 6:25 PM

DP111: if you had the slightest idea what those "population exchanges" you praise, in both cases, amounted to, you would shut your mouth. They were mass murder of the most obscene description, pure and simple. No, I do not believe in mass expulsion. One of the values for which we should be fighting is that written in every Italian courtroom - LA LEGGE E' UGUALE PER TUTTI, the law is the same for all. And that includes Muslims and other strangers. Sure, control them. Sure, expel the factious and the disaffected. But do not make people pay for what they have not done, purely because they are supposed to belong to a religion which in many cases they may not even understand, or whose goals they may consciously refuse. have_mercy may know a lot of Arabic; I have Muslim-born friends, one or two of whom I would trust with my life. I grant that it is always possible that someone who looks sensible may go insane; but to punish everyone on the grounds that they may theoretically all go insane seems to me roughly on the same level as the old feminist nonsense that "all men are potential rapists".

Posted by: Paolo at August 17, 2005 8:20 PM

“Isn't this a statement of tolerance? Or was this abrogated?”

Anyone on-the-know understands that the Quran is not listed in chronological order. Furthermore, the consensus of all Islamic scholars of record stemming from the later verses of the Quran, life of Mohammed, the Sirah, his sayings, the Ahadith, that all the peaceful tolerant verses uttered while Mohammed was politically weak in Mecca and while he was under the influence of heretical Christians, Bohiera the monk and Warqa ibn Noafel, Bishop of Mecca, were entirely abrogated by just one verse, called ayat il-sayif, the verse of the sword.

The verse of the sword, found in verse IX: 5 of the Quran. The verse translates, "When the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them."

Posted by: have_mercy at August 17, 2005 8:30 PM

Monsignor Paolo,

Wonder of wonders! You have Muslim friends that you trust with your own life. I surely hope that your confidence is not misplaced--- That is, if you are really a non-Muslim. The Quaran states: “Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. Allah does not guide the wrongdoers.”, Sura 5:51

Therefore, your so-called friends are either hypocrites in the opinion of their religion or they are practicing religiously-sanctioned deception on you, Tiqqya and Kittman. Also Sir, ask yourself, how would they treat me if I was a Kafir native living with them in a Muslim country? Surly, you are fooling yourself if you think that most Muslims do not know or believe that violence against the infidel is a religious mandate, which they are anxious to carry out though most do not have the courage or opportunity to do so.

Posted by: have_mercy at August 17, 2005 9:05 PM

Palo posted:If you had the slightest idea what those "population exchanges" you praise, in both cases, amounted to, you would shut your mouth.

Thank you Paolo.

I did write 'ideally'. You think this is all a joke? We are in a fight for survival of civilisation, and sooner or later this is going to get a lot worse then what happened in India. If you have bothered to read about what happened at Partition, you would know that the partition and the massacres were initiated by muslims. Once Sikhs got wind of what was happening in Pakistan, they retaliated.

And what if the partition and the resulting population exchanges had not occurred in India? Do you really think that India would be a peaceful nation? There would be violent seccesionist movements all over India, leading in the end, to a number of partition type massacres, with the result, that there would be more dead in total, and a fragmented sub-continent, forever at war with each other. One can ofcourse never predict 'what if' scenarios, but given the impulse of Jihad, do you really think that would not have occurred?

Ofcourse mass deportations or exchanges of populations are brutal affairs, but compared to what? Would a global war be better or worse? Would nuclear detonation set off in NY or London, followed by a THIRD CONJECTURE scenario be better or worse?

If you have bothered to read, you would know that I have consistently posted that muslims are the first victims of islam. The way forward is to deligitimise some of the public practices of islam that are inimical to a liberal society.

Another thing. Try and be civil. Good manners don't seem to come naturally to you. Probably born of arrogance, which I noted in some of your other posts to others. If you had replied to my post in a civil manner, we could have had a discussion.

Posted by: DP111 at August 17, 2005 9:07 PM

PS to Paolo:

My post was also in the context of what is happening to Christans in muslim countries. I have sympathy for the innocents, and would like to rescue them from a fate I would not wish anyone. Have you heard about the genocide of Christians in Sudan? Or taken a look at Barnabus Fund and seen the sheer inhumanity that is visited on non-muslims in muslim nations?

