Not "reviling Muslims," just pointing out the commands of Allah and the example of his apostle

From here (at least for a while):

PM,

"Iago, you're off-base."

Let's see . . . .

"The religions 'of the book'"

This is a false Islamic construct used by Mohammed and his followers to try to persuade Jews and Christians to "revert" to Islam. That it also misleads those ignorant of the religions' authoritative texts into believing that Islam and Christianity are morally equivalent is amply demonstrated here.

"have a conundrum because 'the book' (no matter which one you're using) is riddled with contradictory statements, layers of history and dubious authorship."

A demonstration of that false moral equivalence just noted. Only the ignorant and the deceitful can make such a claim.

What statements from the Bible are contradictory? On what basis do you characterize either religion has having "dubious authorship"? What does the phrase "layers of history" mean?

"The b-i-b-l-e is so full of violent calls to holy war it's astounding. . . . Ephesians 6:10 - 13 . . . A close reading of this text will reveal that this is spiritual warfare . . . ."

As you admit, this is no call to "holy war," so you've already contradicted yourself and failed to support your charge.

Neither does this text require "a close reading" to understand it is speaking of spiritual matters, since it plainly says it!

More importantly (and to the point), do you have any Biblical passage that actually commands offensive warfare to make the world Hebrew? Christian?

No.

I've shared a few from Qur'an and Hadith. Unless you can produce the equivalent from Holy Writ, it must be concluded you're just making things up.

"Well... since the crusades, I guess."

Another false equivalence built on a foundation of historical illiteracy.

The essential difference between the Crusades and jihad is that the first Crusade was called in response to a desperate plea for help by eastern Christians under attack by . . . Islam.

"The same is true of the Quran. A close reading of the Arabic, in context, reveals the spiritual nature of the quotes you pulled (a reading neither you nor I are qualified to make, imho)."

So, you are not qualified to make such a call, yet you make the call.

Demonstrate from the texts where I've misrepresented any of them.

"Moreover, those statements are directly contradicted in other sections of the Quran. It is up to the devout to understand which excerpt to apply when, and to what extent."

And the devout resolving such contradictions would end up with what? Do you know?

The doctrine of Naskh, or Abrogation. Islam has traditionally interpreted the later revelations for offensive jihad to have abrogated the earlier verses speaking of cooperation and peace.

"The fact is that religious and philosophical communities are inspired and directed by flesh and blood leaders in real-time."

That is true. And any person or community of people may or may not accurately represent their religion. This is exactly why a person must go to a religion's founder and sacred texts if they want to have an accurate portrait of that faith.

"And in our current historical context, there are two men who can be "thanked" for the fundamentalism prevalent in both western and muslim society. . . For Islam there was Sayyid Qutb."

From where did Qutb derive his doctrines? How is it possible to call his ideology "fundamentalism" unless those teachings are "fundamentals" of Islam?

"The statement that this is a conspiracy theory not worthy for this board is ridiculous. The notion that Shiite and Sunnis have spilled more blood than Protestants and Catholics is... childish and unreal and blind to the facts."

Speaking of childish, unreal, and blind . . . for how long have Sunni and Shia slaughtered each other? Catholics and Protestants? From where do the sources of such conflict derive?

The split in Islam occurred after Mohammed's death over 1300 years ago. There was no Catholic/Protestant split until the sixteenth century.

Allah commands "kill the unbeliever wherever you find them . . . ," but Christ commands, "Love your enemies."

"There is no ideological basis for the current conflict."

You've never read Qur'an, Sira, or Hadith. How can you make such a claim? Rather than propagate your own enlightenment to receive praise from others equally unfamiliar with the texts, why not study?

Since 9/11 Muslims have carried out over 9,000 terrorist attacks around the world. For 1350 years before that event, Islam has enslaved and murdered Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, animists, and assorted other pagans throughout Arabia, the Holy Land, the Middle East, Western and Eastern Europe, North Africa, and Asia.

"There is a hyped-up fear-mongering propaganda campaign, equally enacted on both sides for the identical reason."

You dismiss the clear word of Allah and the example of his apostle, muddy-up the clear word of Christ, and then claim "both sides" are "identical."

"Why Revile Muslims?"

Don't. Tell the truth about the Source and Sustenance of nearly fourteen centuries of offensive jihad to make the world Islam: the command of Allah and the words and deeds of his apostle.

"And until we get over this animalistic fight-or-flight response, we are enslaved."

Unless we wake up to the threat posed by jihad in service of Shari'a, we will end up with the same fate as countless non-Muslim civilizations before us -- enslaved or dead.

"A core tenant of post modernism (and beliefnet) is the understanding that every individual perspective (or "truth claim") IS equivalent."

That's false on several counts.

First, you're arguing that "All claims of truth are equivalent" IS equivalent to "All claims of truth are not equivalent." Second, BeliefNet bans people for posting Islamic texts. Third, how can you have any meaningful "debate" if everyone is right?

Finally, Allah calls non-Muslims like you "accursed," fodder for "hell-fire" (Muslim Book 37, Number 6666), and worth only a third of a Muslim (Muwatta Book 43, Number 43.15.8b). If you're a Jew, it's even worse. In addition to all that, you're also descended from apes and swine (Qur'an 2:65).

But, hey, everyone's right, right?

"Accusing me of moral equivalency is therefore a compliment to my position."

'Nuff said.

"I find fault in your attacks on Islam."

Stating Islamic "sacred" texts is an "attack"?

What does that say for what *you* conclude about those passages? Are you some kind of Islamophobe?

"The notion that Islam may be "defeated" or "wiped out" is a dangerous one."

I just scanned my two previous posts. Where did I write that?

"It leads to wrong-headed avenues, hard-lined beliefs in an ultimate right and wrong. Eventually it leads to camps."

That's a problem with false moral equivalences. Try as you might, reality eventually leads to unavoidable questions of "ultimate right and wrong."

(And speaking of camps, what do you know about dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb? How can such a distinction arise at all if Islam is all about "peaceful inner-struggling"?)

So, was the Holocaust right or wrong? You (and, according to you, BeliefNet) would claim of course that Hitler's truth was just as true as the truths of those 6,000,000 innocents slaughtered by his hand.

Is the enslavement, rape, and slaughter of millions of Sudanese Christians, animists, and black Muslims by the Arab-Muslim government and its allies right or wrong? (You know what that "compliment to your position" requires you to say!)

What other sorts of crimes against humanity must you defend in order to maintain your enlightened posture of moral equivalence? Slavery? Rape? Infanticide? Pedophilia? Genocide? The Ten Commandments?

"For contradictions in the bible, just google those two words and be amazed."

Yes, Google is the final arbiter of truth. But I thought you said all truth is true?

"For one, find out who Joseph's father was. Matthew says one dude. Luke says another."

Have you compared the genealogies, or is that just what someone wrote?

(Don't you think one of those obviously deceitful, power-hungry Christians would have noticed this and fixed it sometime in the last two thousand years? And doesn't that argue for the Church's faithfulness in preserving the Texts?)

Are you aware that the major difference between the two genealogies to which you refer reflects their authors' intended audiences?

Matthew was writing to a Hebrew audience. He traces Christ's human ancestry through his step-father Joseph (His legal father) to Abraham, the father of the Hebrews. Luke, writing to a Gentile audience, traces back through Mary's side (His blood relative) to Adam, the father of all.

Are you also aware that the genealogies are not necessarily intended to be exhaustive? Matthew's traces 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 from David to the Babylonian Exile, and 14 from the Exile to Christ. Genealogies in the ancient world served a purpose other than just to list names.

See the 10 names in the Genesis 5 genealogy and the 72,000-year reigns of three Sumerian kings.

"For dubious authorship, tell me who wrote which book."

Perhaps you've noticed that many of the New Testament documents have either the author's name in the title (i.e., the Gospels and several of the Epistles) or in their openings and/or closings. Paul and Peter confess authorship within the first few words of all their letters (except, perhaps, Hebrews).

The only New Testament document for which a solid attribution of authorship is difficult to make is Hebrews, but even there many think Paul may have been behind it.

The New Testament's authors (in the common order of the texts): Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Luke, Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul, perhaps Paul, James, Peter, Peter, John, John, John, Jude, John.

"For 'layers of history,' tell me when each book was written. And what was the cut-off date?"

Within the lifetimes of their authors, which would put the last, Revelation, near the end of the first century, a.D. John writes that the revelation came to him when he was in exile on the Isle of Patmos.

"And how is it that some books are lying around, with the same cast of characters, but not included in the Canon?"

Do you refer to Apocrypha or the Gnostic gospels? Neither were considered Divinely-inspired by the Early Church. The Gnostic gospels did not appear until long after the last of the New Testament texts were composed.

"It's patently troublesome to base a belief system on a text."

I agree that just because something is written doesn't make it true. That doesn't mean, however, that all texts are false. Neither does it mean that we are unable to distinguish truth from falsehood (in a text or elsewhere).

"And its patently problematic to condemn a belief system based on texts you are not familiar with."

(Werent' you just doing that with the Bible? I guess consistency can be difficult for someone who wants truth to be true, unless he disagrees with it.)

I agree, which is why it is curious that you would argue from a position of -- as you admit regarding Qur'an and Sunnah -- ignorance.

"Your profile isn't much help, but I'm guessing you know as little about the Quran and Haditha as I do."

(Thanks for looking. Am I blushing?)

If I were willing to lie about Qur'an and Sunnah, why wouldn't I lie in my profile? If I wrote that I were a former Muslim with a doctorate in Islamic and Biblical studies, would you then believe me? If I were just an uneducated fisherman, would that make what I write less true?

You're engaging in an ad hominem argument. If what I write is false, prove it. Otherwise, let us reason together.

"I will handily demonstrate your false readings of the texts. Only two, because space is limited. I snagged them from about.com:"

Actually, you're falling on your own sword, as I am about to "handily" show. :)

"one verse (in its snipped version) reads: 'slay them wherever you catch them' (Qur'an 2:191). But who is this referring to? Who are 'they' that this verse discusses? The preceding and following verses give the correct context . . . . It is clear from the context that these verses are discussing a defensive war, when a Muslim community is attacked without reason, oppressed . . . ."

The only problem is I've not quoted Surah 2. That verse's context is specifically defensive (although it should be pointed out that "oppression" is often understood to include even the mere existence of non-Muslims and their unbelief).

PM added,

"Another similar verse can be found in chapter 9, verse 5 -- which in its snipped, out of context version could read: '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).' Again, the preceding and following verses give the context."

What is the actual context of 9:5? Have you read it? Do you know what this verse is commonly called?

It's called, "the Verse of the Sword." I wonder how it got that name?

When you read Sura 9, do you understand that the clause citing "immunity" was for *only* those who kept their treaties with Mohammed? That it was an *exception* to the command for the slaughter of non-Muslims and only until the terms of those agreements expired?

Do you realize that Sura 9 (and the command for war) is understood traditionally to refer to the entire non-Muslim world, including Jews and Christians? Maududi makes the following observations regarding the historical background of Sura 9:

"...to make the whole of Arabia a perfect Dar-ul-Islam," "...to extend the influence of Islam to the adjoining countries," "...to crush the mischiefs of the hypocrites," and "...to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the non-Muslim world."

"Now that the administration of the whole of Arabia had come in the hands of the Believers, and all the opposing powers had become helpless, it was necessary to make a clear declaration of that policy which was to be adopted to make her a perfect Dar-ul-Islam."

"A clear declaration was made that all the treaties with the mushriks were abolished and the Muslims would be released from the treaty obligations with them after a respite of four months."

"...In order to enable the Muslims to extend the influence of Islam outside Arabia, they were enjoined to crush with sword the non-Muslim powers and to force them to accept the sovereignty of the Islamic State."

"...The object of Jihad was not to coerce them to accept Islam they were free to accept or not to accept it-but to prevent them from thrusting forcibly their deviations upon others and the coming generations. The Muslims were enjoined to tolerate their misguidance only to the extent that they might have the freedom to remain misguided, if they chose to be so, provided that they paid Jizyah (v. 29) as a sign of their subjugation to the Islamic State."

"...In order to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the whole non-Muslim world, it was necessary to cure them even of that slight weakness of faith from which they were still suffering. For there could be no greater internal danger to the Islamic Community than the weakness of faith, especially where it was going to engage itself single-handed in a conflict with the whole non-Muslim world."

"...a clear declaration was made that in future the sole criterion of a Muslim's faith shall be the exertions he makes for the uplift of the Word of Allah and the role he plays in the conflict between Islam and kufr. Therefore, if anyone will show any hesitation in sacrificing his life, money, time and energies, his faith shall not be regarded as genuine."

"In this portion the Muslims have been urged to fight in the Way of Allah with the mushrik Arabs, the Jews and the Christians, who were duly warned of the consequences of their mischievous and inimical behaviour."

"In this discourse, the Muslims have been told clearly and explicitly that they will inherit the rewards promised by Allah only if they take active part in the conflict with kufr, for that is the criterion which distinguishes true Muslims from hypocrites. Therefore true Muslims should take active part in Jihad, without minding dangers, obstacles, difficulties, temptations and the like."

Do you know that the traditional position of all four Sunni schools of jurisprudence (85% of Islam), Sahih Muslim, Sahih Bukhari, and other Muslim experts say that offensive warfare against non-Muslims is the Qur'an's final word on the subject? That 9:5, "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater"?

Again, immunity from slaughter belonged only to those who kept their part of a contract with Mohammed, and only for as long as that agreement was in effect.

Outside of that -- even for the "People of the Book" -- only subjugation and humiliation or war exists.

What do you do with the rest of Allah's revelation and Mohammed's example? Consider:

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

PM continued,

"Who are you to tell others what the truth is?"

But you said all truth is true. Doesn't that include my truth? Who are you to tell me what the truth is?

(Moral relativism is a double-edged sword, isn't it?) :)

Actually, what I've done is cite Qur'an and Hadith, and rather than demonstrate I've erred in that, you've only demonstrated an unfamiliarity with the Biblical and Islamic texts.

"Is Catholicism wrong on all counts because of the molestation? No. Is the molestation criminal? Yes."

A red herring. A tu quoque.

The obvious difference (sorry, obvious to those who reject Absolute Moral Relativism) is that molestation is not only illegal in Western societies, it is forbidden by Christ.

On the other hand, in Islam you've got Mohammed telling his favorite wife Aisha that he began raping her when she was nine because Allah ordained it (Tabari 9:131; Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139-140; and many others).

"Is a Muslim wrong because his text can be taken piecemeal by sociopaths and twisted into perversions?"

You've not demonstrated yet that any mujahideen are taking any verses out-of-context. Do you have any evidence for that claim?

Do you have any evidence that I've misrepresented anything?

"No. The text isn't wrong. The sociopath is wrong."

But I thought everyone's truth was true?

So, there's nothing wrong with the texts just noted?

"And the way to remedy the situation is to BE FOR SOMETHING and not AGAINST ANYONE. That something is peace, tolerance, understanding... in a word: love."

"Love" lies about hellish commands to convert, enslave, and kill all non-Muslims to make the world Islam?

Perhaps it's time for a new definition of the word.

"Sure there are criminal Muslims. There are criminal Jews. There are criminal Blacks. . . ."

Islam is not a race, it is an ideology.

And as for the jihadist who kills non-Muslims because Allah and his apostle say "kill non-Muslims," who are you to call him "criminal"? Is he not just following his own equally-valid truth?

"Ask yourself: do I know who Leo Strauss is and what he stands for? Do I know who reveres his teachings and attempts to exert his world-view? Do I know who Bin Laden's mentor is? And his mentor's mentor?"

Instead ask yourself: Who is waging offensive warfare against those who reject their ideology in fulfillment of their deity's "sacred" texts?

"How did this madness begin? It didn't begin in the book. It began in the men, and the men went and found what they needed in the book."

But I thought you said men wrote the books. And I thought you said their truth is also true.

Who are you to call their truth "madness"?

"What is your beef with moral equivalency? I really want to know. You use it like an insult and I just don't get it? Don't we use metaphors and historical allusions to... you know... learn and not repeat mistakes?"

True is true. False is false. We can and *should* learn from the past.

