To me this is nothing but verbal gymnastics. You can stretch any verse to make it say whatevr you want or don't want.

Simply put: I DON'T BELIEVE A WORD YOU UTTER.

Majid Al-Hafeed,

The real issues are the foundations of contemporary religions to include Islam. Have you studied these foundations? If so, please comment on the following:

A synopsis of the foundations of the major contemporary religions:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

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. Analyses of his 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 sects.

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating 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 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 Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics

4. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy 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 centred 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.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/BUDDHISM/SIDD.HTM

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations/embellishments and myths surrounding the founders of said rules of life.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus for an analysis of Jesus' life to include his illiteracy.

the islamic terrorists are following the koran. the koran demands hate and murder of its followers. so dont try to tell us it does not.
here is what it says:
The Hadith No. 284, The Muslim, volume one, says that any Jew or Christian, who heard of Muhammad but did not convert to Islam, and died in disbelief, would rot in hell! Thus Islam withdraws from all Jews and Christians the right to believe in their faiths, and practice them as such.
"The unbelievers of the People of the Book and the idolators shall be in the Fire of Hell therein dwelling for ever; those are the worst of creatures. But those who believe, and do righteous deeds, those are the best of creatures..." (XCVIII: The Clear Sign: 5)
Here those Jews and Christians, who spurn Islam, have been lumped together with the idolators such as the Hindus, and classified as 'the worst of creatures'. Therefore the Koran commands:
"O believers, take not as your friends those of them, who were given the Book before you, and the unbelievers, who take your religion in mockery and as a sport..." (V: The Table: 60)
"The true believers say: Has not God ordered a chapter that commands the holy war" (Sura 47:22); or elsewhere: "Kill the idolaters wherever you find them, imprison them, besiege them, ambush them" (Sura 9:5); and, "Make war on unbelievers" (Sura 9:29). "When you come upon unbelievers, massacre them, tighten the bands of the captives that you will have taken. Then you will set them free, or you will release them for a ransom" (Sura 8:57).
"To Allah, there are no animals viler than those who do not believe and remain unbelievers" (Sura 8:57). That is why it is necessary to Islamize them by force and by humiliation. And those who resist Islam and its founder must be chastised, according to the Koran: "Here is the fate of those who fight Allah and his messenger: you will put them to death or you will make them suffer the torture of the cross; you will cut their hands and their feet alternately. They will be driven from the country" (Sura 5:37).
"Do not display cowardice, and do not call the infidels to peace when you are superior to them" (Sura 47:22). THIS ALLOWS THEM TO MAKE PEACE SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE WAR AGAIN LATER.
4.89": They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
"4.90": Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them.
"4.91": You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority."

here is some of the peaceful history of islam.
One of many sacks of Rome, that of the year 846 was the only instance of Muslims sacking the capital of the Christian church.
During the 8th and 9th centuries, the Arabs (known by mediaeval Italians as the Saracens) had begun to expand into Southern Italy during the Muslim conquest of Southern Italy. These newcomers, sailing from their bases in North Africa, had conquered Sicily and had begun a steady penetration of the peninsula.
Under Pope Paschal I (817-824), all the spoils of the holy martyrs were transferred into the walls of the city. When Rome was finally sacked in 846, Paschal's preparation did not prevent the robbery of Basilica of Saint Peter itself, nor of another major basilica, San Paolo fuori le Mura, both of which were outside the ancient fortifications.

hey lets talk crusades.
i posted a date by date history of islam's first 50 years. murder after murder. now here is a summary of what lead up to the crusades.
The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.

846 Muslims sacking the capital of the Christian church. During the 8th and 9th centuries, the Arabs (known by mediaeval Italians as the Saracens) had begun to expand into Southern Italy during the Muslim conquest of Southern Italy. These newcomers, sailing from their bases in North Africa, had conquered Sicily and had begun a steady penetration of the peninsula.
Under Pope Paschal I (817-824), all the spoils of the holy martyrs were transferred into the walls of the city. When Rome was finally sacked in 846, Paschal's preparation did not prevent the robbery of Basilica of Saint Peter itself, nor of another major basilica, San Paolo fuori le Mura, both of which were outside the ancient fortifications.

To prevent a second such incident, in 852 Pope Leo IV commissioned the construction of another wall (so-called Leonine Wall) around an area on the opposite side of the Tiber from the seven hills of Rome. This enclosure has since become known as the Leonine City.

additionally - The Islamic conquest and domination of Sicily, as well as parts of southern Italy, is a process whose origin must be traced back in the general expansion of Islam from the 7th century onwards.