You seem to have a lot of sympathy for muslims but none for the really persecuted Infidels in muslim nations. The goal of all muslim states is to turn out (expel, deport, call it what you like), or convert their non-muslim populations, which BTW they are doing in a systematic manner. This they have been doing consistently over the ages, and is happening right now. Think it over.

Posted by: DP111 at August 17, 2005 9:20 PM

have_mercy

Thank you for your very educational posts today. I'm finding it hard to absorb what you wrote about nikah. I just dont understand it.

Posted by: DP111 at August 17, 2005 9:28 PM

You said it DP111. In a world where mercy is a short commodity, I see that most of the bleeding hearts in the West bleed only for Muslims. I call it the mercy farce. In every country that Western infidels, including religious groups, decide to open the tap of mercy, not only that the poor horribly persecuted Christians, the most deserving and needy of all, have very little come their way as Moslems steel and snatch away all the aid and services. You see, any aid coming the way of local infidels that could help them survive or resist Islam is legitimate war booty. In fact, the very aid sent by the West, is used by Muslims, as in Sudan, as a weapon against my Christian African brothers. The Muslims use this aid drops to catch slaves which the UN agreed to inform the government about the drop zones. The slavers await the wretched souls to come out of the bush to snatch them and force them to carry the food north on their heads toward the slave markets. For the life of me, have not black people had enough misery--- Their hatred of Whites and the currant state of moral collapse among African Americans is pushing them under the feet of the Arabs, the greatest enemies of the black race.

I venture to say that 90% of the Aid that Bush and Clinton received from the good people of America, mostly God-fearing folks, went to the pockets of corrupt officials and Islamic terrorists that terrorize the hapless infidel Asians in Malaysia, Indonesia, the Filipino archipelago, Thailand, and Bangladesh, ect.

Posted by: have_mercy at August 17, 2005 9:59 PM

have_mercy

I know of how vast amounts of aid sent by Christian countries, never finds its way to the really horribly persecuted Christians in muslim nations. I know too, that this aid is used as a further tool to oppress the Christians in muslim nations. It is for this reason, at the time of the tsunami, I posted several times here, and at LGF, for some of the donations to be directed to Barnabus Fund.

Paolo seems to have no idea what happened in the partition of India, or knows, but really does not understand. Partition was never demanded by Hindus but vehemently demanded by muslims. Once they got it, you would think they would go about it peacefully. But no, it was muslims who started the massacres, and the Sikhs retaliated. Note, the massacres on the Indian side took place only in Punjab, but in Pakistan, the masscares of Hindus took place all over pakistan.

Then consider the case if a nuclear event took place in the West. This is not just a hypothetical scenario. Most Western agencies are frightened of the prospect. What is going to happen? Under these circumstances, there would be wide spread unrest, massacres of the non-white population, and finally, eviction of the muslim population. In retaliation, most of the non-muslim population in muslim nations will be massacred. Worst of all cases. Better in my view that muslims live in dar ul islam while we rescue the Christians from muslim nations. Two birds with one stone so to speak.

However, I still mantain that muslims are the victims of islam, and as indivuidual they have to be treated with compassion. The trouble is what happens if the Jihad continues to ratchet up and starts to seriously affect the economy, or worse still a major nuclear event. Then all bets are off.

Posted by: DP111 at August 17, 2005 10:23 PM

Have_mercy posted: The Muslims use this aid drops to catch slaves which the UN agreed to inform the government about the drop zones. The slavers await the wretched souls to come out of the bush to snatch them and force them to carry the food north on their heads toward the slave markets.

Oh my God. This is too much.

I must be off to bed now. Catch your replies tomorrow. Good night, and I hope and pray that Africans will throw off the yoke of slavery that was imposed on them by Arab muslims. The really disgusting part of all this is that slavery is still practised in muslim arab countries.

Good night.

Posted by: DP111 at August 17, 2005 10:32 PM

Thanks, Have_Mercy, for your information about the first Islamic Conference.

Posted by: maryrose at August 17, 2005 11:07 PM

I had the great privilege of meeting the Archbishop of Lahore, Pakistan, when I lived in Rome. He said much the same as that which has been mentioned above: rape, false accusations of blasphemy, abductions and forced conversions, the perpetual fear of violence and death are the order of the day if you are non-sunni-muslim.

