Thank you again Patel for your nice articles. We, Muslims from all walks of life have the same problem. whenever I say to someone...well I am a Muslim...everything changes...and they try to ask about the violence issues. They completely block out everything else..It really Hurts!

"One of the most difficult things for the family is that when the press originally brought the story out in Israel in Hebrew, they said that someone from a radical missionary cult was injured," said Calev Meyers of the Jerusalem Institute of Justice.

The Ortiz family asked Meyers to act as a family spokesman.

"The reason the press treated it this way is that the Messianic community in Israel are the victims of ongoing vicious propaganda against the community - especially in the ultra-religious media," Meyers said.

"The ongoing vicious propaganda that comes against families like this and against the Messianic Jewish community lays the basis for radical events or attacks like this against the community and that's what we're really trying to fight," he said.

The bombing highlights the harassment Messianic Jews have been suffering. In the city of Arad, an ultra orthodox sect has harassed the Messianic community there for years. In Jerusalem last year, a building used by three Messianic congregations as a house of worship was firebombed.

Freddy aka Lol(updated)

You quote me:
“I was not talking about a jerk here and there who firebombed a clinic or burned down a church.”
You say:
41) Why not? Do they not profess to be Christian? Do they not commit religiously-inspired murder and destruction and try to frighten and intimidate through violence? So what is the difference between them and Islamic terrorists.
Moi:
Those are unbalanced and misguided individuals who are protesting against a clinic that aborts babies. They might quote from the bible a passage against the killing of an innocent unborn fetus. Their “Prophet” also commands them not to fight evil with evil. Therefore those jerks are disobeying their master’s teachings and are therefore Christians by name only. This is a far cry from having terrorism ”Jihad” as a core tenant of their cult. A terrorism that shall last till the end of times or till the whole world convert to its sick ideology. Even you should be able to recognize the difference.

You say:
Prove that the “whole culture” of Islam “advocates the imposition of its doctrine by force of arms and by terror.” Further, this categorical statement is belied by all the Muslims who live in peace with their neighbors, and have done so for centuries.
Moi;
I did not say ‘Muslims’ advocate……… I said the ‘Muslim culture‘, and there is a difference. And yes the Muslim culture has an ideology based on a ”religion" that incites the imposition of its primitive doctrine on all the world by force of arms and terror.
Qur'an:8:39 "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)." There are plenty more similar gems in the following link.
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/quotes1.html

You say:
“Your Koran quote has PLENTY of Christian counterparts.”And you quote:
“And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them… thou shalt stone them with stones, till they die.” -- Deuteronomy, Chapter 17:2-3,5”
Moi:
You are wrong on both parts. This quote is not a Christian quote. Deuteronomy is a Jewish scripture and is the godfather of the Quran . Besides it does not incite on pillaging and subjugating the whole world . The Jews used to stone people during the Stone Age. Your cult stones people till this day.

You:
The Inquisition and the Crusades as examples of “Christian” terrorism.
Moi:
The Inquisition was a one time response of the Spaniards to eight centuries of occupation and humiliation . Furthermore , the Omar Pact ,which is an inquisition of the worst type against Christians and Jews has been in force since the 7th Century.
The Crusades are a clumsy albeit belated effort of Europe’s response to centuries of barbarian Arab nomads’ pillaging Christian lands and subjugating its people.

You say:
Taking a look at your prophet of doom site, I see a blatant ERROR on the very first line of the very first page I clicked on.
Craig Winn: “Islam rises and falls on Muhammad. He is the religion's sole prophet”
Moi;
I could not find your quote. Instead I found the following statement.
“Islam is a caustic blend of regurgitated paganism and twisted Bible stories. Muhammad, its lone prophet, conceived his religion solely to satiate his lust for power, sex, and money. He was a terrorist. And if you think these conclusions are shocking, wait until you see the evidence”.

Moi:
It is true there is mention of many prophets in the Quran including ,Adam, Noah, Saleh, David,Solomon, Ayyoub, Issa , etc. Mohammad is believed by Muslims to be the last of Allah’s prophets and his teachings ALONE are to be followed by the Muslims. This is what Winn probably meant. There are many exhortations in the Quran to the effect of “believe in Allah and His Messenger“, meaning Mohammed. I never saw an exhortation to believe in Allah and any other of those ‘prophets ‘

You say:
Observer: “The Christians among them pointedly ignore St. Paul's injunction in his Epistle to the Romans to "let every person be subject to the governing authorities"
44) Did you really think I would not catch you? You just snuck in a Wiki quote without a citation to defend your point of view after you ATTAKED WIKI’S RELIABILITY! LOL! Hey, everybody! LOOK AT THE HYPOCRISY! How do you defend yourself, Observer?
Moi:
This is a famous quote and anyone with the faintest familiarity with the Gospels will recognize this saying just as the other one I quoted for Jesus ‘Face evil with good’ which I did not cite a reference for either.

Freddy aka Lol:

You say:
You quote me
:Observer: “I was not talking about a jerk here and there who firebombed a clinic or burned down a church.”
You:
41) Why not? Do they not profess to be Christian? Do they not commit religiously-inspired murder and destruction and try to frighten and intimidate through violence? So what is the difference between them and Islamic terrorists.
Moi:
Those are unbalanced and misguided individuals who are protesting against a clinic that aborts babies. They might quote from the bible a passage against the killing of an innocent unborn fetus. Their “Prophet” also commands them not to fight evil with evil. Therefore those jerks are disobeying their master’s teachings and are therefore Christians by name only. This is a far cry from having terrorism ”Jihad” as a core tenant of their cult. A terrorism that shall last till the end of times or till the whole world convert to its sick ideology. Even you should be able to recognize the difference.

You say:
Prove that the “whole culture” of Islam “advocates the imposition of its doctrine by force of arms and by terror.” Further, this categorical statement is belied by all the Muslims who live in peace with their neighbors, and have done so for centuries.
Moi;
I did not say ‘Muslims’ advocate……… I said the ‘Muslim culture‘, and there is a difference. And yes the Muslim culture has an ideology based on a ”religion’ that incites the imposition of its primitive doctrine on all the world by force of arms and terror.
Qur'an:8:39 "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)." There are plenty more in the following link.
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/quotes1.html

You say:
“Your Koran quote has PLENTY of Christian counterparts.”And you quote:
“And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them… thou shalt stone them with stones, till they die.” -- Deuteronomy, Chapter 17:2-3,5”

Moi:
You are wrong on both parts. This quote is not a Christian quote. Deuteronomy is a Jewish scripture and is the godfather of the Quran . Besides it does not incite on pillaging and subjugating the whole world . The Jews used to stone people during the Stone Age. Your cult stones people till this day.

You:
The Inquisition and the Crusades as examples of “Christian” terrorism.
Moi:
The Inquisition was a one time response of the Spaniards to eight centuries of occupation and humiliation . Furthermore , the Omar Pact ,which is an inquisition of the worst type against Christians and Jews has been in force since the 7th Century.
The Crusades are a clumsy albeit belated effort of Europe’s response to centuries of barbarian Arab nomads’ pillaging Christian lands and subjugating its people.

You say:
Taking a look at your prophet of doom site, I see a blatant ERROR on the very first line of the very first page I clicked on.
Craig Winn: “Islam rises and falls on Muhammad. He is the religion's sole prophet”
Moi;
I could not find your quote. Instead I found the following statement.
“Islam is a caustic blend of regurgitated paganism and twisted Bible stories. Muhammad, its lone prophet, conceived his religion solely to satiate his lust for power, sex, and money. He was a terrorist. And if you think these conclusions are shocking, wait until you see the evidence”.

Moi:
It is true there is mention of many prophets in the Quran including ,Adam, Noah, Saleh, David, Ayyoub, Issa , etc. Mohammad is believed by Muslims to be the last of Allah’s prophets and his teachings alone are to be followed by the Muslims. This is what Winn probably meant. There are many exhortations in the Quran to the effect of “believe in Allah and His Messenger“, meaning Mohammed. I never saw an exhortation to believe in Allah and any other of those ‘prophets ‘

You say:
Observer: “The Christians among them pointedly ignore St. Paul's injunction in his Epistle to the Romans to "let every person be subject to the governing authorities"
44) Did you really think I would not catch you? You just snuck in a Wiki quote without a citation to defend your point of view after you ATTAKED WIKI’S RELIABILITY! LOL! Hey, everybody! LOOK AT THE HYPOCRISY! How do you defend yourself, Observer?
Moi:
This is a famous quote and anyone with the faintest familiarity with the Gospels will recognize this saying just as the other one I quoted for Jesus ‘Fight evil with good’ which I did not cite its reference

Freddy,

Yes you are right. I am fleeing from arguing with a person (like you) afflicted with a rectal-cranial inversion. Its contagious.

John McCain specifically stated about "islamic terrorism" and not "terrorists". There is a difference in the two categories. And, no other candidate has forcefully stated about Islamic terrorism, like McCain. (Obama wants to go after Pakistan, but that's it.)

You have not proved beyond a shadow of doubt that you are truly not an illegitimate childn(to my rhetorical speculation). Did you seek any other avenues to solve this puzzle ?

BTW, your tenacity to show off your stupidity is really remarkable.

Why does the anti-Islam crowd keep resorting to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES?

Observer pops up, thus contradicting his dubious claim that he is being censored by Mr. Patel.

30) Hey Observer! This post got through. Why didn’t you think to put all those refutations into this post?

Observer: “Freddy: I can't make my mind wheteher you are truly this shallow or you are simply playing dumb.”

31) Like so many people afflicted with Islamophobia, Observer commits the logical fallacy of the ad hominem argument. Does he make these personal attacks in hopes they will distract everyone from ALL HIS DEBUNKED ALLEGATIONS THAT OBSERVER HAS FAILED TO DEFEND?

Observer: You quote from ,of all places, Wikepedia the following
“2] SOME TERRORISTS ACTIVELY INCORPORATE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURE AND BIBLICAL LITURGY TO JUSTIFY AND SUPPORT VIOLENT ACTIVITIES.”
Is this the best you could come with? This is not a reliable source and it further admits to its shortcoming thus: (The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.(February 2007) Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.) (This article or section's coverage of a controversial issue may be inaccurate or unbalanced in favor of certain viewpoints.)

32) LOL! Wikipedia is extremely reliable. In test after test, Wiki has proven to be extremely reliable. What you take to be a lack of reliability is actually the source of Wiki’s strength. Its assertions have citations so they can be verified. Did you really not know that?

33) If you don’t accept Wiki’s assertion about Christian Terrorists using scripture to defend terrorism, it’s up to you to find a source that is equally valid or more valid to counter Wiki. Were you able to do that? NO.

34) Had you bothered to actually READ the material, you would see that the quote about Christian terrorists using scripture is cited to the book “Inside Terrorism” by RAND think tank member Bruce Hoffman. So my citation was not merely Wiki, but this outstanding book on Islamic extremists from a real expert on the subject. Did you fail to even look at that?

35) Do you really think that your biased HATE site “prophet of doom” is a more trustworthy source? (“Islam's Terrorist Dogma”) If not, why would you even use it?

36) Taking a look at your prophet of doom site, I see a blatant ERROR on the very first line of the very first page I clicked on.
Craig Winn: “Islam rises and falls on Muhammad. He is the religion's sole prophet”

WRONG! In Islam, there are LOTS of prophets. Many important figures in the Bible are Islamic prophets. Even Jesus is included as a prophet of Islam. Your genius scholar of Islam is a fraud who can’t even get the basic FACTS right! What do you think of him now?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophets_of_Islam

Besides when I talked about terrorism I was referring to International Terrorism

37) Then it’s too bad for you that the subject you were responding to was “terrorism” and not “international terrorism.” Nice TRY! Pretending the discussion was about a much more limited topic than it was really about is also a logical fallacy. Had you forgotten that I had said:
Freddy: “Jewish terrorists and Christian terrorists use exactly these kinds of Bible quotes to justify their actions. Do you really think that terrorism is limited to Islam?"

38) If you insist on limiting your response to ONLY INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM, do you admit that DOMESTIC CHRISTIAN TERRORISTS use bible quotes to justify their actions?

39) If you admit that, what is the difference between domestic Christian terrorists and Islamic terrorists?

Observer: “ i.e. organized crime such as al Qaeda and state sponsored terrorism such as have been waged by the Muslim Caliphs starting with Omar in the 7th Century .”

40) LOL! Observer wants to go back to the 7th Century! OK, then. State-sponsored Christian terrorists have been using scripture to justify terrorism throughout history! Again, what is the difference between the Christian terrorism of the Inquisition and the crusades using scripture to justify terrorism and Islamic terrorists using their holy books to justify terrorism?

Observer: “I was not talking about a jerk here and there who firebombed a clinic or burned a church.”
41) Why not? Do they not profess to be Christian? Do they not commit religiously-inspired murder and destruction and try to frighten and intimidate through violence? So what is the difference between them and Islamic terrorists?

Observer: “Those individualst or small groups are basically marginalized misfits and are everywhere.”

42) WRONG! If you bothered to read the Wiki page, you would know that SOME have been marginalized, but other Christian terrorists have substantial power bases.
Observer: “The Christians among them pointedly ignore St. Paul's injunction in his Epistle to the Romans to "let every person be subject to the governing authorities" or Jesus’ exhortation to “face evil with good.””
43) LOL! Plagiarism! Observer PLAGIARIZED Wiki! And after claiming Wikis is “unreliable,” Obnserver tries to pass off a WORD FOR WORD QUOTE! Busted!

Wiki: “…but pointedly ignore St. Paul's injunction in his Epistle to the Romans to "let every person be subject to the governing authorities."”

Observer: “The Christians among them pointedly ignore St. Paul's injunction in his Epistle to the Romans to "let every person be subject to the governing authorities"

44) Did you really think I would not catch you? You just snuck in a Wiki quote without a citation to defend your point of view after you ATTAKED WIKI’S RELIABILITY! LOL! Hey, everybody! LOOK AT THE HYPOCRISY! How do you defend yourself, Observer?

45) I’m sure you have a perfectly good explanation, but Mr. Patel will delete the post. RIIIIIGHT!

Observer: “I am specifically speaking about a whole culture with an ideology based on a religion that plainly advocates the imposition of its doctrine by force of arms and by terror. There is only one such ideology.”

46) Prove it!

47) Prove that the “whole culture” of Islam “advocates the imposition of its doctrine by force of arms and by terror.” Further, this categorical statement is belied by all the Muslims who live in peace with their neighbors, and have done so for centuries.

48) Prove it in a way where the same evidence you offer can’t also be said of other religions. You have failed to do so to date.

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

30) Your Koran quote has PLENTY of Christian counterparts.

“And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them… thou shalt stone them with stones, till they die.” -- Deuteronomy, Chapter 17:2-3,5

Why does the anti-Islam crowd keep resorting to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES?

Deb Chatterjee is still FLEEING from responding to the MANY points of his that I have completely debunked.

It is so simple to flatten all of his/her DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES, because he/she cannot defend them. He/she only makes laughably incorrect statements and personal attacks.
Let’s catalog this, staring with the very first line.

Deb Chatterjee: “Freddy wrote (or fulminated ?):”

38) Is the question mark supposed to show that Deb Chatterjee is speculating and unsure of what is a fulmination and what is not?

Fulminate: 1) To issue a thunderous verbal attack or denunciation. 2) To explode or detonate.

39) Speculation of not, the charge is embarrassingly wrong. You FAIL to say how my thoughtful comments below are a “fulmination.” Unless “LOL” is now a thunderous verbal attack.

Deb Chatterjee “ISLAM IS A BARBARIC RELIGION.” (March 24, 2008 10:59 AM)

Now THAT is some fulminating. Right, Deb Chatterjee?

40) Deb Chatterjee: It is indeed a sign of intelligence and honesty to ask if one is in doubt.

41) Deb Chatterjee’s latest LOGICAL FALLACY involves making a true statement that HAS NO RELATION TO THE SUBJECT UNDER DISCUSSION! LOL! In fact, Deb Chatterjee’s statement left NO ROOM FOR DOUBT! Here is his statement:

“Barak Obama is far less reliable on supporting a ban on Muslim immigration to USA than John McCain.”

Therefore there was no reason to doubt that you meant your UNQUALIFIED and STATEMENT! I was not in doubt about what that means, because the sentence does not begin with “I suspect it may be true that…” Do you see the difference?

Deb Chatterjee goes on: “So, yes you should have asked if I was "speculating" or "PROVING". “

42) Why ask? The sentence left no doubt about either. You did not say “I am just speculating here” and you PROVED NOTHING. Did you offer a shred of evidence? No. So how could you have PROVED anything?

Deb Chatterjee: “Since you have not asked to clarify your doubts it shows indeed that you don't understand what the topic of discussion is”

43) LOL! I had NO DOUBTS! If you can’t prove I had doubts, you admit your are WROGN AGAIN!

Deb Chatterjee: “and go ballistic that everybody (of the anti-Islam crowd) who opines anything at variance to yours is a LIAR.”

44) If that is true, it would be easy for the anti-Islam crowd to present evidence to show that they are not liars. Have they? NO! In most cases they make personal attacks against me, FULMINATE, and then flee from answering. Exactly like Deb Chatterjee. To prove this I offer the reams of unanswered points below that Deb Chatterjee is STILL FLEEING FROM ANSWERING! See them all down there? They are solid proof of your lies. And you silence about them is solid proof that you know you have lied. You would refute them if you could.

Deb Chatterjee says “Regarding John McCain he is indeed on record, and I have stated this explicitly earlier, that he went on Sean Hannity show and stated that if elected as a US President he would indeed try to combat the threat of Islamic terrorism.”

45) LOL! EVERY candidate is on record as saying they would combat terrorism! Do you really not know that? How is that different from the other candidates? How does that add ANY EVIDENCE to your BASELESS charge about McCain banning Muslims?

Deb Chatterjee: “Now, that would certainly translate into going after radical Muslims…”

46) What does that even mean? Do you see that your words “going after” have ZERO meaning? What do you mean “go after?”

47) Are you aware that Obama has said he will do more than “go after radial Muslims.” He has specifically stated that he will take the fight to Islamic extremists even if they are hiding in Pakistan. Who has FAILED to do so for most of his presidency? That’s right. The ChickenHawk In Chief.

48) What did McCain say about Obama’s courageous commitment? McCain falsely accused Obama of "confused leadership" and "inexperience" because Obama "once suggested bombing our ally Pakistan." But that was a moronic comment, since a month BEFORE, Bush FINALLY got around to attacking AL Qaeda in Pakistan without the permission of Pakistan.

49) Where is McCain’s criticism of that act by the ChickenHawk in Chief?

50) And was McCain having another “senior moment” that he FORGOT that Bush did that? Or does he accuse Bush of "confused leadership" and "inexperience"?

Deb Chatterjee: “Thus, I speculate, that he (John McCain) would be more amenable/inclined to implementing a ban on Muslim immigration if that helped him to combat the ugly behemoth of radical Islam”

51) Now that you have LABLED your speculation, we can all laugh at why you would speculate that, since you STILL have ZERO evidence from McCain’s words or deeds that he would BAN Muslims.

52) Got a parting logical fallacy for us? Maybe another ad hominem attack to divert attention from all the places you FAIL to defend your falsehoods?

Deb Chatterjee: “Your IQ maybe is less than a 5 year old”

53) Thanks. We all knew we could count on you to mortify the bigoted anti-Islam crowd.

54) Here’s one of the MANY comments Deb Chatterjee is HIDING FROM:

Again, logic FAILS Deb Chatterjee. Even if Obama or McCain were to BAN Muslims from coming to the US, how could that prevent “home-grown” terrorist from “wreaking havoc inside USA (sic)”?
Do you really FAIL to understand that if terrorists are “home-grown” (like Christian terrorist Eric Rudolph) then they don’t NEED TO COME TO THE US?

Freddy wrote (or fulminated ?):

"31) LOL! Of course! But do you notice that just about everyone else here seems to understand that opinions invoice saying something like “I think” or “I suspect” and facts involve making categorical statements like “Barak Obama is far less reliable on supporting a ban on Muslim immigration to USA than John McCain.”

32) Even if that is mere speculation, you still have NOTHING to base it on to support it. What is your speculation built on? (Recall that I have shown that McCain has never said anything to be even a fraction “reliable” on supporting your bigoted ban on Muslims.)"

It is indeed a sign of intelligence and honesty to ask if one is in doubt. So, yes you should have asked if I was "speculating" or "PROVING". Since you have not asked to clarify your doubts it shows indeed that you don't understand what the topic of discussion is, and go ballistic that everybody (of the anti-Islam crowd) who opines anything at variance to yours is a LIAR. What a pathetic creation of foolishness are you !

Regarding John McCain he is indeed on record, and I have stated this explicitly earlier, that he went on Sean Hannity show and stated that if elected as a US President he would indeed try to combat the threat of Islamic terrorism. Now, that would certainly translate into going after radical Muslims (and I am speculating that you maybe one of them). Thus, I speculate, that he (John McCain) would be more amenable/inclined to implementing a ban on Muslim immigration if that helped him to combat the ugly behemoth of radical Islam (aka Mohammedanism).

Now do you get it ? I think, Freddy, you are not quite mature yet. Your IQ maybe is less than a 5 year old. Just ask this question to other bloggers and see their response(s). That you needed to be explained this view of mine in so detail shows your mental incapacity. Maybe you have been affected by rectal-cranial inversion and such persons, to my knowledge, need serious medical help. Refusing medical help means that they should receive ridicule always.

Why does the anti-Islam crowd keep resorting to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES?

Deb Chatterjee has FAILED to respond to virtually all the points I have made debunking his anti-Islamic bigotry.

All Deb Chatterjee does now is make infantile personal attacks. Oh, and he also claims that the burden is on the READER to figure out when he is stating FACTS and when he is SPECULATING while FAILING to point out that he is speculating.

No, really.

I know it sounds crazy, but it’s true. Check it out:

Deb Chatterjee: “No. The onus is on you (reader) to understand what are lies or speculations.”

27) LOL! He really said it! OK, Deb Chatterjee, Prove it. Or at least provide some EVIDENCE or some legitimate source who agrees with such foolishness.

Deb Chatterjee continues to try to fob off his burdens on others: “ If you cannot understand, ask first !”

27) LOL! The reader has to ASK if you believe something to be true or if you are merely dressing up speculation as fact? Why?

28) Deb Chatterjee FAILS to say what he believes to be fact and what he believes to be opinion. This is a pretty pathetic attempt to weasel out of being caught LYING about McCain.

29) Let’s take a deeper look at your attempt at logic. If it that is true, then your above statement ALSO might not be a fact. It might be mere speculation. And if that’s the case, EVERYTHING you state as a fact might not actually be a fact. It might all be speculation. We can’t know for sure if you really believe anything to be a fact unless we ask, right?

30) Whereas the rest of us, who can state what’s a fact and what is an opinion are capable of communicating. How can you have anything of value to contribute if you are perpetually unclear about what is fact and what is opinion?

Deb Chatterjee attempts to shift blame for his own inability to differentiate his “facts” from his “speculations”:

Deb Chatterjee: “The WP blog makes it clear that readers are encouraged to post their opinions/views/comments etc. on any thread/topic, which by default implies speculative comment(s).”

31) LOL! Of course! But do you notice that just about everyone else here seems to understand that opinions invoice saying something like “I think” or “I suspect” and facts involve making categorical statements like “Barak Obama is far less reliable on supporting a ban on Muslim immigration to USA than John McCain.”

32) Even if that is mere speculation, you still have NOTHING to base it on to support it. What is your speculation built on? (Recall that I have shown that McCain has never said anything to be even a fraction “reliable” on supporting your bigoted ban on Muslims.)

33) Are you asking us to ignore all your comments as mere speculation?

34) Are all your bigoted allegations against Islam also mere “speculation” with no facts?

35) Are you the only person on the board that we need to remember “Deb Chatterjee never means what he/she says? All of Deb Chatterjee’s statements are MERELY SPECULATION?

36) Now that you say we have to ask, I’m asking. What else that you wrote on this board is mere speculation? List everything that you stated as a fact, but that you don’t actually believe to be true.

27) No post from Deb Chatterjee would be complete without him/her making the anti-Islamic crowd look even more pathetic by resorting to more logical fallacies, like these ad hominem personal attacks:

Deb Chatterjee: “Only someone with mental retardation can makes such gross judgement errors as to equate a speculative comment and lies. Hey Mr. Freddy, you are out of this league of mature persons. Have you planned any treatment for your rectal-cranial inversion syndrome ?”

In his original article, Eboo Patel wishes exorcism of the "spell" of those who are Islamphobes. Well, collective memory is not so short. Hindus have suffered over 1000 years in the hands of Muslim barbarians, who ruled India by the Shariah dictates.

Visit the webiste:

http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/

This website conatins enough links to articles that detail all the atrocities that were committed by Muslims under the Divine blessing of Allah.

Additional information from Dr. Ali Sina's website is also available. Dr. Sina promises that he will take his site doiwn if proven wrong on any facts. So far, aside some howlers like Victoria and Freddy, none has proved that Dr. Sina is wrong and is LYING (Freddie caps for you).

Visit Dr. Sina's website:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/book.htm

Many additional links are available here. But, again Muslims like Eboo Patel would reject these asserting that we are under the "spell". What a joke !

Freddy:
I can't make my mind wheteher you are truly this shallow or you are simply playing dumb.You quote me as saying

""Observer: “Yes, there are terrorists who are nominally Christians , but those are using
terror as politics by other means, or to satisfy some base human greed such as accumulation of wealth. The Basque in Spain and the Irish in Northern Ireland are examples of the first kind. The organized crime rings in Italy and elsewhere are of the second type. I challenge anybody anywhere to show me that any of these groups ever quoted the Bible to justify their actions.”

You quote from ,of all places, Wikepedia the following

“2] SOME TERRORISTS ACTIVELY INCORPORATE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURE AND BIBLICAL LITURGY TO JUSTIFY AND SUPPORT VIOLENT ACTIVITIES.”

Is this the best you could come with? This is not a reliable source and it further admits to its shortcoming thus:

(The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.(February 2007)
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.)

 (This article or section's coverage of a controversial issue may be inaccurate or unbalanced in favor of certain viewpoints.)

Besides when I talked about terrorism I was referring to International Terrorism i.e. organized crime such as al Qaeda and state sponsored terrorism such as have been waged by the Muslim Caliphs starting with Omar in the 7th Century .
I was not talking about a jerk here and there who firebombed a clinic or burned a church. Those individualst or small groups are basically marginalized misfits and are everywhere. The Christians among them pointedly ignore St. Paul's injunction in his Epistle to the Romans to "let every person be subject to the governing authorities" or Jesus’ exhortation to “face evil with good.” I am specifically speaking about a whole culture with an ideology based on a religion that plainly advocates the imposition of its doctrine by force of arms and by terror. There is only one such ideology.

Qur'an:8:39 "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)."

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/quotes1.html

Freddy wrote:

"20) NOW YOU CONFESS! LOL! It’s a bit late. Yes, anyone can speculate. But where in your post did you point out you were SPECULATING?

21) In fact, you FAILED to point out that you were speculating and presented your speculation as FACT! That makes your statement UNTRUTHFUL at best!

22) I’m tempted to agree, since the one who could not distinguish speculation was YOU! The burden is on the speaker to say what is FACT and what is mere SPECULAITON. You are the one who failed to make that distinction."

No. The onus is on you (reader) to understand what are lies or speculations. If you cannot understand, ask first ! The WP blog makes it clear that readers are encouraged to post their opinions/views/comments etc. on any thread/topic, which by default implies speculative comment(s). To be very specific this is what is written :

"We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features."

Only someone with mental retardation can makes such gross judgement errors as to equate a speculative comment and lies. Yes, WP blog does not ask explicitly to speculate, but this is implicit in their statement.

Hey Mr. Freddy, you are out of this league of mature persons. Have you planned any treatment for your rectal-cranial inversion syndrome ? We can all collectively pay for your medical bills - after all it is the "good samaritan" act.

Why does the anti-Islam crowd keep resorting to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES?

Believe it or not, Observer defends Christian Terrorists.

Observer: “Yes, there are terrorists who are nominally Christians , but those are using terror as politics by other means, or to satisfy some base human greed such as accumulation of wealth. The Basque in Spain and the Irish in Northern Ireland are examples of the first kind. The organized crime rings in Italy and elsewhere are of the second type. I challenge anybody anywhere to show me that any of these groups ever quoted the Bible to justify their actions.”

28) I accept your challenge:

Christian terrorism is religious terrorism by groups or individuals who either claim to be, or are identified as, followers of Christianity. For some, their motivation is rooted in their interpretation of Christian faith and the Bible. This form of terrorism is an outgrowth of political conviction, which the perpetrator believes to be a religious duty.[1][2] SOME TERRORISTS ACTIVELY INCORPORATE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURE AND BIBLICAL LITURGY TO JUSTIFY AND SUPPORT VIOLENT ACTIVITIES.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

Boy, that was easy.

29) Observer, Now that you have read ALL THOSE EXAMPLES OF CHRISTIAN TERRORISTS QUOTING THE BIBLE TO JUSTIFY THEIR ACTIONS, you now know how wrong you are.

Now that you know you are wrong, are you ready to set aside your bigotry and accept tolerance and compassion and respect for other religions?

Why does the anti-Islam crowd keep resorting to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES?

Deb Chatterjee desperately tosses off more ad hominem personal attacks. Too bad his latest LOGICAL FALLACIES do not distract from his ongoing FAILURE to defend his previous DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES.

Deb Chatterjee: “Well, this supports the maxim: the wise never argues with a fool, for others may not know the difference.

18) LOL! EVERYONE here can see the difference. The numbered lists of unanswered questions speak for themselves.

It’s very clear that I have patiently refuted huge amounts of anti-Islam bigotry with facts and reason.

And it’s very clear that Deb Chatterjee and his ilk have FLED FROM THOSE FACTS!

Deb Chatterjee: “(I and others of the "anti-Islam" crowd have made the cardinal mistake of arguing with you.)”

19) That would only be a mistake to people whose ego is incapable of handling constant defeat. You cannot refute the facts I presented so you hide from them and lob insults. Since you are fond of saying what adults do, did you know that adults LEARN from losing arguments by changing their opinions?

Freddy wrote: "Remember this LIE you told? ““Barak Obama is far less reliable on supporting a ban on Muslim immigration to USA than John McCain.”"

Deb Chatterjee: “Freddy, what I wrote was merely a speculation. Anyone can speculate. That does not make them a LIAR etc. and etc.”

20) NOW YOU CONFESS! LOL! It’s a bit late. Yes, anyone can speculate. But where in your post did you point out you were SPECULATING?

21) In fact, you FAILED to point out that you were speculating and presented your speculation as FACT! That makes your statement UNTRUTHFUL at best!

Deb Chatterjee: “If one cannot distinguish between a speculation and a lie, just as you are now, then one is indeed a fool.”

22) I’m tempted to agree, since the one who could not distinguish speculation was YOU! The burden is on the speaker to say what is FACT and what is mere SPECULAITON. You are the one who failed to make that distinction.

23) What else here is speculation? Can we trust your facts on anything? Or is every other allegation against Islam really just speculation?

24) Are you asking us to ignore all your comments as mere speculation?

25) Are you the only person on the board that we need to remember “Deb Chatterjee never means what he/she says. All of Deb Chatterjee’s statements are MERELY SPECULATION.

Deb Chatterjee: “Your retarded mental state is quite a clinical problem. Could you complete high school ? Can you write and spell your name correctly six times ?”

26) LOL. I knew we could count on your for a few more ad hominem personal attacks. You do know that these are more LOGICAL FALLACIES, right? Thus you prove my point that the anti-Islam crowd must resort to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES.

Which is a good indication that you are wrong about your conclusion that Islam is worse than other religions. Right?

Eboo:
There you go again blocking my refutations to some of the nonesense posted here. Six postings so far in two days, and I could not figure out why, unless you do not post what you do not like.

Freddy wrote:

"Remember this LIE you told? ““Barak Obama is far less reliable on supporting a ban on Muslim immigration to USA than John McCain.”"

Well, this supports the maxim: the wise never argues with a fool, for others may not know the difference. (I and others of the "anti-Islam" crowd have made the cardinal mistake of arguing with you.)

Freddy, what I wrote was merely a speculation. Anyone can speculate. That does not make them a LIAR etc. and etc. If one cannot distinguish between a speculation and a lie, just as you are now, then one is indeed a fool.

Your retarded mental state is quite a clinical problem. Could you complete high school ? Can you write and spell your name correctly six times ?

Freddy says:
"'7) Again, Deb Chatterjee is very wrong. Jewish terrorists and Christian terrorists use exactly these kinds of Bible quotes to justify their actions. Do you really think that terrorism is limited to Islam?"

Yes, there are terrorists who are nominally Christians , but those are using terror as politics by other means, or to satisfy some base human greed such as accumulation of wealth. The Basque in Spain and the Irish in Northern Ireland are examples of the first kind. The organized crime rings in Italy and elsewhere are of the second type. I challenge anybody anywhere to show me that any of these groups ever quoted the Bible to justify their actions.
Victoria;
Listening to your interpretation of Matthew’s account of some of Jesus' sayings I honestly thought you were talking about Napoleon Bonaparte.

Why does the anti-Islam crowd keep resorting to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES?

Deb Chatterjee now lies about lying: “Freddy, Everything else that is by default "uncomfortable" to you, are lies.”

15) Wrong. Prove it. Or at least provide any SHRED of information to support your latest silly allegation.

Deb Chatterjee: “ you ask us (anti-Islam) crowd to prove that you are not lying.”

14) Wrong. That doesn’t even make sense. I already proved that I am “not lying” without your help. When did I ask the anti-Islam crowd to prove that I am not lying?

15) You need to prove that YOU are not lying. Because I PROVED that you and your crowd LIE CONSTANTLY. Everyone can see how I PROVED THAT YOU LIED.

Remember this LIE you told? ““Barak Obama is far less reliable on supporting a ban on Muslim immigration to USA than John McCain.”

But McCain and Obama both have ZERO “reliability” on supporting your bigoted, anti-American ban on Muslims immigrating to the US. McCain has never endorsed such a position, never hinted at such a position, and McCain supports liberalizing immigration reform that offers “legal status and a chance for citizenship to many of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the country” INCLUDING MUSLIMS!

I challenged you to prove the allegations you were making, and you have FAILED every time to prove them, or even defend them with a shred of a fact. You fail, and by HIDING, YOU HAVE ADMITTED THAT YOU ARE WRONG!

Deb Chatterjee: “you have not proved (against my rhetorical charge) that you are not an illegitimate child.”

16) Still hauling out that tired old ad hominem LOGICAL FALLACY? You really are great proof that your anti-Muslim crowd has no facts and no logic.

Deb Chatterjee: “Everyone else (anti-Islam crowd) has indeed provided rational and independently verifiable proofs to back up their claims”

17) Where? Present these "proofs." Everyone can see that you have FLED from responding to dozens of points.

And this board is EMPTY of most of the anti-Islam crowd. They fled when the facts came in. That is clear from all their FAILURES to answer direct questions- along with YOUR failure to answer direct questions. How embarrassing for you to be so disconnected from the facts in front of your face.

18) Comments like your last one are so weirdly disconnected from reality that I’m starting to wonder if arguing with you is kinda like making fun of Britney Spears. It’s not fun or good for anyone because the subject is more deserving of pity than laughter.

In case you are actually capable of using facts and logic to defend your position, here are just a few of your recent comments that you are hiding from, now that I’ve debunked them.

Deb Chatterjee: “I would refrain engaing in a mindless tirade with Freddy, Victoria and Observer. Freddy obviously suffers from a syndrome " rectal-cranial inversion ".”