Ironically, you have been advocating ignoring jihad's past (and present) in Qur'an and Sunnah by attributing it to madmen and sociopaths taking verses out-of-context.

"and pps I hope nobody takes down your post. I found it insightful, on topic, all that good stuff. It's very instructive to hear the other side on this issue."

Thanks for the kind words. I hope we can continue this discussion.

Later,

"First, a critical distinction should be made. . . . swirling around the spiritual world of truth."

You have no evidence for that.

I agree that there is a difference between the physical and the spiritual realms, but I vigorously oppose the idea that there are different, contradictory "truths." Objective Truth is true regardless of whether many, one, or none confess it.

When I've heard that particular argument before it has been used by those seeking to dismiss Christ's claims to being the Truth.

(This is one reason that the Neo-Darwinian creation myth is both so popular and so dangerous. Either YHWH created all that exists as He says He did, or it came about by accident, disease, and death as Neo-Darwinism claims.)

"Spiritual texts are a bridge to get the physical onto a philosophical track. All the religious paths lead to the truth."

So, those who worshiped Teutates by drowning their human sacrifices, their path led to truth?

Followers of Molech, who as part of their devotion offered their little children to a fiery death in the arms of their god, their path led to truth?

Those who wage offensive warfare against non-Muslims who refuse to convert or submit to degradation and humiliation as commanded by Mohammed (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294), their path leads to truth?

Those who believe absolutely, "Allah's Apostle said, 'The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him"'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177), their path leads to truth too?

Does this path lead to truth: "Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them on until . . . there prevail . . . faith in Allah altogether and everywhere . . ." (Qur'an 8:38, 39)?

What about this: "Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24). Does that lead to truth?

"In physics, this same concept was discovered by Albert Einstein. Basically, there is no favored position or perspective. All perspectives are in motion. From foot the train is going by very quickly, in a car it is actually going backward. Both perspectives are "true." All it takes is understanding to see why one sees it this way and the other that."

This is an odd confusion of two different categories of phenomena. You are describing two possible physical perceptions of a physical event, but this is not analogous to your "all roads lead to truth.”

That for which you are actually arguing would be:

-From foot, the train is going by very quickly,

-From foot, the train is going by very slowly,

-From foot, the train is not moving at all,

-From foot, the train is moving backwards,

-From foot, the train is floating in the sky,

-From foot, the train fell into a chasm,

-From foot, the train ran over a pedestrian,

-From foot, -- what train?

All at the same time and in the same place.

"The physical world is ruled by inalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" or some wording thereof. To hinder those is a crime, and punishable as such as determined by the prevailing culture."

That is not true. In some cultures, such “rights” are alienable. In fact, they are not recognized at all (or for only a few).

(Besides, how can you call anything a “crime” since everyone is right? And who are you to condemn someone else's truth?)

Only one culture in the history of Man has formulated such a statement of belief, and that was the one founded on the Christian religion. Quite a few other cultures have no problem enslaving, raping, and murdering those who refuse to submit to their ideology (Communism, Nazism, and Islam, for example).

"There have always been, and will always be, corrupted and false teachers who distort spiritual and philosophical texts to justify crime."

If, as you say all religious paths lead to truth, how can you call anyone “corrupted” or “false”? If their truth is true, how can you call what they (allegedly) do to their texts “distortion” or a “justification of crime”?

(By the way, you've still not demonstrated the Islamic texts I've cited as having been misrepresented.)

"It will always be incumbent on the world spiritual community to point out and rectify the false understandings and penalize those involved in criminal activity."

A part of that "world spiritual community" believes it is their Allah-given duty to war against you if you refuse both the "invitation" to Islam and the demand to pay the jizya (just as Mohammed commanded. See Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

In light of this, how can there be any consensus on what "criminality" means?

And if, as you say, their path also leads to truth and is beyond criticism, how can you call their understanding "false" or their activity “criminal”?

"There is an infinite tangle of paths . . . Each and every one leads without exception to the truth."

Really?

Does this one lead to truth: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day . . . until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29)?

How about this one: "O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him" (Qur'an 9:123)?

Or this one: "The punishment of those who . . . strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land . . . " (Qur'an 5:33)?

Or this: "It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise" (Qur'an 8:67)?

How about this: "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57)?

"Every human has a legitimate and personal relationship with the ineffable source."

Really? What is your evidence for that?

"Don Miguel Ruiz puts it well . . . ."

Mr. Ruiz equates Christ and Allah. Are they really morally equivalent?

One God committed no sin, healed the sick, raised the dead, and commanded, "Love your enemies."

The other ordained the habitual raping of a nine-year-old child by his fifty-something-year-old prophet (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139-140), approved slavery, rape, theft, deceit, and murder, and commanded unending offensive warfare against all who refuse to submit to its rule (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24; etc.).

Defending the latter as "an unquestionably true path to truth" is itself a special kind of craven immorality, is it not?

Advocating obviously false moral equivalences causes those who should defend it to question whether or not the civilization that produced Shakespeare, Mozart, Michelangelo, the Moon Landing, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights is even worth defending.

It makes a Republic that defends the unalienable Rights of all human beings to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness no better than Ahmadinejad's child-raping, stoning-rape-victims-for-adultery, "Kill-the-Jews"-chanting hell.

Still later,

“You defended the bible, but not terribly well. Mark and Luke didn't even know Jesus.”

Thoroughly answering all your objections constitutes an inadequate defense?

The other authors of the New Testament – Matthew, John, Paul, James, Jude, and Peter – did know Him. That means you believe them, right?

Mark and Luke composed their Gospels from eyewitness accounts. Their relying on others' firsthand testimony is insufficient reason to reject them.

(Ironically, Moral Relativism is a belief system that rejects critical thought, judgment, logic, evidence, and moral courage. It's just a “swirling mass of unassailable spiritual truth to which all religious paths lead without exception – except, of course, for Christianity.”)

“There's a whole forum on here called the Jesus Seminar where they break down that basically everything we think Jesus said and did he didn't really say or do.”

So much for that “swirling mass of unquestionable truth.”

Where's the Mohammed Seminar where “they break down that basically everything we think Mohammed said and did he didn't really say or do”?

Isn't that an interesting illustration of the reality of our situation? If Christ is attacked, Christians forgive, tolerate, ignore, or refute it. If Mohammed is attacked, people die and buildings burn.

Why is it that the only time Muslims protest in large numbers it's not over their daily, global violence against non-Muslims, it's over cartoons about Mohammed or a quote from a fifteenth century emperor whose great city was under siege by their co-religionists, to whom it fell in just a few decades?

The Jesus Seminar has been around a long time. They make claims for which they have absolutely *no* evidence. Where are the documents from which they say the Gospels are derived?

They don't exist, yet we have several thousand ancient manuscript copies of entire and partial New Testament texts. Homer's Iliad, the second best-attested-to text from Antiquity, has only a few hundred.

“There are basic inconsistencies like the fact that Matthew 1:16 says Joseph's father is Jacob and Luke 3:23 says Joseph's father is Heli.”

Addressed [above].

“These are just a few of the hundreds of apparent contradictions in the bible. I say apparent and I mean it because someone within the tradition, using the bible as the tool to truth, can maneuver and interface with the text to get to the spirituality they're longing for.”

(“a few”? Not even one.)

Which implies they're being dishonest.

How is approaching the Biblical texts with careful attention to the historical, cultural, and linguistic factors that help us determine the texts' actual meanings “maneuvering”?

Do you see the bias, the hypocrisy? When Christians read their texts and find Christ, the Truth Who said, “Love your enemies,” they're “maneuvering.” When Muslims read their texts and find jihad, they're “distorting.”

Moral relativism is an enemy of truth.

“To an outsider, Leviticus is CRAZY. If a priest's daughter is a whore, she has to be stoned to death. In Exodus 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.'”

Capital punishment under the Mosaic Covenant was administered for a number of crimes that today are glorified in pop culture and defended as Constitutional rights.

It should be noted (for all who want to equate Islam with Israel) that those punishments were only for the Hebrews of Ancient Israel living under that Covenant who broke *their own* laws.

“And I can't count how many times in the old testament God helped the Israelites conquer other tribes through warfare.”

Sounds like someone who's actually read the Old Testament except that, you can count them.

Forty years after being delivered from slavery in Egypt, Israel was commanded to enter the land promised to their ancestors. They were commanded to kill everything in order to remove false theology, to demonstrate to the “My god is bigger than yours” nations around them that their God really was bigger, and to carry out Divine judgment against those peoples for their great wickedness.

Israel ended up disobeying, following Canaan's false gods, and being destroyed.

It is worth noting that, according to you, “Leviticus is CRAZY,” but “sociopaths distort Qur'an,” and, “All truth is true,” but there are “hundreds of contradictions in the bible [sic].”

Apparently, your moral relativism is only a single-edged sword. :)

“Now a well-versed Jew could explain to me why prostitutes today should not get the death penalty. There is probably a more relevant text later that supercedes the ancient Leviticus.”

“Probably”? If “probably,” how do you know a “well-versed Jew” can explain it?

(I did just a moment ago.)

“I know a Christian would say that Christ's new message of love trumps the old laws (although that book is still included in the Christian canon).”

Only if that Christian is ignorant of the Word of Christ.

The New Testament makes very clear that the Mosaic Covenant has been replaced (fulfilled) by the New One written in Christ's blood (an interesting, not coincidental connection between the ancient making of covenants, the sacrificial system under Moses, the our Lord's Supper, and His sacrificial death).

Recall the adulterous woman Christ saved from stoning. After pointing out the hypocrisy of her accusers, He only told her to stop sinning.

“An irresponsible critic would say 'The bible is false teaching!' because it contains these lines that can be taken out of context.”

How do you know those lines are taken out of context? By reading the texts. Still you have not demonstrated that I've misrepresented any of Islam's.

“To sum up, your point here and on your blog seems to be that Islam is a violent religion and worthy of revulsion.”

My point here has been, “This is what Allah commands. This is what Mohammed – described by Allah as a “beautiful pattern of conduct” -- commanded, practiced, and permitted.

The point on my 'blog has been, "We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ." -Paul of Tarsus, 1st century a.D.

One of those is Mohammed's blasphemy. Another is Moral Relativism.

“My argument is that this claim is based on ignorance and every instance of what appears to be textual proof of Islam's violent nature can, when placed in context, be revealed as wisdom.”

Prove it.

Whose claim is based on ignorance? I cite sura, ayah, and hadith, but you admit knowing nothing of Qur'an and Sunnah (and demonstrate no awareness of 1400 years of jihad to make the world Islam).

Demonstrate a Biblical contradiction. Show that I've misrepresented any of the Islamic texts I've cited.

If you do not (and you can't), then your arguments must be regarded as insubstantial as a “swirling mass of spiritual 'truth.'”

Good luck revealing the wisdom of: “Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

More from PM:

But I'd like to respond to the Mod that my main perspective is that there is a false argument which goes, "We SHOULD revile Muslims because it says ____ here on page ___."

It should be clear that I have actually spoken against reviling Muslims.

It would be a grievous logical error to infer that I advocate treating Muslims in any way other than the way that I would want to be treated.

There are decent, moderate Muslims. Some recognize the calls for jihad in their religious texts and tradition and work to modify Islamic understanding of them.

Islam itself, however, is not moderate, as evidenced by the command of Allah and the example of Mohammed.

"The problem with this argument is that you can go to ANY spiritual tradition's text and lift lines out of context that are OUTRAGEOUS."

That is true.

The problem with your argument is that you've NOT demonstrated at all that I've taken any Islamic texts out-of-context.

The best you've been able to do is make up stuff about the Bible.

Demonstrate from Qur'an and Hadith that the texts I've quoted do not mean what they actually say.

Show from them that Mohammed didn't actually steal, lie, enslave, assassinate, rape, slaughter, and wage offensive war against non-Muslims (or command the faithful to do the same).

". . . how to word a) what I think is happening (with the incorrect textual analysis) and b) what I think should happen . . . ."

In response to a): One needs to actually familiarize himself with the texts and Islamic theology, jurisprudence, and history to be able to determine whether it is the "tiny minority of extremists-ists" or the "Islam is peace-ers" who distort the word of Allah and the example of his apostle.

With regard to b): Name a world Muslim leader (or school) who rejects utterly offensive jihad against non-Muslims, the superiority of Muslims over non-Muslims, and the institutionalized subjugation and humiliation of non-Muslims under Shari'a.

If Allah and his prophet actually command believers to wage offensive war against non-Muslims who refuse either to convert or pay the jizya (they do), then no possible response should be rejected out-of-hand.

Admit what the Islamic texts say, what Mohammed did, and what his followers have done in obedience to him and Allah.

"Attempting to censor me from quoting the bible or any other text in this discussion isn't helpful, imho."

Quoting the Bible in a debate on Islam is a non sequitur, a red herring, a tu quoque argument. All are logical fallacies and therefore unbecoming someone claiming to seek truth.

"Basically Iago is saying that Islam IS worthy of revulsion on the basis of armchair textual analysis."

Please do me the courtesy of attributing to me only what I've actually written.

I am saying, "This is what Qur'an and Hadith say: . . . ."

Your revulsion at "divine" commands for (and approbation of) slavery, theft, rape, murder, extortion, pedophilia, and genocide is something you must reconcile with your own "all religious paths without exception lead to truth" creed.

(By the way, for someone who's written post after post impugning my knowledge of Qur'an and Sunnah though admitting he knows nothing of them, "armchair textual analysis" seems a little too ironic, doesn't it?)

"Basically I'm saying that no, if you run that level of analysis on any of the powerhouse spiritual texts you'll come up with a handful of problems."

Really? You've only attacked the Bible. Not Qur'an, not Hadith. And what "handful of problems" have you found? Mark and Luke didn't meet Jesus.

No open-ended, universal commands to war against all Gentiles to make the world Israel. Not even a suggestion of warfare from the One Who commanded, "Love your enemies," and, "Do good to those who persecute you."

Even "armchair textual analysis" should produce something better than that, shouldn't it?

"The REAL reason we're being fed the scary muslim fairy tale is . . . .

An odd, immoral equivalence between people who VOTE and those who SLAUGHTER INNOCENTS.

But everyone's truth is true, right?

Perhaps that "scary muslim fairy tale" has something to do with nearly one and one-half millennia of the enslavement, rape, and slaughter of non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

Or 9/11 and over nine thousand terrorist attacks around the world since then.

"Further, their students made successful use of this strategy during the cold war with the USSR."

Yes, the Soviets were pacifists. Unfortunately, American leaders were no more cognizant then of with whom they were dancing in the pale moonlight than they are today.

In light of Qur'an and Sunnah, who is truly the "father of Islamic fundamentalism?" Here's a hint:

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

From PM:

"It's obvious that Iago isn't down with lateral thinking - he shoots down my references to apparent contradictions without connecting the dots to realize how easily a real Muslim could shoot down his."

"Apparent contradiction" means it only appears to be a contradiction.

You've produced no Biblical contradictions. You've produced no contradictions in Islamic "sacred" texts, either.

First, if you know nothing of Qur'an and Sunnah, how do you know at all what a "real Muslim" can demonstrate? Or how "easy" it would be?

How can you even define what a "real Muslim" is?

Second, you mischaracterize my *quotations* of Islamic texts as "apparent contradictions," but I've never written of contradictions. I've only quoted texts!

Third, you've not demonstrated that I've taken anything out-of-context.

Fourth, there are actual -- not apparent -- contradictions to the commands for unmerciful offensive warfare against those who refuse to convert or submit to Allah's rule. What do you know about them?

Early in Mohammed's prophetic career, when his movement was numerically, politically, economically, and militarily weak, the revelations he received regarding warfare consisted of cooperation and peace with non-Muslims.

Later, as he grew in power, the revelations evolved from allowing defensive warfare to *requiring* it.

Finally, at the end of his career and at the height of his power, the last of Mohammed's revelations regarding warfare (Sura 9) demanded ruthless offensive combat against all who refuse to convert or submit to Allah.

How does Islam deal with those earlier, peaceful passages that conflict with commands like The Verse of the Sword? The doctrine of Naskh. (Look it up.)