I don't understand the pro-Islamic apologetic that is bounded about by the media and politicians. Islam is not a religion of peace (for non-Muslims), it is a system of world domination in its purest essence. It has never advanced its tenets in a peaceable manner before the advent of economic migration.

In a sense, through the imbecility of governments, Islam has already achieved a status in western society which is unique among all ethnic religions: it cannot be condemned openly without a ruckus of disapproval from politicians and bleating do-gooders who have no idea what it really stands for. People can mock Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus and Christians without fear of recrimination, however.

Islamophobia is the new social 'crime' above all others, it seems, and it is unpolitically correct to describe it for what it is.

Posted by: Turbatio at August 18, 2005 4:24 AM

I had the great privilege of meeting the Archbishop of Lahore, Pakistan, when I lived in Rome. He said much the same as that which has been mentioned above: rape, false accusations of blasphemy, abductions and forced conversions, the perpetual fear of violence and death are the order of the day if you are non-sunni-muslim.

I don't understand the pro-Islamic apologetic that is bounded about by the media and politicians. Islam is not a religion of peace (for non-Muslims), it is a system of world domination in its purest essence. It has never advanced its tenets in a peaceable manner before the advent of economic migration.

In a sense, through the imbecility of governments, Islam has already achieved a status in western society which is unique among all ethnic religions: it cannot be condemned openly without a ruckus of disapproval from politicians and bleating do-gooders who have no idea what it really stands for. People can mock Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus and Christians without fear of recrimination, however.

Islamophobia is the new social 'crime' above all others, it seems, and it is unpolitically correct to describe it for what it is.

Posted by: Turbatio at August 18, 2005 4:24 AM

I had the great privilege of meeting the Archbishop of Lahore, Pakistan, when I lived in Rome. He said much the same as that which has been mentioned above: rape, false accusations of blasphemy, abductions and forced conversions, the perpetual fear of violence and death are the order of the day if you are non-sunni-muslim.

I don't understand the pro-Islamic apologetic that is bounded about by the media and politicians. Islam is not a religion of peace (for non-Muslims), it is a system of world domination in its purest essence. It has never advanced its tenets in a peaceable manner before the advent of economic migration.

In a sense, through the imbecility of governments, Islam has already achieved a status in western society which is unique among all ethnic religions: it cannot be condemned openly without a ruckus of disapproval from politicians and bleating do-gooders who have no idea what it really stands for. People can mock Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus and Christians without fear of recrimination, however.

Islamophobia is the new social 'crime' above all others, it seems, and it is unpolitically correct to describe it for what it is.

Posted by: Turbatio at August 18, 2005 4:24 AM

Tautalos,

109 is not one of the later books in the Koran. It is one of the Meccan books, and as such your quote is almost certainly entirely abrogated by books 5 and 9.

See a Chronological arrangement of the Koran here.

http://fishtacostand.blogspot.com/2005/07/chronological-quran-i.html

I'm working on a refinement of this Chronological Koran that breaks out a bunch of verses that were inserted into books of a different vintage.

Regards,
Pangloss

Posted by: Pangloss at August 18, 2005 12:41 PM

have-mercy "all immigration from muslim countries except from their non muslim population" might prove rather difficult, bearing in mind the problem the israelis have been having with jews returning from the former soviet union. the israelis woke up when they discovered all the churches round nazareth were packed out with russian jews. apostate and christ-rejecting israel, of course, does not allow christian jews or jewish christians to become citizens of israel. as one jew told me in a glasgow pub recently "there is no such thing as a christian jew" oh yeah i said, and what about the 12 apostles and the Holy One himself?

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 18, 2005 1:33 PM

also, have mercy you say paolo should not trust his life to a muslim. let me remind you that during the tragic events at shanti-nagar khanewal, the lives of many christians were saved through the kindness, goodness and basic humanity of their muslim neighbours. i know this from several sources. it is also mentioned in dr patrick sookhdeos book, "a people betrayed"

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 18, 2005 2:17 PM

freddiefreeloader:

Was it not muslims in Pakistan that set out to destroy and burn the chuches and Bibles of a tiny and harmless community of Christians?