13) Yet another ad hominem attack from Deb Chatterjee. Thank you for continuing to PROVE that anti-Islam crowd has no facts or logic to fall back on when their bigotry is challenged.
You show very clearly that your side has NOTHING ELSE to advance its bigoted arguments other than DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES.
How sad for you.

Deb Chatterjee: “I regret the error(s).”

14) So Deb Chatterjee IS capable of admitting his errors. That’s a big step to admit your minor spelling errors and accidental name substitution. Now can you take the BIGGER step and admit your larger errors of bearing false witness against an entire religion?

After all, virtually all the rest of your anti-Islam crowd admitted their errors.
Tantor, “Spiderman2”, Man Cat, Courthouseguy, Vinay, Omar, and the rest of the anti-Islam crowd admitted their errors by FLEEING when I proved that they were LYING about Islam.

Here are some more of Deb Chatterjee’s errors:

1) Deb Chatterjee FAILED to reply to DOZENS of my numbered arguments, he/she resorts to personal attacks. Exactly as in the description. You have FAILED TO RESPOND TO DOZENS OF DIRECT, ON-TOPIC QUESTIONS, right, Deb Chatterjee?

2) Deb Chatterjee also “attacked or appealed to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim” by falsely claiming that I am a Muslim and with a pathetic attempt at an “illegitimacy” insult. Do you understand your latest logical fallacy, Deb Chatterjee?

3) De Chatterjee has now subverted any attempts to “prove or disprove the claims” here. Can everyone see how Deb Chatterjee is trying to change the subject?

Deb Chatterjee: “your obsession with "proof" is promptng me to make these statements.”

4) LOL! So it’s MY fault you are resorting to insults?

5) Perhaps it would help you if I assisted you with understanding how to prove assertions in arguments. Just try following the basic definition of prove:

“to establish the existence, truth, or validity of (as by evidence or logic")

ANY evidence or logic would be a start. Or else you have no defense for your repeated FAILURE to respond, and everyone can see it. Think you can do it? Or do you just want to keep embarrassing yourself?

Deb Chatterjee does attempt to address one point:

I said: “"7) What is the difference between your interpretation of Islam and the quote from the Christian Bible above? Again, you’ve got NO DIFFERENCE between Islam and Christianity!"
Deb Chatterjee insists: “YES THERE IS A VERY NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCE. Old Testament (Torah) is not Christ's Message.”

6) LOL! It is STILL PART OF CHRISTIANITY! Are you not aware of that?

Deb Chatterjee: “But to my knowledge Jewish folks do not go around practicing what you have cited from thje Old Testament, like the Muslims do and seek umbrage under the Quranic dictates.”

7) Again, Deb Chatterjee is very wrong. Jewish terrorists and Christian terrorists use exactly these kinds of Bible quotes to justify their actions. Do you really think that terrorism is limited to Islam?

Deb Chatterjee: “My post focussed on Christ's message too. Are you trying to blabber that Christ's message contains call to physical violence against non-Christians as explicitly as Quran[005:033] or [009:029], for example ?”

8) ”As explicitly” is another of your canards. The Christian Bible contains explicit calls to violence against unbelievers, AND THAT IS ALL THE TERRORISTS NEED!

9) Further, in the Bible, Jesus is indeed quoted as having endorsed violence in word and deed- quotes that terrorists misuse to hurt people, just as Islamic terrorists misuse the Koran to hurt people.

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

10) Sounds like believers fighting unbelievers, huh?

“And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. Revelations” 19:15

11) Again, you fail to show any difference between passages that appears to EXPLICITLY endorse violence against unbelievers from both Jesus and the Koran.

12) Again, where is the difference?

Eboo:
Why do you keep on blocking my replies to Freddy and Victoria?
They are considering this as 'admission of defeat/guilt on my part. Is that what you want them to believe?

Freddy,

Everything else that is by default "uncomfortable" to you, are lies. How very convenient ! And, you ask us (anti-Islam) crowd to prove that you are not lying.

Interestingly, you have not proved (against my rhetorical charge) that you are not an illegitimate child. Your retorts that you would provide your birth certificate and your parents marriage certificates, are, in the light of unflattering criticism not sufficient and infalliable proofs regarding the legitimacy of your parentage. You could have been very well adopted. So, how do you prove ?

Everyone else (anti-Islam crowd) has indeed provided rational and independently verifiable proofs to back up their claims, but you have been ignorantly dismissive of all of them. How unfortunate, poor Freddy !

Why does the anti-Islam crowd keep resorting to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES?
Deb Chatterjee pops up out of the spider hole where he has been hiding from FACTS.

Deb Chatterjee: “I would refrain engaing in a mindless tirade with Freddy, Victoria and Observer. Freddy obviously suffers from a syndrome " rectal-cranial inversion ".”

13) Yet another ad hominem attack from Deb Chatterjee. Thank you for continuing to PROVE that anti-Islam crowd has no facts or logic to fall back on when their bigotry is challenged.

You show very clearly that your side has NOTHING ELSE to advance its bigoted arguments other than DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES.

How sad for you.

Deb Chatterjee: “I regret the error(s).”

14) So Deb Chatterjee IS capable of admitting his errors. That’s a big step to admit your minor spelling errors and accidental name substitution. Now can you take the BIGGER step and admit your larger errors of bearing false witness against an entire religion?

After all, virtually all the rest of your anti-Islam crowd admitted their errors.

Tantor, “Spiderman2”, Man Cat, Courthouseguy, Vinay, Omar, and the rest of the anti-Islam crowd admitted their errors by FLEEING when I proved that they were LYING about Islam.

Here are some more of Deb Chatterjee’s errors:

1) Deb Chatterjee FAILED to reply to DOZENS of my numbered arguments, he/she resorts to personal attacks. Exactly as in the description. You have FAILED TO RESPOND TO DOZENS OF DIRECT, ON-TOPIC QUESTIONS, right, Deb Chatterjee?

2) Deb Chatterjee also “attacked or appealed to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim” by falsely claiming that I am a Muslim and with a pathetic attempt at an “illegitimacy” insult. Do you understand your latest logical fallacy, Deb Chatterjee?

3) De Chatterjee has now subverted any attempts to “prove or disprove the claims” here. Can everyone see how Deb Chatterjee is trying to change the subject?

Deb Chatterjee: “your obsession with "proof" is promptng me to make these statements.”

4) LOL! So it’s MY fault you are resorting to insults?

5) Perhaps it would help you if I assisted you with understanding how to prove assertions in arguments. Just try following the basic definition of prove:

“to establish the existence, truth, or validity of (as by evidence or logic)

ANY evidence or logic would be a start. Or else you have no defense for your repeated FAILURE to respond, and everyone can see it. Think you can do it? Or do you just want to keep embarrassing yourself?

Deb Chatterjee does attempt to address one point:
I said: “"7) What is the difference between your interpretation of Islam and the quote from the Christian Bible above? Again, you’ve got NO DIFFERENCE between Islam and Christianity!"
Deb Chatterjee insists: “YES THERE IS A VERY NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCE. Old Testament (Torah) is not Christ's Message.”

6) LOL! It is STILL PART OF CHRISTIANITY! Are you not aware of that?

Deb Chatterjee: “But to my knowledge Jewish folks do not go around practicing what you have cited from thje Old Testament, like the Muslims do and seek umbrage under the Quranic dictates.”

7) Again, Deb Chatterjee is very wrong. Jewish terrorists and Christian terrorists use exactly these kinds of Bible quotes to justify their actions. Do you really think that terrorism is limited to Islam?

Deb Chatterjee: “My post focussed on Christ's message too. Are you trying to blabber that Christ's message contains call to physical violence against non-Christians as explicitly as Quran[005:033] or [009:029], for example ?”

8) ”As explicitly” is another of your canards. The Christian Bible contains explicit calls to violence against unbelievers, AND THAT IS ALL THE TERRORISTS NEED!

9) Further, in the Bible, Jesus is indeed quoted as having endorsed violence in word and deed- quotes that terrorists misuse to hurt people, just as Islamic terrorists misuse the Koran to hurt people.

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

10) Sounds like believers fighting unbelievers, huh?

“And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. Revelations” 19:15

11) Again, you fail to show any difference between passages that appears to EXPLICITLY endorse violence against unbelievers from both Jesus and the Koran.

12) Again, where is the difference?

Victoria 'The lady with the Shariah' scorned:

"why would you raise points, and then criticze the respondant simply for answering?"

Well, that's probably to get the attention of a woman (Muslimah) who is cleverly scornful of those non-Muslims (like me) who think aloud that indeed ISLAM IS A BARBARIC RELIGION.

Victoria, renounce your covert support for the Islamic Shariah. That's why I wrote that your significant other(s) (husband/boyfriend/children) should get your attention away from these blogs to something more worthwhile.

hi observer- my responding to you was recognition of your points, and respect extended to you-

if you don't have a wish for responsive communication- no problem.

why would you raise points, and then criticze the respondant simply for answering?

well, to each his own- i'm here to learn and share-

Why does the anti-Islam crowd keep resorting to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES?

Once again, SK FAILS to provide any evidence of his LIES about me, like his lie that I use “scripts.”

SK FAILS to provide proof for his HATE SPEECH that “: “Muslims, however, like to use "lie" at the drop of a hat.”

Despite SK’s lies, slander, and hate speech, SK accuses me of IMPOLITENESS! LOL!

SK: “Freddy, you flout every norm of polite discourse, which is why I feel free to call you an idiot and an ill-mannered teenager whose word I find untrustworthy.”

28) LOL! Prove it! Describe “every norm of polite discourse” and explain how I “flout” them. Or admit you are wrong.

29) If my CAPITALIZATIONS and use of LOL “flout every norm of polite dialogue,” how do you characterize your LIES and you’re your bigoted HATE SPEECH?

SK: “If we were in court, high standards of evidence would be necessary to find you guilty of something.”

30) LOL! If we were in court, you would have to actually ANSWER QUESTIONS instead of HIDING! Time after time I PROVE YOU WRONG and then you FLEE! Look at all the numbered points you have FAILED TO RESPOND TO! In light of your ducking questions, isn’t it ironic (at least) and hypocritical of you to whine about not being in court?

31) In court you would have to PROVIDE EVIDENCE for your scurrilous charges, which you have failed to do time and time again, like your very next statement coming up. Everyone can see this. How do you cope with the embarrassment?

32) OK, pretend we are in court, and cough up evidence for your allegations or admit you made them falsely. Where is your PROOF (or even evidence) that I use “scripts”?

33) I court, there are real penalties for LYING (like your lie that I use “scripts”). I have PROVED you to have LIES, and you have failed to defend or even contradict me. RIGHT?

SK :“your style speaks volumes, as does your inability to use terms like "proof," "logical," and "ad hominem" correctly.

34) LOL! Prove it! Provide EVIDENCE to support your charge that I have not used the terms correctly, or admit you are WRONG! And then admit that you are bearing false witness in making these baseless charges.

Sk is mighty pleased to point out: “Readers should note that our Freddy, for all his long windedness, has failed to address the two points I repeated for him on March 20, 11:02 PM.”

35) LOL! That was AFTER SK FAILED to address virtually ALL of my numbered points from the day before, March 19! And from March 18! With so many points you have failed to answer, isn’t it hypocritical of you to whine about two of yours unanswered?

Sk: “(1) that Patel had inappropriately moved the conversation from "moderate Islam" to "moderate Muslims"
36) You’ll have to explain your problem with this, SK. What is this odd distinction you are making between “moderate Islam” and “moderate Muslims?”

37) Don’t “moderate Christians” participate in and produce “moderate Christianity”? Doesn’t “moderate Christianity” contain and produce “moderate Christians?” You allow the existence of moderate Muslims. How were they produced if Islam does not have a moderate component?

Sk: “ (2) that doctrinally there was no such thing as "moderate Islam." I provided my sources regarding Islam several times. In doing so, I warned against efforts to offer abrogated Meccan suras and weak ahadith."

38) I there is no “moderate Islam” what do you believe all of Islam to be? Evil?

39) You have NEVER proven that “moderate Islam” does not exist, in the real world or in “doctrine.” It is only your hate-filled reading of Islamic texts that means you can’t see it. Yet you CAN see all these moderate Muslims who make our world a better place every day, but you can’t see how their religion contributes to their goodness. That’s very sad for you.

Sk” Oh, and regarding "ad hominem," which Freddy helpfully translates from the Latin (as if he knew Latin!),”

40) WRONG AGAIN! I NEVER CLAIMED to have translated ANYTHING! That entire paragraph is from Wikipedia! I provided the Web address RIGHT AFTER THE PARAGRAPH! How could you have missed it?

Sk: “an ad hominem argument would suggest that Freddy's carefully argued position is riddled with falsehoods because it comes from Freddy. A mere insult is not "ad hominem"; it's just an insult.”

41) WRONG AGAIN! I would direct your attention back to the Wikipedia description. ad hominem argument is one in which you are:
…attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

SK has appealed to his “belief” about me (SK’s belief that I am a Muslim) RATHER THAN producing evidence (about his false accusations).

Charge of SK making ad hominem attack: PROVED!

Sk: “Freddy has no carefully argued anything. He's just a troll.”

42) And that is ANOTHER ad hominem attack!

In my last post (to SK) the line

"I would refrain engaing in a mindless tirade with Freddy, Victoria and Observer."

should correctly read

"I would refrain engaging in a mindless tirade with Freddy, Victoria and Anonymous."

I regret the error(s).

Victoria:

Victoria and Freddy got hung up on Quran 9:5( Below) and each tried in his or her slick way to twist the neck of the verses to prove their point of view ; that it actually means “helping” the pagans emigrate to a safer grounds. How charitable!
Let us see how they are going to disseminate for us the Peaceful gems listed below:

Qur'an:9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.
" Qur'an:9:112 "The Believers fight in Allah's Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed.
" Qur'an:9:29 "Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.
" Ishaq:325 "Muslims, fight in Allah's Cause. Stand firm and you will prosper. Help the Prophet, obey him, give him your allegiance, and your religion will be victorious.
"Qur'an:8:39 "Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.
" Qur'an:8:39 "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).
" Ishaq:324 "He said, 'Fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and religion, all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must have no rivals.
'" Qur'an:9:14 "Fight them and Allah will punish them by your hands, lay them low, and cover them with shame. He will help you over them.
" Ishaq:300 "I am fighting in Allah's service. This is piety and a good deed. In Allah's war I do not fear as others should. For this fighting is righteous, true, and good.

There is a lot more similar gems in the following link:
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/quotes1.html

SK,

I would refrain engaing in a mindless tirade with Freddy, Victoria and Observer. Freddy obviously suffers from a syndrome " rectal-cranial inversion ". That is, the rectal and cranial functions have interchanged their roles. Creatures afflicted with such a unfortunate syndrome need to be treated with disdain and administered the proper medical doses.

With other two, they are obviously adopting the fundamentalist Muslim positions on issues, and are beyond any redemption. May their deity, Allah, save them.

Anonymous (March 22, 2008 4:50 PM), you have misstated the contents of 9:5. This is unacceptable. If you dispute the translation of 9:5, 9:6, and 9:7 that I provided, you need to supply a recognized translation instead.

Who is your "source" for your interpretation of the misstated sura? Maher Hatout. And who is he that we should find his interpretation compelling? A web search yields the following:

"An Egyptian-born cardiologist, Dr. Maher Hathout is now an American citizen. He is a senior adviser to the Muslim Public Affairs Council. . . ."

And what is MPAC? Let's turn to Wikipedia:

"The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) is an American Muslim advocacy and public policy organization headquartered in Los Angeles and with offices in Washington D.C."

So, Anonymous, you are using the assertions of a flack cardiologist for an PR organization with (arguable) Islamist roots. I, by contrast, base my claims on the Hadith, Sira, and Koran.

This is taqiyaa on stilts.

Freddy, you flout every norm of polite discourse, which is why I feel free to call you an idiot and an ill-mannered teenager whose word I find untrustworthy. If we were in court, high standards of evidence would be necessary to find you guilty of something. But we are not in court. Anyway, your style speaks volumes, as does your inability to use terms like "proof," "logical," and "ad hominem" correctly.

Readers should note that our Freddy, for all his long windedness, has failed to address the two points I repeated for him on March 20, 11:02 PM. To repeat yet again:

"Among these were (1) that Patel had inappropriately moved the conversation from "moderate Islam" to "moderate Muslims" and (2) that doctrinally there was no such thing as "moderate Islam." I provided my sources regarding Islam several times. In doing so, I warned against efforts to offer abrogated Meccan suras and weak ahadith."

Oh, and regarding "ad hominem," which Freddy helpfully translates from the Latin (as if he knew Latin!), an ad hominem argument would suggest that Freddy's carefully argued position is riddled with falsehoods because it comes from Freddy. A mere insult is not "ad hominem"; it's just an insult. Freddy has no carefully argued anything. He's just a troll.

SURA 9:5 "Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

Having presented the verse in context, we can analyze it properly. Dr. Maher Hathout gives an explanation on the historical context of the verse:

This verse was revealed towards the end of the revelation period and relates to a limited context. Hostilities were frozen for a three-month period during which the Arabs pledged not to wage war. Prophet Muhammad was inspired to use this period to encourage the combatants to join the Muslim ranks or, if they chose, to leave the area that was under Muslims rule; however, if they were to resume hostilities, then the Muslims would fight back until victorious. One is inspired to note that even in this context of war, the verse concludes by emphasizing the divine attributes of mercy and forgiveness. To minimize hostilities, the Qur'an ordered Muslims to grant asylum to anyone, even an enemy, who sought refuge. Asylum would be granted according to the customs of chivalry; the person would be told the message of the Qur'an but not coerced into accepting that message. Thereafter, he or she would be escorted to safety regardless of his or her religion. (9:6). (Hathout, Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, pp.52-53, emphasis added)
Therefore, this verse once again refers to those pagans who would continue to fight after the period of peace. It clearly commands the Muslims to protect those who seek peace and are non-combatants. It is a specific verse with a specific ruling and can in no way be applied to general situations. The command of the verse was only to be applied in the event of a battle. As Abdullah Yusuf Ali writes:
The emphasis is on the first clause: it is only when the four months of grace are past, and the other party show no sign of desisting from their treacherous design by right conduct, that the state of war supervenes - between Faith and Unfaith. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, Text, Translation and Commentary, emphasis added)
If the pagans would not cease their hostilities towards the Muslims, then they were to be fought, especially since they were living in the land of an Islamic state. Dr. Zakir Naik writes concerning this verse:
This verse is quoted during a battle. ...We know that America was once at war with Vietnam. Suppose the President of America or the General of the American Army told the American soldiers during the war: "Wherever you find the Vietnamese, kill them". Today if I say that the American President said, "Wherever you find Vietnamese, kill them" without giving the context, I will make him sound like a butcher. But if I quote him in context, that he said it during a war, it will sound very logical, as he was trying to boost the morale of the American soldiers during the war. ...Similarly in Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 5 the Qur'an says, "Kill the Mushriqs (pagans) where ever you find them", during a battle to boost the morale of the Muslim soldiers. What the Qur'an is telling Muslim soldiers is, don't be afraid during battle; wherever you find the enemies kill them. Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 6 gives the answer to the allegation that Islam promotes violence, brutality and bloodshed. It says:
"If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure that is because they are men without knowledge." [Al-Qur'an 9:6]

The Qur'an not only says that a Mushriq seeking asylum during the battle should be granted refuge, but also that he should be escorted to a secure place. In the present international scenario, even a kind, peace-loving army General, during a battle, may let the enemy soldiers go free, if they want peace. But which army General will ever tell his soldiers, that if the enemy soldiers want peace during a battle, don't just let them go free, but also escort them to a place of security? This is exactly what Allah (swt) says in the Glorious Qur'an to promote peace in the world. (SOURCE, emphasis added)

Dr. Naik makes some very interesting observations about the verse. Indeed, it is truly amazing how Islam-haters will ignore God's infinite mercy in their attempt to malign Islam. God has always given human beings a way out of any suffering, and has only ordained fighting as a last resort. Muslim scholars have written much commentary on these Qur'anic verses explaining the historical context in such great detail so that there may be no misconceptions. We have quoted extensively from various commentators on these verses and there is no need to repeat the same material again. We will provide one more commentary before moving on. Professor Shahul Hameed writes on verse 9:5:
This is a verse taken from Surah At-Tawba. This chapter of the Qur’an was revealed in the context when the newly organized Muslim society in Madinah was engaged in defending themselves against the pagan aggressors. The major question dealt with here is, as to how the Muslims should treat those who break an existing treaty at will. The first clause in the verse refers to the time-honored Arab custom of a period of warning and waiting given to the offenders, after a clear violation. That is, they will be given four months’ time to repair the damage done or make peace. But if nothing happens after the expiry of these forbidden months, what should be done? This is what the present verse says. According to this verse, fighting must be resumed until one of the two things happens: Either the enemy should be vanquished by relentless fighting. That is what is meant by {then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem [of war]}; or they should repent, establish prayers and pay zakah, etc. This is one of those verses of the Qur’an which are likely to be misunderstood, if quoted out of context. We must understand that this fighting was against a people who forced the Prophet and his companions to leave not only their own homes but all their property and even their hometown of Makkah to Madinah. Once the Muslims were organized into a community in those lawless times, the rules to be followed by the Muslims were clearly laid down, even in the matter of war. Since Islam is a comprehensive system, no human activity could be ignored. And given the nature of mankind, we cannot imagine a situation where fighting is completely ruled out either. As can be seen, the above injunctions on fighting is not on an individual level, but only in the case of a society that strives to flourish and thrive as a nation. But even here the norms are clear: fighting is only in self defence or for the establishment of justice; and always fighting is the last option. And no one is allowed to transgress the limits set by God. (SOURCE, emphasis added)
Ibn al-`Arabi, in his commentary on the Qur’an, writes:
“It is clear from this that the meaning of this verse is to kill the pagans who are waging war against you.” (Ahkam al-Qur’an: 2/456, emphasis added)
Shaykh Sami al-Majid also makes some very interesting points in his discussion on this verse:
If we look at the verses in Sûrah al-Tawbah immediately before and after the one under discussion, the context of the verse becomes clear. A few verses before the one we are discussing, Allah says:
“There is a declaration of immunity from Allah and His Messenger to those of the pagans with whom you have contracted mutual alliances. Go then, for four months, to and fro throughout the land. But know that you cannot frustrate Allah that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him.” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 1-2]

In these verses we see that the pagans were granted a four month amnesty with an indication that when the four months were over, fighting would resume. However, a following verse exempts some of them from the resumption of hostilities. It reads:

“Except for those pagans with whom you have entered into a covenant and who then do not break their covenant at all nor aided anyone against you. So fulfill your engagements with them until the end of their term, for Allah loves the righteous.” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 4]

So when Allah says: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them and beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)” we must know that it is not general, since the verse above has qualified it to refer to the pagan Arabs who were actually at war with the Prophet (peace be upon him) and those who broke their covenants of peace. This is further emphasized a few verses later where Allah says:

“Will you not fight people who broke their covenants and plotted to expel the Messenger and attacked you first?” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 13] (SOURCE)

Therefore, the context of the verse within the Surah makes it clear that this refers to those who are persistent in their hostilities and attacks against Muslims, and it is applied in battle only. We recommend that one reads Shaykh Sami Al-Majid's full article entitled There is no Compulsion in Religion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abrogated?

The next issue with this verse concerns abrogation. It has been claimed by some that this verse 9:5 has abrogated all the peaceful verses in the Qur'an. However, this claim results from a misunderstanding of some Qur'anic concepts. In the Qur'an there is naskh and there is also takhsees. Naskh is the abrogation of a ruling by a ruling that was revealed after it. Naskh occurs in matters of Islamic law. Takhsees on the other hand refers to specification, where one verse restricts the application of another verse, or specifies the limits not mentioned in the other verse. As Shaykh Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi writes:

Specification involves one verse limiting or restricting a general ruling found in another verse, whereas naskh involves abrogating the first verse in toto (i.e., it is not applied in any circumstances or conditions). (Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan;UK Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution, 1999, p. 233)
Shaykh Qadhi also explains that one of the conditions for naskh is that the two conflicting rulings apply to the same situation under the same circumstances, and hence there is no alternative understanding of the application of the verses. As he states:
Therefore, if one of the rulings can apply to a specific case, and the other ruling to a different case, this cannot be considered an example of naskh. (Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan;UK Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution, 1999, p. 237)
Therefore, verse 9:5 can in no way be considered an example of naskh since it is only a ruling applied to a very specific situation and circumstances. There is a lot of confusion surrounding some verses labeled as cases of naskh because the early Muslims used to use the word naskh to refer to takhsees as well. Therefore, some Muslims failed to realize that some of these cases labeled by early Muslims as 'naskh' were cases of takhsees. This is why some early Muslim scholars are quoted who have classified this verse as a case of 'naskh'. One should realize that they used the term naskh to refer to a broader range of meanings, including takhsees. As Dr. Jamal Badawi writes:
Any claim of naskh must be definitive, not based on mere opinion or speculation. It should be noted that earlier Muslims used the term naskh to refer also to takhsees or specifying and limiting the ruling than abrogating it. (SOURCE, emphasis added)
Shaykh Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi specifically addresses the confusion about verse 9:5, and after citing the different claims he concludes:
It can be seen from the examples and categories quoted that, in reality, most of these verses cannot be considered to have been abrogated in the least. Some of them merely apply to situations other than those that they were revealed for. Almost all of these 'mansookh' (abrogated) verses can still be said to apply when the Muslims are in a situation similar to the situation in which the verses were revealed. Thus, the 'Verse of the Sword' in reality does not abrogate a large number of verses; in fact, az-Zarqaanee concludes that it does not abrogate any! (fn. Az-Zarqaanee, v.2, pps.275-282) (Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan;UK Al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution, 1999, p. 254)
Shaykh Sami Al-Majid also states the same thing in his article:
Some people – especially some contemporary non-Muslim critics of Islam – have tried to claim that this verse abrogates the verse “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” They argue that the generality of this statement implies that every unbeliever who refuses to accept Islam must be fought. They support their allegation by pointing out that this verse is one of the last verses to be revealed about fighting. However, this verse in no way abrogates the principle in Islamic Law that there is no compulsion in religion. It may be general in wording, but its meaning is quite specific on account of other verses of the Qur’ân that are connected with it as well as on account of a number of pertinent hadîth. (SOURCE)
Shaykh Jamal Al-Din Zarabozo also deals with this issue in his writings on the verse "There is no compulsion in religion". He mentions the view that this verse has been abrogated as then states:
Al-Dausiri rejects this statement because of the following: A verse cannot abrogate another verse unless it completely removes the ruling of the earlier verse and there is no way to reconcile the contradictory meanings of the verses. (Zarabozo, There is No Compulsion in Religion, Al-Basheer)
This was the view of the great scholars and mufasireen (Qur'anic commentators) both classical and recent, like Ash-Shanqeeti or Ibn Jarir At-Tabari. Shaykh Muhammad S. Al-Awa also comments on this issue in his discussion on the puunishment for apostasy:
At the same time, one can say that the death penalty for apostasy – especially when it is considered as a hadd (prescribed) punishment – contradicts the Qur'anic principle [law] in Surah II, verse 256, which proclaims "No compulsion in religion." Ibn Hazm, to avoid this criticism, claimed that this verse had been abrogated and that compulsion is allowed in religion; consequently, according to him, the punishment for apostasy does not contradict the Qur'an (fn. Muhalla, vol. XI, p. 195). However, this claim is invalid, since Qur'anic scholars have established the abrogated verses and this verse is not among them (fn. Suyuti, Itqan, vol. II, p. 22-24). Accordingly, one can say with the Encyclopaedia of Islam that "In the Qur'an the apostate is threatened with punishment in the next world only." (fn. Heffening, Encyclopaedia of Islam, vol. III, p. 736 under "Murtadd"). (El-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law; US American Trust Publications, 1993, p. 51, emphasis added)
Therefore, when we discuss the merciful and loving verses of the Qur'an and we receive a claim that they have been abrogated by the specific verses concerning battle, we can dismiss such a claim as mere speculation and invalid. Peace and justice are fundamentals of the religion of Islam and can never be removed from it.

May Allah protect us!

Read the Quran - www.AllahsQuran.com

Why does the anti-Islam crowd keep resorting to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES?

Sk says: “Freddy, prove that you are not a Muslim.”

11) SK, your share the LOGICAL FALLACY of the ad hominem attack with Deb Chatterjee. You avoid addressing the substance of MANY points that show your errors, and instead make this personal.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

SK: “No, I do not have to prove that you are. I can simply suggest that I suspect you are, and I can respond accordingly.”

12) Thank you, SK, for your CONFESSION about the FLAWS in the way you think. The failure of rationality you just EXPOSED seems to also extend to all your anti-Islam distortions. You make a fool of yourself by speaking authoritatively about things you actually HAVE NO AUTHORITY in.

For example, you not only accused me of being a Muslim with ZERO evidence, but you further said that as my “power increases” that I “will be commanded to implement the Medinan suras based on Mo's example.” Whatever that means.

Now you ADMIT you have ZERO evidence for your allegation that I am a Muslim other than your mere SUSPICION! Do you see the failure of logic there?

13) If not, here’s another example. You accused me of “using scripts.” I challenged you to prove that, as all my stuff is original. You FAIL to provide one drop of evidence to back your scurrilous allegation. Right?

14) When I challenged your false claim about “scripts” you fled from it and changed the subject, right?

15) So is it possible that you are treating Islam the same way; making baseless allegations without evidence? If not, why would logic only fail you when talking to me?

SK continues: “You cannot prove your religious beliefs because some things are not subject to proof. A grown-up (or an educated person) knows this.”

16) Actually, since religion is a private matter of individual conscience, the primary source on a person’s religion would be a person’s own word on the matter, which would constitute weighty evidence toward a proof. The only authority on my non-Muslim status is me. You have ZERO authority in the matter, and all your speculations in the world can’t change that. Right?

17) Unless you think only Muslims defend Islam, and no non-Muslim would care to debunk bigotry. Do you think that?

Sk fumes: “Grown-ups do not usually start off their arguments with boilerplate CAPITALIZED insults. They do not use chat room language either. Educated people, grown up or not, do not think that by numbering their assertions they thereby gain credibility.

11) Again, rationality fails you. When did I say that numbering my assertions provides any credibility? If you cannot find a place where I said that, you made another error. Was is a LIE or an honest mistake for which you will now apologize?

12) IN fact, the numbering is for YOUR convenience, since you have repeatedly FAILED TO DEFEND points you have made. Maybe the numbers will help you find them.

13) Also, the numbering certainly helps me PROVE the number of points you have FAILED to address, and thus you admit DEFEAT. Sure are a lot of points where you admit defeat by failing to respond, right?

14) Isn’t it true that “educated people” are capable of defending their positions instead of FLEEING from answering their lies (like you lie that I am using “scripts”)?

Sk: “Educated people do not misuse the word "prove" or "lie" (or should I say "PROVE" and "LIE"?).”

15) PROVE IT! LOL! Seriously, where is your evidence that I “misused” the word prove or lie?

16) If I pointed out a lie you told, defend it. If you can’t defend your allegation, then how did I “misuse” the word lie?

17) You failed to provide evidence when I challenged you to prove your scurrilous assertions. Do you feel abused by the word “prove?” Do you feel abused by “prove” because you can’t prove things like your accusation that I use “scripts”?

SK slanders innocent people: “Muslims, however, like to use "lie" at the drop of a hat.”

18) LOL! PROVE IT!

19) Where is your evidence that Muslims accuse others with lying more than non-Muslims?

( Since this entire thread is loaded with the anti-Muslim crowd using the word “lie” at the drop of a hat to slander Muslims, I think you are going to have a very hard time proving your latest drop of poisonous hate-speech.)

Sk insists “I hardly "BEGGED" you to do anything. This is, truly, a lie. I commented that you had not addressed my points.”

20) WRONG! You did not merely comment that I had not addressed your points! Do you see that you are whitewashing your actions by omitting what you actually said when you sought my responses to your comments?

21) What you actually did was FALSELY accuse me of “changing the subject” (This cannot possibly true. Since I wasn’t talking to you, there was no subject for us to change.) You also FALSELY accused me of using “scripts.”

Since I was not even talking to you at the time, the only way for you to get a response was to tell these LIES about me.

When a child who is being ignored makes up outrageous lies and fumes that certain people are not dealing with them, we say they are begging for attention.

Any reason we should not apply that standard to adults, too?

Sk adds: “Why does anyone even reply to the ill-mannered and dishonest Muslim teenager Freddy?”

22) YOU, SK, have been replying to Freddy! LOL!

23) You don’t know why you reply? You don’t know why you do things? Not surprising, given your MANY DOCUMENTED LAPSES OF RATIONALITY. LOL.

24) You think that lying about me be being a Muslim and a teenager means you are insulting me? Do you hate both teenagers and Muslims?

25) How do you feel about being beaten at rational thought by a “teenager”?

Sk: “He seems to think that getting up to "27)" means he's knowledgeable.”

26) Just because you have failed to defend your distortions, logical fallacies, and outright lies around 27 times- that’s not what shows that I am knowledgeable. Nor did I say it does, did I?

27) It merely shows SK’s LACK of knowledge.

Why does anyone even reply to the ill-mannered and dishonest Muslim teenager Freddy? He seems to think that getting up to "27)" means he's knowledgeable.

Is Victoria (March 22, 2008, 11:35 & 11:49 AM) a heretic? As we should all know by now, core Islamic doctrine, unlike core Christian doctrine, does not end with a single book (the Koran). For in the Koran, numerous times (specifics available upon request), Muslims are told to copy Mo in every way. And this has been taken very, very seriously. In the Hadith of Bukhari and Abu Muslim, and in the Sira, we have the Sunna of Mo. This Sunna must guide all Muslims in every detail of their lives. This Sunna shows very clearly that some readings of the Koran are not valid.

Now let's review her quote:

"Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for ASYLUM, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then ESCORT him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge."

I do not know exactly where this translation comes from, but it is not all in 9:5. Consider:

[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

[9.6] And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know.

[9.7] How can there be an agreement for the idolaters with Allah and with His Apostle; except those with whom you made an agreement at the Sacred Mosque? So as long as they are true to you, be true to them; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=282392

In other words, Victoria, it seems that YOU are the one who is selectively quoting from the Koran. Plainly, Victoria, these passages say that if a non-Muslim converts he is safe. The reference to the "poor-rate" is extremely relevant, as dhimmis do not pay this, but the "jizya" instead.

Any other Koranic passages you'd like me to investigate?

Why does the anti-Islam crowd keep resorting to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES?

18) Observer has so far FAILED to address over a dozen questions that point out his DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES. Right, Observer?

19) Yet Observer wants to jump into someone ELSE’S discussion. I’ll address his points, but this means OBSERVE CONCEDES DEFEAT ON EVERY POINT YOU FAILED TO CONTEST, right Observer?

20) Observer brings up quote from Jesus that Christian TERRORISTS misuse to justify killing non-believers.

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword….”

Observer complains that “Jesus here talks about projected dissension,”

21) LOL! You know what’s going on in the mind of Jesus, that you can categorically state what Jesus MEANS?

22) Where in this section of the Bible does Jesus SPECIFICALLY STATE “this comment is in the context of “projected dissension” ONLY and not actual violence?

23) Observer “like what is going on between you and me,”

24) So which one of us is the one using the sword?

25) Observer continues “and not open incitement to violence as shown below.”
Qur'an:9:5 "When the sacred forbidden months for fighting are past, fight and kill disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, beleaguer them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."

26) WRONG AGAIN! Read the FULL section of the Koran, not your little out of context quote. What is the full context? Let’s go back a few paragraphs for 9:5 to 9:1.

009.001
YUSUFALI: A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:-

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html

THIS PASSAGE IS CLEARLY ADDRESSED “TO THOSE OF THE PAGANS WITH WHOM YE HAVE CONTRACTED MUTUAL ALLIANCES.”