"You chose to name yourself after St. James the Moor Slayer?! . . . I don't know much about Catholicism. Apparently there's another Saint who's known as the Indian Killer, too. That's real cool, you guys."

But I thought "everyone's truth is true"? Don't "all religious paths lead without exception to truth"? Who "are you to question [my] truth"?

Be careful, your historical illiteracy is showing.

"Man, you've got to explain to me how that's ok. What would you do if I called myself Paranoid the Killer of Christians? You'd hit the freakin roof! . . . James, the moor killer. We live in a funny world."

Truthfully, you don't know how I'd react.

Though you "don't know much about Catholicism" and "nothing about Qur'an and Hadith," you don't mind hysterically objecting to my nom de plume.

Other than the English translation of his name and that he is a Catholic saint, what do you know about Santiago Matamoros?

Do you know that he was the patron saint of Spain? Do you know that he was only St. James until something happened to Spain in the 8th century? Who were the Moors? Why would Spanish Catholics care at all about them? Why would they add such a violent appellation to one of their saint's names?

After Mohammed's death, the followers of his new religion, in obedience to his and his god's commands and acting in accord with his example, exploded out of Arabia and throughout the Holy Land, Middle East, North Africa, Asia, and both Western and Eastern Europe raping, enslaving, and slaughtering those who refused to convert or submit.

Spain is in Western Europe. It was one of Islam's victims. It is one of the few Infidel states to regain its freedom from Allah. That is why you've heard bin Laden and other "extremists" use Al-Andalus (Andalusia) as both a lament and a call to arms.

Contrary to [. . .] multiculturalist historical revisionism/Islamic propaganda, there was no [. . .] "Golden Age" of Islam there. The native, Christian Spaniards [. . .] fought for over seven hundred years before finally throwing off the yoke of their Islamic oppressors.

In other words, St. James was believed to have helped the Spanish in their resistance to Islam's tyranny.

Since we are today facing a resurgent global jihad, it seems neither "funny" nor "freakin" to choose as a nom de guerre the name of someone attributed with defending Christians against Allah.

Choosing "Santiago Matamoros" is no less reasonable, timely, or defiant in the face of tyranny than using Charles Martel, Jan III Sobieski, or Manuel II Palaeologus . . . .

Histrionics at the name is the equivalent of objecting to someone calling himself, "Winston Churchill" or "G. Washington."

"Now we're getting into territory that really intrigues me! Which is: what do we do when the basis of a culture has flaws?"

Which would be off-topic.

"In a sense, every human endeavor faces this issue. Even we, the USA, have to live up to the fact that our founding documents did not count as full human beings slaves or females."

Also off-topic.

(By the way, the Constitution made that compromise for the purposes of representation, not a qualitative evaluation of anyone's humanity.)

"For those within the flawed culture, there are basically two positions . . . ."

Sounds pretty limited for an "all religious paths lead to a swirling mass of spiritual truth" kind of guy.

"I know you hate the moral equivalence of analogies"

Actually, I am opposed to false moral equivalences.

Analogies are just comparisons and when accurate, can be quite useful.

"but I can't help it) What would have happened if, for instance, a foreign power had invaded the US during the Civil War . . . .?"

Americans were warring against Americans. No foreign power's uninvited intervention would have been justified.

Which is of course, NOT analogous to Iraq or Afghanistan.

"Given that we (humanity) are moving from a generally less to a generally more enlightened state"

Only if a dog returning to its vomit can be considered "enlightened."

What evidence do you have of our "enlightenment"?

In the twentieth century, hundreds of millions of human lives were sacrificed on the altars of Nazism, Communism, and Islam, all of which are a form of fascism and reject Christ.

Tens of millions of Americans have been exterminated over the last few decades and one of our two major political parties defends such barbarity as a Constitutional right.

The principles of human equality and God-given Rights to Life and Liberty expounded in the Declaration and codified in the Constitution have been so consistently violated that nearly all our major political parties' leading presidential candidates espouse Socialism to one degree or another.

The institutions nominally-responsible for intellectual inquiry and governmental accountability -- higher education and the media -- are predominantly propaganda arms for any enemy of the American Republic crafty enough to yell "Racism!" or "First Amendment!"

And the religious tradition that led to the West's greatness is increasingly ignored, ridiculed, and rejected by its heirs.

"basically still a message of hate."

"Message of hate"?

Muslims kill in the name of Allah because he says, "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them." I point out that fact, but mine is a "message of hate"?

Such a false moral equivalence calls into question the judgment of the one making it.

"And I think holding this position closes the door on the forward motion we're looking for in the Islamic world."

How does lying about what Qur'an and Sunnah teach "move forward" the Islamic world? How can one reform that which one denies needs reformation?

Real progress within Islam must begin with acknowledging that which retards it.

"I'd also like to point out that jihad is an appropriated term . . . ."

A half-truth designed to deceive ignorant and gullible Infidels into believing "Islam is peace."

Who best defines "Islam"? Who better than Allah and his apostle? I've already shared a significant portion of their thoughts on this whole "offensive warfare" issue.

Yes, "jihad" means "struggle." Yes, one questionable hadith has Mohammed referring to the "greater jihad" being a struggling against oneself.

Did your Islamic expert tell you what the word for combat is? Qital.

Let's put your new, "enlightened" definition of "jihad" into the context of Qur'an and Sunnah:

-Does, "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them," really mean, "struggle against your ego the unbelievers wherever you find them"?

-Does, "Fight against . . . the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] . . . until they pay the jizya . . . and feel themselves subdued," really mean, "Struggle against your ego . . . until they pay . . ."?

-Does, ". . . invite them to Islam . . . If they refuse, demand the jizya.. . . If they refuse that, then fight," really mean, ". . . If they refuse that, then struggle against your ego"?

-Does, "I have been ordered to fight against the people until all confess that no one has the right to be worshiped but Allah and Mohammed is his apostle," really mean, "I have ordered to struggle against my ego against the people until all confess . . ."?

-Does, ". . . fight until all religion is for Allah," really mean, ". . . struggle against your ego until all religion is for Allah"?

-Does, "they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain" really mean, "they struggle against their egos in his cause, and slay and are slain"?

-Does, "I have been made victorious with terror," really mean, "I have been made victorious with struggling against my ego"?

There's more. Shall I continue?

"those preaching violent jihad against "the West" are essentially snake-oil salesmen, appealing to the basest human fears in order to prop up their desire for power."

That may be, but to what do they appeal in recruiting members of that "large majority of moderates"? Qur'an and Sunnah.

"paint Islam as a violent and dangerous religion."

Who's painting Islam as violent and dangerous but Muslims themselves?

Do not 3/11 (Madrid), 7/7 (London), Bali, Mumbai, Israel, Sudan, Somalia, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, and all the other more than nine thousand terrorist attacks since September 11th paint that picture?

Do not Allah and Mohammed paint that picture themselves?

You keep trying to blame Islamic terrorism on neo-Conservatives. That is grossly inaccurate and immoral.

"To me, a message of hate cannot be erased with an equal and opposite message of hate."

How is reporting a message of hate itself hate? Does not such a usage make the word meaningless?

"I feel that there must be a solution which involved empowering and supporting those with more legitimate views."

"feel"? While you're feeling, Shari'a advances not only through terrorism, but also by demographics, litigation, da'wa, and the ballot box.

As for "legitimate," didn't you say that, "All religious paths without exception lead to spiritual truth"?

Those Muslims with more legitimate views find themselves at the business end of apostasy law. Mohammed said, "If anyone changes his religion, then kill him."

"And, more than anything else, getting our act together when it comes to invasions and occupations in the Arab world."

Finally, we get to the point you've danced around these many posts. President Bush's occupation of Iraq is responsible for 9/11.

Amazing. Not only is he too dumb to be president but smart enough to deceive the entire Democratic party, he's also powerful enough to cause global warming and retroactive mass slaughter in the name of Allah and in accord with Islamic "sacred" texts!

"It's called "The Girls of Riyadh"

But you read it just for the articles, right?

If one wants to know about Islam's "sacred" texts, one ought to read Islam's "sacred" texts.

"You have no faith that this correct knowledge exists in Islam. That's a real problem, a core pessimism that doesn't dissolve the issues we're facing but only exacerbates them."

I would suggest you reread my posts. I've not addressed contradictions in Islamic texs, real or imagined, until one of my last posts, and that was not in the context to which you keep appealing.

"You are very intent on textual analysis of work we are not familiar with!"

Are you using the royal "we," or are you again projecting onto me your "total ignorance of Qur'an and Sunnah?"

"You simply do not choose to hear that this is problematic from the very beginning."

It should be clear from my replies that I've heard quite well everything you've written. :)

"I have no working knowledge whatsoever of how to approach the Islamic spiritual texts - how they are understood, which to take in what order, etc."

Rest assured, you've demonstrated that!

How 'bout working next on that little "out-of-context" libel?

"I don't know enough about its context to talk about the specific meaning. But I will throw up instead a contradictory one:"

If you don't know its meaning, how can you offer one in contradiction?

Why not just stick with, "What does Allah say? What did Mohammed say and do?"

That would be much more intellectually honest, productive, and (literally) life-affirming.

"And dispute ye not with the People of the Book"

Perhaps you didn't have a chance to read my earlier comments on those Qur'anic texts that are traditionally understood by Muslims to contradict the later Verses of Blood.

"So a real Muslim has a problem - which verse is true-er? And a real Muslim will have the answer, too."

But you don't know what that is, right? There is one. It's called the doctrine of Naskh.

"Why will you not be honest about this yourself?"

I brought this up first in an earlier post and again in this one.

Perhaps it's better to read what someone writes before stating something false about them (of course, you've been doing that even when you've read my comments).

You're confusing actual Islamic contradictions (addressed in Muslim theology) with only alleged Biblical contradictions fabricated by the ignorant and the antagonistic.

"I . . . would be happily surprised to find out otherwise."

Argumentum ad hominem, another logical fallacy.

How about we do the intellectually honest thing and look at the texts?

"In a certain sense, I have to confess it does not matter."

I thought so. At least that's honest.

"You ask me to show from the texts you quote that "Mohammed didn't actually steal, lie, enslave, assassinate, rape, slaughter, and wage offensive war against non-Muslims (or command the faithful to do the same)."

"Well. No. I can't do that. But I bet someone can.""

That's called "wishful thinking."

You admit you don't know anything about Islam's authoritative texts and then bet on the basis of that ignorance.

"Or else 1 billion people wouldn't devote their lives to this religion."

That is another false dichotomy ("Islam is peace or it wouldn't have so many adherents").

"I don't know how else to do it, but could you prove the same for the following: "You shall devour all the peoples that the LORD your God is giving over to you . . . from Deut 7:16"

From its context, Deuteronomy 7:16 is a command for Israel to completely wipe out the peoples of Canaan.

However, it is not an open-ended command for offensive warfare to make the world Hebrew, as apologists for jihad and their useful idiots usually argue.

"I know, Mod, I know! No fair to quote the OT!"

What's truly unfair is the false moral equivalence.

And World Citizen didn't say it was unfair, just off-topic.

"What I'm getting from the Moor Killer is hatred of Islam on the basis of quotes pulled out of context."

You're getting Islamic texts, but you've not yet demonstrated that I'm taking any of them "out of context."

Are you going to do the intellectually honest thing and demonstrate the truth of your assertions, or will you retract them?

To do anything else just hurts your credibility.

"the dedication to this cause that you have, Moor Killer, is disturbing."

Telling the truth is disturbing?

"You keep mentioning the 1400 years of violent jihad. They've been a rough period for all humanity, indeed!"

Another immoral equivalence. That makes it not so bad, right?

"I'm sitting this very moment on the site of the largest genocide produced in the history of earth, the systematic destruction of untold millions of lives and erasure of entire civilizations, all for the slogan "God, gold and glory!"

Really, the 70 to 80 million Hindus killed by Islam?

Again, the point you're hoping to make by this, another false moral equivalence, is that Christ is just as bad as Allah.

The essential distinction is that nominally-Christian nations engaged in imperialism had no Biblical basis for such behavior, while offensive jihad to make the world Islam is permitted by Allah and his apostle, it is a duty!

But that disintegrates your "mass of spiritual truth," doesn't it?

"attacking a religion you do not understand is not helping the situation."

How is quoting from Islam's foundational texts "attacking Islam"? What does that characterization say about YOUR opinion of those texts? Are you some kind of Islamophobe?

"If you really want to know the spiritual meaning behind any of the quotes you pulled"

If you know nothing about Qur'an and Sunnah, how can you imply I do not know what they mean?

"After all, who is this James if there is no Moor Killing to do?"

Historical illiteracy is an ugly thing. Civilizational self-loathing is even uglier.

"Islam is worthy of ____"

Telling the truth about its texts.

As for a "Sufi revival," be careful of what you wish:

"Sufism as practiced in the Indian subcontinent was quite intolerant of Hinduism, as documented by the Indian scholar K. S. Lal:

'The Muslim Mushaikh [Sufi spiritual leaders] were as keen on conversions as the Ulama, and contrary to general belief, in place of being kind to the Hindus as saints would, they too wished the Hindus to be accorded a second class citizenship if they were not converted. Only one instance, that of Shaikh Abdul Quddus Gangoh, need be cited because he belonged to the Chishtia Silsila considered to be the most tolerant of all Sufi groups. He wrote letters to the Sultan Sikandar Lodi, Babur, and Humayun to re-invigorate the Shariat [Sharia] and reduce the Hindus to payers of land tax and jizya. To Babur he wrote, "Extend utmost patronage and protection to theologians and mystics... that they should be maintained and subsidized by the state... No non-Muslim should be given any office or employment in the Diwan of Islam... Furthermore, in conformity with the principles of the Shariat they should be subjected to all types of indignities and humiliations. They should be made to pay the jizya...They should be disallowed from donning the dress of the Muslims and should be forced to keep their Kufr [infidelity] concealed and not to perform the ceremonies of their Kufr openly and freely. They should not be allowed to consider themselves the equal to the Muslims" (The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India [1992], p. 237).

"Since that time, while researching my forthcoming book, The Legacy of Jihad, I have discovered that there are many other influential Sufis who shared, and who share today, these bigoted views. Sufi intolerance is clear from, most importantly, never-before-published translations of the great Sufi Al-Ghazali himself . . . as well as from statements by an important contemporary Shi'ite Sufi ideologue, Sultanhussein Tabandeh (Andrew Bostom)."

PM adds,

"uh huh... So Christ was for slavery? Equality for all!! (except if you're black or a woman that is) If history has taught us anything its that a belief in God has NOTHING to do with morality. Religion is probably the most evil concept man has ever devised."

If by, "So Christ was for slavery?" you're implying that He was not, you are correct: "It is for freedom that Christ has set you free" (Galatians 5).

If the Son of God is for human freedom and He created (or completed) His own religion, then how can all religion be "probably the most evil concept" ever created?

If the Christian religion inspired the essential truth of the Declaration of Independence -- "all men are created equal . . . they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . . ," then how can all religions be evil?

"Love your enemies" (Matthew 5), "treat others the way you want to be treated" (Matthew 7), "as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me" (Matthew 25), "the law is not made for a righteous one, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for . . . slave-traders . . . " (1 Timothy 1).

Despicable!

Using the hypocrisy of a nation that preached Liberty but allowed slavery as an excuse to indict the religion that inspired its ideals is not wisdom.

Despite what many il-liberal institutions of "higher learning" propagandize, Christianity is not the Source of All Evil. Slavery has existed for as long as one group of human beings were powerful enough to subjugate another.

Christ recognized slavery's ubiquitousness. In this context, He commanded His followers who did own slaves to treat them as "beloved brothers" (Philemon 1). He also encouraged His followers who were slaves to serve in a way that would honor Him (Ephesians 6) but to gain their freedom if they could (1 Corinthians 7).

Why did slavery in America end? Because its predominantly Christian citizens ended it.

Finally, it seems unwise to argue that the only other alternative to religion -- atheism -- encourages moral behavior. Atheism's lack of morality allowed it to slaughter tens of millions of people in the twentieth century alone.

wontgetfooledagain offers,

"Christianity has a brutal and oppresive history. It even tried to keep Galileo and other scientists from spreading 'lies' and would force them to admit the 'truth'.... or else."