Yes, there were some muslims that did try to save the lives of Christians. But lives were really not the targets of the attacks. It was the symbols of the faith of Christianity that so angered the believers. These rampaging crowds nearing 75,000, were egged on by muslim clerics and coordinated with the active help of the police.

As an aside, I also know that Kashmiri Hindus, the natives of that land, have been "helped" to get out of Kashmir by kind-hearted Muslims.

Posted by: DP111 at August 18, 2005 5:19 PM

16 churches, over 100 shops, 4 schools and roughly 600 houses were all attacked and damaged to some degree - in fact a very sizeable community dp111 according to what ive just looked up. arson petrol bombs and explosives were involved as well as stone throwing. the notorious sipah-e-sahaba, along with certain off duty policemen were thought to have orchestrated the whole affair, along with ranting maulvis in mosques. as i recall it was due to a trumped up allegation of desecration of the quran, which was a counter allegation to complaints by christians that a policeman had thrown a bible on the floor (christians in pakistan tend to keep the word of god in the highest place in the room eg on top of the wardrobe) in any event it is acknowledged that many high ranking clerics tried to pacify the mob, and the lives of some of the christians were saved by muslim neighbours

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 18, 2005 5:50 PM

freddiefreeloader:

I looked it up as well. Reading the first site that came along,

Some of Muslims though they tried to bring the situation calm and quiet so that bad name should not come on the Muslims but the Muslims Mosque Priests and Political leaders from both parties were also inciting to burn every thing of the Christians which come in their way.

We see this kind of muslim behaviour quite a lot these days. Muslims burn, destroy and kill wantonly, which is then followed by muslim spokesmen who condemn the incidence, because it is "harming the image of islam". No sympathy for the real victims. The victims are the innocents, and we know who they are.

It is like having your cake and eating it.

Has the government of Pakistan given resources for the re-building of the churches and other lost property? One would expect that they would, as senior police officers co-ordinated the attacks.

My own personal experience confirms the general contention of have_mercy. I had quite a few muslim friends. Best of friends for a long time, though I wouldnt go as far as trusting my life to them. After 9/11 I questioned some of them, in the gentlest manner possible, about the tenets of islam that could have caused the outrage of 9/11. I have not heard from them since.

What have_mercy wrote that disturbed me greatly was this

In a world where mercy is a short commodity, I see that most of the bleeding hearts in the West bleed only for Muslims....The Muslims use this aid drops to catch slaves which the UN agreed to inform the government about the drop zones. The slavers await the wretched souls to come out of the bush to snatch them and force them to carry the food north on their heads toward the slave markets. For the life of me, have not black people had enough misery--- Their hatred of Whites and the currant state of moral collapse among African Americans is pushing them under the feet of the Arabs, the greatest enemies of the black race.

UN aid drops were used to capture people for the slave market! How absolutely appalling. It is akin to using bait to capture wild animals.

Posted by: DP111 at August 18, 2005 7:50 PM

freddie:

You can be born Jewish or you can convert to Judaism, but once you stop practing Judaism and take up another faith, you are no longer Jewish.

And where did you ever get this?

"apostate and christ-rejecting israel, of course, does not allow christian jews or jewish christians to become citizens of israel."

I doubt Israel is particularly fond of the "Jews for Jesus" types, but do you have actual proof that citizenship applications have been denied for that reason?

Posted by: waterdragon52 at August 19, 2005 9:51 AM

water dragon - bring up google, type in "law of return", read the law, read the amendments and appraise yourself as to the true spiritual condition of the state of israel. the lord told us of course that we would be treated even as he was treated in johns gospel we read "he came to his own (israel) and his own received him not. the law of return shows up clearly that although a person may be 100% jewish and not get into israel - clear discrimination against the lords people. i mean what other people can you stop belonging to if you get saved? what other nation (officially) bans christians from becoming citizens? there may be others - i dont know. any how i mentiond it cos someone said we should only allow in non muslims from muslim countries and i pointed out that might be difficult as christians had crept in unawares into israel. no doubt if others see my post they will point out that im some anti jew nazi bigot or some such bigoted nonsense

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 19, 2005 11:59 AM

dp111 are you saying muslims are incapable of genuine sympathy? that i think would be very odd indeed, since ive experienced their sympathy. so have mercy said the most of the bleeding hearts bleed only for the muslims? if she said that about people in my neighbourhood she would be accused of hallucinating

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 19, 2005 12:09 PM

freddie:

There's a difference between being denied the benefits under the Law of Return and being denied the right to apply for entry or citizenship. Naturally, certain criteria apply to the former, and have been used to keep Jewish criminals from evading justice in other countries.