27) Your selectively quoted passage is NOT addressed to everyone, everywhere, at every time, but certain people at a certain time who had, according to this chapter, made a treaty and broke it. Have you really failed to read the whole of the section before quoting without that context?

Victoria (March 21, 2008 10:35 AM), you may technically be right. You may not have been practicing taqiyya, but kitman:

"'Kitman' is close to 'taqiyya,' but rather than outright dissimulation, it consists in telling only a part of the truth, with 'mental reservation' justifying the omission of the rest. One example may suffice. When a Muslim maintains that 'jihad' really means 'a spiritual struggle,' and fails to add that this definition is a recent one in Islam (little more than a century old), he misleads by holding back, and is practicing 'kitman.'"

Indeed, you might not even have known what you were doing; perhaps you were just echoing others who knew exactly what they were doing. So, as I have no interest in behaving like Freddy, I will withdraw my allegation.

However, you have still not addressed my point. If you now refuse to acknowledge the fact that Islamic doctrine (from Koran, Hadith, and Sira) is based on a Muslim vs. non-Muslim dichotomy, and that, therefore, the terms "House of Islam" and "House of War" are coinages that accurately reflect this central aspect of doctrine, whether or not they appearded during Mo's life, you need to explain yourself.

Unfortunately, Islam sanctions deceipt ("War is deceipt" -Mo, as quoted in Bukhari). So, Muslims cannot claim that their religion prohibits such deceipt. And you, as a good Muslim, must know this.

Indeed, the middle verses could certainly be interpreted as a proscription to coming dissension-

however the surrounding texts- intrinisic to the passage do not.
************************
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword...(omitted verses of dissension)...
***********************
And he who does not take his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me."
************************

V-the cross, being martyrdom and death.
if another meaning can be gleaned from this, i welcome it-

follwed by-

****************************
He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for my sake will find it."
(Matthew 10:34-39 NASB).
********************************

V- here, the loss of life is clearly stated.

now, if one takes a literal interpretation of this passage- there is no other way to interpret it-

take up the cross of martyrdom and death,(following the example of Jesus[ata]) if you cling to your physical life(repudiating the message) you will lose everlasting life.

if you lose your life- for the sake of Jesus(ata), you will find everlasting life.

so a strict literal and narrow interpretation could only yield such a conclusion.

we also have the verse preceding it, which leaves little doubt as to it's meaning.
**************
MATTHEW "10:21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death."
************************

V-here we have parents killing their children, who are killing their parents, and apparently, each other.

no one in the family seems safe here-

V- and then it seems the breakdown of cohesion and ties of the entire family itself is confirmed here-
*******************************
MATTHEW 12:48 "But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
12:49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!"
**********************************

V-taken out of context- this is an alarmingly damning statment-
even within context, it seems to abrogate the commandment to honor one's mother and father-

but it is tempered by-
*************************
MATTHEW 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother."
**************************

whew! good thing that follows!

clearly Jesus(ata) is not speaking in literal terms, but in broad symbolic terms.

just like the qur'anic exhortation that ALL who obey ALLAH will gain entrance to heaven and are our brothers and sisters.

if we take these verses literally (and i only use them because they were the example given by, but not expounded upon by observer)

they are very scary.

personally- i find no value in such literal and narrow and mean-hearted interpretations though.

so great leeway is accorded in giving symbolic meanings-

this leeway doesnt seem to be extended when non-muslims take half sentences out of the qur'an however.

it seems hypocritical to ask us to accept a lenient and broad interpretation when the same consideration is not extended-

its either superficial and literal-

or its symbolic and broad-

you have to judge the passages by the same standard of criteria.

if we are expected to accept your broad meaning of the passages in Matthew-
your interpretation of the qur'anic passages- should, logically also be symbolic.

theres a disconnect in your reasoning process-
but even so- lets go with the literal, narrow interpretaion for the qur'an and a lenient symbolic one for the bible!

can you show me where it states in the bible to show mercy to an enemy engaged?
any instance?
anywhere?

one time?

so, accepting observers bipolar approach-
even if taken completely literally-
and muslims are endlessly killing pagans for all time-

they are also endlessly escorting pagans to points of safety across the globe-forever.
kind of like an internation transport system-
well, that makes sense!

wow- that's a pretty condemnatory passage!

if we take a literal view of the qur'an, that would seem to be all inclusive and very decisive wouldn't it?

of course- it seems convenient that the following sentence was deleted-
i wonder why?

don't we want to know the entire thought?

"Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for ASYLUM, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then ESCORT him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge."

(i used the same translation as observer out of fairness)

wiat a minute! that sentence doesnt end in a period! its an incomplete thought.
why would observer post an incomplete thought and present it as a complete one?

and what is this about asylum and escort to a place of safety because they are men without knowledge?

it seems there is no precondition for gaining knowledge of islam to gain safety-

surely this cannot mean that muslims are t bsting pagans ad infinitum throughout history- but refers to a specific point in time and a particular people in that point in time.

more on this later-

this passage occurs during a 4 month period when there was a ceasefire and peace agreement between the aforementioned parties,

if they agressed against the fledgling muslim community- they were to be killed.

but, if at any point- they laid down arms and asked for asylum- this was not only granted- but assured by the protective custody of the muslims to the point of safety.

more on this later

Freddy
You say:
“Further, in the Bible, Jesus is indeed quoted as having endorsed violence in word and deed- quotes that terrorists misuse to hurt people, just as Islamic terrorists misuse the Koran to hurt people.” Then you quote the following:
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for my sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB).
Jesus here talks about projected dissension, like what is going on between you and me, and not open incitement to violence as shown below.

Qur'an:9:5 "When the sacred forbidden months for fighting are past, fight and kill disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, beleaguer them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."
I couldn't believe you do not see the distinction.

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/quotes1.html

Why does the anti-Islam crowd keep resorting to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES?

Deb Chatterjee said: “Freddy or "Prove it" Muslim: You have not answered the rhetorical question: "(Dis)Prove that you are not illegitimate child."”
Deb Chatterjee commits YET ANOTHER LOGICAL FALLACY! There is a name for your latest logical fallacy:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

1) Deb Chatterjee FAILED to reply to DOZENS of my numbered arguments, he/she resorts to personal attacks. Exactly as in the description. You have FAILED TO RESPOND TO DOZENS OF DIRECT, ON-TOPIC QUESTIONS, right, Deb Chatterjee?

2) Deb Chatterjee also “attacked or appealed to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim” by falsely claiming that I am a Muslim and with a pathetic attempt at an “illegitimacy” insult. Do you understand your latest logical fallacy, Deb Chatterjee?

3) De Chatterjee has now subverted any attempts to “prove or disprove the claims” here. Can everyone see how Deb Chatterjee is trying to change the subject?

Deb Chatterjee: “your obsession with "proof" is promptng me to make these statements.”

4) LOL! So it’s MY fault you are resorting to insults?

5) Perhaps it would help you if I assisted you with understanding how to prove assertions in arguments. Just try following the basic definition of prove:

“to establish the existence, truth, or validity of (as by evidence or logic)

ANY evidence or logic would be a start. Or else you have no defense for your repeated FAILURE to respond, and everyone can see it. Think you can do it? Or do you just want to keep embarrassing yourself?

Deb Chatterjee does attempt to address one point:
I said: “"7) What is the difference between your interpretation of Islam and the quote from the Christian Bible above? Again, you’ve got NO DIFFERENCE between Islam and Christianity!"
Deb Chatterjee insists: “YES THERE IS A VERY NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCE. Old Testament (Torah) is not Christ's Message.”

6) LOL! It is STILL PART OF CHRISTIANITY! Are you not aware of that?

Deb Chatterjee: “But to my knowledge Jewish folks do not go around practicing what you have cited from thje Old Testament, like the Muslims do and seek umbrage under the Quranic dictates.”

7) Again, Deb Chatterjee is very wrong. Jewish terrorists and Christian terrorists use exactly these kinds of Bible quotes to justify their actions. Do you really think that terrorism is limited to Islam?

Deb Chatterjee: “My post focussed on Christ's message too. Are you trying to blabber that Christ's message contains call to physical violence against non-Christians as explicitly as Quran[005:033] or [009:029], for example ?”

8) ”As explicitly” is another of your canards. The Christian Bible contains explicit calls to violence against unbelievers, AND THAT IS ALL THE TERRORISTS NEED!
9) Further, in the Bible, Jesus is indeed quoted as having endorsed violence in word and deed- quotes that terrorists misuse to hurt people, just as Islamic terrorists misuse the Koran to hurt people.
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

10) Sounds like believers fighting unbelievers, huh?
“And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. Revelations” 19:15

11) Again, you fail to show any difference between passages that appears to EXPLICITLY endorse violence against unbelievers from both Jesus and the Koran.

12) Again, where is the difference?

SK- your question was answered before you asked it-

on march 17- 9:05-

i am not a rude person, but you forfeited any civil discourse when you falsely accused me of lying.

i will not return your unecessary insults- they are undeserved and untrue-

but i will not further engage you.
peace

Victoria, I am waiting for a response to my comment to you on March 18, 2008 11:22 PM.

Freddy, prove that you are not a Muslim. No, I do not have to prove that you are. I can simply suggest that I suspect you are, and I can respond accordingly. You cannot prove your religious beliefs because some things are not subject to proof. A grown-up (or an educated person) knows this.

Grown-ups do not usually start off their arguments with boilerplate CAPITALIZED insults. They do not use chat room language either. Educated people, grown up or not, do not think that by numbering their assertions they thereby gain credibility. Educated people do not misuse the word "prove" or "lie" (or should I say "PROVE" and "LIE"?). Muslims, however, like to use "lie" at the drop of a hat.

I hardly "BEGGED" you to do anything. This is, truly, a lie. I commented that you had not addressed my points. Among these were (1) that Patel had inappropriately moved the conversation from "moderate Islam" to "moderate Muslims" and (2) that doctrinally there was no such thing as "moderate Islam." I provided my sources regarding Islam several times. In doing so, I warned against efforts to offer abrogated Meccan suras and weak ahadith.

Doctrinally, Christianity has its own "sira" of Jesus. In his life, Jesus never once converted anyone by force, and he never recommended or participated in wars against non-believers to force them to convert, accept subjugation (with the jizya [poll tax] used to fund further aggression), or die. Mo's official biography shows that he was participating in wars constantly, and that he did, in his life, advocate forcible conversion or dhimmitude. Jesus did not rape anyone. Mo did, as did his followers. All of this is public knowledge, based on the texts that are considered canonical in Islam. If you can PROVE differently from some hitherto unknown passage from the so-called New Testament, I'd be pleased to review the passage with you.

Doctrinally, Judaism is a bit (but only a bit) more complicated. Unlike Islam and Christianity, there is no single figure that is to be copied in all ways. Thus, pluralism is built into the religion. While there are blood curdling passages (e.g., in Leviticus), there is no requirement to convert the world to Judaism. Indeed, Judaism only makes sense when there are Jews and non-Jews (the "nations"). So, because there is nothing like jihad, even blood curdling passages cannot wreak havoc worldwide. Indeed, with the exception of the command to expel the Canaanites, the Torah pays relatively little attention to the "nations." This one expulsion, by the way, was not quite carried out, against Hashem's order. There are no orders for any further actions against the nations, unless an enemy is plotting to attack. In this case, Jews are commanded to attack first. Even the passages in Leviticus regarding capital punishment have very, very, very rarely been carried out, as interpretations have narrowed down the appropriate times for implementation. The interpretation of them has meant that they are nearly toothless as punishments. Rambam once said that one capital punishment in 70 years was a bloody period.

I don't think that I will persuade a ill-manner teenager like you about anything. I only wrote for grown-ups who might find what I have said somewhat interesting.

Freddy Boy;
The previous post was addressed to you.

You say:
“8) As I posted above , the Christian Bible can also be read out of context as commanding everyone to follow the priests and commanding all non-converts to die (Deuteronomy, Chapter 17:2-3,5; 17:12). In fact, both Christianity and Islam forbid forced conversion.
“Islam forbids forced conversion, as Sura 2:256 says "Let there be no compulsion in religion.””
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion#Islam
I SAY:
When you want to argue about things mentioned in Deuteronomy find yourself a Rabbi and argue with him. Christians believe in the teachings of Jesus as written in the Injil and not the Torah.
You quote a versein the Quran that says “no compulsion in religion” to "prove" that Islam is tolerant. This verse was written in Mecca when the Prophet was weak and without much support. Later when his followings increased in Medina he abrogated the above verse by dozens of other verses. You really should have known that. Below are some of them;

Qur'an:9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."
Qur'an:9:88 "The Messenger and those who believe with him, strive hard and fight with
their wealth and lives in Allah's Cause
Qur'an:9:112 "The Believers fight in Allah's Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed."
Qur'an:9:29 "Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission."
Ishaq:325 "Muslims, fight in Allah's Cause. Stand firm and you will prosper. Help the Prophet, obey him, give him your allegiance, and your religion will be victorious
Qur'an:8:39 "Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah
Qur'an:8:39 "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)."
There are still a lot more of the same in the following link:
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/quotes1.html

You say

“10) Likewise, all Christian terrorism has its roots in selective, out-of-context interpretations of the Christian Bible. You have never proved (or even demonstrated) otherwise, have you?”
I SAY:
When nominal Christians wage war they do that in the name of a real or perceived threat or for greed pure and simple. They could never justify their act by direct quotes from their Gospel, as demonstrated above when Allah commands the “faithful” to fight this and that simply because they do not submit to his “prophet”.

You quote the following verse from Deuteronomy to ”prove” that Christians believe in stoning:
“And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them… thou shalt stone them with stones, till they die.” -- Deuteronomy, Chapter 17:2-3,5”
I SAY:
Again argue this with some Jewish Rabbi. You are seeing some similarities between Quran and Deuteronomy because the Quran stories and dogmas and rituals such as abstention from alcohol or pork and facing some idol during prayers etc. are copied mostly from the Torah and Zabour. Some , as the story of Issa and Mary from the New Testament and the rest from Pagan religions of Arabia and the Zoroaster religion of Persia. The description of the Muslim Paradise was copied word by word from that religion’s holy book.I thought you like to know.

Freddy or "Prove it" Muslim:

You have not answered the rhetorical question:

"(Dis)Prove that you are not illegitimate child."

This is rhetorical statement. I assume (benefit of doubt) that you are of decent and honorable parentage. But, your obsession with "proof" is promptng me to make these statements. Anyway, for the purpose of proofs, you should actually logically refute my rhetorical question. So, far you haven't. Sorry, you have failed !

You also wrote, recently:

"Are you really incapable of understanding that non-Muslims like me can defend Islam from your hatred?"

PROVE that you are really a non-Muslim, other than your saying so on this blog.

"7) What is the difference between your interpretation of Islam and the quote from the Christian Bible above? Again, you’ve got NO DIFFERENCE between Islam and Christianity!"

YES THERE IS A VERY NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCE. Old Testament (Torah) is not Christ's Message. But to my knowledge Jewish folks do not go around practicing what you have cited from thje Old Testament, like the Muslims do and seek umbrage under the Quranic dictates.

My post focussed on Christ's message too. Are you trying to blabber that Christ's message contains call to physical violence against non-Christians as explicitly as Quran[005:033] or [009:029], for example ?

Why does the anti-Islam crowd keep resorting to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES?

Deb Chatterjee, sneaking back out of your spider hole to embarrass yourself more?

Everyone can see that Deb Chatterjee has FAILED to answer MOST of the questions that debunk his bigoted, slanted, distorted allegations.

Everyone can see that I patiently answered Deb Chatterjee’s questions and comments, and I debunked all Deb Chatterjee’s DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES.

I’ll debunk this too, even though Deb Chatterjee has proven himself/herself to be too much of a sad coward to defend his/her slurs.

1) Deb Chatterjee, is there any other conclusion other than that you LACK EVIDENCE to support your hate?

Deb Chatterjee: “Freddy the "Prove It" Muslim wrote to Observer:”

2) Wow! An unsupported allegation in your very FIRST statement. Are you really incapable of understanding that non-Muslims like me can defend Islam from your hatred?

I said: "Observer is CONFUSING a minority of ISLAMIC TERRORISTS with mainstream Islam. Haven’t Christian terrorists also used enslavement, rape and mob-style violence?"

Deb Chatterjee replied: “That's a baloney. Islam explicitly commands violence against anyone (including in some cases for Muslims) who will not submit to the authority of the hate-manual Quran. There are authentic hadiths (by Bukhari) that explicitly state that a Muslim can be killed if he renounces publicly his faith: Islam. In that case s/he is an apostate.”

3) If you actually paid attention to anything on this page, you would see that the same accusation could be made against Christianity. Are you really IGNORANT of the reality of what is in the Christian Bible?

“And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them… thou shalt stone them with stones, till they die.” -- Deuteronomy, Chapter 17:2-3,5

4) How do you reconcile quotes like the above with your idealized interpretation of Christianity and your demonized interpretation of Islam?
5) Deb Chatterjee blathers on “Violence against those who would criticize/insult (interpreted as "waging war") Islam (interpreted as Allah's Message) or Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), is divinely sanctioned. This is in Quran [005:033]. Go read it.

6) Same with Christianity. Are you really ignorant of “authentic” Bible passages like the following?

“Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death.” (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
7) What is the difference between your interpretation of Islam and the quote from the Christian Bible above? Again, you’ve got NO DIFFERENCE between Islam and Christianity!

Deb Chatterjee blusters on: “The Quran explicitly commands all of the religions, and hence by default all non-Muslims, to be brought under the submission to Islam. It does not spare its Semitic brethren: Christians and Jews. Humiliation of Jews, Christians and Pagans (idol-worshippers) is sanctioned. Read Quran [009:029].”

8) As I posted above , the Christian Bible can also be read out of context as commanding everyone to follow the priests and commanding all non-converts to die (Deuteronomy, Chapter 17:2-3,5; 17:12). In fact, both Christianity and Islam forbid forced conversion.

“Islam forbids forced conversion, as surah 2:256 says "Let there be no compulsion in religion".[3][4][5][6][7] Karen Armstrong writes on forced conversions that after Muhammad's death, nobody in the Islamic empire was forced to accept the Islamic faith.[8] Incidents of forced conversions have been rare in Islamic history.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion#Islam

9) However, incidents of forced conversions have NOT been rare in Christian history, have they?

Deb Chatterjee: “Thus the doctrine of Islam, sanctions violence against non-Muslims. So, violence committed by Taliban and Al-Qaeeda and other "minority of Muslims fanatics" have their roots in the Quran (Allah's Message).”

10) Likewise, all Christian terrorism has its roots in selective, out-of-context interpretations of the Christian Bible. You have never proved (or even demonstrated) otherwise, have you?

Deb Chatterjee” In contrast, the message of Jesus Christ is tat of love, peace and compassion. So, what Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell state are their own views, and this cannot be connected to the fundamental teachings of Christianity or that of Jesus Christ.”

11) LOL! You claim that the doctrines of right-wing fundamentalist bigots like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell cannot be connected to “fundamental teachings of Christianity”? HA HA HA HA HA!

Prove it!

Provide any evidence that their teachings cannot be connected to what is in the Bible. The Bible is what they use (selectively, out of context) to preach their hate. Just like you do!

12) Deb Chatterjee’s hypocrisy is completely EXPOSED! You have FAILED to point out not ONE SINGLE SOLITARY DIFFERENCE !

Deb Chatterjee’s pathetic descent is complete: “BTW, Freddy you have not proved, in response to my rhetorical question, that you are not an illegitimate child.”

13) LOL! You mean your statement that was NOT A QUESTION, and therefore could not POSSIBLY by a “rhetorical question”? LOL! Your ignorance is showing again.

14) Again, since I never asserted that, I am under no obligation to prove any such thing. It is sad that personal insults are all that Deb Chatterjee has left. Have facts and logic completely abandoned you? Don’t you feel shame over what you are stooping to?

Deb Chatterjee: “Give up so easily Freddy ?”

Everyone can see that Deb Chatterjee has FAILED to answer DOZENS of questions.

Deb Chatterjee has FAILED to even attempt to provide evidence to back up his lies, let alone prove ANY of them.

It is clear to everyone here that Deb Chatterjee has given up. How sad for you.

Freddy the "Prove It" Muslim wrote to Observer:

"Observer is CONFUSING a minority of ISLAMIC TERRORISTS with mainstream Islam. Haven’t Christian terrorists also used enslavement, rape and mob-style violence?"

That's a baloney. Islam explicitly commands violence against anyone (including in some cases for Muslims) who will not submit to the authority of the hate-manual Quran.

There are authentic hadiths (by Bukhari) that explicitly state that a Muslim can be killed if he renounces publicly his faith: Islam. In that case s/he is an apostate.

Violence against those who would criticize/insult (interpreted as "waging war") Islam (interpreted as Allah's Message) or Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), is divinely sanctioned. This is in Quran [005:033]. Go read it.

The Quran explicitly commands all of the religions, and hence by default all non-Muslims, to be brought under the submission to Islam. It does not spare its Semitic brethren: Christians and Jews. Humiliation of Jews, Christians and Pagans (idol-worshippers) is sanctioned. Read Quran [009:029].

Visit the link:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran

to verify the authentic English translations of the Quran by Muslim scholars.

Thus the doctrine of Islam, sanctions violence against non-Muslims. So, violence committed by Taliban and Al-Qaeeda and other "minority of Muslims fanatics" have their roots in the Quran (Allah's Message). Thus, it cannot be argued that what is going on as Islamic terrorism is just a rabid act by some frine fanatics. They derive motivation from the Quran.

In contrast, the message of Jesus Christ is tat of love, peace and compassion. So, what Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell state are their own views, and this cannot be connected to the fundamental teachings of Christianity or that of Jesus Christ.

BTW, Freddy you have not proved, in response to my rhetorical question, that you are not an illegitimate child. Give up so easily Freddy ?

Why does the anti-Islam crowd keep resorting to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES?

Thank you, Observer, for providing us all with such a pure example of the kind of ignorance that Mr. Patel described in his article. This is a perfect teachable moment. Let’s examine your “thoughts” about Islam in comparison with Christianity.

Observer: “Talking about facts here are some FYI.”
1) Why would you begin with a promise to provide “facts” and then immediately launch into unsupported allegations, innuendo and outright lies? You are about to LIE in your FIRST WORD after your commitment to FACTS!

Observer: “Your…”

2) LOL! The very first WORD of your “fact” diatribe is a LIE! You connect me to Islam without a shred of evidence. Where is your proof that Islam is “mine”?

3) Can you not comprehend that a non-Muslim would debunk racial and religious bigotry?

4) Tolerance of those who are different is the foundation of America. Do you really not know that and assume only Muslims defend Islam from bigotry?

Observer: “Your cult…”

5) Prove it. Wrong again! Islam can be criticized as many things, but it has far too many members and is far too mainstream in the world to be distinguished as a “cult.”

Now I would concede that you could make a very good case that extremely fundamentalist Islam is a cult in the Western world, but not mainstream Islam. However, you could also make a similar persuasive case that McCain’s bigoted pastor Hagee also leads a cult, since mainstream Christians don’t think that Catholics worship a false God. So again, you have NO DIFFERENCE between Islam and Christianity, and ZERO proof that Islam is a “cult.”

Observer: “Your cult really is nothing more than a huge organized crime ring”

6) Prove it. You offer ZERO evidence. If you can’t show how Islam is any more of a “huge organized crime ring” than, say, the Catholic church, you’ll have to slink back to the spider hole where Man Cat, Deb Chatterjee, Spiderman2, Omar, and the rest of that crowd are hiding from challenges to their LIES.

Observer: “aspiring to homosexuality.”

7) Prove it. Since much of Islam can legitimately be criticized for having the same intolerant view of homosexuality as right-wing Christianity, this is a silly statement. Again, where is your evidence that Islam “aspires to homosexuality” more than, say, the Catholic church, which has spent a fortune due to its cover-up of child rape.

Observer (without any sense of irony says): “It is obsessed with tribute payments, property acquisition and distribution rules, gender bias…”
8) Prove it.

9) Virtually ALL religions are “obsessed” with collecting their tithes and payments and property acquisition (as are most humans!) How else do religions stay in alive? Again, you have no substantial difference between Islam and Christianity.

10) How is Islam any more “obsessed” with gender bias than right-wing Fundamentalist Christianity or right-wing Orthodox Judaism?

Observer: enslavement, rape, and use of mob-style violence to foment compliance .”

11) Here is where Observer fails to OBSERVE that he is making the EXACT MISTAKE that Patel’s column points out.

Observer is CONFUSING a minority of ISLAMIC TERRORISTS with mainstream Islam. Haven’t Christian terrorists also used enslavement, rape and mob-style violence?

Look at Christian terrorist dictators like Pinochet (defended by the Vatican) or Charles Taylor, (defended by Pat Robertson).

They did far more than enslave, rape and foment mob violence. They committed wholesale political murder while hiding behind their Christian faith.

Or did you not know that?

Observer “It is nothing more than an unrestrained, international organized crime syndicate aspiring to make the whole world look like Afghanistan.”

12) Again, if you had followed Mr. Patel’s FACTS, you would know that the majority of the Muslim world REJECT Taliban-style right-wing Islamic fundamentalism, just as most Christians reject Taliban-style right-wing Christian fundamentalism.

Observer “Where is the logic in kissing pebbles plastered on a cubical structure and/or revolving around that structure in the Hejaz desert?

13) By your failed logic, where is the “logic” in kissing a ring or eating a wafer?

Observer: “And believing that ritual would wipe out a whole lifetime worth of sins?”

14) Where is the logic in believing that water can wipe out sin?

Observer: “What is rational about facing a black stone five times a day?”

15) Where in the Christian world do religious rituals require logic?

Observer: “What is the logic in one man married to four women and unlimited number of concubines? etc.”

16) Are you really unaware of the Judeo-Christian roots of Islamic polygamy? There are still Christian polygamists in the US. Are you really aware of that?

17) So you FAIL to provide any real DISTINCTION between Islam and Christianity. You blame Islam for things that you make no complaint about in Christianity. There is little explanation for it other than that you are under a SPELL.

Or you are just a bigot. How sad for you. Logic fails you and you can't see facts. We all feel sorry for you.

Freddy wrote:

"11) Of course I could prove it. By merely publishing my birth certificate and my parents’ marriage certificate. Now can YOU prove all the wild allegations YOU made? Can you even provide small bits of REAL EVIDENCE to support them?"

The small bit of real evidence is that if you did what you have written in 11) above, you have NOT PROVED beyond a shadow of doubt that you are not an illegitimate child (rhetorical question).

Freddy Boy says:
"LOL! Deb Chatterjee FLEES IN TERROR from FACTS and LOGIC!"

Talking about facts here are some FYI.

Your cult really is nothing more than a huge organized crime ring aspiring to homosexuality. It is obsessed with tribute payments, property acquisition and distribution rules, gender bias, enslavement, rape, and use of mob-style violence to foment compliance . It is nothing more than an unrestrained, international organized crime syndicate aspiring to make the whole world look like Afghanistan.

Speaking of Logic sample the following:

Where is the logic in kissing pebbles plastered on a cubical structure and/or revolving around that structure in the Hejaz desert? And believing that ritual would wipe out a whole lifetime worth of sins? What is rational about facing a black stone five times a day? What is the logic in one man married to four women and unlimited number of concubines? etc.

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/quotes1.html

you staed earlier, omar- that there was no relation between the western and islamic definition of treason-

there is, correlation.

if no one has any comments pertinent to the actual topic, ill leave you all in peace.

regardless of our agreement or disagreement-

accusations of dishonesty bear little desire in me to further respond.

think what you like, i have no desire to engage with such a level of conversation

peace all

Why does the anti-Islam crowd keep resorting to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES?

Probably because logical thought fails them. Consider the failures of logic of Deb Chatterjee. Deb Chatterjee is HIDING from answering serious questions, but finds time to make more ERRORS:

Deb Chatterjee: “Freddy I have a rhetorical question for you. Please do not take it otherwise, but just write your own views… Now, I (rhetorically of course) assert that: "Freddie is illegitimate by birth."

1) That’s not EVEN A QUESTION! LOL!

Do you even know what a rhetorical question is?

2) What shocking ignorance! Deb Chatterjee says he/she will ask a rhetorical QUESTION and can’t even do that! Deb Chatterjee makes another major blunder! How could you say you’ll ask a question and then FAIL to ask a question?

3) Do you use the same thought process to come up with that FAILURE OF LOGIC as you use to come up with your anti-Islam bigotry?

4) Is it possible that your anti-Islam bigotry is just as FLAWED as your question/non-question failure of basic THOUGHT?

Deb Chatterjee: “You have the habit of asking for proof. Yes, that is a good thing if it can be done beyond any shadow of doubt.
5) Prove it.

6) WRONG AGAIN! Requiring proof is a good thing not only when it can be done beyond a shadow of a doubt. Requiring proof of unproven, unsourced, unsupported claims is ALWAYS A GOOD THING. Are you really unaware of that?

7) You are attempting to muddy the water by raising the threshold to “beyond a shadow of a doubt” and then crying that you can’t possibly reach such a high standard. I did not set that criteria, or even mention “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” You did. Right?

8) I never required you to prove anything “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” Try providing ANY level of proof. Are you really UNABLE to support your allegations with ANY LEVEL OF EVIDENCE? If so, aren’t you admitting that your allegations don’t hold much weight?

9) You have spewed a lot of allegations without a SHRED OF EVIDENCE. Why not just try to provide SOME EVIDENCE of your allegations instead of hiding like a coward?

10) Could it be because you don’t even have small shreds of evidence?

Deb Chatterjee continues: “"Freddie is illegitimate by birth."Can negate beyond a shadow of doubt what I wrote about you in view ofc your favorite "1) Prove it." ??”

11) Of course I could prove it. By merely publishing my birth certificate and my parents’ marriage certificate. Now can YOU prove all the wild allegations YOU made? Can you even provide small bits of REAL EVIDENCE to support them?

12) If not, you admit you distorted, made logical fallacies, and lied.

Victoria:

I accept your definition of what constitutes islamic "treason." In fact, your definition very ably demonstrates several of points I attempted to make in my earlier comment.

it's not your business or judgement to make how i manage my time guys-

period-

omar- definition of treason-

American Heritage Dictionary
1)Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2) A betrayal of trust or confidence.


my quick definition- if one leaves islam then goes to the enemy and gives away state secrets that hurt the (state) muslims from which the 'apostate' left.

try again-

o deb- btw- a rhetorical question has no expectation of an answer- and is posited simply to make a point without allowing for a comeback

Freddy I have a rhetorical question for you. Please do not take it otherwise, but just write your own views.

You have the habit of asking for proof. Yes, that is a good thing if it can be done beyond any shadow of doubt. For example, in response to SK and myself you have often stated:

"1) Prove it."

to snowball anything that might border speculative argument(s).

Now, I (rhetorically of course) assert that:

"Freddie is illegitimate by birth."

Can negate beyond a shadow of doubt what I wrote about you in view ofc your favorite "1) Prove it." ??

Why does the anti-Islam crowd keep resorting to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES?

Sk FLEES FROM FACTS: “Freddy, I stopped reading and started skimming when you wrote the following:”

7) What a pathetic attempt to weasel out of you UTTER FAILURE TO DEFEND YOUR LIES! You BEGGED me to respond to your posts, and when I pointed out YOUR LIES you FLED! You complained about form (like using LOL) but you said NOTHING about the SUBSTANCE of how I DEBUNKED YOUR LIES!

So it looks like you fled BECAUSE I PROVED that you are a LIAR!

SK accused me of using scripts. I challenged him to prove that, and SK failed to provide a SHRED of evidence. When you fail to defend your LIES, you admit you are WRONG!

SK humorlessly complains: “What drivel. This is either a tautology or nonsensical.”

8) LOL! It was a JOKE! Your sense of humor seems to be as functional as your ability to defend your LIES!

In fact, the soundness of my arguments stands because YOU AND THE REST OF YOUR CROWD HAVE FAILED TO DISPROVE ANYTHING I HAVE SAID!

You have failed to demonstrate that any of my arguments are unsound. You have been too cowardly to even try. Could it be because you know you are wrong?

9) Prove that my arguments are not sound or admit that YOU ARE WRONG.

SK pouts: “adults do not use "LOL."”

10) Prove it.

Here are some of the questions that SK is afraid to address:

SK lies: “I hope people notice that Freddy and Victoria are basically using scripts.”

1) Prove it.

2) SK is a liar. My stuff is all original. If SK cannot prove otherwise, he LOSES and must slink back to the cave where Man Cat, Tantor, Spiderman2 and Omar are hiding after I called them on their DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES!

SK: “They seem to think that the number of words they use and the LOUDNESS of their comments somehow mean that they are making sound arguments.”

SK: “The fact is that they have nothing to say about my posts of March 13, 2008, 11:15 and 11:35, and of March 16, 2008 2:30 PM. So, they change the subject.”

SK is saying Waaa! Freddy won’t refute my bigotry.

4) First of all, I never addressed you. When was there a subject we were both talking about to change? I’ve been COMPLETELY ON THE SUBJECT AT HAND, which is the way SOME PEOPLE mistakenly link Islam and violence and tune out the vast majority of moderate Muslims. I refuted lies and distortions and logical fallacies of other people. But if you are going to cry about not getting your distortions stomped on, I’ll do so starting with this post, just to stop your pouting.

SK: “For doctrinally correct Muslims, the Infidel has three choices: face death by war, accept dhimmi status "and feel themselves subdued," or convert to Islam. Now, Muslims in the West cannot so easily implement this. No problem, as doctrinally correct Muslims can deploy the tools of the Meccan suras, which were "revealed" to Mo when he lacked the military power to kill, subjugate, or forcibly convert. This is what Patel, Victoria, and Freddy are doing here.”

4) I’m doing WHAT?

SK: “However, as their power increases, they will be commanded to implement the Medinan suras based on Mo's example.”

5) LOL! My power in increasing! HA HA HA! Does SK thinks I’m a Muslim? SK, are you so blinded by HATE that you cannot conceive of a non-Muslim refuting anti-Muslim bigotry? How sad for you.

6) SK, are you anti-Islam?

Re: Arif
I never wrote anything about Arif. I could not have said anything deregatory about the man because I have a tremendous respect for him. Somebody is playing a sick game by putting my pseudoname on the above trash.

Do you know nothing more about the religion of one-fifth of humankind for over 1000 years but the violent bits?

Eboo you are really Genius.

arif

Your are a pathatic lier

MO:
You say:"science and technology and common human morality and understanding is a gift and mercey from the creator god to mankind not the inspiaration nor the affect of jeudochristianity"’

Well if you are right, that science and technology are a gift handed down by the Creator as opposed to humans using their God-given brains, why Allah had been miserly with you?
I tell you why.It is because your so- called “Scholars” have been and still are involved in Byzantine discussions on how many nymphs the "Believers", meaning Mohammedans, will have in Paradise and how many wings does the Archangel Gabriel has. This is going on while the rest of humanity marches on by you. A liberated mind is innovative and creative, but that is something beyond you and your cult’ s comprehension.
You of all people talking about rationality. What is rational about kissing pebbles plastered on a cubical structure and revolving around that structure in the Hejaz desert? What is rational about facing a black stone five times a day? Are you surprised why such a mentality could not invent a mop or manufacture a needle? Such mentality does not know how to build but adept at destroying.

Freddy, I stopped reading and started skimming when you wrote the following:

"SK: “They seem to think that the number of words they use and the LOUDNESS of their comments somehow mean that they are making sound arguments.”

3) Wrong again! The SOUNDNESS OF MY ARGUMENTS means that I am using sound arguments!"

What drivel. This is either a tautology or nonsensical. Oh, a tip: adults do not use "LOL."