The first attacks from Islamic ships to Sicily, then part of the Eastern Roman Empire, occurred in 652: they were Arabs from Syria, led by Mu'àuia ibn-Hodeig of the Kinda tribe, and remained on the island for several years. The Byzantine exarch of Ravenna Olympius also came to Sicily but were unable to oust the invaders, who returned to Syria after collecting a large booty.

A second expedition occurred in 669. This time the strong, ravaging force consisted of 200 ships from Alexandria. They sacked Syracuse and returned to Egypt after a month of pillaging. After the Umayyad conquest of Africa (complete around 700), attacks from Muslim fleets repeated in 703, 728, 729, 730, 731, 733 and 734, the last two times meeting with a substantial Byzantine resistance.

The first true conquest expedition was launched in 740: in that year the Muslim prince Habib, who participated on the 728 attack, and his son Abdurrahman, after a successful siege of Syracuse, were ready to conquer the whole island when they were called back to Tunisia by a Berber revolt. A second attack in 752 aimed only to sack the city.

In 805 the Imperial patrician of Sicily, Constantine, signed a ten years truce with Ibrahim I ibn al-Aghlab, Emir of Ifriqiya, but this did not prevent other Muslim fleets from other areas of Africa and Spain to attack Sardinia and Corsica in 806-821. In 812 Ibrahim's son, Abdallah I, sent an invasion force to conquer Sicily. His ships were however pushed back first by the intervention of Gaeta and Amalfi, and later by a tempest which destroyed much of them. However, they managed to conquer the islands of Lampedusa and, in the Tyrrhenian Sea, to ravage Ponza and Ischia. A further agreement between the new patrician Gregorius and the Emir established the freedom of commerce between southern Italy and Ifriqiya. After a further attack by Mohammed ibn-Adballad, cousin of Emir Ziyadat Allah I in 819, no news of subsequent Muslim attack to Sicily are known until 827.
At his point, Sicily was almost entirely in control of Aghlabids, with the exception of some minor strongholds in the rugged interior. The population had been increased by the immigration of Muslims from Africa, Asia and Spain, as well as Berbers, who were most concentrated in the southern of the island. The emir in Palermo nominated the governors of the main cities (qadi) and those of the less important ones (hakim), and the other functionaries. Each city had a council called gema, composed by the most eminent members of the local society, which was entrusted of the care of the public works and of the social order.

The conquered Sicilian population was subjected to the typical discrimination against the Infidel found in most Muslim dominated lands.

****They were permitted freedom of worship, but only if they accepted the inferior status of a dhimmi.****

As dhimmi they were subjected to extra taxation -- the jizya (poll tax) and the kharaj (land tax), which ensured that they were contributing to the upkeep of security and protection that the Muslim armies were providing them. There were restrictions on repairing or building new churches. The dhimmi could not bear arms or ride a horse and were required to wear distinctive clothes so that they could be easily identified as dhimmi. Some converted to Islam in order to leviate the additional taxes that they had to pay. This situation resulted in the spread of Islam among the inhabitants (whether by honest conviction or economic and societal compulsion). However, many Greek Christian communities managed to survive as dhimmi until the arrival of the Normans -- especially in the hill towns of Northeastern Sicily. These Sicilians generally welcomed the Norman invaders.

isn't 500 years of being attacked, sacking rome, enough to warrant a response? not if your islamic.

i only partly agree. i shouldnt say suicide bombers are bad . but they should be better
organised . when any uprising arises , there are many conditions for its success and for its being turned into a revolution .to carry out revolution is not an easy task . colonial struggle in third world countries against whites is a glaring example.as i condemn the poor organisational capacity of the bombers i also decry strongly the US attitude.

i strongly depreciate the poor organisational capacity and intellectual impoverishment of differnt terror groups. thoughi strongly support them.

The problem with suicide bombing and terrorism in general is that a religious cleric (or a Muslim acting as one) can easily interpret Quranic verses and hadiths to support their goals and methods. Even the 4 examples you gave us can easily be interpreted to justify suicide bombing (even with reading the non-bold sections).