And as I pointed out, what makes a Jew is not only being born of a Jewish mother. Once you stop practicing Judaism and adopt another religion, it's hypocritical, to say the least, to attempt to seek Israeli citizenship by virtue of having had a Jewish mother, especially if your intention is to convert other Jews. I am not intimately familiar with the "Jews for Jesus" brand of "Judaism" if it is that, which I doubt. I do know of others more learned than I in both the traditions of Judaism and the beliefs and practices of the Jews for Jesus movement who are very critical of the deceptiveness of their literature and the whole come-on they make to potential converts.

As to your concern that you may be taken for an anti-jewish nazi bigot, how do you think your "apostate and christ-rejecting israel" comment plays, other than to suggest a very religiously intolerant mind? You have accepted a certain belief and that is your right, but to assume that others are to be denigrated for thinking differently is bigotted.

Christians and all other faiths are free to travel, immigrate to and practice their faith in Israel. Presumably, Christians and other religious groups are also free to prosyletize, but without practicing deception as to who they are and what they are doing rather than practicing to deceive, which hardly seems the appropriate way to convert people to Christ's message. That was the game Mohammed played, adopting certain Jewish and Christian practices and "prophets" to try and solicit followers in Mecca and Medina.

The only real harassment Christians are subjected to is from Muslims, not the State of Israel. Christians, as I am sure you know, are persecuted in every other Middle Eastern country and their numbers have been decimated in places such as Lebanon where they were not, so long ago, the majority.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at August 19, 2005 5:25 PM

freddiefreeloader:

I cannot comment on the few muslims who may have sympathy for those who have been the victims of islamic murderous intolerance. I do not know them personally to judge. Maybe they did it of their own volition or to protect the good name of islam. The fact remains that muslim spokesmen have consistently shown no sympathy for the victims of those killed in 9/11, Beslan etc etc. The regret was always that islam is being defamed, and that muslims were going to be the victims, and the backlash will start etc. I take it that the leaders of the muslim communities do represent the views of the muslim community. And if they did not, we would most certainly have heard of it.

Posted by: DP111 at August 19, 2005 9:27 PM

DP111, have_mercy, you have indulged in an orgy of words, piling up irrelevance upon nonsense upon deliberate unwillingness to understand, so that it is impossible to respond to all your straw-man arguments, misrepresentations and cool cruelties in detail. Lt me just answer a few. I said that i have "Muslim-born" friends, "one or two" of whom I would trust with my life. Does that not convey a certain amount of discrimination to you, or are you simply not capable of thinking of anything except "Muslim/non-Muslim"? So my little friend Kikei is a bad Muslim for not wanting to shed people's blood in the street? Too bad; she is a bad Muslim. Lay a hand on her and you will have to deal with me, however. I will not countenance the principle that the innocents have to pay for the sins of the guilty. So it was the Muslims who started the massacres at the Partition? No, it was the English, by their weak-kneed belief in partition, which meant nothing but an unwillingness to acknowledge the existence of majorities and minorities within a country. Unwilling to learn from their catastrophic Irish experience of 1921, they spread that same stupid notion all over their Empire - Cyprus (where it failed), India, Palestine/Israel - managing nothing except to entrench ethnic hatreds across gerrymandered and artificial borders. Everything else that happened is their responsibility. And mass deportations are never anything except unjust, cruel and barbarous. But then you seem to be saying that injustice, cruelty and barbarism are good for you. What is this - a case of Muslim envy?