Victoria, I'm sorry, but I can't let you get away with the claim that Dar ul-Harb and Dar ul-Islam are some later concepts added to Islam. It's not that I've seen these labels in the Koran (though I have not read the Koran cover to cover yet, so it might be there towards the end). There wasn't much of a House of Islam when Mo was alive, so it wouldn't surprise me if the usage came into being when there was one. Again, though, this is irrelevant. The entirety of Islam is based on a dual set of ethics: one for the Muslim, another for the non-Muslim. In addition, jihad must continue until all are Muslims. Whether or not "house" is used, conceptually Islam makes no sense at all unless two houses are presupposed.

Please try to avoid taqiyah. It's bad for the soul.

Why does the anti-Islam crowd keep resorting to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES?

LOL! Deb Chatterjee FLEES IN TERROR from FACTS and LOGIC!

He/she ADMITS failure and disgrace by fleeing from the debate.

Thanks for giving up like Man Cat, Spiderman2, Desert Clair, Courthouseguy, the Anonymous coward, Omar, and all the other haters.
Deb Chatterjee: :Freddy, There is no point of my responding to your asinine comments”

1) LOL! You FAIL to answer serious questions, so you run in terror. Asinine means “utterly stupid” Where are all these “stupid” comments I made? You FAIL to point out even ONE comment I made that is “stupid,” let alone incorrect. Deb Chatterjee FAILS again!

2) A good example of an asinine comment is when Deb Chatterjee said:

“John McCain should support (not that he certainly will) a ban on Muslim immigration to USA. It would be a sure way to prevent home-grown radical Islamists from attempting to wreck havoc inside USA.”

LOL! Banning immigration HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOME-GROWN TERRORISM! That comment is UTTERLY STUPID!

No one here is surprised that Deb Chatterjee RAN AWAY from answering that. Do you see how your comment is asinine?

Deb Chatterjee: “Barak Obama is far less reliable on supporting a ban on Muslim immigration to USA than John McCain.”

3) HA HA HA! You have ZERO evidence for this! ZERO! You FAIL! McCain has NEVER said anything remotely like BANNING Muslims from entering the US!

4) Further, McCain supports liberalizing immigration reform that offers “legal status and a chance for citizenship to many of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the country” INCLUDING MUSLIMS! McCain blamed "the more conservative, anti-immigrant” people in Congress for killing the bill. Did you know that? You FAIL AGAIN!

Deb Chatterjee: “Let me repeat, you just don't have the capability to comprehend about "Islam has bloody borders". This is coming from Samuel P. Huntington, a prof. at Harvard.”

5) LOL! How can anyone comprehend something you NEVER EXPLAINED? Buzzwords are NOT an explanation.

6) Your precious far-right Huntington “justified heavy bombardment of the countryside of South Vietnam as a means of driving Viet Cong supporters to the cities.” Talk about BLOODY BORDERS! Did you know that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_P._Huntington

7) Futhermore, your precious Huntington said: “I don't think Islam is any more violent than any other religions, and I suspect if you added it all up, more people have been slaughtered by Christians over the centuries than by Muslims.”
Did you know that?

8) And because you feared my “asinine” questions, you FAILED to address the point I made, which is that Christians also have bloody borders, too. So what’s the difference between the bloody borders of Muslims and the bloody borders of Christians?

Deb Chatterjee: “I *am* anti-Islam (doctrine/practices)”

9) Are you also anti-Christianity?

Deb Chatterjee: “But, I have the right to oppose Islam on grounds of principle.”

10) You have yet to assert doctrines of Islam that are substantially worse than those of other religions like Christianity. Until you do, you continue to FAIL!

Your answer is extremely disingenuous, Victoria. As is typical, you fail to disclose important distinction between what the western audience may define "treason" and how many muslims define "treason." A muslimk apostate commits treason by simply speaking openly about his reasons for apostasy. This damages the interests of the Ummah and impedes the goals set by Mohammad in Q 8:39: 'So fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to islam (and its laws)." This is the source and the justification for the perpetual state of war that exists between the house of Islam (Dar Al Islam) and Dar al Harb (the house of war), i.e. those countries and regions that do not yet live in a state of submission. This is the source of your perpetual bloody borders, and nothing else.

So we see that "Treason" in the sense meant by Islam is, at its foundation, a basic denial of the freedom of conscience and freedom of speech granted to all human beings in western countries.

And btw, don't be coy. You know d*mn well that the hadith in which Mohammad says, "whoever changes his religion, kill him" is one of the most reliable in the entire collection. You also know that every single school of Sunni and Shia Islam accepts that the punishment for open apostasy, such as that displayed by Ayaan Hirsi and Abdul Rahman, is death (with the possible exception of one single school, which would advocate imprisoning the female apostate - Ms. Ali - until she relents or dies in prison.)

Apostate says: "Most if not all of us on these threads are using pseudo names. "

Arif is my real name. However you are right it is not at all safe to be an apostate and reveal yourself no matter which country you may live in. Muslims can go luni and kill any member of an apostates family just to "teach them a lesson".

Deb says:
"You know why Muslims are coming out of UK ? Because no one wants them there. With all the Shariah, they are a total misfit in a western country."
Very true, Muslims are only in it for the money or a possibility of Jihad. Strange it may seem the Muslim friends I move around in after 9/11; in the inside circles (I was in them) none had any remorse. It was reserved for outward display only. Muslim immigrants revert back to their Bedouin culture - most even become pseudo Arabs! For example the Pakistani women begin wearing the Hijjab whereas in their native countries they wear the thin doputta, chador, burkah (fondly known as tent). Typically Muslim immigrants have no loyalty to anything that is Western a harsh reality that liberal left won't face. They come out to vote only if a Muslim or one who is championing their agenda runs for office. When living in the West a Muslim's country is Islam. A Muslims loyalty is to Islam, he/she will only render to Mohammed and dodge Cesar if he possibly can.
Victoria, I think Deb has a point; you spend way too much time on these blogs to actually be married and/or have a family. Defending Islam the way you do takes a lot of energy. I will be the first to admit that it takes allot out of me to even post one message and keep a normal frame of mind. Your inability to agree on or even concede on any wrong that Islam has perpetrated now or in the past seems to show us a dark side of your personality.

Why do you not even agree upon one wrong that Islam has committed?
Hijaab – female bondage.
Stoning of women for adultery – misogyny.
Won’t admit that Islamic countries derive laws from Islam and sharia.
Womens inheritance rights.
Women’s testimony in Islam.
Multiple marriages.
Lashing of women for sex crimes.

The list goes on, you and your type always have a way out. Always dodging then you wonder why there is Isamophobia?
Ever wonder if the problem is actually with the Muslim and not the other way around? I have a Muslim name may even look like a terrorist, travel allot and have never experienced any hate or bigotry that I have read in your rants. Perhaps Muslims lie to get attention?

Life is too short Victoria to worry about who is thinking about you sexually and what you eat or what you drink, or how clean you are before praying and how you pray, how revealing your clothes are, nobody cares! I hope you snap out of this phase that you are in Inshallah one day I predict you will.

hey you kids- stop making ALL THAT RUCKUS up there-

what? wha? what was THAT???

DONT MAKE ME COME UP THERE!!!!!!

youre a real hoot deb

RAISING A RUCKUS DEB?

you are positively too funny sometimes-

Freddy,

There is no point of my responding to your asinine comments, as they reflect a streetsmart yet pedestrian verbiage.

Barak Obama is far less reliable on supporting a ban on Muslim immigration to USA than John McCain.
Let me repeat, you just don't have the capability to comprehend about "Islam has bloody borders". This is coming from Samuel P. Huntington, a prof. at Harvard.

Anyway get attention on these blogs by pouring in your sterile fulminations, which actually mean nothing.

And, FYI, I *am* anti-Islam (doctrine/practices) but *not* anti-Muslim. By default every Muslim is NOT a terrorist. They are human beings like me, and deserve due respect and equal status for their individual deeds. But, I have the right to oppose Islam on grounds of principle.

If you don't get this, then see a shrink.

Victoria,

Yes, I think your husband/significant other should keep you busy, by getting your attention away from these blogs, because all you are doing is to surreptitiously support Shariah in one guise or the other, and raising a ruckus.

Islamophobia (of non-Muslims) is *indeed* related to the existence of the barbaric and antiquated Shariah laws. FYI, Barak Obama's candidacy is now quite related to his affiliations with the anti-Jewish/anti-USA Louis Farakkhan (Nation of Islam Supremo) and more recently his controversial pastor for 20 years (what's that guy's name ?). So, I am quite reluctant to believe/speculate that Obama would vote for a legislation that would prevent Muslims from entering USA. This is a necessary (though unpleasant) thing to do. John McCain on the other hand, is a Republican but is more probable to positively act on such legislations because he understands national security issues much better than Obama. (This of course does not diminish Obama's charisma, education and his eligibility. He is a *liberal* like Hillary Clinton.)

And please tell that Freddy (or Jason) that you indeed converted to Islam from Catholicism by your own volition.

Re: Ahmed Kutti and Apostacy
This man says “Freedom of conscience is a fundamental principle of the Qur’an that is clearly stated in many Qur'anic verses. I list just a few:
[Had your Lord willed, all the people on earth would have believed. So can you (Prophet) compel people to believe?] (Yunus 10: 99).
[Say, ‘Now the truth has come from your Lord: Let those who wish to believe in it do so, and let those who wish to reject it do so’] (Al-Kahf 17: 29).
[So (people) respond to your Lord before there comes a Day that cannot, against God’s will, be averted—you will have no refuge on that Day, and no possibility of denying (your sins). If they still turn away (remember that) We have not sent you (Prophet) to be their keeper: your duty is to deliver the message] (Ash-Shura 42: 47-48).
[There is no compulsion in religion: true guidance has become distinct from error, so whoever rejects false gods and believes in Allah has grasped the firmest hand-hold, one that will never break. Allah is all hearing and all knowing] (Al-Baqrah 2: 256).”

It is amazing how much disrespect those people who identify themselves as Muslim scholars have for people’s intelligence and knowledge. He is addressing people living on the American continent as if they had just popped out of Afghan caves or the Hejaz deserts. If the above verses speak for ‘freedom of conscience’ in Islam, what about the verses listed below? The relatively mild verses of the Mecca period (above)were abrogated (cancelled) by the later Medina verses (below). An excerpt is listed below.

"Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme." (Surah 8:36-)
"...make war on the leaders of unbelief...Make war on them: God will chastise them at your hands and humble them. He will grant you victory over them..." (Surah 9:12-)
""Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:27-)
"Fight for the cause of God with the devotion due to Him...He has given you the name of Muslims..." (Surah 22:78-)
"Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Surah 48:29) .
------------------
----------------

As for this man's argument that the number of Muslims in the world is a proof of its authenticity is void of logic. The reasons according to my humble opinion is as follows: 1.The Muslim culture encourages big families. 2. Muslims pressure those living amongst and under their dominion to convert, yet kill those from Muslims who wish to convert to another religion. They grant a one way freedom of crossing over; from any religion to theirs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21967c24SRQ
Islam.3. It appeals to unthinking sensual people as shown below and there are plenty of those:

"Shall the reward of goodness be anything but good?...Dark-eyed virgins sheltered in their tents...They shall recline on green cushions and fine carpets...Blessed be the name of your Lord..." (Surah 55:52-66-)

as stated before- there are NO countries that are currently islamic governments-

omar- i read your link, and the author, jennifer brea is a "guide" on about.com.

anybody who wants to can be a 'guide' on about.com if they want

and she makes no statements about legality- has no background in islamic studies, but and is going for her masters in poli-sci.

and her entire article is based on HADEETH from WIKIPEDIA.

and i think my views on wikipedia as a souce for anything are pretty well known-
here, i'll even quote myself from yesterday at 7:12pm

"even the deplorable and lowly wikipedia - that most reprehensible and undependable of sources- will bear out the laziest google search."

Islam & Freedom of Belief

Question
Dear scholars, As-Salamu `alaykum. Non-Muslims often comment about Islam saying that most Muslims are Muslims because of the death penalty for apostasy. Many claim that there is inherent hypocrisy as converts from other religions are eagerly awaited for, while if a Muslim decides not to follow Islam he is put to death. Please clarify.

Date
14/Feb/2007

Name of Counsellor
Ahmad Kutty

Topic
Apostasy



Answer


Wa `alaykum As-Salamu wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh.

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

Dear questioner, we would like to thank you for the great confidence you place in us, and we implore Allah Almighty to help us serve His cause and render our work for His sake.

Islam, as a divine religion, pays great attention to the importance of conviction for those who embrace it. Therefore, it lays down the principle that there is no compulsion in religion.

Moreover, it is incorrect to say that everyone who leaves Islam is automatically killed. Thus, if an apostate causes no harm to the Muslim community and does not call for spreading hostility towards Islam, he is not to be punished, rather he is to be advised kindly and wisely to let him know the true image of Islam.

In his response to your question, Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, states:

***********************

You have raised a very important question; it is something we need to address seriously, for it has been a source of much confusion not only among non-Muslims but also among Muslims in many quarters.

Like any Islamic issue, in order to find a satisfactory answer, we must study in a way that harmonizes the scripture and reason. This is the correct Qur’anic perspective that all believers must adopt in approaching any issue of religion. One of the most fundamental principles of the Qur’anic world view is that we must never allow ourselves to surrender our rationality and common sense in holding on to antiquated beliefs and practices, as was the case with the pagans in the pre-Islamic times. So let us reason about this in a manner that does justice to the sound teachings of Islam and our own sense of rationality and common sense.

Let us assume for a moment that most Muslims today (mind you there are over 1.5 billion Muslims out there) are simply holding on to their faith and failing to renounce it for fear of the death penalty. It looks absurd for anyone to hold such a view; it begs an answer for the following reasons:

1. Why did people embrace Islam in the early days when the faithful were subjected to all sorts of trials, tribulations, and persecutions? They were even forced to flee their homes and possessions in order to secure freedom of conscience to practice their religion of choice.

2. How do we explain the historical fact that in virtually all of the conquered territories such as Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Egypt, an enormous number of people entered Islam quite willingly even though they were allowed to remain as they were: Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and so on?

3. The Spanish Inquisition instituted against the Muslims and the Jews is a historical fact. Why did many preferred to opt for expulsion or death instead of conversion to Christianity?

4. As the European historians have recorded, thousands and thousands of both Muslims and Jews were slaughtered by the Crusaders in the holy lands; the blood of the victims ran knee deep in the streets of the holy land. Why didn’t they choose to embrace Christianity in order to escape their miserable fate?

5. There are today over 1. 5 billion Muslims in the world coming as they are from diverse racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds. We ought to ask ourselves: Why did such a huge mass of humanity embrace a faith which allegedly teaches such crude notions? Why did they forgo their allegedly superior beliefs and practices?

6. How do we explain the fact that Islam is still the fastest growing religion in the world in spite of the horrendously negative image of Islam and Muslims that is often projected?

7. Newspapers in Great Britain report that an increasingly large number of men and women are converting to Islam in Great Britain in spite of the extremely negative publicity against Islam. The irony is that the majority of those who embrace Islam are women, despite the fact that the media project them as the most disadvantaged in Islam. Whose sword is driving them to join the fold of Islam?

8. Finally, those who allege that Islam was spread through the sword may do well to read an excellent study on the spread of Islam by a former Christian missionary to India and a late professor of Islamic studies at Aligar Muslim University, namely Thomas Arnold; his work is entitled The Preaching of Islam.

Now coming to the false notion that everyone who leaves Islam is automatically killed, I can assure you that this was certainly not the case in many cases. Even though the penalty for TREASON was the death penalty (as was the case in the LAW OF MOSES as well), there was no targeting of people who simply chose to leave Islam without any implication of treason. To simply kill anyone who chooses to follow a religion other than Islam is AGAINST the fundamental teachings of the Qur’an. Freedom of conscience is a fundamental principle of the Qur’an that is clearly stated in many Qur'anic verses. I list just a few:

[Had your Lord willed, all the people on earth would have believed. So can you (Prophet) compel people to believe?] (Yunus 10: 99).

[Say, ‘Now the truth has come from your Lord: Let those who wish to believe in it do so, and let those who wish to reject it do so’] (Al-Kahf 17: 29).

[So (people) respond to your Lord before there comes a Day that cannot, against God’s will, be averted—you will have no refuge on that Day, and no possibility of denying (your sins). If they still turn away (remember that) We have not sent you (Prophet) to be their keeper: your duty is to deliver the message] (Ash-Shura 42: 47-48).

[There is no compulsion in religion: true guidance has become distinct from error, so whoever rejects false gods and believes in Allah has grasped the firmest hand-hold, one that will never break. Allah is all hearing and all knowing] (Al-Baqrah 2: 256).
Excerpted

Why does the anti-Islam crowd keep resorting to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES?

SK lies: “I hope people notice that Freddy and Victoria are basically using scripts.”

1) Prove it.

2) SK is a liar. My stuff is all original. If SK cannot prove otherwise, he LOSES and must slink back to the cave where Man Cat, Tantor, Spiderman2 and Omar are hiding after I called them on their DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES!

SK: “They seem to think that the number of words they use and the LOUDNESS of their comments somehow mean that they are making sound arguments.”

3) Wrong again! The SOUNDNESS OF MY ARGUMENTS means that I am using sound arguments!

Added emphasis just drives the point home to some of the haters here. Where is your EVIDENCE that my arguments are not “sound”? Prove that my arguments are not sound or admit that YOU ARE WRONG.

SK: “The fact is that they have nothing to say about my posts of March 13, 2008, 11:15 and 11:35, and of March 16, 2008 2:30 PM. So, they change the subject.”

SK is saying Waaa! Freddy won’t refute my bigotry.

4) First of all, I never addressed you. When was there a subject we were both talking about to change? I’ve been COMPLETELY ON THE SUBJECT AT HAND, which is the way SOME PEOPLE mistakenly link Islam and violence and tune out the vast majority of moderate Muslims. I refuted lies and distortions and logical fallacies of other people. But if you are going to cry about not getting your distortions stomped on, I’ll do so starting with this post, just to stop your pouting.

SK: “For doctrinally correct Muslims, the Infidel has three choices: face death by war, accept dhimmi status "and feel themselves subdued," or convert to Islam. Now, Muslims in the West cannot so easily implement this. No problem, as doctrinally correct Muslims can deploy the tools of the Meccan suras, which were "revealed" to Mo when he lacked the military power to kill, subjugate, or forcibly convert. This is what Patel, Victoria, and Freddy are doing here.”

4) I’m doing WHAT?

SK: “However, as their power increases, they will be commanded to implement the Medinan suras based on Mo's example.”

5) LOL! My power in increasing! HA HA HA! Does SK thinks I’m a Muslim? SK, are you so blinded by HATE that you cannot conceive of a non-Muslim refuting anti-Muslim bigotry? How sad for you.

6) SK, are you anti-Islam?

Here's a good, basic rundown of islamic law on the issue of apostasy. Notice that several Islamic countries, including the only two countries in the world COMPLETELY GOVERNED by Islamic law - S.A. and Iran - have adopted black letter laws punishing apostasy from Islam with death.

http://worldnews.about.com/od/glossarya/a/islam_apostasy_2.htm

Also, here's a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary, "Unholy War" documenting the fact that Isalmic apostates and converts to christianity face death threats and severe persecution, even in the UK:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21967c24SRQ

Here's a good, basic rundown of islamic law on the issue of apostasy. (Notice that several Islamic countries, including the only two countries in the world COMPLETELY GOVERNED by Islamic law - S.A. and Iran - have adopted black letter laws punishing apostasy from Islam with death).

http://worldnews.about.com/od/glossarya/a/islam_apostasy_2.htm

Also, here's a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary, "Unholy War" documenting the fact that Isalmic apostates and converts to christianity face death threats and severe persecution, even in the UK:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21967c24SRQ

deb- btw- which century are you living in?

my husband should be "keeping me busy"?

and what is your obsession with sharia? as i've already said- youre on the wrong blog- that was a question several weeks ago-

keep up with the pace

well, i see the manners here have not improved-
i havent been around for that reason-

see y'all in the funny papers

SK- i reread your post- as i said there is no islamic government- not ummah-
no centralized recognized authority-

apostate-

well- victoria is my given name- ive never given my sur(last)name here-

if you want to present yourself as apostate-

why would it matter?
go for it-

but enough of personalities-

facing the misconceptions about muslims is what this post is about-

we can agree to disagree-

its ok by me- you to yours and me to mine-

peace

Why does the anti-Islam crowd keep resorting to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES?

Deb Chatterjee reveals a complete failure of rational thought.

Deb Chatterjee: “Freddy, John McCain should support (not that he certainly will) a ban on Muslim immigration to USA.”

YOU FAIL! Deb Chatterjee FAILS THE ONLY TASK THAT COULD HAVE JUSTIFIED HIS/HER EARLIER LIES!

Just because you THINK McCain should support your bigoted legislation banning Muslims, you have provided ZERO EVIDENCE that he is even leaning toward doing so.

(Deb Chatterjee had said “one must vote against Barack Obama...he won't support any legislation that would specifically prevent Muslims from cominng into USA”)

This shows you are LIED when you criticized Barak Obama! Obama has EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION AS MCCAIN! Neither support your bigotry!

1) Both candidates have exactly the same position on BANNING MUSLIMS. Both have NEVER endorsed the idea. Right?

2) Did you lie or are you ignorant of that FACT?

Deb Chatterjee: “It would be a sure way to prevent home-grown radical Islamists from attempting to wreck havoc inside USA.”
3) How?

4) Again, logic FAILS Deb Chatterjee. Even if Obama or McCain were to BAN Muslims from coming to the US, how could that prevent “home-grown” terrorist from “wreaking havoc inside USA (sic)”?

5) Do you really FAIL to understand that if terrorists are “home-grown” (like Christian terrorist Eric Rudolph) then they don’t NEED TO COME TO THE US?

Deb Chatterjee: “McCain is the only candidate who has specifically stated the fear of radical Islam on the Sean Hannity show, meaning he understands the threat.”

6) Ha ha ha! You think McCain is AFRAID. Don’t we need a leader who ISN’T afraid?

7) What did McCain say that showed his fear? How did he who he “understands” the threat?

8) How do you know Obama does not “understand the threat?”

9) Obama has been FORCEFUL and STRONG in the fight against terrorism. He has said that he would be willing to use force against targets in Pakistan, something Bush has been too AFRAID to do, despite originally saying we will go after those who harbor terrorists. We know Pakistan harbors terrorists, right?

10) So therefore, Obama is stronger on terrorism that Bush, right?

11) Show us something McCain said that is as clear and forceful as Obama’s powerful statement. We’ll wait...

Deb Chatterjee: “Increased Muslim population in USA means an eventual recognition of the Shariah laws, and a total demise of the First Amendment.”

12) LOL! Prove it.

Deb Chatterjee: Other candidatdes (Obama and Clinton) subscribe to left-wing ideologies, and may not be that forceful with the problem.

13) LOL! Prove it.

While you are fumbling around with actual facts instead of spreading your Limbaugh-limburger, I’ll remind you of how “left-wing” presidents FORCEFULLY deal with problems:

“left-wing” Roosevelt and Truman, who WON World War II!

“left-wing” Kennedy who WON the Cuban Missile Crisis (the most dangerous part of the entire Cold War)!

“left-wing” Clinton, who WON peace Kosovo!

So what were you saying about “left-wing” presidents and FORCE?

14) Aren’t you ashamed of being wrong so much?
Deb Chatterjee: “While trying to focus on the economy and other socialist measures,”

15) HA HA HA! Deb Chatterjee thinks that focusing on the economy is “Socialist”. HA HA HA! OK, I’ll try to take you seriously. How is “focusing on the economy” a “socialist measure"?

Deb Chatterjee: “ they would most likely ignore the perils of radical Islam”

16) LOL! “most likely”! HA HA HA HA HA! This is RANK SPECULATTION! Not fact! Prove it! What in their ACTIONS and STATEMENTS about the dangers of terrorism show that they are “ignoring” any perils?

Deb Chatterjee”Obama is surely not tested/vetted..”

17) Tested and vetted by WHO?

18) That is anything BUT “sure.” Why do you use your OPINION of “surely” in place of EVIDENCE and FACTS?

19) McCain has FAILED the “test” of reality in the Iraq war. He supported a war built on LIES when Obama had the wisdom to see through the lies. McCain supports more failure and more troop death in Bush’s lying, failed war.

Deb Chatterjee: “He is not credible”

20) You provide ZERO evidence of this. Obama has been right about the war where McCain has been wrong. That gives Obama MORE credibility than McCain!

Deb Chatterjee “(and Victoria is a converted Muslim)”

21) Prove it.

Deb Chatterjee: “Even if we admit that Islamophobia is on the rise”

22) On the rise with Fox “news” and with you, perhaps. Are you anti-Islam? Are you anti-Muslim?

Deb Chatterjee: “there are legitimate reasons in USA for such phenomenon”

23) LOL! Islamophobia is a form of ignorance! You are PROUD of being ignorant?

Deb Chatterjee: “Islam has led by defining bloody borders.”

24) Huh? Try English. Every nation has “blood” on its borders. What are you even trying to say? Do you even know?

Deb Chatterjee: “Victoria and persons like you (Freddy) like to negate such shameful and threatening history of Islam and present a sanitized version to the gullible Americans.”

25) The history of Islam is no more “shameful” or “threatening” than the history of Christianity. You have presented NOTHING to prove otherwise. Your fear and paranoia and desperate bigotry are true signs of gullibility. Fortunately, such hatred ends up in the dustbin of history.
Deb Chatterjee: “Having a ban on Muslim immigration to USA would certainly reduce the number of hate crimes against Muslims”

26) And that is a HATEFUL thing to say. Is it not also true that a ban on Christians in America would reduce the number of crimes against Christians?

Your “logic” is truly flawed. An intelligent person would feel shame at such failures of basic rationality.

Victoria:
You wrote "i noticed though apostate- that you are choosing to identify yourself, not by who you are or what you believe- but an islamic(albeit negative) identification.
so, you are in a formative state of mind- when you have the bravery to express yourself iwth your own identity- or discover it to do so-(will answer you)."

Most if not all of us on these threads are using pseudo names. Does that mean we are all cowards? Posting as Victoria does that make you any braver than the rest of us? Victoria could be a pseudo name for Fatima Mohammed Hassouna for all I know. Even if it is your real surname it is just as good as a pseudo name because no one can identify you. I could have called myself Victor. Would that have made me more honest or brave? On the contrary, adopting the pseudo name APOSTATE is more descriptive of me than any name I could think of because I am an “apostate’ according to your cult’s definition of that term. Besides why did you assume that I crossed over from Islam and not from some other religion or cult? Do not make excuses and face the issues raised.

Victoria,

This is no joke. Please ask your significant other to keep you busy.

You have started to show your true colors by supporting the barbaric Shariah laws.

You know why Muslims are coming out of UK ? Because no one wants them there. With all the Shariah, they are a total misfit in a western country.

Won't you ever learn ?

i noticed though apostate- that you are choosing to identify yourself, not by who you are or what you believe- but an islamic(albeit negative) identification.

so, you are in a formative state of mind- when you have the bravery to express yourself iwth your own identity- or discover it to do so-

well talk again.
SK- well, of course there is an ummah- but no centralized authority around which it revolves at present (of course, the Prophet was that authority)

there was alos no such thing as house of peace/war in the time of the Prophet(pbuh)

this was a concept later penned by a mr mawdudi

i notice you use the term infidel also-

you shoudl, perhaps, reread my earlier comment.
or not.

peace

Victoria;
You forgot to post the "Amman Message" link.Here it is below along with another gem.

http://www.riifs.org/nashra/Ammanmessage_ara.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlV-6-FihFg

well, actually documented there were 1500 women in a 3 or so week period- and an increase of 600% in hate crimes. (compared to the preivious year)

i will go so far as to say all acts of violence towards women- ESPECIALLY if preprtrated by emn who are physically stronger and should be our protectors-

are cowardly, despicable, weak, unconscionable-dastardly, atrocious and disgusting by any standard of humane behavior and a civilized mentality.

neither set of women- western- or muslim-
deserve such treatment - ad because of such an incredibly shallow and superficial reason-

their state of dress or undress.

one cannot balance quantity, and say it exponentially more reprehensible becuase of the sheer magnitude of numbers abused-

against any gauge of quality-

to the women affected- each and every individual and singular woman is precious-

each and every single abuse is criminal-

but the issue here- is not, at this time, man's extraordinary inhumanity to woman-

or even delving into the dark resentments and fears of men towards women regarding their sexual powers, as we hold the power of mostly determing the sex act-

if the question is, are men misogynist, overall? and motivated by this love/hate of women?

a few may be.

but the issue being discussed is islamophobia- fear based on ignorance and promoted as acceptable behavior-

none of this behavior is acceptable, is it?

maybe you could suggest to the admin here that they ask a question on such a subject.

but this is, On Faith, after all.
and topics specifically related to religion and faith are the ones being discussed.

at least today, and here.

I hope people notice that Freddy and Victoria are basically using scripts. They seem to think that the number of words they use and the LOUDNESS of their comments somehow mean that they are making sound arguments. Victoria (March 17, 2008 7:12 PM) preposterously argues that the absence of a caliphate means there is no ummah, when in fact the totality of all Muslims living today is the ummah. Indeed, in Mo's time, there was no caliphate at all. So how could he have referred to a Dar ul-Islam, pray tell? She, too, is engaging in taqqiyah (lying about Islam to deceive the Infidel). I do not know what a "moderate Muslim" is, but I am pretty sure that the term would exclude any who try such tricks.

The fact is that they have nothing to say about my posts of March 13, 2008, 11:15 and 11:35, and of March 16, 2008 2:30 PM. So, they change the subject. The canonical documents of Islam (to repeat, the Koran, the Hadith of Bukhari and Abu Muslim, and the Sira) show with complete clarity that Islam is inconsistent with pluralism of law and of religion. Case closed.

For doctrinally correct Muslims, the Infidel has three choices: face death by war, accept dhimmi status "and feel themselves subdued," or convert to Islam. Now, Muslims in the West cannot so easily implement this. No problem, as doctrinally correct Muslims can deploy the tools of the Meccan suras, which were "revealed" to Mo when he lacked the military power to kill, subjugate, or forcibly convert. This is what Patel, Victoria, and Freddy are doing here. However, as their power increases, they will be commanded to implement the Medinan suras based on Mo's example.

Islam is a fairly simple religion in terms of its interaction with the House of War (that's us). What must be kept in mind is that Mo himself instructs his followers that "war is deceit" (Bukhari). Do not be deceived so easily.

Victoria: It seems you are getting adept at cataloguing the alleged “hate crimes” committed in some Western countries. It is getting to be that if a gas station attendant or cab driver gets into an argument with a customer it is reported as a “Hate Crime”.
People are afraid of those whom they do not know and more so of a group that demonstrated a propensity for violence. The more the West knows about the mindset of those with Muslim culture, the more convinced they are that the 9-11 terror attack was not an isolated act committed by a bunch of criminals but represents the pure ethos of the Islamic doctrine and culture. This coupled by the deafening silence of the so-called ‘moderate Muslims’ and the exposition of the ‘Interfaith Dialogue' that goes inside those dens of hate and incitement called mosques, the more they feel threatened.

You might ask how does a woman wearing a Burqa or a Hijab threaten those big burly men. This dress code could be rationalized many ways by Muslims, but the people in the West take it to mean a statement of rejection; rejection of the West’s way of life. I know of three predominantly Muslim countries (Jordan. Sudan and Egypt) where Western women wearing shorts had battery acid thrown on their legs. The excuse of the perpetrators in all of those cases was that the shorts failed their ’religiously ordained “modesty” standards. In the same way people here could say that this code of dress insults their sensibilities on many levels, and so we should not be surprised if some scum would pull some woman’s scarf away.

the closest thing the muslim world has to a worldwide ummah, or community- is a consensus of scholars.

to answer simply the oft repeated charges by the anonymous coward freddy is referring to- ( and i haven't bothered to search for the charges- they are so easily refuted and predictably rote by now- exactly the point mr patel was making in his unread by most here article)

when there was a central authority, or caliphate in the ottoman empire (the last one, and ended in 1924)
a fatwa could be issued-
but there is a prerequisite to the issuance of a fatwa-

it must come from an islamic governmental authority.

there is today, no islamic government on the planet.
no folks- iran is not an islamic government-
however, a true islamic government =, patterned after the actions of the Prophet(pbuh) would be on the counsel of a shura (or council of elder respected men and women of the community- elected, by recommendation and general consensus of the people- as in the rasing of abu bakr to the caliphate- at the wishes of the people and directly opposed by him)

in the absence of a centralized and recognized authority- there can be no issuance of fatwas.

any ayatollah coming dow the pike may issue one-
but it is acknowledged even by the fatwa giver- that it is incumbent upon NO ONE to obey or follow it.

if people choose to recognize the authority of any given fatwa issuer- that is their choice- but are under no compulsion to accept or reject it.

even the deplorable and lowly wikipedia - that most reprehensible and undependable of sources- will bear out the laziest google search.

let alone an actual search with the intent ot discover the truth-

so no one at this time, has any reason to follow any fatwas-

fatwas have no more authority or substance than being the opinion of an individual.

this may change in the future, if there arises an islamic government on the planet somewhere-

but as of right now- fatwas- which are more likened to jurisprudential rulings or decisions- and not mandates- can be listened to or ignored as one chooses.

apostasy- that most touted and (by many muslims- you will especially see this assertion by supposed "ex" muslims on these boards) completely misinformed of concepts- does not carry the death penalty.

the closest thing we have to an ummah today- is the amman message- a gathering of the best islamic scholars from all over the world, who got together in 2005- and defined some issues that cause such contention and isunderstanding- most notably among muslims themsleves.

but even the most simple minded can read the qur'an itself and easily come to the same conclusion.

there is a death sentence, or a milder and more merciful judgement of exile- if one leaves islam, then goes to an enemy and gives away state secrets that hurt the muslims from which the 'apostate' left.

in america we call this treason, and there is only one penalty for it, and that is death.

it's very simple, requires no stretch of any reasoning at all as it is very clear and plain.

the scholars of the amman message have clearly outlined this distinction in their message.

ive posted and linked it many times here- its an easy google-

theres also a great deal of confusion over the term kafir- which many confuse with unbeliever- or even more ridiculously- the christain crusader term infidel (from te latin infidelis-unfaithful) which the christians applied to any who were not christian.

kafir means to cover or conceal the truth of islam-
and one can only be a kafir if they have been educated fully and comprehensively in islam, and then left- and then try to obfuscate or lie about it-

sound familiar?

ok folks- i hadn't realized i was going on again-
peace

deb- where do you have the idea that there is a sudden surge of illegal immigration into america?

just because something has just come into your consciousness- does not mean it didnt exist before you became aware of it-

thanks for sharing the article-
mr feldman is a harvard law professor and seems to speak eloquently and knowledgeably-
im afraid im not familiar with him or his works-
but you're posting on the wrong blog-

its the violence and cruelty in peopel's hears that is frightening and saddening to me-

its the same feeling i had when i worked in california with migrant farmworkers and saw the disgusting prejudices and treatments and abuses they received-

its not a muslim issue, or an immigration issue-
its a humanity issue-

my sorrow and outrage would be just as vivid,- if some unjustified violence were done to you, a hindu man living in britain- as an irish looking muslim woman in america-

probably more, as ive engaged you on a personal level-

it always make me feel hopeful when you and i express some degree of friendliness between us that transcends our outward identifications-

well, time to feed the endless stream of kittens that course through my life-
peace

Why does the anti-Islam crowd keep resorting to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES?

An Anonymous Coward said to me: “Now . . . Freddy All four schools of Islam say that a sane male muslim apostate should be killed.”

1) Prove it.