A perfect example: It is said ad nauseum that Islam forbids the killing of civilians, or women, children and old men "even in the battlefield." One such verse used to come to this conclusion involves the Prophet referring to a dead woman after battle and lamenting her death by saying something to effect of "she could not have harmed us so she should not have been killed." Of course, a prohibition on killing women or non-combatants would really get in the way of the suicide bombing campaigns that are the only weapon of groups like Al-Qaeda. So their "clerics" interpret the SAME verse but come to a completely different conclusion. According to them, the Prophet actually forbade the killing of those who were not a threat, or those who bear no responsibility for the violence perpetrated against Muslims. Perhaps back in the 7th century Arabia this is an apt description of women. But today, extremist clerics argue (rightly) that women are not harmless. Beyond that, they argue that in a democracy like the United States, no one is really a "non-combatant" because we all share responsibility for our democratically-elected government.

So the SAME verse is interpreted to come to two DIFFERENT conclusions. There are many other examples of this to justify all manner of atrocities.

Religion is a valuable source of morality--it should be. But this example shows that religion can also be used to provide justification to many immoral acts. Religiously speaking, both interpretations of the verse above are "correct." It is because of this ambiguity that states and the international community have crafted more precise interpretations on morality. For example: the intentional killing of another human being wrong. And yes, I know that the US and other states kill people when they drop a smart bomb on a village. An attack in a Bali nightclub or an office tower is not the same thing as the bombing of a safe house occupied by terrorists, even if the safe house's destruction results in accidental death of civilians. The motivation and methods in the two cases are completely different.

9/11 did Islam a power of good.
Now Islam is everywhere...just look at these Faith pages.
The world now pays more attention to Islam than to any other religion,and is bending over backwards not to offend or ignore it.
One way or the other,Islam will eventually dominate Western civilization or destroy it.

thanks you for your quick answer.

"Sadly. whatever I say here will be useless and will not effect them [terrorists] because they believe that they are scholars and know everything about the religion. But, in fact, they live in darkness with lack of knowledge."

Very well said and true. There has become a lack of obedience to authority by many terrorists and thugs who fight pretending under right authority and sanction, whereas they are only spreading more chaos and insecurity.

I welcome Muslims to this country if they have come here for the same reasons that my Irish/German ancestors came....to pursue dreams of a better life with greater opportunities. However, I find myself feeling as though they should not be allowed into this country. I fear that they are not coming peacefully. If I saw evidence that all Muslim immigrants were willing to report anyone (including the Muslims in their community)who talks or acts in a way that arouses suspicion of their motives, thereby averting tragedies, I could be much more open to Muslims joining our society. I think it is the least that Muslims in this country can do, to show that they abhor the actions of those intent on violence and hatred. If I saw this happening, I would embrace and welcome these peolple, as I have embraced and created friendships with some of the recent immagrants to the U. S.

It strikes me as funny, that Muslims don't think God can take care of them. They have to fight to take care of themselves. Is this fear or a warped show of pride or faith? Speaking of fear, has there ever been an overwhelmingly large amount of Muslims to speak against Bin Laden? Interesting isn't it? Fear of retaliation? Or is it that most Muslims love him? And if so, what does that say about Islam? There are cracks in the Quran allowing Muslims to make excuses for every and any action that leaves them unaccountable for anything...inconsistencies and contradictions. Jesus was the last word on God. He saved us, and spoke only of peace and love in the world. He spoke of loving friends and enemies. Not retaliating against them. He spoke of depending on God, not on oneself. It seems arrogant that Muslims depend on themselves and don't think God can take care of them. How is this faith? We are human, unable to truly understand God who's will we follow...NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

It says over 240 times in the Koran that Muslims must kill, or subjagate infidels.
Love of neighbor is only mentioned once.
At least "anonymous" comes out of hiding and tells it like he hopes it will be.
All religions are man's attempt to put god in a bottle. Man creates god, not the other way around.

The author quoted Quran and said kill all poytheists no matter what. I guess Hindus do not even have a prayer.

Bismillah

Dear Brother in Islam,

I agree with many of the points that you have brought up. But until we come back to the basics of Islam and deal with the matters of Tazkiya(purification) an Tarbiyah(Cultivation). this will continue to plague the muslim community. As a African American born Muslim I have learned that education is the key to prosperity.

Bismillah

Dear Brother in Islam,

I agree with many of the points that you have brought up. But until we come back to the basics of Islam and deal with the matters of Tazkiya(purification) an Tarbiyah(Cultivation). this will continue to plague the muslim community. As a African American born Muslim I have learned that education is the key to prosperity.

Posters in this forum such as Frank prove yet again that the most dangerous weapon of mass destruction is ignrance, reinforced by bigotry. Confronted with authentic expositions of Islam from competent authorities he and his ilk can only fall back on cutting and pasting misinformation supplied to them from anti-Islamic sites. It's a lot easier than thinking, listerning, or studying facts.

