All Comments (412)

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 t