2) If true, so what? The Christian Bible says to kill not just apostates, but those who have worshipped ANY other God. Are you aware of that? Or are you ignorant?

3) So what’s the difference between the vast majority of Christians who are not carrying out the “holy” mandate to kill those of other faiths, and THE VAST MAJORITY OF MUSLIMS WHO ARE NOT CARRYING OUT THE “HOLY” MANDATE TO KILL THOSE WHO LEAVE THE FAITH?

The Anonymous Coward blathers on: “Virtually every prominent, full-time critic or apostate of islam is under some form of death fatwa or physical threat. (In fact, I can't think of one that ISN'T).”

4) “Full-time?” Full-time critic of Islam? LOL! Who counts as a “full time” critic of Christianity? Even Christopher Hitchens spends only a relatively small amount of time dishing up contempt for Christianity.

5) But as for prominent, unrelenting haters of Islam who constantly lie about Muslims and ascribe guilt by association would include Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Michael Savage, Neal Boortz... The list goes on and on ad nauseam. How many of them have suffered attacks and death? You FAIL again.

Anonymous Coward goes on:“When the texts, the scholars, the theological schools all teach THE SAME THING (i.e., death to apostates and blasphemers), the death fatwas and threats can no longer be foisted off as the work of 'isolated fanatics.'”

6) If you bothered to read anything that Mr. Patel presented, you would know that mainstream Islam does not carry out death to apostates just as mainstream Christianity does not carry out death to all people of other faiths, even though the Bible tells us to do so. You LOSE AGAIN!

Anonymous Coward: “Now, although it has absolutely no bearing or relevance to the arguments and facts that I've presented on this board”

7) Why should “bearing” or “relevance” stop you now? Your misinformation has no bearing on anything and is not relevant to much of anything.

Anonymous Coward: “I will answer your "Anti-Islam" question”

8) I didn’t ASK YOU an “Anti-Islam question” and I don’t care about your answer. I asked one other person (who has since fled in fear of facts) because it proved he was a liar. But I bet that now that you have promised to answer it that you will FAIL to say yes or no, and therefore you will FAIL TO ACTUALLY ANSWER IT! Let’s see...

Anonymous Coward: “As a personal religion, islam is not my cup of tea. As a political doctrine, however, I think it's one of the most brutal, retrograde, mysogynistic, fascistic ideologies ever devised by the mind of MAN (not God) “

9) ROTFL! You fail! You failed to say yes or no! We still don’t know the answer to the question of whether you are “Anti-Islam” or not! LOL! Why are all you guys such cowards?
10) Christianity can ALSO be taken out of context to appear equally “brutal, retrograde, mysogynistic , (SIC) fascistic ideologies ever devised by the mind of MAN (not God)” So are you anti-Christianity?

Anonymous Coward “And believe me, I've come by my opinion honestly.”

11) Only a dishonest person would feel compelled to plead with us to think they came by anything “honestly” and beg us to “believe” them. You speak the language of the con-man. It suits you.

12) I have pointed out multiple logical FAILINGS on your part. Your biggest logical failing is the one Patel pointed out in the article- you ascribe the actions of a tiny minority to the whole. Do you understand that this is a logical fallacy? Do you need more education in logic?

If you can’t explain why your “thinking” does not constitute a logical fallacy, by all means explain. Or else, slink away in utter defeat like Man Cat, “Omar”, Tantor, Spiderman2, etc...

Unlike debs odd cut and pastes, these are not a motley assortment of unrelated events in far flung spots on the globe with a large difference in their time-

these are concentrated and specific events, that are focused on a certain group in a pinpointed area and small time frame.

when there are so very many- the mind and heart glaze over-

and individual suffering is subsumed and easily ignored in the magnamity of information-

so we become desensitized to the events and gloss over them -

the many killings, brutal attacks, smashed in faces and spat upon, terrorized women are not some faceless other that are undeserving of recognition or justice-

these are all personal attacks fueled by hatred and vicious people-

their suffering is no less because they are muslims-
their terror no less real-

the subject of this blog is islamophobia-

while some would attempt to betray their humanity by painting an entire group as culpable for the actions of individuals, and therefore attmepting to justify or belittle violence done to them as unimportant, or worsely, somehow just-

is as reprehensible as the acts of the terrorists who put the population in a panic to give in to their fears and paranoias and hurt other human beings.

we are all individually responsible for our actions-

the purpose of these many posts was to give some small idea as to the validity of the claim that islamophobia is raging-

indeed, it is, and it is equally as outrageous and ugly as any other form of persecution and racism.
peace

Victoria wrote:

"Two-thirds of Muslims consider leaving UK."

Well, USA/Canada should refuse visa to them. Now wonder therte is a sudden surge of illegal immigrants to USA. Many Afghans have been apprehended crossing the border from Mexico with fake identities.

Victoria,

Here is something that would make you so ecstatic, that you would probably throw off your burkha and dance !

The author (Mr. Noah Feldman - hardly a Muslim name) argues in favor of Shariah and compares it with the "humane" (secular) European/British laws.

The full link (5-pages of text material) is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16Shariah-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

(The obvious difficulty is that the author is right if one goes by anecdotal evidences.)

In India Hindus were systematically butchered when the Arabs/Mughals ruled India. And, the outrage against Shariah is ideological. Why would one have to demonstrate outward respect a "religion" and not be able to openly condemn it ? Also, against a secular European law, you can argue. That is, one can argue against Caesar and hope to make a compelling case. But, very few mortals have seen God. [Even Prophet Muhamamd (PBUH) did not see Allah physically.] Thus, arguing on Allah's behalf, on practical mundane matters, is really like walking a slippery slope. It ultimately depends on what the mullah interprets that Allah likes or dislikes. And there is no way that can be refuted, because Shariah accords exalted status to the mufti or the qazi in legal matters.

BTW, Victoria, don't you not feel like give me a warm long-lasting hug, and entice me to convert to Islam, even if it takes you to be here in Swansea, England ? (Myself, Kafir-i-Azzam, is arguing on the behalf of Shariah !!?? Huh ? Isn't that great by itself ???)

Two-thirds of Muslims consider leaving UK
Hundreds of thousands of Muslims have thought about leaving Britain after the London bombings, according to a new Guardian/ICM poll. The figure illustrates how widespread fears are of an anti-Muslim backlash following the July 7 bombings which were carried out by British born suicide bombers.

The poll also shows that tens of thousands of Muslims have suffered from increased Islamophobia, with one in five saying they or a family member have faced abuse or hostility since the attacks.

Police have recorded more than 1,200 suspected Islamophobic incidents across the country ranging from verbal abuse to one murder in the past three weeks. The poll suggests the headline figure is a large underestimate.
Guardian, 26 July 2005

Take off hijab to avoid harm: UK Muslim scholar
A leading British Muslim scholar has said that Muslim women living in the European country, where Muslims have been suffering mounting abuse and harassment since the July 7 London attacks, can take off their hijab. "I have issued a fatwa that Muslim women in Britain have an Islamic right to take off their hijab at this point of time if attacked or fearing to be attacked," Dr. Zaki Badawi, the Dean of the Muslim College in London, told IslamOnline.net over the phone from the British capital.

Badawi said they have REGISTERED MORE THAN 1500 ASSAULTS against hijab-clad WOMEN during the past THRESS DAYS ONLY, in addition to a flood of threat letters.
28 July 2005

IRR > 2005 > August

The racist backlash to the London bombings continues
By IRR News Team
11 August 2005, 11:00am
Across the UK, serious violent racial attacks are still on the increase, as are incidents of persistent 'low-level' harrassment - of people, their homes, and businesses.

10 August 2005: A Muslim woman tells BBC Wales how a man abused her and her family and threw stones at her home; breaking a window. (BBC News 10.8.05)

10 August 2005: A worshipper at Al-Huda mosque in Mile End is nearly run over by a White man, outside the mosque, who drives his car straight at him. (Black Britain 11.8.05)

9 August 2005: Milton Keynes Race Equality Council reports that incidents of verbal abuse since the London bombings have nearly doubled compared to July last year. (Milton Keynes Citizen 9.8.05)

9 August 2005: Islington Gazette reports that racist graffiti, swastikas and BNP symbols have been daubed over parts of the Barbican estate in Finsbury. (Islington Gazette 10.8.05)

9 August 2005: An Iraqi man living in Cardiff is assaulted by four White men in Bridgend in the early hours. He is punched, kicked and hit over the head. The man suffers a broken shoulder and cuts to his head that require stitches in an attack the police are treating as racially motivated. (BBC News 10.8.05)

9 August 2005: Daily Mirror reports that a website for Anthony Walker, who was murdered in a racist attack in Huyton , Liverpool, has been targeted by racists who have posted messages mocking the death of 'another n****r'. (Daily Mirror 9.8.05)

8 August 2005: A young Kurdish asylum seeker is singled out as he walks along the street. He is abused - called a 'bomber' - and when a bystander intervenes and puts themselves between the two young men the White man throws a punch at the Kurdish man cutting his lip and causing bruising. (Report to IRR News)

8 August 2005: Positive Action in Housing (PAIH) reports that a Pakistani woman in Glasgow says she was kicked and thrown on the ground by two women who screamed racial slurs and spat on her; one of her attackers was an African American and the other a White woman. The same woman reports that she and her family have been abused in the street on a daily basis since the London bombing and her children have been attacked by other children. (Positive Action in Housing email 8.8.05)

8 August 2005: PAIH reports that a Muslim family living in Royston, Glasgow is moved from the area after a man waving a weapon launches a verbal attack on the family. (Positive Action in Housing email 8.8.05)

8 August 2005: BBC News reports that Dr Yashen Maharaj, 28, is racially abused and has stones thrown at him by two White youths as he walks to Medway Maritime hospital's doctors' residence in Gillingham. (BBC News 8.8.05)

7 August 2005: Four Asian men are injured after a 'disturbance' outside a pub in Glasgow's east end. Shezad Mohammed, 30, is in hospital in a serious condition; his brothers Ramzan Mohammed, 35 and Nasir Mohammed, 33, and their cousin Tariq Mahmood are treated in hospital and later released. Police have refused to say if the attack was racially motivated. On 8 August three men appeared before Glasgow sheriff court in relation to the attack. A report has been sent to the Procurator Fiscal about four other men in connection to the incident. (Glasgow Daily Record 9.8.05)

7 August 2005: Muslim women hold a 'peace walk' to encourage unity through Crawley after they are racially abused in the town. (BBC News 7.8.05)
6 August 2005: Hull City football fans taunt QPR fans with chants about the London bombings, police have to step in to keep fans apart and other leave the ground in disgust. A Hull City fan is arrested for racial chanting. The chairman of Hull City FC 'unreservedly' apologises for his fans' behaviour and promises a lifetime ban on those involved. (Daily Telegraph 9.8.05)

6 August 2005: A suspicious object outside a home in Armagh city sparks a security alert. Police say it was an 'elaborate hoax' and that that it is being treated as 'racial'. (Belfast Telegraph 8.8.05)

5 August 2005: Cab driver, Mafoud Nana, 52, is racially abused and attacked by two drunk men who leave his cab without paying in Sheffield; the men also attack the car. Nana is left bleeding and drives himself to hospital where he is treated. (Sheffield Star 8.8.05)

5 August 2005: A 37-year-old Asian man is racially abused by a gang of four men, two of whom then cross the street to punch him in Portsmouth. He suffers a cracked cheekbone and bruising to his face. (BBC News 8.8.05)
5 August 2005: King's Cross Racial Diversity Project reports that racist attacks, including widespread racist abuse and incidents where women have had their headscarves pulled off, have risen across the Kings Cross, Somers Town and Euston area. (Hamstead & Highgate Express 5.8.05)

4 August 2005: Angie Ncube, 28, a Zimbabwean woman is stabbed in the eye and leg after disturbing a burglar in her home in Dingle, Liverpool. Her assailant racially abuses her and she jumps from a first floor window to escape him. Police arrest Gary Connolly on suspicion of assault, aggravated burglary and racially aggravated offences. (BBC News 6.8.05 and BBC News 7.8.05)

4 August 2005: Police arrest an 18-year-old man on suspicion of violent disorder in connection with a racist attack on an 18-year-old Iraq man in Portsmouth; he is bailed until 4 October. A 23-year-old man arrested soon after the attack is also bailed until 4 October. (BBC News 4.8.05)

4 August 2005: Malcolm Turner, 65, appears before South Devon magistrates at Totnes charged with racially or religiously aggravated harassment and threatening behaviour towards Arwa Jaber in Newton Abbot on 23 July. (Torquay Herald Express 4.8.05)

3 August 2005: Thames Valley police report a 40 per cent increase in racially aggravated crime in July compared to the same period last year. (Reading Evening Post 4.8.05)

1 August 2005: An Asian mother, 30, with her two young daughters, is racially abused, kicked and spat at by a White couple in Clacton, Essex. The man in his late 30s makes specific reference to the London bombings. (East Anglian Daily Times 4.8.05)

1 August 2005: Imran Bhatti, 25, is abused as he walks along the street in Norwich; he is accused of being a 'bomber'. (His brother, Fiaz had lost his fiancée Benedetta Ciaccia in the London bombings.) (Norwich Evening News 5.8.05 and Eastern Daily Press 6.8.05)

30 July 2005: The take-away owned by Liakoth Ali Khondoker in Carlisle (see below 29.7.05) has all its windows smashed, their delivery man's van windows are smashed. Cumbria News & Star also reports that NF stickers have appeared in the area in recent weeks. (Cumbria News & Star 3.8.05)

30 July 2005: A Black parking attendant is racially abused and threatened with a machete by a man in a van in Redhill, Surrey. A 24-year-old man from Smallfield is arrested on suspicion of racially aggravated harassment and later released on bail. (BBC News 9.8.05)

29 July 2005: Four Asian teenagers aged 16-19, are cornered in Sutton Common recreation ground by White youth who blamed for them for the London bombings and then attack them. One victim is left with a broken jaw, another needs six stitches to his lip and the others are bruised and cut after being punched and kicked. (Sutton Guardian 9.8.05)

29 July 2005: A Bangladeshi man, Liakoth Ali Khondoker, is racially abused by a gang of men in a car as he walks to a mosque in Carlisle. (Cumbria News & Star 3.8.05)

29 July 2005: Staff at the Mehraaj takeaway in South Elmsall are preparing to close when a White man enters the shop and demands food. He racially abuses and punches the owner. The man then drives his van at the shop front; no one is injured. (Wakefield Today 5.8.05)

22 July 2005: A car owned by a Pakistani man parked outside his home in Tadworth, Surrey, has every panel on it dented by two White men who also smash lights on the car. The wing mirrors are ripped off the next night and on 27 July the wing mirrors are smashed and attempts are made to rip them off again. Police are treating the attack as racially motivated. (BBC News 9.8.05)
22 July 2005: Mustafa, 35, reports that he was surrounded by a gang of six men in Regents Park who racially abused him and spat at him. (Hamstead & Highgate Express - Wood & Vale edition 5.8.05)

18 July 2005: A fire breaks out at Hertford Road Community centre in Stevenage; Andrew Spicer, 18, is later charged with racially aggravated criminal damage. (Stevenage Herald 11.8.05)

16 July 2005: Two men at a hotel insist on searching the luggage of an Asian man waiting for a taxi in the early morning at his hotel in Llandudno, in case he is carrying explosives. Gareth Lukey, 31, has been charged with racially aggravated threatening behaviour. (Wales Daily Post 11.8.05)

8 July 2005: Worshippers outside Carlisle's Brook Street mosque are racially abused. (Cumbria News & Star 4.8.05)

8 July 2005: The staff at Dial A Curry in Penrith are abused by 34-year-old Wayne Robley who also smashes a window. He tells staff that Al Qaida should have bombed the takeaway. On 3 August Robley appears at Eden magistrates court and pleads guilty to using threatening behaviour and language and criminal damage. Sentencing is adjourned for reports. (Cumberland News 5.8.05)

deb isn't satisfied with the violence in his own country towards muslims-
he wants to spread his own hatred to america too-
sorry deb- we like it here the way it is-

IRR > 2005 > July

The anti-Muslim backlash begins
By IRR News Team
14 July 2005, 2:00pm

In the hours after the bombings in London, the backlash began. Innocent people, as in the bombings, were targeted in what appear to be racially motivated attacks
.
13 July 2005: Guardian reports that a schoolboy has been attacked in the West Country. (Guardian 13.7.05)

12 July 2005: A 16-year-old Asian boy suffers head and facial injuries after an unprovoked attack by a White man. The young boy was walking with an 11-year-old friend on Leith Walk in Edinburgh when they were racially abused and then attacked by the White man. (BBC News 13.7.05)

12 July 2005: Independent reports that there have been acts of arson and criminal damage in mosques in Leeds and Telford.

12 July 2005: Guardian reports that the BNP has produced a leaflet for a by-election in Barking, east London, with images from the London bombings and the words 'maybe now it's time to start listening to the BNP'. (Guardian 12.7.05)

12 July 2005: Glasgow Herald reports that the door of the Pakistan consulate in Bradford was damaged after an arson attack; a 27-year-old man was later arrested. (Glasgow Herald 12.7.05)

12 July 2005: BBC News reports that Bournemouth Islamic centre has received three death threats since the London bombings. (BBC News 12.7.05)

11 July 2005: The home of a Muslim family is torched in a suspected arson attack in Torquay. The family are not at home when the fire is started.

10 July 2005: 48-year-old Kamal Raza Butt, a Pakistani man who is visiting friends and family in Nottingham, is set upon by a gang of White youths. He is allegedly called 'Taliban' and then punched to the ground and dies later in hospital. Two 16-year-old youths are charged with his manslaughter, seven others are baailed pending further inquiries. (BBC News 13.7.05)

10 July 2005: The Islamic Centre in Rose Lane, Norwich, is vandalised in a racist attack; four windows are damaged. Police arrest two women at the scene, aged 23 and 26, who are later released on bail. (Eastern Daily Press 13.7.05)

10 July 2005: A 20-year-old Muslim student from the United Arab Emirates is racially abused, chased and threatened with a knife by three men in the Charminster area of Bournemouth. (BBC News 13.7.05)

9 July 2005: Independent reports that a fire at a Sikh temple in Armley, Leeds, is being treated as suspicious; Kent police are investigating two assaults on Muslim men in Dartford.

9 July 2005: Six windows are broken at a mosque in Easton, Bristol. (Muslim News 10.7.05)
9 July 2005: Abdul Munim is rescued by fire-fighters from the Shajala mosque in Birkenhead, Liverpool, after two White men pour petrol through its letter box and set it alight at 12.35am. The mosque is badly damaged. A 27-year-old man is arrested. (Independent 12.7.05)

9 July 2005: The windows at Mazhirul Uloom Educational and Cultural Institution, east London, are smashed. (Muslim News 10.7.05)

8 July 2005: Al Madina Jamia mosque in Leeds is petrol bombed at 2am; it causes minor damage and no one is hurt. (Muslim News 10.7.05)

8 July 2005: Stones are thrown at a mosque in Totterdown, Bristol. No damage is caused and no one is hurt. (Muslim News 10.7.05)

7 July 2005: Two bottles containing an accelerant are thrown through the windows of a Sikh temple in Belvedere, Kent. The bottles do not ignite. Police arrest five men in the Bexleyheath area two days after the attack. (Greenwich Mercury 13.7.05 )

7 July 2005: An Asian woman from Hayes, Middlesex, reports an attempted arson attack after she finds petrol has been poured through her door. (Independent 11.7.05)

7 July 2005: An Asian family from Southall report an attempted arson attack. (Independent 11.7.05)

7 July 2005: Sha Jalal mosque and the Pakistan Community and Cultural Centre in Edinburgh are daubed in racist graffiti. (Edinburgh Evening News 13.7.05)

DEB- you want to import your brand of hatred and paranoia to america?
worry about your own adopted country-britian-

LONDON, August 10, 2005 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – Racist attacks against British Muslims after the July 7 terrorist bombings are going on non-stop across the UK with a growing number of families feeling they are increasingly vulnerable to racists who actually know nothing about Islam.

The case of a Muslim woman in Cardiff, capital of Wales, was the latest in a string of such attacks that soared 600 percent in the weeks after the London bombings. Many others often go unreported.

“We were sitting in our living room when we heard this man shouting outside our door,” the woman, who requested anonymity, told the BBC Wednesday, August 10.

She went on: “He was throwing things, picking up stones from our front garden and throwing them at our door and our window. And then he smashed a section of our double-glazed window.

“He was shouting [a series of abusive names]. It was quite scary, because we didn't know what he had. My niece was sleeping in the front room. We don't feel secure at all. When you are in the house you are always fearing whether someone will come in or try and force their way in.

“They can do anything, they can put things in our letter boxes. And when you go out, you are always paranoid, always looking around and people do give you funny looks anyway, especially since the London bombings,” she added.

Muslims in Wales face rising levels of violence and intimidation after the London bombings, the BBC said.

The North Wales Police area had seen the largest rise in racial incidents with 64 reported cases from 7-28 July compared to 20 in the same period in 2004.

In July, animal parts and a racist letter were left at a Cardiff mosque.

Fears of reprisals have been running high among British Muslims in the UK generally after the attacks.

Nearly half a million Muslims contemplated leaving Britain after the terrorist attacks, with one in five saying they or a family member have faced abuse or hostility since the attacks, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published on July 26.

Needs of Victims

Paul Fawcett, from Victim Support NGO, said it was necessary to look at how best to respond to the needs of victims of hate crimes.

“I think we need to look at in more detail because the danger is giving people a one size fits all policy,” he told the BBC.

“No two people are affected the same by an incident.”

Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur has said the rise in attacks against Muslims “can lead to these communities completely retreating and not engaging at a time when we want their engagement and support.”

There are some 1.8 million Muslims in Britain, many with roots in South Asia. The overwhelming majority of them are moderate in their views and have condemned the attacks.

Politicians, scholars and intellectuals across Europe, however, stressed that terror had no religion.

Austrian President Heinz Fischer said in July that Islam was not an enemy of the West, warning of offensive reactions to Muslim minorities across Europe over the London blasts.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has further warned against making Muslims “scapegoats” for the bombings.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan had also lashed out at the “gulf of ignorance” which stereotyped Islam and fanned Islamophobia.

Racial violence erupts in Sydney

There were angry confrontations between police and youths
Thousands of young white men have converged on Cronulla Beach in Sydney, Australia, and attacked people of Arabic and Mediterranean background.
Police and ambulance officers were pelted with beer cans and bottles, and an ambulance was attacked.

Several people were injured in the alcohol-fuelled violence, and at least 12 were arrested.

The authorities have condemned the outbreak of racial violence as "not the Australian way".

By Sunday night, the violence appeared to have spread to a second beach suburb, Maroubra, where men armed with baseball bats reportedly attacked cars.

And police said a man was stabbed in the back in south Sydney in what media reports said appeared to be further racial violence.

The clashes follow assaults a week ago on two volunteer lifeguards at the southern Sydney beach, reportedly by youths of Arabic and Mediterranean backgrounds.

Mobile phone text messages began circulating after the beatings, encouraging people to retaliate on Sunday and employing racial slurs.

'Not Australian'

Police Assistant Commissioner Mark Goodwin said innocent people had been targeted.

"The behaviour that's been seen down here at Cronulla today is nothing short of disgusting and disgraceful," he said. "It's certainly not the Australian way."

Sections of the media took this issue far too far, and one can only surmise that the way these issues was dealt with on talk-back radio amounts to incitement

Keysar Trad, Islamic Friendship Association of Australia

The area's Mayor, Kevin Schreiber, accused the mob of looking for a fight.

"As mayor and as a resident of Cronulla, I'm devastated by what has occurred on our beachfront," he said.

"It is the actions of a few, but let's not kid ourselves that people didn't come from far and wide to participate."

The president of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia, Keysar Trad, accused the media of whipping up racial tension.

"Sections of the media took this issue far too far, and one can only surmise that the way these issues was dealt with on talk-back radio amounts to incitement," he said.

Sydney has many beaches, but Cronulla is one of a few that is easily accessible by train and is often visited by young people from the poorer suburbs of western and southern Sydney.

Area residents accuse the visitors of being disrespectful and of sometimes intimidating other beach-goers.

Freddy,

John McCain should support (not that he certainly will) a ban on Muslim immigration to USA. It would be a sure way to prevent home-grown radical Islamists from attempting to wreck havoc inside USA. McCain is the only candidate who has specifically stated the fear of radical Islam on the Sean Hannity show, meaning he understands the threat. Increased Muslim population in USA means an eventual recognition of the Shariah laws, and a total demise of the First Amendment.

Other candidatdes (Obama and Clinton) subscribe to left-wing ideologies, and may not be that forceful with the problem. While trying to focus on the economy and other socialist measures, they would most likely ignore the perils of radical Islam, and hence help precipitate a crisis. Obama is surely not tested/vetted. He is not credible.

Victoria's secret (and Victoria is a converted Muslim) is to milk sympathy. Even if we admit that Islamophobia is on the rise, there are legitimate reasons in USA for such phenomenon; Islam has led by defining bloody borders. Victoria and persons like you (Freddy) like to negate such shameful and threatening history of Islam and present a sanitized version to the gullible Americans. Its compulsive obfuscation.

Nice try, but no cigar !

P.S.: Having a ban on Muslim immigration to USA would certainly reduce the number of hate crimes against Muslims, which Victoria reports here. Victoria, what's the name of the 66 year old CAIR [Council of American Islamic Relations] worker ?

Islamophobia Watch
— Home
About Us
Islamophobia: A Definition
Search

Categories
Anti Muslim Violence (187)
Australia (124)
Austria (17)
Belgium (23)
Canada (118)
Culture (2)
Daniel Pipes (94)
Danish Cartoons (23)
Denmark (59)
Far Right Racists (451)
France (137)
Germany (51)
Hijab (484)
Historical (1)
Institutional (85)
Ireland (8)
Italy (45)
Left Wing (213)
Liberal (265)
London Bombings (209)
March for Free Expression (23)
Multiculturalism (243)
Netherlands (104)
New Zealand (8)
Norway (5)
Oriana Fallaci (16)
Resisting Islamophobia (1861)
Right Wing (1642)
Scotland (149)
Secular (248)
Spain (19)
State Oppression (568)
Sweden (9)
Switzerland (9)
Tariq Ramadan (136)
UK (3011)
USA (1222)
Wales (10)
Women (319)
Yusuf al-Qaradawi (217)
Archives
Weekly Archive
Monthly Archive
Resources
Links
Images
Files Section
Donate
If you want to contribute to the running costs of Islamophobia Watch you can do so via Paypal

News Feeds

Visitor Locations

Login
squarespace login
ISLAMOPHOBIA: Anti Muslim Racism
Entries in Anti Muslim Violence (187)
US Muslims say anti-Islam bias on rise
An American Muslim rights group says the number of civil rights complaints made by Muslims in the US has increased by 30 per cent. The Council on American-Islamic Relations' (CAIR) said in the report published on Monday that there were 1,972 cases of anti-Muslim violence, discrimination and harassment in 2005, the highest number of civil rights cases ever recorded in the Washington-based group's annual report.

The Struggle for Equality study said that was a 29.6 per cent increase from 2004's 1,522 cases. Nine states accounted for almost 79 per cent of all civil rights complaints made to the civil rights group. California and Illinois recorded the highest number of all complaints with 19 and 13 per cent respectively, and New Jersey had the lowest with 4 per cent.

Arsalan Iftikhar, CAIR’s legal director, blamed the media. "We believe the biggest factor contributing to anti-Muslim feeling and the resulting acts of bias is the growth in Islamophobic rhetoric that has flooded the internet and talk radio in the post-9/11 era," he said. "By all accounts, racial profiling, harassment, and discrimination of Muslim and Arab Americans have increased since 9/11."

Sheila Jackson Lee, a Texas congresswomen, said in response to the study: "We cannot allow xenophobia, prejudice, and bigotry to prevail, and eviscerate the constitution we are bound to protect."

Muslim beating in New York

Five Orthodox Jewish teens have been slammed with hate-crime charges in the brutal beating of a Pakistani immigrant in Brooklyn. "They hit me in the face with brass knuckles four or five times while somebody held my hands," said the victim, Shahid Amber, 24, a gas station attendant. "Then they all beat and kicked me. They were screaming 'Muslim m-f-r. You m-f-g Muslim terrorists. Go back to your country'."

Surge in anti-Muslim racism in London schools
Racist incidents in London schools have increased by 26 per cent in just one year. Attacks on Muslim children have increased since the 7/7 bombings and the debate about the wearing of the veil has prompted further incidents. The figures include verbal and written insults, physical attacks and spreading racist material over the internet.

Professor Heidi Mirza, an expert in equality studies at the Institute of Education, University of London, said: "Islamophobia is a huge problem since the July bombings with Muslim children becoming the focus of abuse and Jack Straw's comments about women wearing a veil, which is just guarded racism, has led to Muslim girls being taunted in the playground."

Compare that to hourly killings and massacres by Muslims. I rather be a victim of discrimination rather than Islam.

Muslim worker threatened in South Carolina

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today called on the FBI to investigate alleged threats against a Muslim worker in South Carolina as a possible hate crime.

The 66-year-old Muslim worker told the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) that fellow employees at a BMW Manufacturing Co. plant in Spartanburg, S.C., have repeatedly made Islamophobic comments such as, 1) "Muslims are no good. They should all be killed," and 2) "We will f**k up your family, we'll kill you all." Other comments allegedly disparaged Islamic attire and suggested that Muslim women be raped. According to the Muslim employee, one of the abusive co-workers confronted him in a facility restroom on March 31st and put a box-cutter to his throat, saying: "I'll slice your throat and kill you."

The Muslim employee says company officials did not take appropriate action against the assailant when the incident was first reported.

ASYLUM SEEKER AND BABY SEXUALLY ATTACKED IN GLASGOW

An Algerian woman and her one-year-old baby were sexually assaulted in broad daylight in Glasgow in a racially aggravated attack. The 33-year-old woman was pushing her son in his pram through the Yoker area of the city when a group of young men threw stones at them and kicked the woman. One man then exposed himself, indecently assaulted the woman and attempted to perform an indecent act on the one-year-old boy.

The woman, who cannot be identified, had her headscarf torn from her head. She escaped by snatching her son from his pram and running away, leaving behind the pram, headscarf and a baby's bottle.

The Herald

LONG ISLAND WOMAN VICTM OF HATE CRIME

Zohreh Assemi, 50, owns Givan Nail and Skin Center, a high-end nail salon in a cluster of chic stores near Birch Hill Road called The Plaza. At 6:30 a.m. Saturday, Assemi was opening her second-floor shop when two men burst out of a bathroom across the hall. They grabbed her from behind, put a gun to her head and forced her inside, she said. There, they slammed her head on a counter, shoved a towel in her mouth, smashed her hand with a hammer and sliced her face, neck, back and chest with a knife and a box cutter, she said. "They were cursing, ' -- -- Muslim, leave Locust Valley, leave The Plaza. Go back to the place you came from,'" she recalled. They scrawled anti-Muslim messages on her mirrors and tore the place up, she said.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations called on the FBI Sunday to investigate the beating as a hate crime. "The bias attack on Zohreh Assemi is an indicator of the rising trend of Islamophobia that is growing in certain segments of American society and is promoted by a small minority of Islamophobes," said Aliya Latif, civil rights director of the group's New York chapter. Last year, the group saw a 9 percent increase in anti-Muslim hate crimes across the country, she said.

Newsday

My, my. More whining from Mr. Patel about how the whole problem between Islam and pretty well the whole rest of the world is that the rest of the world just does not understand Islam.

I’m incredulous. There is overwhelming irony here, and Mr. Patel should know the source of that irony, but I’d sure it will fly right past him. I have on several occasions posted on these very pages the fact that Mr. Patel never deigns to respond after an original comment by him elicits hundreds of responses. I have pointed out that any attempt at dialogue with Mr. Patel quickly becomes a dialogue of the deaf. We all might as well be talking to a brick wall if we try to get a response from Mr. Patel.

Now, this same Mr. Patel complains that no one is listening!! (I know exclamation points are bad form, but I can think of no better case for their appropriate use). All those moderate Muslims express their moderate opinions—and Americans do not listen!! Proof positive that Americans are not making any attempt to understand Islam!!

Just like Mr. Patel never listens or responds to the comments of his readers!! Proof positive, I guess, that Mr. Patel is not making any attempt to understand Americans and how they comprehend Islam!!

As to the substance of Mr. Patel’s latest outpouring. What another pluperfect example of the horse manure that he and others pour forth trying to defend Islam. What another pathetic attempt to employ the abstract, meaningless words of multiculturalism to present his case. How insulting to me, as an American, to try to draw parallels between my culture and Islamic culture to make his point. Another pluperfect example of a self-justifying argument: People who criticize Islam are revealing their ignorance of Islam. Therefore, any critics of Islam can be dismissed as simply revealing their ignorance. I give Mr. Patel credit for one thing: he is skillful is using this particular rhetorical flim flam. But in the end, that’s the essence of his entire piece: pure flim flam.

For the record, let me join those who have already introduced cold reality into this nonsense. No one needs to engage in meaningless, abstract arguments about Islam and Christianity. No one needs to come up with meaningless comparisons between the Bible and the Koran.
One only needs to look at the empirical facts that are right before our eyes. Look, on the one hand, and the countries and societies produced under predominantly Christian populations in the West. Look, on the other hand, at the countries and societies produced under Islam. Judge them by:

The freedoms allowed their citizens
Religious freedom
Freedom of expression
Level of democracy
Respect for basic human rights
The ones led by elected leaders, and the fossil regimes still led in the 21st Century by kings, princes, princesses, sultans, sheikhs, emirs, etc., etc.
Status of women.
The ones that grant full legal equality to women
Gross Domestic Product--and don't cheat by bringing up the irrelevant matter of the small minority of lucky oil-producing Muslim states
The ones with no modern economy at all
Unemployment
Level of education--with a focus on the relative level of men and women
Number of books published annually
Ditto for scholarly works at universities
Ditto for scientific treatises recognized as valid by the international scientific community
University graduates in other than religious studies
Ditto high school graduates

Above all, look at how ordinary people have voted with their feet about which culture is superior. Look at the Muslims pouring into the West, and look at the movement in the opposite direction.

Need I go on? Perhaps if Mr. Patel tried dialogue, instead of only listening to the sound of his own voice, some of this would become clear to him. But I won’t hold my breath.

Friends of The NATION OF ISLAM U.S.A.

"ON-WOMANS-WRONGS & SHAME, not RIGHTS!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peFQWuk4nuo&feature=related

UNDERCOVER MOSQUE! THOUSANDS INVOLVED!

Abolish islam in Sweet Sweet U.S.A.!

Remove Tax free Status & Building permitts etc..!

Omar:

Apostate had linked the Birmingham Mosque 'Interfaith Dialogue' on this thread on March 16 at 9:18 AM. Here it is again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlV-6-FihFg

< ?: +) / :
[joz][evz][.us]

[FREE][PRiZEZ for Home on Weekends via a RAFFELL] and a Weekend BLOG , coming Soon Soon Very Soon!

Please visit from time to time. Things are getting better, never worse! There will a GOOD PHiLOSOPHY {NEW} {SONG} coming fron O.U.R. OLD songs too! for ALL the world to enjoy each week too!

And No More Deleating my or OUR ESSACY's!

Genuine FREEDOM OF THOUGHT IS HERE!

Huggs n Kisses to ALL!

J
O
Z
E
V
Z

.
U
S

J
O
Z
E
V
Z

.
U
S

OBAMA has declared that he is practising Christian.Obama has made it very clear that the reason he would like to pull out troops is to save the sinking U S economy.Remaining in Iraq will only serve the purpose of MNCs and not ordinary Americans.Let nobody try to instill fear in ordinary Americans by saying OBAMA is a Muslim.If anybody wants to fight Islam and Muslims let them send their own troops

Why does the anti-Islam crowd keep resorting to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES?