Let's set aside the question of Jihad and talk about the question of violence. Is it true that Muhammed himself killed other men during his lifetime? Is it true that the Quran does not prohibit violence under all circumstances, and in fact endorses it under certain conditions?

Careful how you answer. It would be a sin most grave to lie about the life and acts of the "prophet".

If the root is rotten, how can the fruit be good?

Posters in this forum such as Frank prove yet again that the most dangerous weapon of mass destruction is ignorance, reinforced by bigotry. Confronted with authentic expositions of Islam from competent authorities he and his ilk can only fall back on cutting and pasting misinformation supplied to them from anti-Islamic sites. It's a lot easier than thinking, listening, or studying facts.

OK CLOUGH
where have i made a misstatement of fact?
lets here it.
want a misstatement of fact?
the god of islam said that the trinity was the father son and mary. the christian trinity is the father,k son and holy spirit. how did the god of islam screw that one up?
pretty dumb mistake for a god to make.

Majid al Hafeed's point near the end of his essay is that we cannot persuade suicide bombers to give up their violence because they listen only to those who direct their narrow closed world.

He is correct in that. Their leaders are the ones who must be targeted. They are organizing mass killings of Muslims and the Muslim world must censure and punish them as they break both civil law and the tenets of the Muslim faith.

The failure of the Muslim world lies not in its core faith but in its failure to address those who use its name to murder fellow Muslims.

Some verses from the Koran on terror(ism) and unbelievers:

[3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.

[5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

[8.59] And let not those who disbelieve think that they shall come in first; surely they will not escape. [8.60] And prepare against them what force you can and horses tied at the frontier, to frighten thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them, whom you do not know (but) Allah knows them; and whatever thing you will spend in Allah's way, it will be paid back to you fully and you shall not be dealt with unjustly.

[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.

[47.4] So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.

The real Muslims who want a holy war follow the Koran. In fact, the jihad is an essential prescription of Islam. The Koran, without which there would be no Islam, urges it: "The true believers say: Has not God ordered a chapter that commands the holy war" (Sura 47:22); or elsewhere: "Kill the idolaters wherever you find them, imprison them, besiege them, ambush them" (Sura 9:5); and, "Make war on unbelievers" (Sura 9:29). "When you come upon unbelievers, massacre them, tighten the bands of the captives that you will have taken. Then you will set them free, or you will release them for a ransom" (Sura 8:57).

According to the Koran, a non-Muslim is less than nothing: "To Allah, there are no animals viler than those who do not believe and remain unbelievers" (Sura 8:57). That is why it is necessary to Islamize them by force and by humiliation. And those who resist Islam and its founder must be chastised, according to the Koran: "Here is the fate of those who fight Allah and his messenger: you will put them to death or you will make them suffer the torture of the cross; you will cut their hands and their feet alternately. They will be driven from the country" (Sura 5:37). And, since the Muslims are realists, they take into account circumstances and make, accordingly, temporary peace or war: "Do not display cowardice, and do not call the infidels to peace when you are superior to them" (Sura 47:22).

kak Majid al-Hafeed
As an iranian shiite also a kurd i agree with you . suicide bombers really live in darkness . these people are real enemies of Islam with 1.5 billion followers . they are painting islam only in dark colours . sorry for islamic world which silent toward these groups which are only against the real benefits of real muslims . they are killing muslims daily and it is impossible to attribute their inhuman behavior to Islam . we must take a real action against them . actions work better than words . Hamid -Iran

Anonymous:
you wrote : According to the Koran, a non-Muslim is less than nothing.
quran is a big holy book with thousand of verses some abolishing other verses . to select some verses with a general comrehension of the book is false . we iranian believe in holy quran . according to you non muslims is less than nothing .
please answer these questions :
why 25000 jews living in iran have one representative in iranian parliment ?
why we do not kill our jews and christian countrymen/women ?
why at least three articles of iranian constitution is related to their rights ?

Here are articles 13-14-64 of iran constitution http://www.salamiran.org/IranInfo/State/Constitution/
Article 13
Zoroastrian, Jewish, and Christian Iranians are the only recognized religious minorities, who, within the limits of the law, are free to perform their religious rites and ceremonies, and to act according to their own canon in matters of personal affairs and religious education.