Posted by: Paolo at August 20, 2005 12:17 AM

water - in 1948, 20% of palestinians were christian - the number is greatly reduced now. most of them have got out. i have not said israel is directly to blame for this no way. the fault lies with palestinian muslims. if israel is in any way to blame (as far as i know) then it is only because the presence of the state of israel has greatly increased pressure on the palestinian community
what does the 1st sentence of your last message actually mean? surely everyone has a right to apply, the big question is will they get it? the law of return says that christians will not. so you have de facto discrimination against christians who may even have had a jewish father or mother. they are therefore expelled from their people. this is akin to what happens to muslims who turn to the lord. they are kicked out of their families and lose everything. it would appear that jews stop being jewish. so what are they? bearing in mind that there is no such thing as a christian nation or people in the same sense that the jews are a people. does an american who becomes a muslim stop being american? does a russian who becomes a hindu stop being russian?
i am not going to take back my description of christ rejecting israel. israel did reject him, still does, and presumably so also do you. that is your right. it is also my right to point out that you do.

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 20, 2005 11:29 AM

Paolo:Does that not convey a certain amount of discrimination to you, or are you simply not capable of thinking of anything except "Muslim/non-Muslim"? So my little friend Kikei is a bad Muslim for not wanting to shed people's blood in the street? Too bad; she is a bad Muslim. Lay a hand on her and you will have to deal with me, however.

Teach discrimination to the islamic fanatics that are murdering non-muslims with gay abandon. It is not I, who sees the world in muslim and non-muslim terms, it is the islamic world as laid down by the koran, that sees it that way. If that was all, I would not be concerned. It is the mass slaughter and persecution of non-muslims that takes place because of that belief, that I object to. You seem to be mistaking the response of non-muslims to muslim aggression, as the primary cause, when in fact it is a response.

And again, you seem to have an over abundance of sympathy for muslims but none for the victims of murderous islamic intolerance.

And what is this threat all about? I do not even know your muslim friend, that you trust with your life.

So it was the Muslims who started the massacres at the Partition? No, it was the English, by their weak-kneed belief in partition, which meant nothing but an unwillingness to acknowledge the existence of majorities and minorities within a country.

Really the shear idiocy of this statement, takes my breath away. Jinnah was never going to abandon his plans for a muslim state. The British went along with it as there was no altenative. If you have bothered to read about what happened at Partition, you would know that the partition and the massacres were initiated by muslims. Once Sikhs got wind of what was happening in Pakistan, they retaliated.

And mass deportations are never anything except unjust, cruel and barbarous. But then you seem to be saying that injustice, cruelty and barbarism are good for you

I have addressed this issue in the preceding posts. So I will re-phrase them

And what if the partition and the resulting population exchanges had not occurred in India? Do you really think that India would be a peaceful nation? There would be violent seccesionist movements all over India, leading in the end, to a number of partition type massacres, with the result, that there would be more dead in total, and a fragmented sub-continent, forever at war with each other. One can ofcourse never predict 'what if' scenarios, but given the impulse of Jihad, do you really think that would not have occurred?

Ofcourse mass deportations or exchanges of populations are brutal affairs, but compared to what? Would a global war be better or worse? Would nuclear detonation set off in NY or London, followed by a THIRD CONJECTURE scenario be better or worse? In either case the results will be civil a war, followed by mass expulsions and mayhem. Meanwhile Christians in muslim nations will be massacred.

I for hope that, I'm not alive to see this. But given the impulse of the jihad, that is the inevitable point we are headed to. When either of the scenarios I have listed or some such happens in the West, there will be major civil unrest, and mass expulsions will be the least of our problems. Your dear muslim friend will not be harmed by me but by your own kind in Italy, and you will be powerless to stop it. I would not like to see her harmed either. My sincere sympathies paolo, as I can see from your very emotional response, that you are worried about that eventuality or else you would have not issued a threat. A lot of innocent people are going to be harmed in this war when it turns nasty. 53 in London quite recently. I wonder what the emotions of the relatives of those innocents killed, are?

It is this evil menace that is confronting us in the near future, that I wish to avoid at all costs. Civil wars are the nastiest of the lot.

You have not answered tbe questions posted to you by myself and have_mercy. Instead, you have engaged in hot invective, and even a threat. I will ignore and forgive them both, as I see that you are under emotional stress.

Posted by: DP111 at August 21, 2005 7:29 PM