Now that Omar and Man Cat have fled from the facts, only a few like Deb Chatterjee remains to spew the right-wing propaganda.

Deb Chatterjee: “one must vote against Barack Obama, though he is exceptionally well-educated and qualified as a candidate. But, I am almost sure that he won't support any legislation that would specifically prevent Muslims from cominng into USA”

What a stinking pile of Limbaugh limburger.

Deb Chatterjee, I challenge you to PROVE that John McCain will support any such BIGOTED legislation that would BAN Muslims from entering the US.

If you FAIL to present such evidence, you admit you are a FRAUD!

If you have ZERO EVIDENCE, you are just another far-right SPAMBOT abusing people’s fears of terrorism as pretext to hurt the “exceptionally” qualified Barak Obama.

Shame on you.

Hmmmm. I thought someone posted a link to the Channel 4 Dispatches "Undercover Mosque" youtube video . . . and now it seems to be missing. The video contains undercover footage from one of the main mosques in Birmingham, UK. In public, the mosques claims to be dedicated to "Interfaith dialogue" and understanding, but in private, it's another story altogether. As this kind of behavior is central to the question posed by Mr. Patel, i.e., "Why Islamophobia?," I think it needs to be linked and viewed in this thread.

JJ,

Your village has called so much that I am getting annoyed. Their idiot is missing - please go home.

Apostate,

You are right in your remarks to Jihadist. I think USA should redefine its political connections to the Islamic world. Like it or not the vaccum created by the demise of the Communist regime (Soviet Union) has been soon overtaken by Islam.

Anyway, banning Muslims from coming to USA is a safer method. That way, USA need not flex its muscle. Flexing muscles is good, but needs to be done at appropriate times.

The growth of (radical) Islam in UK should indeed serve as a stark reminder that if left unchecked, Islam can create havoc. Muslims form about 5% of the UK population. But the social havoc they are creating in UK is significant. If we allow Islam to flourish in West, we shall soon see the end of the (sinful) Western civilizatioin as we know it. The purpose of USA's existence is the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution (Freedom of Speech). If that goes away, eventually with the rise of Islam as a political alternative, then obviously USA as we know mit shall cease to exist. Is that what we would like to see happen ? If not, how do you prevent the strength of Islam inside USA from growing in leaps and bounds ? The only controversial (?) but "bloodless" way is to clamp down on immigration process. For this, the USA need not bow down before United Nations and other NATO countries. I don't see anything wrong with that at all.

Probably because of this reason, one must vote against Barack Obama, though he is exceptionally well-educated and qualified as a candidate. But, I am almost sure that he won't support any legislation that would specifically prevent Muslims from cominng into USA, given his extreme leftist position on most matters of common interest.

As I said way back circa #50, Patel's premise is false. To see, again, what I mean, consider the following:

"I expanded on many of the points that I had made in the initial conversation with Marty Moss-Coane – that the dominant ethos of Islam tends towards compassion and pluralism, values that Islam shares with other traditions."

This claim regarding compassion and pluralism is wrong--and I mean utterly, completely wrong. Wrong on stilts. For Patel to support his claim, he cannot point to peaceable Muslims, for this is not the issue. The issue is "the dominant ethos of Islam," and that requires assessment of the doctrine itself. That doctrine is patently in opposition to pluralism, and the compassion involved is not universal by any stretch. As I noted way back when, the doctrine can be found in the Koran, the traditions of the "Prophet," i.e., the Hadith (as collected by Abu Muslim and Bukhari), and the life of Mo (the Sira). The only possible quibble with my statement would be that Shiites would have somewhat different collections of ahadith.

The nature of pluralism is tolerance of those with different beliefs. Islam doesn't even tolerate pluralism within Islamic doctrine. When I can point to specific texts as definitive and complete without fear of contradiction, despite over 1000 years of Islamic history, that means simply that Islamic doctrine is fixed. A fixed doctrine is inherently not pluralistic. Nothing comparable can be said of Judaism or Christianity. The ONLY challenge to Sunni orthodoxy is Shia orthodoxy, and the difference between them is tiny. And the Shiites are only a tiny minority of all Muslims. THAT is the extent of pluralism in the House of Islam. There isn't even pluralism in the "Prophets" of Islam: there is only one who brings the final "Truth." According to doctrine, there will be no others.

Nor is there pluralism with respect to the non-Muslim world, called by Islam the House of War. As I recall, Mo was involved in a real war every ***12 days*** or so after consolidating power in Medina. This is part of doctrine (part of his life and Islamic traditions), and it shows no tolerance for differing views. Not only this, but it shows that differences will and should be obliterated by war.

The only "compassion" is for fellow Muslims, and this exists only so long as they are doctrinally correct. Compassion is never to be shown to the Infidel.

Patel's laughable claim about pluralism and compassion should be ridiculed. No other major religion so emphatically and for all time rejects these concepts. I am happy to debate Patel here regarding doctrine. He cannot win, though. We can disagree about how Muslims at any given time actually feel or what they do, but there can be no doubt regarding the politically relevant aspects of Islam.

MY QUESTION to Patel has nothing to do with those two that he complains about. I ask simply whether he is ignorant of Islamic doctrine (and therefore should not be writing or speaking about it) or is not ignorant and is lying to us all (in which case we should see him as an excellent example of a non-moderate Muslim).

Jihadist:
You say:
"From what I've been reading in On Faith threads, some Americans are really against Muslim migrants going to the USA for any reason in case they are the fifth column to implement Shariah and start a global caliphate."

Do you blame them? Listen to their mosque sermons in Washington, London and Rome. Those Mohammedan misfits can’t bear to see a civilized and prosperous cultures. They want to desertify the West as they had done in some parts of the East. The famous 15th Century Arab historian Ibn Khaldoun was right when he said “The Arabs /Muslims ravage the lands they dwell in.” We can see that for ourselves. Everybody in the world tends forward except that cult which strongly tends toward the past. No wonder why the only common bond between predominantly Muslim societies, other than off course their religion, is their abject poverty,superstitions and ignorance despite the vast mineral wealth that nature bestowed upon many of their states.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlV-6-FihFg

All wars are ultimately about the control and distribution of natural and human resources.

A countries wealth and personal freedoms doesn't give it the right to prop up foreign governments that continue to abuse it's people and to invade countries that don't fall in line with it's agenda. This policy will radicalize a certain segment of a native population to do anything to loosen this grip. These radicalized people will use the religion of it's people, as the wealthy country will use it's religion, to justify the actions taken by it's soldiers.

OBSERVER:

You mentioned with regards to Arab/Muslim illegal client states under illegal subcontractors that:

“The present day Arab states were provinces in the Ottoman Empire. The British and French who liberated them from the Turkish predatory and primitive colonialisms also helped them lay down the institutions of a modern state. They also granted sovereignty to the different provinces. If the Arabs wanted to remain separated into more than twenty countries that is not the European’s fault; the Arabs can unite any moment if they have the will. It is always somebody’s else’s fault; western powers , Arab leaders, Zionist spies etc. and never their fault. Maybe it is this type of irresponsible mentality that keeps them regressing into the past as the rest of the world moves forward”

Those were provinces of Caliphate since earliest period of Caliphate and enemies of Prophet Jesus (Peace be upon him) i.e. Romans divided that Caliphate into illegal clients States and stationing their armed forces, Air forces and naval forces with all kind of WMD.

When will those Roman leave the land of Caliphate including Iraq and Persian Gulf permanently never to return again and compensate in trillions of dollars for the destruction and killing of millions including present destruction and killing in Iraq?

Rest is here in:

http://books.google.com/books?id=FoMZ9tpMBXsC&dq=the+election+of+%22caliph+khalifah%22+and+world+peace&pg=PP1&ots=qkJHFYv9Pc&sig=TR2poSsEtbMvXsFu83vgjA9AjJ4&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=The+Election+of+Caliph/Khalifah+and+World+Peace&btnG=Search&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPA4,M1

Oh there "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist,

What is there to refute? Your version of history? Not necessary as it reeks of the typical anti-American venom that has and is constantly promulgated by the dark forces of OBL.

Back to the major issue:

Islam is severely flawed. You know the flaws. You know how to correct them and we await you to lead a deflawed Islam into the modern world!!!

Hello Concerned the Christian Now Liberated:)

Yo pussycat! How goes the Crossanization of Americans? Not so good,eh?

You : And I continue to laugh as again you observe history in the eyes of Mohammed, still wishing for that global conversion to the flaws of one illiterate, warmongering, greed and lust driven, hallucinating Arab.

Moi : Ahhhh....not even refuting, eh?

Well, we will have to wait for your fellow Americans to come in then - Gerry or Jimbo et al or anyone else.

You : IT AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN!!!! THE FLAWS ARE TOO GLARING EXCEPT IN YOUR EYES.

Moi : Getting hysterical, xenophobic, Islamophobic and other phobics now and screaming at the top of your lungs? On the present global political, economic and social realities?

Moi : Does it hurt?

You : Only when I laugh.

Take it easy pussycat.

Oh there "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist,

And I continue to laugh as again you observe history in the eyes of Mohammed, still wishing for that global conversion to the flaws of one illiterate, warmongering, greed and lust driven, hallucinating Arab.

IT AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN!!!! THE FLAWS ARE TOO GLARING EXCEPT IN YOUR EYES.

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated :)

Yo pussycat!.

You : I am laughing hysterically as I read your last commentary as you mesh facts and fiction about the USA.

Moi : I am counting on that you would. For you do live in a seperate reality, a seperate universe from mine.

You : By the way, you forgot to note that US military-industrial complex saved the Muslim rosy arses of Kuwait, Kosovo and Bosnia.

Moi : The Europeans should be taken to task for not doing anything about genocides in their own backyard until Clinton comes in and pushed them. Germany was then only "protective" of Croatia, and Russia of Serbia. Don't forget Muslim states were asked to dole out hundreds of millions to clean up the mess call "reconstruction"

You : And I doubt very much if Hitler or the "Empirer" of Japan would bother to pay for Muslim oil. And who defeated the Nazis and Japs??

Moi : The irony of Hitler and Japan is that, World War II weakened Europe, emboldened some colonised countries to seek independenc from their colonial masters such as Britain and France.

The Japanese taught Asians that Europeans are not invincible and can't be defeated. As far as I know now, Germany and Japan are paying for Muslim oil without having to go to war for it. They bought it in the open market. Not to invade countries to secure the realm for Israel's security or oil for US economy.

Whoever said US has not profited from World War II? The recession finally broke with UK orders for supplies and war related materials, including weapons. And the UK paid back billions to the US for that.

The Marshall Plan for Europe is generous. But, that was a historical generousity unlikely to be repeated.

The world has changed pussycat. Germany and Japan don't need to have a military-industrial complex to keep their economies humming. They are no more mongerers of wars, or merchants of deaths selling weapons here, there and everywhere.

Hello Maverick,

Saw how much profits made by US oil companies last year and recently? One would be naive to think that they would not now and they did in the seventies and solely blame OPEC for all high prices.

You : It is amazing how the fanatics among the Muslims are afraid of American ideas and ideals.

Moi : That would be a contradiction. There is Islamphobia said to be held and fostered. And now you are saying what Bush said in the 'war on terror' - "They hate our freedoms".

Before 9/11, Osama was griping about US military bases in Saudi Arabia, and now in other Gulf states. Perhaps they want freedom from US military bases. Can Americans stand it to have a German or Japanese airbase in, say, Montana say?.

You are wrong to assume freedom and democracy is an American ideal or invention. The Europeans would beg to differ. Or Muslims don't want them. Like all people, we want to shape our lives in freedom and democratic means to do it.

As I've said, a free and open society and a democratic one is the best check against all excesses in the name of secularism or religion.

You : Everyone of them has one gripe or another against this country and its people yet those same characters would risk life and limb to get to our door steps.

Moi : Yes, I am certainly putting out in this threads "gripes" that is coursing in the Muslim world. Frankly, in most Muslims, there is no personal animosity against Americans, but on US foreign policy.

Those who are trying to get into the US as refugees are largely those persecuted by
their own governments, or are from areas of armed conflicts.

There is some 1.5 million Iraqi refugees in Syria alone since the US invasion and occupation. Are they all asking to go into the US?

Likewise over 3 million Afghan refugees (in Iran and Pakistan) and internally displaced persons. Are they all seeking to go to the US?

From what I've been reading in On Faith threads, some Americans are really against Muslim migrants going to the USA for any reason in case they are the fifth column to implement Shariah and start a global caliphate.

You : As for the thesis that this country invaded Iraq for its oil, I do seriously doubt it. Or how do you explain the price of gallon of gas hitting the $4 mark.

Moi : Like I said, the US companies do profit from rising oil prices. Back in the seventies and now. There is whole raft of books on Bush and reasons for the Iraqi invasion. And it is for oil in gist. Everything else is "securing the realm".

The US government did draft an agreement with Iraq to give control of 17 oil-fields out of 80 there. The rest to US oil companies for the next 30 years. It is a forced agreement to benefit Americans with assured and lower oil prices, but at the expense of Iraqis.

For your information, in the first Gulf War, the Gulf States, including and especially Kuwait, paid substantively to the US in expelling Iraqi troops from Kuwait.

This is public and common world knowledge as part of the international commitment to share in defraying the cost.

At least Bush Sr. a much better and respected fellow internationally than his son, seek the global community's consensus throught an UN Security Council Resolution. That is why Japan and Germany also made substantial funds available to.

Re the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the whole world knows why already. That is why there is not global community support or UN Security Council resolution to go into Iraq over dubious claims of WMD and Osama/Al Qaeda linkages with Saddam.

You : We would seize that oil to at least finance part of our mission there, not to mention relieving us poor people here of these exhorbitant oil bills.

Moi : Well, your Dick Cheney related companies are among others, including Halliburton. And US oil companies are taking Iraqi oilfields, about 63 out of 80 leaving 17 for the Iraqis. If the Iraqis can stand that ppoposed agreement submitted by the US government.

Even thought the high oil prices asked is becuase the Gulf states, among others, has had to directly and indirectly pay continued presence in Iraq, buy all those outdated and overprised weapons as a security umbrella against the US bogeyman, Iran, and to pump in money to bail out US financial problems starting with sub-primes fall outs?

You government is also not acceding to the Kyoto Protocols. Other countries are seeking alternatives to petroleum power, including biofuels such as ethanol. There is nothing I want to say about the US being way behind in not stepping up to lead the world in seeking alternate fuels.

Even the Iranians are aware their oil-fields will not last forever and actively seek to have nuclear power. But of course spinned into their seeking to make nuke warheads. I have heard of Iranian intentions to have nuclear power for their future needs since the mid-nineties. And they are still members of the IAEA.

Well, if the neoconed US government wants short term unilateral pursuits, there is not much the whole world can do but to prudently keep at arms length and to pursue their own course to do the right thing for themself politically and economically as necessary.

Factor in EU, China, Russia, India and see that they are multilateralising the world again and changing the global political, economic and security landscape.

People and countries now have choices for political and economic decoupling, for new political, economic and security realignments. Even for Muslims and Muslim states.

It is a jungle out here, a battlefield for influence for minds, hearts and pocketbooks.

The US's CNN is now competing with other global news networks. The US dollar is competing with Euro.

The point is, we now have more choices in this marketplace of ideas and products and not just American-originated ones.

Thanks and regards

"J"

Oh there "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist,

I am laughing hysterically as I read your last commentary as you mesh facts and fiction about the USA. By the way, you forgot to note that US military-industrial complex saved the Muslim rosy arses of Kuwait, Kosovo and Bosnia. And I doubt very much if Hitler or the "Empirer" of Japan would bother to pay for Muslim oil. And who defeated the Nazis and Japs??

Then of course there is also the forever-missing commentary about the flaws of Islam, flaws that are keeping the US in Iraq and on edge with your Shiite "brothers" (aka "scum" to Sunnis) in Iran.

Anyway let us assume once again you forgot what these flaws are, so once again here are the first four:

1. Believe in "pretty/ugly wingie" thingies and teach their children that such fictional things really exist.

2. Believe that the long-dead Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis believe they are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

Jihadist:
You say "not (American) personal ideals, ideas and beliefs."

It is amazing how the fanatics among the Muslims are afraid of American ideas and ideals. Everyone of them has one gripe or another against this country and its people yet those same characters would risk life and limb to get to our door steps.
As for the thesis that this country invaded Iraq for its oil, I do seriously doubt it. Or how do you explain the price of gallon of gas hitting the $4 mark. I wish , though, We would seize that oil to at least finance part of our mission there, not to mention relieving us poor people here of these exhorbitant oil bills.

Hello Moody,

You : "Aaaaaaaaaand the usual honky donkey’s are also present for fun sake with there same old shuffle record cassettes."

So why not have fun too! And I see that you are. Honky donkey? That's a new one.

Well, we have to let some of their self-induced manufactured Islamphobia loose here.

As you know, there was a Depression in the US and full employment not restored until World War II.

Following the end of World War II, in the Fifties, President Eisenhower spoke of the military-industrial complex in place which would not dismantle itself for economic survical.
Hence from Nazism to Communism to now, Islamism, Islam as the enemy sustain its economy.

Hence Korea war in the fifties.

The Vietnam War in the sixties.

The little wars in the seventies does not do it and there was troubling times domestically in the US.

Then the Iran-Iraq War in the Eighties (with US giving tacit support and supplying weapons to Saddam Hussein) and also US/CIA supported war by Afghan Mujahidden against Soviet invasion in Afghanistan too.

Then the First Iraq War in the early nineties when Iraq invaded Kuwait, and Iraq was expelled from Kuwait, and right wingers, neo-cons complained Bush Sr should have taken ownership of Iraq (for oil).

Then again the troubling nineties with no new clear cut enemies, and Huntington in his "Clash of Civilisation" characterise Islam is one.

Then 9/11 convveniently comes, and Viola! Great new reason for new phobias to sustain the US military-industrial complex - Invade Iraq, take ownership of Iraq and its oil.

Americans like to think and believe that the Iraq war is a disaster. But it is not for American oil companies and other rebuilding contractors. The huge US embassy being build, one of the biggest in the world, and bigger than any Iraqi governmental office complex, is a clear indication that the US already really owned Iraq. It is to their interest to divide and let the insurgents continue rampaging to continue being in Iraq.

Everything you read about Islam and Muslims here, how evil and vile we are, is just like in the fifties, sixties, seventies and eighties when communism is evil and vile. It gives a great reason to wage wars, invade our countries, take our resources. In characterising us as the greatest threat to civilisaition, they find it easy to kill without a conscience innocents designated cooly and coldly as "collateral damage".

The only problem is, unlike Vietnam which actually waged war against the US, no country since World War II actually declared war against the US.

Osama/Al Qaeda, a terrorist group, strikes at them (and us too, for they often forget), and the US has to invade Afgahnistan and Iraq. With Iran on the table. And the neo-cons put it out that they are against Islamofascism, Islamism etc. Notice the "isms"? Islam now as a political ideology like Nazism, Fascism, Communism? And therefore all Muslims are members of this vile and evil "ism" to be wiped out?

The world has changed since World War II. But not them. They may speak of globalisation and global norms etc, but it just means monopolisation of their products in the global markets for everything from Starbucks to McDonalds to Microsoft. Nothing wrong with that for the world takes on those voluntarily, but not personal ideals, ideas and beliefs.

They are underestimating the independence of minds, beliefs, choices and will of everyone from Argentina to Zimbabwe. Even the poorest and unschooled farmer in Bangladesh.

Salam
"J"

I imagine this thread is about dead, but if anyone is interested in some of the issues raised, this is a really interesting symposium addressing some of the issues:

http://www.aina.org/news/20080314152412.htm

The panel includes a well known 'Quran only' muslim moderate named Thomas Haidon who comports himself reasonably well, in addition to some well known muslim apostates and critics.

"Anybody know who cast the spell?"

Just a guess... how about those guys that tore down the ancient Buddhist statues with mortar and small arms fire because Islam forbids graven images?

Maybe it was Mohammed Atta? Osama bin Laden? Or the nice people who force women to cover themselves up from head to toe?

Maybe it was our friendly neighbors in Saudi Arabia, who still behead people for trivial "crimes" against Islam?

Appeals to history are ironic... Islam is stuck in the dark ages. Where else will you have to stick your butt in the air five times a day to please an invisible deity? The reason people are suspicious of Muslims isn't JUST because they appear to organize themselves into barbarian tribes, it's also because they cannot evolve into modern civilization. Apparently.

Great point, Observer.

Now . . . Freddy:

All four schools of Islam say that a sane male muslim apostate should be killed. This is also what the scholars say at Al Azhar University. This is part of mainstream islamic theology.

It's not the product of my fevered imagination. It's not something that happened 400 years ago.
It's the law right now. TODAY.

Virtually every prominent, full-time critic or apostate of islam is under some form of death fatwa or physical threat. (In fact, I can't think of one that ISN'T).

When the texts, the scholars, the theological schools all teach THE SAME THING (i.e., death to apostates and blasphemers), the death fatwas and threats can no longer be foisted off as the work of 'isolated fanatics.'

Now, although it has absolutely no bearing or relevance to the arguments and facts that I've presented on this board, I will answer your "Anti-Islam" question:

As a personal religion, islam is not my cup of tea.

As a political doctrine, however, I think it's one of the most brutal, retrograde, mysogynistic, fascistic ideologies ever devised by the mind of MAN (not God) . . . And believe me, I've come by my opinion honestly.

Does that help?

Caliph;
You say with regards to Arab/Muslim states
“Will we(USA) allow any power to come to USA and create separate 50 illegal clients States fighting each other every day and every year?’

The present day Arab states were provinces in the Ottoman Empire. The British and French who liberated them from the Turkish predatory and primitive colonialisms also helped them lay down the institutions of a modern state. They also granted sovereignty to the different provinces. If the Arabs wanted to remain separated into more than twenty countries that is not the European’s fault; the Arabs can unite any moment if they have the will. It is always somebody’s else’s fault; western powers , Arab leaders, Zionist spies etc. and never their fault. Maybe it is this type of irresponsible mentality that keeps them regressing into the past as the rest of the world moves forward.

agapian:

I think you make a good timely point in the discussion.

Will we forever point to the other side's abuses of love as justification for our abuse's of love?

The answer is blowin' in the wind...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ced8o50G9kg

Why does the anti-Islam crowd keep resorting to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES?

LOL! Omar surrenders in abject defeat, trying to cling to some small SHRED OF DIGNITY!

But Omar is still AFRAID to say whether he is “anti-Islam” or not!

Omar: “Freddy, it doesn't seem that anything productive can be garnered from further correspondence with you. Your most recent comment appeared at 9:40 p.m., referring to my comments of 8:25 a.m. and 9:27 a.m. (March 14, 2008). One of us has posted factually and rationally, the other has not. I trust the readership to decide which is which”

LOL!

Omar, you BEGGED me to address your comments. I answered completely, and then questioned you. Like all HATERS exposed to a drop of reality, OMAR FLED.

Here are some of the questions that Omar is AFRAID to answer:

Omar: “Freddy: I posted a comment at 12:57 p.m. Please identify which portion of my submission constitutes a "DISTORTION, LOGICAL FALLACY or OUTRIGHT LIE."”

2) Omar, since you are acting as if you believe my comment about “the anti-Islam crowd” applies to you, is this your way of admitting you really are anti-Islam?

6) You still fail to say if you are anti-Islam. Are you anti-Islam or not?
While we wait for you to explain your way out of your failure of logic, let’s take a look at the post you are pleading for attention about. You list a bunch of allegations about the behavior of SOME Muslims, and then say “well, I suppose you get the picture.”

7) No, Omar, we don’t get your “picture.” Why don’t you actually have the intellectual fortitude to actually state your conclusion instead of making vaguely ominous IMPLICATIONS?

8) What do you conclude from all your allegations?

9) Are you implying that your allegations (if true) apply to ALL Muslims or ALL of Islam?

10) Are you implying that there are no parallels between your allegations (if true) and the behavior of certain people and group in OTHER religions?
Omar “the FACT that just about anyone who makes a habit of criticizing Islam, Mohammad or the Quran ends up needing full time security for the rest of their lives.”

11) That is not a "FACT". That is a DISTORTION, at the very least, and possibly an outright lie. The right-wing Christian Islam-bashers at places like Fox “News” make a “habit of criticizing Islam. Are they all traveling with "full time security"? No. Wrong. So did you just commit a DISTORTION or a LIE?

Omar replied: “Your accusation of “Distortions, Logical Fallacies and Lies” was general in scope and referred to everyone on the board who was being critical of Islam, including my comment and many others.”

12) Wrong! My comments were NOT “general.” They were VERY SPECIFIC! I referred ONLY to the “anti-Islam crowd.” NOT people who are merely “critical.” Do you understand that being “critical” and being “anti” are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS?

Omar goes on: “No logical fallacy there.”

13) Wrong again! And you just committed another logical fallacy, in conflating mere “criticism” of Islam with being “anti-Islam.” Since logic clearly eludes you, I’ll use an example. Is it possible to be “critical” of America without being “anti-American”?
(What are the odds Omar FAILS to actually answer the above question, since it PROVES he is wrong?)

14) Are you critical of America?

15) Are you anti-American?
Omar goes on: “As for those critics who are the subject of death threats and now require (and will continue to require) security, here’s a short sample:”

What Omar FAILS to understand is that the actions of a minority of people who are Muslim does NOT mean that all Muslims are terrorists, and it does NOT mean that Islam is inherently bad.

16) There are plenty of doctors and clinics in US that STILL require security from Christian terrorists. Does those Christian terrorists mean that Christianity is inherently bad?
And you STILL fail to say if you are anti-Islam. Are you anti-Islam or not?

For the true body count in Iraq: see http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Documented civilian deaths from violence

82,109 – 89,605

Recent data:

Friday 14 March: 14 dead
Baghdad: football coach is shot dead, Al-Yarmuk; 2 bodies.

Wassit
Kut: 2 policemen are killed in clashes; motorcycle bomb kills 1; chieftain's son is killed in clashes; bomb strikes minibus, kills 2.

Babil
Hilla: rockets kill 4.

Ninewa
Rabiya: suicide bomber kills interpreter at Syrian border.

Thursday 13 March: 39 dead
Baghdad: car bomb kills 18, Bab al-Sharki; gunmen kill journalist; 3 bodies.

Diyala
Baquba: civilian killed by gunman.

Salahuddin
Al-Hajaj: 3 Sahwa killed by gunmen.
Tikrit: gunmen kill policeman.
Baiji: gunmen kill 2 at checkpoint.
Samarra: 15-year-old girl is shot dead by police who open fire on family car at checkpoint.

Najaf
Najaf: policeman killed in drive-by shooting.

Kirkuk
Al Zab: suicide bomber kills 3.
Kirkuk-Rashad highway: car bomb kills 1.

Wassit
Kut: 2 killed by rockets during clashes.

Ninewa
Daybaka: 1 body found.
Mosul: abducted Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho is found dead.

With respect to population and land mass "inequalities", write to the Chinese embassy and complain about the number of Chinese in the world. This is a Chinese issue without any influence from the outside.

War by Enemies of Prophet Jesus (Peace be upon him) i.e. Romans/Europeans/Anglo Saxons killed most mankind and have stolen more land than any other race.

Most recent crime

From:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/16/iraq.iraqtimeline

Greenspan's damning comments about the war come as a survey of Iraqis, which was released last week, claims that up to 1.2 million people may have died because of the conflict in Iraq - lending weight to a 2006 survey in the Lancet that reported similarly high levels.

More than one million deaths were already being suggested by anti-war campaigners, but such high counts have consistently been rejected by US and UK officials. The estimates, extrapolated from a sample of 1,461 adults around the country, were collected by a British polling agency, ORB, which asked a random selection of Iraqis how many people living in their household had died as a result of the violence rather than from natural causes.

Previous estimates gave a range between 390,000 and 940,000, the most prominent of which - collected by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and reported in the Lancet in October 2006 - suggested 654,965 deaths.

In recent past

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

Over 60 million people, the majority of them civilians, were killed, making it the deadliest conflict in human history.[2] The financial cost of the war is estimated at about a trillion 1944 U.S. dollars worldwide,[3][4] making it the most costly war in capital as well as lives

In past

Enemies of Prophet Jesus (Peace be upon him) have stolen 4 vast Continents besides stealing wealth of whole world under occupatrion by power of WMD though they always speak loudly for others' far lesser crimes.If Europeans, Spaniards and Anglo Saxons had to right to steal 4 cotinients of North America, South America. Australia and Occenia and lately Palestine from rest 6 billions Asians and Africans?

Continents
BY SIZE

#1 Asia - (44,579,000 sq km)
#2 Africa - (30,065,000 sq km)
#3 North America - (24,256,000 sq km)
#4 South America - (17,819,000 sq km)
#5 Antarctica - (13,209,000 sq km)
#6 Europe - (9,938,000 sq km)
#7 Australia/Oceania - (7,687,000 sq km)

BY POPULATION 2005 est.

#1 Asia - (3,879,000,000)
#2 Africa - (877,500,000)
#3 Europe - (727,000,000)
#4 North America - (501,500,000)
#5 South America - (379,500,000)
#6 Australia/Oceania - (32,000,000)
#7 Antarctica - (0)

Thus total area of Asia and Africa is:

#1 Asia - (44,579,000 sq km)
#2 Africa - (30,065,000 sq km)
Total 74,644,000 sq km

Thus total population of Asia and Africa is:

#1 Asia - (3,879,000,000)
#2 Africa - (877,500,000)
Total 4,756,500,000

Thus almost 5 billion people live in Asia and Africa

And how much land Europeans are occupying through their power of WMD?

#3 North America - (24,256,000 sq km)
#4 South America - (17,819,000 sq km)
#5 Antarctica - (13,209,000 sq km)
#6 Europe - (9,938,000 sq km)
#7 Australia/Oceania - (7,687,000 sq km)
Total 72,909,000 sq km

How much population European dominated land?

#3 Europe - (727,000,000)
#4 North America - (501,500,000)
#5 South America - (379,500,000)
#6 Australia/Oceania - (32,000,000)
#7 Antarctica - (0)
Total 1,640,000,000

Thus 4,756,500,000 people are living in Asia and Africa consisting 74,644,000 sq km are and on the other hand

1,640,000,000 Europeans are living in European dominated area of 72,909,000 sq km.
Europeans are occupying almost same land in size though population ratio is 3 to 1.
So where is justice of equal opportunity for food, shelter and Wealth as those Europeans are also holding most of the wealth of this world through their power WMD. More in:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=FoMZ9tpMBXsC&dq=Khondakar+Mowla&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=qkJHE2z8Jc&sig=knHF7u6fhgEuEq7QBV2l2Wcnh9c#PPA4,M1

Time for An Update: Our War on Terror and Aggression:
( or how are we spending or have we spent USA taxpayers’ money to eliminate global terror and aggression)

First: A Partial Body Count-

1a) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

1b) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens, 1000’s injured

2) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, 4000 US troops and 82,109 – 89,605 Iraqi civilians http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

3) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.[2]

4) Bali-in 2002-killing 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.

5) Bali in 2005- Twenty people were killed, and 129 people were injured by three bombers who killed themselves in the attacks.

6) Spain in 2004- killing 191 people and wounding 2,050.

7) UK in 2005- The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.

Other elements of our War on Terror:

1. Saddam, his sons and major henchmen have been deleted. Saddam's bravado about WMD was one of his major mistakes.

2. Iran is being been contained. (beside containing the Sunni-Shiite civil war in Baghdad, that is the main reason we are in Iraq. And yes, essential oil continues to flow from the region.)

3. Libya has become almost civil. Apparently this new reality from an Islamic country has upset OBL and his “crazies” as they recently threatened Libya. OBL sure is a disgrace to the world especially the Moslem world!!! or is he???

4. North Korea is still uncivil but is contained. With the opening up of rail traffic between North and South Korea after 50 years and with the assistance of the US Navy in retrieving NK ships and personnel, a fresh sense of civility is afoot. One of the most eminent US cultural institutions, the New York Philharmonic Orchestra, has performed a landmark concert in North Korea. The concert included music by Western composers and a Korean folk song, and was broadcast live on local television.

5. Northern Ireland is finally at peace.

6. The Jews and Palestinians are being separated by walls. Hopefully the walls will follow the 1948 UN accords and the Annapolis Peace Conference is at least somewhat successful.

7. Bin Laden has been cornered under a rock in Western Pakistan since 9/11.

8. Fanatical Islam has basically been contained to the Middle East but a wall between India and Pakistan would be a plus for world peace. Ditto for a wall between Afghahistan and Pakistan.

9.Timothy McVeigh was executed. Terry Nichols will follow soon.

10. Eric Rudolph is spending three life terms in prison with no parole.

11. Jim Jones, David Koresh, Kaczynski, the "nuns" from Rwanda, and the KKK were all dealt with and either eliminated themselves or are being punished.

12. Islamic Sudan, Darfur and Somalia are still terror hot spots.

13. The terror and torture of Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo and Kuwait were ended by the proper application of the military forces of the USA and her freedom-loving friends in NATO and the Arab world.

14. And of course the bloody terror and aggression brought about the Japanese, Nazis and Communists was with great difficulty eliminated by the good guys.

Most Muslims 'desire democracy'

Some 93% of those polled called themselves "moderate" Muslims
The largest survey to date of Muslims worldwide suggests the vast majority want Western democracy and freedoms, but do not want them to be imposed.
The poll by Gallup of more than 50,000 Muslims in 35 nations found most wanted the West to instead focus on changing its negative view of Muslims and Islam.

The huge survey began following the 11 September 2001 attacks in the US.

The overwhelming majority of those asked condemned them and subsequent attacks, citing religious reasons.

The poll, which claims to represent the views of 90% the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, is to be published next month as part of a book entitled Who Speaks For Islam? What A Billion Muslims Really Think.

New policies

According to the book, the survey of the world's Muslim community was commissioned by Gallup's chairman, Jim Clifton, shortly after US President George W Bush asked in a 2001 speech: "Why do they hate us?"

The radicals are better educated, have better jobs, and are more hopeful with regard to the future than mainstream Muslims - but they're more cynical about whether they'll ever get it

John Esposito
Author, Who Speaks For Islam?

Mr Bush wondered why radical Islamist militant groups such as al-Qaeda hated democratically elected governments, as well as "our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assembly and disagree with each other".

But one of the book's authors, John Esposito, says the survey's results suggest Muslims - ironically even many of the 7% classing themselves as "radical" - in fact admire the West for its democracy and freedoms. However, they do not want such things imposed on them.

"Muslims want self-determination, but not an American-imposed and defined democracy. They don't want secularism or theocracy," said the professor of Islamic Studies at Georgetown University in Washington.

"What the majority wants is democracy with religious values."

The poll sought to answer a question asked by George Bush

Bush address to Congress

Mr Esposito said "radical" Muslims believed in democracy even more than many of the moderate Muslims questioned.

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

"But they're more cynical about whether they'll ever get it."

The research also indicates most Muslims want guarantees of freedom of speech and would not want religious leaders to have a role in drafting constitutions.

Those polled also said the most important thing the West could do to improve relations with Muslim societies was to change its negative views towards Muslims and respect Islam.

The authors said the conflict between Islam and the West was not inevitable, but needed decision makers to listen and consider new policies if the extremists on both sides were not to gain ground.