Article 14
In accordance with the sacred verse; ("God does not forbid you to deal kindly and justly with those who have not fought against you because of your religion and who have not expelled you from your homes" [60:8]), the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and all Mu slims are duty-bound to treat non-Muslims in conformity with ethical norms and the principles of Islamic justice and equity, and to respect their human rights. This principle applies to all who refrain from engaging in conspiracy or activity against Islam and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Article 64
There are to be two hundred seventy members of the Islamic Consultative Assembly which, keeping in view the human, political, geographic and other similar factors, may increase by not more than twenty for each ten-year period from the date of the national referendum of the year 1368 of the solar Islamic calendar. The Zoroastrians and Jews will each elect one representative; Assyrian and Chaldean Christians will jointly elect one representative; and Armenian Christians in the north and those in the south of the country will each elect one representative. The limits of the election constituencies and the number of representatives will be deter-mined by law.

Muslims never answer the hard questions especially in regard to the foundations of Islam.

It probably has a lot to do with Muslims being very concerned about their safety. It is obvious Islamic clerics and imams target anyone who questions the "words" of the illiterate, warmongering Arab and his scribes who plagiarized most of the koran from ancient religions to include Judaism and Christianity. For example, if I had published that last sentence in Iran, I would now be a dead homonid and that is very disturbing but shows the significantly stupid ways of the Dark Ages of Islam/Iran and I see no Bright Age for Islam/Iran in the near future.

And our war on terror/Islam/Iran will not end in the near future as shown by 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 Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics.

And who funds most of these activities?? Iran!!!!

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated

you wrote ; "And our war on terror/Islam/Iran will not end in the near future "

war on terror is in fact war for oil . please trust me . Bush along with Blair started an illegal war in iraq in 2003 . what did Iraq have to do with 9/11 attacks ? was it war on terror .
you have mixed iran with terrorism . As an iranian friend i kindly ask you to name some of iranian terrorists . thanks in advance .

majority of suicide bombers are Wahabis and Salafis who see themselves as real believers and others , even Muslims , as non believers . their logic is killing and bloodshed . one of their inhuman ideology is to kill Shiites to go to paradise .
I have to say that the west is in fact harvesting what it had planted before . If you have a glance at the book titled “ the memories of Mr. hamper “ you will understand how great Britain made this false branch of Islam against moderate and law obeying Muslims .

Majid Al-Hafeed said, "The use of violence is against Islam and it is not allowable, except in cases of self-defense or deserved punishment."

"Deserved punishment"? How is that defined? The term "deserved" is values-loaded. Suppose that "deserved punishment" includes not converting or submitting to Islam. Suppose that "deserved punishment" includes drawing caricatures of Muhammad. Suppose that "deserved punishment" includes the writing of a book such as Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses." I could go on and on.

Most here have probably heard the choices which Islam offers to those who are not Muslims: submit, convert, or die. Waging jihad can certainly be performed to effect the spread of Islam; fourteen centuries have proven that.

Jihad (holy war) can be waged on a national, tribal, or individual level. Therein lies a grave danger. National and tribal interests can be based on economic concerns. Individual levels can be all tied up with the surety of reaching Paradise. Isn't waging war for Allah the surest and/or best path to Paradise, benefiting both the jihadist and his family?

“majority of suicide bombers are Wahabis and Salafis” – Hamid

What Hamid doesn’t tell you is that Salafi just means original Islam. It’s defined as the Islam of Mohammad and the 1st four rightly guided Caliphs. Of course, Iranian Shiites don’t like this Sunni movement because it is a competitor.

The idea that these are just a few extremists is ignorance – which, unfortunately, our President believes. We can see in Afghanistan and Iraq that the so-called moderates don’t exist. Our President hoped that moderates existed and would step forward. He generously tried to help establish a civilized democracy. But it was based on misunderstandings about Islam.

Jason Pappas:
you wrote : Of course, Iranian Shiites don’t like this Sunni movement because it is a competitor.

Hi dear john
no they are not a competitor . they are the source of terror . they are bloodthirsty and killing even sunnis . they are real threat but for your president oil is more important than your lives and reality

Instead of simply correcting his past mistakes, or better yet, simply shut up, Frank shoots himself in the foot again with another blooper: this time about what the "God of Islam" (and who might that be; there is only one God, the God of Abraham in Chriaianity, Judaism and Islam) says about the Trinity. Where? In the Qur'an? No citation. Of course not. There is a reason for that. That word doesn't apper there. Frank would know that though; he has not read the Qur'an and only knows what he has been fed through hate sites.

Frank still doesn't know that the Qur'an was not written in English either. Not surprising; he's probably one of those guys who believe, "If English was good enough for Jesus..." Oh well, ignorance is as ignorance. Unfortunately he has no more feet to shoot.