Criminal and unjust behavior by Christians does not make the faith itself "evil," as any cursory examination of its texts would indicate.

"It's kind of funny really... You could be a backwoods hick..but if you read the bible (or have someone read it for you and tell you what's in it)"

Must have hit a nerve.

"then suddenly you are smarter than all the scientists in the world."

First, not all scientists accept that Darwin's creation myth is even possible.

Second, you want to call "ignorant" those who believe that an omnipotent, omniscient God directly created Life. Here are some questions with which you might be able to help a "backwoods hick":

-What scientific (observable, testable, repeatable) evidence do you have that Life arises apart from Life or Life's programs?

-What actual empirical evidence do you have that by random genetic mutations alone newer, more complex genetic program and physical structures and functions can arise in an organism?

-Is not your faith that Life arose suddenly from non-life by random, natural processes alone -- and then somehow managed to survive normally lethal genetic mutations to form all Life -- irrational?

In other words, what do you know is empirically true about Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory?

"Not only that...Christianity also has the nerve to tell the Jews that they don't know who to interpret their own Torah and have decided they know more about the OT than Jews do and only THEY could really know what God was trying to say."

To imply that "Jew" and "Christian" are two mutually-exclusive categories is absolutely false and indicative of an unfamiliarity with history.

-The Christian New Testament. Who composed its texts? Jews.

-The first Christians. Who were they? Jews.

-The first witness to Christ's resurrection. Who was he? No one. She was a Jewish woman.

-The Apostles. Who were they? Jews.

-The Promised Messiah, the Son of God. Who was He? The King of the Jews.

Before his conversion, one of the New Testament's authors, the Apostle Paul, was a Pharisee and referred to himself as a "Hebrew of Hebrews." He warned Gentile (non-Jewish) Christians to avoid arrogance for they had been "grafted into" the vine, of which Jews were the natural branches.

If any Christian speaks arrogantly to anyone, they violate Christ's teachings.

Telling the truth is not arrogance.

"Intolerant Christians trying to force their views of morality onto others."

Are you not now expressing intolerance? Are you not "forcing your morality onto others?"

Every society follows (to whatever degree) a set of moral codes. The question then is: Whose morality do we follow? That of atheism? Nazism? Communism? Islam?

The One who created the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, Who never sinned but only did good healing the sick, raising the dead, dying for the sins of all, and then rising from the dead Himself -- His morality seems like a wise choice.

"lago, You're doing a great job of destroying PM's ridculous arguments but this is not the board to discuss the 'human rights' track record of Christianity (which is abysmal)."

Whose record is good? The Assyrians'? Romans'? Greeks'? Islam's? China's? Aztec's? Japan's? Atheism's?

You seem to suggest that today in the West we respect human rights. From where did that respect come? It did not arise in a vacuum. It came from no other religious or philosophical tradition than Christianity.

The behavior of a religion's adherents must always be evaluated in light of its sacred texts. Only then can one determine whether or not someone is representing that religion faithfully.

Like all people, Christians have committed evil. When the power of the State was united with the Church, abuses occurred. Nominally-Christian states engaged in wars of expansion.

All of that was contrary to the teachings of Christ. None of it can be justified by His words or deeds.

"If you would like to debate Christianity I would like to invite you over to the Christian debate board....you will find me there."

Thanks for the invitation. I'll see how things go here. It looks like PM has replied. :)

Regards,

Iago

PM rejoins,

"I've put my points down pretty firmly, but no one with an ounce of humility is reading this post."

I imagine that's a jab at me.

Competence is not arrogance.

If you want to make a point in a debate, facts are often helpful.

"I'm happy to admit my deficiency in the Koran. I've read as much as will satisfy my curiousity and no more."

You admit to knowing nothing of Qur'an and Hadith. And now your curiosity is satisfied.

I would be happy to explain some of the basics in dealing with that material. No one reading it for the first time without the necessary background can be successful with it.

"Moreover, I haven't lived and learned from those practicing Islam, other than to know that many in the world do practice it, with success, and count Islam as their path to truth."

What is "success" in Islam? Must not it be defined in a way consistent with Mohammed's words and deeds?

When he says, "Fight . . . until all religion is for Allah," how does "success" look?

Are you really sure you want to subscribe to Mohammed's definition of it?

"The Moor Killer"

Are you unwilling or unable to appreciate the timeliness of recalling a hero of the West's resistance against jihad?

"To him, he is a full authority on the Koran and understands without fail every line."

Perhaps only in comparison to someone who knows "nothing" about it and refuses to learn but argues anyway.

Will you demonstrate where I've misrepresented any Islamic texts? If not, will you retract?

"Every line is to be taken at face value, with the translation given."

If you actually knew any of those "successful Muslims," you'd know that the texts are taken pretty much literally.

"That textual analysis of historical documents is not easy and shouldn't be done in a vacuum"

I agree.

But you're trying to do it without the documents.

"The Moor Killer has found troubling passages relating to violence. How will he resolve this difficulty? Will he engage with a Quranic scholar, work on gleaning the truth from the text, actually learn what the spiritual people have to say and separate the temporal historical topical meaning from the timeless wisdom?"

Have you?

As you admit, you don't know Qur'an and you don't care to learn. How then can you talk about doing anything with "timelessly wise Qur'anic scholars"?

"He'll get on the bullhorn and post like the authority he is."

Facts are to moral relativism as light is to darkness.

"Islam demands violence!"

I've cited Islamic texts.

Again, please have the courtesy to refer to what I've actually written.

"I've made references to Christian genocides, many of which had a baloney "scriptural" basis, in reaction to his references of Muslim genocides."

Making red herring and tu quoque arguments is not something about which to brag.

"His response is: 'Again, the point you're hoping to make by this, another false moral equivalence, is that Christ is just as bad as Allah.'"

Finally.

"Allah isn't bad. Evil men have misused these genuine spiritual paths for evil ends."

Mohammed confessed, "I have been made victorious with terror." Is that "genuinely spiritual" terror?

You're not saying Mohammed was "evil," are you?

"Hindu genocide is gnarly and unacceptable. Native American genocide is gnarly and unacceptable."

The former commanded by Allah and his apostle, the latter diametric to the person, work, and word of Christ.

"Take your name, the Moor Killer. To me, on the surface, that's an awful and hateful name. But there's a historical conflict I'm "illiterate" of, and from one perspective at least some Moors did need killing at a certain point in time, and there are meanings and references and layers of identity at work here and it's also mostly metaphorical and probably St. James would never ACTUALLY kill a guy, unless they REALLY deserve it, and on and on."

The actual St. James was an Apostle of Christ. Tradition has it that all the Apostles but John died violent deaths for their testimony. I too doubt he killed anyone.

As to being unfamiliar with the historical context of Matamoros, there's no shame in not knowing. All of us start there. The challenge you face here is now that you know the truth, will you admit it or persist in suicidal fiction?

"Without the subtext and footnotes, the name is pure hate"

In other words, "To the ignorant, the name is pure hate."

"Wishful thinking here: we've got to move this dialogue forward. We've got to understand that a few snipped sentences don't sum up an entire religion."

You've still not demonstrated I've "snipped" some sentences, and considering your admission of surrender to Qur'anic illiteracy above, I doubt you will.

(I would like to point out that I've never said that Allah and Mohammed's commands to war to make the world Islam "sums up the entire religion." It only sums up the parts relevant to non-Muslims' Rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

And the structural integrity of their throats.)

"And super wishful thinking is that we could get onto the REAL topic: who benefits from the hateful attitude, here and abroad? Who taught them this very effective method of division? Where will it be played next?"

Allah,

Mohammed,

and everywhere, of course.

"There is - it's called love."

Love is not ignorance, nor is it silence in the face of evil.

"The question must be asked because websites like this exist:

www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/"

Reporting on Islamic terrorism is "reviling Muslims"? That's an odd way of blaming the victim.

If Muslims stop slaughtering innocents in the name of Allah, then reports of their barbarism will cease.

"In responding to the slave-friendly nature of the Christian-inspired founding fathers"

Only some supported the institution. Political compromise was necessary to achieve unity in the struggle for independence against Great Britain.

"Now I'm pulling a number of your lines and placing them, out of context, side by side. I find it compelling . . . ."

That's intellectually honest.

Ever find evidence of my misrepresenting Qur'an and Sunnah?

"Criminal behavior does not make the faith itself evil. This is so difficult and so real. When the Inquisition is on, how can someone of conscience NOT consider Christianity evil?"

According to you, when a Christian does evil -- such behavior being DIAMETRIC to the command of Christ -- the religion is evil.

When Muslims enslave, rape, and slaughter non-Muslims to make the world Islam -- in FULFILLMENT of Allah's command and Mohammed's example -- it's "a religious path leading without exception to a swirling mass of truth."

"How can someone NOT believe that the texts themselves condone and even command the criminal?"

Read them.

"find the false understanding, find the bad teaching, and resolve it, refocus attention, and get over the madness. That activity has to take place from within the tradition, at a critical distance from the crime. The prevalent mind control has to be busted up, by those with an interest in improving and retooling the system."

How is that possible when Allah commands genocide and his "beautiful pattern of conduct" Mohammed preached and practiced it?

"Despite my latest appeal regarding the nature of textual analysis from outside a tradition, Iago would like to play the tit for tat game."

If it is impossible to understand a religious text unless you are a devotee of that religion, then it is impossible for you to make that argument since you wouldn't understand the texts well enough to know that no one else did either.

What you call "tit for tat" is actually addressing the facts.

"Give me the number one, bulletproof, surefire "Allah commands violence" piece of text."

I've provided not a few of them in this thread.

I thought you read my posts.

"I did this a little bit once, and you said I chose the wrong one and debunking it didn't mean anything. I've picked out an expert to consult with. I'll come back with the proper reading and shoot the surefire "Allah commands love" response."

You chose a passage on defensive warfare, and citing propaganda sympathetic to jihad meant to obfuscate it and The Verse of the Sword to non-Muslims is not "debunking."

As for your expert, is this person of a greater authority than Allah? Mohammed? Will he report accurately what Islam has traditionally understood and practiced regarding offensive warfare against non-Muslims, Shari'a, and dhimma? Will he admit that no major school of Islamic jurisprudence rejects offensive warfare to establish the tyranny of Allah over all mankind or the superiority of Muslims over non-Muslims?

Not even Sufism -- a revival of its ideology for which you expressed a fervent desire -- does that. I shared some information on this point with you earlier. Here's a little more:

Al-Ghazali was “acclaimed in both the East and West as the greatest Muslim after Muhammad."

Al-Ghazali on jihad and dhimma:

"[O]ne must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year . . . one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them...If a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book – primarily Jews and Christians] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked . . . One may cut down their trees . . . One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide . . . they may steal as much food as they need . . . .

"[T]he dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle . . . Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims] . . . on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant [sic] bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible] . . . They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells . . . their houses may not be higher than the Muslim’s, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle[-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths…[dhimmis] must hold their tongue…. [2] (From the Wagjiz, written in 1101 A.D)" --Bostom

PM continues,

"We can do that for all your ammo. But one at a time, 'cuz I have a day job."

So, if you were independently wealthy, you'd somehow discover a curiosity for Qur'an and Hadith and then demonstrate that all the Islamic texts that command the slavery and slaughter of non-Muslims are really just talking about "peacefully struggling inwardly" toward that "swirling mass of truth"?

Note the Islamic Newspeak in this brief bit from scholar Bassam Tibi on how Muslims have traditionally understood Islam:

"At its core, Islam is a religious mission to all humanity. Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the world. “We have sent you forth to all mankind” (Q. 34:28). If non-Muslims submit to conversion or subjugation, this call (da’wa) can be pursued peacefully. If they do not, Muslims are obliged to wage war against them. In Islam, peace requires that non-Muslims submit to the call of Islam, either by converting or by accepting the status of a religious minority (dhimmi) and paying the imposed poll tax, jizya. World peace, the final stage of the da’wa, is reached only with the conversion or submission of all mankind to Islam…Muslims believe that expansion through war is not aggression but a fulfillment of the Qur’anic command to spread Islam as a way to peace. The resort to force to disseminate Islam is not war (harb), a word that is used only to describe the use of force by non-Muslims. Islamic wars are not hurub (the plural of harb) but rather futuhat, acts of “opening” the world to Islam and expressing Islamic jihad. Relations between dar al-Islam, the home of peace, and dar al-harb, the world of unbelievers, nevertheless take place in a state of war, according to the Qur’an and to the authoritative commentaries of Islamic jurists. Unbelievers who stand in the way, creating obstacles for the da’wa, are blamed for this state of war, for the da’wa can be pursued peacefully if others submit to it. In other words, those who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them. Only when Muslim power is weak is “temporary truce” (hudna) allowed (Islamic jurists differ on the definition of “temporary”)."

More from the thread . . . .

"Smell the bacon"

Pork.

Being an authority on Islam, you undoubtedly recognize such a remark as offensive to Muslims. Is that an Islamophobo-Freudian slip?

"There is a myth at work . . . The new bad guy . . . is the Islamic fundamentalist."

Those who preach and practice the slaughter of innocents is *not* a "bad guy"?

Shameful.

According to you, no 9/11. No Beslan. No London 7/7. No Madrid 3/11. No Bali. No Mumbai.

No genocide against the Black Christians, animists, and Muslims of Sudan. No Buddhist monks murdered. No Armenian Genocide. No nuns killed over a cartoon. No Pakistanis gunned down in front of their students for teaching females. No Indonesian Christian school girls beheaded for Allah.

No Copt teenage daughters kidnapped, raped, forcibly converted, and married into Islam whose fathers are greeted at police stations with "Don't worry. She's in the arms of Islam now." No journalists forced to confess their and their mother's Jewish ethnicity before having their heads torn from their necks.

No raping of the nuns dead on the floors of the Hagia Sofia. No Janissaries. No Banu Qurayza. No Asma bint Marwan. No Al-Andalus. No Siege of Vienna. No Battle of Tours. No Barbary Pirates. No Reconquista.

No jihad. No Shari'a. No dhimma.

No commands to, "Invite . . . demand the jizya . . . [or] fight" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

No confession from Islam's "Ideal Man" that, "I have been ordered to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshiped but Allah and Mohammed is his apostle" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

It's just one 1400-year-old, gigantic, worldwide myth aimed at defaming Islam.

If they had any decency, those Infidels would stop getting killed by Muslims. It's making Islam look bad.

"AM radio . . . LGF . . . every event or statement regarding Muslims into proof that they are evil and to be reviled."

Almost *no one* on AM radio has the intellectual integrity or moral fortitude to even approach the Islamic texts. LGF links to *news* agencies' reports on what Muslims do and say.

If they don't want others to know about their slaughtering Infidels, they ought to start killing in private.

"the Empire State building . . . lit be green for one night in honor of Ramadan. For people of the hateful mindset, even a simple gesture of inclusion like that"

Whose got a "hateful mindset," those protesting the honoring the ideology that slaughtered nearly 3,000 fellow New Yorkers just down the street, or those who support that bloodshed?

"innocent German citizen . . . the myth of the Islamic fundamentalist jihadist masses."

A billion people claim fealty to a god and prophet commanding them to wage offensive warfare against all who refuse to convert or submit (that many do not is attributable to ignorance, cowardice, apathy, and a lack of resources).

In every nation where Muslims have the power to vote, they choose Jihad.

"In my last post I offered an olive branch and opportunity to study with me to Moor Killer #1. And he won't have it!"

You know that is false, as does anyone who's read our exchange.

You asked me for "One verse, just one verse!" to dismantle with your Islamic "expert."

I've already given you not only many passages from Qur'an and Hadith, I've provided Islamic scholars much more authoritative, influential, and representative of traditional Islamic orthodoxy than any you could possibly find.

Unsurprisingly, you address none of that but instead choose to (again) falsely accuse me of wrongdoing.

"illegal conduct which masquerades as spiritual truth"

In Christianity, "illegal conduct" is recognized as "masquerading" because the Biblical texts prove it to be immoral.

In Islam, what you call "illegal conduct" (offensive jihad to subjugate the world to Allah) is not only permissible, it is required.