Zionophobia, Hindiphobia, Islamophobia, Ameriphobia, Atheiophobia. Nearly all of the posts here, including Patel's 'spell', have expressed some form of fearing the unknown or unseen. The definition of Xenophobia is: “an excessive and irrational fear of foreign people, places or objects. People who are xenophobic may display fear or even anger and wrath toward others who are different.” Note the terms 'excessive' and 'irrational' in the definition. This definition of xenophobia is not found in any book on psychiatry as a disorder because it is a natural to all people to some degree. The key in these posts is what qualifies as 'irrational' because, as the posts have pointed out, there is an enormous amount of xeno anger and wrath throughout history that has killed hundreds of millions of non-xenos by the xeno process itself. The common thread of the xenos is where they act out there 'excessive' fear on others instead of keeping it as an instinctive process in themselves. That is, do human beings react to xeno aggression in an endless cycle aggression/counter-aggression that perpetuates the phobias?
Zionophobics quote biblical references going back thirty five hundred years and justify current aggression with it. Islamophobics can quote the Quran for examples of xeno aggression have nothing to do with spirituality. How many non-xenos have died around the world as a result of these two phobias alone? How many non-xenos around the world have died or been enslaved by religious xenos, even when virtually all of the Spiritual Scriptures denounce a xeno mentality as spiritual degradation?

In these posts, it might be useful to ask the question: “Is he a xeno or isn't he?” before replying to a post.

HEALING IN THE COMMUNITY-

a completely free clinic opened by muslims in the poorest neighborhood in america

98% of its clients are not muslims

http://www.linktv.org/onenation/films/view/213

TJ:

Do you think "moderates" in the west should "get (our) boots on and go root out" the leaders who continue the economic colonialism that props up governments like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan so that no change can occur in these countries, allows Israel to run a nationwide prison in Gaza and the West Bank where people live a abject poverty, who's wars have killed more civilians than any "terrorist", and who's policies create radicalism amoung Muslims?

Moody, Moody, Moody, (and Muslims of Analogous Three B Syndrome Sufferers),

The Three B Syndrome = Bred, Born and Brainwashed in Islam.

You still do not see the problem i.e. the flaws in Islam so once again here they are for your perusal and action:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies".

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.
These are tough issues.

Address these flaws, correct them then ask again to be allowed into the civil world!!!!!

And accusing someone of spreading hate and lies does not work when these "someones" are simply listing the facts. If you have counter points about your beliefs then list them. Hiding behind imams and clerics blinded by 1400 years of brainwashing serves no purpose other than to secure a dishonest living for said imams and clerics.

Eboo Patel asks: "Anybody know who cast the spell?"

Yes, Muslims crashing passenger jets into stuff cast the spell. In addition to the obvious damage they caused, you now get to deal with the collateral damage. Want to break the spell? Get your moderate Muslim crowd together (700,000 strong right?), get your boots on and go root out bin Laden and hand him over to the US.

Rick:

"Where do atheists fit into this divine muslim world?"

________________

Well, it depends. If the atheist is a former muslim who speaks openly about the reasons for his apostasy, he or she should is to killed (e.g. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Taslima Nasreen, both subject to death fatwas, specific threats, and in the case of Nasreen, physical assault):

Mohammad said, "Whoever chages/discards his religion, kill him."

This is black letter law in some islamic countries. In others, you will be jailed for "insulting islam." In still others, the prohibition against open apostasy is enforced "extra-judicially."

Because the punishment under Shariah for open islamic apostates is technically the same whether the apostate has discarded Islam in favor of another religion (conversion, e.g. Abdul Rahman, sentenced to death in Afghanistan), or in favor of no religion (atheisim), you may find the following video informative:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21967c24SRQ

DEAR OBSERVER:

Imam Muslim narrated from Abdullah bin Omar who said: “One who dies without having bound himself by an oath of allegiance will die the death of one belonging to the days of ignorance (Jahiliyah). Thus the Prophet (SAW) made it compulsory that every Muslim should have a pledge of allegiance (Baya) on his or her neck.

Thus World Muslims and Arab Muslims became like the people of the days of ignorance.

Arabs were not liberated during World War I by the West and in fact Arabs and Muslims were enslaved permanently by the West during World War I and their land was divided illegally without their consent into illegal client states.

Will Europe or Britain allow Arab/Muslim soldiers in Europe and Britain with hundred of Warship in the shore of Britain or Europe with deadly weapons, fighter bombers etc as their Warships are in Persian Gulf and Arab client States?

Why Saddam was supported with all kind of deadly weapons, Chemical weapons and intelligence by West against his brotherly war against Iran?

Why Kuwait was separated from Basra/Iraq by Britain as all other clients States from Baghdad capital of 500 years old Abbasid Caliphate?

Will we allow any power to come to USA and create separate 50 illegal clients States fighting each other every day and every year?

And world will find above answer with the situation of World Muslims today since World War I and even earlier or since 1492? More answer is in:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=FoMZ9tpMBXsC&dq=Khondakar+Mowla&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=qkJHE2z8Jc&sig=knHF7u6fhgEuEq7QBV2l2Wcnh9c#PPA4,M1

Regards,

Bulls eye Eboo Patel, well done!

Well written about Khilafat, Caliph!

Always speechless my hot blood Sis. Jihadist. (Not every body is able to put thoughts and real observations into words like you.)

Aaaaaaaaaand the usual honky donkey’s are also present for fun sake with there same old shuffle record cassettes.

This article by Eboo Patel is wonderful - thoughtful, nuanced, heartfelt. Thank you.

I do think, however, that he asks the wrong question: Anybody know who cast the spell, the one that puts people in a hypnotic state and prompts them to be unreasonable?

For me it's not *who*, but *what*. And the what is *ignorance*. Willful, intentional ignorance.

Ignorance is easy. It's comfortable. It doesn't require the time and hard work of reading and studying. Or talking with people who have different views or come from different backgrounds. It's the same ignorance that prompts antisemitism or racism or sexism or conspiracy theories. It's the same ignorance that conflates Islam with Arab, or sees Islam as represented by state leaders who are also Muslim, or that slips into easy, comforting patriotism and nationalism.

A good example is Darryl's post at 4am on 3/15. An excellent, tragic example of hateful ignorance.

One can and should criticize the media and its devotion to appealing to a market. And educational and religious institutions don't do as well as they should. But people have to take responsibility for what they think and say.

I know a Moroccan political scientist who says that at his Rabat university he often encounters students who proffer conspiracy theories about the Israelis or the CIA or the Israelis and the CIA, etc. And he says to them, "Okay, you can leave now. You're done. Go to the beach. Because you've stopped thinking."

I love that response to students; it points out that learning is hard work. It requires heavy lifting and long reading.

The same political scientist - who received his Ph.D. here in the US - also points out that there are few students in Morocco who would fit the common, stereotypical understanding of Muslim students as radical, anti-American, violent Islamists. Which leads to the question, again: Why the ignorance that conflates all Muslims and all Arabs and all Middle Easterners?

All of us in this country and elsewhere need to challenge people directly when they exhibit hateful ignorance - as in the case of Darryl or Rory and others.

Thank you again for your article, Eboo Patel.

The spell was cast on 9/11. Up to that time Americans didn't have any opinion on Muslims one way or the other (kind of like American opinion of the Chinese currently). There's a significant group of Muslims who believe that their religion calls on them to murder Americans. We will kill them before they kill us. If Muslims believe this is an attack on Islam as a whole, that's their problem.

Caliph
You talk about the Muslims of the world as a monolithic people. Far from the truth. The Arabs who are a subset of the Muslim world are much more monolithic than the Muslims as a whole and yet not even Nasser could unite two of their countries. Turkey dominated and exploited most Arabs by masquerading as the seat of “Caliphate" with its Sultan as a caliph; successor of the Prophet. The minute the Arabs were liberated during World War I, the Turks did not feel the need to pretend anymore. They maintained their predatory grip on the necks of the Arabs for four hundred years during which they drove them back into th Stone Age at a time when the West moved from the Dark Ages into the Industrial Revolution. If it were not for the Western Allies, the Turks would still be sitting on their throats till this day, and yet the Arabs blame all of their shortcomings and misfortunes on to the West and never mention the Turks, Why? Because the Turks are Muslims . Off Course!

A Saudi young cleric was making sense for a change while discussing terrorism on one of the Arab satellite TV channels. Toward the end of the interview the host remarked that he could not understand why this cleric who have long preached against Saddam Hussein would write an eighty line poem praising him. “Because I heard him say immediately before being hanged ’There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the prophet of Allah’ was his reply. This is the type of mentality we are dealing with here. Does anyone still wonder why their affairs are in such a sorry state?

Maybe these islamophobe callers WANT to keep Islam as an enemy.
For many people it's FUN to have an enemy. Then they can HATE, and that makes them feel better.

Where do atheists fit into this divine muslim world?

I think you have discovered something far more important than you realize. All of these different people, of different faiths are seeing Muslims in ONE way. Muslims are violent and irrational.

I believe they only see this because the major Muslim leaders of government and policy makers, have, for a long time, supported and spouted anti-everything but themselves. This is the perception.

Now for the miscalculation! Those particular leaders, such as Saddam Husein, Amanidinajab (sp) Assad of Syria...the staged anti-American rallies (but NOT any mass peace rallies---all this we see, and have seen for a long time.

I remember when 911 hit. Both the common democrats and republicans spoke in one voice: "Nuke the Bastards!"

What the inflammatory Muslim leaders do not realize, is that if someone really would happen to succeed in doing major harm to this country, the people here would be so angry that when they got done with the Arab countries, there wouldn't be much left except one big smoking cinder.

I'm not saying all people here would be for that, but enough would be provoked to bring it to pass. Here, we have a long history of civil protests and people putting their lives on the line for freedom and civil rights. If what you say is true, that MOST Muslims are for the same values, they had better do something VERY significant, SOON, before the radical leaders do manage to successfully harm this country.

If they successfully harm this country, it won't do you any good to reflect-We should have acted sooner and with greater force- it will be too late. Those good Muslims you speak of, they had better understand that time is really running out for them, because as soon as their morbid leaders accomplish their goal, so will the lives of millions go up in smoke. This country has for so long ignored the vitriolic rhetoric of radical leaders. But more and more people here are paying atention.

I know many in the world view Bush as a tyrant etc....but guess what? Our presidents come, our presidents GO......UNLIKE your leaders. You see, the difference is this- The US changes its government employees regularly, so the opportunity to correct faults arises. We DO NOT identify our country by the PEOPLE in government. We identify our country by its SYSTEM of government.

HOWEVER, in the case of Muslim countries, we identify YOUR countries by the people RUNNING THEM!!!!

In other words, the days of your leaders shouting death to America, those days end just s soon as they somehow manage to pull it off. And it doesnlt matter whether they actualy did it, or just some small, independent terror cell. The people here will not distinguish the difference.

I really hope you understand just how LITTLE time your people have left!!! It would really be in all your best interests to destroy those radicals from your midst. Hunt them down until every last one is dead. Because if you don't, and they succeed in harming this country... you will wish you had taken this advice.

or all the vitriolic world criticism against this country, against a man that will soon leave office, the world has NO IDEA what this country would be like if it REALLY got angry.

Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Only two smaller cities, and they felt BAD about doing it. They did it to end the war quickly, but not , maliciously.

Some of the US haters will say it was malicious. No, no. I will tell you what malicious would have been. Reducing Japan to one big smoking cinder. That is what will happen to the Arab world if they provoke this country to anger. The world has seen Hitler, Stalin, Mao....but it has YET to see what and ANGRY United States would be.

I pray to God it never does. You ought to pray to your God the same thing.

You peaceful Muslims must realize, if you don;t take up arms and destroy those radicals, they are going to bring devestation upon you all.

David Ellis,

The stench of Nazism supposedly was buried after WWII. Apparently not!!!!!!!

Brilliant post Rory.

Millions of Iraqis are displaced and forced into human trafficking. They should all be allowed to immigrate to Texas.

Sam:

Interesting how so many groups of people have issues with Muslims: Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Christians, Jews, Animists, atheists, Zoroastrians, etc... many of these groups have grievances with islam long before the discovery of America in 1402. Why is that do you suppose?

I don't think anyone cast a spell, though the experience feels engulfing. In various other challenges of life - environmental,family matters, human rights, economic outcomes, etc, - I find what I call fundamentalist thinking. The sources of this are many but the shared part is personal and cultural (group) vulnerability and fragility leading to response rigidity. That's partly individual style and partly social. It seems to intensify and spread as life broadly becomes uncertain and threateningly so. I'm not the only one to notice this. The evidence is shrillness in daily interactions, magnified by the most anxious speakers for groups. Anxiety is persistent fear?

Let's face it: As long as there are ignorant, evil, arrogant losers like Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, Charles Krauthammer and their followers who are too sick and dumb to read, study history or think for themselves, there will always be Islamophobia. Islamophobia is exactly what Israel needs, and wants, to keep it's racist holy-war alive and well funded. Israel runs the (formerly) United States of America. Get used to it, folks.

White men need boogeymen. Muslims and hispanics happen to be the boogeymen of the year. Wait a few years and a new boogeyman will pop up. Nothing unites white men faster than finding a good scapegoat. I think having a boogeyman prevents white men from having to self-reflect. If you need to be 100% correct at all times, you need a punching bag. Hispanics really came to the fore when white men couldn't campaign on good government or fiscal responsibility.

Anon, Anon, Anon, wherever you are,

You apparently are new here. The complete synopsis of the flaws of the major religions as repeated on these blog pages almost once a day for the last six months:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a mythical character as was Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven,warmongering, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds these acts of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

4. Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’."

The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."
"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life. e.g. Buddha by one legend was supposedly talking when he came out of his mother's womb.

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, embellishments, lies and myths surrounding the founders and foundations of said rules of life.

Freddy, it doesn't seem that anything productive can be garnered from further correspondence with you. Your most recent comment appeared at 9:40 p.m., referring to my comments of 8:25 a.m. and 9:27 a.m. (March 14, 2008). One of us has posted factually and rationally, the other has not. I trust the readership to decide which is which.

Jihadist fulminated, thus:

"Too bad the Muslim hordes invaded India, diffused the power of the brahmins, caused many dalits to convert to Islam to break the spell of discrimination, and the brahmins and Indian Hindus to this day regard Indian Muslims with the same contempt they would for dalits."

Jihadist, the reasons you cite (as above) are incomplete/irrelevant. Hindus are most forgiving. However the "hatred" for Islam (barbaric ideology) is rekindled when
one reads the article on Partition of India in which Hindus had seen a holocaust like the Auschwitz.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/11/AR2008031103122.html?referrer=emailarticle

Are you faking ignorance ?

From:

http://csidonline.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=131&Itemid=73#osama

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/nov/01/religion.world

return of the caliphate (is only condition for World Peace)

There is no reason why the west should set its face against the vision of a reunited Islamic world

Osama Saeed
Tuesday November 1, 2005
The Guardian

It came as news to many Muslims, and probably non-Muslims too, that one of the things "fundamental to our civilisation" is opposition to any recreation of the Islamic caliphate. That is according to the home secretary, Charles Clarke, speaking last month as an honoured guest of the neocon Heritage Foundation in the US.

It follows hard on the heels of similar comments made by both Tony Blair and George Bush. With such luminaries pushing the policy, there must be significance to the words. The caliphate was wiped from the map, the message seems to be, and they want to keep it wiped.

The institution they attack is the idea of a united political leadership of the Muslim world, which was destroyed in 1924 after about 1,350 years. Following the death of the Prophet Muhammad, caliphs were appointed to the leadership of the Muslims. In the ensuing centuries, the centre and nature of this power moved around, resting in Istanbul at the time of its destruction.

In its dynamic period, the Islamic caliphate was at the heart of a great civilisation, leading the world in science, philosophy, law, maths and astronomy.

More recently, the Muslim world has had artificial lines drawn all over it, most notably by Mr Sykes and Mr Picot during the first world war.

The borders were defined for the colonial masters to extract what they needed and keep the natives divided. Western leaders are still determined today to defend these borders.

However, if Bush and Blair are serious about reform in Muslim countries, it must include not just democratic reform, but also economic development. As the people of the US and the EU know, creating economic blocks to allow this to happen is an imperative. No one argues that each federal state would be better off on its own not being part of the US. The EU managed to bring together a war-ravaged continent, on the basis of economic cooperation, which has led to further union.

India and China are emerging economically because of their size, an advantage the Islamic world would also enjoy if united.

There can be no doubt that there will eventually be a similar model for Muslim countries. Both the US and EU are structurally unique, and so will be any Islamic model. Instead of a president or a commission, there might be what is called a caliph. It's not the names but what the institutions do - and how they are accountable - that matters.

There is no point in comparing the political form a caliphate might take to those in centuries past. Institutions such as the British monarchy or the papacy have existed for centuries, but bear little resemblance today to what's gone before. A restored caliphate is entirely compatible with democratically accountable institutions.
..........

Muslim world was ruled by Kholafae Rashedin Era or the Caliphs with rightful Path from 632 to 661, Umayyad from 661 to 717, Abbaside from 750 to 1242 and lastly Osmani from 1299 to 1923. Others like Mamluks also ruled vast Muslim World. So Caliphate continued for almost 1300 years

Than enemy of Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) i.e. Romans/Europeans/Anglo Saxon destroyed 1300 years Caliphate as they hate Muslims and Caliphate.

Opposition to the Caliphate has been at the core of Britain's Foreign Policy for centuries. Lord Curzon the British Foreign Secretary in 1924 said, "We must put an end to anything which brings about any Islamic unity between the sons of the Muslims. As we have already succeeded in finishing off the Caliphate, so we must ensure that there will never arise again unity for the Muslims, whether it be intellectual or cultural unity.

From:

http://www.khilafahmovement.org/

It came as news to many Muslims, and probably non-Muslims too, that one of the things "fundamental to our civilisation" is opposition to any recreation of the Islamic caliphate. That is according to the home secretary, Charles Clarke, speaking last month as an honoured guest of the neocon Heritage Foundation in the US.
It follows hard on the heels of similar comments made by both Tony Blair and George Bush. With such luminaries pushing the policy, there must be significance to the words. The caliphate was wiped from the map, the message seems to be, and they want to keep it wiped.
The institution they attack is the idea of a united political leadership of the Muslim world, which was destroyed in 1924 after about 1,350 years. Following the death of the Prophet Muhammad, caliphs were appointed to the leadership of the Muslims. In the ensuing centuries, the centre and nature of this power moved around, resting in Istanbul at the time of its destruction.
In its dynamic period, the Islamic caliphate was at the heart of a great civilisation, leading the world in science, philosophy, law, maths and astronomy.
More recently, the Muslim world has had artificial lines drawn all over it, most notably by Mr Sykes and Mr Picot during the first world war.
The borders were defined for the colonial masters to extract what they needed and keep the natives divided. Western leaders are still determined today to defend these borders.
However, if Bush and Blair are serious about reform in Muslim countries, it must include not just democratic reform, but also economic development. As the people of the US and the EU know, creating economic blocks to allow this to happen is an imperative. No one argues that each federal state would be better off on its own not being part of the US. The EU managed to bring together a war-ravaged continent, on the basis of economic cooperation, which has led to further union.

Why does the anti-Islam crowd keep resorting to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES?

Omar ADMITS DEFEAT by failing to answer almost ALL of the questions I put to him. Thanks for rolling over and surrendering, Omar.

Omar replied: “Your accusation of “Distortions, Logical Fallacies and Lies” was general in scope and referred to everyone on the board who was being critical of Islam, including my comment and many others.”

12) Wrong! My comments were NOT “general.” They were VERY SPECIFIC! I referred ONLY to the “anti-Islam crowd.” NOT people who are merely “critical.” Do you understand that being “critical” and being “anti” are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS?

Omar goes on: “No logical fallacy there.”

13) Wrong again! And you just committed another logical fallacy, in conflating mere “criticism” of Islam with being “anti-Islam.” Since logic clearly eludes you, I’ll use an example. Is it possible to be “critical” of America without being “anti-American”?

(What are the odds Omar FAILS to actually answer the above question, since it PROVES he is wrong?)

14) Are you critical of America?

15) Are you anti-American?

Omar goes on: “As for those critics who are the subject of death threats and now require (and will continue to require) security, here’s a short sample:”

What Omar FAILS to understand is that the actions of a minority of people who are Muslim does NOT mean that all Muslims are terrorists, and it does NOT mean that Islam is inherently bad.

16) There are plenty of doctors and clinics in US that STILL require security from Christian terrorists. Does those Christian terrorists mean that Christianity is inherently bad?

And you STILL fail to say if you are anti-Islam. Are you anti-Islam or not?

To Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

A few things to address in Christianity which are just as "obfusing" as anything claimed about Islam.

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies" like angels and Satan.

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Israelite did actually talk God and receive tablets graven with Commandments for His Chosen People to follow.

3. That a guy claiming to be the Son of God got himself crucified and then came back to life and this magically makes a difference for everyone else in the world.

4. That Protestants are superior to Catholics in all aspects of life. And Catholics think the same way about Protestants.

5. That Christiaity is the one true religion.

These are tough issues.

Address them, correct them then ask again to be allowed into the civil world!!!!! Christianity's track record is no better than Islam's.

The comment you refer to were prejudicial, which of course is founded on ignorance. The Western view of Islam and Muslims is not based on a single thing but instead come from many sources.

First, what we see of Muslims is images from Palestine, from the conflicts in India with the withdrawal of British rule and the partitioning of Pakistan and India, from the 1979 revolution in Iran, from Beirut and the SS Cole... and the icing on the cake was the images from 9/11 and the days that followed- including the reaction in parts of the Middle East, and the images of the Taliban and al Qaeda, the bombings in Madrid and London, the routinely outrageous comments by the president of Iran, rioting in the streets in protest of the rest of the world not bowing to the bliefs of Islam (e.g., the cartoon controversy), etc. The issues of dress create a separation between those Muslims who dress traditionally and Westerners (denouncing the West as corrupt doesn't help).

Because the Taliban and al Qaeda claim that legitimacy for mass murder is based in the Koran, the image that Westerners have of Islam is very vivid. That image is of a violent and backwards part of the world, one in which culture and faith are not separated, and a part of the world that will not hesitate to attack those who believe differently. It may be vividly wrong, but how are we to know otherwise?

There are two ways to change the images of Islam for Westerners. One is doing what you are doing- to tell people what Muslims believe. Another is for Muslims to get to know non-Muslims. I have had the pleasure of a number of conversations with Muslims in which I discovered that we had more in common than we had dividing us.

I bet Allah is proud of His Martyrs.
You gotta love people who love you
so much they explode themselves all over
the world Trade Center for you,
and burn thousands of infidels
while they're at it.

Without their Faith in their maker,
they never would have had the courage
for such a mind boggling assignment.

Everybody should have such Faith.
It's what God would want us to have; the ability
to believe so powerfully, that we can just
switch our brains off and go into Faithmode,
where nothing makes sense but is right anyhow.

Momma always said we should do what God
wants us to do.And God knows I try.
But somehow I can't help being a little
skeptical about the whole thing.
The older I get the more foolish does faith become.

Why does the anti-Islam crowd keep resorting to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES?

I hesitate to dignify the deranged bile from “Spiderman2” with a comment, but here goes:

spiderman2: “wait till America is fed up coz the Bible predicts that death will visit those who oppose America.”

Wow. Do all haters of Islam believe such idiocy, or is it only “Spiderman2”?

OK, I challenge you to point out where in the Bible the word "America” appears. If you FAIL, then you must retract all your hate and apologize for it.

Why does the anti-Islam crowd keep resorting to DISTORTIONS, LOGICAL FALLACIES and OUTRIGHT LIES?

Man Cat, you have just admitted you are wrong.

Your FAILURE to answer basic questions means you admit defeat. The FACT that you are AFRAID to answer direct questions shows the failure of your arguments.

Out of ten, Mad Cat only ATTEMPTED to answer three. Less than 1/3rd is pretty pathetic.

Man Cat: “…Perhaps you meant Eric Rudolph. His bombings occurred in the mid 90s. Is this your best? You date yourself. Your bravada is stale.”

So, Man Cat, by failing to defend your comments, you lose. You said ““When has a Christian man, woman or child strapped a bomb on themselves and killed innocent people?”

I pointed out a genuine Christian terrorist who bombed innocent people, so I proved your point WRONG!

Your pathetic attempt to wriggle out by saying his bombings happened in the 90s is a pathetic joke. Eric Rudolph (you are correct that his name is not Roberts) is STILL a Christian terrorist bomber.

12) How does the DECADE of Eric Rudolph’s bombings change the fact that Eric Rudolph is still a Christian terrorist bomber?

13) Many Christian terrorists bombed Ireland until President Clinton help them make peace. Do the dates of those bombings mean they don’t count as Christian terrorism?

14) By your logic, does Islamic terrorism not count if it’s before the year 2000?

15) If you need examples in this decade, Christian terrorists bombed Soweto in 2002. Christian terrorist groups continue attacks on abortion clinics, right up to this year. Are you really unaware of that?

Man Cat says “Better go back to your truther boards- "Freddy". Your posts show your hand and that's no way to play a game of cards.”

16) Huh? Does that even mean anything?

Man Cat: “I don't hate Muslims or Mohammed. I reject Islam. Until and unless it is reformed- it is a poisonous ideology.”

17) Man Cat has FAILED to show what part of Islam is “poisonous” in a way that does not ALSO apply to actions by Christians or teachings in the Bible.

Man Cat FAILED to answer the following:
Man Cat lies: “"Freddy", you are just showing your own hatred of Christ.”

1) How? Prove it.

2) Since when is quoting scripture “showing hatred of Christ”?

3) Do your selective and out of context quotes from the Koran “show your hatred for Muslims?”

4) Or does logic not work in your world?

Man Cat’s ignorance goes on: “Are Christian children taught to kill themselves for the glory of God?”

8) Many people of all faiths teach their children to be willing die for their faith/ culture/ nationality. Some fanatics of all faiths twist that around to ENCOURAGE their kids to die for their faith/ culture/ nationality. But you can only see it when Muslims do it. How sad for you.
Mad cat: “when have you ever heard a Christian yell "God is great" while committing an act of violence?”

9) Truly silly argument. Plenty of soldiers of all faiths invoke their deity when killing and being killed. Again, you fail to ascribe evil only to Muslims.

Man Cat: “No Christian will force you to shut up as a Christ hater.”

10) Wrong again! First, you commit numerous logical fallacies here. Besides your ad hominem attack, you have failed to demonstrate in any way that I am a “Christ hater.” There have been plenty of Christians who sought to silence those who disagreed with them. Are you ignorant of Christian dictators like Frederick Chiluba? He declared that Zambia would henceforth be a Christian nation. He silenced Muslims and Hindus by refusing to allow them into schools to be educated. He made the national TV and radio stations have Christian-only programming. Evil fanatic Pat Robertson said “Your country is not only the standard for Africa but for the rest of the world." And asked his audience "Wouldn't you love to have someone like that as President of the United States of America?"
Man Cat, aren’t you ashamed of your ignorance by now? Do you renounce your religious hypocrisy?

11) Man Cat: “Christ will take care of Himself and you without help.”

LOL. I love the veiled threats of religious hypocrites. I take comfort in the fact that the Bible makes it clear that religious hypocrites will have their own special reward.

Independent.co.uk
Joan Smith: Sorry, God. You're not on the guest list

This is the high point of a fantastic week for secularism.

When the leaders of 27 countries meet in Berlin today to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the EU, there will be one significant absence. To the annoyance of many Poles, who have what is arguably the most crackpot right-wing government in Europe, God has not been invited to the party. Neither Christianity nor the deity feature in the declaration which Europe's leaders will sign to mark the occasion, signalling the high point of what has been a fantastic week for secularism.

I would think that, you might say, given that one of the jobs I most fancy is poster-girl for a strictly rational approach to human affairs. But recent events show that it isn't just sceptics who are worried by the inroads which other people's imaginary friends have been making in secular states. The politician behind the decision to exclude any reference to religion from the Berlin declaration is the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, a pastor's daughter, who recognises the crucial importance for most modern societies of a separation between church and state - and of not providing ammunition to critics who accuse the EU of being a Christian club.

In this country, in a blow to the Islamophobia industry which has tried to silence critics of Islam through strident accusations of racism, the Education Secretary Alan Johnson issued guidelines which will allow schools to ban paranoid forms of religious dress, including the mask, or "niqab", worn by some Muslim girls. I'm sure this will have wide public support, because the last thing most people want is a Talibanisation of relations between men and women in the UK.

At the same time, some of the country's most senior Anglican prelates were roundly defeated in the House of Lords when they made the idiotic error of supporting the Catholic Church in its attempt to discriminate against gay couples who want to use its state-funded adoption agencies. "What do we want? Discrimination! When do we want it? Now!" has never seemed to me a persuasive platform for any religion to fight on, especially when the public has warmed to gay weddings such as that of the singer Sir Elton John (who, by the way, is celebrating his 60th birthday with an eloquent blast against gay-bashing worldwide).

In a dramatic sign of the times, the Archbishop of York and two Anglican bishops found themselves criticised by peers who wanted to know what had happened to the notion of Christian love. Baroness Howarth and the former Culture secretary, Lord Smith, spoke as practising Christians and were supported by Lord Alli and my friend Baroness Massey, easily winning the debate. The Anglican hierarchy needs to do some soul-searching about why they joined this doomed cause, placing themselves on the same side as monstrously prejudiced bishops from Latin America and Africa.

Meanwhile in Paris, in a ruling welcomed as a robust assertion of the right to free speech, a French court acquitted Philippe Val, editor of the weekly satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, who was taken to court by Muslim organisations after publishing three cartoons deemed offensive to the Prophet. And the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled against Poland, which has one of the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe, after a Polish woman lost most of her sight when she was denied a legal abortion on medical grounds.

The Enlightenment, in other words, is back with a bang. Of course people have a right to their religious views, but they aren't entitled to exercise them in ways that trample on the rights of women, children, gay people and freethinkers. Wake up and smell the coffee: God doesn't rule, OK?

A Jesuit priest put it succinctly. Before the creation of Israel the USA had no enemies in the Middle East.

Islamophobia is a zionist/christian fundies propaganda started by a Bernard Lewis [a zionist jew] and promoted as an anchor to tie Israel and the US in a common crusade type.

If Islamophobia is accepted as a given by the zionists and their sympathisers in the US and elsewhere how can one describe the worldwide anti-israel/antisemitic growth in non Islamic societies.

And using what is sauce for the goose must be also sauce for the gander if Arab/islamic peoples are considered enemies then its hard to condemn the Arab/Islamic people for feeling the same sentiment about the American fundamentalists like John Hagee, Pat Robertson, Ron Presely, israel, and zionisim in general.

Hatred is an equal opportunity activity.

Martinanado says, addressing peace-loving Muslims like me: "Where is your Gandhi? Where is you Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, may peace be upon them? Where are Muslims ACTING in ways that show their tolerance and love?"

I ask: If I show and tell you where you can find a Muslim Gandhi or MLK is, how convinced WILL YOU TRULY BE?

I can bet dollars to donuts as Eboo's article excellently shows, you will still not be satisfied. As Eboo correctly notes, "Its a drone and an ignorant hypnotic trance."

But just for argument's sake: check out 1) Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani the most regarded cleric in all of Iraq whose non-violent calls to drop the arms actually paved the way for US troops en route to Baghdad. 2) Heard of Jalaludeen Rumi? (A man million times more enveloped in the ocean of love than MLK could ever be) 3) Abdel Qadir-al-Jelani 4) And modern day a good American born teacher is Hamza Yusuf.

Note MLK existed, how much of his teachings have been implemented by his gov't? For if he were alive today, I'm convinced he would be even sadder at the state of our country, much less the injustice in the world?

Chris Everett;

Um...err..no comment...

I mean uh...yeah thanks.

What can I say?

I meant well.

(Yeah that's the ticket).

You d'man.

The rest of us do what we can.

Daphne.

Oh there "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist and Muslims in General,

As much as the "obfusing" Jihadist tries to distract the global community from the flaws of Islam, they are the facts, facts that continue to keep the world in an elevated state of terror and a threat to world peace.

Once again for everyones perusal since the "obfusing" one will not address them:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies".

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.
These are tough issues.

Address them, correct them then ask again to be allowed into the civil world!!!!!

And accusing someone of spreading hate and lies does not work when these "someones" are simply listing the facts. If you have counter points about your beliefs then list them. Hiding behind imams and clerics blinded by 1400 years of brainwashing serves no purpose other than to secure a dishonest living for said imams and clerics.

Martiniano,

You : Every Muslim will say that Islam is a tolerant religion. Nice words.

Moi : Yes. Nice words. But we don't tolerate repressive governments and invasions in our countries. Or corrupt and ineffective and unjust governance.

You : Where is your Gandhi? Where is you Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, may peace be upon them?

Moi : The British as colonialists, are not as nasty as the Dutch or the French. It is possible for former colonial countries of Britain to have their indepennce with comparatively less bloodshed in India, Malaya, Burma. Indonesia, under the Dutch, and Algeria and Vietnam under the French, saw too much violence towards attaining their independence. The Dutch and French were not as civil and fair-minded as the British. Hence, Gandhi is possible in India.

Martin Luther King Jr? Civil rights against institutionalised racial discrimination within states?

I know you are talking about passive resistance or peaceful protests. But America is a democracy and most Muslim states are not quite. The chances of being mowed down by your own government's guns is quite high. We are lucky if they only throw tear gas and blast water cannons our way.

You : Where are Muslims ACTING in ways that show their tolerance and love?

Moi : We don't have too much tolerance and love for our corrupt, ineffective, repressive and non-democratic governance.

You : You (Eboo Patel) seem to say that it is incumbent upon non-Muslims to change their belief. I say it is incumbent upon Muslims to change our belief.

Moi : It would also be hard to change some beliefs held by Muslims that America is arrogant, rapactious and self-centred.

It is better to be phobic on repressive governments and governance from Cuba to Burma to Iran to China to North Korea than on the faith of their own people.

The western media and pundits keep telling themselves that Islam and democracy is incompatible etc.

Unlike Burmese and Chinese who tolerated their authoritarian governments, Muslims don't. If Muslim governments don't open up their countries to democracy and free speech etc, there will be more extremism and violence.

See Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood. See Algeria when the military declared the results of elections null when Islamic-leaning parties won elections and nary a word of protest from Europe and US. Hence more repression and more violence.

It is possible to have elections as in Indonesia, Malaysia and Turkey. Even so-called Islamic parties, when elected, do act in a pragmatic and accountable way. Openess and democracy is the best antidote to extremism.

Oppressive Muslim governments also tend to paint all dissenters as pro-western or western/CIA agent or apostate or terrorist; and all dissenting groups as insurgents/terrorists. And said so to their anxious people and/or friendly western countries. Whatever their spin is. The "war on terror" is a blessing for repressive governments of Muslim states.

Just as there are Christian Democrats in Europe, there are now Muslim Democrats in the Muslim world. Islamic parties' platform are close to the Democrats - pro-social service for all etc. That's simplyfying it too much, but they proved to be less corrupt and more efficient in governance. As in Turkey.

Only in open democracies can the excessess of secularism and religion can be checked. We learn that now in Indonesia, Malaysia and Turkey.

And you will never see America support ruthless governments like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. We won't stand for giving those Islamo-fascists weapons. We only support freedom.

I'll try one more time to get a response to "what is a moderate Muslim?"

Is this what you mean? Here are Muslim leaders speaking out.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-islamic-summit.html

Excerpts: "We continue to strongly condemn all forms of extremism and dogmatism which are incompatible with Islam, a religion of moderation and peaceful coexistence," the declaration said."
EXCEPT WHEN WE DON'T CONDEMN:
"But, in an apparent reference to the Palestinian fight against Israel, it said terrorism should be differentiated from "legitimate resistance against foreign occupation."
IF YOU ARE JEWISH WE STILL CONDEMN:
"The conference denounces the current and increasing Israeli military campaign against the Palestinian people and the serious violation of human rights and war crimes including the killing and injuring of Palestinian civilians," an OIC statement said."

Of course the council did not denounce the violence against Israeli civilians, which happens to be THE reason Israel is forced to attack. Palestinian daily rocket attacks and sometimes suicide bombers killing Israeli civilians do not get censured by "World Muslim leaders".