"I'm still waiting for one quote you'd like me debunk. I don't want to pick my own because when I did that the last time I picked the 'wrong one.'"

The quotation marks implying that it wasn't really wrong. You tried to use a verse on defensive jihad to prove I was taking out-of-context a verse on offensive jihad.

Your aversion to supporting your "argument" is becoming tedious. First, it was, "All religious paths lead without exception to a swirling mass of spiritual truth -- except yours." Then, it was, "You're taking verses out-of-context" (which is your admission that I've already given you the verses you claim now I'm withholding). Most recently, it's, "I want to study, but he won't!"

It's like Steve Martin from The Man with Two Brains, asking his dead wife for a sign that he shouldn't get involved with Kathleen Turner:

Martin: "Just give me a sign."

Dead wife: "No!" "No!" "NO!!!" "NOOOOOOOOOO!!!" [Painting spins violently on wall, lights flicker, house shakes.]

Martin: "Just any kind of sign. I'll keep on the lookout for it. Meanwhile, I'll just put you in the closet."

rabello jumps into the fray with . . .

"Sorry, IagoMatamoros, you are the one making nonstop, scurrilous charges against all Muslims, and all of Islam, itself"

Scurrilous? There is coarse, vulgar, and abusive language in my posts, but those are not my words; as you concede, I am just quoting Allah and his apostle.

And if I am quoting Islamic texts, how am I making "vulgar and abusive" charges against "all Muslims"? What does that say for what you believe about those passages?

Are you some kind of Islamophobe?

"with your repetitive copy/pastes of passages from the Qur'an that you've found somewhere"

Where? Qur'an and Sunnah.

First you accuse Allah and Mohammed of making "scurrilous" revelations; now you accuse me of not doing my own homework. How dishonest.

Without the knowledge to prove it (or the courage to admit your error), you falsely accuse me of misrepresenting Islam's "sacred" texts.

As for the repetition, that's called using relevant evidence to support your arguments.

You want to prove your tolerance and enlightenment by defending "divine" commands for offensive warfare until the whole world is subjugated to Allah.

That is scurrilous.

"The onus remains on YOU to prove that your interpretations of those copy/pasted passages are the ONLY correct interpretations in all of the world."

A red herring.

As you and PM have ably demonstrated, anyone totally ignorant of Qur'an, Sunnah, and 1400 years of jihad can interpret a confession like, "I have been ordered to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshiped but Allah and Mohammed is his apostle," to mean, "I have been ordered to peacefully struggle inwardly toward a swirling mass of spiritual truth until everyone confesses that all cars drive to Cleveland."

Next, you'll argue that when Mohammed bragged, "I have been made victorious with terror," he really meant, "I have been made victorious by baking cookies. Aren't cookies delicious?"

"The majority of Muslims across the world aren't doing that either. But why are we in Iraq, again?"

Another non sequitur. Have you ever met a logical fallacy you didn't want to use immediately to defend calls to genocide?

You can talk about numbers all you want. Because a person's behavior does not necessarily tell you anything about his religion, one must go to that religion's sacred texts and founder to understand the faith the way its god intended.

By one count, since 9/11 there have been nearly ten thousand terrorist attacks in the name of Allah. Is that a "tiny" number?

Of that large majority of Muslims who have not carried out offensive qital against non-Muslims, how many support it in other ways (financially, logistically, morally, spiritually, etc.)?

Of course, those numbers have not been my point. My point in citing Islam's authoritative texts relevant to the Life and Liberty of non-Muslims everywhere is . . . to cite those texts.

"We shall also conveniently ignore the war we brought onto the innocent people of Iraq"

Another non sequitur (with a hint of tu quoque), since I've not argued anything about Iraq. I've been reporting on Allah's commands and his prophet's example.

Saddam brought it. And we haven't warred against innocents. Saddam, his agents, and Muslim terrorists have been the targets.

"Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, secret renditions"

Terrorists captured in battle. Hardly "innocent."

"all things that are certainly terrorizing to ordinary human beings."

They're not ordinary, they're monsters. If they don't want to be captured trying to kill Americans, perhaps they might stop trying to kill Americans.

"You think that NO Iraqi's were killed in Shock and Awe?"

The blood of innocent victims killed in our war against Saddam is on the hands of Saddam alone.

How morally courageous (and clear-headed) of you to blame victims of Islamic terrorism for defending themselves.

Unlike our enemy, it is not our policy to target innocents.

And that's just like Islam. Its devotees intimidate, coerce, inconvenience, enslave, rape, and slaughter non-Muslims around the world, but what do Muslims protest?

Cartoons.

Perhaps instead of blindly arguing (to your own chagrin), "It doesn't say that!" you should study the texts for yourself.

Again, demonstrate from Qur'an and Sunnah that I have misrepresented anything.

I'll be waiting.

santiago_matamoros wrote (great name, by the way!) . . .

"FAR too many Christian Iraqis have been killed by US forces. 1 is too many actually. And the fact is, Iraqi Christians, Mandeans and other minorities are the biggest victims in all of this (although the Azeris get whatever is coming to them). They will be swallowed up and forced to live under radicalized Sunni and Shi'ite militias and are being killed and harassed by them daily."

But I thought that Islam means "peace," and that all people have an innate desire for freedom?

You don't mean that democracy in Iraq was just a tool used to enshrine Shari'a in its constitution, do you?

Next, you'll be telling me that the president wants to establish a Muslim stronghold in the center of Europe by granting Kosovo independence.

I read something about Iraq's ancient Jewish population being reduced to almost nothing.

First, Clinton bombed Christians to aid Muslim terrorists. Now, President Bush not only hosts iftar dinners, he's again claiming that we all worship Allah and that Islam is peace.

Goodness.

In response to whirlinggal . . .

wg (is that for whirling dervish?). If so, that would be ironic!

"I want to thank the self-titled "Moor-killer" for spamming my thread--"

Are you and your co-ideologues unwilling to recognize this ancient historical refutation to your "Islam is peace" nonsense, or can you just not help yourselves?

Spain would have never attributed victories over Muslim invaders and overlords to its patron saint if Islam had not been invading and oppressing it.

And that's not "spamming." I posted from the word of Allah and the example of Mohammed. Others replied with assorted logical fallacies and outright falsehoods, and I addressed them.

"and proving my point."

Your point was that Allah's commands and Mohammed's words and deeds cause non-Muslims to revile the faithful?

Well done.

rabello continues . . .

I'll be waiting for your proof, Moor Killer, that your interpretation, which is really just a wordy opinion that sounds awfully hateful for a Christian, of the passages you copy/paste is the ONE AND ONLY correct one in all the world.

Another red herring? Unable to support your base and scurrilously false accusations, it appears.

Are you unwilling or unable to address this topic and my words openly and honestly?

My argument has been: "This is what Allah commands. This is what Mohammed said and did."

I proved this by referring to Allah's commands and Mohammed's words and actions.

Your (false) charge has been that I've misrepresented those Islamic texts. Now it is your turn to prove it.

If you cannot, then you should retract.

Quoting Islamic "sacred" texts and renowed Islamic scholars does require words; however, those statements are not *my* opinions, they are Allah's.

As for "hate"? I cite plainly the words of Qur'an and Sunnah, but you defend calls for unrelenting offensive warfare against non-Muslims to enslave or kill all who refuse to submit to Allah.

Which is truly hateful?

The fact you require the question to be asked should give you pause.

In response to whirlinggal,

WGal,

It looks like you're a fan of irony. :)

Self-proclaimed "Moor-Killer" says--

'wg (is that for whirling dervish?). If so, that would be ironic!'

I take it you're not a fan of mysticism?

What's in a name?

If yours is derived from "whirling dervish" (you neither affirmed nor denied it), it would be doubly ironic for my nom de guerre recalls one attributed with the defense of non-Muslims against Allah, while yours is tied to the very ideology making necessary that defense in the first place.

Self-proclaimed "Moor-Killer" says

"Are you and your co-ideologues unwilling to recognize this ancient historical refutation to your "Islam is peace" nonsense, or can you just not help yourselves?"

More unquestioning prejudice rears its unknowing head.

That's also ironic, for I've said, "Don't revile Muslims." I've quoted and referenced Islam's god, founder, "sacred" texts, and scholars.

Your accusing me of, "unknowing, unquestioning prejudice," looks more like projection than description.

Kill them all and let G-d sort them out?

That uncharitable and baseless suggestion is the most unfunny irony of all, for Mohammed commanded:

". . . Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

rabello added . . .

"What proof? That's the whole problem."

[Proof:]

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"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) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57).

[Not proof:]

"Sequential, overly verbose posts don't make 'a truth.' Opinion is an opinion. A biased opinion is a biased opinion."

You cannot refute the substance of what I've written, so you attack its length.

Be terse in your ignorance and I will be terse in its correction. Refrain from logical fallacies and libelous accusations, and I will spend no words refuting them.

By the way, everyone's opinion is biased, and "overly verbose" is redundant.

"I don't blame Iraqi people for 9/11 just because they're 'The Muslims' and whether 'targeted' or not, innocent children in Iraq have died because of our actions, over the past 15-16 years, just because they're 'The Muslims'"

A straw man. Who blames Iraqis for 9/11?

If innocent children are not targeted, then it can't be "because they're 'The Muslims.'" Neither can it be "because of our actions."

"Can you post opinions without personally attacking those who disagree with you?"

Can you produce anything substantive in supporting your (false) charge that I misrepresent Islamic texts?

All you've offered are ad hominem, red herring, straw man, and tu quoque "arguments."

you responded that yes, too many Christians have been killed in Iraq; even 1 is too many. You didn't include Muslim Iraqi's in your lament. See what you don't say is as revealing as what you do say.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence?

Even if he did feel that, so what? That's not the point under discussion, so you're just throwing out another red herring.

In your defense of genocide in the furtherance of Islam, you attack, vilify, and demonize those illuminating the Source and Sustenance of that bloodlust.

If you want to be a moral person, stop defending the god and prophet who've wrought this:

". . . We were (sitting) in the mosque when the Messenger of Allah . . . came to us and said: (Let us) go to the Jews. We went out with him until we came to them. The Messenger of Allah . . . stood up and called out to them (saying): O ye assembly of Jews, accept Islam (and) you will be safe.

. . . .

"he killed their men, and distributed their women, children and properties among the Muslims, except that some of them had joined the Messenger of Allah . . . who granted them security. They embraced Islam. The Messenger of Allah . . . turned out all the Jews of Medlina. Banu Qainuqa' (the tribe of 'Abdullah b. Salim) and the Jews of Banu Haritha and every other Jew who was in Medina.

. . . .

"It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah . . . say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4363-4366).

Just added,

rabello,

ParanoidMystic has already pointed out the error of copy/pasting quotes from any religious text and presenting them as proof of something without any historical or scholarly or spiritual context.

Another red herring, for that's not what he's argued, and neither have you.

Instead you've claimed that I've misrepresented the texts I've posted.

You still have not proven from Qur'an and Sunnah that I've erred or lied. Not doing so only demonstrates a lack of competence and integrity.

You can find as many scary posts in the Qur'an that you want; none of it means that all Muslims are terrorists, "potentially," of course, which is the bottomline message of all your posts.

Another straw man, since that's not what I've written.

I've argued, "This is what Allah commands. This is Mohammed's example."

You are either unwilling or unable to refute this, so instead you attack the messenger, continually misrepresenting what I write in the process.

What does this say about your "spirituality"?

Well, yes, it was under discussion. It was you who put it into discussion. Somewhere you said that while Muslims terrorize us, we do not terrorize them; that in fact, they accuse us of terrorizing them to guilt trip "the west"

Are you outright lying and hoping no one will notice? Are you hoping that everyone is too busy or too lazy to go back through this thread to see who wrote what and when they wrote it?

Or are you really unable to keep straight even what you yourself have written?

For in post 304 you wrote in response to santiago:

Do you think that it's possible that people in the Muslim world feel equally terroized [sic] by all of us, seeing how many innocent people that have been killed in Iraq, alone, since March 2003, and could be saying the same things about "us" that you're saying about "them?"

My post 306 (which you bastardize above) was in reply to that.

The point of the thread was, "Why revile Muslims?" The point of my comments were, "This is what Allah says; this is Mohammed's example."

I said the war on Iraq, the loss of life OF COURSE TERRORIZES human beings, that the loss of life has been terrible

You were making a false moral equivalence between Islamic terrorism and American self-defense, blaming us for innocent Iraqi deaths.

santiago sufficiently addressed that last point.

Tenlionz,

Islam and Christianity have proven them selves to be destructive religions. How many have died in the name of your Gods?

The alternative to religious faith, atheism, slaughtered and enslaved hundreds of millions of people in the twentieth century. Are you really sure you want to appeal to irreligion?

As for your immoral, historically- and textually-illiterate false equivalence . . .

Jesus committed no sin, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of all, and rose from the dead. He taught, "Love your enemies," and "Do good to those who persecute you."

Mohammed lied, stole, enslaved, raped (including little Aisha beginning when she was nine), assassinated, slaughtered, and waged genocidal offensive warfare against non-Muslims (and commanded others to do the same). His Allah commanded, "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them," and, "Fight against those who believe not in Allah. Make a holy war . . . until they feel themselves subdued." Mohammed confessed, "I have been made victorious with terror."

As for allowing people to make their own, even immoral choices, that is one of risks of Liberty. There is no virtue in coercion.

You're rejecting a morally perfect God (Christ) for what? Anarchy?

Hugh Hewitt still missing the big picture

From "moderate," modern Turkey (let's let them into the EU!):

"Speaking at Kanal D TV’s Arena program, PM Erdogan commented on the term “moderate Islam”, often used in the West to describe AKP and said, ‘These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

Source: Milliyet, Turkey, August 21, 2007"

Two years after inviting unindicted co-conspirator CAIR onto his program as an authority on Islam, Hugh is still willfully ignorant of what fuels the global jihad: the command of Allah and the example of his false prophet.

Qur'an and Sunnah require the faithful to war against all non-Muslims who refuse to either convert to Islam or to submit to an oppressive and humiliating second-class status as dhimmis.

This is neither "funamentalist," "radical," nor "extremist" Islam -- this is Islam.

(Does Hugh know how long the Sunni/Shia conflict has raged and why?)

In light of the "divine" mandate for Infidel bloodshed in establishing the tyranny of Allah over all mankind, how wise is it to spend one more drop of American blood or one more dime of American treasure in service to Islam?

If our forces stay in Iraq to kill faithful Muslims obeying the call to advance jihad or to prepare for other fronts in our War of Self-Defense Against Allah, then that is a proper use of our military.

If our bravest and best continue to sacrifice life and limb for a Commander-in-Chief who persists in the delusion that Islam is a "great" world "religion of peace," whose adherents will love us if only we give enough, then that is a crime and a tragedy.

President Bush has used our military to enshrine Shari'a -- Islamic law -- in Iraq's constitution. He advocates an independent Kosovo. (Apparently, Islamic terrorism does pay.)

Hugh facilitates this ill-informed, suicidal policy by promoting the same false Islam.

Immoral equivalence

"moral responsibility for genocidal chaos"

. . . belongs not to America which defends itself, but to Allah and the prophet from hell for requiring it in the first place:

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

A story for KTLA's Prime News -- The CW is aiding the subversive jihad in America

On tonight's broadcast, KTLA Prime News' Entertainment segment included a piece on "Muslim-American reaction" to one of the CW's new programs, a sitcom depicting the natural humor of a Pakistani Muslim exchange student coming to live with typically-racist white Americans.

It was a friendly and uncritical piece, even including a personal thanks for "taking care of" the on-air personality and his crew as they "intruded" into their hosts' viewing of the show.

The "report" exuded such tolerance and "balance" that even tonight's anchor was prompted to utter wistfully something along the lines of, "Perhaps this can help us all take ourselves a little less seriously."

The only problem is that KTLA Prime News has allowed itself to be used as a propaganda tool by those seeking ultimately to replace the Constitution guaranteeing their Freedoms of Speech and the Press with Shari'a law.

The piece went from politically-correct, multiculturalist angst to outright dhimmi propaganda in no time at all.

It began with KTLA's Entertainment personality Ross wondering whether or not "Muslim-Americans" would be offended by the program. Over nine thousand six hundred terrorist attacks in obedience to Allah since 9/11, and we should worry about hurting Muslims' feelings?

Perhaps the producers and staff of Prime News adore irony (and have a deep, dark sense of humor), since the question of Muslim offense at a sitcom was nearly contemporaneous with their story of a "Bosnian man" trying to enter the U.S. embassy in Vienna with a backpack full of explosives and nails. Insultingly, that brief report ended with a clueless (paraphrased), "no word on what the man wanted to do."

Let's see, a Muslim with a backpack full of explosives, nails, and Islamic literature trying to enter an American embassy. What did he have in mind? Undoubtedly, his actions were intended to coincide with and reinforce the message of a new marketing campaign in the UK -- Islam Is Peace.

It gets better. Who was Ross' host? It looked like Edina Lekovic, spokeswoman for the LA-based Muslim Public Affairs Council. As editor of Al-Talib at UCLA in 1999, she was responsible for an article supporting Osama bin Laden called “Jihad in America,” a fact which was recently exposed by Steven Emerson. Here is a snip of what appeared in the article (from LGF; also noted here):

“When we hear someone refer to the great Mujahid (someone who struggles in Allah’s cause) Osama bin Laden as a ‘terrorist,’ we should defend our brother and refer to him as a freedom fighter, someone who has forsaken wealth and power to fight in Allah’s cause and speak out against oppressors. We take these stances only to please Allah.”

Edina Lekovic's publication supports OBL as "fighting in Allah's cause," and we have to worry about offending her!

Seeking to ensure that the purpose of the sitcom in question was not missed by all us in-bred, backwater illiterates, Amy Pietz is offering her thoughts on the program's wanting to enlighten "small-minded racists" in America. (You know them -- the people who don't really appreciate being on the business end of Qur'an 9:5's "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. . . .")

Did you get that? For nearly 1400 years, Muslims have enslaved, raped, and slaughtered non-Muslims at the command of Allah and in accord with the prophet's example, but we are the ignorant bigots in need of change!

Amy Pietz, there's a niqab with your name on it.

I urge KTLA to investigate Edina Lekovic's support for Islamic terrorism.

Even more importantly, it should explore the Source and Sustenance of the global jihad and its own uncritical (even dutiful) assistance of its propaganda efforts.

Craven censorship at Beliefnet

Apparently, someone there doesn't appreciate the command of Allah and the example of his false prophet exposed.

From "Why Revile Muslims?"

9/23/2007 2:26 PM

lupus-rex,

You're throwing out the baby with the bath water right after throwing dirty bath water on the baby!

Just because one religion in particular (you know who you are) commands offensive warfare against those who will neither convert nor submit to the rule of its god does not mean that all religions do so.

You're also making a false dichotomy between Reason and Faith. To believe that one necessarily excludes the other is in itself *irrational.* A truly reasonable person will examine all available evidence on a topic before drawing any conclusions.

We have centuries of historical and archaeological evidence supporting the intervention of YHWH in the affairs of man, culminating ultimately with the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son of God.

9/23/2007 8:59 PM

Examples:

-A monument inscription referencing Pontius Pilate

-the Pool of Gibeon

-Excavations of Thebes confirming the description of its fall by the prophet Nahum

-A great colonial archway spanning the Via Egnatia crossing the river Gangites, where the Apostle Paul converted Lydia.

A multitude of evidences from the past demonstrate the reliability of the Biblical texts as accurate records of history.

In light of this -- and the fact that much of what is recorded in those documents is eyewitness testimony often professed upon pain of death -- you cannot dismiss honestly the Biblical accounts as "fantasy" or "fairy tales."

From "Is Allah fair?"

9/23/2007 2:49 PM

Of course, none of the passages cited by oleander were universal commands for offensive warfare against all non-believers to make the world Hebrew, and all were judgments in response to sin.

What did Christ do? He forgave the woman caught in adultery, saving her from death by stoning (the legal punishment for that crime under the Mosaic Covenant). He commanded, "Love your enemies." He healed the sick, comforted the despairing, and raised the dead. He spoke words of life and light, and He committed no sin.

Ultimately, He sacrificed His own life to reconcile all people to His Father.

On the other hand, Mohammed practiced the raiding, enslaving, raping, and slaughtering of non-Muslims when they would neither convert (or if they were "People of the Book") nor submit and pay the jizya, and he commanded his followers to do the same.

From Little Aisha:

9/23/2007 12:23 PM

A saint for defending Christendom against bloodthirsty savages bent on raping, pillaging, and slaughtering in fulfillment of "divine" command and prophetic example, as you know.

9/23/2007 1:49 PM

rabello,

Are you really so careless in your thinking, or is that only an attempt at deceiving those who really are careless?

Of course all people commit evil. The key point on which your argument fails is that those examples you cite are of those whose behavior clearly violates Christ's command and example. Such behavior is abhorred by all decent people.

Mohammed, however, claims to have raped his little "wife" at Allah's ordaining. In Islam, that makes such evil not only permissible, but divine.

Do you realize what you've done? You've tried not only to justify Mohammed's depravity, you've done it by equating him with monsters.

Finally, your analogy emphasizes the fact that in the West such behavior is illegal and generally condemned. In Islam, it is considered part of a "beautiful pattern of conduct" (Qur'an 33:21).

9/23/2007 2:00 PM

By the way, those zealously obeying commands to "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" are properly characterized as "bloodthirsty" and "savage."

To deny this only makes you a part of the problem.

Perhaps you should open up a dictionary and close your Edward Said.

It is not "prejudice against Arabo-Islamic peoples and their culture" to tell the truth about the command of Allah, the example of his apostle, and the faithful's nearly 1400 years of rape, slavery, and murder of non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

9/23/2007 3:13 PM

WorldCitizen,

Does your obviously well-worn defense of Mohammed's predilection for pre-pubescent partners come from religious conviction, or civilizational self-loathing?

As for the age-appropriateness of a "prophet" in his fifties raping a nine-year-old, what moral, decent man of any generation desires sexual gratification from a child?

Morality is not time-dependent as you seem to imply. Neither was Aisha physically ready. Hadith record her playing with dolls, which would not have been allowed of a girl in puberty.

Your argument shows only the immorality of seventh-century Arabic culture and your perverseness in trying to justify it.

9/23/2007 3:18 PM

"the immorality of seventh-century Arabic culture" only if it was actually permitted.

This would not be the only time "divine" revelation legitimized Mohammed's licentiousness.

9/23/2007 3:48 PM

Is not Mohammed's pedophilia evil?

WC was justifying it.

Defending Islam by attacking Christ

From this Debate Islam thread.

Funny how pointing out the utter depravity of Allah and his prophet often leads to defending Christ. An easier and more drastic contrast cannot be made.

"Professed upon pain of death?? People will say anything when threatened with pain and death, so that does not prove anything."

What evidence do you have that those men lied, or are you just making things up?

Christ's Apostles all saw Him tortured and slaughtered. They knew He was dead. They were hiding behind locked doors for fear of the authorities.

Within hours, they all (but for the Apostle John, who was still persecuted) died horrible deaths because they resolutely held to their testimony that Christ had risen from the dead.

Why would any one of them die for what they knew to be a lie? Would not at least one of them have said, "Hey, wait a minute! This is all a misunderstanding. I was only speaking metaphorically!"?

"There is evidence of that by the fact that the date of the calenders were reset to his birth."

Our calendars were reset because of the impact of His life, words, and work. Do you have a religion named after you? Does nearly a third of the world's population worship you? Has anyone built, written, painted, or composed anything at all in your honor?

"what was written about him many decades after death cannot be taken as word for word correct."

Why not? Do you automatically dismiss all eyewitness testimony? What evidence do you have that they erred?

What was written about Christ was written by His Apostles, all of whom were eyewitnesses to everything He did and said in His public ministry. Add to that the work of those who interviewed eyewitnesses to all that had happened and you've got every reason to believe their accounts of the life, death, and resurrection of the Son of God.

You also have the testimony of the prophets who foretold what Christ would do. You have the testimony of the Church fathers and the first Christians who suffered persecution and death for their confession.

Ironically, you also have the involuntary validation of the Apostles' message by the authorities who had Christ put to death. Would not those who hated Him and His movement so much that they murdered an obviously holy man have produced the corpse to destroy forever what you consider the Apostles' "fairy tale"?

They did not because they could not.

"To do so is rather naive in my opinion."

Is it not "naive" -- and intellectually irresponsible -- to dismiss out-of-hand the overwhelming amount of eyewitness testimony regarding the greatest Man Who ever lived? A Man of Whose words and deeds we have more historical evidence than any other figure of the ancient world?

"No doubt the writers of those books had their own agendas...all men do, and that must be taken into account when reading these books of the Bible."

What was their agenda? How do you know?

The Apostles didn't hold unswervingly to the confession of Christ's resurrection because of money -- many of them lost their worldly possessions. They didn't do it for prestige -- their "heresy" cost them their social standing and their reputations. They didn't do it to please their families -- they were often disowned for their faith. They didn't do it for political benefit -- the religious and secular authorities of their day persecuted and killed them without mercy. They certainly didn't do it for power or glory -- by their own hand they confessed their sinfulness. They took their place in the Church as the servants of all (not a "public servant" like a politician, but an actual servant). They testified to the greatness of the risen Messiah.

The only reasonable explanation left to a intellectually-honest person is that the Apostles knew beyond any doubt that the Son of God had risen from the dead.

Peace.

Besides Josephus, here are two other non-Christians testifying to the person of Christ (credit to myrick007):

Cornelius Tacitus was a Roman Historian who lived c.55-A.D. c.117. He writes of "Christus" in his ANNALS Book XV, Chapter 44:

"Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated by the people for their crimes. This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race."

LUCIAN: (120-180 A.D.)

A Greek satirist that spoke scornfully of Christ and Christians, affirming that they were real and historical people, never saying that they were fictional characters.

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account....You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property."

Avoiding answering straightforward questions about Islam out of fear or disingenuousness?

Whether it's Hugh Hewitt, Affad Shaikh, Ahmed Bedier, or any other apologist for Islam, answering simple, factual questions often proves to be more than they are able (or willing) to bear.

More from my YouTube acquaintance:

translating is more than changing words into english you have to change around sentences all together, i'm not trying to be a jerk about the language thing but it doesn't seem like you understand what i'm getting at. in english you wouldn't say you're going to the house of Amillennialist, you'd say "I'm going to Amillennialist's house." . However accurate the interpretations/translations are they wont ever be accepted because you're altering the word of Allah. Also, some words in Arabic could have 17 different meanings, so with the bias of the translator it could change the meaning of the whole verse.

I was going to say something else but it'd be rude, especially since it's Ramadan. But, we have no right to argue over what the Quran says if we can't even read Arabic. No matter how good of a translation you have, you're not reading what Allah sent to Muhammad . . . you're reading what a man thinks the Quran says. If someone took the bible and put it into his own words you wouldn't think of it to be the word of God would you? Of course not.

Have you found that the translations of Qur'an and Hadith I use misrepresent the meaning of the texts at all? If so, where? If not, why do you persist in this argument?

As I've noted previously, the three translations to which I refer are commonly-accepted Muslim translations. In validating their renderings of the Verse of the Sword at a local bookstore, all but one of the eleven different Qur'ans being sold there conveyed the same command for offensive warfare against non-Muslims.

And your example makes my point: translation without losing essential meaning is absolutely possible. Either way, you end up at my house. :)

Now that we've established that, will you answer a few simple questions directly?

Does Allah command the faithful to "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them," or not? (Qur'an 9:5)

Does Islam traditionally teach that with the last revelations of Qur'an to Mohammed, the former verses requiring and permitting tolerance of and cooperation with non-Muslims have been abrogated (naskh) by the commands for offensive warfare until "all religion is for Allah," or not?

Did Mohammed command the faithful to convert, subjugate and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims to make the world Islam, or not? (Qur'an 9:5, 9:29, Muslim Book 19, Number 4294, etc.)

Did he confess that he was commanded to war against non-Muslims until all submit to Allah's rule, or not? (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24)

Did Mohammed admit that "terror" was his means of success, or not? (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220)

Did Allah promise Paradise to those who kill and are killed for him, or not? (Qur'an 9:111)

Did Mohammed begin raping little Aisha when she was nine, or not? Did Allah "ordain" his pedophilia, or not? (Tabari 9:131, Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139-140)

Did Mohammed, whom Allah describes as a "beautiful pattern of conduct" steal, rape, enslave, and slaughter -- and in so doing provide a model for his followers to emulate -- or not? (Qur'an 33:21)

If not, why not? About what do you have reason to be rude? And how can you justify the evil commanded and carried out by Allah and his apostle?

Does not a deity that not only tolerates but actually sanctifies heresy, deceit, theft, rape, pedophilia, slavery, and genocide prove itself false?

Is not the prophet of such a god also false? And do not those who teach, preach, and practice such a faith consorting with hell?

Jesus came to show us the Father, to die for our sins, and to rise again from the dead. Through Him alone can we see the eternal, omnipotent, and omniscient YHWH.

I urge you to leave the ones who call Christ a blasphemer, liar, and accursed (Qur'an 5:17, 5:73, and 9:30, for example) and to put your faith in the Son of God.

This was offered as representative of my acquaintance's position on interpreting Qur'an. The only problem is that it is a propaganda piece meant to deceive the ignorant and gullible.

Here is my response:

Your "scholar" is either incompetent or deceitful. If incompetent, why is that his errors all fall on the side of misrepresenting Islam as affording non-Muslims full equality under law, freedom of conscience, and true respect?

In arguing that the Verse of the Sword, Qur'an 9:5, is taken out of context by critics of Islam, he takes 9:5 out of context! There are passages and chapters that allow or require fighting in self-defense. 9:5 is not one of them.

The author also attempts to deceive those unfamiliar with Islam into believing that Jews and Christians are respected in that faith. While it is true that early in Mohammed's prophetic career tolerance -- and even honor -- of Jews and Christians existed, that was eventually replaced by words and deeds like:

"And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected" (Qur'an 2:65).

"Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil; these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path" (Qur'an 5:60)!

"Allah's Apostle said, 'The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him"'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177).

". . . We were (sitting) in the mosque when the Messenger of Allah . . . came to us and said: (Let us) go to the Jews. We went out with him until we came to them. The Messenger of Allah . . . stood up and called out to them (saying): O ye assembly of Jews, accept Islam (and) you will be safe.

. . . .

"he killed their men, and distributed their women, children and properties among the Muslims, except that some of them had joined the Messenger of Allah . . . who granted them security. They embraced Islam. The Messenger of Allah . . . turned out all the Jews of Medlina. Banu Qainuqa' (the tribe of 'Abdullah b. Salim) and the Jews of Banu Haritha and every other Jew who was in Medina.

. . . .

"It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah . . . say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4363-4366).

"'There is none born but is created to his true nature (Islam). It is his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Magian quite as beasts produce their young with their limbs perfect. Do you see anything deficient in them?' Then he quoted the Qur'an, 'The nature made by Allah in which He has created men there is no altering of Allah's creation; that is the right religion'" (Muslim Book 33, Number 6423).

"Abu Burda reported on the authority of his father that Allah's Apostle . . . said: No Muslim would die but Allah would admit in his stead a Jew or a Christian in Hell-Fire. 'Umar b. Abd al-'Aziz took an oath: By One besides Whom there is no god but He, thrice that his father had narrated that to him from Allah's Messenger . . ." (Muslim Book 37, Number 6666).

"Yahya related to me from Malik that he heard that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz gave a decision that when a jew or christian was killed, his blood-money was half the blood-money of a free muslim.

"Malik said, 'What is done in our community, is that a muslim is not killed for a kafir unless the muslim kills him by deceit. Then he is killed for it.'

. . . .

"Malik said, 'The blood-monies of the Jew, Christian, and Magian in their injuries, is according to the injury of the muslims in their blood-moneys. The head wound is a twentieth of his full blood-money. The wound that opens the head is a third of his blood-money. The belly-wound is a third of his blood-money. All their injuries are according to this calculation' (Muwatta Book 43, Number 43.15.8b).