Yes, where is your Ghandi? I haven't seen him on American television yet.

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated:)

Hello pussycat.

You : Oops, sorry for the rational/rationale mixup.

Moi : I know. Terrible is it not? Phobias can lead us to excitability to kneejerking to mix things up. Can't even tell mainstream Muslims from Al Qaeda and its ilks? Saying Al Qaeda and its ilks to represent all Muslims?

Of course, everyone knows neo-cons cast a spell on Americans to go adventuring for oil in the Middle East - the cast of spell of bringing about "birth pangs" for a new Middle East, to bring freedom and democracy and what not. But not not to Cuba and China. Or to Burma and North Korea.

A spell indeed. It used to be American phobias on communism as spinned and spurned. Only people who spin their own spells fell for it. Just ask the neocons.

You : The two words (rational/rationale) blend together when dealing with the flaws of religions i.e. fundamental irrational basis for the "irrationale" of it all.

Moi : Thanks for that rationalisation of words and English lesson. We learn many new words from Mr. Donald Rumsfeld. Not too much from Dick Cheney. He don't say much. It is, "irrationality" by the way.

You : So make that Islam is still the most irrational of the "Abrahamic" religions especially when it comes to relying on "pretty wingie thingies" to be the basis of Islam's warmongering, violence and stench.

Moi : I see. Very logical deduction and conclusion Sherlock. I wonder why there is a Crossanization of Christianity then?

Nahh..we don't have as many "pretty wingie thingies" as you do raining bombs on our heads in the Middle East. We've been reading lots of books by Noam Chomsky. We find nothing rational about non-Muslim US since WW II. Everyone knows that the CIA bothched everywhere from Cuba to Iran to Vietnam. If it were not for CIA/US interference, Cuba will not have Castro, Iran will not have a theocracy, and Vietnam would still not be communist/socialistic.

Warmongering? Violence? Stench?.

Not asking Latin Americans, Africans and Asians who are the biggest war-mongerers, the biggest weapons exporter, the most violent, the most stench?

--------------------------------------------------

Hello Deb Chatterjee,

How goes fighting for the rights of dalits and to stop discrimination and violence against them because their non-status in society?

Too bad the Muslim hordes invaded India, diffused the power of the brahmins, caused many dalits to convert to Islam to break the spell of discrimination, and the brahmins and Indian Hindus to this day regard Indian Muslims with the same contempt they would for dalits.

Nahhh....I am not blaming you for the caste system. Not your fault. And not holding your personally accountable for the state and condition of dalits in India.

--------------------------------------------------

Geogiason : All you need to do is rigorously examine the countries in which Islam is the predominant religion to know what Islam really means.

Moi : Well, it means a lot as Muslims are still devout believers. Just as Christianity means not a lot in Europe, not much for some Americans, and too much for other Americans.

--------------------------------------------------

Patrick O'Neil : Luckily, I can travel freely in Buddhist countries without fear.

Moi : Must have been Japan or South Korea. Which are not quite pure Buddhist countries anymore. Been to Burma or Sri Lanka?

But Muslim states don't like to have the sex industry as in Buddhist Thailand though. So, it is safe for sex tourists.

--------------------------------------------------

Dotherightthing: That would be a great day for their resident countries AND for the Muslims themselves - to shake off their cultural apathy and ambivalence toward speaking up against purported-but-not-authentic "fellow" Muslims.
We're waiting.

Moi : There is no Fox TV offices in all Muslim countries. And some of our governments are the worst terrorist in terrorising their own people with repressive laws and curtailments on free speech.

Thanks for waiting anyway in spite of all that media focus on the antics of Ferraro and Governor of New York. Besides, as rightly pointed out by some posters, the rational voices don't get media coverage. Only the extremists ones. Like Osama. We all are fed by what the media wants to feed us everywhere. And media organisations everywhere has political alignments and biases.

Words vs Action.

Every Muslim will say that Islam is a tolerant religion. Nice words.

But...

Where is your Gandhi? Where is you Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, may peace be upon them?

Where are Muslims ACTING in ways that show their tolerance and love?

You seem to say that it is incumbent upon non-Muslims to change their belief. I say it is incumbent upon Muslims to change our belief.

Daphne,

You're my kinda girl. And I love the name.

Eboo,

Speechless? You have a horn for your propaganda and you never ever reply. How many times does one have to ask you to answer just one question? You hate free speech.
*****************************
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200803/FOR20080313a.html
OIC Wants 'Binding Legal Instrument' to Fight Islamophobia
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
March 13, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - An international humanist organization has warned that Islamic governments are trying to use the United Nations to shut down free speech. The warning comes as a bloc of Islamic states is holding a summit with "Islamophobia" high on the agenda.
........
********************************

Islam has thrived by silencing the questioners. Kill the apostates and now the followers of the death cult want to use the laws of the Kafirs to silence the Kafirs?

Instead of lying, trying answering any of the questions put to you? Islam will be questioned and will be examined. Modern technology will not yield to violence and bloodshed that Islam has used very very effectively to date.

"Just a hundred years ago newspapers were just beginning, not everybody could read, electricity was in few homes, automobiles were happening, and a whole new world was just taking off, leaving the darker ages behind for ever."

This is a little off-topic, but isn't it funny how every generation thinks that it is the great culmination of history? Now I like modern life as much as the next guy. Hot showers, electric lights, and the internet, woohoo! But it's hard to read Aeschylus and still think that people were ignorant fools in the past.

First publication dates of a few newspapers (Wikipedia).
16th century privately published Beijing news sheets.
Opregte Haarlemsche Courant, Haarlem, The Netherlands, 1656.
The Daily Courant, 1702.
Boston News-Letter, 1704.
Halifax Gazette, Canada, 1751.
Pennsylvania Evening Post, 1783.
Times of London (The Daily Universal Register), 1785.
New York Sun, 1833.
New York Times, 1851.
Boston Globe, 1872.
Washington Post, 1877.

My,my,my. Perhaps some of Mr. Patel's perplexity about alleged bias toward Muslims woul be be alleviated if he went back and read some of my previous comments to him. My comments, in particular, that are a virtual mirror image of his. The ones in which I point out that myself and others have raised valid points in rebuttal of Mr. Patel--and he never bothers. Like Mr. Patel, we are left speechless by the experience of talking to a brick wall. Like Mr. Patel, we feel we are encountering the same questions over and over again, long after they have been answered.

Maybe Mr. Patel would also get better treatment if he stopped engaging in the same dishonesty and hypocrisy over and over again. The flagrant dishonesty that the "truth" of Islam can be found by rigorous examination of the Koran and other of Islam's founding documents. All you need to do is rigorously examine the countries in which Islam is the predominant religion to know what Islam really means.

But just like those non-Muslims keep asking the same questions about Muslim terrorists and Muslim moderates, devoid of any reference to empirical facts, my guess is that Mr. Patel will keep challenging us to find the real meaning of Islam in his own ever so sophisticated analysis, not by any examination of empirical facts.

As an "Islamophobe" I can answer by pointing out that this is the wrong question.

It doesn't matter to me how many people condemn "terrorism" because it is the "moderate" muslims that "condemn terrorism" that I am afraid of.

A "moderate" muslim is more "fundamentalist" than our extreme "christian fundamentalist" and in any "Islamic Republic" in the world as a gay man I stand a good chance of imprisonment or execution at the hands of "moderate" muslims.

Luckily, I can travel freely in Buddhist countries without fear.

I can answer by pointing out that this is the wrong question.

It doesn't matter to me how many people condemn "terrorism" because it is the "moderate" muslims that "condemn terrorism" that I am afraid of.

A "moderate" muslim is more "fundamentalist" than our extreme "christian fundamentalist" and in any "Islamic Republic" in the world as a gay man I stand a good chance of imprisonment or execution at the hands of "moderate" muslims.

Luckily, I can travel freely in Buddhist countries without fear.

Eboo;
So easy to moderate Islam while living in America... a nation without an Islamic foundation. In fact the only place on earth that you can live a moderate Islam is in fact places where Islam is not at the root or core of it's history of control and persecution of Kafir.
Ezekiel

The other side is to blame. The media on my side says I am right and all my friends agree. The violence committed by my side is for the right reasons. The other side is evil and they are crazy fanatics.

Can't you get it through your head that I am right.

Mr Patel;

Do you actually read these comments?
If you do, do you get discouraged that once again
the majority of posters strongly disagree with what you write?
Does any of it get through to you?
You impress no-one here with your diatribes.

In The Spell of Islamophobia Eboo Patel
wrote:

> I spoke about how Muslim history and
> theology support religious pluralism.

Yes? This may help explain why it is that
Islamic cultures (all of which started out
from pluralistic non-Islamic civilizations)
are everywhere today a monolithic Islamic
mind-control culture where even the mere
expression of a possible change of religion
is instantly punished by death (and where
children are encouraged to murder their
parents, brothers, and sisters ... and it is
demanded of parents they murder their
children if they stray from Islamic law).

Today only a few Christian souls remain of
what was an Egypt which was once all Christian.
The last few surviving Christians are even now
leaving Iran and Iraq. In the East, where Islam
has but only recently taken over countries like
Indonesia, Thailand, and the like... and in Africa
the old civilizations there are in abeyance and
steady retreat under the unrelenting violence
and intimidation of Islam--so too there soon you
will see nothing but the soulless mind-control
slavery you see everywhere in the Islamic world.

DO NOT FALL FOR THE MUSLIM PROPAGANDA.

Look into the history of the Islamic Plague
which has devastated a third of humanity.
The answer is in history, not in articles by
Muslim propagandists like Eboo Patel & others.

VISIT THOU http://islamisbad.com

You can begin from there, and Google your way
to the truth, maybe even before it's too late.

S D Rodrian

Religious belief, of any kind, becomes by definition, closed, separative and ultimately violent. Once you take the first step into childish irrational belief systems, any subsequent violent behavior can be justified or, just as bad, tolerated.
The question is not whether there are "nice" Christians, Muslim or Jews, and "bad" versions.
The question is why do you think you need belief? Why do you want to follow? Why do you need a book or a priest to be generous and kind?
Believers believe out of fear or greed. They want to avoid something or get something.
All the money spent supporting preachers, priests, rabbis, imams, ayatollahs, churches, mosques and synagogues could be spent directly helping people. Believers give because they want to get, which is not giving. It’s a business transaction.
All the talk of tolerance and compassion is babble to make believers feel better.
It’s like prayer. It’s a placebo. It lets you think you’ve done something when you’ve done exactly nothing but talk to the air.
Terrorists at least do something, ugly, hateful and despicable as they are. The good news is, terrorists are revealing religious belief for what it is. The Christians tried terrorism during the Crusades. Now the Muslims are taking their turn at displaying the ignorance of religious belief.
You want to do something. Take the first step. Walk away from religious belief. Life is better on the sane side.

Being an optimist I figure this century has to be religion's last.

We have access to information in this modern era, that our ancestors could only dream of.

Just a hundred years ago newspapers were just beginning, not everybody could read, electricity was in few homes, automobiles were happening, and a whole new world was just taking off, leaving the darker ages behind for ever.

Now we have it all; computers, the net, radio and television,CD's, DVD's, IPods and Blackberries,newspapers,magazines,books, and a greater knowledge of the world, and a greater mastery of science and technology than the most optimistic could ever have hoped for.

We are becoming too literate and too knowledgeable to take religious thinking seriously for too much longer. More and more people are having second thoughts about the irrationality of it all, and, since 9/11 we see how terribly dangerous it is too.

As more and more people get more education than ever before, and literacy levels rise, computer and internet access increases worldwide, religious superstition would seem to be a commodity increasingly unreal, and irrelevant; a relic of our weird and nasty past.

who started it - many major mass media orgs and the bush administration may not have lit the initial flame - but they fanned the fire and threw gasoline on it for sure

how to fix it - the reverse, more visual representation, more muslims openly speaking comfortably about the faith and countering ignorance when they feel comfortable doing so, more publicity and media coverage of the issues in a fair way (not in the muslims hate israel and christians kind of way because that's a false statement) that brings out the complexities and details of issues, a more accurate discussion of the roles of the US in the so-called muslim world, more visible celebration of muslim cultures and customs (though i did see coca-cola doing ramadan advertisements this year...), better protection and community education when discrimination happens, more non-muslims speaking up from a place of knowledge or at least encouraging critics/the confused to read more about it before making silly/ignorant statements....oh, the list goes on and on...but if someone has a silver bullet...

the muslim community - a growing community in the states - has always been one of the strongest, most community oriented and "patriotic" groups in this country whether foreign or domestic in origin and horrible things have been committed by radical individuals apparently in the name of each faith up until this post is being written.

maybe start highlighting famous muslim celebrities and have them talk openly about their faith like madonna and tom cruise and those guys always do.

Ruth Shaver said: "A substantial pillar in any solution of those conflicts will have to be the recognition that NONE of the world's religions are inherently violent, despite millennia of misuse and twisting by political leaders and their ambitions religious advisors."

You have it backwards Ruth.

It should read: " A substantial pillar in any solution of those conflicts will have to be the recognition that ALL of the world's religions are inherently violent, INVOLVING millennia of misuse and twisting by political leaders and their ambitions religious advisors.

There, much better!

I would be sad to see peaceful Islam destroyed but it could happen all too easily if terrorists were to detonate one nuke on U.S. or European soil and the West were to overreact with nuclear retaliation across the board- there are more than enough nukes to do this.

At minimum I am sure that world leaders are going to panic if the first terrorist nuke goes off. Car bomb is one thing. Flash of white light is another. Security goes out the window. Maybe an impetus for a one-world government.

Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, September 15, 2007;

BURGESS HILL, England -- Every morning on his walk to work, high school teacher Graham Wright recited a favorite Anglican prayer and asked God for strength in the day ahead. Then two years ago, he just stopped.

Wright, 59, said he was overwhelmed by a feeling that religion had become a negative influence in his life and the world. Although he once considered becoming an Anglican vicar, he suddenly found that religion represented nothing he believed in, from Muslim extremists blowing themselves up in God's name to Christians condemning gays, contraception and stem cell research.

"I stopped praying because I lost my faith," said Wright, 59, a thoughtful man with graying hair and clear blue eyes. "Now I truly loathe any sight or sound of religion. I blush at what I used to believe."

Wright is now an avowed atheist and part of a growing number of vocal nonbelievers in Europe and the United States. On both sides of the Atlantic, membership in once-quiet groups of nonbelievers is rising, and books attempting to debunk religion have been surprise bestsellers, including "The God Delusion," by Oxford University professor Richard Dawkins.

New groups of nonbelievers are sprouting on college campuses, anti-religious blogs are expanding across the Internet, and in general, more people are publicly saying they have no religious faith.

More than three out of four people in the world consider themselves religious, and those with no faith are a distinct minority. But especially in richer nations, and nowhere more than in Europe, growing numbers of people are actively saying they don't believe there is a heaven or a hell or anything other than this life.

Many analysts trace the rise of what some are calling the "nonreligious movement" to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The sight of religious fanatics killing 3,000 people caused many to begin questioning -- and rejecting -- all religion.

"This is overwhelmingly the topic of the moment," said Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society of Britain. "Religion in this country was very quiet until September 11, and now it is at the center of everything."

Since the 2001 attacks, a string of religiously inspired bomb and murder plots has shaken Europe. Muslim radicals killed 52 people on the London public transit system in 2005 and 191 on Madrid trains in 2004. People apparently aiming for a reward in heaven were arrested in Britain last year for trying to blow up transatlantic jetliners. And earlier this month in Germany, authorities arrested converts to Islam on charges that they planned to blow up American facilities there.

Many Europeans are angry at demands to use taxpayer money to accommodate Islam, Europe's fastest-growing religion, which now has as many as 20 million followers on the continent. Along with calls for prayer rooms in police stations, foot baths in public places and funding for Islamic schools and mosques, expensive legal battles have broken out over the niqab, the Muslim veil that covers all but the eyes, which some devout women seek to wear in classrooms and court.

Christian fundamentalist groups who want to halt certain science research, reverse abortion and gay rights and teach creationism rather than evolution in schools are also angering people, according to Sanderson and others.

"There is a feeling that religion is being forced on an unwilling public, and now people are beginning to speak out against what they see as rising Islamic and Christian militancy," Sanderson said.

Though the number of nonbelievers speaking their minds is rising, academics say it's impossible to calculate how many people silently share that view. Many people who do not consider themselves religious or belong to any faith group often believe, even if vaguely, in a supreme being or an afterlife. Others are not sure what they believe.

The term atheist can imply aggressiveness in disbelief; many who don't believe in God prefer to call themselves humanists, secularists, freethinkers, rationalists or, a more recently coined term, brights.

"Where religion is weak, people don't feel a need to organize against it," said Phil Zuckerman, an American academic who has written extensively about atheism around the globe.

He and others said secular groups are also gaining strength in countries where religious influence over society looms large, including India, Israel and Turkey. "Any time we see an outspoken movement against religion, it tells us that religion has power there," Zuckerman said.

One group of nonbelievers in particular is attracting attention in Europe: the Council of Ex-Muslims. Founded earlier this year in Germany, the group now has a few hundred members and an expanding number of chapters across the continent. "You can't tell us religion is peaceful -- look around at the misery it is causing," said Maryam Namazie, leader of the group's British chapter.

She and other leaders of the council held a news conference in The Hague to launch the Dutch chapter on Sept. 11, the sixth anniversary of the terrorist attacks in the United States. "We are all atheists and nonbelievers, and our goal is not to eradicate Islam from the face of the earth," but to make it a private matter that is not imposed on others, she said.

The majority of nonbelievers say they are speaking out only because of religious fanatics. But some atheists are also extreme, urging people, for example, to blot out the words "In God We Trust" from every dollar bill they carry.

Gaining political clout and access to television and radio airtime is the goal of many of these groups. With a higher profile, they say, they could, for instance, lobby for all religious rooms in public hospitals to be closed, as a response to Muslims demanding prayer rooms because Christians have chapels.

Associations of nonbelievers are also moving to address the growing demand in Britain, Spain, Italy and other European countries for nonreligious weddings, funerals and celebrations for new babies. They are helping arrange ceremonies that steer clear of talk of God, heaven and miracles and celebrate, as they say, "this one life we know."

The British Humanist Association, which urges people who think "the government pays too much attention to religious groups" to join them, has seen its membership double in two years to 6,500.

A humanist group in the British Parliament that looks out for the rights of the nonreligious now has about 120 members, up from about 25 a year ago.

Doreen Massey, a Labor Party member of the House of Lords who belongs to that group, said most British people don't want legislators to make public policy decisions on issues such as abortion and other health matters based on their religious affiliation.

But the church has disproportionate power and influence in Parliament, she said. Forexample, she said, polls show that 80 percent of Britons want the terminally ill who are in pain to have the right to a medically assisted death, yet such proposals have been effectively killed by a handful of powerful bishops.

"We can't accept that religious faiths have a monopoly on ethics, morality and spirituality," Massey said. Now, she added, humanist and secularist groups are becoming "more confident and more powerful" and recognize that they represent the wishes of huge numbers of people.
While the faithful have traditionally met like-minded people at the local church, mosque or synagogue, it has long been difficult for those without religion to find each other. The expansion of the Internet has made it a vital way for nonbelievers to connect.

In retirement centers, restaurants, homes and public lectures and debates, nonbelievers are convening to talk about how to push back what they see as increasingly intrusive religion.

"Born Again Atheist," "Happy Heathen" and other anti-religious T-shirts and bumper stickers are increasingly seen on the streets. Groups such as the Skeptics in the Pub in London, which recently met to discuss this topic, "God: The Failed Hypothesis," are now finding that they need bigger rooms to accommodate those who find them online.

Wright, the teacher who recently declared himself a nonbeliever, is one of thousands of people who have joined dues-paying secular and humanist groups in Europe this year.

Sitting in his living room on a quiet cul-de-sac in this English town of 30,000, Wright said he now goes online every day to keep up with the latest atheist news.

"One has to step up and stem the rise of religious influence," said Wright, who is thinking of becoming a celebrant at humanist funerals. He said he recently went to the church funeral of his brother-in-law and couldn't bear the "vacuous prayers of the vicar," who, Wright said, "looked bored and couldn't wait to leave."

Now, instead of each morning silently reciting a favorite nighttime prayer, "Lighten our darkness, we beseech thee, O Lord, and by thy great mercy defend us from all perils and dangers . . . " (from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer), he spends the time just thinking about the day ahead.

He said his deceased mother, a Catholic, was comforted by her faith: "It kept her going through difficult times," particularly when his father left her when he and his sister were young.

"I really don't know how I will react if something really bad happens," he said. "But there is no going back. There is nothing to go back to."

Not believing in an afterlife, he said, "makes you think you have to make the most of this life. It's the now that matters. It also makes you feel a greater urgency of things that matter," such as halting global warming, and not just dismissing it as being "all in God's plan."

He called himself heartened that the National Secular Society, which he recently joined, is planning to open chapters at a dozen universities this fall. The rising presence of the nonreligious movement, he said, is "fantastic."

"It's a bit of opposition, isn't it?" he said. "Why should these religious groups hold so much sway?

After listening to Obama’s pastor preach against whites … I'm afraid Obama's religious indoctrination, even though Christian, has racial hatred and victimization at its core.

That may mean the whole country has been duped by Obama.

Even Obama may not be conscious of the extent of his own racism. But the fact he “projects” the motivation of racism onto others like Bill, Hillary and Ferraro—who have fought their entire political careers for racial equality—is a sign that lurking in his heart might be racist points of view. How else could he feel comfortable sitting at the feet of this pastor?

There is no way Obama can win the general election against McCain with this kind of connection to racist views against whites. The Republicans will blow this up and scare everyone, since he has family members that are Muslim too.

The question I imagine they will ask people to consider is:

How can you trust him as President to represent all the people of this great nation, when he is comfortable listening to a preacher who teaches hatred against whites and has a basic anti-American sentiment?

The spell casting emanates from Saudi Arabia, The reaction to that spell is what you are describing. The holy tenants of Islam are (still to this day) promoting supremacist attitudes, and exhorting the followers to spread the faith by the sword. Everyday stories from around the world show that the message is being taken literally. Why can't the rest of the muslims clean up this part of their culture? How many atrocities are systematically being performed in the name of Islam - look to Darfur, for just one example.

Often muslims seem to be pointing outward to the injustices that they must endure in world opinion. This persecution complex ironically is what justifies so many of these unholy terrorists. It is my opinion that the muslim consciousness needs therapy, and real quick.

because anti-islamism is the new anti-semitism.

this is not surprising. the west had tried to separate the islam from the active politics of muslims which trail had successfuly been implemented.thus in muslim countries the western type of democracy run by proffessional criminals remain usually availble instead the original form of islamic governace for which it is not required here to discuss the merits and the demerits of such of islamic governce.however; west is so obsessed with word islam and muslims which permits them to coin everything linked with terrorisim. when pakistan developed necular weapon purely on scientific basis the same was called islamic bomb.we can apprehend that in near future islamic chemistry islamic physics and islamic necular sciences could also be linked just on the notion of name muslims.the humans begin to behave above logic when they have bais thus blocking themselves from free investigation and research.let us hope that truth may prevail.thanks

Who cast the spell? American politicians of both parties who discovered, in the years after the fall of the Soviet Bloc, that they needed a new enemy in order to justify a bloated defense budget. 9/11 turned the volume up on that chant, and sadly we have now bought two very broken countries and the enmity of nearly 1/3 of the world.

We can't undo what has been done, but I do wonder what the world would be like now had the post-Soviet era been focused on the diplomatic solution of what remain intractable international problems such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Serbia, Armenia, Georgia, and Hindu-Muslim conflicts in India. A substantial pillar in any solution of those conflicts will have to be the recognition that NONE of the world's religions are inherently violent, despite millennia of misuse and twisting by political leaders and their ambitions religious advisors.

When was the last time Muslims as a group in any Western country demonstrated in the streets in the thousands explicitly against muslim terrorism attacks and against "the hijacking of Islam"?
That, combined with the Islamic precept allowing deception in the furtherance of jihad, makes Westerners unsure of the good intentions of the Muslims in their midst.
So, if Muslims truly are against Osama and his ilk, let them physically demonstrate their opposition and condemnation in the streets of the countries in which they reside. That would be a great day for their resident countries AND for the Muslims themselves - to shake off their cultural apathy and ambivalence toward speaking up against purported-but-not-authentic "fellow" Muslims.
We're waiting.

You just proved your callers point. It is no longer enough to condemn the violent action. It is now action that speaks louder than words.

Your proof in the pudding would be when you need to insist that Churches are built in Saudi. Or you willing to die for a non-muslim (preferably Hindu). Or go to Somalia or Sudan in the midst of the anarchy and insist that they not kill other muslims. And then take action to demolish anyone who counters you thirst for support the oppressed man. You being probably a product of the Arab liason should condemn all of the conquest that took place in the name on Religion.

Finally, insist that Pakistan become a secular state

Next time make this comment instead of holding it in:

“Don’t you feel a little embarrassed revealing that level of ignorance and bigotry on Public Radio? Do you know nothing more about the religion of one-fifth of humankind for over 1000 years but the violent bits? Isn’t that a little like knowing nothing more about the United States Constitution than the clause which states black people only count as three-fifths of a human being”.

Next time make this comment instead of holding it in:

“Don’t you feel a little embarrassed revealing that level of ignorance and bigotry on Public Radio? Do you know nothing more about the religion of one-fifth of humankind for over 1000 years but the violent bits? Isn’t that a little like knowing nothing more about the United States Constitution than the clause which states black people only count as three-fifths of a human being”.

Sari:

Awesome job with the list of authors - this is the kind of information I have been trying to get a hold of. I definitely plan on looking them up.

One thing, however - most the of people on this forum complaining about how violent Muslims are probably will never pick up a single book from an author without a Judeo-Christian name. People prejudice against Islam are probably prejudice against Arabs, Persians, and the like. If you know of anyone named "John Smith" or "Michael Jones" who write of progressive Islam, we might be able to woo a few more people to the informed side.

To the "independent who just posted." Stop spewing hate. Do something constructive. If your current profession fails, you may want to try applying for a job as a Hamas propagandist. Perhaps Meshal would hire you. I think you'd be too extreme for Haniyeh's faction.

Why not read some books and learn about the complexity of the Arab-Israeli conflict and stop getting all your information from the al Jazeera website.

Mr. Patel's wholly justified heartfelt reply so eloquently addresses a terrible problem, it ought to be read in public school civics classes - dare I hope schools still teach civics? Islamophobia, I remember precisely, had its origins in Republican excuses for the ongoing occupation of Iraq, in which we're trying to save Muslims from themselves. Jimmy Carter never felt obliged to make us hate Muslims for the Americans taken hostage, nor Bush 41 during our first war against Iraq, nor Clinton during Iraq sanctions. It keeps Bush's base from seeing his foreign policy fiasco as a failure but dooms his legacy. Indeed, his rhetorical sins alone are gross enough to ruin his legacy.

Why are Christians in Egypt murdered, raped, forced to convert, raped then forced to convert, burned, forced out of their homes, subject to unfair construction and business restrictions, threatened, harassed, unprotected by the law, punished for no reason in the name of the law...why all this injustice? And why has this been happening since Islam first appeared in Egypt?

None of this is covered by the American media, so no one can say that people who are aware of this or live through it are influenced by the media.

Why can't the Muslims who see this treatment as inhumane speak out? Why can't anyone speak against it? They go to jail or are killed. They need a full security detail to go anywhere.

But I guess it's my fault that I feel there might be a few problems with Islam in Egypt. It's ME, I'm under a spell. Anyone who feels that Westerners are hypnotized, go to Egypt as a non-Muslim. Go outside the tourist sites, and see how people of other faiths are treated.

There are many Islam Doctors here in the USA. My question if they let a few of us Unbelievers die unnecessarily will that be enough to get the 72 virgins in paradise. So many Muslins are willing to blow their selfs for that it seems credible that Islam doctors may be tempted also!

Dear Eboo,
I think the problem is that the radicals speak with megaphones and through bomb attacks that make news. When the moderates speak, it tends to be in books and at conferences. Those looking for evidence of "moderate" Islam would have to go to bookstores, amazon.com, the library and get their hands really dusty in the stacks. This means they have to look for it. And some people don't want to have to search for the info.

I would suggest posting a reading list on your website, if you have one, and directing those callers to that website, or, if you do not, offering to send them a copy of this kind of reading list. I have found the several books very enlightening in understanding progressive, liberal, moderate, non-radical Islam...

These include anything by Khaled Abou El Fadl, Abdurrahman Wahid, Abdolkarim Soroush, Azyumardi Azra, Anwar Ibrahim, the late Nurcholish Madjid, Rachid al Ghannouchi, and Fetullah Gulen. If they're looking for any good books or edited volumes, they may want to start with Charles Kurzman's book "Liberal Islam: A Sourcebook," Hakan Yavuz's work on the Fetullah Gulen movement;or Greg Barton's books on Nahdlatul Ulama. Fatima Mernissi is a wonderful Muslim Feminist, as are Zainah Anwar and Nooraini Othman. The Sisters in Islam website is a wonderful resource on pro-women tafsir from the Koran and Hadith.

I am sure you can list at least a dozen more. That should get people started. If someone reads articles or books by even a few of these authors, it should put to rest some of their concerns. Then, perhaps we can start having really informed discussions on Islam. And perhaps, you won't have to deal with so many, "WHY IS ISLAM SO BLOODY VIOLENT" questions. If you get them, just refer them to your list and tell them to start educating themselves. Knowledge is a beautiful thing.

Eboo Patel wrote (contemptuously):

"Whenever I’m on the radio or on television or giving a public talk about Islam and peace, I always get a bunch of questions from people who only associate two things with Islam – violence, and the absence of Muslims protesting violence."

Well, Eboo get a grip. People won't ask questions what you would like them to ask so as to throw a bone at you to gloat about Islam. That's people's freedom. And history of Islam shows that violence and barbarism is associated with this religion since its inception. So, why is it unfair to ask the probing question about Islam and violence. Calling these legitimate but uncomfortable inquiries on Islam as "Islamophobic" is quite a pedestrian mentality. If you cannot withstand the hard scrutiny, please get quit going on the talk shows to put up the false show of "spreading the message of peace that Islam professes". Islam means Submission (al-silm), and sanitizers like you have made Islam to mean "peace", which it is certainly not.

More fundamentally, why should non-Muslims try to reform Islam ? It is like saying that "please give my violent child a break". He deserves equal respect like your well-mannered child. And this can also be extended like saying that those who engage in sexual abuse of minor children, should be forgiven even if it is not guaranteed that they will not commit such heinous crimes again.

That's why: you and your religion (Islam) should get a grip. Next time tell us in advance which talk show you shall be and I'll call you there.

I was excited to see the Gallup poll and I wondered why I didn't see it in any mainstream media. Then I read this from the results PDF:

"In order to investigate characteristics that distinguish Muslim world residents who are potentially prone to extremist views, we divided respondents from the region into two groups. Classified as political radicals were those who met the following criteria: 1) they felt the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were “completely justified”, and 2) they indicate that they have an “unfavorable” or “very unfavorable” opinion of the United States. Those who did not say the attacks were completely justified were termed moderates. The “radical” group represents about 7% of the total population across the 10 countries included in the study."

Can anyone get the actual poll questions asked? Because I can see certain people tearing this survey apart if Gallup asked if the 9/11 attack was "somewhat justified" and those who said yes were considered moderate. I would like to point people to the survey but we need to know what questions were asked. Because this survey, if it was done properly really does show that most Muslims are moderate and fairly tolerant of others views.

The endless violence and threat of violence from the Muslim world cast the spell. You can not complain that Muslim leaders, Jihad Imams and the violent and terrorist groups they support have made us wary.

The comment about the American Constitution saying that "black people only count as three-fifths of a human being" is very inaccurate. The constitution does not contain the words 'black'in reference to a person, or slave, or even 'religion' except in the 1st Amendment's prohibition of state religion. The clause actually gave three fifths representation to non-citizens, including indentured servants, and this recognition of non-citizen rights existed nowhere else on earth. Slavery at the time was actually protected by Sharia or Islamic law, as it was in the laws of South America, India, China, and Africa. Indentured servants were a European form of slavery evolving from serfdom.

The 'spell' referred to in this article might be something other than Islamophobia. Americans have began to recognize that structured religions, as opposed to spirituality, are hiding places for many who can be diagnosed as sociopathic preditors (serial rapists, genociders, usury parasites, suicide advocates, power obsessionals and so on) who use religious dogmas to carry out their preditory natures against humans. The spell might involve a growing awareness that a small minority in each religion is perverting its message to their own fantasies and Americans are JUSTLY phobic about them.

The comment about the American Constitution saying that "black people only count as three-fifths of a human being" is very inaccurate. The constitution does not contain the words 'black'in reference to a person, or slave, or even 'religion' except in the 1st Amendment's prohibition of state religion. The clause actually gave three fifths representation to non-citizens, including indentured servants, and this recognition of non-citizen rights existed nowhere else on earth. Slavery at the time was actually protected by Sharia or Islamic law, as it was in the laws of South America, India, China, and Africa. Indentured servants were a European form of slavery evolving from serfdom.

The 'spell' referred to in this article might be something other than Islamophobia. Americans have began to recognize that structured religions, as opposed to spirituality, are hiding places for many who can be diagnosed as sociopathic preditors (serial rapists, genociders, usury parasites, suicide advocates, power obsessionals and so on) who use religious dogmas to carry out their preditory natures against humans. The spell might involve a growing awareness that a small minority in each religion is perverting its message to their own fantasies and Americans are JUSTLY phobic about them.

None are so blind as those who refuse to see. Islamophobes, like all who are blinded by prejudice, refuse to see. So, no amount of re-education is going to open their eyes. Experience is a better teacher. Muslims need to break any and all forms of self-imposed segregation and non-Muslims need to actively reach out to Muslims in worship, work, play and all other arenas of life. For starters every church in the USA should partner with a mosque and hold joint worship services.

I am frustrated with so many of these comments. So many people are basically saying "Because the leaders of Islam don't have very good Public Relations people, I should be allowed have whatever ignornant biases I have about Islam."

Think about the factors here: the average Muslim-majority nation is NOT as heavily influenced by the same level of media hype the US is. Think about it.

Energy companies and other big pollutors in the US show lots of commercials where 90% of the objects are either green or penguins. This is a marketing stragedy that they must use because if the American people get upset with them too much, they do less business.

If Americans are upset with Muslims in foreign countries, what consequences do they suffer? Nothing. I know we like to consider ourselves the world's only superpower and the moral pinnacle of the world, but these are just delusions. Stop thinking that people in the Middle East need to bend over backwards to win the popularity contest all of you want to participate in.

for your audiences'(in Phila.) questions (all genuine). These are all wire/news reports:

Aga Khan (your prophet/a Shiite Muslim leader from Karachi, Pak) offered 30,000 troops to Hitler in early 1940s (way before Israel was created). So did the chief Muslim cleric of Palestine who offered Hitler free access to Jews whenever Nazis got up to Palestine.

A prominent Muslim cleric has asked Muslims to blow up Danish buildings and the flying body parts will satisfy Allah's lust (due to cartoons).

A Paki cleric has said Kashmir should be snatched from India even if nuclear weapons have to be used.

And don't forget, Mr. Patel, I have seen you on this forum spewing fire and hatred at people like Hirsi Ali, Rushdie etc.

Read a newspaper (for news of daily mass killings of civilians by Muslims) for Allah's sake and you will not be surprised by Philadelphians' questions. You either do not seem to be too bright or are lying when you say you were surprised.

So the author claims that the problem here is not Islam and its violent teachings, history, or current practices. Rather, the problem is just how we perceive Islam. I don't think so.

An