"O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust" (Qur'an 5:51).

"In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: 'Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every - one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things'" (Qur'an 5:17).

"They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them" (Qur'an 5:73).

"The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth" (Qur'an 9:30)!

"It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son" (Qur'an 19:35).

"Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Shaitan. Fight therefore against the friends of the Shaitan; surely the strategy of the Shaitan is weak" (Qur'an 4:76).

"Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures" (Qur'an 98:6).

Finally, your expert blames those who criticize Islamic violence for creating Islamic violence! Mohammed did say, "War is deceit."

Defending the indefensible

More from my "Stop the Clash of Civilizations" acquaintance at YouTube:

do you speak any other languages? because it doesn't seem so. learning a language and reading things in that language is different than having someone translate it for you. any muslim person you ask will tell you to learn arabic and interpret the quran yourself, not to just read it in english and that's that.

"Frequently, columnists and pundits who try to smear Islam quote verse 9:5 incompletely and out of context. The full verse reads as follows: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them: seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.""

So Muhammad[PBUH]said to fight those who oppose you fiercely, but once they repent or etc. to "open the way for them" because Allah is forgiving. And if the pagans and their allies didn't attack the Muslims, the Muslims wouldn't of even fought them because they wouldn't of had a reason.

Again, how can you learn a language other than your native tongue without translation?

The fact that it can be done demonstrates that translations can be reliable. Any loss of meaning in a particular translation is not necessarily significant enough to distort the intent of the passage in its original language. Besides that, no one has demonstrated the common English translations of 9:5 to be distortions of the Arabic. Stop hiding your advocacy of genocide, rape, slavery behind "I'm still learning Arabic."

Whether I speak none, one, or several other languages has no bearing on the truth of your assertion that it is impossible to understand Qur'an and Sunnah except in Arabic.

Finally, your quote about misinterpreting 9:5 has no bearing on my previous comments and is itself a misrepresentation of the passage!

You say that Mohammed said to fight "those who oppose you fiercely," but that is nowhere to be found in 9:5. The Verse of the Sword is a command for offensive warfare against unbelievers; it is not regarding self-defense (though you will find the same wording in that context in Surah 2).

In the context of the rest of Islam's "sacred" texts, it is clear that this warfare is to be carried out against non-Muslims who refuse to convert (and Jews and Christians who also refuse to submit and pay the jizya):

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

As your prophet and 1400 years of Islamic history makes clear, the only reason the Muslims have to "kill the unbelievers" in 9:5 is their refusal to submit to Allah's rule as either believers or dhimmis. Sparing those who "repent" -- convert to Islam and are therefore now Muslim -- hardly makes the passage, its god and prophet, and your defense of it any less evil or perverse.

Dr. Walid Phares is an improvement, but still the Religion Which We Shall Not Name goes unnamed

300 unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation federal terrorism case expose themselves for what they are -- faithful Muslims working to destroy America from within. In so doing, they also explode the myth of the moderate Muslim majority.

Not too long ago, Hugh Hewitt invited one of them, CAIR, to be a guest on his radio program as representatives of American Muslims. Then his backwards, buck-toothed, red-necked, inbred listeners gave him a crash course on Islam. Shocked enough to scramble for a guest to refute his other guest, but not enough for him to actually examine and admit the nature of Islam even to this day, Hugh still persists in the "tiny minority of extremists" fantasy -- except when trying to justify the president's actions in the War of Self-Defense Against Allah.

The sad irony is, CAIR and Muslim groups like them are representative of Islam, since its god and founder require the establishment of the rule of Allah over all mankind using any means necessary, including -- but not limited to -- offensive warfare against non-Muslims.

As the unindicted referenced above confess, Muslims in America use our own political processes, legal system, civil liberties, and useful idiots to undermine the Constitution.

Dr. Walid Phares was a guest on Mr. Hewitt's program recently. Correctly, Dr. Phares identifies theology/ideology as the source of Islamic terrorism; unfortunately, he mentions neither Qur'an, Hadith, Islam, nor Mohammed, instead using terms like, "Islamist jihadism."

That makes him safe (for now) for Hugh to have on his show, but what will he do once the good doctor begins to point out the core elements of Islam that inspire and sustain the carnage? Will Hugh tell the truth, or obfuscate?

In the excerpt of their exchange below, note what is neither said nor asked.

Phares wonders who is advising the government on how to address Islamic terrorism (could it be the same people who told Hugh to give CAIR a public platform for their subversive propaganda?) The host doesn't follow up on that.

Neither does Hugh probe for more on what Phares calls "the real debate." This is what Hugh, Hannity, Rush, PotUS, and the rest are all afraid to address.

Hugh then talks about the "Salafist edge," as if that is all it is. He's hoping -- just as when he discovered the word "Wahabbism" -- that it's just a few misunderstanderers of Islam, people perverting the "great world religion" who want to enslave or kill us.

If Hugh were to do even the most minute amount of research, he would find that both terms refer to those who believe Qur'an is the perfect word of Allah and that Mohammed's words and deeds are "a beautiful pattern of conduct."

In other words, "Islam."

And why haven't we "begun the war of ideas"? Why can't we discuss it openly -- in Congress, on television, on Hugh's show? Because the truth is too terrifying? Because our political, media, and religious so-called "leaders" would rather be thought polite, tolerant, and enlightened? Because we don't have the courage to defend our civilization?

From here:

WP: There is this, there is also something that is beyond our realm. Who is advising government on how to treat it? Who in the Homeland Security, national security, and other type of circles that deal with that, is telling…not just whom, but what are they telling the government to do? Not to treat it as a jihadist movement, not to treat it as a terrorist movement, but as only individual criminals? For what reasons, we don’t know. We really don’t know.

HH: Has anyone engaged in this conversation with you? The Homeland Security cabinet secretary, Chertoff, or anyone?

WP: Not the secretary himself, but I have testified many times to DHS, to the FBI, to Congress, even DOD, and there are a lot of discussions back and forth, a lot of intelligent people out there. But again, when it reaches the level of lobby groups that can reach out to Congress, or reach out to the administration and say hey, we cannot discuss those issues, this is theology, this is not terrorism. And you know, my school tells me no. This is ideology, and we need to discuss it. We need to inform the American citizen of what’s going on. This is where the real debate begins.

HH: Now I’m really baiting the hook for the longer conversation after I’ve absorbed your new book, The War Of Ideas. But is it possible to turn the Salafist edge back on itself? Is it possible to win that war of ideas? Or just do we have to wait and watch it run its very destructive and horrible course?

WP: No, absolutely, we can begin the war or ideas. At this…we have not. And then we can, with time, turn the tide and win it. But we have not even began the real steps such as discussing it openly in Congress, have the right legislation for it, and have huge funding that is going in all directions, but not in the right directions, that is to fund the NGO’s, women’s movements, students movements, and all the intellectuals who in the Arab and Muslim world, including in the Diaspora, are completely anti-Salafist, pro-democracy. We have not begun to talk to them.

Democrats would openly declare jihad against America, except they're cowards and don't speak Arabic

They don't mind impugning the character, motivations, and actions of an American hero, but as those who would enslave or slaughter them, they appoint to committees on anti-Semitism.

Coulter on jihad's useful, idiotic, perfidious hacks:

Democrats claim Gen. David Petraeus' report to Congress on the surge was a put-up job with a pre-ordained conclusion. As if their response wasn't. Democrats yearn for America to be defeated on the battlefield and oppose any use of the military – except when they can find individual malcontents in the military willing to denounce the war and call for a humiliating retreat.

It's been the same naysaying from these people since before we even invaded Iraq – despite the fact that their representatives in Congress voted in favor of that war.

Mark Bowden, author of "Black Hawk Down," warned Americans in the Aug. 30, 2002, Los Angeles Times of 60,000 to 100,000 dead American troops if we invaded Iraq – comparing an Iraq war to Vietnam and a Russian battle in Chechnya. He said Iraqis would fight the Americans "tenaciously" and raised the prospect of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction against our troops, an attack on Israel "and possibly in the United States."

On Sept. 14, 2002, the New York Times' Frank Rich warned of another al-Qaida attack in the U.S. if we invaded Iraq, noting that since "major al-Qaida attacks are planned well in advance and have historically been separated by intervals of 12 to 24 months, we will find out how much we've been distracted soon enough."

This week makes it six years since a major al-Qaida attack. I guess we weren't distracted. But it looks like al-Qaida has been.

Weeks before the invasion, in March 2003, the Times' Nicholas Kristof warned in a couple of columns that if we invaded Iraq, "the Turks, Kurds, Iraqis and Americans will all end up fighting over the oil fields of Kirkuk or Mosul." He said: "The world has turned its back on the Kurds more times than I can count, and there are signs that we're planning to betray them again." He announced that "the United States is perceived as the world's newest Libya."

The day after we invaded, Kristof cited a Muslim scholar for the proposition that if Iraqis felt defeated, they would embrace Islamic fundamentalism.

We took Baghdad in about 17 days flat with amazingly few casualties. There were no al-Qaida attacks in America, no attacks on Israel, no invasion by Turkey, no attacks on our troops with chemical weapons, no ayatollahs running Iraq. We didn't turn our back on the Kurds. There were certainly not 100,000 dead American troops.

But liberals soon began raising yet more pointless quibbles. For most of 2003, they said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Saddam Hussein. Then we captured Saddam, and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean complained that "the capture of Saddam has not made America safer." (On the other hand, Howard Dean's failure to be elected president definitely made America safer.)

Next, liberals said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Then we killed al-Zarqawi and a half-dozen of his aides in an air raid. Then they said the war was a failure because ... you get the picture.

The Democrats' current talking point is that "there can be no military solution in Iraq without a political solution." But back when we were imposing a political solution, Democrats' talking point was that there could be no political solution without a military solution.

They said the first Iraqi election, scheduled for January 2005, wouldn't happen because there was no "security."

Noted Middle East peace and security expert Jimmy Carter told NBC's "Today" show in September 2004 that he was confident the elections would not take place. "I personally do not believe they're going to be ready for the election in January ... because there's no security there," he said.

At the first presidential debate in September 2004, Sen. John Kerry used his closing statement to criticize the scheduled Iraqi elections, saying: "They can't have an election right now. The president's not getting the job done."

About the same time, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said he doubted there would be elections in January, saying, "You cannot have credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now" – although he may have been referring here to a possible vote of the U.N. Security Council.

In October 2004, Nicholas Lemann wrote in The New Yorker that "it may not be safe enough there for the scheduled elections to be held in January."

Days before the first election in Iraq in January 2005, the New York Times began an article on the election this way:

"Hejaz Hazim, a computer engineer who could not find a job in computers and now cleans clothes, slammed his iron into a dress shirt the other day and let off a burst of steam about the coming election.

"'This election is bogus,' Mr. Hazim said. 'There is no drinking water in this city. There is no security. Why should I vote?'"

If there's a more artful articulation of the time-honored linkage between drinking water and voting, I have yet to hear it.

And then, as scheduled, in January 2005, millions of citizens in a country that has never had a free election risked their lives to cast ballots in a free democratic election. They've voted twice more since then.

Now our forces are killing lots of al-Qaida jihadists, preventing another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and giving democracy in Iraq a chance – and Democrats say we are "losing" this war. I think that's a direct quote from their leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, but it may have been the Osama bin Laden tape released this week. I always get those two confused.

OK, they knew what Petraeus was going to say. But we knew what the Democrats were going to say. If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid.

John Mark Reynolds competes with the Archbishop of Canterbury to determine who genuflects more pathetically and enthusiastically at the feet of Allah

Next, he'll suggest we start using "Allah" on Sundays. After all, OBL is just misrepresenting what really is the same god, right? "A rose by any other name . . . ."

And Hugh Hewitt considers him an authority.

John Mark Reynolds critiques OBL through the prism of his own religiosity and ignorance. Islam is as different from Christianity as evil is from good.

Reynolds first demonstrates his utter ignorance of Islam with: "I certainly do not believe Osama represents mainstream Islam and my comments are directed towards his views and not to that faith."

Allah will not be pleased.

OBL invites unbelievers to Islam, then he wars against those who refuse. What did Mohammed do? Exactly that:

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

Since Reynolds demonstrates he knows nothing of Islam, why does he feel qualified at all to speak?

"On the other hand, where the ideology of Osama (not Islam, but his twisted version of it) . . . ."

So says the philosopher. On what evidence does he base his conclusion that OBL has "twisted" anything?

Certainly not on the word of Allah or the example of his prophet:

"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) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).

"Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers . . . " (Qur'an 9:14).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

"Allah's Apostle was asked, 'What is the best deed?' He replied, 'To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad).' The questioner then asked, 'What is the next (in goodness)?' He replied, 'To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause.' The questioner again asked, 'What is the next (in goodness)?' He replied, 'To perform Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca). . .'" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25).

John Mark Reynolds, Hugh Hewitt, and Joe Carter can celebrate their tolerance and magnanimity in their mis-defining Islam in terms of its apostates, heretics, propagandists, and sleepers, but those who've discovered the ugly and alarming truth about Islam know better than to give their suicidally-false delusions any credence.

"He [OBL] represents no state. His allies are on the run everywhere."

Actually, his allies control mosques and madrassas in not only Muslim lands, but also in the lands of the Infidel -- Dar al-Harb (the Abode of War -- I wonder, why does Islam call it that?).

OBL's allies are elected by popular vote into positions of power throughout the Muslim world. Our own government consorts with them, participating in their conferences, recruiting among them for positions in our government, and contributing funds and arms to them overseas.

This week, Europeans With a Clue protested the Islamization of Europe in Brussels, the "administrative centre" of the EU. What was that city's response? Its police brutalized and arrested the protesters!

Reynolds can rightfully say that from wherever our military confronts them, OBL's co-religionists run.

Unfortunately, many of them are running also for Congress, city councils, and other positions of influence among the Infidels.

"Instead, it is sign of the effect of Osama’s ideology on those who would defy the just rules of war and of honor as accepted by all the great monotheistic traditions of the world."

Cowardice. Vile submission. Blasphemy.
"great monotheistic traditions of the world" is code for "No, no, Islam is just as good as Christianity. No, even better!"

It is a disgraceful, bald-faced lie to try to connect Islam to Judaism and Christianity as did Mohammed, who attempted to make his heresy palatable to the "People of the Book" early on. Once they rejected his false god, it was war upon them both.

I'll bet Reynolds knows nothing of Allah and Mohammed's true sentiments toward Jews and Christians. Here's a taste:

"Allah's Apostle said, 'The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him"'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177).

"It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah . . . say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4363-4366).

"O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust" (Qur'an 5:51).

"In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary." (Qur'an 5:17).

"It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son" (Qur'an 19:35).

More from Reynolds:

"Osama fights like a terrorist and not like the noble Saladin"

What exactly makes that persecutor of Christ's church "noble"?

From Robert Spencer at JihadWatch.org:

"Saladin was no stranger to massacre: when his forces decisively defeated the Crusaders at Hattin on July 3, 1187, he ordered the mass execution of his Christian opponents. According to his secretary, Imad ed-Din, Saladin “'ordered that they should be beheaded, choosing to have them dead rather than in prison. With him was a whole band of scholars and Sufis and a certain number of devout men and ascetics; each begged to be allowed to kill one of them, and drew his sword and rolled back his sleeve. Saladin, his face joyful, was sitting on his dais; the unbelievers showed black despair.'”

"Also, when Saladin and his men entered Jerusalem later that year, their magnanimity was actually pragmatism. He had initially planned to put to death all the Christians in the city. However, when the Christian commander inside Jerusalem, Balian of Ibelin, threatened in turn to destroy the city and kill all the Muslims there before Saladin could get inside, Saladin relented — although once inside the city he did enslave many of the Christians who could not afford to buy their way out of town."

Reynolds continues with a flourish of ignorance:

"His version of Islam is a newcomer to the world and an extreme version of it."

In light of Allah's commands to subjugate and humiliate or kill non-Muslims who refuse to convert (and Mohammed's obedience to those mandates), how exactly is OBL's Islam "new" or "extreme"? It's exactly what Allah ordered.

Osama is no friend of global Islam. He despises the proud and noble Turkish nation and its modern state. He loathes the Islam of most Egyptians and of the Persian people. He sows only discord amongst brothers, amongst people of the Book, and has no plan and no viable alternative.

Here again, Reynolds validates the language of blasphemy and persecution with "people of the Book." He proves his ignorance of Islam by claiming that OBL "sows only discord" (he's carrying out the will of Allah), and by praising an Egypt that destroys and oppresses its Coptic Christians, works toward Shari'a, and gives popular support to the Muslim Brotherhood. Just as inexplicably stupidly, Reynolds refers to the "proud and noble Turkish nation." The one that has slaughtered Christian Greeks, Armenians, and Slavs for centuries? The "modern state" that now -- apart from a pro-secular military --would have OBL's Islam in control of the government?

He is not a leader of a government, because he has no capacity to govern. Where ideas similar to his have been given a chance (in pockets of Iraq), the people have united to throw out the thugs who have made a popular idol of a man who confuses his will with the Will of God.

The last -- and greatest -- abomination: John Mark Reynolds refers to Allah as "God." In doing so, this "theologian" and "philosopher" blasphemes the Son of the Living God.

What greater insult could even a devil make against Christ than to equate Him with the god from hell?

Christ commands, "Love your enemies." Allah commands, "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them."

Christ committed no sin. Allah calls Mohammed -- a lying, thieving, raping, enslaving, murderous pedophile -- "a beautiful pattern of conduct."

Christ claimed to be the Son of God. Allah says that those who claim Allah has a son is a blasphemer, accursed, and deluded.

John Mark Reynolds should recant. Instead, Hugh Hewitt will slap him on the back and they'll have a threesome on his program with Joe Carter, mocking all the Islamophobes calling in to point out their utter lack of intellectual integrity and moral fortitude.

Archbishop of Canterbury an immoral and moronic slave

On the sixth anniversary of 9/11, a head of European Christianity remembers the depravity by blaming the victims.

From here:

The Archbishop of Canterbury used the eve of the anniversary of the September 11 attacks on America yesterday to defend religion against claims that it promotes division and violence.

Dr Rowan Williams said that although Islam and Christianity had histories scarred with violence, they carried the “seeds of non-violence and non possessive witness.”

To equate Christianity and Islam in their capacities to inspire violence demonstrates not only the archbishop's ignorance of Islam, but also his lack of moral fortitude.

An essential difference between the two religions is that one God commands, "Love your enemies," while the other mandates, "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them."

Apart from its beginning, while Mohammed's movement was numerically, politically, militarily, and economically weak, where does Islam possess even a "seed" of non-violence? Non-violence and cooperation are only tools to be used to gain whatever advantages possible until strong enough to succeed martially.

Jihad, or holy war, could nowadays be interpreted as a “struggle of the heart” rather than the defence of the Muslim community against its enemies, he said.

Someone should have told Mohammed, the first "heart struggler." Billions would have been spared rape, torture, slavery, and death.

If jihad only meant defense of the ummah, that would be acceptable. Every person has a right to self-defense.

The problem is, not only does "defense" include violence even in response to cartoons, Allah goes beyond that. He requires offensive warfare against non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

He added that both faiths could offer society an ideal of peaceful co-existence despite their violent histories because they were guided by beliefs that transcended human conflict.

A disgusting moral equivalence, for Allah requires human conflict.

The Archbishop’s lecture to a Christian Muslim Forum conference in Cambridge follows mounting criticism of religion as dangerous and destablising.

One is.

But Dr Williams argued that religion should not be judged by the failures of its adherents but on its vision of a social order that is “without fear, oppression, the violence of exclusion and the search for scapegoats”.

I'm all for that sort of judgment. Let's get started with Islam, shall we? It turns out that when its adherents are successful in obeying its essential doctrines, humanity suffers. For Mohammed practiced and taught:

"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) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).

"Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers . . . " (Qur'an 9:14).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

The last bit of absolute ignorance and moral cowardice from the archbishop:

He compared the “act of nightmare violence” six years ago, when extremists flew aeroplanes into the twin towers in New York, with the birth of Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violent protest movement on September 11, 1906, in Johannesburg.

He said that Gandhi’s movement showed it was possible to reject a response to oppression that “simply mirrors what has been done by the oppressor.”

Saddam and his sons fed people into wood chippers feet first, tortured unsuccessful athletes, raped women they took off the streets, and slaughtered villages.

For nearly fourteen hundred years, Muslims have imitated Mohammed's example toward and obeyed his commands regarding non-Muslims, apostates, and women by lying, stealing, destroying, enslaving, raping, maiming, and slaughtering them.

America exports MTV and Big Macs and liberates oppressed Muslims.

Clearly, we had it coming.

Muslims commemorate 9/11 . . .

. . . by shedding more Infidel blood.

Actually, the events that make today's date noteworthy may or may not inspire the faithful to carry out such good deeds for Allah.

Nevertheless, it is worth remembering that we face an enemy whose core motivation for our slaughter is the will of their god. Apart from our conversion or subjugation and humiliation, the only option left is death.

The observant Infidel should note that the violent acts recorded below are obviously expressions of despair in response to poverty. No? Iraq. The Jews? Colonialism? The Crusades? Asma bint Marwan?

From TheReligionofPeace.com:

9/11/2007 (Yala, Thailand) - A young Buddhist man is shot to death by Islamists.

9/11/2007 (Pattani, Thailand) - A middle-aged Buddhist man is shot to death by Muslim radicals while riding his motorbike.

9/11/2007 (Ordzhonikidzov, Ingushetia) - Two young men and their father are brutally murdered in their home by suspected Islamic militants.

9/11/2007 (Dera Ismail Khan, Pakistan) - Seventeen people are killed when a suicide bomber detonates on a minibus.

9/11/2007 (Helmand, Afghanistan) - Two Afghan truck drivers are murdered by a suicide bomber.

9/11 belongs to Allah

Spencer is correct, as usual.

Now it has been six years. The global jihad proceeds apace, with well over 9,000 deadly attacks carried out in the course of those six years by believers in the proposition that "Islam must dominate, and not be dominated." Yet we are no closer as a society to recognizing how exactly to combat this foe, and our responses flail wildly -- witness this report that prisons have removed Jewish and Christian books from their libraries so as to allow them, within today's suffocating multiculturalist ethos, to remove also books advocating jihad violence and Islamic supremacism.

This is just one small example of a large-scale misallocation of resources and time that results from our fear and inability to say plainly that we are engaged in a defensive action against a global jihad, and that therefore we will unapologetically and forthrightly take action against the jihadists and their ideology without having to pretend that it is not a Muslim problem, or that Judaism and Christianity have exactly the same problem today.

American Muslim advocacy groups have made it impossible to take such a stand by adopting a spurious victim status that has enabled them to claim -- and enabled the claim to be accepted -- that sensible anti-jihad measures and investigations are "anti-Muslim." Instead of inviting and participating in an open investigation of the roots of the jihad ideology of Islamic supremacism in core Islamic texts and teachings, so as to work with people of good will toward finding positive ways to neutralize the ability of jihadists to use those texts to recruit terrorists and incite violence, they have cowed the establishment media (liberal and conservative) and government officials into thinking that such investigations manifest "Islamophobia" and bigotry.

Six years after 9/11, the jihad proceeds apace, and the UN investigates...Islamophobia.

Want to end Islamophobia? End violent attacks committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. I guarantee that Islamophobia will then vanish utterly.

Six years after, the fact that such elementary common sense is not taken for granted, but reviled and dismissed, does not bode well for the continuation of this conflict, as continue it surely will. Unless we begin to speak clearly about what we are facing and who is making us face it, the jihadists will continue, as they do now, to take advantage of our willful ignorance.

The ideological roots of Islamic anti-Semitism is not "Nazi Jew-hatred," it is Islam

An interesting article entitled "Jew-Hatred and Jihad," by Matthias Küntzel offers several important observations on the nature of Muslim anti-Semitism.

The author is correct in his detailing of Nazism's parallels to and cooperation with modern Muslim groups, and he notes somewhere in the middle of his essay the anti-Semitism practiced by Mohammed. Unfortunately, even though he is closer than most, this author misses identifying what inspires and sustains Allah's War Against Humanity.

The ideological roots of Islamic anti-Semitism is not "Nazi Jew-hatred," it is Islam. Neither will modernization split "moderate" Muslims from "Islamists" -- it only provides the enemies of Western Civilization the opportunity to enslave and kill us with our own devices. Finally, that "real choice" is not between life and a death cult, it is between Allah and unbelief. That's why the "mullahs' programs" are theirs in the first place; both Jew-hatred and jihad are commanded by Allah and were practiced by his false prophet:

"And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected" (Qur'an 2:65). "Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil; these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path" (Qur'an 5:60)!

"Allah's Apostle said, 'The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him"'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177).

". . . We were (sitting) in the mosque when the Messenger of Allah . . . came to us and said: (Let us) go to the Jews. We went out with him until we came to them. The Messenger of Allah . . . stood up and called out to them (saying): O ye assembly of Jews, accept Islam (and) you will be safe.

. . . .

"he killed their men, and distributed their women, children and properties among the Muslims, except that some of them had joined the Messenger of Allah . . . who granted them security. They embraced Islam. The Messenger of Allah . . . turned out all the Jews of Medlina. Banu Qainuqa' (the tribe of 'Abdullah b. Salim) and the Jews of Banu Haritha and every other Jew who was in Medina.

. . . .

"It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah . . . say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4363-4366).

And as for jihad:

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294)."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) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).

"Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers . . . " (Qur'an 9:14).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

"Allah's Apostle was asked, 'What is the best deed?' He replied, 'To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad).' The questioner then asked, 'What is the next (in goodness)?' He replied, 'To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause.' The questioner again asked, 'What is the next (in goodness)?' He replied, 'To perform Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca). . .'" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25).

Until the West's leaders -- political, military, religious, media, and academic -- recognize this, we will continue in misguided, inefficient, and impotent efforts at our own defense.

From the Standard:

It is, of course, true that Islamists seek to exploit social problems for their own ends. But Islamism is not an ideology that ignites protest as it rubs up against social injustice. On the contrary, what provokes Islamist violence is any sign of modern development in the Muslim world: scientific inquiry, political or personal self-determination, economic progress, women's equality, freedom of expression in cinema and theater. The radicalization of Islam is less the consequence of poverty and lack of opportunity than their cause. The refusal to see this and to recognize the substance of Islamist ideology--the death cult, the hatred of Jews, and the profound hatred of freedom--leads back again and again to the mistaken "discovery" that the "root cause" of terrorism is U.S. policies. Ultimately, the refusal to recognize al Qaeda's true motives results in a reversal of responsibility: The more deadly the terrorism, the greater the American guilt. The appeal of this approach is related to the specious hope it holds out: If suicide terrorism has its roots in U.S. policy, then a change in U.S. policy can assuage terrorism and the fear it induces. Al Qaeda, meanwhile, benefits, since the bloodier its attacks, the greater the anger against .  .  . the United States.

The same pattern explains the bizarre reaction to the Middle East conflict that is widespread in the West: The average observer, ignorant of the anti-Jewish content of the Hamas Charter, has to find some other explanation for terrorism against Jews, which must be--Israel. It is not the terrorists who are guilty, but their victims. Finding suicide terrorism incomprehensible, Westerners rationalize it as an act of despair that invites sympathy. Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner. Here, too, following the principle of "the more barbaric the anti-Jewish terror, the greater the Israeli guilt," the bombers' victims become the scapegoat for global terrorism. The old stereotype of Jewish guilt is thus amplified in contemporary form--and only encourages the terrorists.

A struggle against Islamism waged in ignorance of Islamist ideology weakens the West. The attribution of guilt to Israel and the United States adds fuel to the flames of Islamist propaganda and drives the wedge deeper into the Western camp rather than where it belongs--in the Muslim world.

Such blindness is especially hazardous in the case of the Iranian nuclear program, whose danger arises from the unique ideological stew surrounding it: the mish-mash of Jew-hatred, Holocaust denial, and Shiite death-cult messianism that is the context for Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and advanced missiles. Here the worst-case scenario is not an increase in suicide bombing attacks against individuals, but a perhaps suicidal nuclear attack on the Israeli state. Back in Munich in 1938, many believed they could resolve the Sudeten German problem with Hitler without considering how it fit into the Nazis' overall -strategy. In the same way today, in U.N. Security Council decisions and the positions of the Permanent Five, the technical aspects of Iran's nuclear program are often divorced from their ideological context.

The problem is not that the Islamists hide their goals. The problem is that the West does not listen. Osama bin Laden's chief reproach of the Americans in his "Letter to the American People" is that they act as free citizens who make their own laws instead of accepting sharia. The same hatred of freedom can be found in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter to the American president: "Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems."

Not to confront the ideological roots of Islamism--notably its well-documented connection to Nazi Jew-hatred--stymies any Western push for political, economic, and cultural modernization in the Muslim world. Yet only such modernization can split the majority of Muslims, who would benefit from social progress, from the Islamists, who are willing to die to prevent it. Without challenging the ideological roots of Islamism, it is impossible to confront the Muslim world with the real choices before it: Will it choose life and hope, or does it prefer the cult of death? Will it stand up for individual and social self-determination, or will it finally submit to the mullahs' program of Jew-hatred and jihad?

Hugh Hewitt misreading Osama

From Hugh Hewitt today:

"But OBL's letter deserves more than a "skimming" and the trite, prepackaged responses such skimmings bring. . . . the "leader" of one of their two great enemies from within radical Islam . . . Osama no longer speaks to the American people as the potentate of an unstoppable international apocalyptic movement, but rather as someone, who if you were ignorant of his true identity, might just as well be a spokesman for the Muslim wing of a Western political party.

"There are new bin Ladens emerging in unlikely places . . . ."

Hugh "reads Osama" as well as he read CAIR when he invited its propagandists onto his program not long ago. This is because he is Islamically illiterate.

Mr. Hewitt's analysis of OBL's latest note, while not trite, is founded upon common misapprehensions of Islam.

For example, it is not "radical Islam," of which OBL is a spokesman, it is Islam.

In his latest missive, OBL does two things: 1) He invites non-Muslims to accept Islam in accord with the command and example of Mohammed:

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294),

and 2) He speaks the language of the Left, hoping to further divide and weaken American (and Western) resolve.

Finally, Hugh wonders at "new bin Ladens emerging in unlikely places" and incorrectly indentifies OBL as our "original enemy."

The fact that offensive warfare against non-Muslims to make the world Islam is the command of Allah and the example of his apostle explains the appearance of "new bin Ladens" and identifies the non-Muslim world's true "original enemy."

This is the truth that Hugh is loath to face.

Later . . .

"And liberals are as devoutly faithful to this religion -- and as immune to reason -- as the believers of any creed."

Equating religious devotion with an "immunity to reason" is intellectually dishonest.

The two are not necessarily mutually-exclusive.

And then,

Mike's self-nullifying argument

"Absolutely not, not if you mean by prohibiting abortion. Nobody can claim a right to the use of another human being's body against their will -- only the owner of that body, the woman, can make the decision to bear all the risks, suffer all the discomforts, absorb all the costs and accept responsibility for the care of the child, a responsibility that attaches to the parents once a child is born."

Who "claims the right to the use of another human being's body against their will" in pregnancy but the unborn baby? Little fascist!

In your view, the only person who has a "right to the use of another human being's body against their will" is a mother when she murders her baby.

Thanks for clarifying.

Finally . . .

The source of "radical Islam" "good point - what does "victory" mean, when the source of radical Islam, namely Saudi Arabia and Iran, havent been dealt with."

Misidentifying the source of "radical Islam" makes any final defeat of our enemy impossible, while ensuring the continued wasting of American blood and treasure.

The word of Allah and the example of Mohammed -- as recorded in Qur'an and Sunnah, Islam's "sacred" texts -- is the source and sustenance of the global jihad.

Timeless courage

The Battle of Thermopylae.

300 free men standing in defense of Liberty against an enemy which would enslave or slaughter all who resist.

Their example can be no more timely.